http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

I'm curious what people think of this story?
As a woman with children what would you have done?

I believe a statement from a local American citizen; that had she called 911 the police station was more than fifteen minutes away.

Do people have the right to defend themselves and their family from criminals? Remembering that death is quite final, there's no coming back!

'Do people have the right to defend themselves and their family from criminals? '

People, especially fathers and husbands have a responsibility to defend their families. It appears from whats been reported, this lady was very brave and did the right thing.

By the sounds of it, she needs a bigger gun.

One of my neighbours has a sign on the gate, about his dog.

It says "Don't worry too much about the bl00dy dog, it's the owner you need to worry about".

He believes, as many of us in rural areas believe, if someone chooses to break into his property, he reserves the right to send them out in a box. When you can not expect a police response time better than 35 minutes, family protection is down to you.

I am very unlikely to cause anyone any trouble normally. However break into my property, & I will shoot first, & ask questions later. As I am a pretty good shot, the crook is unlikely so be answering by then.

If every one treats intruders the same way, there will be a continuing improvement in the gene pool.

RM, I believe she has no case to answer.

What are the odds that after the guy recovers, he continues his life of violence and crime. Odds on I would say. If I was a civil court judge , and that is where this may end up, I would rule the incident as an occupational hazard....no foul.

This was an awful story and I can only imagine the horror this woman felt. If she had a gun in the house already then I guess she felt she had to use it to protect her children from a perceived threat.
She and her children will probably have nightmares about that day forever, not least of which will include the memory of shooting someone down.

I would never have a gun in my home.
I don't believe the penalty for breaking and entering or burglary should be death by firing squad without a trial.

As a former policeman, I wonder what o sung wu feels about this case?
In Australia you are only allowed to take reasonable force to protect your home in a break in, so if this burglar had died, the woman may well have been charged with murder.

How would anyone feel if they shot someone dead in the dark of night, thinking they were breaking in, only to find it was a family member who forgot their key, or a young child burglar?

What about either of that woman's young children accessing the gun for themselves and shooting themselves or others with it?
These scenario's are at least as likely to happen as someone breaking in to threaten your family.

I would hate to see a society that let it's citizens take law matters into their own hands, especially a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.

My opinion is she did the wrong thing, when she first saw him she should have said she has a gun if he proceeded further she should have fired 1 in his general direction as a warning, if he proceeded forward then open fire on him.

A young mother was alone in a locked house with her two young twins. She was confronted by a determined armed assailant who had already smashed his way into the home.

A gun failed to dissuade him. He did not give up, he kept on coming. Five bullets later and he still managed to escape.

This brave, quick-thinking woman deserves a medal.

Any nightmares would be fear that the assailant and some of his friends might return some day.

Any feminists' responses ?

Bit of a marksman are you Phillip? You'll need to be if you want to give the crooks every chance to take you out, by warning them, particularly if you are armed with a pea shooter.

This poor woman was obviously using a very small caliber pistol, if the bloke could still make it to a car with 4 rounds through him.

The police sargent, in my last town told a few of us privately that we had only 2 choices with someone who broke into our homes.

1/ Give them every thing they want, plus a bit more, & hope they don't hurt you & yours.

2/ shoot them between the eyes.

You must never wound or injure them, or a smart lawyer will have you on trial, not them. At least shooting them between the eyes ensures they can't make up some story with any lawyer.

This cop had been charged with excessive force when he had broken a couple of ribs of a cannabis grower, who attacked him from behind, with a crow bar. He believed he only avoided prosecution as his injuries were worse than he had inflicted on his attacker.

I do find it incredible that some of you people are so worried about the hoodlum, rather than their victim.

Hasbeen -
1) The crook does not know you have a pea shooter.

2) I believe the cop who gave you the advice on point 2/ would have added put a knife or gun in their hand after you shoot them.

3) One saying is it would be better to be tried in front of 12 people than carried by 6 people

Hasbeen,
Yep, brave woman deserves a nedal but she needs a bigger gun and plenty of practice using it.

My wife, who can shoot, once asked me where to aim for to stop a bloke? My reply was Use the biggest gun of my collection, that you can get quickly and easily, and aim for the biggest part that you can see. Garranteed to stop him. He won't bother you no more

All the gun laws did was make the workplace safer for criminals.

she should have said she has a gun if he proceeded further she should have fired 1 in his general direction as a warning.
Philip S,
In an ideal world I'd agree with you alas. An academic/lawyer would argue that of course but, what if there was an accomplice, what if one of the children freaked out & threw the mother's concentration off balance. An intruder is nothing but vermin & deserves no consideration whatsoever & richly deserves to cop it hard. As Hasbeen said if the vermin lives the scum/lawyers/civil libertarians will gang up on the victim & persecute. Justice is a dirty word for them.
Come to think our taxes pay for them whilst the victim has to battle to pay for being a victim.

Suseonline,
You're looking at it the wrong way.
If you're a White woman in the U.S and a Black man is in your house without permission it's shoot or be raped, killed or both. Looking at it logically if he chased after them instead of running away when he realised there were people at home then he clearly intended to do them harm.
There was a similar case a while back in Henderson NC, a 14 year old boy shot and killed one of a group of Black male intruders in defence of his older sister:
www.wral.com/news/local/story/10578456/
If they'd got inside the house you know what would have happened, you wouldn't have heard of Emily Haddock, because when Blacks kill Whites it's a "Hush Crime", can you imagine the media outcry if this races in this situation were reversed, if a 12 year old black child had been murdered in by a gang of White men:
www.sullivan-county.com/racism/emily_haddock.htm

Jay, we weren't discussing race issues here.
If ANY man broke into my house, I would be terrified, no matter what colour he was.

I would also worry that if I had a gun, he would somehow get it off me and use it on me!
However , if I had a gun capable of shooting many rounds quickly, I could kill the guy and shoot up the whole room as well with multiple bullets...sounds great...

I might just mosey on over to the US of A and purchase a weapon of mass destruction, just in case I ever do have a burglar...

I was just wondering whether this woman and / or her husband were members of the National Rifle Association?
Or am I being too cynical?

By the way, those suggesting the woman should have had a 'bigger' gun should know that Atlanta has gun laws stating they are only allowed a handgun.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ga.htm

Hang those citizens high, eh Suseonline. How dare that mother defend herself and her brood. Got to be a NRA 'redneck' for sure. Husband too!

Just wondering though, if that offender had been there to rob the place why did he use a crow bar to break the door? Crude and noisy, splintering of timber and breaking door hardware. The modus operandi of a burglar is to escape being seen. Why didn't he grab what he could and leave if he though there was someone in the loft crawl space? Why did he go looking for the mum and children? Why didn't he shout "I give up" and put his hands in the air?

Burglars watch target houses to case them out. He is very likely to have known the family's habits.

He would have been charged with what the police could prove.

Susie,
As I read those regulations.

It seems a permit is only required to carry a handgun, one does not need a permit to buy, posses or carry any other firearm.

So the woman could quite easily aquire a bigger gun.

"""
I don't believe the penalty for breaking and entering or burglary should be death by firing squad without a trial.
"""
I agree with you a 100% here. But as you stated: she was put in a terrifying position. Do you agree that having the gun in her home saved her and her daughters from a potentially more horrifying experience?

"""
In Australia you are only allowed to take reasonable force to protect your home in a break in, so if this burglar had died, the woman may well have been charged with murder.
"""
Potentially she could have been attending her own funeral and that of her daughters. Which would you choose?

"""
I would hate to see a society that let it's citizens take law matters into their own hands, especially a shoot first, ask ...
"""
This is not about society shooting first and asking questions later. This is about having the right to protect your family from an intruder that would do you grave harm, which is on the increase in this country. Australians are prime targets for home invasion. Our right to defend ourselves has been taken away by a foolish minority with no regard to how some of us might feel about that. They have decided for us whether we should choose the well being of ourselves and our families over the well being of a violent intruder into our homes.

Did you know that woman cannot carry mace or pepper spray in Victoria now? So now young girls are made prisoners in their own towns. My 17 year old daughter constantly being harassed by a certain middle eastern element who have no respect for woman, needs a body guard to attend school and work, she cannot use trains or buses. She can't even walk to the local milk bar without an escort. Is this the kind of society you envisioned we'd have with the right to protect ourselves decided by someone else? Who by the way are escorted around by body guards carrying guns!

@ Philip S

So in actual fact, you're saying she had a right to have the gun and to protect herself and her daughters. But She should have had a cooler head?

"""
By the sounds of it, she needs a bigger gun.
"""

I would have thought five shots at close range to the upper body from a 38 would have killed the guy, he was lucky!

A well placed 38 will stop anyone. Wasn't it standard issue for cops in Australia for a while there?

Of course I agree I would probably have used a gun in her circumstance if I had one, however, I also believe that more guns in a society lead to more unlawful deaths.

I would rather ensure I had a very secure house, rather than own a gun.

America has a high gun ownership rate, and it also has a high rate of death and injury from gunshot wounds.

I am worried that if we relax our gun laws like America that we will end up with a violent society like theirs. We don't have the mass shootings of kids at schools, and I hope we never do.

More guns equals more gun deaths.

A well placed 38 will stop anyone.
RawMustard,
Yeah, well. A gun enthusiast can do that. A mother merely having a gun in case of emergency such as was the case there would not be so accurate in the adrenaline rush that came from a; facing a criminal & b; having the law in the back of your mind whilst she was weighing up the situation. Most do-gooders would just crap themselves before getting killed.

Dear RawMustard,

Just a point of clarification if I may. The Loganville Police Department is in 605 Tom Brewer Road and the time to get to Henderson Ridge Lane is 16 minutes according to Google Maps, however that is for an ordinary vehicle not a police car high-tailing it to a “burglary in progress” as they were at the time.

http://goo.gl/maps/Z8sDB

As to whether this woman was justified in her actions one would need to know a few more facts such as did the person move toward her after he had seen the weapon etc. That being said the protective instincts of a mother would weigh heavily in any assessment of the case.

It may ultimately come down to it being justifiable in the US where so many people are armed or assumed to be armed, but not in Australia.

Loganville Georgia is a town of around 10,000 persons. I live in a community of about that number and killings here are exceedingly rare. In fact I can't recall a single one in the 25 years I have lived here.

That is not to say there are not domestic disputes, some violent, that occur but they are dealt with by police without lives being lost.

In Loganville it is another matter entirely.

Last year; “After responding to a domestic dispute on May 9 at the Ivy Creek subdivision in Loganville, police reported they had no choice but to shoot the man involved. The man has been identified as Michael Holloway, 59,  a retired special education teacher who had worked at Carver Middle School in Monroe after retiring from the Marine Corps.”

Other quotes;

“he took care of the EBD children, the self-contained children – those who had physical disabilities. He was a wonderful resource on the hall for handling children who were having difficulties.”

“Mike was a gentle soul. He just had this loving way. I got to know him personally when he organized the Veterans’ Memorial Day event at Carver. All of us had tremendous respect for him.”

Cont..

Cont..

During a domestic dispute he had been firing guns through his front door. He was persuaded to drop them by police but then turned to retrieve them and was shot dead.

This was after Loganville police had killed another man just a month earlier after a similar incident.

Both incidents would surely have had different outcomes if weapons had not been within easy reach of intoxicated distraught men.

Yet police have to act aggressively and over the top because of the environment caused by weapons in their communities.

This style of policing has its consequences. Another distraught man who found his son dead in his garage after a suicide was savagely beaten by Loganville police officers after ignoring an order to sit down.

http://youtu.be/cN_cRm8qsC8

We do not know if the woman and her children would have been harmed before the police, who were already on their way, arrived. What we do know is there are at least two others who may well have been alive had weapons not been involved.

You flood communities with guns and this is going to be the repercussions.

I don't want this for my community, do you?

No, I don't want that for my community Csteele.

I wouldn't mind betting that there are far more accidental deaths and murders by guns in the US than there ever are by guns being used to 'protect' yourself and your children.

You say that the offender's cunning, strength and his wrecking bar were not weapons? With what could this mother respond? She was limited by getting caught upstairs and with children. Maybe that was part of his plan. Offenders do watch targets first to get to know their movements. The father was out, for example.

For what possible reason would this 'burglar' be searching for this young woman and her children? Why would he be so determined as to enter the roof crawl space where she and the children had fled?

What you are saying is that she should have found out first by laying her life and her children's on the line first. That and hoping the police would be able to intervene first. Also hoping that if he spared her life it would not become a hostage situation.

Obviously the criminal didn't believe the cops would get there first, or that he would be apprehended. Or else he wouldn't have continued with his actions. He would have fled as soon as he realised someone was in the house.

The offender was right of course, the police would never have stopped him in time. In fact police were not quick enough to stop what he might have done and his escape. It was only his cowardly concern about his injuries and some incapacity that allowed the offender to be caught.

If you checked the violent crime statistics in America that caused injury or death by gun shots, I bet the women and children victims were shot by their father, boyfriend , sibling or husband far more often than by a stranger.

One only has to think of the last mass school shooting in the US to remember that the gunman used the guns that were easily available in his own house. He shot dead his own mother first, with her own gun.

That is reason enough for me that guns have no place in a suburban home, and I am glad that the Australian Government has taken a strong stand on gun control.

It's ironic that the intruder didn't die because for the rest of their life this family will be worrying if the intruder is after revenge & a lot more cautious next time. In situations of intrusion or assault the offender has no rights whatsoever. Anyone defending him should be put away into an asylum, preferably one in the US, don't send them here. It's unfenced.

Suseonline, "I bet the women and children victims were shot by their father, boyfriend , sibling or husband far more often than by a stranger"

Maybe you are unpacking some of your own emotional baggage there.

But even if it were so, you are stretching credulity to suggest that such violence would not have happened without a firearm.

Errors of causation have been explained to you numerous times in numerous threads. However it obviously suits your world view and Green Left politics to continue with them.

Suseonline, "last mass school shooting in the US to remember that the gunman used the guns that were easily available in his own house"

That is a lie. In fact the regulations worked to prevent him from laying his hands on a gun when he sought one and he resorted to theft, breaking into secure storage by destroying a hefty padlock.

Determined offenders don't mind breaking more laws to commit an offence.

When the media was making personal celebrities out of bombers eg letter bombers, there were copycats. Same too with bushfire arson in Australia. Big spreads, lots of TV 'shock, horror' footage and bingo, another offender finds a box of Redheads. The media can report facts responsibly, without sensationalising, making it into a TV series and adding to the problem. Likewise opportunist politicians could at least wait until the grieving is over before trying to capitalise on the sad incidents.

But what exactly has a multiple homicide at a school got to do with a mother defending herself against a determined 'burglar' (more likely a home invader with other ill intent as well as theft)?

You're doing a lot of betting there Suse.

Perhaps you should try getting some statistics, rather than guess.

Onthebeach, don't tell me I'm a liar.
What guns could be more readily available than ones kept in the house you live in?

Mentioning the school mass shooting has as much to do with this subject as you mentioning bombings etc.

Telling me I have emotional baggage when you resort to personal insults when someone else doesn't agree with you, tells more about you than me.

Luckily, most men in this country don't need a gun to prove they are a man.

@ csteele
"""
As to whether this woman was justified in her actions one would need to know a few more facts such as did the person move toward her after he had seen the weapon etc
"""
Did you read the artical?

**
The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,"
**

From my understanding of this, she tried to avoid a confronation with the intruder by hiding in the crawl space. When he found them she had no where to go, she was corned so she opened fire.

"""
During a domestic dispute he had been firing guns through his front door. He was persuaded to drop them by police but then turned to retrieve them and was shot dead.

This was after Loganville police had killed another man just a month earlier after a similar incident.

Both incidents would surely have had different outcomes if weapons had not been within easy reach of intoxicated distraught men.
"""

No, They killed a kid here not long ago who had a knife. Policy Enforcers don't care what weapon you use. If you have a weapon and are considered a threat, you're as good as dead these days.
Hell they tazer people for talking back at them!

But anyway, this still has nothing to do with taking away a persons human right to life and self determination!

If you go off the deep end, then yes we need to handle these cases carefully. And thankfully they are not too frequent. But they do not justify taking away a persons human right to life and self determination!

"""
This style of policing has its consequences. Another distraught man who found his son dead in his garage after a suicide was savagely beaten by Loganville police officers after ignoring an order to sit down.
"""
That's a problem with Policy Enforcers, not guns.

I'm not interested in all the BS manipulated (by both sides) statistics and unhinged arguments about gun ownership. I'm interested in the fact that a minority group who openly admit they would have done the exact same thing as this poor woman did. Want to take away a human right for people to protect themselves how they see fit. They have no right! If an intruder was to come into my home. I will not ask him if he's here to take my telly and point him to the gun free zone sign on the wall. He shouldn't be there period! You understand, period!

If I break into a government facility, I'll have ten Policy Enforcers with guns in my face before I know it! Yet I'm suppose to let imported thugs into my home and defend my self with a phone? Are you nuts?

I pray it never happens to any of you good people, but lay off this bullsh!t, you would all do the same thing, you have admitted such and if you don't, well enjoy your long sleep in the box! And stop trying to force others to do the same!

"""
Luckily, most men in this country don't need a gun to prove they are a man.
"""

You see the emotional tripe we have to put up with from some. Of the thousand plus men and women I know who partake in firearm and related recreation, I've never met a single person that felt superior because they had a weapon in their hands. I think you watch too many cop shows! Those kinds of comments are just irritating noise, Susie!

Luckily, most men in this country don't need a gun to prove they are a man.
Suseonline,
Now you're getting just plain s....d. I shudder to think of the many Suseonlines out there in voter land.
Most men in this country are prisoners of a Government dictated to by the same confused sex as the Suseonlines.

Suseonline, "don't tell me I'm a liar.
What guns could be more readily available than ones kept in the house you live in?"

It was a lie and a lie repeated but just twisted a little is still a lie.

The legal owner of the legal firearms had legally locked the firearms up. The firearms were in legal safe storage, padlocked away.

He also used the owner's car without authority, illegally, to commit his planned atrocity. The crime required a motor vehicle, or it wasn't possible.

Bag the legal owner for that as well? Red Neck and liable because she owned a car?

Suseonline, "Telling me I have emotional baggage when you resort to personal insults when someone else doesn't agree with you, tells more about you than me"

You are forever slagging and sledging men. At best you patronise. Then you mention a partner, as though that proofs you from challenge for your world view of men as obnoxious, dangerous, untrustworthy non-humans. Fact is, you distrust and hate men. Of course you have emotional baggage. How else could anyone end up with such a lacklustre, negative opinion of the opposite sex that she has to trot out at every opportunity?

Suseonline, "Luckily, most men in this country don't need a gun to prove they are a man"

How easily you prove your hatred of men with that condescending put-down. The anti-male shaming tactics of feminist dinosaurs rooted in the Eighties. I hope you never raised boys to hate their gender or girls to be in your own image.

There was no call for all of your irrelevancy. But you just can't stop yourself. Here is a radical notion for you, men are human too.

Dear RawMustard,

There is no indication from the article, nor from the police reports, nor from his criminal history, that the burglar was after the family. More likely than not he was searching for goods to steal. If after seeing there were people home and the weapon he still advanced then I think she probably had to feel she had little alternative. But if he didn't then from an Australian perspective she overstepped the mark and if the incident occurred here I would want to see her charged and face a court of law

Does every thief deserve to die? Perhaps in Saudi Arabia it is acceptable, or rather forfeiting a hand is, but that is not us and I would hate to think we would ever go down that path.

You wrote;

“Want to take away a human right for people to protect themselves how they see fit. They have no right!”

What if the distraught father who was held down by two officers and being severely beaten by the other two had been able to get his hands on a revolver from one of them would he have been within his 'human right' to protect himself as he saw fit?

In this country the rest of us have the right to live in a relatively safe society and have decided that lax gun laws are a direct threat to the overall safety of the citizenry as a whole. Thankfully we have felt that that right is more important than a minority group wanting to arm themselves as they feel fit.

Implicit in this bargain must be a preparedness to adequately fund through reasonable taxes both a decent law enforcement sector and a decent welfare safety net system. American struggles on both counts with some police departments being entirely disbanded. Let us not make the same mistakes.

csteele, "..lax gun laws.."

When were the gun laws "lax" in Australia?

The licence is the strong and robust control. The rest is bureaucratic window dressing to impress the uninformed.

If you are thinking of pre- and post- the John Howard inspired gun buy-back and gun control bureaucracy, despite years of government-funded study no positives have emerged out of the $1 billion plus spend. That was taxpayers' money that could have gone to other things.

On the other hand there are negatives, not the least being hundreds of police tied up monitoring private citizens who already demonstrated good character and are already licensed. That makes offenders grin.

Recently it has transpired that thanks to John Howard criminals are taking advantage of the ready made lists of firearms and personal particulars of owners. That is bureaucracy for you, personal data mining producing lists that have been found useful only by criminals, the very people the mountain of paperwork was supposed to control.

www.news.com.au/national/police-seize-targets-list-after-firearm-raids/story-fndo4cq1-1226547858093

The good (sic) thing though is that politician and police commissioner alike can always look like they are addressing crime by vowing to tighten gun control. While knowing full well that offenders do not obtain their tools from legitimate sources, criminals do not apply for licences (wouldn't get one) and they are always happy to break more laws. Laws and punishments only deter the honest. For offenders they are just occupational hazards. Victim resistance and detection are all that concern an offender.

Dear otb,

Looks like you want to do this all over again.

Okay.

Name how many mass shootings occurred in Australia since Howard's gun laws were introduced remembering there were 11 in the previous decade.

What ordinary Australian's got for the money was the ability to visit a place like Port Arthur or walk down Hoddle Street without the apprehension that they were going to lose their families to a hail of bullets.

Tell me have gun related deaths per capita in this country gone down or up since the laws were introduced?

You might whinge about the cost and perceived loss of rights but the rest of us happen to think this was money well spent. The Land of the Brave awaits if you feel there are others doing it better.

csteele

The last time you made the bald claim that the Howard initiatives somehow prevented multiple homicide -something that a host of government funded research has not been able to prove- you were asked numerous times to show specifically which of the measures prevented multiple killings. You didn't respond of course.

Come on, here again is the open invitation yet again to you or anyone else to show how Howard's 'initiatives' would have stopped Bryant.

Can you come up with any evidence of a reduction in gun crime attributable to Howard's 'initiatives'? No one else has been able to do it despite some tricky 'stats' and it is many years since.

Surely anyone who supported the expenditure of a billion plus and counting of taxpayers' money would want to see some evidence of value for money returned? Not you though, you expect people to take it on your assurances. That is not good enough.

The gun registries for example were already being abandoned overseas as a complete waste of taxpayers money. If only Howard had realised that criminals don't get licences, don't get their guns from legal sources and they don't register them, naturally enough. He had members of Cabinet tell him that at the time. But there was an election to win and the easily led would believe the spin.

So come on, bring out your numbers. Show the Aussie taxpayers the evidence to support value for money obtained from the cool $billion plus. It did win an election for Howard though.

Dear otb,

1987 Joseph Schwab – Killed with a gun 5 human beings before being shot dead by police

1987 Julian Knight – Slaughtered with guns 5 people and wounded another 19

1987 Frank Vitkovic – Shot and killed 8 and wounded a further 5

1990 Paul Evers – Murdered with a gun 5 people

1991 Wade Frankum – Took the lives with a gun of 7 people and wounded 6 others

1992 Malcolm Baker – Blew away 6 people

1996 Martin Bryant – Massacred with guns 35 innocent people and wounded a further 21 people

1996 Howard's gun laws introduced.

You name me one incident in this country where more than two lives have been lost to weapon fire from a single assailant since then.

The ability for the mentally disturbed to obtain multi-shot, high calibre weapons and inflict these horrors on our society has been dramatically reduced.

These are not 'tricky stats'. This is 'value for money' for all but the most blinkered or deluded.

What are your stats?

"""
What if the distraught father who was held down by two officers and being severely beaten by the other two had been able to get his hands on a revolver from one of them would he have been within his 'human right' to protect himself as he saw fit?
"""

Absolutely. Are you going to let thugs beat you to death just because they have uniform on? If it was me in that situation and I got my hands on a weapon, they would regret their actions I can tell you! A uniform does not give you the right to beat innocent people senseless. Do you think they're gods or something? I'm starting to wonder if you're just a coward wanting everyone brought down to your level. You're not making any sense at all!

If you're so concerned with innocent people being killed and want to spend inordinate amounts of taxpayer time and money. You should devote your time into Iatrogenocide, it kills 14000 a year in Australia alone. And here you are wasting time on a 100 or so deaths from a gun! Pharmacutical companies and quack greedy doctors are far more dangerous to your well being than the odd nut with a gun!

cstelle, "You name me one incident in this country where more than two lives have been lost to weapon fire from a single assailant since then [ie 1996, Howard]

OK, here you go: Monash University 21 October 2002. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment, and is currently under psychiatric care.

-Interesting too because you wouldn't like to acknowledge the awkward coincidence of the federal government selling mental health and rehabilitation facilities prior to the Port Arthur multiple homicides.

I gave that example to you and discussed multiple killings in reply to you in the previous thread, remember? You might like to continue with discussion there. That would allow this thread to return to its subject. Just as reminder though, correlation does not imply causation. However in the examples you tender there isn't even correlation, just the usual expected results of randomness. Although there is correlation and likely causation between media sensationalism of murder/suicides and copycats. You would prefer to ignore that reality though to your vain attempts to support Howard.

But why bother to construct boundaries like 'single shooter' in your desperate efforts to support Howard? A multiple murder is a multiple murder regardless of the method of slaughter. All murder is illegal. Violence is too. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of the numbers of offenders or victims involved.

Howard wasted a cool $billion and counting. It is by far the greatest single waste of taxpayers' money ever in the history of Australia. Probably a world record if botched military purchases can be ruled out.

Now what about you answer that question you keep avoiding and detail how Howard's 'initiatives' would have stopped Bryant.

Howard's 'initiatives' would have stopped Bryant.
onthebeach,
Howard's Gun Laws put decent citizen more at risk & provide better opportunities for the crime.
Although having been a Howard supporter I still can't figure out what made him give in to the knee-jerk brigade.
Since those laws were introduced crime in Australia has been on the rise with way more stabbings than ever before. Shootings have not declined as far as I am aware. What I do know is that the decent citizen has to lock himself away now to avoid the increased number of crime & the increased imposed impotence of our Police.

Dear otb,

Sorry mate, wrong again it would seem.

The Monash shooting only claimed two lives and in fact there have been other double shootings since then.

Your facts continue to trip you up more often than they should for someone who is so insistent about getting others to stump up.

As to how Howard's initiatives would have stopped the Bryants of this world the proof is in the pudding. After a spate of horrendous mass killings the rate of slayings involving firearms that have claimed more than two lives remains at zero. No amount of spitting and spluttering can change this inescapable fact.

As to me supporting Howard I do not see it that way. He supported me, my family and the vast majority of Australians who wanted something done to stop these mass shootings. The fact that people like you and Individual want to continue to condemn him for it, even though the evidence of the effectiveness of his measures in self-evident, is far more a reflection on yourselves than Howard.

It's done lads, time to move on.

Hi Individual,

It is actually csteel who is everyone to accept on faith that Howard's $billion plus achieved something more than an election victory for him. Clever wedge politics by Howard and astute use of the media. Howard took the Labor vote and won a populist landslide.

csteele, "The Monash shooting only claimed two lives and in fact there have been other double shootings since then"

Nice of you to forget the five injured at Monash and the heroic actions that prevented further bloodshed.

Still ducking that question I see and you ignore the opposing argument.

John Howard did go on to be an effective and long-serving PM. That is no reason to sweep his political opportunism, wedge politics and bad decisions in 1996 under the carpet.

Dear otb,

Very trite my friend.

I specifically asked you;

“You name me one incident in this country where more than two lives have been lost to weapon fire from a single assailant since then.”

You said “OK, here you go: Monash University 21 October 2002.”.

You were wrong but rather than concede the point you come up with “Nice of you to forget the five injured at Monash and the heroic actions that prevented further bloodshed.”

I'm not sure there is any kinder way of saying this but that was really insipid.

You said of my post “Just as reminder though, correlation does not imply causation. However in the examples you tender there isn't even correlation, just the usual expected results of randomness.”

It has been thirty odd years since I have had a stab at any statistics but even so I know when someone is talking out their backside.

Tell you what, just to make it easier on the both of us here is a link to an online statistical calculator.
http://getdatadriven.com/ab-significance-test

It is referring to page conversions but is really a simple test of statistical significance between two events.

In 'a' why don't you put in the data from my post. In the ten years (3650 days) before the gun laws there were 8 mass shootings. In the 16 years (5840 days) since there have been zero. The result;

“We are 100% certain that the changes in Test "A" will improve your conversion rate. Your A/B test is statistically significant!”

For the sake of the argument let's include the Monash shooting in 'b'. The result;

“We are 99% certain that the changes in Test "A" will improve your conversion rate. Your A/B test is statistically significant!”

As I have admitted my grasp of statistics is likely be suspect after all these years so if I am wrong show me where. If not then do us all a favour and don't ever repeat the “usual expected results of randomness” rubbish ever again.

You must lay awake at night wondering why no independent university researcher has arrived at the same conclusion.

Returning to the original post, this happened in Australia,

<A GANG of young thieves has attacked people in their beds with machetes during a string of violent home invasions in Sydney's west, leaving some with horrific and disfiguring injuries.

Police say the group, believed to be aged in their teens and early 20s, could also be involved in a number of armed robberies on businesses in the area.

They are hunting for up to six youths who stormed six different homes in Auburn between September and November last year.

The young offenders stole mobile phones, laptops and cash.
Advertisement

Six people were injured, one in each robbery, including a man who was left missing a large chunk of his forehead after being hit with an axe.

Another man suffered horrific injuries to his face and skull after being attacked with a machete.

Detective Sergeant Kaul Leis said that in some of the attacks, the victims were asleep when they were bashed.

''They've stolen minimum amount of property,'' he said.

''They have chosen to go out of their way to inflict horrific injuries.

''It's very graphic and very confronting.''>
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/violent-gang-leaves-victims-disfigured-20130107-2ccv3.html

What nonsense it is that in Australia the first knee-jerk reaction of police is to investigate what charges can be laid against the VICTIM of the outrage of home invasion for defending herself and family against attack. Not so long ago that happened to an elderly gent who was confronted by an offender in his home. He defended himself with a pocket knife. Fortunately in NSW recent law change protected him eventually but only after a public outcry in his defence.

It wasn't always that way, these law changes have been sneaked in over years at the behest of lobby groups without proper consultation with the community. Same too in the UK where the government is now thinking of allowing defence in the home.

"""
These brutal acts of violence are carried out by a group of cowards who think they are above the law,'' said Sgt Leis.
"""
No! These brutal acts of violence are carried out by a group of thugs who know you can't defend your self in this country because of the "COWARDS" who have taken away our right to self defense!

"""
Police are now appealing to the public for help tracking the offenders down.
"""
Why not ask the public how they think we might prevent these things happening more often?

"""
There is no place in society for people who think they can rob and inflict unwarranted pain on innocent people.
"""
Really?? Then why sentence people to 10 years in prison with a minimum of 3 months? They're so damn full of it, it's just a sad joke!