"""
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.