o sung wo threads are only warn out when they not longer bring posts my friend.

I note Raw Mustard,s reference to *Fabians* luxuriating in Qld gun laws.
And high light the truth, the Qld Government is quite the opposite and its laws are supported by many more than a majority, Australia weary,s at OMSG violence/crime
Too am I getting my thoughts mixed up?
Is the gun debate here about not further flooding the streets with guns?
Or in some minds is every one owning a gun the required out come of too many, but not near most king hit lets call it gutless persons.
I remain convinced vigilantism is not an answer but a threat

Port Arthur is a bad example, it stinks to the high heavens, there was no trial, no coroner's inquest and a thirty year embargo has been placed on evidence relating to the shootings.
I don't accept the conspiracy theories of a government planned psychological operation but the intellectually disabled Bryant is a perfectly fall guy for incompetent 1950's style administration which was struggling to cope with the rapid pace of change occurring about them.
Are the gun advocates happy for young Sudanese and Lebanese men from the Western suburbs to have access to military weapons? Where would we be now if Howard had done nothing? You can't have "multiculturalism" and retain the freedoms associated with the homogenous society some of us grew up in, Howard had to choose between the two.
The gun ban is the result of the Howard team's fixed and outdated view of what Australian society was and their inability to move beyond the farcical Liberal ideology of "equality".
In 2013 premiers and mayors are faced with the same sort of choices, they have to decide whether the population that we have today is capable of responsibly consuming alchohol under the current licensing conditions.
One factor worth considering is the notion that because men now live far longer lives they are not maturing into adults until they reach their thirties and not reaching real manhood until 40, should the legal age for drinking be raised to 25 in response? Do 18 year olds who have the mentality of 13 year olds really need to be out socialising at all hours? I'm the father of a teenager and it's shocking to me how immature her peers and friends are, at 15 they are not capable of, say, going to a concert or having a birthday party without full adult supervision, they're like 12 year olds who still have to be babysat.

The only robust, effective control is a firearms licence. Any Sudanese or whatever who has exhibited antisocial behaviour will not get one. For anyone with a firearms licence the penalties for even minor indiscretions are very severe and the firearms are likely confiscated along with the licence. In fact the penalties for a licensed person are much higher than for the feral offender already known to police, who bought his 'gangsta' gun from the OMG bikies.

Belly worries about firearms 'flooding the streets'. That is the sort of B.S. spread by hoplophobe gun control activists who are few in number,and directed by foreign political interests apparently. However their sensationalist factoids may find a willing ear and headline on a slow news day, especially at the ABC. Go figure that one, and the ABC forgets to give a right of reply.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that it doesn't matter how many firearms (or type) owned by the law-abiding licensed firearms owners (LAFOs). Because LAFOs are not the criminals and wrongdoers. They are the good guys. Anyhow, they are not going to risk their valuable firearms and license.

As for those who can't get a licence and get their gangsta firearms from the black market, there will always be as many firearms and of the type they desire. That is what criminals and wrongdoers do, break the law. Most illegal firearms find a use in the drug trade.

It is the recreational drug consumption of the well off, the educated middle class, that delivers the windfall profits to drug gangs, keeping them in business and as a consequence, result in the so-called flood of guns on the street and in the wrong hands.

Fewer drugs -> fewer illegal guns -> less gun crime.

How many of those lefty gun control 'experts' regularly do a line, take a tab or smoke weed? Would they ever join the dots between their illegal drugs, illegal guns on the street and gun crime? Not likely. Because those types always believe that the world spins around them and others have to make concessions for them.

Sandy Hook was real OUG, it was only the aftermath which was faked, or stage managed, again, you don't need elaborate theories to explain a fairly straightforward public relations exercise.
Robbie Parker, Gene Rosen, the Phelps/Greenbergs and all the others were actors but it's not unusual in situations where an actual atrocity needs to be rapidly exploited for propaganda purposes. Example: Fluent in German and Polish,film director Billy Wilder was staged the Buchenwald liberation newsreels (1945), the (completely fake)Buchenwald narrative was then taken to absurd extremes by Nina Rosenblum and William Miles with their "Liberators" project(1993)which wove the fake Dachau liberation stories into the same plot and the lies were further elaborated by Steven Spielberg in "The Last Days (1998).
Buchenwald was a real prison camp, people really died there but the post 1945 narrative version of "Buchenwald" is completely fictional, do you understand what I'm saying?

What you have to understand is that this is how the media works,and how the fiction and fact are woven together to support a particular narrative, all these "conspiracies" are just like films which carry the introduction "inspired by real events", all that's changed is that the technology required to make films and TV is more widely available and easily understood by laymen in 2013 than it was in 1945.
"Sandy Hook"in inverted commas, is inspired by the actions of Adam Lanza, it's a tale woven out of real events and (poorly written as it turns out) fiction, it's not a huge "cover up" involving the whole town it's a very small,low tech and rushed "mockumentary" production, that's why it fooled nobody and was so quickly spotted by the viewing public.

Hi there JAY OF MELBOURNE and RAWMUSTARD...

Thank you both for your contributions herein. However, I reckon most of us (myself, probably the worst offender), have lost contact with the original theme, consequently we've seemingly wandered aimlessly into this nebulous discussion about F/A's ? Further most debates centring on guns, often generate some serious, even emotional dialogue, which generally returns us all to where we originally started.

With respect, this particular topic dealt with a transgressor seriously injuring a victim with a so called 'king hit'. But somehow, the subject of guns had inexplicably 'transmogrified' the debate ? It should be noted, that it would be highly unlikely, even if the victim did possess a gun, he still wouldn't be able to prevent the attack in any case. Nor could the seriousness of the injury, be diminished either ? As the victim would neither have the opportunity, nor the presence, to introduce a gun into the equation ?