Hi (again) JAY of MELBOURNE...

I realise we're well off Topic here. But in your two most recent threads, you make certain claims that I find quite puzzling ? Obviously, I'm not in a position to make any considered comment, because much of what you allege is untested, therefore can only be described as theory or conjecture ? You give the appearance of someone who's in possession of some interesting data, but to my untrained eye, it's questionable. Particularly matters you detail, relating to Port Arthur and questions, relating to the practical jurisprudence, surrounding Martin Bryant's final (legal) disposition.

You also make certain assertions apropos the recent events at Sandy Hook ? Therefore may I ask, what is the source of your information, of both events ? Or is it simply a theory promulgated by those who claim some confidential knowledge ?

I regard honor and honesty as some thing worth trying to reach.
For that reason only I address a post from a man who clearly has no relationship with either.
BS? is that so? to hold a view that is seemingly held by most?
I wish such a man could speak to me like that to my face, age is not always a barrier.
Today and yesterday a point was made we should rename the King Hit.
Thought well worth thinking about,as I grew up the then rare King hitter was king of the bar, no one took him on knowing a day would come that saw him square up.
Why not name it truly *Gutless*
I am aware I get combative in responding to such as the above, but truth deserves my best support.
An inner City seeing every hand holding a gun would bring death every night of the week to us, fools who king hit would take the gutless back shot, police would die just walking the streets and let no man or fool tell you law and order is best served by hand guns in every hand.
OTB your increasing serves at me must one day stop.
You do not appear to have grounds for it and constantly bring trouble on your self with other posters.
In your case mate a clear demonstration can be seen.
*Only the letter T separates a Witt from a TWIT*

It was I that brought guns into the discussion, because it is my firm belief that if more of the populous were permitted to conceal carry, a lot of these crimes could be avoided without the pain and suffering currently being perpetrated on innocent, law abiding citizens both by criminals and that other band of criminals, .gov.

Thanks for the thread and your thoughts, o sung wu. Hopefully those that read these forums without contributing take something useful away with them.

G'day there BELLY...

The 'gun' debate. I've not known a topic that's so divisive or emotional then that of guns ! As you know I've had to carry one of these damn things for over 32 years, and I can tell you they can be a real nuisance. And over that thirty two odd years, I've had to pull the thing less than a dozen times, at most. And I've never fired a shot in anger, either.

And I couldn't agree with you more, with your remarks and comments about vigilantism. I would NOT like to see that type of 'outlaw' behaviour inculcate throughout the streets and public places of our cities and towns. Imagine if you will, seeing hundreds of people carrying strapped across their chests, H&K MP5's and MP10's as they have at most British Airports ? Now that would be a very disconcerting sight I reckon ?

O Sung,
Nope, no secrets, it's all common knowledge, Bryant was never tried over Port Arthur, he denied the charges at first but a confession was eventually produced, a guilty plea was entered and he was convicted immediately and imprisoned, there was no trial, no inquest and the records have been sealed. Seems a bit odd eh?
Sandy Hook, for whatever reason after the killings certain people presented as having a connection to the case appeared in staged "interviews" where they are reading from a script and literally acting a part, at one press conference one of the TV crew members filmed the unedited version of the footage as it played on a monitor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV20DtXBuQs

Watch this next clip, it explains a lot about how these strange situations occur, it's pretty sad really:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j30sWIOMIak
For what it's worth I believe Mr Rosenblat when he says acted with good intentions and there are mountains of evidence of other people doing exactly the same thing either willingly or under duress to "play their part" in building a narrative to serve the memory of the victims....or to assist political activists who SAY that they will build a fitting testimonial to lost loved ones
I apologise for further steering the thread in another direction but when we're dealing with accounts of atrocities or crimes it pays to be very skeptical, so when we here reports of violence out of control on our streets we also need to apply the same critical techniques in forming our opinions. Remember Claire Werbeloff? Those types of people are definitely out there.
Just because you have witnesses speaking on camera doesn't mean events unfolded as they said,

Just to get back on topic; as most of the 'king hit merchants' in the current discussion have been drunk, or at least influenced by alcohol, then increased penalties won't be a deterant, if such people were sober then the existing law would deter them.

Alcohol is the cause, so remove the cause.