The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Guns

Guns

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. 20
  13. ...
  14. 34
  15. 35
  16. 36
  17. All
Paul,

The article says that gun deaths were decling before 1996, so don't change the goal posts.

Your beloved Greens were prattling on about the increase in firearms ownership, look up Shoebridge if you don't believe the Great Alpers, he of the academic title but no academic qualifications.

We often hear the mantra "More guns, more crime" so why not "More guns, less crime" when there is an increase in gun ownership and a continuing fall in crime?
If crime had increased then you'd be claiming that the guns were to blame, so why cannot the opposite be true?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 28 October 2016 10:50:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How's this from The Australian Institute of Criminology?

"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

John Howard's laws had bugger all to do with it.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 28 October 2016 11:26:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish someone had've been packing on the Moorooka bus this morning.
It would've been a public service to shoot first and ask questions later and spray this assailants brains all over the place.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-28/driver-dies-after-bus-catches-fire-in-brisbane/7974172

Was it a Muslim?
Is it wrong to assume it might be?
Why do they only feed us snippets of a story?

There will be a big stink over this.
Especially considering there have been over 350 attacks in drivers in the last 6mths.
I didn't know being assaulted was part of the job.
Bus drivers should go on strike.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-30/bus-driver-attacks-prompt-safety-review-union-cashless-tickets/7891668
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 28 October 2016 11:34:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IS MISE...

You obviously didn't read my brief piece on 'trick shooters', I'm neither impressed by them nor accept many of their exaggerated claims.

When I was 'pugging' at South's Juniors,(with Commissioners permission!) back in the seventies I met all manner of blokes in the preliminaries, all trying to earn a decent purse fighting in 6 & 8 x 3min bouts. Regrettably some had mighty big mouths. I fought and trained out of Tom Lemming's stable (Glebe) and I learnt very much the hard way, a 'flapping' jaw meant a potential KO.

Similarly, these fancy martial artists, both on the street and those attempting to get a chance in the ring, they looked 'pretty' dancing around, and scowling, all the while they talked, talked and more talk, until they were on their face sucking up the bitumen.

I equate these inexperienced people to that of 'trick shooters', great at demonstrating their prowess with a F/A no doubt, and probably thoroughly good blokes - but otherwise just empty vessels. I'm surprised at you as a former infantry soldier, would even seek out, or be taken in by their 'skill set'.

You mentioned a little while back, you went bush with your fantastic Ruger. No.1 in .220cal swift, a very flat shooting calibre with an awfully high MV approaching 3,900fps or even 4,000 fps and managed to bag 5 or 6 foxes, that's the sort of shooting that's impressive I reckon IS MISE!

I've been trained by the FBI and the S & W Academy. At the conclusion of one of the FBI Schools I attended (1986/87). Being the only Aussie, and regarded as somewhat of a curiosity by the other students and Instructors, the PFI took a little more interest in me and my 'quaint' Aussie police force. One of the things he did mention to me, was something along the following lines; '...all this stuff you've learned here really means nothing. It depends on how you use what you've been taught that counts, when confronted with lethal force on the street...'? A truer phase has (probably) never been spoken.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 28 October 2016 12:31:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

All very true, except the bit about me being taken in by trick shooters.

All that I said was that pistols should not be taken lightly and to demonstrate this fact I told of putting 6 shots into the torso of a military figure target at 100 yards, I did this with an original Navy Colt. I don't throw the bull.

As regards trick shooting I learnt a bit of that under the tutelage of the great Lionel Bibby

One of my tricks was to balance a penny on the cocked hammer of a Star Model F sport pistol and fire two shots as quickly as possible, the first shot saw the hammer flip the coin and the second shot would hit the penny.
Amazed gasps from the onlookers.
It was purely mechanical, the hammer always flipped the coin the same and provided that the second shot was fast enough the penny was always hit.

The shot at 100 yards in the video is genuine, I know people who have seen him do it; note that he is resting on his left arm, just as Wild Bill is said to have done.

The .36 Navy has the same ballistics as a .38 Special.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 28 October 2016 1:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey o sung wu,
I've got a random question about Police policies.
Why do they always say incidents are not terrorist related?
Are they deliberately lying to us to prevent reprisal attacks?

So far in this bus story, I've read that it was 'a random act'; that there was 'no apparent motive'; that other passengers had to be rescued and suffered minor injuries (so I assume they could've also died in this attack)and that the bomb squad was on the scene.

But still they say this is not a terrorist act.
So a person sets another random person on fire and this is not an act of terror?
What the hell suffices as a terrorist attack?

If I find out this person was a Muslim I'm going to be pretty angry.
And not just at the perpetrator, at police always playing down these things.
Can you shed some light on this?

I'm sick of it.
No Muslims in this country are at risk of being stabbed by other crazy Muslims, but regular Australians are.
No Australians are getting around attacking random Muslims but we cop the abuse for being 'racist and discriminatory' and we're the ones being attacked.

Somethings seriously wrong with people these days to do stuff like this.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 28 October 2016 2:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. 20
  13. ...
  14. 34
  15. 35
  16. 36
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy