Once again mass shootings in the US; A mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, on Saturday, has left at least 20 people dead and 26 injured appears to be the deadliest shooting in the United States this year. The El Paso murders were closely followed by Nine people killed and at least 16 injured in a shooting on Sunday in Dayton, Ohio.

These horrible murders should again remind Australia of the terrible consequences that lax gun laws entail. Unfortunately we still have those among us, the gun lobby, who continually pressure politicians to go down the American path, so we too can once again experience the tragedy of mass murder. Lets keep these people out of politics so it can't happen here.

Paul,

You're at it again.

"Unfortunately we still have those among us, the gun lobby, who continually pressure politicians to go down the American path..."

Can you give a reference, please?

Or an instance or two?

Issy wants to know; who are the big players in the Australian gun lobby, happy to oblige, lets tell him. Number one is brothers in arms, the Australian equivalent of the powerful US pro gun, and politically influential National Rifle Association, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) which has almost as many members, per capita, as the American monster organisation. The SSAA has an estimated combined income of $18 million per year. The other big pro gun player in Australia is the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia. SIFA is the peak body for the firearms industry. One of the SIFA directors is Robert Nioa, Queensland firearms wholesaler and son-in-law of Bob Katter, leader of the far right Australian Party. SIFA received $1.2 million from its corporate members between 2014 and late 2018 to promote their interests. Between 2011 and 2018, Katter's Australian Party received $808,000, most of which came from SIFA and the Queensland branch of the SSAA. Others to receive cash donations from the pro gun lobby were The Shooters Party almost $700,000, The Liberal Party received $46,000 in donations, from SIFA and defence contractor Thales. The Liberal Democrats got $37,000 from Mr Nioa and the SSAA, while the Nationals, the ALP and Country Alliance all received between $30,000 and $40,000. One Nation, only got $6,200. As you can see, the pro gun money is pouring in to some of the far right parties in particular.

The SIFA is only a moderate direct donor to extremists political parties. However it spends big on it own political campaigns. It spent $750,000 on two recent state election campaigns alone, the "Flick 'Em" campaign during the 2017 Queensland election and the "Not Happy Dan" campaign during the 2018 Victorian state election.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-in-the-midst-of-a-white-nationalist-terrorism-crisis-20190804-p52do1.html
Ise mise, Paul thrives on questioning the truth however yes the gun lobby in America is an illness
The use of a constitution written so long ago, to say everyone has a right to own a gun is insanity

And Switzerland where every man has to keep a rifle at home is not.

I prefer the Swiss system.

So, mass shootings are a reminder to Australia, are they? A reminder of what? That we have extremely draconian gun laws already? That we have never had a 'gun culture'. That we have had only one mass shooting, which resulted in the virtual criminalisation of hobby shooters? That the few gun crimes that occur in Australia are committed by people who don't care about draconian laws? Laws work only for law-abiding citizens, and Australians in general are very law-abiding, to the point of meekness. All this should satisfy a totalitarian Green, and save him from constantly nagging and rubbishing his fellow citizens.

In international terms, the United States is an
extremely violent society, with a homicide rate
far exceeding that of any other industrialised nation.
A single American city like Chicago, Houston, or
Los Angeles records more murders in a typical year
according to police reports and FBI reports, than
does the whole of England.

Most other countries severely restrict private hand gun
ownership, but there are millions of handguns in the
US and weapons of this type are used in murders that occur
each year.

Why then does the US permit such a widespread access to
handguns?

One reason is the persistent belief that, since criminals
have guns, then law-abiding citizens need them for self-
protection.

Actually, the reality is that gun-owning households are
much more likely to suffer fatalities from their own
weapons than from those of outsiders.

One study found that only a very small percentage of
of all slayings in gun-owning households were for
self-protection. the remainder were suicides, homicides, or
accidental deaths, almost all involving family members,
friends, or acquaintances.

A second reason for the proliferation of handguns in the
US is the deeply held belief by many Americans, that
gun ownership is an individual right.

For granting this "liberty" to the individual, American
society continues (and will continue) to pay the price
in the deviance of those who abuse it.

We should all be very grateful to former PM John Howard
for the gun law restrictions that he imposed after the
Port Arthur massacre.

ttbn perhaps the truth about you can be found in the number of posts your recent threads have got
Australian gun laws are OK if America Had them people by the hundreds would not be murdered by armed lunatics
It is said all such gun shooting [mass murders] from 2017 have been done by right wing extremists
In America those folk are also insane, if judged by other countries standards
Will the anti Muslim brigade now include the hillbilly right in their dislike of terrorists

Hey Paul,
"These horrible murders should again remind Australia of the terrible consequences that lax gun laws entail."

(I don't own a firearm and I don't plan on doing so.)

I don't know anything about these recent shooting events except what you've relayed;
But my reaction to what you described;

- The first thing that came to my mind -

- Was to consider a need to be armed in order to defend myself against lunatics who want to commit mass murder.

Keep pushing the rampant immigration, the pro-muslim sentiments, calling Aussies racist, whilst turning a blind eye to crime by foreigners and their gangs and your only going to increase the need for regular people to feel as though they have a need to protect themselves and their families.

- And btw I'm not even sure it's realistically possible to remove guns from the reach of criminals in the US -

Every time we hear of another mass shooting in the United States, the two opposing sides take 'aim' at each other. Lawful gun owners Vs. No private gun ownership. It's my belief, notwithstanding we have pretty robust F/A regulations in Australia, it still wouldn't necessarily, stop a massacre happening here.

One need only drive a motor vehicle through a crowded pedestrian mall; you'd be guaranteed at least a half-dozen fatalities plus injuries.

The real risk to our community comes from the state of mind of some of these potential killers. An individual wishing harm on anyone will adopt any instrument or means capable of yielding that harm.

Therefore the only way the Yanks might be able to interdict these atrocious crimes is to rout out the 'crazies' in the community, with guns in their possession. And that would be a near-impossible task, especially with the politically powerful, NRA hovering in the background.

o sung wo old mate as you know criminals will always get guns
As you know too domestic disputes would see far more deaths if we had the American laws
True ferrals have the right to guns under that system, it is my view we do not need it here

Paul,

You said,

"Unfortunately we still have those among us, the gun lobby, who continually pressure politicians to go down the American path..."

Can you give a reference, please?

Or an instance or two?

So far you have failed to do so.

This might help:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/26/nsw-labors-interim-leader-pushes-for-ban-on-donations-from-firearms-lobby

Foxy,

"In international terms, the United States is an
extremely violent society, with a homicide rate
far exceeding that of any other industrialised nation"

You mean that Russia is not industrialised?

Anyhow what has industrialization got to do with it?

Some of the tourist spots in the Carribean have a murder rate far exceeding that of the US.

Belly,

"As you know too domestic disputes would see far more deaths if we had the American laws"

We have 3,573,000 firearms in Australia in civilian hands and of these 3,158,795 are registered and an estimated 414,205 are unlicenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

So why do we not have a commensurate rate of domestic dispute deaths?

Perhaps because the number of firearms in a community has nothing to do with it.

...further, we never had to fight for independence, and we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Comparing us with America on this matte totally inappropriate and daft.

I meant to add, this is just another case of leftist malcontents looking for problems where none exist.

Issy, as I've said to you before, firearms in the community should be on a needs basis, very restrictive. Its my view that recreational nonsense is not part of that basis and the vast majority of the 3.5 million you speak of should be in the crushing machine.

Those far right pro gun organisations in Australia I mentioned, continually try to white-ant our fairly robust gun laws at every opportunity. Why did they give such big donations to the Bob Nutter Party? Because Bob supports lax gun laws!

Hi there BELLY...

You're right once again. It doesn't matter how many restrictions or impositions we place on the legit. Shooter; it's always the crooks who manage to obtain weapons, through illicit means. And I agree, perhaps we would see more shootings in issues of domestic violence if we had as many F/A's available as they have in the US?

Some weapons have been fashioned in such a way; the Serial Number has been obliterated or removed. Just another futile attempt in trying to make it untraceable. Nearly all F/A's are still traceable, with or without Serial No's. The lands & grooves on a projectile (provided it's in reasonable shape) will often indicate the mfg. of the F/A. Together with the number of twists, either right or left hand, the firing pin, bolt face; extractor markings, all of which leave distinctive 'tool marks' that are unique to that weapon.

All that's needed is the projectile( that's relatively undamaged the better) or the case, both in fairly reasonable condition. Even the humble shotgun leaves certain individual tool marks.

In the case of Serial Numbers that have been removed, a skilled forensic metallurgist can often raise it, using several different scientific processes, which can assist in discovering the author of a crime, one involving that particular F/A.

Paul,

"Those far right pro gun organisations in Australia I mentioned, continually try to white-ant our fairly robust gun laws at every opportunity..."

Come on give us a reference to back up your ridiculous claims.

Truth is you can't but there is plenty of evidence about the time that the Greens in the NSW Parliament refused to back tougher gun laws proposed by the SF&F Party.

I wonder why that was, maybe frightened for their criminal mates; something similar to when they objected strongly to sniffer dogs going after drugs.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/16/sniffer-dogs-greens-nsw-renew-push-to-end-their-use-in-stop-and-search

Dear Paul,

Here's another link that really worth a read:

http://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17792776/us-gun-deaths-global

Amazing what you can learn with Google.

Some people should try it.

Drug deaths in Australia must surely be greater than firearm offenses. Any outrage on the availability on those ?

Foxy,

"Amazing what you can learn with Google.

Some people should try it"

So you found out that the USA is not the worst, congratulations.

Now look up if Russia is an industrialised nation, do they build nuclear powered ships, do they have a manufacturing industry?

How about South Africa?
They have a big arms industry and they build their own trains, whhich Australia apparently can't do.

I took your 'advice' and found that,
"So who's tops? Surprisingly, Norway is, with an outlier mass shooting death rate of 1.888 per million (high no doubt because of the rifle assault by political extremist Anders Brevik that claimed 77 lives in 2011). No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.

That's not all. There were also 27% more casualties from 2009 to 2015 per mass shooting incident in the European Union than in the U.S.

"There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed," the study said. "Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom."

"But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany's and five times the U.K.'s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher."

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-gun-control-advocates-claims-u-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/

Just to add a bit of racism check out the number of murders among African Americana & those of European extraction.

Is Mise,

Read the link given previously on US gun deaths -
global comparisons. Here it is again:

http://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17792776/us-gun-deaths-global

cont'd ...

Is Mise,

You need to read the chapter on US gun problems.

As for Russia? I'll leave you to do your own research
to find out why in Russia you may get raped, robbed,
murdered, knifed, but very few people die from gun
violence.

I remember not too many years ago, when a series of murders were reported in the news it caused grief. Didn't matter if it was caused by guns, a bomb, a car, or any other weapon.

Nowadays if it is a gun that killed, it seems too quickly we skip the grief and go streight to pro-gun, anti-gun politics. If makes me sad that death has so little value to us that we go streight away into politics after hearing about a shooting. Not that those policies and politics aren't important, but for crying out loud, the US just had 2 mass shootings in different states just hours from each other (not even a full day). Way to rub salt into the wound by going into the horribleness of the US's policies compared to Australia's. As a world are we so cold? Apparently so!

Some try anything to avoid the simple truth
American gun laws enforced by bought and paid for politicians is out of step with the rest of the world
Murder always is and mass shootings are just that, carried out by low IQ haters who in the end betray their country
Read the surnames of the murderers and find they, in their bloodline, are products of past migrants
Trump is empowering them with his clear race hate speech
He now, knowing an election is coming, is trying to ride both sides of the track

I think the #1 cause of crime is stupidity ! Stupidity by the authorities ! Were they to focus on what they are assigned to do rather than just their careers, crime rates would drop overnight.
I think if a survey were to be done on the effect Centrelink has on people, that outfit would be dismantled overnight. Those who are appointed to deal with social issues are actually the main cause creating them.
Just look at Magistrates, Cops (not Police Officers), in fact all these overzealous but unintelligent, greedy mutts costing us a fortune & denying us a decent society.

It is worth noting that up until March this year New Zealand's firearms laws were very similar to the states, and until an Aussie moron shot up a mosque, violent crime was not too dissimilar to Australia.

While I am all for gun control, it needs to be noted that violence is also greatly driven by culture.

SM, NZ was a ticking time bomb, sure repeal all gun laws, make them freely available to all, and you are unlikely to have mass murder tomorrow, or even the next day, but that day will come as sure as night follows day.

//Just to add a bit of racism check out the number of murders among African Americana// Yep, must be the colour of their skin that does it. Hassy, wouldn't have anything to do with social disadvantage now would it. That's a hard concept (social disadvantage) for a knuckle dragger to understand, so we'll just leave it as the colour of their skin being the cause. Should I add the African Americans to your list?

Thanks Foxy for the link, very interesting.

Paul,

Found anything to back up your wild assertions, you know, a reference?

Did you know that the Greens value chooks (egg laying kind more than women?).

Foxy

From your quoted site

"One reason America ranks so high is its large population: A country with more people is, all other things held equal, generally going to have more gun deaths.

To that end, the US’s rate of gun deaths is a bit lower than the other countries on this list; it was at 10.6 per 100,000 people, while Mexico was at 11.8, Brazil 19.4, Colombia 25.9, Guatemala 32.3, and Venezuela 38.7. El Salvador, which was not on the top six list for overall deaths, had the highest gun death rate in the world at 39.2 per 100,000 people. The global rate of gun deaths was 3.4 per 100,000 people.

[a bit lower? half the rate for El Salvador!!]

Globally, most gun deaths were homicides. But in the US, most were suicides.
[so the US murder rate is even lower]

The US was one of 17 countries (out of 195) in which both the firearm homicide rate and firearm suicide rate were higher than the global median."

Very informative, Foxy, keep up the good work.

Have a read of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
where the US gun murder rate is 4.46 per 100,000.

' If makes me sad that death has so little value to us that we go streight away into politics after hearing about a shooting'

Yeah Not Now Soon. I suppose if a society can murder millions of unborn babies it shows the value of life has diminished drastically in the Western world.

Paul ise mise taking to you is like a flogging with a wet lettuce leaf
Facts remain, if we had those American laws every lard head[ and we all know some] would be on our streets armed
A detractor of mine, follower of one nation, says not having the right for everyone to be armed is an attack on our freedoms
Then again he is waiting for that party to govern this country

I notice that Pres Trump is calling for tougher gun laws.
I wonder how the anti Trump Derangement crowd will handle that ?
They are probably in a coma for a day or day or two.

The question about Afro Americans is not an idle question.
Gun crime and murder generally is much higher among them.
There is a very politically incorrect reason for that which is somewhat
similar to the Middle Eastern muslim reasons for violence and inability to compromise.
I won't say here what it is, just do the research yourself.

Belly,

"Paul ise mise taking to you is like a flogging with a wet lettuce leaf"

You don't like people asking for references either, still, that's understandable, you can make lots of wild assertions if you don't have to reference.

Who wants America's gun laws?

Our's work pretty well, most of our criminals abide by them and don't have unlicenced guns; why would they when they can't get a firearms licence?

American gun laws don't see their Government financing the building of new firearm ranges nor the improvement of existing ranges.
Our local range has recently been financed for a major upgrade including two new dedicated pistol ranges and the doubling in size of the existing pistol range.
There have also been grants for new toilets including one for the disabled as we have a few wheelchair bound competitors.

We've also had the mains electricity connected (grant) and no longer need a generator to power our remote controlled pistol targets (another grant).

The gun laws are good, they need a bit of refining to remove the bureaucratic stupidities, but overall they are OK.

In 1994 in the USA:

Homicides per 100,000 people....9.0
Guns per 100,000 people ....(est) 74,000

In 2014 in the USA:
Homicides per 100,000 people....4.5
Guns per 100,000 people ....(est) 123,000

So over 20 years, homicides DEcreaed by 50% while gun ownership INcreased by 66%.

Yep clearly guns are the problem. </sarc>

Issy, what about the pro gun campaigns I mentioned. What was their objective, if not to put your gun friendly goons in parliament? Why all the dosh for the gun happy Mad Hatter?

//Did you know that the Greens value chooks (egg laying kind more than women?).// A reference?

Did you know the gun happy brigade (and we know who they are) are happy to see innocent people gunned down, so they can enjoy their perverted pleasure. Did you know that, you do now!

Some of Issy's mates, Issy I don't know what you look like, could you be the last bloke in this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI1fnKxOeoM

Issy, what are you telling us? The SSAA is big in El Salvador. You didn't mention Syria and Iraq, two model states for the gun happy brigade!.

How's your good mate Steve "Dicko" Dickson these days? Still chasing the 20 million bucks from the NRA to take control of Australia and introduce your kind of gun laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-NfHlQv4M4

When Unions turned bad here, many people who lost their employment because of it, became so disillusioned that it is easy to understand why that has become fertile ground for crime.

Paul said;
Did you know the gun happy brigade (and we know who they are) are happy
to see innocent people gunned down, so they can enjoy their perverted
pleasure. Did you know that, you do now!

Reference ? hmmm.

Dear mhaze,

Mate you back again doing dodgy things with figures.

Given Is Mise's figures we have one gun for every 7 Australians. You figures show a rate of 1.25 guns per person in the US. However it isn't just the number it is also the type. Australia doesn't have the proliferation of weapons like the the AR-15 which are a weapon of choice for mass shooters.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

So 'Yep clearly guns are the problem.'

Think with me folks you, yes you, know someone who should never ever own a gun
IF we had America gun laws he/she would have one
If that person lived next door
Look truth remain true John Howard did us proud with his change to gun laws
Not being snide just truth, our village redneck is quite insane
Walks around screaming that we should kill all migrants, every race
And I swear slobbers all over himself constantly, given the chance he would murder many

Bazz wants a reference to members of the gun happy brigade willing to trade lives so they can carry on their perverted pleasure.

The sad story of John Edwards, a father who murdered his two children in Sydney with a licensed hand gun he had been trained in its use at the SSAA operated St Mary's gun club. Other clubs had rejected Edwards for training as being unsound, but not the SSAA operated St Mary's club. I only assume those that trained Edwards were also members of the SSAA. No club, no training, no gun, maybe those two innocent children would be alive today.
To this day there has been no satisfactory explanation from the SSAA as to why they were willing to train Edwards for his gun licence after others had rejected him. Yep, some will jump up and down with... WELL! it was all legal.

Its also a little fraught when you leave others to draw the appropriate conclusions from data when you have people who clearly struggle with numbers like SR (not to mention Mr O) around.

I gave data which compares USA (1994) with USA(2014) and somehow SR thinks I'm fudging comparisons with Australia.

So let me make it clearer for the innumerate. If the per capita number of guns in a particular country goes up but the per capita number of homicides goes down, then clearly there is more to the issue than the proportion of guns in that country. Other factors must have come into play. I don't think that's too hard to follow but...well we are talking SR here.

Here's another set of numbers to screw your mind. In scenarios where the mass shooter is taken out or stopped by police, the average number of deaths is around 14. In scenarios where the mass shooter is taken out or stopped by the public, the average number of deaths is around 2.5

That is, if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a mass shooting, you'd better hope that the citizens around you are armed because that's your best hope of survival. Ever noticed that most attackers prefer to go for locations that are so-called gun-free zones.

Still its good to see you back SR. I was worried that my joke about you trying hard to forget you even knew anyone named Warren had chased you off. Even worse, when I found out that the Dayton attacker was a big Warren fanboy, just like you, and that you were nowhere to be found, I started wondering if there was a link. :)

I'd have to agree with STEELEREDUX on his point of view, with the proliferation of semi-auto (centrefire), military-style rifles, bearing hi-capacity magazines, being readily available in the US.

I'd be thankful if I were in local law-enforcement over there, that none of these 'crazies' had thought of using a slide action, 870 or similar, in 12g — especially those with the extended mags, tubular or box.

Or the newer versions 'Assault styled Shoty', with drum magazines, like the fabled 'Streetsweeper' or the South African 'Striker 12' - both 12g and capable of holding 12 ctg's. in a drum configured Mag. The deaths & injuries would be genuinely horrific in such circumstances.

Paul,

You said,
"... the Australian equivalent of the powerful US pro gun, and politically influential National Rifle Association, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) which has almost as many members, per capita, as the American monster organisation..."

The USA has a population of 329,322,131 and the NRA has an estimated 5million members a ratio of 1/65.

Australia has a population of 25,120,102 and the SSAA has a membership of 193,965 (as of last month) a ratio of 1/129.

So the comparison shews that the American figure is virtually two to our one.

Where did you get your figures from?

Regarding John Edwards, he was given a licence by the direct intervention of the Commissioner of Police, did you forget that one small fact (conveniently)?

Dear mhaze,

You opine;

“Here's another set of numbers to screw your mind. In scenarios where the mass shooter is taken out or stopped by police, the average number of deaths is around 14. In scenarios where the mass shooter is taken out or stopped by the public, the average number of deaths is around 2.5”

Well you are right in one sense, the figures are very screwy but also completely idiotic.

The bloke who first came up with them had intitially claimed the figure was 2.5 and 18 respectively. His name is Davi Barker and he runs a website called Daily Anarchist. When he got challenged he claimed he said had “based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere," he wrote. "I honestly don’t even remember where."

So he went away and came back with a revised figure of the 14 you are claiming. The trouble is that the figures just have no validity. Further more Dr. Pete Blair, director of research for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center (ALERRT) found that of all the mass shootings from 2000 to 2012 only three were stopped by 'civilians' shooting the offender and two of these so called civilians were off duty law enforcement officials. The rest were when when the perpetrator either stopped firing or was tackled by bystanders.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/06/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/

Of course you may well have something else to back up your claim but somehow I doubt it.

Missed me yet?

Paul,

"Did you know that the Greens value chooks (egg laying kind) more than women?. A reference?"

With the greatest of pleasure.
From the Greens NSW website.

" 15.4. Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes or a member of an approved sports shooting association);"

One may assume that 'primary producer' above, includes women farmers, therefore the Greens would let them have a gun to protect the chooks from foxes, wild dogs or feral cats.

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm"

The Greens wouldn't allow the woman farmer to use her firearm to protect her life if she were attacked by a potential murderer/rapist, so the Greens value women less than chooks.

http://greens.org.au/nsw/policies/firearms

Issy, does the SSAA have a special training course for you blokes that teaches you how to screw up the truth.

If you have a legitimate reason to possess a firearm, and should as it happens to be, you use that firearm in genuine self defence, protecting your own life, or someone else, then it is reasonable and legal to do so. Get your facts right, but I think you know that already.

Explain all the dosh for the gun crazy Mad Katter from your mates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AtOU0dDXv8

Paul,

Of course, I know that legitimate self defence is legal but according to the Greens:

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm"

note, '...or using a firearm'

Apparently, the Greens NSW don't have your knowledge or insight
otherwise, why say what I've posted from their website.

So it's reasonable to assume that they value chooks more than women or that they are a bunch of out of touch dimwits, take your choice.

How are you going with that reference?

You were saying in previous posts that the USA NRA were funding Australian political parties and now that you have irrefutable evidence that they knocked back the only case where there is any evidence that someone tried to get some money out of them you are trying to use that knockback as evidence.

You accuse someone of saying "YES" and when they said "NO" you take that as evidence that they said "YES", strange logic!!

Must be Green.

I knew & heard of people owning guns from cradle to grave & have never shot anyone. Any figures on how many such gun-owners among us presently ?

Individual,

Millions.

The Greens wouldn't allow the woman farmer to use her firearm to protect her life if she were attacked by a potential murderer/rapist, so the Greens value women less than chooks.
Paul1405,
That's a very valid question put to you by is Mise, any chance of you answering it ?

The gunnies and their crazy nonsense about "self defence", what does it entail, What the don't tell you.

If introduced it would apply to 100% of the population, after all every citizen could at some stage of their life require self defence. All that would be required would be a simple tick in the box to the question; Do you require a gun for self defence? YES! To be an effective self defence weapon the gun or guns (some gun slingers like to have more than one gun) would have to be loaded, and in your possession 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in the home, the car, the bus, at work, at the footy, at the kiddies park on weekends etc, you never know when a desperado is going to strike, must be prepared to open fire at all times! Some would prefer to carry an automatic weapon, others a concealed high powered pistol, the choice of firearm would be up to the individual. Guns would be sold to children, they also require self defence. gun would be given as birthday gifts to toddlers, old people, the insane (sorry, SSAA members already have them), there would be no restrictions. Guns would be sold in supermarkets, with such high demand for weapons and ammo, Coles and Woolies wouldn't want to miss out.

Of course we all know where this gun craziness will lead us, straight to Dodge City. The use of the weapon in self defence would be in the hands of the individual. Self defence could include, the noisy neighbour, the over charging check-out-chick, the annoying work colleague, the wife, etc. Not just koalas and wombats would be in danger as it is now, but all would be fair game if the gun crazy lunatics get their way!

Issy, please explain how YOU would have prevented John Edwards from murdering his two children with a gun?

BTW; How about naming and shaming the two fools who trained Edwards in the use of that gun. You are an insider with the SSAA, you should know.

Issy, please explain how YOU would have prevented John Edwards from murdering his two children with a gun?
Paul1405,
What a feeble-minded argument. Have no gun ? Use something else ? Those racist morons who run down people in cars didn't fire the cars out of a gun ! Bureaucracy ruins peoples' lives' without a gun ! By denying people the privilege of owning a firearm (just a basic .22 will suffice in most case) you're actually enabling the criminals by the knowledge that they're not going to take any risks !
I'm sure as you gradually grow out of adolescence you'll see things more clearly.

Paul,

The Greens wouldn't allow the woman farmer to use her firearm to protect her life if she were attacked by a potential murderer/rapist, so the Greens value women less than chooks.

I shewed you why, so tell us why the Greens would not allow the woman to defend herself.

Is it hatred of women?
Ideological correctness?
Plain stupidity?

Is it hatred of women?
Ideological correctness?
Plain stupidity?

Is Mise,
I like multiple choice questions & my answer is 'all of the above' !

Straight from the donkeys mouth;

Shooters and Hooters NSW policy under 'Firearms';

"Support family and home protection and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence.... remove the recording of ammunition sales."

Issy is not my post above. //The gunnies and their crazy nonsense about "self defence", what does it entail, What the don't tell you.// The ramifications of S&H policy.

Did you not say you were one of the founding fathers of the Shooters and Hooters Party NSW?

When some 85 year old, old fart, shoots the 2 year old paperboy dead on the front lawn on a Sunday morning, I can hear the explanation now;

"Well Officer, I thought he was a burglar, I'll be more careful next time, I'll send some flowers to his funeral, that should square things up with the family."

Make that 12 year old, under no gun control, old farts will only be allowed to shoot babies when its absolutely justified in "self defence". Issy do you accept that?

Standard SR there.

Completely misunderstands the statistics I offer and, having had it explained, just moves onto the next issue as though his misunderstanding never happened.

So the next issue is numbers around shooters stopped by civilians. So off SR runs....'please Mr Google, I don't want these numbers to be true. Please tell me how to ignore them".

There are all sorts of ways to define 'mass shooting', and by defining it just the right way, you can pretend the numbers here are wrong. Its not 18 or 14 or 2.5, its something different. What are the different numbers? No one says because the fact is that any honest research, even with carefully redefinitions will still find the general thrust of the original research was correct.

Here's another number that will have SR racing to see if Mr Google can help him ignore unwanted facts. 82% of school shooters come from broken families.

To get back to my original point, the number of guns clearly isn't the issue here. As gun numbers go up, homicides go down. There must be other issues causing that. Just refusing to look for the other issues is the opposite of proper research.

I'm still enjoying the way SR is just pretending that Warren doesn't exist and his original gullibility around her is memory-holed. I almost hope she gets the DNC nomination so the fun can continue.

"When some 85 year old, old fart, shoots the 2 year old paperboy dead on the front lawn"

"old farts will only be allowed to shoot babies when its absolutely justified in "self defence""

Just when did Paul go from merely hyperbolic to utterly crazy?

OK Trump he is an issue yes mass murders are not new in America
But never before has a total idiot POTUS named races as rapist drug runners or ordered women born in that country to go back where they came from
IQ is often low in Tramp,s supporters and the shooter are the same
Mass Murders encouraged by a POTUS? you betcha

Paul,

In answer,

"Issy, please explain how YOU would have prevented John Edwards from murdering his two children with a gun?"

I'd have told the Police Commissioner to piss off and stop interfering; how's that sound?

"Support family and home protection and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence.... remove the recording of ammunition sales."

That seems OK to me and the recording of ammunition sales is complete stupidity especially when the recording of sales of accelerants, and components of explosives and timing devices is ignored.
Do you not support a person's right to self defence?

The NSW Greens don't, as I have shewn.

What would you say to the following,
a woman farmer out on her property hunting foxes is suddenly charged by a scrub bull that broke through the fence from the adjoining National Park.

According to the Greens NSW, she should not use her firearm in personal protection (self-defence).

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm"

Note, "... using a firearm"

http://greens.org.au/nsw/policies/firearms

Dear mhaze,

Firstly the stuff I laid out for you on Warren was comprehensive and factual. The fact you just will not let it go is a very good illustration of your evident frustration in being shown up once again. Mate rhetoric, no matter how often you employ it, doesn't trump facts. Stop being so petulant and just get over it.

And now you are doing it again. I present a well respected researcher who found only one instance of an armed civilian shooting a mass shooter to stop him killing more people and your brain just can't deal with it. Instead you trot out phrases like 'Mr Google' and segue into broken homes.

How about instead you just deal with the facts, accept you were wrong, and present a decent argument with sources. You do know what sources are don't you? They are the things you present to give your assertions validity. If you had done just a modicum of sourcing evidence for what you were putting to me you wouldn't now be standing here without any pants on.

Get over it and come back with something decent for once.

Paul1405,
You must be residing in a strange neighbourhood indeed if paper boys come around in the middle of the night !

From SR: " I present a well respected researcher who found only one instance of an armed civilian shooting a mass shooter to stop him killing more people and your brain just can't deal with it."

Well I never said, nor did my sources, that the criteria was "shooting a mass shooter". My wording was "taken out or stopped by the public". So misread or utterly fail to comprehend what I said and then declare that I'm wrong to say what I didn't say. And then laughably, declare victory. What a dill.

But we all know that SR has a penchant for misunderstanding the issue and then demanding that you address his misunderstanding.

Anyway, for what its worth....

10/1/1997 – Woodham killed three students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

4/24/1998 – Wurst killed one student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa...three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students with handguns without firing.

11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

___________________________________________________________

"Firstly the stuff I laid out for you on Warren was comprehensive and factual."

Well you'd best go and tell her yourself because she thinks otherwise. But then, like you, her views are 'fluid' and being a POC is no longer convenient. She needed to be a POC to get one job and now needs everyone to forget she was a POC in order to get another job. And the usual fanboys are just fine with that.

Paul,

The Greens NSW would also allow security employees to have a firearm:

"15.4. Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes or a member of an approved sports shooting association)"

One may assume that security personnel may face armed aggressors and may have to defend their lives or the lives of others.

It would seem from the Greens,

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm"

Why would security personnel have a firearm (allowed by the Greens) if they couldn't use it for personal protection?

To sum up, the Greens should rewrite some of their policies before people start to think that they are lacking in basic comprehension skills or that they are inherently stupid.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Wow mate, this was pretty bad even from you.

You wrote;

“My wording was "taken out or stopped by the public". So misread or utterly fail to comprehend what I said and then declare that I'm wrong to say what I didn't say. And then laughably, declare victory. What a dill.”

Nah mate let's see who the real dill is.

Let's check each of the cases you put up that occurred between 2000 and 2012, the period looked at by the expert.

“1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa...three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students with handguns without firing.”

Three students with hand guns? Firstly there were only two students with hand guns and they were both serving police officers who had to go to their cars to retrieve their weapons. The man who actually tackled the gunman was a retired officer and Marine veteran and he was unarmed.

“According to Besen, before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people. Besen, a Marine veteran and former police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, engaged in a physical confrontation with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled."
Wikipedia

Cont..

Cont..

“11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.”

“Department of the Army Civilian Police Sergeant Kimberly D. Munley encountered Hasan exiting the building in pursuit of a wounded soldier. Munley and Hasan exchanged shots; Munley was hit twice, in her thigh and in her knee, knocking her to the ground. In the meantime, Sergeant Mark Todd, also of the DACP, arrived and fired at Hasan, who was hit and felled by shots from Todd. Todd approached Hasan and kicked the pistol out of his hand.”
Wikipedia
You do understand that the term Civilian Police Officer just refers to the fact they are serving on a military base in support of the military police. They are very much police officers not members of the public.

“/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.”

“An off-duty Denver police officer shot and killed Parker. The officer is the cousin of Pastor DeLono Straham, and nephew of Josephine Echols.”
http://kdvr.com/2012/04/24/police-identify-man-who-shot-killed-pastors-mother-at-church/

So mate you have just managed to completely and utterly sabotage your own argument. That takes some next level dill skills. Well done.

You aren't very good at this are you.

Issy, you fail to explain how guns for self defence works. The fact is, you and those of your ilk would like to see 100% of the population, men women and children, armed at all times with no controls. The use of those weapons would be at the discretion of the holder.

Just as the grubs from the SSAA gun club who trained John Edwards to kill his two children did not care about the consequences of their actions, you don't either.

You prattle on about Greens policy, well I'd have Greens policy any day to the lunatic gun policy of the Shooters and Hooters Party. BTW in my opinion Greens policy does not go far enough.

The first step we need to take is to remove the guns from the community of these so called "sports" shooters, and their thrill seeking mates the "amateur" hunters.

The only persons who should have access to firearms are the police, military and a few well trained professional people. The rank amateurs can't be trusted with so much as a pop gun.

What I would do;

Give a one year amnesty to unauthorised persons to hand in ALL their illegal weapons. That's YOU taken care of!
After the amnesty period, the penalty for possession of any illegal firearm, two to five years jail.
A person illegally dealing in firearms, or allowing for their illegal use such as illegal gun club operators, 5 to 10 years imprisonment.
A criminal using a firearm in the execution of a crime, an additional 5 to 10 years on top of the regulated penalty for the crime.

I put up what I would like to see, How about you doing the same, and stop toeing the line of the NRA.

Ise Mise again you make some weird claims
Please Supply links to prove your claims
Evidence too
Guns do not kill but in the hands of the wrong people mass murder is the result

Belly,

I assume that you are referring to my posts re the stupidity of the Greens NSW policy.

The references were given.

Learn to comprehend.

Paul,

" The fact is, you and those of your ilk would like to see 100% of the population, men women and children, armed at all times with no controls."

That's a wild assumption, when have I ever said that I'd like to see 100% armed?

"Just as the grubs from the SSAA gun club who trained John Edwards to kill his two children did not care about the consequences of their actions..".

That is plain libellous baloney, they did not train anyone to kill children, you have reached a new personal low with that remark.
Why do you continue to ignore the Police Commissioner issuing Edwards with a permit to possess a pistol, does it not fit the agenda?

Paul,

Robert Borsak, of the SF&F Party, is pursuing this matter of Edwards being given a Commissioner's Permit and the responsibility of the Commissioner and the Firearms Registry in the matter.

See, Legislative Council Notice Paper No 10, Thursday, 20 June 2019.

What are the Greens doing about the matter

Paul1405,
I'm still awaiting an explanation about the paper boys in your neighbourhood ! Or, are they just coming to your place at those hours ?

SR,

You spend so much time beside the point, I'm never really sure if you're aware of what the point is or just deliberately miss the point because you don't want it to be true.

In this case the point is that the shooters were taken out by people on the scene. Whether they were retired or off-duty police, servicemen or whatever is not the issue. The issue is that they were not the police.

Therefore the shooters were stopped by people other than the police and stopped by people with guns on the scene at the time. Therefore,( and I'm sorry to keep using the word therefore but I'm trying to lead you as simply as possible through the logic of the issue), therefore my original point, which you are trying so hard to avoid, remains correct..."That is, if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a mass shooting, you'd better hope that the citizens around you are armed because that's your best hope of survival."

mhaze,

"That is, if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a mass shooting, you'd better hope that the citizens around you are armed because that's your best hope of survival."

No one could have put it better.

My plan is all guns and bullets should be banned from all private hands. I think there is no need for any person to have a gun of any sorts for any reason except the Army or police department (even them really don't need a gun) they have a club, handcuff and tazer type gun which won't kill anybody.

Guns kill people, no guns - nobody gets killed by one. For an advansed country like Australie, no person ever need a gun. If in danger, go to police, not shoot somebody yourself.

If in danger, go to police, not shoot somebody yourself.
misanthrope,
I'm sure a 9' King Brown, Taipan, crazed Boar, crazed religious brainwashed etc. will hold themselves back until you finish calling 000.
Can you do me a favour & ask the Electoral Commission to exempt you from voting ?

Sorry, unrealistic, taking guns off everyone that is
Criminals will always get guns
Murderers will always kill
A black market would exist from day one
And those who wanted a gun would still have one
AMERICA its politicians and weird way business can buy influence is the problem

Issy, me old dart, "libellous baloney" indeed, no way. Lets take stock of the facts. Lets make it clear, the "good gentlemen" of the gun club more than likely had no desire or intention for Edwards to go off and shoot his children. I believe that, and you most likely also believe that. Well, until the "good gentlemen" of the gun club trained Edwards in the use of the handgun, Edwards did not have the ability to carry out the heinous crime he did. When I said; "the grubs from the SSAA gun club who trained John Edwards to kill his two children did not care about the consequences of their actions". That is also a true statement, as far as I am aware, they, or the SSAA have never come out with an apology for what took place, shows a lack of compassion on their part. One cannot absolve oneself with a "I did not know" (the Nazi excuse), if they didn't know the possible consequences of their actions, then they should not be training anyone how to use guns!
It was more libellous to call them grubs than anything else. And I've been called a maggot on this very forum, water off the ducks back.

Welcome to the discussion misanthrope, I like your style.

Paul,

"Edwards did not have the ability to carry out the heinous crime he did"

More Green baloney, all anyone who has never handled a handgun before only has to watch TV.

It's a known fact that people who have never fired a pistol will, most times, hit what they point at with the first shot, because they point instinctively and have not been taught to aim.

The SSAA members are in no way to be blamed, the Police Commissioner granted a permit and such a permit bypasses clubs.

Indy, a crazed religious brainwashed boar crossed Taipan, calling himself 'King Brown' attacking people. Yep, a lot of that going on these days, I'll have to agree.
BTW, a word of advice, when they bung you into the 'Seniors National Service' outfit and you're scrub clearing 16 hours a day, keep an eye out for those kinds of pesky varmints, they might bite.

North Korea is giving each member ot the Workers Party their own missile. Rifle bullets will reach 10,00 feet. US citizens will form a combined firepower under missile attack which must destroy incoming warheads.

NNN, good to see you back. What happened, were you too much for the North Koreans they had enough, put you on top of one of their misguided missiles and fire you back to OZ, with a note "WE GIVE UP,... BOY! YOU THINK WE CRAZY! CHOP SUEY BOY HE MUCH CRAZY! HE ALL YOURS, MORE CRAZY THAN CRAZY YANKEE AND THAT VERY CRAZY! PLEASE WE TURN CAPITALIST IF YOU PROMISE NOT TO SEND CHOP SUEY BOY BACK EVER EVER AGAIN NO MORE OF YOUR TORTURE WEAPON!"

Hey Paul, gun therapy will make Yanks sane again, the more bullets, the more sanity they get.

The Gatling gun is one of the best-known early rapid-fire spring loaded, hand cranked weapons, and a forerunner of the modern machine gun and rotary cannon. Invented by Richard Gatling, it saw occasional use by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s.

The basis of the system is the 20 mm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun autocannon, used since 1959 by the United States military on various tactical aircraft, linked to a Ku band fire control radar system for acquiring and tracking targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

Misanthrope,

"Guns kill people, no guns - nobody gets killed by one. For an advansed country like Australie, no person ever need a gun. If in danger, go to police, not shoot somebody yourself.

Thank you for a timely and well thought out contribution.

In your utopia, the sword, knife and bow would reign supreme again backed up by the crossbow and the mace.

The invention of the machine gun actually saved lives.

Taking your thinking a stage further, the road toll would be almost a thing of the past if we banned all motor vehicles and the air would be cleaner as a bonus.

Here is Issy with the don't look here, look over there diversion. If a madman didn't shoot down 30 people with a high powered gun, some other psychopath with a bow and arrow would take up the slack and do it instead! Issy what about the inescapable fact 100% of people die, we don't need doctors! All a sad attempt to justify his perversion with guns.

Issy's maxim for the day; "the machine gun actually saved lives" Which lunatic general said that? Was it that mass murderer and war criminal Haig, or maybe the lunatic from the other side Ludendorff Didn't someone else say while standing outside Auschwitz "The gas chambers were a breath of fresh air!" Anyone can say anything, and gunnies do say anything that suits their argument.

Please note, unlike me, Issy is not willing to explain how his master plan of 'GUNS FOR SELF DEFENCE' would work. Everyone with a loaded gun 24/7 Dodge City revisited, that's it.

People like Issy, want us all to live in fear, fear of our family, fear of our neighbours, fear of every other human being on the planet. According to that line of thinking the only way to allay those fears is to carry a loaded gun around with you, so the poor chap thinks, sad but true.

Once again Issy I have blasted you out of your foxhole on the gun issue!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Second Amendment. 1791.

"a uniform railway system
postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services.
Pensions" . Australian Constitution. 1901.

Paul1404,
As I said in earlier posts, just wait till you grow up & youll see things different !

Paul,

Battle casualties fell after the widespread use of the machine gun' that's why there are fewer firearm casualties in WWII than in WWI.

Many battles pre-MG had far more dead and less wounded than WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties

"Please note, unlike me, Issy is not willing to explain how his master plan of 'GUNS FOR SELF DEFENCE' would work. Everyone with a loaded gun 24/7 Dodge City revisited, that's it."

I have no master plan for self defence and challenge you to shew where I have ever said that everyone should be armed; one reference will be enough.

We still await your master plan and that of the Greens for the effective disarming of criminals.
Surely disarming the criminal should come before disarming the law abiding?

"Once again Issy I have blasted you out of your foxhole on the gun issue!"

Ha! Ha!

Issy I am flabbergasted you would say //Battle casualties fell after the widespread use of the machine gun' that's why there are fewer firearm casualties in WWII than in WWI.//

What a load of rubbish! I have made a reasonable study of WWI, it is of particular interest to me.

The machine gun was most effective in WWI, and was extensively deployed by both sides, known as the Vickers gun by the British and French, it was in service before WWI, up until the 1960's. The German equivalent was the MG 08, both based on the successful Maxim gun of the late 19th century.

First and foremost the reason for the extremely high causality rate in WWI was poor/outdated military tactics. Compounding the poor tactics was the problem of disease and badly ineffective causality treatment, men died from relatively minor wounds due to slow or non existent attention.

Those killed by direct fire, including bombardment, on the Western Front no less than one third were the result of machine gun fire. On the first day of the 1916 Battle of the Somme, the British Army sustained a causality rate of over 57,000, with 19,000 killed, most due to German machine gun fire as they tried to walk across no mans land with the objective of taking the German trenches. For the British a total military failure.

Dear mhaze,

Damn your comprehension has fallen off a cliff of late. The 'Civilian' police officers at Fort Hood were at work, on duty, and uniformed.

And to be saying off duty police officers were not police officers is just inane. Their skills, training and experience make them completely different to some ordinary citizen who has spent an hour or two if that at a range and are not somehow lost because they are out of uniform.

It is serving police officers who have been involved in incidents you are trying to portray as intervention by members of the public. It is both dishonest and deluded.

Time to stop.

Paul,

I said,

"Battle casualties fell after the widespread use of the machine gun that's why there are fewer firearm casualties in WWII than in WWI"

Thank you for proving my point.

The lessons of WWI were not lost on the soldiers of WWII.

I always get a grin out of watching the usual suspects try excusing the insanity that mass murder in America is
They must have had fun as kids with those cap guns blasting even mum and dad
However mass murder is not something we want here thankfully the big boys on both sides of politics know that

Steele,

"And to be saying off duty police officers were not police officers is just inane. Their skills, training and experience make them completely different to some ordinary citizen who has spent an hour or two if that at a range and are not somehow lost because they are out of uniform."

You are sadly misinformed re police skills versus civilian shooters, very few police ever enter competition pistol shooting and at least one pistol club has banned the police, as an organization, from using their range.

SR,

I'll keep repeating it in the hope that eventually you'll understand it. "That is, if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a mass shooting, you'd better hope that the citizens around you are armed because that's your best hope of survival. "

So it was about, it was always about, guns being on the scene as opposed to guns having to come to the scene of a mass shooting. If you don't get it I'm afraid there's really no simpler way for me to say it.

Apropos that issue, there's a saying that I think sums it up...
In situations where seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Oh BTW, did I mention that historically, as the number of guns increases, the number of homicides decreases. A little fact that many will try very hard to ignore.

Dear Is Mise,

What a completely ludicrous statement, even from the likes of you.

As much as you would like to fantasise about it targets on a range do not shoot back, nor do they through their behavior give clues to future actions, nor are they to be reasoned with.

Why are you even going there?

Issy, if guns are so safe, down at ye olde gunnie club why don't you start a competition where you shoot at each other. That will add a new dimension for you funsters. Last man standing wins.

Belly,

"However mass murder is not something we want here thankfully the big boys on both sides of politics know that"

Is that, in your opinion, why we haven't had mass murders since the advent of the "John Howard Gun Laws"?

Steele,

"Why are you even going there?"

Because I've seen the mess that police have left ranges in and the general lack of discipline exhibited.

Years ago, in the Defence Department, I was not only "Armourer on the Range" but conducted shoots (saves wages that way, multiskilling) and I had the opportunity to see police shooting and when they came to us they left much to be desired.
Wasn't their fault, it was just the poor training and lack of practice; I don't know what the regime is nowadays but I suspect that not many rounds are fired in practice.

I'd be willing to bet though that there are many civilian shooters who can run rings around most police no matter what the situation is, even with the targets shooting back.

I see Paul1405 is not giving up vying for that award !

Issy, when you were part of the Korean invasion force, did you not say you took a bullet to the head, from some poor Korean trying to defend his homeland. Was it a machine gun bullet? We are seeing the after effects of that shot now!

Would you like to see your motto "Machine Guns Save Lives" above the entrance to schools and also at the cemeteries where the victims of mass shootings are buried.

Indy has come out of his tree again, probably to collect his government handout from some hard working public servant.

Meanwhile in the real world....

"Gun sales surge fueled by first-timers, mostly for ‘concealed’ pistols"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/gun-sales-surge-fueled-by-first-timers-mostly-for-concealed-pistols

ise mise yet again mate, you seem to endlessly plow the field without the plow in toe
Simple most Australians are happy with our current gun laws
Most are confronted, confused and a bit disgusted with American mass murder
Now ask me force sources proof
But if you do not already know that what is the use?

Belly.

You said,
"However mass murder is not something we want here thankfully the big boys on both sides of politics know that"

and I asked you if that, in your opinion, was why we haven't had mass murders since the advent of the "John Howard Gun Laws"?

Could you not just simply answer the question?

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“That is, if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a mass shooting, you'd better hope that the citizens around you are armed because that's your best hope of survival.”

What you were implying was that it would be good to have eased gun laws so that ordinary members of the public can pull out their pistol and take out a killer armed with a AR-15 which is completely ludicrous and not bourne out by any facts at all.

You have now walked that back to include serving police officers in your definition.

Americans are unlucky enough to be involved in mass shootings at a higher rate than any other developed nation precisely because lax gun laws make it very easy for those with mass murder on their mind to arm themselves and carry out their atrocity.

You also claim;

“Oh BTW, did I mention that historically, as the number of guns increases, the number of homicides decreases. A little fact that many will try very hard to ignore.”

Absolute and utter hogwash.

Here is my opening source;

“We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.  These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.”
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries.  Journal of Trauma.  2000; 49:985-88

What's yours?

government handout from some hard working public servant.
PAUL1405,
Well, we can safely assume that you're not contributing !

"This is spreading globally and fast': Experts warn Australia could face US-style mass shootings as 'right-wing terrorism' becomes more prevalent
Expert has warned growing threat of US-style mass shootings in Australia
Chilling warning comes as threat of far-right wing terrorism spreads worldwide
Angelo Carusone used Christchurch massacre as example of growing threat"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7344203/Experts-warn-Australia-face-style-mass-shootings-right-wing-terrorism-prevalent.html

Can't happen here, John Howard made sure of that.

Issy, do we have agreement?

The gun lobby is working overtime to white-ant Australia's moderate gun laws. The Australian chapter of the NRA, the SSAA, along with the Australian arms dealers peak body (SIF) are pouring millions of dollars into extreme right wing political parties, like The Mad Katter's Australia Party, The racists One Nation Party and the crazy Shooters Party. The sole aim of these pro gun people is the weakening of gun laws, and an increase in gun ownership, American style. If these radical gunnies achieve their objective then there is an increasing likelihood that another Port Arthur style mass shooting could eventuate in Australia.

Thank you Issy, for alerting the good folk to the above possibility.

Oh! poor old Indy, are you still swinging of the government teat of largesse! I imagine you are. Like the last 48 years, I again paid income tax this year old fella, I bet you didn't. Still spouting that 7.5% hogwash to justify your tax grab?

Paul,

"The gun lobby is working overtime to white-ant Australia's moderate gun laws"

Just cut the waffle and give a reference to back up your ramblings.

Well Issy, the good folk can decide for themselves. Did the SSAA and SIF give millions to the gun happy fruit cakes of Australian politics for only the unrelated altruistic reason of wanting to see "good government" courtesy of these cornballs, or were their motives more sinister, that of wanting to undermine the status quo on gun laws. If you can give a satisfactory reason for their handing out millions to political lunatics which does not relate to what I have been saying, then I shall retract!

Now there's a more than fair offer. The balls in your court, or should I say the hand grenade is in your foxhole!

SR,

"You have now walked that back to include serving police officers in your definition."

I haven't walked anything back. I've been using the same words and even using the same quote from my first to last post. What has changed is that you've finally realised that what you assumed I said was different to what I actually said.

Speaking of which,..."Absolute and utter hogwash" ie that " as the number of guns increases, the number of homicides decreases".

The data I posted was about the USA over time (1994 to 2014) not about comparing countries in one period. Its an apples and oranges situation.

I hope I don't have to spend another dozen posts trying to get you to understand that what I wrote is different to what you think I wrote.

Paul,

Hard to find a reference is it?

Issy, are the facts about the gun nutters influencing Australian politicians to water down our moderate gun laws not enough for you, you want more!

Gun nutters at work; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2SQY0kR2V0

Issy, watch the YouTube to get the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2SQY0kR2V0

Paul,

Desperation?

No references, surely if the situations that you claim exist there must be one reference.

Issy, do you help train the mentally ill in the use of firearms as is the law in NSW these days, all thanks to political white-anting by the Shooters and Hooters party, of which you said you were a founding member.

Steele,

Just to remind you,

"What a completely ludicrous statement, even from the likes of you.

As much as you would like to fantasise about it targets on a range do not shoot back, nor do they through their behaviour give clues to future actions, nor are they to be reasoned with.

Why are you even going there?"

What a completely fatuous post, even from the likes of you.

All armed services start out shooting at targets and they do so to develop accuracy, shooting without accuracy is generally futile and in the case of police can be disastrous.

If a soldier misses and shoots a bystander that bystander is, 99% of the time an enemy so it's a plus.

If a policeman misses a criminal then the bystander 99.99% of the time will be an innocent citizen, hence the need for plenty of training in accurate pistol shooting for police.

Training for accuracy costs money, so most police forces in this country don't bother; what's a bit of collateral damage nows and then.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

"Oh BTW, did I mention that historically, as the number of guns increases, the number of homicides decreases."

And then claim;

"The data I posted was about the USA over time (1994 to 2014) not about comparing countries in one period."

Mate I don't know about you but I am an Australian and identify as such. I know Americans think they are the centre of the universe but if you want to make broad brush statements on an Australian site with the assumption people will assume it American you had better think again.

So are you going to give us a source for the assertion you have foisted on us or are you afraid it will get picked to pieces like the last couple of offerings you have dished up?

Paul,

Reference please.

Issy, its all in the YouTube, if you care to watch. The Shooters and Hooters Party cannot be trusted with gun laws. These people are known to say one thing for public consumption, but when given half a chance they are right in there white-anting our very moderate gun laws. In 2011 chief political gunnie in NSW, Bob Ballsup, told the SMH in an interview, Australia needed an American style organisation like the NRA, yet their political website claims not to support American style gun laws. What is it to be, an American style organisation which we have, its called the SSAA, but no American style gun laws? As I said the Shooters Party cannot be trusted!

Paul,

You apparently can't understand plain English.

Tell us one gun law that has been weakened?

I've said that I support our gun laws and the majority of shooters do likewise.
There are stupidities within the laws that need to be remedied but overall they are fine, their main failings are that they don't stop criminals and terrorists from getting arms.

Never mind all the funny videos just give a solid plain reference that we can read.

The Shooters Party NSW, with the support of Labor was able to get gun licence laws changed. Their legislation made it no longer a requirement that a person go through a licence check before beginning so called "training" in the use of a hand gun. A mentally ill women, Shamin Fernando (something else the shooters oppose, mental health checks) did exactly that. Ms Fernando joined the infamous SSAA operated St Mary's Gun Club, the same club that trained the child killer John Edwards. The mentally ill women proceed to use a hand gun from the club to shoot dead her father, Vincent Fernando.

News item; "A WOMAN who took a pistol from her gun club before shooting her father at her home was found not guilty of his murder on grounds of mental illness yesterday.
Members of the Sydney Pistol Club rang police at 3.12pm on August 22, 2010, to report the missing gun. Ms Fernando rang police just two minutes later confessing to having shot her father, Vincent Fernando.
She shot her father with a Ruger pistol after luring him to her Glebe home, the NSW Supreme Court heard.
Asked why she had invited him round on the pretext of having him load software on to her computer, she replied: "If I asked him to come round so I could shoot him I don't think he'd come."

Suck on that one Issy!

Paul,

Is that all that you can come up with?

Where are the references to changing the gun laws for the worst?

You haven't found a reference in ages; even after you said that I favoured arming everyone, when challenged to give proof you ran, as usual.

I will give you the reference in capital letters;
VINCENT FERNANDO!

The fact is it was Shooters Party legislation introduced into the NSW Parliament, supported by the governing Labor Party, which allowed for the weakening of gun laws. The legislation removed the requirement for a person to firstly obtain a gun licence before the commencement of so called training in the use of a hand gun. Shamin Fernando got a hand gun, no licence, joined your piss weak gun club, and then proceed to murder her father Vincent Fernando. All with the help of the Shooters Party legislative changes!

Paul,

That is not a reference to changing the gun laws that is a reference to one particular unfortunate instance and has more to do with negligence on the part of a club official than changes in gun laws.

So give a reference to where the gun laws have been changed so as to weaken them.

The SF&F Party don't put the safety of chooks above the safety of women as the Greens do, and note that I have referenced that fact, chapter and verse.

Come on Issy, where are chooks mentioned!

Go to the NSW Legislative Council Hansard and read of the watering down of gun laws by the Shooters Party. One day you required a vigorous licence check before beginning so called "training" in the use of a hand gun from the drop kicks down at the notorious SSAA St Marys Shooting Gallery, the next day it was "training" of all commers, including a mentally ill woman, who thanks to their assistance, shot and killed her father!

Typical gunnie attitude; "Oh, well, its just unfortunate, tut tut."

Paul,

Just give a reference to one example of watering down the gun laws.

Don't you remember where I PROVED (and with appropriate references) that the Greens have more consideration for the safety of chooks than women farmers (or any other farmers, for that matter)?

Why are you putting training in parenthesis?

Or are you referring to the system where an interested person can try shooting to see if they like it without going through the hoops and then finding out that they are not really interested?

Saves a lot of time and money, particularly police time.

I'd call it strengthening the law as it shews the law to be reasonable.

SR,

" if you want to make broad brush statements on an Australian site with the assumption people will assume it American you had better think again.

When I wrote "In 1994 in the USA:" and "In 2014 in the USA:" in a thread about "Mass Shootings In America" its not so easy to understand how you could confuse that with data about Australia. Still we are talking about SR here, so any misconstruing of posts is possible.

With no mental health checks required, the majority of gun club members are neanderthdic like knuckle draggers, running around dressed up pretending to be Rambo. Get a go at em, in flak jackets and phoney army fatigues, they look more like Gomer Pyle than Sylvester Stallone.

The cold blooded murder of Vincent Fernando is nothing more than an "unfortunate instance" according to Issy. Like in the John Edwards unfortunate instance, the same morons were responsible for the Shamin Fernando unfortunate instance.

Issy how many more unfortunate instances will have to occur before we take the guns away?

California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds...

http://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/

Paul,

You really are stuck for something to back up your simplistic and stupid allegations.

When are you going to shew some evidence to back your accusation that I think everyone should be armed with guns?

Can't do it, can you?

it's like all of your other allegations, just shew us one instance where the gun laws have been weakened?

The shooting fraternity needs political clout to protect them from the mindless machinations of the Greens and their running mates, the three members of Gun Control Australia.

Tell me, Paul, when the Shooters' Party tried to toughen the gun laws why did the Greens oppose the move?

mhaze, what about this in your article;

Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis professor of emergency medicine and senior author of the study, said incomplete data and flawed criminal record reporting might explain the results.

Wintemute noted:

In 1990, only 25 percent of criminal records were accessible in the primary federal database used for background checks, and centralized records of mental health prohibitions were almost nonexistent.

As a result, researchers said as many as one in four gun buyers may have purchased a firearm without undergoing a background check.

Issy, what's with the US, the only one questioning the material I have presented is YOU!

Firstly there was your ludicrous claim that "Machine guns save lives!" utter nonsense. Now please explain what an "unfortunate instance" is as it pertains to the gun freekies, and gunnies killing innocent people.

Again I have been on target, hitting the bulls eye time and again, whilst you my forum friend, have managed to shoot yourself in the foot over and over.

Paul,

Any assessment of the result of the use of machine guns in WWI shews that in WWII fewer soldiers died, and that was a result of improved tactical defence against machine guns, hence the introduction of MGs saved lives.
The tragic loss of lives that you mention was due to human errors and not due to any weakening of the law.

You cannot shew where the law was weakened.

"Again I have been on target, hitting the bulls eye time and again, whilst you my forum friend, have managed to shoot yourself in the foot over and over."

Keep repeating that bulldust enough and you'll start to believe it yourself.

Bye the way, how many lives were lost in the 'Black Saturday' bushfires, due to the Brumby Government pandering to the Greens?

Some would say all of them.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/07/defining-the-greens-part-16-and-bushfires/

Issy,

In the words of the immortal Barb! BOLLOCKS!

Life jackets save lives, medicines save lives, MACHINE GUNS take lives.
When a gunnie says "machine guns save lives" he wants us to believe his perverted logic, that all guns save lives. The extrapolation from that bit of nonsense is the more guns in the community, the more lives that are saved.
The more extreme in the gun lobby do not want to arm the whole community, far from it, although they prattle on about universal self defence. What they really want is an armed private army under their control, black shirts, brown shirts. This citizens militia of their's would be made up of well armed extremists thugs, an armed mob of radical goons, to deal with those that they perceive as the enemy of their new order! I recall a previous OLO poster, an extreme right wing gunnie, who advocated exactly that.
Issy, I know you are a somewhat moderate chap, and you would never advocate a goon squad to control the population, now would you?

Paul,

Just one little reference to or an example of weakened gun laws.

I know Issy you are one of the few moderate gunnies, and you have to cover for the lunatic element within, understandable. BTW what is you estimate of the number of knuckle draggers in your own club? 30%, 50% no, I know, 99%.

Paul,

Your desperation is rather obvious, so I won't ask for any references to your allegations, I'll just take it as read that you are at a complete loss.

Did you know that the poorer people in rural communities can no longer collect firewood from the dead timber at the side of the roads, the wood must be left to ensure that any future bush fires in the area will have more fuel?
This is another Green initiative.

Issy, since we are off with the fairies, and making up stories. Did you know its a Shooters and Hooters initiative that all persons carry a gun in case they should stumble across a stray koala that need exterminating!

"the poorer people in rural communities can no longer collect firewood" Does than mean the richer people still can?

Did you check the NSW Hansard for that reference, did you read the stories about those murderers trained at a SSAA shooting gallery.

Synoniymous with dribble, Paul.

Issy, now calling the parliamentary Hansard dribble. As a big wheel in the SSAA, up there with tthe wombat killer himself, were you not familiar with John Edwards and Shamin Fernando? The phyco killers of two children and an old man. You know the ones, what you call an "unfortunate incident"! I call that sickening.

Redeem yourself before its too late, and you join the other 99% of lunatic gunnies.

BTW, I bet you have one or two of those phoney flack jackets, and camouflage jarmies in your basement dug out, the stuff you guys wear to clubby get together's where you all pop your pistils.

Paul,

Grow up.

Final transmission to the red algae masquerading as Green slime on the surface of the tranquil pool of Australian society.

Hi Issy,
Not wishing to get under your skin, or ruffle your feathers as this issue so often does. For that my forum friend I apologise. I know we don't see eye to eye on the gun issue, but I do believe your are a moderate and are as appalled as to what happens with people and guns as I am. Yes an admission on my part, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The truth is people are far more dangerous than guns.