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.