RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Australian police foil New Year’s Eve terror - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Australian police foil New Year’s Eve terror Rate Topic: -----

#41 User is offline   SARGE 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 9,643
  • Joined: 26-June 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:23 PM

View Postscotsman, on 03 December 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

Thanks for the link., Had heard/remember a couple, not the others.

TBH, it still does not invalidate what I say. The fact is that, sadly, since the 70s and esp the 80s, the US has seen dozens upon dozens of mass/spree shootings. From Whitman and Spencer to Las Vegas. For every one of those 12 (brave people), there are several mass shootings where nobody stopped it. Where there was nobody to get out their .38 or .45.

In other words, as said, in 95-99% of such incidents, Americans are as helpless as the average Brit, Yooro, Canuck and Aussie. And as reliant on the good men and women in uniform.



I love the notion of saving the day at a strip club lol. I know what my reward would be lol.



Sadly, that's all to true.

There are more than the twelve.

Many mass shootings occur in 'gun free zones' - places where licensed permit holders are not allowed to carry. Terrorists and nutballs often choose these places.

Only 5% of the US population is licensed to carry. I carry to protect me and mine. I am not a police officer. I will not run towards the gun fire, but if confronted, I have the ability to put as many rounds as is necessary to center mass to neutralize the threat.
0

#42 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,250
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 04:20 AM

View Postscotsman, on 03 December 2017 - 06:03 AM, said:

I am clearly venting on a general basis. Millions of words did I read post-Rigby, Nice and other incidents from the John Wayne/Dirty Harry wannabes moaning about how the Limeys and Yooros didn't just get our their 45's and blast away.


Then please pick a post or a poster that has actually done that or says those things to respond to.

Thanks.
0

#43 User is offline   vectorsrule 

  • Fear is excitement in need of an attitude adjustment
  • Group: Platinum
  • Posts: 4,083
  • Joined: 28-August 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 10:43 AM

Quote

How many terrorists have US gun owners stopped?. How many mass/spree shooters have US owners stopped?. Answer: none and few.


The answer is a LOT. I'm tired of doing your research for you. The latest case was the Texas church shooting. Dude, you really need to do a google search before putting this stuff out. None, really? The press is against guns so the information is hard to find. However, the answer would be a lot more if everyone carried. They don't. Also, if I was close to a shooting I would not use my firearm to save other people for a number of reasons. The first being, the cops would likely think I am the shooter. So I would back away and save those I could. Plus, if anything goes wrong I know the very liberal local govt I live in would blame me first, not the actual shooter.

The main reason why CCW holders don't stop MASS shootings, is because it is illegal to carry your gun to a place where there is an organized MASS of people. I can't carry it to a concert, theater, school, parade, or political event. That is where these shootings are happening, BECAUSE THEY KNOW EVERYONE IS DISARMED!!! SO OF COURSE PRIVATE GUN OWNERS CAN'T STOP THESE SHOOTING. Did you even know that? You know a LOT less than you think you do.

The last research I did for Oz, you can't own what liberals call an assault rifle. If you can't own what the government owns in small arms, it's a ban. Just like Oki said, go argue with a black person in the US that a poll tax is not a tax to prevent certain people from voting. Good luck with that.

0

#44 User is offline   vectorsrule 

  • Fear is excitement in need of an attitude adjustment
  • Group: Platinum
  • Posts: 4,083
  • Joined: 28-August 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 10:44 AM

View Postscotsman, on 01 December 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

You an Aussie?. No.
Ever been there?. No.

Neither am I, even though I have been there.


So why don't we ask my cousins in Gunning, 40m north of Sydney. Who ARE Aussies and gun owners at that. Who are farmers, but also members of the local gun club and own several guns. I know, I handled and fired them in 2001!.


Yes, I lived in and worked in Australia for and have dual citizenship and a Australian taxpayer number. This is the third time I have proven you wrong, yet you never get tired of thinking you know more than you do smartass. I tired to meet you half way, the fact is you can only own a gun based on the laws that I read if you show "need," and you can't own military rifles. By most REASONABLE standards most people would call that a ban. but you can own some, I tried to concede that to you and all you want to do is be right and snarky. I don't have time to waste on your immaturity after your last post. PS 2001 is 16 years ago, what are the laws now? That is the topic.

This post has been edited by vectorsrule: 04 December 2017 - 11:19 AM

0

#45 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 04 December 2017 - 12:25 PM

View Postscotsman, on 03 December 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

Thanks for the link., Had heard/remember a couple, not the others.

TBH, it still does not invalidate what I say. The fact is that, sadly, since the 70s and esp the 80s, the US has seen dozens upon dozens of mass/spree shootings. From Whitman and Spencer to Las Vegas. For every one of those 12 (brave people), there are several mass shootings where nobody stopped it. Where there was nobody to get out their .38 or .45.

In other words, as said, in 95-99% of such incidents, Americans are as helpless as the average Brit, Yooro, Canuck and Aussie. And as reliant on the good men and women in uniform.



I love the notion of saving the day at a strip club lol. I know what my reward would be lol.


And how many of those shootings happened in a place where people could legally carry a firearm? Truth is mass shootings tend to be stopped as soon as the S.O.B. starts shooting. So in effect it DOESN'T turn into a mass shooting and is reported as such. Case in point, a few years back their was a 'Draw Mohamed' contest held in Texas(I forget where) well a couple of little Jihadi wanna' be types didn't like this idea so they drove well over a thousand miles to teach the infidels a lesson. Just so happened that the person working security was a retired cop and was armed.

As soon as they got out and opened fire he returned fire killing both of them. The fact that he was a retired cop is largely irrelevant, what is relevant is that there was an armed person there and it stopped a mass shooting before it even started.

Here is a link which proves exactly what I have just stated.


https://www.washingt...m=.2ae191771283


1. In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”

2. In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”

3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.

5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.

6. In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

7. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

8. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).

9. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.


And more
http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Like I said, you just don't hear about it because typically the shooter is taken out before the numbers are high enough to make the news.

If something is so highly regulated, controlled or made expensive in an effort to PREVENT nearly all law abiding people from owning something, how does this not in effect perform the function of a ban? Does it not cause criminals to assume the the chances of trying to harm a law abiding gun owner are so remote they don't need to worry about it?

Truth is the vast majority of ALL GUN CRIME in this country happens in places where the laws are the strictest. If it was a problem with guns being to easy to get then why do places like Green Bay Wisconsin, Bismarck N.D. or Kennesaw Georgia have much much lower problems then say Milwaukee Wisconsin? Same state same laws. Or, why does Chicago have a much bigger issue with murder then Kennesaw Georgia? If access to guns where the problem then Kennesaw should be much higher(statistically) then Chicago. Truth is Kennesaw has a murder rate better then even London or Tokyo.
It's relevant because they have an 'ordinance' which requires all households(unless you are a felon) to own at least one working firearm.

I saw 'ordinance' because it's largely symbolic and unforced. 30 some years ago they where experiencing very large spikes in crime(largely criminals coming from Atlanta to prey on a small town) and decided on putting the ordinance in as to let criminals know the little town wasn't going to take it anymore. The end result? No shoot outs, no blood in the streets, no mass carnage like predicted. And, an annual murder rate of less than 1 a year. In fact, the town is about 35 thousand people and there has been about 10 or 12 murders in the 30 years since the ordinances passing. If I remember right only 6 where even with a firearm.

Know where in Japan can even boast that. Much less in the U.S. or anywhere with strict gun control laws.

Oki
0

#46 User is offline   vectorsrule 

  • Fear is excitement in need of an attitude adjustment
  • Group: Platinum
  • Posts: 4,083
  • Joined: 28-August 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 03:54 PM

Great reply Oki. Here are the money quotes from you.

Quote

Truth is mass shootings tend to be stopped as soon as the S.O.B. starts shooting. So in effect it DOESN'T turn into a mass shooting and is reported as such

Quote

Truth is the vast majority of ALL GUN CRIME in this country happens in places where the laws are the strictest.

Quote

If something is so highly regulated, controlled or made expensive in an effort to PREVENT nearly all law abiding people from owning something, how does this not in effect perform the function of a ban?


Scotsman doesn't want a conversation, he wants to be right at all costs. As I pointed out as well, I can't carry in all the places the mass shootings have happened, and then he wants to use the fact that carry conceal people aren't saving people from mass shootings, well duh. As a law abiding citizen I follow the law. Criminals don't.

Also to your point Oki, I saw a NRA article pointing out the same data you point out above. Where there was a CCW holder who stopped a mass shooting, they The press/govt. didn't want it to count it as a mass shooting, because not enough people were shot. So in other words the CCW holder looks like he makes no difference. But only because they shot a guy who only killed 1-2 people, not 20-30 which would have happened. It is because how they slice the data, not what actually happened.

Either way, the left wants to make gun owners look 1) Ineffective while at the same time wants them to look 2) Dangerous

0

#47 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 04 December 2017 - 04:23 PM

View Postvectorsrule, on 04 December 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Great reply Oki. Here are the money quotes from you.





Scotsman doesn't want a conversation, he wants to be right at all costs. As I pointed out as well, I can't carry in all the places the mass shootings have happened, and then he wants to use the fact that carry conceal people aren't saving people from mass shootings, well duh. As a law abiding citizen I follow the law. Criminals don't.

Also to your point Oki, I saw a NRA article pointing out the same data you point out above. Where there was a CCW holder who stopped a mass shooting, they The press/govt. didn't want it to count it as a mass shooting, because not enough people were shot. So in other words the CCW holder looks like he makes no difference. But only because they shot a guy who only killed 1-2 people, not 20-30 which would have happened. It is because how they slice the data, not what actually happened.

Either way, the left wants to make gun owners look 1) Ineffective while at the same time wants them to look 2) Dangerous




Thanks, to be honest I actually like Scottsman, but, like so many I think he is unable to see the entire picture. Not because of a bias, but simply because of distance, how stuff is reported, and not seeing things first hand. Kinda' like if I stated Haggis is a public health hazard and started listing all the people who got sick from it, why it's banned in X nation etc. All the while not knowing that if it's prepared properly it's not a problem.

Thing is many of the nations which brag about not having a gun or violence problem don't have violence problems to begin with. Keeping criminals and crazies of the streets, thug life not being glamorized has that effect. Those two things right there would eliminate damn near all of the violence in this country, not just gun related violence. But, for the anti gun types it's far easier to blame an intimate object then it is to deal with the human problem.

One of the best examples of how it's a people problem and not access to guns is actually NOT CHICAGO. It's Milwaukee, per capita they have a higher murder rate then even Chicago(I know hard to believe). Wisconsin is a state of about 5.5 million people. Milwaukee is the largest city with about 600,000. I believe for 2016 there where 140 reported murders, most of which where with a firearm(link).
http://www.city-data...-Wisconsin.html


The city of Green Bay which is about 114,000 racked up at most 3 murders for all of last year. The entire state had about 240 murders for 2016
https://www.neighbor...ut.com/wi/crime
Begs the question how can one city which doesn't even about for %10 of the population have over half the murders if it's an access to guns issue.
Shouldn't the problem exist in all areas then? Truth it doesn't because it's a problem that starts at the individual human level.
Plus, if it was due to 'poverty' then why didn't we have the insaine murder rate of today in the 1930's during the Depression? Certainly poverty was much more rampant and worse then vs know, especially amongst minorities, gun laws, what gun laws? There was no backgrounds checks, waiting periods, bans on this or that, not sure but I don't think there was even a minimum age to purchase a firearm at that time.

That right there blows away(pun intended) the whole it's an access to guns issue B.S as well. Plus, as I have pointed out before if that was the case areas of this country with less strict laws should have much higher rates of not just 'gun violence' but also violent crimes in general. Truth is their lower. As I asked before, in which city could a criminal assume a potential victim to not be armed. Tokyo, New York City, or Green Bay Wisconsin.

Instead of coddling the criminals and doping up the crazies(or making people crazy from the crap), start punishing the criminals and putting the crazies in the hospital. Per laws and regulation. Laws and regulation serve only two purposes, to give government more control of something or to make money. When a law becomes so strict as to INTENTIONALLY PREVENT law abiding people from owning or doing something or makes it very uncommon it in effect performs the function of an outright ban. This is why criminals can safely assume victims won't be armed in places such as Chicago and New York City.


Sorry for the long response, but this is a hot button topic for me.

Oki

This post has been edited by oki: 04 December 2017 - 04:25 PM

0

#48 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 08:45 AM

View Postoki, on 04 December 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

Thanks, to be honest I actually like Scottsman, but, like so many I think he is unable to see the entire picture. Not because of a bias, but simply because of distance, how stuff is reported, and not seeing things first hand. Kinda' like if I stated Haggis is a public health hazard and started listing all the people who got sick from it, why it's banned in X nation etc. All the while not knowing that if it's prepared properly it's not a problem.

Thing is many of the nations which brag about not having a gun or violence problem don't have violence problems to begin with. Keeping criminals and crazies of the streets, thug life not being glamorized has that effect. Those two things right there would eliminate damn near all of the violence in this country, not just gun related violence. But, for the anti gun types it's far easier to blame an intimate object then it is to deal with the human problem.

One of the best examples of how it's a people problem and not access to guns is actually NOT CHICAGO. It's Milwaukee, per capita they have a higher murder rate then even Chicago(I know hard to believe). Wisconsin is a state of about 5.5 million people. Milwaukee is the largest city with about 600,000. I believe for 2016 there where 140 reported murders, most of which where with a firearm(link).
http://www.city-data...-Wisconsin.html


The city of Green Bay which is about 114,000 racked up at most 3 murders for all of last year. The entire state had about 240 murders for 2016
https://www.neighbor...ut.com/wi/crime
Begs the question how can one city which doesn't even about for %10 of the population have over half the murders if it's an access to guns issue.
Shouldn't the problem exist in all areas then? Truth it doesn't because it's a problem that starts at the individual human level.
Plus, if it was due to 'poverty' then why didn't we have the insaine murder rate of today in the 1930's during the Depression? Certainly poverty was much more rampant and worse then vs know, especially amongst minorities, gun laws, what gun laws? There was no backgrounds checks, waiting periods, bans on this or that, not sure but I don't think there was even a minimum age to purchase a firearm at that time.

That right there blows away(pun intended) the whole it's an access to guns issue B.S as well. Plus, as I have pointed out before if that was the case areas of this country with less strict laws should have much higher rates of not just 'gun violence' but also violent crimes in general. Truth is their lower. As I asked before, in which city could a criminal assume a potential victim to not be armed. Tokyo, New York City, or Green Bay Wisconsin.

Instead of coddling the criminals and doping up the crazies(or making people crazy from the crap), start punishing the criminals and putting the crazies in the hospital. Per laws and regulation. Laws and regulation serve only two purposes, to give government more control of something or to make money. When a law becomes so strict as to INTENTIONALLY PREVENT law abiding people from owning or doing something or makes it very uncommon it in effect performs the function of an outright ban. This is why criminals can safely assume victims won't be armed in places such as Chicago and New York City.


Sorry for the long response, but this is a hot button topic for me.

Oki


Excuse me, but I am the one pointing out that a claim made by vector is not true. I am not the one doing the gymnastics to try and prove I am right. He made a blanket statement which is wrong. Australia has not banned guns, it has banned some and (we all agree) enacted bad, kneejerk laws (as the UK did in 1997), BUT many Australians still own guns and in fact in some areas, gun ownership is UP.

I am not the one claiming something that obviously isn't true. Had he made that statement sarcastically or had a dig at the Aussies for bad laws and a kneejerk response, we would be having this tete a tete, as we'd all agree. As would my Aussie cousins. Who were horrified by Port Arthur, but equally horrified at the kneejerk, ill thought out law changes.
0

#49 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 08:57 AM

View Postvectorsrule, on 04 December 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

The answer is a LOT. I'm tired of doing your research for you. The latest case was the Texas church shooting. Dude, you really need to do a google search before putting this stuff out. None, really? The press is against guns so the information is hard to find. However, the answer would be a lot more if everyone carried. They don't. Also, if I was close to a shooting I would not use my firearm to save other people for a number of reasons. The first being, the cops would likely think I am the shooter. So I would back away and save those I could. Plus, if anything goes wrong I know the very liberal local govt I live in would blame me first, not the actual shooter.

The main reason why CCW holders don't stop MASS shootings, is because it is illegal to carry your gun to a place where there is an organized MASS of people. I can't carry it to a concert, theater, school, parade, or political event. That is where these shootings are happening, BECAUSE THEY KNOW EVERYONE IS DISARMED!!! SO OF COURSE PRIVATE GUN OWNERS CAN'T STOP THESE SHOOTING. Did you even know that? You know a LOT less than you think you do.

The last research I did for Oz, you can't own what liberals call an assault rifle. If you can't own what the government owns in small arms, it's a ban. Just like Oki said, go argue with a black person in the US that a poll tax is not a tax to prevent certain people from voting. Good luck with that.



1--I assume you can read, yes?. Then you know the reference to none was to terrorism. I said none and few: two points to two types of incident. None referred to the former. Nobody in the US has stopped a terrorist attack due to CC or getting their guns.

As to mass/spree shooters, we have just discussed that. SARGE very kindly posted the link of 12 brave people who did. And I thanked him for that. SARGE also agreed with me, that those 12 are sadly a minority (I DID say few and in the context of many shootings, 12 IS few), and that for every brave '12', there are many more shootings that sadly don't get stopped by Joe Public and their arms.

2-NO, that's YOUR interpretation. One I don't agree with. And one your fellow Americans may not either.

You stated, in seriousness, that Australia has banned guns. They haven't. You may not like their gun laws, their kneejerk reaction to Port Arthur, their attitude to guns. But you made a serious blanket statement that simply isn't true. Australia has (wrongly) banned certain types of guns. BUT it hasn't banned them. In fact, gun ownership is UP in certain territories like NSW, which is my cousins area. My own cousins now own more guns than they did in 2001.

As I said, if you has posted that comment sarcastically, we'd all have clapped and moved on. But you made the statement seriously. Sorry, but I have to challenge it.

There is a straight parallel with the UK, my own country. We haven't banned guns. 2m legal guns. Bad laws, yes. Laws you'd absolutely hate, yes. Laws I hate, yes. BUT even though we have banned some guns, its still legal to own (most) guns in the UK and there is a healthy community here inc myself that does so and shoots every day, every week. And seeks to repeal some of the bad laws. The UK has banned guns?. No. And its the same for Australia.
0

#50 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:04 AM

View Postvectorsrule, on 04 December 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

Yes, I lived in and worked in Australia for and have dual citizenship and a Australian taxpayer number. This is the third time I have proven you wrong, yet you never get tired of thinking you know more than you do smartass. I tired to meet you half way, the fact is you can only own a gun based on the laws that I read if you show "need," and you can't own military rifles. By most REASONABLE standards most people would call that a ban. but you can own some, I tried to concede that to you and all you want to do is be right and snarky. I don't have time to waste on your immaturity after your last post. PS 2001 is 16 years ago, what are the laws now? That is the topic.


You have proven me nothing. You made a blanket statement that's false. That's the only fact here.

Now you have retorted with arguments which are your interpretation. Nothing more. They are not facts, but your interpretation of bad laws.

Why am I debating this like a dog with a bone and being Mr Pedantic?. Simple. Many Americans get their UK/Aust knowledge second hand and many believe that the UK or Australia or Yooro countries have banned guns. All guns. Nae guns. None. Zip. Nada. So its important for this non-American to point out these myths ever time I see them. Feel free to counter if I post US myths. Unlike you, I will happily apologise if I am wrong. As SARGE pointed out to me over the weekend that I was partly-wrong re mass/spree attacks, and I enjoyed his link, even if we both agreed that overall it didn't invalidate my overall argument.

Immaturity?. Play the ball, not the man.
0

#51 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:07 AM

View Postvectorsrule, on 04 December 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Great reply Oki. Here are the money quotes from you.





Scotsman doesn't want a conversation, he wants to be right at all costs. As I pointed out as well, I can't carry in all the places the mass shootings have happened, and then he wants to use the fact that carry conceal people aren't saving people from mass shootings, well duh. As a law abiding citizen I follow the law. Criminals don't.

Also to your point Oki, I saw a NRA article pointing out the same data you point out above. Where there was a CCW holder who stopped a mass shooting, they The press/govt. didn't want it to count it as a mass shooting, because not enough people were shot. So in other words the CCW holder looks like he makes no difference. But only because they shot a guy who only killed 1-2 people, not 20-30 which would have happened. It is because how they slice the data, not what actually happened.

Either way, the left wants to make gun owners look 1) Ineffective while at the same time wants them to look 2) Dangerous



Nope. I was happy to take SARGE's reply on board for example. Again, YOU made a blanket statement that simply is false. Not me. I said guns are not banned in Australia, in that I am the one that's correct. That not being an arse, not being snarky. I am simply correcting you. Nothing more. And nothing personal. I debate you as I would I would debate anyone here.
0

#52 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:10 AM

View Postoki, on 04 December 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

And how many of those shootings happened in a place where people could legally carry a firearm? Truth is mass shootings tend to be stopped as soon as the S.O.B. starts shooting. So in effect it DOESN'T turn into a mass shooting and is reported as such. Case in point, a few years back their was a 'Draw Mohamed' contest held in Texas(I forget where) well a couple of little Jihadi wanna' be types didn't like this idea so they drove well over a thousand miles to teach the infidels a lesson. Just so happened that the person working security was a retired cop and was armed.

As soon as they got out and opened fire he returned fire killing both of them. The fact that he was a retired cop is largely irrelevant, what is relevant is that there was an armed person there and it stopped a mass shooting before it even started.

Here is a link which proves exactly what I have just stated.


https://www.washingt...m=.2ae191771283


1. In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”

2. In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”

3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.

5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.

6. In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

7. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

8. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).

9. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.


And more
http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Like I said, you just don't hear about it because typically the shooter is taken out before the numbers are high enough to make the news.

If something is so highly regulated, controlled or made expensive in an effort to PREVENT nearly all law abiding people from owning something, how does this not in effect perform the function of a ban? Does it not cause criminals to assume the the chances of trying to harm a law abiding gun owner are so remote they don't need to worry about it?

Truth is the vast majority of ALL GUN CRIME in this country happens in places where the laws are the strictest. If it was a problem with guns being to easy to get then why do places like Green Bay Wisconsin, Bismarck N.D. or Kennesaw Georgia have much much lower problems then say Milwaukee Wisconsin? Same state same laws. Or, why does Chicago have a much bigger issue with murder then Kennesaw Georgia? If access to guns where the problem then Kennesaw should be much higher(statistically) then Chicago. Truth is Kennesaw has a murder rate better then even London or Tokyo.
It's relevant because they have an 'ordinance' which requires all households(unless you are a felon) to own at least one working firearm.

I saw 'ordinance' because it's largely symbolic and unforced. 30 some years ago they where experiencing very large spikes in crime(largely criminals coming from Atlanta to prey on a small town) and decided on putting the ordinance in as to let criminals know the little town wasn't going to take it anymore. The end result? No shoot outs, no blood in the streets, no mass carnage like predicted. And, an annual murder rate of less than 1 a year. In fact, the town is about 35 thousand people and there has been about 10 or 12 murders in the 30 years since the ordinances passing. If I remember right only 6 where even with a firearm.

Know where in Japan can even boast that. Much less in the U.S. or anywhere with strict gun control laws.

Oki


I enjoy your posts, Oki. Your grasp of the issue is almost savant. You are like a Rainman with guns, lol. Seriously, I always enjoy your posts on the gun issue.

I wish Vector would realise that I am a UK gun owner and pro-gun since I was 14. We are all on the same team here.
0

#53 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:14 AM

View Postscotsman, on 05 December 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

Excuse me, but I am the one pointing out that a claim made by vector is not true. I am not the one doing the gymnastics to try and prove I am right. He made a blanket statement which is wrong. Australia has not banned guns, it has banned some and (we all agree) enacted bad, kneejerk laws (as the UK did in 1997), BUT many Australians still own guns and in fact in some areas, gun ownership is UP.

I am not the one claiming something that obviously isn't true. Had he made that statement sarcastically or had a dig at the Aussies for bad laws and a kneejerk response, we would be having this tete a tete, as we'd all agree. As would my Aussie cousins. Who were horrified by Port Arthur, but equally horrified at the kneejerk, ill thought out law changes.



Not a ban as in unable to legally have, but laws which have made legal ownership difficult enough that a criminal can safely assume their victims do not have a gun. As far as effect, that is essentially a ban. IN some areas ownership may be up, but when it's already rock bottom it can only go up.
Yet again, where a criminal safely assume a victim to be un armed? London, Tokyo, New York City, Chicago, or Green Bay WI?

As far as laws go and bans, the reason the founders of this nation enacted the 2nd Amendment was to make sure government could not take away our firearms. They understood that ANY GOVERNMENT over time or overnight could become tyrannical and oppressive. They understood the only way to prevent this was to make sure the people where armed. Literally they wanted Government to be afraid of the people, not people afraid of the Government.
All this is found in the opinions and writings of the very people who wrote the American Constitution, is not hearsay or the writings of some fringe gun nut.
Unlike other nations where need to prove a reason and that you are not a threat to the Governments satisfaction, here it's the opposite. THEY THE GOVERNMENT need to prove a reason why you cannot have a gun before denying you this right(at least in states which actually follow the Constitution). Those states and cities have a proven track of both less Gun Violence as well as violence in general.

Just as I shouldn't judge all of France by Paris, or all of the U.K. by London, no one should judge all the U.S. by Chicago, Los Angeles or New York City. There are numerous parts of the United States which are just as safe or safer then anywhere in the world. As well, there have been numerous times where law abiding gun owners stopped mass shooters. I posted links as did others, as well one of the most famous happened in Texas in the 1960's.
https://www.nplainfi...ityoftexas.html
Notice it wasn't the Police who stopped the carnage, it was students, staff and civilians who retrieved their own guns. No, they didn't kill him, but their shots pinned his psycho ass down enough not allowing forcing him to find cover but allowing officers the chance to enter the tower, climb the stairs and take him down.

There have been countless times where an armed civilian stopped a mass shooting, like I said, sadly not enough people died to get the medias attention so in their eyes no mass shooting was ever stopped.

Oki
0

#54 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:20 AM

View Postvectorsrule, on 04 December 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

Yes, I lived in and worked in Australia for and have dual citizenship and a Australian taxpayer number. This is the third time I have proven you wrong, yet you never get tired of thinking you know more than you do smartass. I tired to meet you half way, the fact is you can only own a gun based on the laws that I read if you show "need," and you can't own military rifles. By most REASONABLE standards most people would call that a ban. but you can own some, I tried to concede that to you and all you want to do is be right and snarky. I don't have time to waste on your immaturity after your last post. PS 2001 is 16 years ago, what are the laws now? That is the topic.


In my time in the UK military, I fired a Sterling 9mm, FLN, SA80, Browning Hi-Power, L7 Gimpy, and even the Milan missile amongst others. I wish I had them as home defence, lol.
But seriously, no, I wouldn't want certain military weapons as part of the UK public gun arsenal.

In the UK, we have 'straight pull' versions of AR15's, AK47's etc. I think that's enough. The vast majority, even pre 1997, of UK guns were and are rifles and shotguns. Handguns were a minority and pre 1988, and their post Hungerford ban, the amount of 80s Brits with an assault weapon, could have been crammed into an old British red phone box.
0

#55 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:25 AM

View Postscotsman, on 05 December 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

I enjoy your posts, Oki. Your grasp of the issue is almost savant. You are like a Rainman with guns, lol. Seriously, I always enjoy your posts on the gun issue.

I wish Vector would realise that I am a UK gun owner and pro-gun since I was 14. We are all on the same team here.


Part of the problem is there a lot of Gun owners think ownership gives them some type of knowledge, or people who lie about even owning a gun in order to look smart or try to gain some type of acceptance or credit with gun owners. Very similar to someone who owns an economy car talking about how no one needs a truck/lorry or how sports cars are useless and thus should be banned, then says well I own a car so I am just as knowledgeable on the subject.

As well a lot of people will claim to be Pro Gun but are still more than willing to continually give up bits and pieces of ownership rights, agree to further restrictions and even outright bans. Their belief is that since you can own 'a gun' but not 'that gun' it's okay. Time and again we have seen what happens when you give up one bit or piece, sooner or later it leads to another and then another and then another. It's a piecemeal approach.

Oki
0

#56 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,595
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:55 AM

View Postoki, on 05 December 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Part of the problem is there a lot of Gun owners think ownership gives them some type of knowledge, or people who lie about even owning a gun in order to look smart or try to gain some type of acceptance or credit with gun owners. Very similar to someone who owns an economy car talking about how no one needs a truck/lorry or how sports cars are useless and thus should be banned, then says well I own a car so I am just as knowledgeable on the subject.

As well a lot of people will claim to be Pro Gun but are still more than willing to continually give up bits and pieces of ownership rights, agree to further restrictions and even outright bans. Their belief is that since you can own 'a gun' but not 'that gun' it's okay. Time and again we have seen what happens when you give up one bit or piece, sooner or later it leads to another and then another and then another. It's a piecemeal approach.

Oki


I guess its horses for courses. You and I will know our respective nations history re guns, the culture of guns as opposed to the general culture, and whats acceptable to each nation. Both outside and within the gun owning 'community'.
0

#57 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:40 AM

View Postscotsman, on 05 December 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

I guess its horses for courses. You and I will know our respective nations history re guns, the culture of guns as opposed to the general culture, and whats acceptable to each nation. Both outside and within the gun owning 'community'.


True, but can I call myself pro private automobile ownership if I say I don't agree with being able to own a Ferrari or Army Truck?
Can I say owning a family sedan should make me appear credible to someone who owns an Army Truck or Ferrari? They are all automobiles after all.
How can I call myself 'pro car' when I don't believe someone should be able to own an Army Truck?

At the same time how can I say a law which is so restrictive in who is allowed to own something that a criminal can safely assume people won't have it has not in effect accomplished the same thing as a ban. If the U.S. regulated Haggis so severely that only a couple restaurants served it wouldn't that have essentially accomplished the same thing as a ban? Japan is a perfect example, although not illegal to own a gun it's so incredibly expensive and difficult most people think you can't own a gun.

While on the flip side many people think it's easier to get a gun here then a host of other activities. Or that's it's a super violent country.
Truth is like I said, there are numerous parts of the U.S. which are actually safer then any part of Europe or Asia. IT's key areas that drag us down.
IE Milwaukee Wisconsin makes up less than %10 percent of Wisconsin's population but accounts for over half the murders in the state. Chicago accounts for .006 percent of the entire population but accounts for nearly %7 percent of all murders.

It isn't a 'gun culture' or 'gun law' problem. It's a problem with specific people and groups, no law will or can change this. You either deal with the problem groups and individuals or make sure the law abiding are able to defend themselves from the criminals and crazies. Also, if it was a 'gun law' issue we would have had all these issues prior to 1969 in particular. 1969 was the year when it became illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. If I am not mistaken I believe it also set minimum ages for someone to purchase a firearm much less own one. Nearly all of the gun problems of today where either much lower or next to non existent.

Passing laws with neither the ability nor will to enforce them causes more harm then good. We are seeing this here as in many places harsher gun laws are put into place all the while going easy on criminals because some idiot judge won't punish them. In the meantime the law abiding suffer and are told they are the problem because they won't give up more rights or agree to more restrictions. Enforce the laws, punish the criminals, lock up the crazies and the problems will decrease exponentially.

Oki
0

#58 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,778
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 05 December 2017 - 04:22 PM

View Postscotsman, on 05 December 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Nope. I was happy to take SARGE's reply on board for example. Again, YOU made a blanket statement that simply is false. Not me. I said guns are not banned in Australia, in that I am the one that's correct. That not being an arse, not being snarky. I am simply correcting you. Nothing more. And nothing personal. I debate you as I would I would debate anyone here.

I have no interest in your spat with vector about the pedantics of what "banned" means to each of you. Aussies and Brits have some guns (but less by almost two orders of magnitude relative to Americans, and that's just the legal guns) but strictly speaking, you're correct, not all guns are banned there. The majority culture is one that strongly discourages gun ownership though. So I'll leave it at that. I have no further bone to pick with either of you.

My bone is with your rush to judgment that zero terrorist attacks have been thwarted by civilians with guns here, and that few mass shootings have been stopped by such people. How the heck would we know? 1) the media won't report them, 2) specifically, law enforcement may not want to pubicize thwarted terrorist attacks, 3) what qualifies as a terrorist attack? How far does it need to go before we can call is thus? If one is prevented, then it didn't happen, so how can we judge especially when people don't want to call it that?, 4) same argument for mass shootings. How do we know if a shooter was stopped after only one person died that it wasn't going to be a mass shooting, particularly when the media won't publicize it lest gun proponents get good press?, 5) how about the total number of small shootings avoided? A small number times a big number can be a pretty big number, larger than a mass shooting number in fact.

That's my beef with your propaganda.

This post has been edited by zurg: 05 December 2017 - 04:24 PM

0

#59 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,510
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 05 December 2017 - 04:44 PM

View Postzurg, on 05 December 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

I have no interest in your spat with vector about the pedantics of what "banned" means to each of you. Aussies and Brits have some guns (but less by almost two orders of magnitude relative to Americans, and that's just the legal guns) but strictly speaking, you're correct, not all guns are banned there. The majority culture is one that strongly discourages gun ownership though. So I'll leave it at that. I have no further bone to pick with either of you.

My bone is with your rush to judgment that zero terrorist attacks have been thwarted by civilians with guns here, and that few mass shootings have been stopped by such people. How the heck would we know? 1) the media won't report them, 2) specifically, law enforcement may not want to pubicize thwarted terrorist attacks, 3) what qualifies as a terrorist attack? How far does it need to go before we can call is thus? If one is prevented, then it didn't happen, so how can we judge especially when people don't want to call it that?, 4) same argument for mass shootings. How do we know if a shooter was stopped after only one person died that it wasn't going to be a mass shooting, particularly when the media won't publicize it lest gun proponents get good press?, 5) how about the total number of small shootings avoided? A small number times a big number can be a pretty big number, larger than a mass shooting number in fact.

That's my beef with your propaganda.



Or how is something a huge problem when the majority of issues is actually caused by a very disproportionately small number. IE cities that comprise less then 1 percent of the total population by contribute 3-4 times that in regards to the percentage of murders.
IE Chicago 2.4 million people/.0077 percent of the population. 700+ murders .06 percent of all murders. Milwaukee is even worse yet, 600,000 people or .0019 percent of the U.S. population but with 140 murders that .012 of the total number of murders. In both cases that's a factor of nearly times 10 in regards to population vs percentage of murders. Until people are willing to address this no law is going to change a damn thing.
You can't say it's a gun or gun law issue when one city has a problem and others under the same laws don't.

IE Milwaukee vs Green Bay. Green Bay about 114K and I think 3 murders for 2016. If Milwaukee had the same rate as Green Bay there would be about 18 murders instead of 140. Or, Green Bay would have to be at about 24 murders per year just to equal Milwaukee statistically.
Same laws, same state. Begs the question what's the difference.

Oki
0

#60 User is offline   SARGE 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 9,643
  • Joined: 26-June 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 05:26 PM

View Postscotsman, on 05 December 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

In my time in the UK military, I fired a Sterling 9mm, FLN, SA80, Browning Hi-Power, L7 Gimpy, and even the Milan missile amongst others. I wish I had them as home defence, lol.
But seriously, no, I wouldn't want certain military weapons as part of the UK public gun arsenal.

In the UK, we have 'straight pull' versions of AR15's, AK47's etc. I think that's enough. The vast majority, even pre 1997, of UK guns were and are rifles and shotguns. Handguns were a minority and pre 1988, and their post Hungerford ban, the amount of 80s Brits with an assault weapon, could have been crammed into an old British red phone box.




Expecting to be attacked by a panzer?

Honestly, I don't understand the problem some here have. You merely dispelled a myth - guns are not banned in Britain and Australia. Are they more restricted, yes. Are they banned, no.

Many Americans believe private citizens are banned from legally owning 'machine guns'/automatic weapons, we aren't. It takes a lot of paperwork, a tax stamp, background check, sheriff approval, and time (a year-don't ask how I know this to be true, but you can own a Stg-44).
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users