-
[QUOTE=nota;695752]You've got to be kidding .. aren't you?
Explain exactly how an attempt at a mature discussion in an automotive forum (of not just the 'why' but also [i]'how'[/i] this dreadful event was able to occur) makes us somehow 'less respectful' to those grieving families?[/QUOTE]
By turning it into another "Fleet Vs. Crisis" Gun Control Thread.
[QUOTE]What makes you think those very family members will be reading this debate?
Do you think it likely they will check out the list of 'sincere condolences' in UCP?[/QUOTE]
Thats not the point. the point is that Respect should be shown across the world.
The Anonymity of a Computer forum (where one member is linked to the tragedy) is perhaps a cover for people to investigate avenues that aren't there.
And to push agendas that aren't relevant.
[QUOTE]Would you think it a tad [i]more sincere[/i] if those dishing up their deeply personal condolences might bother doing it in a form that would actually be received by said grieving families, such as in a letter, and therefore mean [i]something[/i] to the bereaved?
Talk is cheap, but so are crocodile tears. You asked a lot of questions in post # 68. I for one am merely attempting to canvass the answers[/QUOTE]
Canvassing the answers is one thing. but very little has actually be spoken about from the post you refer to.
It questions the motives. not the methods.
I'm sorry if what i'm saying you believe to be insincere or frivolous, but i find no comfort in dissecting the event without proper information or even the facts.
You are right in one respect - talk is cheap. so why are we even talking? we know very little about the issue, and we can do very little to stop it happening again.
And, for the record - i'm deadly serious.
Another serious thread turned into a Fleet Vs. Others argument. stay tuned for a Red Herring feast.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695750] I fail to see how making it more difficult for him to get a gun would have prevented him from getting one - it would have just delayed the inevitable. [/QUOTE]
Maybe in this case. Maybe in this case if it had taken a bit longer that may have been all that was needed. I heard one of his teachers actually reported him to the Police and advised him to have counselling due to his mental state which became evident in what he was writing. They could not act on it due to legalities. Perhaps another day and he may have disclosed something that may have given them cause. It is all ifs and buts but the fact he had a gun available or could get on easily means he can do what he wants when he wants.
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695750]
and even when that happens whats to stop him going to the black market? [/QUOTE]
People say this but I for one would not know where to find this back market. I know understand your point but again restricted availability makes it harder. And the act of going to the back market is a crime in itself that exposes you to be caught in that act alone. I am not advocating perfection as I said.
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695750]
While i agree that less guns all round is the better solution it is not the reality - and more than likely never will be. [/QUOTE]
Less guns in Australia means we have less armed crime.
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695750]
I am still of the opinion that more can be learned from the reasons behind this man becoming so isolated and violent than the methods through which he carried out his final deeds. [/QUOTE]
Certainly and it is an area (mental health) that needs much work.
-
[QUOTE=crisis;695762]Maybe in this case. Maybe in this case if it had taken a bit longer that may have been all that was needed. I heard one of his teachers actually reported him to the Police and advised him to have counselling due to his mental state which became evident in what he was writing. They could not act on it due to legalities. Perhaps another day and he may have disclosed something that may have given them cause. It is all ifs and buts but the fact he had a gun available or could get on easily means he can do what he wants when he wants. [/QUOTE]
If you can't get it legally....
Thus the problem with Gun Control.
[QUOTE]People say this but I for one would not know where to find this back market. I know understand your point but again restricted availability makes it harder. And the act of going to the back market is a crime in itself that exposes you to be caught in that act alone. I am not advocating perfection as I said.
Less guns in Australia means we have less armed crime.
Certainly and it is an area (mental health) that needs much work.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Agreed and Agreed.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695757]By turning it into another "Fleet Vs. Crisis" Gun Control Thread.[/QUOTE]
Crisis seems to make a hellavalot of sense to me. Fleet is entitled to express his view, as is Clutch. And so am I
[quote]Thats not the point. the point is that Respect should be shown across the world.[/quote]
A bit precious imho
If anything, discussing any possibility of how to [i]avert[/i] future carnage is a lot more respectful to victims than is serving up 'invisible' condolences, imv
[quote]The Anonymity of a Computer forum (where one member is linked to the tragedy) is perhaps a cover for people to investigate avenues that aren't there.
And to push agendas that aren't relevant.[/quote]
Please explain how is a discussion on gun laws not relevant to a gun massacre?
[quote]Canvassing the answers is one thing. but very little has actually be spoken about from the post you refer to.
It questions the motives. not the methods. [/quote]
The methods were via guns, self-loading guns. To use that tired cliche, motives dont kill - methods do
[QUOTE]I'm sorry if what i'm saying you believe to be insincere or frivolous, but i find no comfort in dissecting the event without proper information or even the facts.
You are right in one respect - talk is cheap. so why are we even talking? we know very little about the issue, and we can do very little to stop it happening again.[/QUOTE]
It is an horrific event. As is 3,000 dead p/w in Iraq btw (personal condolences strangely absent)
But to stop these mad events, all of us, in own way, can only try :(
-
[QUOTE=nota;695767]Crisis seems to make a hellavalot of sense to me. Fleet is entitled to express his view, as is Clutch. And so am I[/QUOTE]
Indeed, you are entitled to your opinion. informed or not.
Much the same as i am ;)
[QUOTE]A bit precious imho[/QUOTE]
Then this?
[QUOTE]It is an horrific event. As is 3,000 dead p/w in Iraq btw (personal condolences strangely absent)[/QUOTE]
Curious.
And for the Record i do happen to know people (Fathers Colleagues) in Iraq. it worries me because it's not safe. A place like a University is supposed to be.
[QUOTE]If anything, discussing any possibility of how to [i]avert[/i] future carnage is a lot more respectful to victims than is serving up 'invisible' condolences, imv[/QUOTE]
You're right. but unless your intimately familiar with the situation any solution you offer is just as hollow as an "Invisible" condolence, IMHO.
[QUOTE]Please explain how is a discussion on gun laws not relevant to a gun massacre?[/QUOTE]
It's irrelevant because would have been less shocking if he hadn't had a self-loading gun?
the act is despicable. the way he carried it out is not the part of this tragedy to act upon in this case.
to find out why is worth more, IMHO, then to ban how.
[QUOTE][B]The methods were via guns, self-loading guns. To use that tired cliche, motives dont kill - methods do[/B][/QUOTE]
If you remove the motive - namely the reason why - the problem disappears.
Gun Control smacks of harm minimisation, not harm Avoidance.
[QUOTE]But to stop these mad events, all of us, in own way, can only try :([/QUOTE]
You're right, of course.
perhaps this is the problem - we think we can do too much.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695772]
Gun Control smacks of harm minimisation, not harm Avoidance.
[/QUOTE]
I think harm minimisation is the best option given we cant have the other one.
-
[QUOTE=crisis;695747] It totally ignores cultural and social influences[/QUOTE]
this is a hugely important factor, but alas also one pretty much impossible to address, and besides, politicians aren't known for going the hard, thorough route, and gun bans look good to the voters :(
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695750]I am still of the opinion that more can be learned from the reasons behind this man becoming so isolated and violent than the methods through which he carried out his final deeds.[/QUOTE]
also very important issue, yet again, one that is very hard to address, and not to roll out the video games band wagon but that facet may have to be investigated properly (not by some self serving nut cough-jack thompson - cough)
[QUOTE=crisis;695762]
People say this but I for one would not know where to find this back market. [/QUOTE]
it's not as difficult as you think, look at all the illicit substances getting about.
For about 3 years after our buyback the shooting community was urged to report all blackmarket offers ot th epolice, shut down a few smuggling rings as i recall.
Also, in WA the buyback was executed so poorly either due to remoteness or lack of police man power that many owners still have their self loading weapons, although i for one don't consider these an issue
[QUOTE=nota;695767]
The methods were via guns, self-loading guns. [/QUOTE]
it's not the self loading guns that worry me, but more the fact assault weapons are available over the counter, with accessories like 100 round drum magazines for sale too. Germany still has self loading weapons after their massacre, they simply limited the magazines to the 4 round type.
-
[QUOTE=crisis;695778]I think harm minimisation is the best option given we cant have the other one.[/QUOTE]
Why not? Harm Minimisation is what we have now. it doesn't seem to be doing the job.
-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695779]
it's not as difficult as you think, look at all the illicit substances getting about.
For about 3 years after our buyback the shooting community was urged to report all blackmarket offers ot th epolice, shut down a few smuggling rings as i recall.
Also, in WA the buyback was executed so poorly either due to remoteness or lack of police man power that many owners still have their self loading weapons, although i for one don't consider these an issue[/QUOTE]
Perhaps what I mean is that for those who act out of rage in a split second so to speak the availability of a black market weapon is of no consequence. By the time they acquire it whatever motivated them may seem less intense. Someone who wants a weapon no matter what however will still get one this way I suppose but perhaps these people are more involved in crime regularly and to be honest organised crime is not of a major risk to your health if you are not involved in it.
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695779]
it's not the self loading guns that worry me, but more the fact assault weapons are available over the counter, with accessories like 100 round drum magazines for sale too. Germany still has self loading weapons after their massacre, they simply limited the magazines to the 4 round type. [/QUOTE]
Self loading guns allow a quicker rate of fire for the basic dude. Huge magazines equally allow more rounds to get away. But the guy in the U.S. reloaded many times. In the end I believe it is not the type of gun but I am happy at least semi automatic weapons are not available. Other than for farmers and professional use ( who I think should have them in certain cases ) I cant see why any normal member of the public needs a gun that can discharge rounds at a rapid rate.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695782]Why not? Harm Minimisation is what we have now. it doesn't seem to be doing the job.[/QUOTE]
It has in Oz.
-
Violent Crime still exists - hardly a day goes by when you haven't heard about a shopkeeper being hit over the head for $100.
And in Melbourne Gun Crime is Still rampant - the guns are just purchased illegally these days.
EDIT; to be fair most of these shootings have been related to other Crime - Drugs, for instance.
while i Agree it's helped it's not the total solution.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695772]And for the Record i do happen to know people (Fathers Colleagues) in Iraq. it worries me because it's not safe. A place like a University is supposed to be.[/QUOTE]
Well .. [u]any[/u] university is supposed to be (even in Iraq) and so they should be
[quote]You're right. but unless your intimately familiar with the situation any solution you offer is just as hollow as an "Invisible" condolence, IMHO.[/quote]
I disagree. Bullets are pretty damn 'intimate' nor are their consequences 'invisible'
[quote]It's irrelevant because would have been less shocking if he hadn't had a self-loading gun?[/quote]
Of course it would in all probability have been less shocking, because (as has already been pointed out) it's FAR less feasable and therefore FAR less likely that anyone, including this headcase OR Martin Bryant, could be able kill 30+ people with a manually-loading single-shot gun
[QUOTE]
Gun Control smacks of harm minimisation, not harm Avoidance.
[/QUOTE]
Way to show a positive lead, IBR. Just do nothing
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695785] Violent Crime still exists - hardly a day goes by when you haven't heard about a shopkeeper being hit over the head for $100. [/QUOTE]
But not gun crime. That has been minimised.
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695785]
And in Melbourne Gun Crime is Still rampant - the guns are just purchased illegally these days.
EDIT; to be fair most of these shootings have been related to other Crime - Drugs, for instance.
while i Agree it's helped it's not the total solution. [/QUOTE]
Again organised crime and drug related crime is of little consequence to those not involved.
And I agree it is not the total solution, again with the minimisation thing.:)
-
IB4R - three 16 yr olds got picked up by police, and are guilty of 26 armed robberies over the last two months...
[QUOTE=crisis;695783]Perhaps what I mean is that for those who act out of rage in a split second so to speak the availability of a black market weapon is of no consequence. By the time they acquire it whatever motivated them may seem less intense.[/QUOTE]
that's what waiting periods are for ;) it takes an average of 3 weeks to collect a weapon in my case (over a month if it's your first one)
[QUOTE=crisis;695783]
Self loading guns allow a quicker rate of fire for the basic dude. Huge magazines equally allow more rounds to get away. But the guy in the U.S. reloaded many times. [/quote]
the guy had a glock i believe with a 17 round magazine... our pistols are limited to 10. It might not seem like a big difference, but combined with barrel length legislation, it is.
as for rate of fire, well, since our buyback pump action rifles, lever action shotguns have all been available, including a straight pull version of the HK SL8. except for that last, the government passed over them because they only saw pump action shotguns in the movies - rate of fire is not an issue in Australia, although agreed none of those quite match a semi-auto for pure speed.
[QUOTE=crisis;695783] Other than for farmers and professional use ( who I think should have them in certain cases ) [/quote]
the fireman and police games are being held in Adelaide this year, and most of the oversea's competitors have permission to bring their own firearms, many of which have been illegal here since 1996. Will be interesting to watch, at any rate.
-
[QUOTE=nota;695788]Well .. [u]any[/u] university is supposed to be (even in Iraq) and so they should be
I disagree. Bullets are pretty damn 'intimate' nor are their consequences 'invisible'[/QUOTE]
True. But it still doesn't excuse a lack of fact or knowledge on the situation.
I'm not qualified to talk about it - what makes you?
[QUOTE]Of course it would in all probability have been less shocking, because (as has already been pointed out) it's FAR less feasable and therefore FAR less likely that anyone, including this headcase OR Martin Bryant, could be able kill 30+ people with a manually-loading single-shot gun[/QUOTE]
But the ability is still there. and no doubt some psycho will take advantage of it.
Just because fewer people may be killed because the person has to reload does not make it any less shocking.
EDIT: where does it stop? Cutting Self-Loaders pisses both sides of the argument off - Pro Think it doesn't go far enough, Anti Too far.
[QUOTE]Way to show a positive lead, IBR. Just do nothing[/QUOTE]
Far better than to make an unconsidered move.