‘It’s just horrifying’: Seven killed in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in 22 years

Yep, despite denials and accusations that the GOP is racist, their policy slate has been one of increasing reliance of minorities on government and their advocated gun policies is one element in that strategy. Then, in the irony of the deception, they claim, any policy changes advocated by the GOP to provide better means for improving self reliance, equality of opportunity, and remove the policies of the DP that perpetuate dependence on state, is cast as a racist attack on the minority community as if removing that dependence is removing their livelyhood. The DP, the party that begat the KKK, resisted civil rights (and is still doing so), created policies for dependence on government keeping minorities bottled up in their onclaves has near successfully convinced those mine for votes that their position is some how better than with the policies of the GOP that fought for their freedom, equality, civil rights, and opportunity. Their advocated gun policies work most effectively against the poor and minorities... they are expendable, only worth their block of votes.
I am not a minority here, but was where I was raised and saw the same strategy play out there.

 

The DP has always been the party of institutional racism in America. Progressives in the early 20th century carried on that tradition.

“Blacks, however, posed a special problem. The Socialist Party, believing that respectability and success were becoming attainable, virtually ignored them, and center-right wing socialists even acquiesced in segregation. As historian Ira Kipnis writes: ‘There is no record that the party ever actively opposed discrimination against Negroes from 1912-1912.’ even the party’s most popular leader, Eugene Debs, who defied social prejudice by refusing to speak before segregated audiences in the South, failed to see any need for special attention by the party to the plight of blacks.”
Art For The Masses, A Radical Magazine and Its Graphics, 1911-1917, Rebecca Zurier, Temple University Press, 1988. p. 15.W

With the election of Woodrow Wilson virulent DP racism was promoted openly through the USG.

 

and yet you guys hate Nat Turner and John Brown and the Black Panthers

 

credible proof needed for that silly claim. The only hate I see on the gun forum is the hate for our constitutional rights we see from gun restrictionists and banners.

 

"Studying Australian cases of familicide, I’ve seen that gun control can provide a life-saving pause between impulse and action...

"A paper published in March 2018 in the Annals of Internal Medicine examined Australian firearms deaths between 1979 and 2013 to see whether gun law reform had any effect. It showed that while 13 mass shootings took place in the 18 years leading up to and including the Port Arthur massacre, none had occurred in the 22 years since. The authors calculated that the odds of this happening by chance were one in 200,000....

"A 2016 article published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) specifically addressed this question by comparing Australian firearm versus non-firearm suicides and homicides from 1979-2013. The authors found that firearms deaths were already declining prior to gun law reform, but that this rate of decline accelerated from 1997 onwards....

"As a farmer, Geoff Hunt had access to firearms. So too did Peter Miles, the grandfather who is suspected to have shot his wife, daughter, grandchildren and himself on Friday."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-that-we-must-stay-vigilant-about-gun-access

The two biggest mass shootings in Australia since the gun buyback were committed by people who had legal access to semiautomatic firearms. Is this a loophole that needs to be closed? Semiautomatic firearms seem to be the common thread that run through mass shootings (both in Australia and the US). I can't think of any exceptions.

 

banning semi auto firearms in the USA would cause a civil war

after it is over, gun control would be a dead issue

 

Conservatives who hate gun regulations also hate Nat Turner and John Brown.

 

The Black Panthers are heroic defenders of the 2nd amendment, and John Brown was the hero of the Republican Party and the Battle Hymn of The Republic.

Nat Turner's cause was right his methods failed to advance the cause.

 

Most conservatives consider John Brown a hero, and his truth keeps marching on. Southern Democrats hated Nat Turner. Conservatives think he should have spared the children and probably the women - conservatives can be rather liberal in that regard. Nevertheless, Turner was on the right side.

 

"The inquest also heard police removed two guns from the property and later returned them in 2013, including a W Cashmore double-barrelled shotgun. It was the same gun used to kill Ms Hunt."

The Osmington shooter had three guns.

Better remove all guns, if double barreled shotguns are used in mass killings.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...killings-shocked-Australia.html#ixzz5Fokh1TKQ

 

I think you just made that up. I asked for proof and you cannot come up with any. Why would people who despise government intrusions upon personal freedom despise a man who fought against a government that allowed slavery?

 

Wrong again.

I'm not a "conservative", Ron. Sorry, your need to pigeonhole people into convenient little boxes illustrates just how simplistic your worldview truly is.

 

I already know that you're a post truther and think you can ignore evidence because of its inconvenience.

Best avoid libel next time mind you!

 

The nation of Australia prohibited the ownership of far more than just merely semi-automatic rifles, as it included pump-action rifles and shotguns in the prohibition, which many countries consider to be firearms suitable for hunting.

Beyond that matter, it is foolish to claim that semi-automatic firearms are in any way a loophole.

There is no evidence presented in the article that would show it was the firearm-related restrictions enacted in the wake of the Port Arthur incident, were in any way responsible for the twenty two year period devoid of noted mass shootings. It was merely a lull in the activity. That lull may now be coming to an end, and there will be nothing the nation of Australia can do about it to prevent it.

 

Then simply leave. If it is known that the target audience has no use for what is ultimately the truth, then there is no justification for remaining present and continuing to address them, as they will simply dismiss you out of hand. Leave and stop wasting your time in addressing an audience with the moral equivalent of a brick wall. If those present really are without honesty, the only reason to remain present would be a deluded desire to hear yourself voice your own thoughts.

 

You want me to leave because someone else committed libel? Wow, that's logical...

 

LOL! What libel? Be specific.

 

I certainly hope he sticks around. He stimulates a lot of message traffic on the forum. That's a good thing.

So, I suggest we just keep giving the bee hive a more friendly smacks.

"Assault rifles and machine guns are being seized at an alarming rate. Photo: Penny Stephens
The Soviet-era assault rifle is the weapon of choice for Third World armies and terrorists, but this one was destined for the streets of Melbourne.

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city."
THE AGE, YOUNG, DUMB AND ARMED, How Melbourne became a gun city
https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html

Say it ain't so!

 

It is being stated that you should leave because you are addressing others that outright reject every element of the argument being made by yourself. The message being presented by yourself is falling on the proverbial deaf ears, meaning there is no good coming from the investment being put forth by yourself.

 

I will continue to adopt best practice. That you think you can drown that out through post-truth guff is already expected.

 

If the intention of yourself is to continue wasting what finite time still exists on the part of yourself, trying to present a narrative to those who have refused to pay it any heed, then there is nothing more than can be advised on the part of myself. It was the decision of yourself, and yourself alone, to engage in a wasteful, illogical course of action for which there can be no victory.

 

It is my intention to continue to adopt an evidence-based approach to everything I do. I expect your post-truthing. I won't allow it to sway me from best practice.

Let's turn it around. Why do you spend so much time hiding from the evidence? Seems illogical to the extreme

 

It is not evidence that is hidden from and rejected. Rather it is political talking points intentionally mislabeled as being "evidence" that is rejected. Everything presented by yourself, and countless others, is now suspect because of just how widespread fake science has become. Too many research papers are made up, fictional, and have existed for years before their fallacies were finally uncovered.

 

Refer me to one econometric piece testing the 'more guns=more crime' that is made up.

 

Others have already done such, only to be dismissed out of hand by yourself. Why would such be different on the part of myself?