A stat sheet isn't important to someone defending themselves and their family

There's more guns in Australia now than there were at the time of the Port Arthur shooting, yet we have a lowered amount of gun violence. Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150

What does this prove? That banning guns does nothing to the supply of firearms and criminals will get there hands on them any way. We've not had any mass-shootings (since people seem to ignore the Monash one), but we've still got the same amount of guns on our streets.

I hope you don't seriously believe that she will be good for the country.

They also tend to ignore the massacre in cairns last year where 8 were killed but its not important because it involved a knife

Exactly, comes down to a cultural issue imo.

Something in the water, or there's just a higher number of capacity of psychopaths based off a higher population (and ease of getting a gun).

And you're spot on about criminals and guns, tightening law abiding citizens in Australia will change nothing.

-PB

I wonder how the gunman managed to change shirts while all this was happening.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=974_1440602794

The video looks strange to me that the woman took 3 point blank shots, turned and took more in the back running away without falling down or so much as recoiling. If someone had shown me this video without having prior knowledge of the media coverage, I would have guessed it as an awful prank using blanks.

Of course I am no expert and have never actually seen a human hit with gunfire. Is it just the small caliber of the bullets perhaps? Genuinely interested from someone more in the know.

Edited by unshackled: 29/8/2015 11:23:05 AM

Oh god, i wondered how long it would take for the false flag arguments to come...

Like has been stated before, if Sandy Hook didn't motivate Americans to change their gun laws, nothing else will.

People don't get blown away by hand guns. Its not like the movies. This is what really happens when someone gets shot. The same thing happens if you shoot a kangaroo in the abdomen, they usually hop away before dying later unless you shoot them in the head, at which point they drop immediately.

He's also not a professional marksman. When they teach cops to shoot perps they teach them to "remove the threat" which is usually hit in upper torso or head as this drops them quicker. They also have more control as they use two hands on the gun, and he used one hand. I've only seen his video a couple of times because its just awful but you can see he sprays bullets wide because he has no control over the gun. I wouldn't be surprised if he hit her in the arm or even missed a few shots. Anyway, its really awful to even talk about.

I've seen videos of cops taking out people in the street lunging at them with a knife or whatever and they usually take 2 or 3 quick bullets high in the torso point blank before dropping.

No one going to argue with this?

So we've shown that once again the rabid anti-gun crowd base their arguments on feelings and not statistics.

Sadly its true. ABC ran an article a few days ago and is still tugging the Port Arthur heartstrings to further an anti-gun agenda which is just disgusting and soddens the memory of those poor lives lost.

-PB

Unless you've got a time machine, no-one will know how many guns, and how much gun violence would have occurred if there weren't any changes.

:lol:

So lets base our decisions on hypothesis's, educated guesses and "what might have beens" instead of statistics

The fact is that there has been a steady increase of guns into this country after the initial dropoff after the massacre, and this has correlated with a decrease in gun violence.

It's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

Edited by 433: 29/8/2015 02:37:56 PM

I can see blue in this very grainy picture.

Looks like a darker jacket over a blue shirt.

Interesting U448 thanks for the reply. On another viewing I would agree his control of the firearm is very poor. I have seen kangaroos being shot at range with rifles. Even torso or leg hits it becomes immediately clear the animal was hit and suffered trauma where as this small framed woman seemed to be unaffected. Tough lady, rip.

Probably hadn't even realised she'd been hit in the second or so before the vision cuts out due to adrenaline, and I imagine her clothes hid the actual entry points of the bullets.

100%.
Some people see conspiracies in their cornflakes.
There's always a dry explanation but armchair google tinfoil experts will find a way to confirm their fantasies.

When I was younger, I once shot a roo point blank with a .22 rifle (thats not a powerful gun, but can still kill you) and hit it high in the torso as it recoiled its head back and it hopped off into the distance and probably died later. It was pretty cruel looking back but I was only a kid and I grew up in country NSW and thats what you did in those days. Anyway, even point blank didn't drop it. This roo was smaller than an adult woman. It was only an Eastern Grey.

Yeah there's no blunt force from a bullet to push you back, it just goes right through you. You can charge at someone while being shot, which is what happened when the eldest Boston bomber died.

Depends on the round really.

Most common ammo will be soft lead or FMJ which usually just goes in and out.

-PB

Not that it's particularly nice to think about or to speak of. But that's why, I'm told, special forces (possibly the SAS) teach the Mozambique Drill; two in the chest, one in the head where possible.

One in either side of the sternum. After the first shot, there's every chance they'll still be capable of retaliating and doing damage to you. The second shot should stop them in their tracks. The shot to the head is the coup de grâce.


NB- don't follow these instructions anybody

I think you just described the Grand Final.

It's not conclusive. That's too simplistic, I think. There could be a whole host of other reasons which have an impact on reduced gun violence. There are other nuances involved in the number of guns too, too. It's all very well to say there are more guns. But you need to deconstruct it further and work out where those guns are.

Just because there are more guns, it doesn't necessarily mean that guns are more accessible or even as accessible as they were before the government cracked down.
It's also too small a sample space. You need to look at other countries too, not just Australia.

The fact is that if guns are less accessible and somebody wants to go on a shooting spree, it's going to be harder for him/her to do so.

Fucking this issue up, for the sake of appeasing those who want to ease restrictions on laws pertaining to firearms, could have disastrous consequences. It's not worth the risk. As there's reduced gun violence at the minute, let's not take any chances.

As such, I have no issue with making it harder for people to get hold of guns. If it makes the gun-loving folk get their knickers in a knot, oh well. They can entertain themselves by other means, such as contributing to forums on 442.

Edited by quickflick: 30/8/2015 02:53:12 AM

Yep

Except you're talking about the accessibility of guns through legal means which is not where things need to be tightened up, it's already fairly hard as it is.

If someone wants to go on a spree, they will use illegally obtained guns, aka Man Monis.

Must be different in other cities but in Townsville at least people can obtain illegal guns at most dingy pubs or down the port, fairly common knowledge in this area.

In this country, more money needs to be spent on customs and stopping the flow of illegal firearms into the country, not restricting/tightening the legally abiding firearm owners.

-PB

Couldn't agree with you more.

Especially when said guns are semi autos etc. Plus the process in which to get a gun is so long and tiring if someone wanted to kill a mass of people they would be cbf'd by the end of the process.

Restricting 7000 pre-ordered shotguns with an ability to shoot 8 rounds in 8 seconds that were to be sold to gun owners holding the least restrictive and easiest available class of gun license is a good thing. (Despite your whinging.)

The more guns floating around the more likely an unhinged moron will get his hands on one.

By all means restrict the flow of illegal weapons in but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything about dangerous legally imported weapons that are trying to skirt around Australia's gun laws. (Which is exactly what they were trying to do.)

It should be hard (if not next to impossible) to own something that has been specifically designed to kill.

Genuinely interested to see what reasons there are for a civilian to need a gun?