Only time will tell. But thus far, we have not had one yet.
There was no massacre for 9 years up until Port Arthur. It has only been 6 years since the Monash shooting, and yet you're already claiming that the implemented gun laws were a success, despite 9 years were massacre free in the absence of stringent gun laws. Surely even you can see the inconsistency here, Bells? Please, don't do an Orleander.
Also the fact that the rate of gun crime in this country has dropped since the laws were implemented does point to the fact that it may, just may, have been effective.
Correlation does not imply causation. As the study I posted earlier suggested, homicides and robberies have increased after the implementation of the laws. And that makes sense, since an unarmed population is easier to murder and rob than an armed population.
This is clearly demonstrated by that shooting at Melbourne in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Melbourne_CBD_shootings
Those three were sitting ducks. Personally, Bells, I would have preferred if the woman in that car had pulled out a pistol and blown that motherfucker's head off. But hey, you'd deny that woman (and the lawyer and backpacker) the right to defend themselves.
On the contrary, the wars have opened themselves up to the chance of their being more at risk of further terrorist attacks. What of it? How is this valid to Americans having the right to bear arms?
You have been crowing about how 6 years after the implementation of the gun laws in response to the Monash shootings, there hasn't been a massacre. I posted the above example to demonstrate why your reasoning is untenable. To attribute the 'massacre free years' to prohibitive and irrational laws is analagous to attributing the failure of America to suffer from another attack to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes it does. Gun violence is also down. Get with the times MH.
Gun violence is down, yet homicide and robbery rates are rising. You also forget that the majority of gun homicides are committed with illegally owned firearms, something which 'gun buybacks' fail to account for. You'd restrict the rights of law abiding citizens simply because of a few bad apples.
I doubt the families of those killed would agree with you.
Nice appeal to emotion. People are killed by a myriad of things, even everyday objects such as electrical powerpoints and panadol. That's the nature of life. I repeat your own comment: "Deal with it."
Yes they can. But one cannot use a machete and gun down 30+ people in a tourist spot, now can they?
You're right, you can't gun down people with a machete, much like you can't hack your three children to pieces with a shotgun. Well done, Bells, well done. I guess there's no such thing as a mass murder or serial killing where an axe, machete, or even poison was used.
They can make a bomb, but the sheer volume needed would raise some eyebrows. The term "be aware not alarmed" ring a bell?
So why are people allowed to purchase fertiliser?
Do you think the majority of Australians would be free and happy if all the gun laws were removed and all and sundry could simply walk into a gun store and purchase a weapon so long as they didn't have a criminal record? Or is that what you want them to be?
No idea. I don't claim to speak for all Australians.
Again, you were too young to have experienced the dismay of the population when we had the previous massacres.
False. I just didn't (and still don't) buy the hype.
Port Arthur and then the Monash shootings simply compounded the belief that guns should not be so widely and easily available to the public. There was no paranoia there. Just common sense. You should try it sometime.
Well no, it is paranoia to restrict your citizens' right to defend themselves simply because of the occasional shooting.
What business is it of yours? Even if I want to scratch my ass with it, why do you care?
Maybe so, but there had been many robberies where fake guns were used to terrify others in the bid to rob them.
What, they used pistols from the 16th century? Pistols which more antique than those used on the filmset for "Treasure Island"? Wow, you really have bought into the paranoia, Bells.
By the way, does the same apply for the toy guns kids use? If I stick two of my fingers into a store tender's back, I could pass that off as a gun as well. How far do you want to push your paranoia?
There was also the risk that a police officer could shoot and kill a person who was holding a fake gun, not knowing it was fake.
So? The risk of that is so minimal, it's not worth worrying about unless you're a paranoid schizo who wants to legislate us up the wazoo.
Whether they should or not is beside the point. The right does not exist.
Simply because a right is not recognised by Government, does not mean that said right ceases to exist (nor that it shouldn't exist). Your sort of mentality would have put to a halt the Gay Rights and Womens Rights movements.
How exactly is my comment about Rosa Parks a strawman? Blacks didn't have the right to sit in the presence of whites. Would have you told Rosa Parks to 'deal with it'? Would you have told all the blacks living under apartheid to 'deal with it', or move to a country without apartheid? Either answer my question, or explain why it is a strawman.
I'm a citizen of Australia, and I have every right to complain about having my autonomy legislated against by meddling bureaucrats. And I'm also justified in doing everything in my power as a citizen to change unjust and absurd laws.
What? Are people living in remote areas at risk of an invasion from a small army so they need semi-automatics? Right...
For someone who just (falsely) accused me of erecting a strawman, you do a fantastic job of inventing your own.
But quite simply, it takes longer for the police to arrive at the scene of a crime in rural areas. This places individuals living in remote areas at a disadvantage, since they aren't afforded the same protection from the police that those in urban societies receive. Hence there is a greater emphasis on the ability to defend themselves.
Yeah.. But then we'd have to put up with you whining about women getting away with murder for killing men you don't believe was abusing them. Or are you going to say that women need to be able to own guns over men? Since you know, you care sooo much about leveling out the playing field.
Nice ad hominem, Bells. I love how you deflect, and ignore the simple fact that guns are one of the greatest equalisers for a female against a male attacker. Outlawing guns for self-defense puts women at a greater disadvantage than men.
