"Attempted attack in Australia" Topic

You are judging intent by subsequent events. The intent remains: hold the central gov't accountable and demand its respect. An armed populace can do this.

Intent is useless if its proven ineffective. And the odds of a military coup in the US approach nil (if not already there).

Sorry, I don't buy you tinfoil hat theories…

Surely you have a source link? I'd like the chance to judge your assertion of "respected study"

Let it go. Issue closed…

@Ochoin: Again, your own government decided to ban a 130-year-old design because it's "too dangerous" for the law abiding to own. Not due to a lack of safeties, mind you, the Adler 110 has a modern cross-bolt safety and no exposed hammer, like a Remington pump shotgun.

But because the Adler 110, in some models, could hold more than 5 rounds. Again, like a Remington pump shotgun.

If I'm shooting birds, I don't really need more than 2-3 rounds. If I'm shooting anything else, I might need more than that. Especially if I'm shooting feral hogs (not sure how much of a problem hogs are in Oz, but they are a real problem next door in Oregon).

So yeah, I will repeat that your government, by it's actions, is banning more and more firearms that used to be legal for law-abiding citizens to own.

Legion 4,which posts on this thread did address wargaming?
I can't seem to find them.

That may be true … however I have not seen her/he/it post anything about wargaming or modeling on any thread. I do however. Check out the Cold War, 6mm Sci-fi and WWII Discussion boards off the top of my head. But like others here, you've made up you mind about me, he/she/it, etc. Anything further is a waste of time, yes ?

Given that using the term "honey" was deemed condescending and insulting, what about your repeated use of the diminutive term "Chrissy" when referring to the poster Chris Vermont? Should there not be a symmetrical responsibility on your part and consequences from the editorial staff to make you not demean another poster if you use condescending and insulting words to address them?

I'll hit the button for you since you feel that way. However, I think Bill has already seen it anyway. But thanks for pointing out another of my failings.

And isn't your transgression made that much worse because you only started to use that diminutive term publicly after that other poster was locked-out and could no longer confront you or defend themself?

So … I'm to play nice with someone who tried to insult, demean, etc. me ? And if Chrissy is Thad whatever he has attacked me before so I see no reason to play nice. But don't let me stop you.

I do not push the complaint button and will not now,

Again, don't bother, I'll let Bill know of your conundrum.

but perhaps you should reflect upon your own behaviour as it pertains to condescension and name-calling.

What are you a priest and I'm at confession ? Some here think it is their goal to make me think about things as they do ? Stop wasting mine and your time.

We must all police ourselves as much as possible on a public forum, so perhaps it's time to review your own behaviour here on TMP.

I'm sure if Bill finds my behavior inappropriate, etc., he'll take punitive action against me as he has so often in the past.

"You really have an "agenda"

"Agenda"? In the words of the immortal Inigo, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Opinions, sure. I'm not allowed any that contradict yours?

It seems you have no problem contradicting me. Why stop now ?

can't talk about my family, according to you?

You can talk about anything you like, but if I disagree … I will in turn contradict you.

are not allowed to talk about military topics

Great Grandfather who fought in the Boer War, both grandfathers fought in WW1 (at Jutland & in the trenches), 5 Uncles in the military (HLI, Paras, Commandos, RAF & Ally Sloper's Cavalry) in WW2. Brother in Vietnam. Real soldiers with combat experiences & they're not relevant?

They are very relevant, when we talk about those topics. Please don't let me stop you.

Ralph, you seem to want to restrict a lot of things.

Have you reported my agenda to Bill ?

Why do you apply everything I write to you? I don't think about you very much at all.

Seems you very much think about me, whenever I post on a thread and it does not meet with your agenda or opinion.

It's a shame you no longer see fit to be a Supporting Member, Ralph. Then we could (like we used to do) deal with these issues in PMs & not clog up the boards with your baseless assertions.

And what makes you think I want to talk to you about anything in a PM. If you are concerned about clogging the boards, you can stifle me … as Bill suggested.

And for the record, yes this is what I thought agenda meant :

a·gen·da.

NOUN

1.a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting:

synonyms: list of items · schedule · program · timetable · itinerary ·
lineup · list · plan · to-do list ·

Legion 4 wrote:

So … I'm to play nice with someone who tried to insult, demean, etc. me ? And if Chrissy is Thad whatever he has attacked me before so I see no reason to play nice. But don't let me stop you.

Legion 4, do the rules not apply to all equally? Are you claiming to be above the rules because you felt slighted by someone's posts? Is this a new manifestation of American exceptionalism encapsulated and which applies to just you alone? I am not trying to change your behaviour. I am pointing out the inconsistency of your behaviour in the hopes that you will make the decision to change things yourself. No one can change you but yourself. So, again I ask you to consider the old maxim – to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. What follows is entirely up to you.

Rod Robertson.

could hold more than 5 rounds

More? Yep, 11 with a simple modification. The concept is that this gun is of concern for crime & terrorism reasons. Australians don't believe in any sort of crazy arms race…we don't need more & bigger guns like America evidently does but less (see my earlier explanation of how restrictive gun laws applies to both the "baddies" & the "goodies").

Again, Lion, I urge you to find out facts before you post. It will give you credibility. This will help.

link

So yeah, I will repeat that your government, by it's actions, is banning more and more firearms that used to be legal for law-abiding citizens to own

Repeat all you like, this is so very silly. This gun is a new model & hence, never legal. Governments enact legislation for the good of the community. We've made smoking cigarettes very difficult & cancer is no were near as bad as unrestricted gun ownership. And finally, 85%+ of law-abiding Australians don't want this monster made legal. Can you understand that in a democratic society the majority rules? I'd suspect you had an "agenda" (sic) if I didn't know better.

85%? Show me the source thanks.

@Gwydion's first link: "Women are a greater danger of being killed by a current or former intimate partner than More than twice as many women are killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than are killed by a stranger using a gun, a knife, or any other means."

Eh? What the hell did that just say? Bad verbiage. The figures are bogus, because the source is funded by one of the most anti-gun billionaires in the world. And the sources in the notes are like quoting your own sources. No outside documentation need apply.

The second link: "Therefore, one of the major ways to decrease intimate partner homicide is to identify and intervene with battered women at risk. The objective of this study was to specify the risk factors for intimate partner femicide among women in violent relationships with the aim of preventing this form of mortality."

See, that is what I am getting at. The perpetrator is an abuser, he batters and is violent. The GUY is the problem. Not the gun.

see my earlier explanation of how restrictive gun laws applies to both the "baddies" & the "goodies"

Seriously, the "baddies" don't care, that is why they are "baddies". So ALL LAWS only apply to the "goodies", further limiting their ability to defend themselves in a situation. The "baddies" will get guns as long as they can.

But the real reason why the gov't puts further limitation in place is to eradicate guns from society as much as possible. If a criminal manages to sneak one inside, no big deal. The real reason is in place: effectively no guns for the gov't to worry about. Everyone in gov't feels much better when there are no guns.

We've made smoking cigarettes very difficult & cancer is no were near as bad as unrestricted gun ownership.

When was gun ownership ever "unrestricted"? Making smoking difficult only limits where, not when, a person can legally smoke. At home, never a problem. But guns have always be restricted. So your analogy fails completely. As does your argument when you resort to such extremely inaccurate comparisons. Unrestricted! Sheesh………

So your analogy fails completely

I'm guessing you have no idea of the successful & on going Australian campaign against smoking?

Analogy succeeds!

PDF link

PDF link

PDF link

PDF link

"That such a coup would fear an armed citizenry is obvious"

Setting aside the insult to the men and women of law enforcement and the military who would be required to actively commit the treason such a fantasy would necessarily require, the actual numbers render that statement simply wrong.

Only about 30% of the populace owns weapons and of that, only 4% of that group owns more than 4. Subtract unmaintained, inoperable, no/low ammunition and impractical/relatively useless items such as black powder, cheap small caliber etc. plus factor in the general militarily ineffective physical shape much bemoaned in the populace (fat, old, infirm in the same general numbers as the population as a whole))and the potential threat to the mythical "government oppressors" with theoretically the full power of the state law enforcement and military apparatus and any fear generated by the armed citizenry would be slightly less than that ginned up by a largish Cub Scout troup with spitballs and a bad attitude. Fortunately that is in the realm of fantasy as the men and women of the Nation entrusted with coercive power are one heck of a lot better than some give them credit for.

@ McKinstry

A perfectly logical & well argued post that makes its case conclusively……but which may well be run down by falsehoods that ignore the truth in what you say.

Clearly I'm not the only one to notice truth is no longer conclusive. Politicians have always lied but in the last few years, many don't seem to care if they're caught out or not.
Indeed, they seem to revel in their mendacity. And it's a growing habit in less exalted circles. You can knowingly say or write the most awful dribble without a blink of remorse.
O tempora! O mores!

Indeed, several claims made in this thread are breathtakingly false. I thought it was just ignorance but perhaps it's wilful. It would be a sad world in which you don't have to seek validity in truth but I fear it has arrived.

Something along these lines you may wish to read:

dawn.com/news/1272626

And finally, I bow out of this thread. Not defeated (hardly!) but because I find I am repeating myself & directing people to links they clearly don't read (& then, in one case, asks for a link after it was already given!!!).

the perpetrator is an abuser, he batters and is violent. The GUY is the problem.

Oh I agree, I'm not anti gun per se.

The 'GUY' however, is 5 times more successful in killing his partner when there is access to a gun in the house.

It's a societal choice.

Legion 4, do the rules not apply to all equally? Are you claiming to be above the rules because you felt slighted by someone's posts? Is this a new manifestation of American exceptionalism encapsulated and which applies to just you alone? I am not trying to change your behaviour. I am pointing out the inconsistency of your behaviour in the hopes that you will make the decision to change things yourself. No one can change you but yourself. So, again I ask you to consider the old maxim – to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. What follows is entirely up to you.

Rod … get off the high horse. I'm not talking about "L4 exceptionalism" … I'm all about "payback is Mutha'! ". You should and some others should know that by now. That is just the way I am.

My version of that old Maxim – do unto others before they they do unto you.

Now what to you think about the original topic – " Attempted attack in Australia" ? Not my POV or Mindset, etc., …

Setting aside the insult to the men and women of law enforcement and the military who would be required to actively commit the treason such a fantasy would necessarily require, the actual numbers render that statement simply wrong.

Amen …

By my reading of the text of the regulations (not laws, since they weren't passed/amended by parliament), ALL lever-action shotguns were moved to Category D (IIRC, military and police only). Not just the Adler 110, ALL lever-action shotguns.

One of the TWO repeating shotguns that used to be legal for anyone in Aus not a farmer was just banned by that. Those two shotguns were the Winchester 1887 lever-action and the Mossberg bolt-action. Now you're down to the Mossberg bolt-action (which in the US is a slug gun with a rifled barrel, not a smoothbore).

Oh, you can modify the Adler 110 to hold 11 rounds easily? I thought it looked a lot like a Remington up front. I could modify an 1887 almost as easily, though I'd need some careful machining work first (the magazine support on the barrel is different). Not to mention that 11 rounds in the magazine means either your magazine tube extends far past the muzzle or you have a 36" barrel. 770mm worth of shells, plus about another 110mm of magazine spring and follower, total magazine length of ~880mm.

36" barrels are for geese at 300 feet altitude, not for clearing trenches.

It was pure freaking fearmongering. Anyone who has worked with (or shoots competitively) knows that an 11rd magazine is unwieldy as hell on a Remington.

The latest return of Thaddeus Blanchette ("Merry Contrary") has once more been banned.

Legion :quite an interesting dual attitude there -
a) Extreme supporter of 1 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment . "How dare they attempt to put controls on my right ?"
Yet
2) A staunch opponent of the 1st ( actively supporting banning someone for speech )

Oh well to be expected .

Oh and as to "Payback is Mutha " isn't that an excuse the terrorists use for their actions?

My version of that old Maxim – do unto others before they they do unto you.

This quote is a strong argument for limiting the advocates of pre-emptive violence from having access to weapons. Such predatory utterances, if made in a serious way, should be sufficient grounds for barring one from possession of weapons and perhaps could be used to preventitively detain the speaker as a threat to public safety and order.

Rod Robertson.

grtbrt, Rod – Just write me off as another one of those crazy American gun owners and Vet. Am I allowed to say that ? Or will I upset some here when saying I'm Vet ?

And I meant to type "Payback is A Mutha'" … I'm not too bright and don't type or spell "good" …

What does amaze me, there is still a discussion/debate on this thread. Which really has little to do with the title at this point.

Rod you or some other smart guy[or gal?] here should start a topic about 'Merica Gun Control. It seems there is a lot of interest in this topic. And it seems from a lot of posters who don't even live in the USA ! Who knew !?!?

A staunch opponent of the 1st ( actively supporting banning someone for speech )

Oh well to be expected .

Yes please read my comments above. And if you are referring to Chris's posts. As I thought and let Bill know. This individual was a and looking for an argument. And probably was a former member who Bill threw out.

I'm all for freedom of speech, believe me. But this individual was not looking for any real discussion. And Bill agrees. And if this person was a former member that got the Boot, they were breaking a TMP rule. As Bill has pointed out. When I do that I get DH'd. But in this case the offender merited a Lock Out. And I agree. Maybe you should let Bill know your concerns ?

As for the other comments about my posts, I stated my opinions … others stated theirs … and here we are. Some trying to convince me I'm wrong and a moron, etc., because I think differently than they do. At this point who cares ? This horse has been beaten to death, IMO.

Legion 4:
In answer to your question about the raids and arrests. Operation Kastelhom (the Melbourne raids) was likely a real and necessary operation which needed to be done. The timing of it is more suspect. The Australian authorities had been watching three of the seven arrested for several weeks and were aware that they possessed prohibited bomb-making literature and materials which could be fashioned into ad hoc explosive devices. The authorities were oddly vague about explaining the timing of the raids and the Australian media has been generally silent about the follow-up investigation and allegations that at least one of the accused was roughed up while in custody. The story seemed to go off the whole media's radar on or soon after Dec. 26, 2016 which causes me to wonder whether a secret gag order was issued like the infamous one from 2014 which silenced the Aussie media from reporting on corruption allegations until it was finally overturned by the courts some months later.

There is something suspicious going on, but that is only my intuition, based on the very cagey and circumspect language used by authorities and the media to describe how the operation was executed.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Thank you Rod … I had not heard that on the US News.

And to grbtrb … I'm a Big supporter of both the 1st & 2nd Amendment. But Bill dumping Chissy or Merry or however. Has nothing to do with the 1st in the real world, IMO. On this site Bill is the Top Dog, Big Cheese, Honcho, HMFICE, etc. If Someone posts something that I don't like really means little. But if Bill dislikes it or them, then Bill is judge, jury and is some cases executioner. End of story …

Shame that it was cut short, was developing into an interesting discussion – bit like one of those extended bar chats when one of the 'protagonists' either falls down or is thrown out.

Someone who should have a gun (and unfortunately didn't bring it that day):

"Simmons explained that his father was permitted to carry a concealed weapon and that he often carried his gun, even bringing it with him to church on Sundays. But for some reason on the day of the shooting, Daniel Simmons, Sr. left the gun in his car. Simmons regretted his father could not have saved lives, including his own.
Simmons Jr. chronicled the life of his father, detailing how his dad served in the Army, worked as one of the first black Greyhound bus drivers, became a counselor, and tirelessly served the A.M.E. church during his 74 years of life."
link
Dan Simmons, Sr., one of Dylann Roof's victims.

Someone who shouldn't have a gun:

"Corley, who is accused of pointing a firearm at his wife and engaging in domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature, would face 20 years behind bars if found guilty on the charges. Prosecutors say Corley, a vocal gun-rights advocate, hit his wife in the face, head, and body with both a closed fist and a gun—while his children were watching."
link
South Carolina State Rep. Chris Corley.

"cancer is no were near as bad as unrestricted gun ownership"

Let's find out. (BTW, were=where) Cancer deaths:
The organization (American Cancer Society) projects about 1.7 million new cancer cases and more than 600,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. in 2017.
Gun Deaths:
In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total- 2014: 33,599
So it looks like you are ~20 times more likely to die in the USA of cancer than guns.

If we peel back the layers on guns and restrict it to gun homicides it is 2014: 10,945. So excluding suicides (21,334), accidents (586) and justifiable deaths (681) you'd be 60 times more likely to die from cancer than a gun.

I'd say we should be using all that effort spent lobbying for more gun control on curing cancer. Bunches more customers there…

@grtbrt: The First Amendment only applies to the US government. It does not apply to private property.

If I am on your property and saying things you disagree with, you are completely within your rights to throw me out.

This website is a private club, owned by Bill the Editor.

If Bill doesn't like what you say, he is completely within his rights to throw you out.

FiveThirtyEight's interactive graph is the best visual of gun deaths in the US that I have seen: link

Tragically it seems another of those over-hyped mass killings which apparently never really happen in the USA has happened.

To give some sense of how things are some here… headline news today is the funeral of someone shot dead by police a few days ago in a pre-planned operation.

The weapon in question was a single handgun and eleven rounds of ammunition.

Tragically it seems another of those over-hyped mass killings which apparently never really happen in the USA has happened.

Yes, many of us in the USA are watching the news too …

To give some sense of how things are some here… headline news today is the funeral of someone shot dead by police a few days ago in a pre-planned operation.

In the UK ?

Legion – yes that was in the UK. We don't mess around when it comes to illegal firearms.

Our police are actually killing a lot of people at the moment – that's the 5th since last April… no idea why, I suspect just a statistical blip.

Whereas the victim in this case was I think a Muslim, there's no indication of a terrorist involvement – just a knucklehead from the sounds of it.

But the point is that if our police will go to that amount of trouble over one pistol, imagine what resources we would bring over something more substantial.

Obviously there ar eilelgal wepaons here – in Machester a few years ago a couple of female police officers were killed in a grenade atack IIRC, but it isn't easy to get hold of them.

And the kind of people who have them are not exactly the sort of people ISIS can call upon.

Our police are actually killing a lot of people at the moment

That seems to be the situation in many places in the West. With all that is going on, and terrorism is just one of problems.

But as many have pointed out, the US and UK are different in many things and many ways. And difference in LEOs is just one of the many. Besides, i.e., the UK eats scones and the US eats biscuits.

Posts from Mr. Moonshine removed, due to suspicious IP activity.

I thought he/she/it could be a …

Our police are actually killing a lot of people at the moment – that's the 5th since last April… no idea why, I suspect just a statistical blip.

From 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2016, fatal police shootings in England & Wales totalled 62 – average just under 2.4 per year; typically, armed officers were deployed 16,000 times a year (average) over that period. Only twice has the number exceeded 4 in a calendar year – 2007 (5) and 2005 (6).