How Australia was stripped of their automatic and semi-automatic weapons in 1996

a reply to: badw0lf

People are more likely to use the guns on themselves so crime isn't really that important.

I just think it's interesting that their could be clear benefits to a false flag attack.

A case could easily be made that lives were saved due to the events of Port Arthur.

a reply to: paraphi

Yes, i'm not saying whites are better or anything, just that people are different! Watson, the co discoverer of DNA, even said it's ludicrous to believe that different groups of humanity- who lived separately for thousands of years- would evolve at the same rate and all be identical. I think we all evolved in different ways.
All people do these days is ignore race, and just say we are all the same. But if we really looked into and studied racial differences we could adjust society so it can cater to racial differences, instead of a "One size fits all".

e.g. If we could find out what isn't working with indigenous australians in australia on a racial/genetic level, and why they are overrepresented in prisons, maybe we could fix it and help them live better in western civilization. Instead of just saying; "no problem here! everyone is exactly the same!".

a reply to: nOraKat

From what I've observed, there's not much "diversity" of thought in Australia, kind of like Canada. There's actually more diversity of thought in Britain, but I can't quite figure out why that is.

a reply to: LordAhriman

From Wiki;

Some areas of Jamaica, particularly cities such as Kingston, Montego Bay and Spanish Town, experience high levels of crime and violence.[1] Jamaica has had one of the highest murder rates in the world for many years, according to United Nations estimates.[2] Former Prime Minister P. J. Patterson described the situation as "a national challenge of unprecedented proportions".[3]

And only with a population of 2.8 million, there is alot of crime there. It had one of the highest murder rates in the world, and one of the lowest just before they gained independence from Britain....

originally posted by: CromCruachh
a reply to: LordAhriman

Just goes straight against your conditioning doesn't it, you gonna have a meltdown now?
Just look at the facts. Where is one country which is majority Black which isn't violent and corrupt?

Thats true and this line may be getting off track.

But here in US you don't see the press setting down with gang bangers in big city and try to make them answer to the actions of their street troops or basic non related use of guns in other killings, robberies ect. Nor was their a noticeable call in comparison for gun talk after the Orlando shooting. But its ok to label white gun owners ect as hicks and undereducated hillbilly ect and drag them out to answer for the actions of one or two white mental defects. AND indict the whole culture....white american gun culture, even though there is no such thing in reality enough to use broad brush terms, the press will suffice to lowest common denominator and easy repulsive stereotypes none the less even though the shooter in this case was in reality not even close to the profile, the strawman, the elk hunter or the constitutionalist.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: badw0lf

We just need more illegal guns, stolen from lawful owners, or easily obtained from gun shows and other avenues of explicit gun worship.

But but but , how would they be stolen , you got guns right , isn't that your argument .

Umm, yeah, we do have guns, and yeah, legal firearms have been stolen. By criminals.

Thing is, by comparison to everyone having a gun and those not legally allowed to, you have far more illegal firearms per capita than we ever will.

It is also a legal requirement for our legal guns to be kept secure.

How would they be stolen?? Don't really get your point.. My point was we still have guns. directly opposing the common foreign opinion that we had them all taken away, thus are therefore slaves to the government that has some oppressive rule over us. Yet by far we have less guns per capita than the US do.

Hell, I even read on ATS years ago someone saying he had his gun with him at a party and lost it somewhere. You sure you trust everyone who legally has a gun with such slack regulations?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: badw0lf

People are more likely to use the guns on themselves so crime isn't really that important.

I just think it's interesting that their could be clear benefits to a false flag attack.

A case could easily be made that lives were saved due to the events of Port Arthur.

False flag with no actual purpose that served no purpose.

Or just a sick mad man who felt despised by the society he lived in, with a fetish for violence...

Does my head in when people refuse to accept that there are just some sick, very sick, people around, and then attribute amazing abilities to them in order to refute the facts that they are just mentally deranged.

Even in war, there are people guilty of war crimes... they're not false flags, they're act of sadistic cruelty committed against innocent people for personal horrific gratification.

a reply to: badw0lf

Ha ha , i think we are arguing the same argument . Im an Aussie .

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: nOraKat

From what I've observed, there's not much "diversity" of thought in Australia, kind of like Canada. There's actually more diversity of thought in Britain, but I can't quite figure out why that is.

From what you've observed? In your time studying, or just from what you've heard on forums and the news, providing you with a narrow slither of an entire society?

Don't have much faith in your observations... there is a vast diversity here when it comes to guns. You just dont hear frank farmer or chris cowboy much on ATS or the news.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: badw0lf

Ha ha , i think we are arguing the same argument . Im an Aussie .

Confused me (it's saturday night after all, I'm in an easily confused state lol) with that last post, but I've agreed with your other posts !!

*pours another drink and puts the keyboard down*

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: myss427

Yeah, the problem in the US is that people are robbed in their homes by people with guns fairly regularly. I don't want to defend myself against a semi auto handgun with a bolt action rifle.

It's a completely different problem in the US. The illegal guns are already floating around in mass circulation. There's no getting them back, so it's ludicrous to suggest law abiding gun owners give up theirs and become even more easily victimized. Almost guarantee home invasions and armed robberies would skyrocket in the weeks following a mass buy back program here.

If I really thought banning guns would end gun violence overnight or even in a decade I would probably change my tune. Until then, leave the laws alone but allow statewide concealed carry.

One thing that I wouldn't mind changing with a few caveats is allowing people to get a CPL without having to take even a basic test. Fine, I'll take a class every five years. Don't make it prohibitively expensive (poor people need and deserve protection too). Allow people to get one without a class in special circumstances (when someone is under obvious threat). Don't think I'm going to budge on anything else.

This is exactly why it is a much more complex issue for America. It is the regular gun toting home invaders. I think if a ban in Amercia were to have any chance of success it would have to come (at least initially) with some seriously draconian laws accompanying it - such as death sentences for home invaders with fire arms but much less severe sentences for burglars who have no weapons of any description. And quick enforcement, rather than 10 year death row spells. This would send the message to the crims that the guns need to go, or at least become far rarer.

The issue with that though is it is effectively the government replacing the crims as the perpetrators of violence so is kind of self defeating. Plus miscarriages of justice (can't bring the wrongly convicted back to life).

a reply to: badw0lf

Its all good , having a couple of west ends myself .


The scoutmaster

The point about our government being tyrannical isn't that they will round us up in gulags if we give up our guns.
It's about our freedoms slowly and steadily being taken away, year after year. More and more laws and regulations are being put into place. Most people haven't realized how much our governments have control of our lives compared to 100 years ago, since this has been a gradual process. What is the end game? How many more freedoms will be stripped away 100 more years into the future?
That frog in boiling water analogy comes to mind here...

a reply to: paraphi

This is in contrast to the US, where under the guise and excuse of "guns for protection" and the "prevention of tyranny" guns contribute to frequent mass murders and a shocking toll on life.

It wasn't a guise when my house was cased then robbed. It wasn't a guise when a no kidding psychopath came to my house threatening my family's safety. When your family is at risk and the police don't show up for 30 minutes or more you realize your only solution is to defend yourself. Our 2nd amendment assures our means of self defense and guarantee against tyranny. Most importantly it assures "the government" cannot take them away without a Constitutional Amendment that would codify a national agreement of its citizens (the right way to do it). The only solution short of confiscation that the anti-gun advocates propose is a national registry allowing the government to decide how many and what type gun(s) you need. No thanks. These are the same people that screw-up everything they "fix".

a reply to: Kandinsky


Aren't they all still dead? Just proves that to kill you don't need a gun.

a reply to: badw0lf

Wow, thanks, that was really helpful and informative.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: badw0lf

Wow, thanks, that was really helpful and informative.

Just my observations, bro.

They're integral to the discussion, are they not?

a reply to: hutch622

By and large the population was not concerned as the majority did not have these weapons . Laws were passed and the majority cheered

And that is the risk America recognizes. The coastal elites don't own guns so they don't care that they propose giving up a real right (not the imaginary rights to health care etc..). The politicians and media divas have armed guards that I'm sure would be exempt from giving up their guns and they live in gated communities. Anyone who has lived in the "bad part of town" knows you are a target if you are the weakest.
The "majority" also wanted Hillary/Democrats but our Founders were smart enough to protect us from "tyranny of the majority".

originally posted by: nOraKat
Yes, its to defend yourself from your enemies.

Nobody finds this suspicious? -

Why would you find it suspicious?

It was a tiny Cafe with people taken by surprise and who were in a state of shock, with many of them crouching or laying on the ground.

They were literally sitting ducks ready to be picked off, even if you did not know how to target a gun, however this nut did.

With all the arson mass killings since then, they might need to ban fire as well.