It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by greenovni
ATS is an international website. If you don't want 'foreigners' discussing the topic then don't bring it up.
If my opinion is so offensive to you, don't read it.
Ever heard of an "outsiders" or "third party" perspective? It is often referred to when speaking of arguments where the main parties are wearing rose-coloured glasses.
Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Kryties
Are you worried for the sake of the people that will die if our laws are not changed?
I'm curious.
I am looking for yes or no as an answer.
That is one reason yes, aren't you? Or do you, as other gun advocates seem to, view future gun deaths as being collateral damage?
What I know is this - since we tightened our gun laws, requiring strict licensing, Australia has not seen a single mass murder. Alongside that our gun-related deaths fell by over half. The facts speak for themselves.
Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by Kryties
However, in a way, yes. "Firearm" deaths in the USA can be seen as collateral damage. The price of freedom is blood. Apparently you find that concept nauseating. Get over it.
did they now ?
Alongside that our gun-related deaths fell by over half.
yes, they do, no matter how many ways they're twisted.
The facts speak for themselves.
hyperbole much ??
Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by marg6043
Amazing how the right to bear arms is upheld so strongly yet the right to free speech, including opinion, is so strongly fought against, including in this thread.
When your civil war is over with, and half your people are dead and the other half covered in blood and your country is in ruins I wonder if then you'll think it was worth it?
www.smh.com.au...
Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.
A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.
Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.
Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the university's school of public health, said only time would tell what impact the restocking would have.
''Australia's public health effort to reduce the risk of gun violence led the world,'' he said. ''After melting down a million guns, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot fell by more than half. Plus, we've seen no mass shootings in 16 years,'' Professor Alpers said.
He said that because of law changes, the new guns were not military-style semi-automatics, which were banned and surrendered after Port Arthur, and that handguns were now harder to import into Australia. But he said: ''It only takes one bullet, and the great majority of gun deaths are domestics and suicides.''
Read more: www.smh.com.au...
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kryties
hmmmm, our civil war has been over for rougly 150yrs ... have you been sleeping or what ?
btw, we didn't lose 1/2 the population then, either.
Originally posted by Honor93
hyperbole much ??
what are you going on about ?
there isn't a single poster suggesting your tongue be removed.
what is your point ?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kryties
what bubble ??
it was your supposition proven wrong, not mine.
your link is disingenuous and incomplete.
try again.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kryties
what upcoming civil war ??
do you have some inside information that no American has ?
why do you think that the Federal Goverment intends on invading the several states ??
where do you get your information?
if not erroneously from the previous one, then where are you getting your "1/2 the population would die" statement ?
it wasn't true then and it wouldn't likely prove true today.
my, my, it does seem that you openly admit your tactics.
well done.
so, which of the posters are clamoring or championing for the removal of your tongue ??
(you know, your right to 'free speech')
please, be specific.
I am not going to rehash the same stuff over and over again