Thread: After The Gatton Shooting

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

That goes both ways. I'm not ill-informed at all.
Anyway, it's the weekend and I'm sick of repeating myself. Enough said.

If your not ignorant of such matters and law`s start a new thread and we can debate this elsewhere job done

No need to start a new thread.
I reckon Disco is an OK bloke,...he is a nice guy, and I've told him that, publicly on this forum,...and he is,...a nice guy,....imho.
However, Disco,...on this thread, you are missing the point,.....so please, LISTEN to me.
No-one is denying that these weapons should not be available, no-one is denying gun laws etc, however strict they are now, or however strict they may be even more so in the future.
The point you are missing/ignoring is that it ain't "Laws" that is the issue here, because all decent people adhere to "Laws", whatever they are, whether we agree with them or not, laws,....& we adhere to them.....what you are choosing to ignore/not think about is that crims/gangs/addicts etc of any description don't give a flying **** about "laws"... they just do what they feel like.....they just do what they want,...."gun laws" ain't gonna make a scrap of difference to oxygen thieves who have their own agenda.
So, what you need to think about Disco is, how would you stop illegal weapons from being in the possession of crims?..How is that going to happen?
Pickles.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

How is that going to happen?
Pickles.

greater enforcement by the police. they might need greater funding or a law change to allow this.

Originally Posted by Eevo

greater enforcement by the police. they might need greater funding or a law change to allow this.

Eevo they can't even stop the influx of drugs so how are they going to stop illegal guns.
I have been out of the shooting scene for many years, way before even the buy back scheme.
As far as I know, I can't walk in into a gun shop as a licenced shooter and buy some of the types of weapons used in crimes. They are just no avail to the public. So it doesn't matter how strict gun laws are, they would only become strict laws preventing legal ownership.
Guns are smuggled in , so criminals will get them by various illegal sources.

So for example if we had the toughest Gun laws in the world and no fire arms were allowed period . Do you think there would be no gun deaths? the majoriry would be disarmed, and the crims would still have/get them.

Originally Posted by Roverlord off road spares

Eevo they can't even stop the influx of drugs so how are they going to stop illegal guns.

and thats a fair point. we shouldnt give up in the goal of eliminating illegal weapons.

Originally Posted by hodgo

Are you for real ? what story books do you read? I lost two of my relations in the Port Arthur and I have talked and listened to all the conspiracy theories but the facts that I have come from people that were directly involved in the advent I went to school with one of the main players in the advent I know 2 prison warders that looked after Bryant for some time I have a cousin that has worked At Port Arthur for many years. I don't know who starts all this conspiracy crap for sure it must be the media, just to sell their trash. Martin Bryant was allowed to survive so that the authorities could find out the way he thinks and why The police on the ground that day were ordered not to take him out.
I am just glad that people that live with these conspiracy theories are the minority of our of our population If you want to say something please take facts not conspiracy theories.
I an not sorry if I have offend you or any one else, but my feelings and anger so?

Hodgo

You have not offended me. Will start with a couple of applicable quotes as I remember them. The first from writer Mark Twain: "It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled." Then another which some people recognise and covertly use its principles. ( I reckon including whoever was really behind arranging the Port Arthur Massacre.) One honest enough to openly declare it was Adolf Hitler. ie "If you a going to tell a lie, make it big one, keep it simple, keep repeating it and eventually people will believe it".

Further re the recent tragic shooting of Qld police officer, seems the offender was basically a decent bloke to his family but apparently had a violent criminal history. Even if his guilt is readily proven beyond doubt and he is dead , hopefully some sort of further investigation will indicate likely reasons. eg I have seen first hand an intelligent sensible bloke having delusions and display violent and dangerous behaviour after not taking prescribed medication. Others become dangerous after taking (usually illegal) drugs they shouldn't have.

Martin Bryant was /is obviously a dimwit. Much has been made of details to reinforce the still widely held false perception he committed the Port Arthur shootings. He was immediately vilified after them. Few people questioned the official narrative and those who did were vilified too. One who did was Port Arthur staff member and paramedic Wendy Scurr, who was the first to enter the Broad Arrow café after the shootings. Would be expected she would be an important witness in subsequent legal proceedings but police did not want to even take a statement from her, which would obviously detract from the official narrative by exposing some details that would indicate possibility that Martin Bryant was NOT the real gunmen.

Many aspects of this terrible atrocity are undeniable but unfortunately many people seem to take the view that pointing out reasons that indicate it was someone other than Martin who was responsible is like denying them. Obviously some who were closely involved on the day such as those Hodgo mentions are among them. However, remember that just because a lot of people believe an idea is right does not make it so if it can be proven wrong.

From memory after having studied and browsed a lot of material that mainly would not be revealed by the mainstream media, I could probably write several pages of details which discredit the "official" story of Martin Bryan's supposed guilt. Have a look at times at three Facebook groups where information and discussion of the truth about the PAM is discussed. Would regard them relatively of low, medium and high quality postings. The latter is a secret group obviously partly to keep trolls and "shills", ie paid misinformation agents out. Meanwhile, seems there are plenty of people who will defend official stories as peddled by the mainstream media as if it was their own research and refuse to even consider claims that question it. Just claim it is crackpot conspiracy theories peddled by gun nuts etc.

Is not an appropriate place here for me to post more PAM details. Better to point out where to look to find more original material for consideration. Nowadays many people with any initiative can find all sorts of information starting with a Google Search on the Internet. In this case typing in "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup " is one good start. it should "snowball" from there. Some information is basically the same stuff posted in different places. Also note that I have reasons for disagreeing somewhat with some peoples analysis of events and have also come up with my own ideas on others. Probably the most detailed and up to date article I have downloaded but so far only read bits of is the free on line book by Dr Keith Allan Noble. For other recent updates, check back through postings on www.gumshoe.com

Guess what Mox ....................... I, like many others are not interested in your whacky nut job conspiracy threads - especially on a thread such as this one. How about you stick your stupid theories where the sun don't shine.

This forum really is turning to **** if we allow this type of rubbish to be posted here.

Originally Posted by Roverlord off road spares

Eevo they can't even stop the influx of drugs so how are they going to stop illegal guns.
I have been out of the shooting scene for many years, way before even the buy back scheme.
As far as I know, I can't walk in into a gun shop as a licenced shooter and buy some of the types of weapons used in crimes. They are just no avail to the public. So it doesn't matter how strict gun laws are, they would only become strict laws preventing legal ownership.
Guns are smuggled in , so criminals will get them by various illegal sources.

So for example if we had the toughest Gun laws in the world and no fire arms were allowed period . Do you think there would be no gun deaths? the majoriry would be disarmed, and the crims would still have/get them.

I explained in previous posts why the 'Crims will get guns anyway' argument is false logic. People speed, but we don't say the speeding laws have failed.
Maddox was under surveillance by the cops after reports of machine gun fire on his property. He was on bail on a suspended prison sentence for assault. If the cops could have had him convicted for possession of an illegal weapon the magistrate would have sent him straight to prison.
This is an example of how the gun ban laws can be used to jail someone even if they don't commit a crime with the weapon. It shows the gun ban laws are effective against criminals.