Terror at high school Down Under

[iverglas]

http://www.thestar.com/article/411266

The drama unfolded as hundreds attended an assembly in an outdoor area of Merrylands High School.

As the attackers moved in, teachers rushed the students back to class, where they sought refuge behind locked doors, under desks, even in a cupboard.

... Such school violence is rare in Australia.

The teens, between the ages of 14 and 16, were arrested and were to appear in court today to face more than 100 charges, police said. They have been charged with offences including assault and malicious damage and could face up to seven years in prison if convicted.

Amazingly, no one died. Perhaps this is why:

Five teenagers brandishing baseball bats and machetes rampaged through a suburban school yesterday and hit a teacher over the head, police said. Eighteen students were treated for minor injuries.

Is there any reason to think that if they had had access to firearms, they would not have been brandishing firearms instead? And that a bunch of people would have been dead?

Recent firearms control measures in Australia and the UK were enacted at least in part in response to mass murders committed with legally owned firearms.

Maybe they really have prevented some deaths.

[Lasher]

1. Maybe if the teachers had been armed this never would have happened. n/t

[iverglas]

2. I forgot!

Tuesday is historically "tell a joke day" in the Guns forum!

[Lasher]

4. Well since you set an example by speculating in the OP

I was hoping you wouldn't mind if I indulged in the practice myself.

[Turbo Teg]

31. Nope, no joke.

Sounds very resonable to me, but then again, I'm a resonable guy.

[gatts]

3. Non-lethal Machetes?

Is there any reason to think that if they had had access to firearms, they would not have been brandishing firearms instead? And that a bunch of people would have been dead?

Well, for starters, all of them are too young to legally own firearms in almost every state of the United States, so that's kinda a false question to even begin with. The students may well have had 'access' to firearms in the same general way that a 14-16 year old would here -- the registration and licensing requirements are pretty hefty, but not significantly more so than Illinois' FOID system, which didn't stop the February 14th shooting.

Moreover, if you want to kill an unarmed individual with a machete, there's not much stopping you. At distances of less than 21 feet, police officers are trained to treat long knives as similarly deadly as firearms; the time required to cover the distance and slit someone's throat is no greater than the time required to draw and fire a handgun.

It wasn't the lack of guns, here; it was that the idiots weren't willing to intentionally kill.

Maybe they really have prevented some deaths.

Yeah, that's exactly why the Monash University shooting happened in 2002, why overall homicide values were up since 1997, and why violent crime rates are remaining similar or increasing. That's why Baker & McPhedran's 2007 paper on the matter demonstrated that the beneficial results amounted to jack.

I'm sure they've prevented some deaths. Fourty-plus years ago, shooting a serial rapist in self-defense would have certainly resulted in an extra death. I'm not sure that's a good result, though.

[iverglas]

5. and for seconds

Is there any reason to think that if they had had access to firearms, they would not have been brandishing firearms instead? And that a bunch of people would have been dead?
Well, for starters, all of them are too young to legally own firearms in almost every state of the United States, so that's kinda a false question to even begin with.

It's non-sequituritis!

Someone has access to firearms if firearms are somewhere where s/he can lay hands on them. Nothing to do with "legally".

The students may well have had 'access' to firearms in the same general way that a 14-16 year old would here

Sure. They may well have. Who knows, eh? Maybe they just wanted to bruise a bunch of people, so using firearms seemed unwise.

It wasn't the lack of guns, here; it was that the idiots weren't willing to intentionally kill.

Hang about there. You know something I don't know? You know that "it wasn't the lack of guns, here" -- so you know they had access to firearms?

Maybe they really have prevented some deaths.
Yeah, that's exactly why the Monash University shooting happened in 2002, why overall homicide values were up since 1997, and why violent crime rates are remaining similar or increasing. That's why Baker & McPhedran's 2007 paper on the matter demonstrated that the beneficial results amounted to jack.

Failing to take your point yet again. Some deaths weren't prevented, so no deaths were prevented? Your crystal ball must be in fine working order today.

But once again, there is no history in the Guns forum. Except oh, there is! And yet people continue to cite discredited crap, long after it's been discredited.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=140199&mesg_id=140425

http://www.physorg.com/news96559347.html
-- oh look, it comes partly from the institution that granted my own first degree.

Economists Dr Christine Neill, of Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada and Dr Andrew Leigh from The Australian National University, have revisited a study published by Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran in the British Journal of Criminology.

... “Part of the problem with the original study was that it drew strong conclusions from data that covered a very short period of time – starting from a time when firearm death rates were high by historical standards.”

... “We find reductions in both gun homicide and gun suicide rates that are statistically significant, meaning that they are larger than would have been expected by mere chance,” Dr Leigh said. “Our best estimates are that the gun buyback has saved between 128 and 282 lives per year.”

These findings can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the gun buyback. Economists typically put the value of a life saved at around $2.5 million. At a one-off cost of approximately $500 million, this suggests that the gun buyback has proved a good use of public money.

Of course, the authors of those studies weren't members of organizations that opposed the legislation from its inception, so why should we listen to them?

The study itself is here:
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf

Abstract

Using time series analysis on data from 1979-2004, Baker and McPhedran (2006) argue that the stricter gun laws introduced in the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) post-1996 did not affect firearm homicide rates, and may not have had an impact on the rate of gun suicide or accidental death by shooting. We revisit their analysis, and find that their results are not robust to: (a) using a longer time series; or (b) using the log of the rate rather than the level (to take account of the fact that the rate cannot fall below zero). We also show that claims that the authors had allowed both for method substitution and for underlying trends in suicide or homicide rates are misleading. The high variability in the data and the fragility of the results with respect to different specifications suggest that time series analysis cannot conclusively answer the question of whether the NFA led to lower gun deaths. Drawing strong conclusions from simple time series analysis is not warranted, but to the extent that this evidence points anywhere, it is towards the firearms buyback reducing gun deaths.

The discredited Baker and McPhedran study is here:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/365

Fourty-plus years ago, shooting a serial rapist in self-defense would have certainly resulted in an extra death.

RAPE! RAPE!! RAPE!!!

I imagine you had some reason for dragging "a serial rapist" into this discussion, and making some bizarre allegation about Australians and self-defence shootings. Well, I know you did. And I know what it was.

And I know what it wasn't. It wasn't anything connected with reality.

[gatts]

6. Ah, the cut and paste wonder.

You know something I don't know? You know that "it wasn't the lack of guns, here" -- so you know they had access to firearms?

I know how easy it is to kill an unarmed individual with a machete. Whether or not these kids had access to firearms, they could easily have killed, and easily have killed many. Moreover, I know that the Australian gun laws are not drastically different than Illinois' FOID licensing and registration system, which likewise did not do much to prevent shootings there.

Failing to take your point yet again. Some deaths weren't prevented, so no deaths were prevented? Your crystal ball must be in fine working order today.

Surprisingly well, given that I hadn't put any coffee into it. My crystal ball -- ie, brain -- tends to like caffeine. Back in the world where we expect people to use logic rather than accusing them of using magic or pulling answers out of thing air, we notice that not only were some deaths not prevented, it was the exact type of situation that the laws were intended to prevent, and the shootings occurred at a similar or greater rate as compared to before the situation.

And I know what it wasn't. It wasn't anything connected with reality.

Yes, after all, no women are raped in this wonderful world of ours, and it's not like prohibited the licensing of firearms for self-defense by statute is at all going to be a problem. Any other viewpoint in not connected with reality.

As for the Neill-Leigh study, it's still presenting useless data, by focusing on firearm homicides and suicides rather than the slightly more relevant gun and non-gun homicides and suicides that the Baker-McPhedran looked at. Nice misrepresentation, though.

[iverglas]

8. damn me to hell

for actually quoting the authorities I cite.

You're the one who dragged your pet authorities into the discussion, pal. If you don't like what they had to say, and the fact that it's been shredded by better authorities than them, leave 'em out of it. Won't bother me at all.


Yes, after all, no women are raped in this wonderful world of ours, and it's not like prohibited the licensing of firearms for self-defense by statute is at all going to be a problem. Any other viewpoint in not connected with reality.

Actually ... and trying desperately to make some sense of that ... what it's not like is that women in Australia were wandering around with firearms at any time in the past. And it's not like there is some law against using force in self-defence in Australia. So what it's really like is that your drivel about women not being able to shoot serial rapists in self-defence is drivel. And once again, despicable oinky drivel.

[gatts]

9. Oink yourself.

The authorities you cite provide data that is only useful if you consider being killed by a gun worse than being killed with a knife.

Actually ... and trying desperately to make some sense of that ... what it's not like is that women in Australia were wandering around with firearms at any time in the past. And it's not like there is some law against using force in self-defence in Australia. So what it's really like is that your drivel about women not being able to shoot serial rapists in self-defence is drivel. And once again, despicable oinky drivel.

Before the 1920s, carry of handguns was legal (although restricted) in Australia.

And if you think that there's a right to self defense between a 120 lbs woman who can't legally carry a knife, stun gun, normal gun, or even OC spray, against a 200+ lbs male who's already showing a remarkable lack of concern about legal matters, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[iverglas]

10. are you a 120 lb Australian woman?

Didn't think so.

If you happen to be acquainted with a 120 lb Australian woman who would like to express her views on this subject in this forum, do invite her.

Meanwhile, ... oh, just keep on trying to exploit someone else's experience in the service of your nasty agenda. I really wouldn't want to try to stop you. I'd have nothing to point and jeer at if you all did that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. So men can't have an opinion on rape?

[iverglas]

17. so you haven't stopped beating your dog?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. So you haven't stopped being a victim?

[iverglas]

11. so, what's this you say?

overall homicide values were up since 1997

How clever of you; "were" up, were they? Were you referring to a particular point in time, and would there be any reason not to refer to the present?

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/66/02_summary.html

Homicide in Australia : 2003-2004 National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report

Australians are less likely to be killed by a firearm now than 15 years ago, although over half of all firearms homicides are committed with handguns. Very few firearms used in homicide are registered or the offenders licensed. Weapons of opportunity predominate in homicide, with females more likely to be beaten to death, whereas males are more likely to be knifed to death. Most homicides occur in residential premises, although there has been an increasing trend in the proportion of homicides occurring on the street or in an open area. A third of all homicide incidents occur on Fridays and Saturdays, usually during the hours where people are out socialising or at entertainment venues or facilities. Few homicide incidents occur during the day, especially on weekdays.

This year has recorded the lowest number of homicide incidents and victims in Australia since the AIC began monitoring in 1989. Compared with the previous year (2002-03) there was a slight decline in the number of homicide incidents and victims (3% decrease for incidents; 6% decrease for victims). The downward trend observed in the previous year has continued during 2003-04. New South Wales recorded the largest decline in homicides in 2003-04, with a total of 85 victims, down from 99 victims in 2002-03, representing a 14 per cent decrease compared with the previous year.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/72/

Homicide in Australia : 2004-05 National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report

This report presents tabulated information on the circumstances and characteristics of homicide in Australia for the fiscal year 2004-05. In addition, the report contains jurisdictional breakdowns for comparative purposes and some long-term trend data across the sixteen-year NHMP data collection period. In 2004-05, there was a total of 249 incidents of homicide recorded. These were committed by 286 homicide offenders and resulted in the deaths of 267 victims. This is the lowest annual number of homicide incidents and victims in Australia since the Australian Institute of Criminology began monitoring in 1989.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/77/

Homicide in Australia : 2005-06 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report

This report presents tabulated information on the circumstances and characteristics of homicide in Australia for the fiscal year 2005-06. In addition, the report contains jurisdictional breakdowns for comparative purposes and some long-term trend data across the sixteen-year NHMP data collection period. In 2005-06, there were 283 incidents of homicide, resulting in 301 victims and committed by 336 offenders. Since 2001-02, there has been a downward trend in the incidence of homicide, however during the current year, it has increased by 14% compared to 2004-05. This represents an increase of 34 homicide incidents. The overall trend in the incidence of homicide has remained stable over the 17-year period since the Australian Institute of Criminology began monitoring in 1989.

(2006-2007 apparently not yet available)

Just some actual info.


http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/hot-topic_homicide.html

The homicide rate in Australia is around 1.4 deaths per 100,000 population and compares favourably internationally (South Africa = 49.6, Russia = 20.1, USA = 5.5, France = 1.7, UK = 1.4).

Snork. Australia would be the worried well patient on this couch.

[enfield collector]

41. Darfur genocide mostly carried out by machete-wielding

killers. 800,000 people being sliced up with machetes is less bad than being shot though in some people opinion

[iverglas]

43. deleted

Firefox crashed in the middle of it ...

[iverglas]

44. some people's opinion is actually that telling the truth is worthwhile

First of all, I'm confused. Could you be referring to Rwanda?

If I may assume that for the moment ... do these look like machetes to you?



http://ttt.pugetsoundcenter.org/projects/2003/ttt03008/rwanda/pictures.htm


Firearms work well as weapons of intimidation against both isolated rural women and crowds of people anywhere.

Can you really be unaware that the Rwandan genocide was orchestrated by the military? And you think the military was armed with machetes?

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mmmacias/RwandaGenocideHISTORY.html

VI: THE GENOCIDE (APRIL-JULY 1994)
On April 6, 1994 President Juvenal Habyarimana, the former president of Rwanda and President Cyprien Ntariyaman, the former president of Burundi, were killed in a plane crash as they were returned from talks in which they were reaffirming the Arusha Accords. Many people believe that the genocide began almost immediately after President Habyarimana's plane was gunned down. In the capital of Kigali, roadblocks were set up and "within hours, a systematic manhunt was underway for "enemies" of the regime". Within a few days, the death toll had mounted to close to 50,000 and some estimate that the total number of deaths reached 1 million. The first people killed in the genocide were the opposition Prime Minister, the president of the constitutional court, priests, leaders of the Liberal Party ad Social Democratic Party, the Informational Minister, and the negotiator of the Arusha Accords. The massacre was systemic and planned with the intention of gaining both recognition and political power for the MRND, FAR, and other administrative and military forces.

Most all of the genocidaire were Hutu, and assembled to create the Interhamwe ("those who attack together"), and Impuzamugambi ("those with a single purpose") militias, as well as the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR). They were armed with simple weaponry: AK-47 assault rifles, grenades and machetes. Their goal was to exterminate all Tutsi, and Tutsi-sympathizers, including Hutu who were married to Tutsi and those Hutu who would not take part in the killing. There was an understanding by the militia that their actions would not only gain them political control but would also help revive the country from their economic destitute.

The genocidaire were assisted by Rwanda's internal media. The country's radio stations and newspapers were used to disseminate information and ethnic hate propaganda that helped the coordinate the violence and killing that were the genocide. On July 4, 1994, the RPF took control of the capital of Kigali. Soon after, they call into power the interim government of Pastor Bizimunga as President and Faustin Twagiramunga as Prime Minister.

[dger11]

7. 7 years is the most they can get?

It should be at least 20. Are machetes banned in Aussieland yet? If so, baseball bats are probably next. It does not appear that this would result in a mass shooting even if they did have firearms. The intent was to find a particular student to harm or intimidate. Random students were not being sliced and diced with machetes. I don't think this is comparable to the mindset seen in most school shootings.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. I've treated a lot of gun shot wounds and knife wounds.

So I feel like I can have an opinion on this unlike some other topics. I would far rather be shot than be stabbed. It's not hard to kill an unarmed person with a machete, the people committing genocide with them in Africa are quite fond of the machete as an instrument of death. They didn't kill anyone because they didn't want to.

David

[apocalypsehow]

14. "I would far rather be shot than be stabbed"

"It's not hard to kill an unarmed person with a machete, the people committing genocide with them in Africa are quite fond of the machete as an instrument of death."

"They didn't kill anyone because they didn't want to."

That's some funny stuff there. You ought to charge admission.

"So I feel like I can have an opinion on this unlike some other topics"

That's odd, I've yet to see anything you didn't have some kind of clownish opinion on. Keep 'em coming.

[iverglas]

16. you are just such an expert on everything

One would think you'd actually know ... or admit ... that gunshot wounds have higher lethality than blade wounds. Unless you've spent far too much time reading Gary Kleck, and not enough just observing reality.

One of my favourite gun-sucker debunkers! --

http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000/

The numbers Kleck quotes above come from Table 7 of the article which contains mortality data by weapon. The implication seems to be that “knives are almost as deadly as guns”. This is extremely misleading.

I'll let you read why.


And hey, let's play games about African genocides too, shall we?

Yes, there were no AK-47s in the hands of the militias who were overseeing the mass murders.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. More reading comprehension.

Did I say that gun shot wounds were less lethal than knife wounds? Answer No.

Did I say I would rather be shot than stabbed? Answer Yes.

I didn't say I would have a greater chance of living. I said I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Maybe it was seeing people eviscerated by knife wounds, or a woman cut about 30 times bone deep still concious asking for help. So let's not jump to conclusions next time and read a little more carefully.

David

[Howzit]

39. I' m sorry, but something in this study seems hard to believe

From http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000

weapon; cases; deaths; % deaths
Ice Pick 14; 2; 14.3
Butcher Knife 15; 2; 13.3;

If someone was stabbed to the hilt in the same area of the abdomen or chest with an ice pick and a butcher's knife, the latter will cut off many more blood vessels than the former. There is a lot less bleeding from a small puncture wound than from a long slit, and the puncture wound may be able to close up by itself without medical attention (such as hypodermic needles used to administer adrenaline directly into the heart during emergency resuscitation). A slit cut across arteries and though organs definitely cannot close by itself.

I cannot accept that a butcher knife is not more lethal than an ice pick - never mind less lethal, as indicted by your study. This brings into question the comparison between bullets and blades that you cite. Obviously all blades are not equal; some are wider and longer and the person using it has an effect on the damage created.

You do know that elk are routinely killed with bows and arrows during bow hunting season in the US? A 1000 lb animal killed by an arrow with half the energy of a .22 rimfire. Anyone shooting an elk with a .22 RF in the US is going to be in serious legal trouble for using an under powered caliber. How can this be? Broadhead arrows are very efficient at cutting off blood vessels, just like scalpel blades slice though tissue with very little effort. By the way, hunting arrows use blades, like the "broadhead"; never pointed tips like ice picks - there is a reason for this. Conical tip arrows are for target practice only.


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7318783.html :

"Archers use different types of arrows for different purposes. Two commonly used types of arrows are field tip arrows and broadhead arrows. A field tip arrow has a conical pointed head. It is typically used for target practice. A common broadhead arrow has a plurality of tapered blades having cutting edges. The tapered blades converge at a tip and form an arrowhead configuration. A broadhead arrow is typically used for hunting."


So, guns are more lethal than knives from 6 feet away and futher. Closer than that, and all bets are off.

Edited to add conclusion

[Howzit]

40. Yes, I know that all bullets are not equal,

just like all knives are not equal. Much depends on how they are used too.

This makes comparing gun vs knife lethality very tricky.

[apocalypsehow]

15. Funny how that works, huh?

Five teenagers with baseball bats and machetes = no deaths.

One lunatic with firearms = scores of dead and wounded.

I mean, I get it. It really isn't a hard thread of reasoning to follow. Yet we have this, right here in this thread:

"I would far rather be shot than be stabbed"

And from a self-proclaimed "fire medic" no less! Curious stuff.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

25. What's with the spinach on Tuesday?

And boy, do I love a heapin' helping of irony:

Tex whimpers: "What's with the personal attacks?"

Then Tex grunts: "First part is explained further up the thread yet you troll."

This one is my favorite yet:

"What's with the trollish personal attacks?"

Gut-busters, all. :rofl:

[Tejas]

26. Care to answer the question? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

27. Care to ask one that makes a molecule of sense? n/t.

[gorfle]

20. I'm glad they are enjoying their safety.

It's good that Australia is such a safe place to live. I hope they are enjoying their safety. I hope they will have no cause to regret being unarmed in the name of achieving that safety.

[iverglas]

21. why ...

is the US considering invading?

If the security of their free state is in jeopardy, you should probably warn them.

[Tejas]

28. because ...

they have the same problem, for example, that Canada has with motorcycle gangs. In case you haven't looked out've the corner of your rose-colored glasses lately, they don't exactly care about Australia's gun laws, or Canada's either.

[iverglas]

30. why not?

(Old philosophy major joke.
Final exam question: Why?
Answer: Because - gets a B
Answer: Why not? - gets an A.)


gorfle says:

I'm glad they are enjoying their safety.
It's good that Australia is such a safe place to live. I hope they are enjoying their safety. I hope they will have no cause to regret being unarmed in the name of achieving that safety.

I enquire why? as in why would they have cause to regret "being unarmed"? might the US be considering invading?

And you say:

because ...
they have the same problem, for example, that Canada has with motorcycle gangs. In case you haven't looked out've the corner of your rose-colored glasses lately, they don't exactly care about Australia's gun laws, or Canada's either.

... and this is supposed to make sense?

What good does an individual being "armed" do when the problem is motorcycle gangs?

Would the guy standing at a gas station in Montreal filling his tank not have been shot dead by a member of a biker gang (in a case of mistaken identity on the part of the hit man) if he had been "armed"?

Canada's biker wars of the 1990s had a body count of about 160.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bikergangs/

How about the 11-yr-old kid who was killed by a car bomb outside a biker clubhouse? Who should have been "armed" to prevent that?

In April 2006, eight people were found dead in a farmer's field near the small town of Shedden, Ont., about 30 kilometres southwest of London. Police said the killings virtually wiped out the Toronto chapter of the Bandidos.

Hell -- if they can kill one another with such efficiency, them presumably being well "armed" ... well, I'm sure you see what I'm wondering.

Here's what we're finding is a good "weapon" against the biker gangs:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=ba4c75d4-c681-4b7d-9843-3f76225794da&k=28505

Trials.

I recently read all the sentencing decisions in those particular cases, actually.

Yeah, it's not like prison stopped Mom Boucher from running the show. But Mom and his crew are getting a little long in the tooth now, and the new guard doesn't seem to quite have the right stuff. I heard an RCMP guy saying recently that the bikers will always be with us, but they can be kept down to a dull roar.

In any event ... what point did you think you were making?

[Turbo Teg]

33. Hey, what's your big problem,

Nobody is asking you to be armed, so what's the deal? You obviously have no problems and don't need any protection so why do you care so much?

[iverglas]

34. ooooo! Non-responsive noise!

Not surprising, given that it's responding to a response to non-responsive noise ...

[gorfle]

29. You never know...

is the US considering invading?

If the security of their free state is in jeopardy, you should probably warn them.

You never know. If you have a prime natural resource we might be bringing "freedom and democracy" to you next.

But I had more in mind resistance against a tyrannical government. I hope the Australians find their government continues to be benign.

[Ready4Change]

22. FYI: Wiki page on Australian gun laws & politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Just providing info to help promote informed discussion.

[iverglas]

23. and don't miss the Talk page

Some of it will make a Guns forum regular feel right at home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_politics_in_Australia

In the second paragraph - 'The cultural debate about gun politics reflects a general shift from 'traditional' values toward modern urban 'cosmopolitan' values'

Second paragraph, Firearm advocacy groups - 'women and people with tertiary educated class values; opposition comes from rural areas, older people, people who hold libertarian views and people with traditional values'

I think that these statements are clearly biased against those favouring gun control measures.

'Traditional values' is a vague term, and used in this context adds positive overtones to those opposing gun control, portraying them as 'decent' or 'normal' people. Similarly, 'urban cosmopolitan values' and 'tertiary educated class values' have negative overtones. True, its not quite as blatant as using the term 'latte-sippers', but these are still not netural descriptions. These two sentences seem to be attempts to juxtapose the two groups by portraying those against gun control in a positive light, and those supporting it in a negative light.

Finally, there are no citations to support these statements. So I suggest the offending terms be removed.


Reply:
I have no problem with removing or replacing these terms, but the anonymous person proposing it seems to wish to deny shooters are decent or normal people. ...

Hahahaha! C'mon, fess up. Somebody here wrote that reply, right?

Anyhow, the comment in response there is from the author of the article. So I think we know what we're looking at.

I'll give the author this, though:

The article linked here:
http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/the-australian-gun-ban/
is not as described, but a polemic from a US RKBA perspective which ignores or misstates numerous facts.

... The linked article references no reliable sources of statistics and makes no fact-based argument. It is rubbish. And as a pro-gun person with a science background it pains me to see such tripe

[Turbo Teg]

32. What's your point? Again.

Is it that when people don't have guns they're gonna use bats and Machettes. Yeah, we already know this. People will always find a way to hurt others with or without guns. The fact that nobody was seriously injured is a moot point. There was a shooting yesterday that I saw on the news were no one was injured. So what? I don't really think these kids we're really trying to do a lot of harm, maybe just scare people, because I know if I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, that's gonna be a killing blow. Even when I was 15, if I hit you with a bat you weren't gonna get back up, and I doubt that could be considered a "non-injurey". Same thing with a machette.

[iverglas]

35. I'll make you a deal

You tell me what your point was in that biker gang post, and I'll see whether I can help you out on this one.

[Howzit]

36. If the intent of the user is homicide, then the main difference between guns, blades and bats

is the distance at which the target may be engaged.

Because guns may be used from a distance they make superior weapons for offence and defense. Guns can be used by people lacking the strength and endurance to wield other weapons, thus their usefulness for defense by the old, weak or disabled.

If a 16 year old used his strength swinging a baseball bat or machete and struck a person on the head or neck that person would be at risk of dying, especially with multiple blows. Either these little scum are weaklings or they were not intent on killing at least one person they attacked. Do we know if they struck each victim once or kept at it with multiple blows?

The question isn't if these scumbags would have killed people had they used guns, the question is what the hell is wrong with today's youth and how can we program them to respect others so the idea of such an attack doesn't come up?

Edited for spelling

[iverglas]

37. for the curious

google news ... such a wonderful invention ...

http://www.fairfieldadvance.com.au/article/2008/04/16/3415_news.html

Wednesday 16 April, 2008 12:01am

A GRANVILLE gang has listed Fairfield and Westfields Sports high schools on its hit list.

Granville Boys High's bebo website reportedly threatened to harm students at the local schools, as well as others in the Parramatta district, if they crossed them.

The listing was after police said Guildford-based Gee40, was behind the attack at Merrylands High School last Monday when machete-wielding youths allegedly threatened and harmed students and teachers.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/09/2212178.htm?section=australia

Rampage aftermath: Expert slams 'racist moral panic'

Posted Wed Apr 9, 2008 2:19pm AEST

A gang culture expert says the media is beating up its reporting of gang-related crime for racial reasons after Monday's high school rampage in western Sydney.

Five teenage boys from a Pacific Islander background face 101 charges after they allegedly attacked staff, students and property at Merrylands High School with baseball bats, samurai swords and machetes.

Sydney newspapers suggest the attack was just the tip of the iceberg of a growing gang problem in western Sydney, driven by a romantic inspiration from Los Angeles' organised gang culture and fuelled by the internet.

... But economics Professor Jock Collins, from the University of Technology in Sydney, has told ABC 702 Sydney radio that the story - which features images taken from a social networking website of Granville boys with guns - is unsubstantiated.

... "I think that there's an asymetrical response to gangs when they're from different ethnic groups and when they're 'our' gangs," he said.


robbery.http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/high-school-attackers-glorify-violence-on-the-net/2008/04/08/1207420390715.html

High school attackers glorify violence on the net

April 9, 2008

ONE of them goes by the name of "Ruthless-tongan", another by "Let the Ass Kickin Begin".

There's also a group calling itself the "Original Gee40", whose slogan is "Not to be feared, but respected". The websites — linked to Gee40, a gang connected to the violent rampage at Merrylands High School in Sydney's west this week, which left 18 students and a teacher injured — glorify violence.

"IM DA LEADER OF DA GEE40 CREW," one website says. "My sister is a slut I have a A.K47 IN MY ROOM." The high school rampage is the latest in a series of attacks in western Sydney by a gang of mostly Islander teenagers, who display guns, knives and cash on their social networking websites. Some of the five teenagers accused of the school attack gestured obscenely yesterday as they were driven to court to face 101 charges of assault and affray.

Each of the boys, aged between 14 and 16, was charged with property damage worth more than $15,000, 17 counts of assault, as well as one count each of affray and participating in an unnamed criminal group.

One of the teenagers, who faced court last week over two armed robberies, was charged with breaking bail conditions. Another already had a conviction for aggravated robbery.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rampage-exposes-brazen-teenage-gang-culture/2008/04/08/1207420389581.html

The Premier, Morris Iemma, told Parliament yesterday that he had asked the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, to investigate whether a new offence needed to be created in the wake of the Merrylands rampage to cover incidents in schools.

The rampage has opened a window on a world of violence, drugs and guns grown out of a veneration of American criminal culture. The teenagers, based around Granville, are known to use gang names such as the Gee40 and the Crazy Little Coconuts, or CLC.

Emulating US gangs such as the Crips, the Granville gangs have come to the attention of the homicide squad and the Robbery and Serious Crimes Squad following the shotgun murder of an 18-year-old at a house in Yennora in Sydney's south-west in February.

The Yennora house is lived in by a family who already have two sons in jail over the 2002 murder of the police officer Glenn McEnallay.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/08/gang_wideweb__470x376,0.jpg


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Too far away to completely get a handle on from here, I'd say.

It does seem that the aim of the assault on the school was not committed for mass murder purposes. Hitting someone over the head with a bat is of course an act that can easily cause death, as could anything else done with the weapons they were using. Hitting someone with a bat or a machete is an extremely serious assault and any death that resulted would be a homicide, not an accident.

That's the one photo I saw from the website referred to. Bit of an unlikely weapon for a gang to be interested in, isn't it? (Wonder where the prized alleged AK47 was.) Not real handy for street robberies and th elike. I wonder whether it's all they've been able to get hold of ...

But when a shotgun is all you've got to kill somebody with, it still works, it seems.

[sir pball]

38. Lucky for these kids they don't live in Fresno

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6083383

"Police say the officer fired after the student at Roosevelt High School allegedly hit the officer with a baseball bat. The cause of the attack is not immediately known."

[Indy Lurker]

42. I'm just glad they couldn't get a hold of the dangerous stuff

Like gasoline, or fertilizer and diesel fuel, or peroxide and acetone.

or even an off road vehicle, that would have been bad in an outdoor assembly.