Las vegas shooting: Why didn't it happen in Sydney?

You referred to australians as subjects and yourself as a citizen.

Did you mean that in a positive way?

 

A killer without a gun is still a killer using a different weapon.

 

And overall murder rate in UK went up in 1968 after the first gun ban, then went up again in 1997 after the next gun ban, to hit 100 year high in murder rate.

Well done.

 

Is bombing concerts there illegal? Don't you have bomb control laws?

 

As bloodthirsty as some liberals are, it's no wonder you don't want people to have guns.

 

We ?
You sure represent many people.

I remember working as a television repair technician in a very bad neighorhood in N.Y.C. walking to my car, a young Black male jumped out from some bushes and pointed a revolver at me,
"Give me money" he yelled, at that moment a siren wailed in the distance, "the Police are after us ! "
I yelled, he ran off.
That time I was unarmed, I started the process to be legally armed after that incident.

No,
Nobody feels the needtm to be Armed !!!
lol

 

only cowards would allow themselves to be stripped of the freedom to defend themselves. Im sure the people murdered in australia were happy to make the sacrafice so that leftists knee jerk emotional reactions could prevail. Thanks but I choose to make the decision on how to protect myself and family and there isnt much any of the gun grabbers can do about it. At all. Ask me why.

 

These anti-gun fanatics fail to grasp that over the last few years inventive mass murderers have resorted to nails-filled pressure cookers and automobiles with which to rack up very respectable body counts. No, they just want to eliminate guns in order to have a disarmed and utterly controllable general populace, to control to an even greater extent the people who already are law abiding.

 

And exactly what would such do? Is law enforcement in the nation of Australia authorized to confiscate legally purchased firearms and ammunition if more than a certain amount is purchased in a certain amount of time? Would the individual have been arrested and prosecuted on the basis of making too many legal purchases?

 

No a killer without a gun is a less successful attempted killer

 

is that not true? I am noting that one country is a subject of the British Empire.

 

Yet people continue to kill without guns, and effectively. Motor vehicles have been used as instruments of mass murder, as have knives, hammers and matches in your own country. Is the Nice murder "less successful attempted" killer? Are the 8 children in Cairns any less dead for their killer using a knife? In the 20 years prior to Port Arthur there were 60 people killed in massacres in Australia. In the subsequent 20 years, that number of dead was 76. Why are Australians so violent without guns?

 

He only need one gun, maybe two.
Are ammo sales tracked in Oz? Over the course of a year?
So, what's your response now?

 

Did you read the OP?
There's no reason someone like the shooter could not buy 1-2 rifles under your laws.

 

How does any of this mean someone so motivated to commit such a crime could/would do so?

 

How does the number of guns matter?
Did you bother to read the OP?

 

You fail to understand that the gun control laws in OZ would not prevent a shooting such as this.

 

I don't understand the question. Change what things?

 

Freedom generally is.

 

... who reacted with nothing but emotion and not a single reasoned thought...

 

Nice of you to wish death upon those you don't agree with.
Maybe you'd like to round them up and put them in a camp?

 

Thank you for completely avoiding the issue presented in the OP.
You can imagine my surprise.

 

I'm sure those young nurses getting killed at remote clinics in Australia are encouraged by the fact that their killers didn't use firearms to kill them.

 

When you've been in a situation where the only reason why you walked away alive and unhurt was because you had a gun and knew how to use it, you'd feel differently.

We have a right to life, and therefore a right to defend that life. If you have a right to defend your life then you have the right to own the most effective means with which to conduct that defense.

 

Yes, it is. Freedom and personal liberty are things that, once surrendered, are rarely won back again without blood being spilled.

As for me, it may sound trite to someone like you, but I genuinely feel that it is better to die on my feet than live on my knees.