Society/Culture Shooting attack at Texas church

[ShanDog]

To choose to aim and shoot and hit their necks was the point I was making. That is what would be typical of a trained shooter

No it's not. That's horseshit.

Source: Fifteen years military with lengthy working relationships with SF types and a marksman myself.

 

[ShanDog]

Just out of interest, even if the Air Force had have properly flagged the shooter for the domestic violence thing, would that have prevented him acquiring the guns from a private seller?

Believe so, as he would not have a license which is part of the transaction paperwork; however, I'm only like 60% confident in that answer.

 

[Numtums]

To choose to aim and shoot and hit their necks was the point I was making. That is what would be typical of a trained shooter.

Incorrect.

Centre mass.

 

[Malifice]

Not fully up to scratch with it but is it:

Bad guy(known nutcase) had gun illegally. Could not legally have that gun.

Good guy shot bad guy potentially saving many more lives.

If firearms banned bad guy (known nutcase) still has gun they are not legally entitled to and good guy does not have gun meaning more people get killed.

Am I up to date there or did I hear wrong about the killer being ineligible for the firearm he used because of past offences?

Why don't the mentally ill get their hands on assault weapons in Australia so easily?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Fuse or not, giving people readily access to guns is making the situation worse which is kinda the whole point of the gun debate.

e.g. Adam Lanza didn't own any guns, he killed his law abiding mother and took hers before murdering 27 people. How do you regulate against that?

And this is why we need to remove the guns from the civilian population.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Violent cultures. Seriously?

You're giving away your alias mate.

Charitably, could he have meant cultures where women have experienced trauma (rape etc) and are now explicably angry and wanting to lash out?

And amphetamine use is definitely a factor - until the amphetamine/ ice craze hit it was rare to have to physically restrain women in hospital for violence/ perceived violence risk..

 

[Crankyhawk]

Thanks for the question.

I read the entire thread prior to my initial post.
To me, there appeared to be a strong bias throughout the thread along the lines of ... guns are bad and US needs to have some serious gun reform. Much of the general comments seem strongly aligned with the general mainstream media's narative.

So, basically, I ask for people to do some of their own research because I believe the media generally shows a very biased representation of guns in the US.
I presented a few stats and facts which I think show that guns in the US are not as bad as many may think.

OK, lets take the "biased representation of guns in USA"

There are 101 privately owned guns per 100 citizens in the USA. That's right more than 1 gun per person. F**king A!
Next highest is Serbia 58.1/ 100 and Yemen 54.8/100
By comparison Australia still has 24 guns/ 100 population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Gun related death rate in USA is 10.4/ 100000 population/ year, which is "middle of the road" in rate, until you look specifically at the countries above which are all not 1st world countries (Honduras, Venezuala, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Colombia, Brazil, Panama). 32% homicide in USA and 1.7% accidental (the countries above the USA are more like 90%+ homicide apart from Uruguay)

Comparing to other 1st world countries
Finland 3.25 (with 27.5 guns/100) -10% homicide
Switzerland 3.01 (24.5 guns) - 10% homicide
New Zealand 1.01 (30 guns/ 100) - 10 % homicide
Australia 0.93 (21.7 guns/100) - 18% homicide
UK 0.23 (6.6 guns/ 100) - 25% homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

This shows that the US has a disproportionate issue with gun related homicide and the deeath volume is likely a function of the number of guns in its civilian society.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I would guess that the ‘deep state’ would be even happier if these mass shootings didn’t occure in the first place.
Also, yes the story is that a good guy with a gun did stop the nutter from killing more people, but 26 people still died. I mean, is that an acceptable amount of people to justify the good guy with a gun angle?

From the NRA perspective that good guy with a gun is SOLID GOLD

 

[Crankyhawk]

My argument is that it was successful in Australia.
One mass shooting and gun reform was immediately introduced.
In US, it was never going to be so easy, which is why they need so many of them.
Obama and his administration tried very hard to publicise the Sandy Hook shooting as a strong argument for gun reform ... so no, it is not easily dismissed.

If it is a conspiracy to get gun control happening in the US, it won't work. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result is not intelligent.

It is why Mexico will pay for the wall eventually though...

 

[Crankyhawk]

It's incredible how frequently Bigfooty throws up these special posters that we all love and enjoy to read their work, and that keep us coming back for more. It's like it's some sort of conspiracy

Chief's clickbait conspiracy?

 

[Father Jack]

Chief's clickbait conspiracy?

That reptilian deep state bastard

 

[PurpleEyes]

OK, lets take the "biased representation of guns in USA"

There are 101 privately owned guns per 100 citizens in the USA. That's right more than 1 gun per person. F**king A!
Next highest is Serbia 58.1/ 100 and Yemen 54.8/100
By comparison Australia still has 24 guns/ 100 population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Gun related death rate in USA is 10.4/ 100000 population/ year, which is "middle of the road" in rate, until you look specifically at the countries above which are all not 1st world countries (Honduras, Venezuala, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Colombia, Brazil, Panama). 32% homicide in USA and 1.7% accidental (the countries above the USA are more like 90%+ homicide apart from Uruguay)

Comparing to other 1st world countries
Finland 3.25 (with 27.5 guns/100) -10% homicide
Switzerland 3.01 (24.5 guns) - 10% homicide
New Zealand 1.01 (30 guns/ 100) - 10 % homicide
Australia 0.93 (21.7 guns/100) - 18% homicide
UK 0.23 (6.6 guns/ 100) - 25% homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

This shows that the US has a disproportionate issue with gun related homicide and the deeath volume is likely a function of the number of guns in its civilian society.

It may also have something to do with how civil the society is. Which is why there are other countries with worse gun deaths than US.

Black men in US are 14 times more likely to die from guns than white men.
They account for more than half of the US gun deaths each year (yet just 14% of population).

Edit: Just read elsewhere in a more up to date article it's 8 times more likely ... but I think the point is still valid.

 

[The Speaker]

Hope you didn't place any bets based on those "mostly accurate" polls.

They were very accurate if you knew how to read them. The final numbers they spat out were garbage (at state level, which are the only ones worth paying attention to), but you read behind the numbers, you could see which way things were going. Well, I could, at least.

But that's not good enough. They missed it in all the states that mattered that weren't Florida, although it made for good viewing on election night.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It may also have something to do with how civil the society is. Which is why there are other countries with worse gun deaths than US.

Black men in US are 14 times more likely to die from guns than white men.
They account for more than half of the US gun deaths each year (yet just 14% of population).

Edit: Just read elsewhere in a more up to date article it's 8 times more likely ... but I think the point is still valid.

Ah, so your argument comes down to racist dogma.

 

[PurpleEyes]

Ah, so your argument comes down to racist dogma.

Struth you are a snivelling over sensitive cry baby aren't you.
It's getting late, time for your pacifier.

 

[fleabitten]

It may also have something to do with how civil the society is. Which is why there are other countries with worse gun deaths than US.

Black men in US are 14 times more likely to die from guns than white men.
They account for more than half of the US gun deaths each year (yet just 14% of population).

Edit: Just read elsewhere in a more up to date article it's 8 times more likely ... but I think the point is still valid.

That point being.....?

If you flood a poverty-stricken neighbourhood with guns and drugs, I don't think it matters what race the inhabitants are. Things will get messy.

 

[BustedWing]

Struth you are a snivelling over sensitive cry baby aren't you.
It's getting late, time for your pacifier.

You went from "truth seeker" to troll in the space of about five posts there didn't you...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PurpleEyes]

You went from "truth seeker" to troll in the space of about five posts there didn't you...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

What the heck are you on about now?
My last 5 posts have all been appropriate replies to others posts.
If people are going to respond to me with derogatory remarks, then I will give as good as I get.
I assume you may be talking about the post showing black men murder stats I quickly found when I tried to find some data which further details the demographics of US gun murders. Surely if people are going to post about how the US has such a high US gun/murder relationship, then one should be trying to better understand some of the characteristics of those murders. Given over half of them are associated to black men, I think that is a relevant piece of data for the discussion.

But just incase you need some further fluffing and are feeling left out because I haven't bothered responding much to your waste of my time debating about Bryant's required skill ... here we go, just for you;
“Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am. Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant...if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off.” Brigadier Ted Serong DSO OBE.

(NB: Your post that I'm now responding to is just another perfect example of your hypocrisy. You just trolled for a response from me with a post accusing me of trolling.)

 

[Lebbo73]

If I had bet on the popular vote I would have won

Thanks to all the illegal voters!

 

[BustedWing]

What the heck are you on about now?
My last 5 posts have all been appropriate replies to others posts.
If people are going to respond to me with derogatory remarks, then I will give as good as I get.
I assume you may be talking about the post showing black men murder stats I quickly found when I tried to find some data which further details the demographics of US gun murders. Surely if people are going to post about how the US has such a high US gun/murder relationship, then one should be trying to better understand some of the characteristics of those murders. Given over half of them are associated to black men, I think that is a relevant piece of data for the discussion.

But just incase you need some further fluffing and are feeling left out because I haven't bothered responding much to your waste of my time debating about Bryant's required skill ... here we go, just for you;
“Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am. Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant...if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off.” Brigadier Ted Serong DSO OBE.

(NB: Your post that I'm now responding to is just another perfect example of your hypocrisy. You just trolled for a response from me with a post accusing me of trolling.)

I called you A troll because you...

resorted to making things up to suit your argument (expert marksman trained to shoot for the neck).
you then began to resort to ad hominem attacks (that's attacking the poster, not the argument, displayed in your "insults about libtards, sheeple and needing pacifiers and so on).

and finally, just point blank ignoring any questions put to you that make your position untenable...

I'd love it if you actually responded to my specific questions re Bryant, instead of shifting to another angle of the conspiracy...

Here it is again in case you can't find it:


Ok so after all of this we now both agree (please point out if you dont agree with something below):
* The vast majority of the head/neck shots and high kill rates took place in the Broad Arrow Cafe
* The victims were closely situated together, in a vulnerable, defenceless position (sitting down in a cafe).
* Bryant was either at point blank range when he fired, or extremely close to his victims.
* While some shots were from the hip, this was primarily due to the fact that his victims were sitting in a cafe, and thus in order to shoot them in the head, the gun would have needed to be lowered to hip level given Bryant was standing.
* Once he left the cafe, the kill rate/shots fired dropped dramatically.

GIVEN ALL THIS - do you now concede that he did not need to be an "expert marksman" to pull off this carnage?

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/index.php?posts/53385334/

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Father Jack]

What the heck are you on about now?
My last 5 posts have all been appropriate replies to others posts.
If people are going to respond to me with derogatory remarks, then I will give as good as I get.
I assume you may be talking about the post showing black men murder stats I quickly found when I tried to find some data which further details the demographics of US gun murders. Surely if people are going to post about how the US has such a high US gun/murder relationship, then one should be trying to better understand some of the characteristics of those murders. Given over half of them are associated to black men, I think that is a relevant piece of data for the discussion.

But just incase you need some further fluffing and are feeling left out because I haven't bothered responding much to your waste of my time debating about Bryant's required skill ... here we go, just for you;
“Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am. Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant...if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off.” Brigadier Ted Serong DSO OBE.

(NB: Your post that I'm now responding to is just another perfect example of your hypocrisy. You just trolled for a response from me with a post accusing me of trolling.)

Have you a link to back up that alleged quote?

 

[BustedWing]

Have you a link to back up that alleged quote?

He hasn't cited anything he's put forward as "proof", why start now!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PurpleEyes]

Have you a link to back up that alleged quote?

What difference does it make if I do?
I suspect that you are only looking for an angle to throw mud at that quote/dismiss it, and you have no interest giving it the merit it deserves.
(Sydney Morning Herald, 10th April 1999 and again on 12th November 2002).

As I have said from the start, and it is proving to be true, that if I give 10 pages of documented reasons for my beliefs, the likes of BustedWing will turn that in to 100 pages of debate and I will be no closer to convincing any close minded posters who are unwilling to ask questions and research for themselves.
Right from my very first post in this thread, my position has been that I'm surprised by how many posters are unwilling to really dig deep before passing judgement. Instead they simply align their beliefs to mainstream media narratives and are extremely uncomfortable when challenged to do some self-review of those beliefs.

If I wanted to debate the "Port Arthur massacre conspiracy" then I would take it to the thread where it should be, but I continually get drawn in to responding to those who challenge what I believe. I did not come to this thread telling people they are stupid for believing the official narrative. Yet, I find myself responding to those who are telling me that I'm stupid for having questions and my own beliefs. Any personal attacks that I have made are in response only, as I will give as good as I get.

 

[PurpleEyes]

He hasn't cited anything he's put forward as "proof", why start now!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Never, have I ever stated or claimed anything as proof (apart from my posts about the 2016 election polls).
I have presented quite a few stats from my research and stated my beliefs (mostly when asked to).
I think I have good reasons for my current beliefs, given the research I have done.
I have no interest in entering a debate with the likes of you who simply dismisses every post that is contrary to your beliefs.

I believe you and I are very different. I accept my beliefs are just that ... my beliefs. Whereas I suspect for you it's your goal to try to convince me that I'm wrong (or stupid) mainly based on the evidence that I don't believe the mainstream narrative. So far, I have already seen and heard all of what you argue, before. I've read most of the official accounts, but I've also read plenty of the alternative questions and research ... I'm not sure you could say the same.

As previously stated, I have even researched the Flat Earth theories, never believing them, but I still made the effort to try to understand why others would believe it. This is the vast difference between you and I.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Struth you are a snivelling over sensitive cry baby aren't you.
It's getting late, time for your pacifier.

You dismiss it by making the argument that they’re uncivilised blacks so that explains that. It’s a racist viewpoint, and like your other viewpoints, reflects an unhealthy reliance on bullshit websites and YouTube channels.