Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

And again and again.........


Today we hear of another shooting rampage in Finland - here
It occurs to me that there may be some connection between the high rate of gun ownership in Finland, and these two events.
Apparently, the gunman, Matti Juhani Saari, was a licensed shooter. This puts the lie to the cliche (frequently put out there by the gun lobby), that it's only criminals who offend with firearms.
The other argument put by the firearm freaks to justify owning a weapon is for protection. I wonder who Matti Saari was protecting?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only criminals commit offences with firearms is actually true. The seconds before the commission of an offence involve the forming of intent which makes the shooter a criminal. Up to that point he may have been the leader of the Greens. Law abiding citizens do not commit offences. Think about it.

1735099 said...

What bizarre reasoning! Perhaps a little application of common sense would be useful. Compare the rate of gun fatalities in the USA to that in this country, and tell me there's no correlation with gun control.
The continuing slaughter across the Pacific as a consequence of lax American gun laws is a triumph of ideology over common sense.
In Vietnam I saw what a high-powered firearm does to the human body. That experience is sufficient to convince me to get these dangerous devices out of the hands of people who don't need them.

Anonymous said...

Bizarre to you, perhaps. Law abiding citizens have accidents, or use weapons in self defence or in defence of others who may be under lethal threat. The only other use of a firearm eventuating in death is a suicide. None of these is considered an offence and therefore the user is not a criminal. Bearing in mind that laws brought into being by Little Johnny after Bryants rampage in Tasmania only managed to recover firearms from law abiding citizens and the occasional criminal who wished to triple the amount he paid for his weapon in the buy back, can you tell me in which way the criminal use of firearms in this country has been effected. The crooks still have firearms and have become more brazen in their use. Sure, suicide by firearm has slowed but then if you must do it you will find a way. Accidents are sure to be down but not eradicated, due to better formal training requirements. At the time of the buy back citizens became criminals without resorting to the use of their firearm, simply by storing away weapons that had not been registered or linked to any particular person. Many of those firearms are still tucked away, to what end is any one's guess.
"In Vietnam I saw what a high-powered firearm does to the human body" .....Lucky you haven't seen what a train can do to a pedestrian or a B-double can do to a motor cyclist, or a fall from twenty floors up can do to a jumper. More people are killed by knives....the answer is obviously.... ban them all.

1735099 said...

You've been reading too many comics. The insanity preached by the NRA has fortunately been confined to the USA and the gun nuts there deserve each other.
Spend a little time reading comparative international weapon fatality statistics and tell me that the US laws are superior to ours and I'll walk backwards to Burke.
I saw the Yank's gun culture writ large in Vietnam. They had no fire discipline and were a bigger danger to themselves and us than they were to the VC.

Anonymous said...

Whit, I have more than forty years experience with firearms, using, instruction and training, range controlling, studying and photographing the effects of the damage caused and subsequent attendance at Coronial Inquests. In my experience and with my knowledge of the regulation of firearms useage during that time puts me in a better position than you to pass comment. A firearm in the hands of an incompetent or criminal weapons handler is much the same as a piece of chalk in the hands of a teacher bent on pushing the red/green ideology.....dangerous.
My interest lies only in correcting your belief that offences are committed by law abiding gun owners and I therefore fail to see a reason to compare stats with any country outside Australia. There are places in this world where it is a legal requirement to maintain a firearm in all homes which house a military aged male, and there are places in the States with a similar law and gun related crime and burglaries have been minimised. Of course you haven't noriced the gun ownership stats for any other countries, Arab, African or Asian.
Any chance you can tell me when you got to see the Yanks displaying all this lack of discipline that you "witnessed" in Vietnam?

1735099 said...

"correcting your belief that offences are committed by law abiding gun owners"
Nowhere have I said that. It happens that in the case I blogged about, the offender was a registered owner. It does illustrate, however, that all kinds of people can kill using firearms. Decreasing the likelihood of this happening is the best reason for restrictions on ownership.
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The USA (for example) has 5 times the Australian rate.
You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to follow the data.
"Any chance you can tell me..."
Where do you want me to start? - My platoon being almost wiped out in a night harbour by a misdirected American H & I mission in April 1970?
I can give you the date and the grid reference if you want. There were many other examples.

Anonymous said...

Your statement was "Apparently, the gunman, Matti Juhani Saari, was a licensed shooter. This puts the lie to the cliche (frequently put out there by the gun lobby), that it's only criminals who offend with firearms"
My statement was "Only criminals commit offences with firearms is actually true". If you commit an offence with a firearm you are a criminal. Can't be any simpler than that. Being a registered owner of the firearm does not change that.
Now which was it Whit, the location of your harbour position was incorrectly stated, the F.O. couldn't read a map correctly or the plotter with the arty boys got it wrong or the amount of propellant was used by the men on the firing line? Surely you have checked it out. To generalise by including the whole of the American taskforce and therefore the US nation, as you have, is a bit rich. Do you really think it makes one iota of difference to the people of other nations, with different gun laws to our own, that you think they have it all wrong? You should try this simple test, preach into one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.

1735099 said...

What disingenuous twaddle. The gun lobby quite clearly preach that those who are licensed and trained are safe. This incident shows starkly that this simply isn't true. Your red herring about innocence pre-offence and criminality after means nothing.
It's simple - no guns - no gun deaths.
"the location of your harbour position was incorrectly stated, the F.O. couldn't read a map correctly or the plotter with the arty boys got it wrong or the amount of propellant was used by the men on the firing line"
None of these - the crews manning the M109s involved were high on drugs - not unusual at the time.

Anonymous said...

"the crews manning the M109s involved were high on drugs - not unusual at the time" ..... and you knew that as a result of the investigation. Your transfer to HQ was obviously to enable you to investigate and report on that incident.
"The gun lobby quite clearly preach that those who are licensed and trained are safe" Clearly you do not understand that people who are licensed and trained are deemed to be safe in the handling of weapons. At no time does the "gun lobby" state that trained and licensed persons are incapable of crime. The most highly skilled infantrymen have personnel in their ranks that have "accidental discharges" and weapons handling errors....hence unloading before entering the Dat, Brigid, Isa, the Horseshoe and other FSBs. Butchers lose fingers, bakers get burnt etc. If any one of these persons used a tool of their trade to commit an offence, they too are criminal.
"It's simple - no guns - no gun deaths."
What's even better.....no cars-no deaths involving motor cars, which by the way require training, licensing and constant vigilance...in the US in 2010-death by vehicle 118,000 give or take a few. There were about 5,000 murders in your second favorite country of reference in 2009.....its coming down..in 1980 there were 23,000 murders. We are showing signs of progress and the ability to collect statistics.
You show signs of being a hoplophobic male with a serious and unmistakeable case of diphallia and constant drooling.....you can't be that silly playing with just one. There you go, I'm bored.

1735099 said...

"and you knew that"
We knew that because we had a detachment of our unit at the FSB they fired from.
Motor vehicles are designed to move people from one place to another. Firearms are designed to kill. I'm surprised you don't understand that.
"You show signs....."
You can't resist, can you - resorting to abuse when you run out of ideas?

Blog Archive