DescentBB

Yup, Australia is a safe place to be. Curious as to how the kid got hold of a pistoli:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ammad.html

I don't think this works as a mark against Australia's gun ban, mostly because a pistol is very different from an automatic rifle with a deep magazine. It just means a gun ban doesn't work for stopping premeditated acts of terrorism or murder. So basically the gun ban is either irrelevant to this incident, or actually worked as intended.

shucks, that was anti-climatic.......

Krom wrote:I don't think this works as a mark against Australia's gun ban, mostly because a pistol is very different from an automatic rifle with a deep magazine. It just means a gun ban doesn't work for stopping premeditated acts of terrorism or murder. So basically the gun ban is either irrelevant to this incident, or actually worked as intended.

So you are saying if he had a rifle the gun ban would of been relevant and not working as intended? And do you realize you can get 30 round mags for pistols...which is every bit as "deep" as a semi auto rifle?

woodchip wrote:

Krom wrote:I don't think this works as a mark against Australia's gun ban, mostly because a pistol is very different from an automatic rifle with a deep magazine. It just means a gun ban doesn't work for stopping premeditated acts of terrorism or murder. So basically the gun ban is either irrelevant to this incident, or actually worked as intended.

So you are saying if he had a rifle the gun ban would of been relevant and not working as intended? And do you realize you can get 30 round mags for pistols...which is every bit as "deep" as a semi auto rifle?

no, he was saying the fact that he had the pistol he had can be seen as proof that the ban was working. No law, or set of laws prevents EVERY SINGLE outlier from getting past the intent. That in no way should negate the value of this or any law. Despite those obvious points, it seems far too common here to see folks argue against some piece of utterly sensible regulaton, law, or interpretation of law by finding a single incident where the law didn't achieve the ultimate goal. That argues against the unknowable number of incidents where it DOES work, and has little or no logical validity.

p.s. Woody, you realize you just put out a fine justification for hi-volume magazines to be completely banned, even for handguns?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Krom wrote:I don't think this works as a mark against Australia's gun ban, mostly because a pistol is very different from an automatic rifle with a deep magazine. It just means a gun ban doesn't work for stopping premeditated acts of terrorism or murder. So basically the gun ban is either irrelevant to this incident, or actually worked as intended.

So you are saying if he had a rifle the gun ban would of been relevant and not working as intended? And do you realize you can get 30 round mags for pistols...which is every bit as "deep" as a semi auto rifle?

no, he was saying the fact that he had the pistol he had can be seen as proof that the ban was working. No law, or set of laws prevents EVERY SINGLE outlier from getting past the intent. That in no way should negate the value of this or any law. Despite those obvious points, it seems far too common here to see folks argue against some piece of utterly sensible regulaton, law, or interpretation of law by finding a single incident where the law didn't achieve the ultimate goal. That argues against the unknowable number of incidents where it DOES work, and has little or no logical validity.

p.s. Woody, you realize you just put out a fine justification for hi-volume magazines to be completely banned, even for handguns?

well slick, then try telling why gun bans in Chicago and NYC don't work very well either. And I didn't justify anything. I just pointed out to Krom that his assumption was wrong.

woodchip wrote:well slick, then try telling why gun bans in Chicago and NYC don't work very well either. And I didn't justify anything. I just pointed out to Krom that his assumption was wrong.

those 'gun bans' failed because they were bans in name only, with no teeth behind the execution. Not so, Australia. Maybe we should try the Aussie method with teeth to the law?

Bans in name only? You mean the Chicago and NYC police do not enforce the laws or that the laws are weak to begin with. There I thought Chicago had the strictest gun laws in the country.

you only THOUGHT that because your handlers have been telling you so for years. There is NO comparison between any municipal gun law in the US and what the Australians passed.