Sydney cafe being held up now isis flag in window

a reply to: orangetom1999

The nation of Australia already had a vast social movement...

They disarmed their own people...all of them.

No "they" didn't. You are repeating lies that have been spoon fed to you by commercial interests that want to ensure that you are afraid of your own shadow.

There are just as many 'guns per head of population' in Australia as there were before the Port Arthur massacre and the legitimate, intelligent, gun control measures that were put in place afterwards. In the decade before Port Arthur there was about 1 mass murder spree per year. Since the gun buy back and the other regulatory controls put in place, there has been ZERO mass murder sprees - which is what the Australian gun control regime was specifically targeted at - and there has been a consistent and maintained reduction in gun deaths of all kinds, whether by suicide, accident, or premeditated.

When Australians gave back their guns

Just 12 days after the massacre, Howard, a conservative, announced that he had convinced Australia’s states to ban automatic and semiautomatic weapons and instigated a gun buyback for high-powered and rapid-fire rifles. A uniform system for registering and licensing firearms was introduced.

A third of the guns in Australia were handed in to the government. Polls found that as much as 90 percent of the public approved of the stricter gun laws.

There had been 11 gun massacres in the decade preceding 1996, but there have been no mass shootings since. This is a source of national pride, though statisticians still argue about what caused the change.

When shootings occur in the United States, we Australians shake our heads. We do not have a Bill of Rights or a constitutional right to bear arms; here, the idea of ordinary citizens demanding to own guns without cause seems odd. So when one of our own is senselessly taken by boys who police said just wanted to be “Billy Bob Badasses,” it is aspecial affront.

It’s not necessarily a logical one: Lane was shot with a small-caliber handgun. Plenty of handguns are still legally held in Australia. About a million guns have been imported since the buyback, bringing private gun ownership here back to roughly 1996 levels.

But the real issue is availability.

Here, those who are licensed to own pistols are not allowed to carry their guns. There are strict, police-supervised checks of storage and security of the firearms, and buyers must prove a “genuine reason” to own a gun.

It has been estimated that if the United States had a buyback of similar proportions, about 90 million fewer guns would be circulating.

Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the Sydney School of Public Health and a specialist in firearm injury prevention, has documented that after the laws were changed, the risk of an Australian being killed by a gun fell by more than 50 percent. Australia’s gun homicide rate, 0.13 per 100,000 people, according to GunPolicy.org, is a tiny fraction of that of the United States (3.6 per 100,000 people). It should be noted that our gun homicide rates were already in decline, but the gun laws accelerated that slide.

In a 2010 paper, economists Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill found that the law change had led to a 65 percent decline in the rate of firearm suicides. Firearm homicides fell by 59 percent.

This is a real, tangible, benefit to society. Australians are NOT disarmed. I, myself, went deer hunting a couple of months ago - a friend is trying to cull the wild herd of deer that are destroying his sheep ranch.

The claim that Australia has been disarmed is a lie - an ignorant lie propagated by the self serving fear-mongers that took over the legitimate sport shooters organizations in the 1970's and now do anything they can to lick the shoes of their corporate masters. It is pathetic and it is positively un-American to lie like that - and it is immoral to repeat those lies.

For a clear summary of the Australian gun control scheme read here: www.gunpolicy.org.... That site contains actual statistics and you can compare Australian stats with any other country or even US state.

a reply to: hamburgler101

Not being funny or anything, but are you suggesting a middle aged man, with an Arabic script bandana and a shotgun with a back pack wouldn't arouse suspicion in a heavily populated area?


I know Aussies are famous for being layed back and welcoming, but that to me, as a Muslim, would be a little eyebrow raising!

originally posted by: Shana91aus
a reply to: diggindirt

I absolutely in no way 'discount' what they are going through that is a horrible assumption to make about me!!!! I just think that he is not Part of a real terror organisation because he would have done something very horrific by now if he were in MY opinion anyway, they don't do this kind of thing and negotiate etc you twisted what i have said, i just don't think he is that kind of terrorist.

I'm sorry I worded that reply so badly. I'm sure we agree that what was happening was terrorism. What I was attempting to convey was that it really matters not at all whether he was a part of any larger organization, his method was terroristic and effective. I have no idea whether he was a part of a larger group. I'm still trying to get caught up on what has been released.
The media runs on blood so they seem to want us to believe that if no blood is shed, the actions of terrorists are somehow less terrorizing.
I'm old enough to remember the hostage-takings of the '70s and forward. Those people were terrorists, avowed. I'm not sure when barbarism as seen in the ISIS productions became the standard for "real" terrorism. The man in the videos I saw took people hostage and made them hold an Islamic flag on the cafe window. Now maybe I misread that message. I am not from his culture. But in my culture my brain automatically says "Islamic terrorist" when I see that sort of behavior. My conclusion was based solely on what I saw for myself as presented by msm as linked in this thread.
All the demands and threats stuff were rumors and speculation. I'll be interested to see how much of that information was accurate. I find the "We can't find a flag like he wants" excuse just a tad out in left field somewhere so I've got a load of doubt about a lot of the other rumors as well.
Again, I did not mean to imply that you didn't feel for those involved. I was simply attempting, and failing miserably to present a wider perspective. My apologies.

originally posted by: orangetom1999
The nation of Australia already had a vast social movement...

They disarmed their own people...all of them.

What a silly claim - care to back it up with something factual? No, I did not think you could!

wise men did this to the Australian people and made them vulnerable to this kind of thing..

Care to compare the old and new gun laws.... and explain how it made Australians more vulnerable to this type of incident? Again, no, I did not think you could!

a reply to: Anonymous90

"February 2014 - Syrian Rebels admit responsibility Sydney siege at Lindt Cafe..."


I think the titles of YouTube videos can be edited somehow, but don't take that as Gospel I may be wrong.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: orangetom1999

What are you trying to say tom?

That atheists are responsible for the deaths of 262 million in the past 100 years?

LOL LOL LOL...wow!!! That is deep..not..!!

No...here by igloo..

I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help thinking recently that maybe what the world needs is a vast social movement to set aside religion in the name of peace, surely its worth it. Would you drop your religion to save one child, one innocent? I would.

I m a peacenick too..with certain reservations. I don't think that other peoples or their properties/persons should be sacrificed as capital/coin for the ointment on other peoples feelings and beliefs. I think that is ignorant...no matter how good it looks on paper. It looks so innocent by appearing to save one child..just give up some of your personal stuff or belief. It is garbage. It is also politic of the cheapest kind.

Atheists often tend towards quoting and putting blame on religion for such slaughter..but it is the anti god governments..anti religion goverenments which have been the biggest killers of their own people in the last 100 years.
I am very wary of such anti religion thinking...because I know this history...and the history of logical reasonable, educated men. It is often not the product advertised under close scrutiny.

And I believe we have currently in Washington the biggest crop of concealed/hidden Atheists and Socialist entitlement thinkers we have ever had in government. I also believe that they are working a system on the people in which it is becoming evident that this political system is not the product advertised. Just like the history of logical, reasonable, educated, Illuminated men. This is becoming more and more evident as we go to the next election cycle. History repeating itself.

And since we are going down this road..what would you call a devout and zealous belief system which justifies killing millions of their own people?? I call it a devout and zealous religion. It may not be the religion most understand but it must be devout and zealous to be carried out for over30/40 years and be hidden from most people in the west.

For I believe it was known in certain circles in the West but not allowed to be known. Same with the Nazis. Not allowed to be known until it was politically needed or expedient to be known.

Today anytime they want us to jump up and down and go along with something politically ..they just put the name Hitler on it and it is guaranteed to pass undebated and unobstructed...unchallenged. I get real wary when someone uses the name Hitler today. I smell a rat...wanting something they have not earned.


I do not need R J Rummel to teach me this as I already suspected so from other readings. It was just interesting to see someone else post such and write upon it.

I would expect todays education to avoid this line of thought as well as our own government who are financing public education from pre school to colleges. A guy like R. J. Rummel would go against the grain. In like manner to a PHD named Anthony Sutton who wrote about how certain Wall street peoples brought and financed Adolph Hitler as well as the Communist Party to power. Anthony Sutton was shunned by higher academia for telling and teaching the truth as well.

These are only two of many over the years to be shunned and persecuted for teaching and preaching outside the authorized box ..giving people the information's to get off the plantation bus so speak.

I also know that it is the United States who has been the greatest ally of the Soviets to help keep them in power or they would have gone under for poor political/economic decisions back in the 1960 and 1970s. It was the United States which sold the Soviets vast grain reserves. Also huge weapons and technology transfers. Same with Communist China.

The USA has been the greatest ally of Soviet Russia and so too the Communist Chinese.

I tend to believe that because of the truth that People like R. J. Rummel and others like Anthony Sutton are teaching ...they are not well liked by the bulk of educators and thinkers who want to keep people ignorant of the history. People might learn to think for themselves and get off the plantation bus and not be so easily hooked on the end of the fishing pole for their vote. Very dangerous to have people think for themselves. Especially today. Better that they are emotional train wrecks. More easily lead and deceived for their vote.

I also believe that there are more Socialists and Communist thinkers in our schools and even in politics than ever before.
For I know that one of their common tactics..socially and politically is divide and conquer combined with the blame game and anti god stance...or put more accurately .."The State is god."

Once you start going down "The State is god " road..next it becomes censorship..also known as PC thinking only.

All I have to do is ask myself what direction are we going..more to individual liberty and freedom ..or more government??

Thanks,
Orangetom

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: orangetom1999

Rummel can't be trusted: Why RJ Rummel shouldn't be taken seriously

Frankly, the debate shouldn't be about the sickness of religions (for which there is plenty of evidence) nor the sickness of atheists (for which there is plenty of evidence). It should be about the sickness of humanity and how we've sold everyone a lie about being different than animals. We are animals. Animals have the capacity to be cruel.

Condolences to all.

I agree with you about the sickness of humanity. I tend not to put much stock in humanity per se. Nor Humanistic thinkers..not group think.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I was saddened to hear of the outcome of the siege. My thoughts are prayers are with all those involved.
I had hoped it would end without any bloodshed beyond the terrorist. I freely admit I was hoping that he would fall asleep and some of the hostages would simply do what needed doing. From the reports I've read from the links posted in this thread, that was apparently what went down but the young man lost his life in the attempt.
I sat here and tried to get my mind wrapped around being in that position. I couldn't.
Would I be frightened out of my wits? Probably. Just the thought of being on the wrong end of a shotgun gives me quite a jolt. Not knowing what was in that pack on his back would probably have just added to the fear.
And all that fright would have completely occupied my mind for a good while I'm pretty sure.
My point is that I don't think any of us can honestly say what we would do in a situation that is completely new to us and the lives of multiple people hang in the balance. We can say we hope we would have control of our logical, critical thinking skills and would be able to bring about a satisfactory conclusion or assist in the conclusion in whatever way we could.
Without knowing with absolute certainly that the backpack was harmless, any action toward the rabid dog would seem foolhardy.
I've read several first person accounts of being held hostage but I've never even come close to experiencing it. A close relative was held for 36 hours against her will but we weren't aware of it as the situation was taking place. It was a domestic issue. But from her experience, I know it will take a very long time to recover from what they've just experienced.
Also from that experience and the victims' accounts, there will be a lot of anger that immediately follows this experience, from the direct victims and those who are indirectly affected as well. It is a normal and natural reaction. But it must be channeled to avoid more violence.
The rabid dog is dead. May his name never been spoken or written on earth or in heaven again.
Blessed are the peacemakers. We are in great need of them.

A gun debate? Really? Not even gonna try to stay on topic out of respect to the victims? That's what ATS has become now, a gun debate forum?

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: my1percent

How did this happen?

Aren't firearms illegal in Australia?????

Sorry, just a bit confused here..........

Nice try...but sorry you failed. Firearms are not illegal in Australia. It was reported the guy had a shotgun which is legal to own in Australia. My brother legally owns 2 shotguns, he has no need to have them (not military,police or sport shooter) except he wanted them.

Were you trying to suggest gun control doesn't work? Because if you were you might like to know that there is very little gun crime in Australia and when there is it is with the types of firearms that are legal to own. But I need a gun cause the criminals will find a way to get one? Even when the police raid and seize weapons from organised crime you very rarely see automatic rifles etc it is almost always legal firearms...