@spacejunk: that was most informative, thank you. two questions. what was the weapons used in that massacre? (i'm having trouble reading due to healing, everything is blurry)
I had to look it up, and i'm probably revealing my ignorance of firearms here, but he used the Colt AR-15 and a L1A1 SLR (is that what they're called? I don't know anything about the second gun, not even if that's how people refer to them)
i remember one of the history lessons i had in public school was the way australia was colonized. there was an island used as a prison with many nefarious types and even those who were unfairly condemned due to the way all law enforcement use to be. do you think this massacre was things coming back around? (leaving out how the aboriginies (idk how to spell that) were treated much like native americans here)
It's interesting that you should mention this island used as a prison, because i presume you're referring to Tasmania, which was known as Van Diemans Land back in the early colonial days.
Not only did the massacre in question occur in Tasmania, it actually happened in the historical site of the notorious gaol called Port Arthur., which was one of the first places of european settlement in Australia.
It was one of the really early colonial settlements and was built by convicts that were "transported" over from britain in the very early days of british colonisation.
It's a very, very eery place - a site of historic brutality and suffering. Those that survived the trip over were subjected to extremely hard labour (presumably clearing the land, then building their own prison from thw ground up, with stone brick.
I find it surprising that anyone survived the ordeal of being sent there as a prisoner - it's inhospitable country and the prisoners were treated poorly in such harsh conditions.
I went there a few years before the massacrr, and it was extremely creepy and dark back then...i imagine it's even worse now, with memories of the massacre haunting the place as well.
As for the reasons for the massacre, i'm not really sure - besides the dark colonial history of Port Arthur, it's also a popular tourist destination that is probably busy year-round.
I'm not generally particularly interested in the motivations or justifications of people who commit indiscriminate mass murders like the guy at Port Arthur, but i don't think there was any deep meaning behind that target.
The gunman had a range of intellectual impairments and was socially dysfunctional - illiterate, i believe, and was just a deeply fucked up person.
My assumption is that he was seeking attention and infamy, and Port Arthur is the sort of place that could have appealed, to that end, for any number of reasons; most of the time i imagine it's unlikely to be deserted, and it is already a notoriously violent place; a place of torture and suffering.
But I imagine the guy who went on a rampage there may have just been looking for a crowded place; tasmania isn't completely uninhabited (it's a really beautiful part of the world) but its largest city is still pretty small.
I guess Port Arthur may have also been isolated enough hold up the police response, unlike anywhere in the city.
p.s. those thinking that it is part of our heritage to cling to guns gets under my skin sometimes. it is only one of the rights we have here and it was one part that was crucial in obtaining those rights but i think the importance is lost. during that period it was a turning point in any battle. the world over thought pretty simple back then. the importance for our right to bear arms is based off that turn in warfare but needs to be expanded on with each generation. taught and understood so rights have meaning instead of just being a motto. consumables and conveniences have slogans, rights do not. the papers were written simply but with a deep understanding and foresight that would be a tangent to elaborate on.
I think that's a good way of looking at it, and i'm inclined to agree.
our basis for having rights and freedoms was based off people being equal and progressive thinking for the future knowing nothing is perfect and that life is part chaos and part structure, that it changes and if we don't with it then we break or are swallowed up and are left behind to be no better than the tyrants we were trying to detach ourselves from. (England- life has changed. everyone has dark pasts and we as humans are not perfect. things are much better today and i'm not saying your all tyrants today or all were back then.)
Yep, again - i cannot disagree with you here.
Indeed, our every nation - hell, our entire
species - has a some dark history, but the thing about traditions is that it
is possible - in fact, it's unavoidable - to observe tradition and honour your history while being discerning about which aspects may need revision if they present challenges in modern contexts.
to the australians: one of the better zombie movies i've seen is all about australia (it's a cheesy one i admit). they even have aboriginals in it that don't play the goofus or token role which i thought was most awesome. alien organisms take over people, turn them into zombies and chaos ensues.
considering a lot of what is coming across from your own opinions here i wonder if you would entertain a creative thought. lets say alien organisms came down from outer space and started taking over animal and insect life forms, they grow really big (let's say a insect grows to the size of a 6 year old for scale) and start attacking people. what would you do considering your laws and stances on guns?
I for one would welcome our insect overlords
Seriously though, i personally can't think of too many scenarios that would change my mind about guns.
They won't protect me from government oppression, my odds of having to deal with an "active shooter" situation seem fairly remote - and if some sort of crisis that needed
fire power were to hypothetically arise tomorrow (like a civil war, or an attempted coup or some kind of invasion) - small arms are no match for modern military technology or the sort of surveillance-state infastructure that exists as security againt uprisings, revolutions or acts of terrorism.
My personal opinion is that it's dangerous to have guns around - i can't really imagine the feeling of security some people get from owning - or carrying - a gun being applicable to me or my situation.
I don't really think there are many genuine a threats to me or my loved ones' safety that would realistically require a gun.
Guns would be overkill in most situations in australia of physical threats of violence, and in a legal sense, self defence is only justified if reasonable force is used to defend yourself.
Obviously i'm talking about australia, and may not be applicable to countries where lots of people are armed.
And for larger threats (as i mention a bit above) i don't imagine civilians with guns would be very effective.
For the illusion of security that a population of gun owners may feel, the dangers of having so many people owning firearms are many, and that's one of the reasons (besides the obvious familiarity of home) that i feel a lot safer, physically, in australia than I do when i'm in the USA.
Really though, i think the biggest threat to all of us - guns or no guns - is the breakdown of social cohesion to the extent that people becoms so alienated, desperate and hopeless that acts of extreme violence (shooting sprees or other acts of terror or indiscriminate violence) start to become commonplace. You could argue that they already are.
Of course there are more subtle forms of violence which are less graphic, and less sensational, but equally devestating - such as social and economic systems which cause extreme degradation to individuals and communities.
If people have opportunities to pursue their dreams and aspirations, if they can work hard to achieve modest but comfortable standards of living, and have access to
treatment and
health care if they need it (specifically, in this case, treatment relating to mental health) regardless of their financial situation.
It's far too easy to speculate about changes in guns laws being some simple solution to the horrors of america's gun problems, but i really think that the cost of medical care and other services related to social welfare, as well as the huge (and ever-increasing) wealth inequality all contribute just as much to the problems as the laws regarding gun ownership.
It's a multi-faceted and complex problem - or series of problems - and a part of the impasse is the inability of people (especially politicians, lobbyists and journalists).
On the other hand, it seems a shame to me that a great many of the people who support the american gun lobby seem completely unwilling to compromise, or even acknowledge the extent of the harm guns cause american society.
The right wing attacks on the survivors of the parkland massacre are a really good illustration of how polarised and vitriolic this debate has become over the years, especially since the election of a president who is unwilling or unable to show any leadership which could help to heal and unify a deeply polarised public; he seems much more interested in maximising and exploiting these divisions, which were around long before him, and presumably will remain in some form long after he is gone.
Not that it would make any sense to expect presidential (or even remotely professional) behaviour from him at this point, but it does seem to suggest that the odds of finding an effective solution are pretty slim while he's in office, because it's in his political interest for america to remain divided and distracted.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
