Lawrence, my newsreader had problems replying to your post, telling me
it could not be sent due to syntax errors in the Subject heading.
Rather than trying to get around that, I have created a new thread to
replace:
"Why do you want Semi-Automatics for "Sport"?"
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<
ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 02:27:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... perhaps [Ranty McRantFace] was speaking from memory of a verbal
exchange and merely did not correctly recall detail . . ..
Responding to the voices in his head, in other words. I’ve noticed that
more than once.
... and in that case I understand [Shooty McShootFace] gained access to
the semi-automatic firearms through being a member of a gun club . . .
Pro-gun lobbyists like to talk about being “law-abiding”, yet most mass >shooters get their weapons legally.
Lawrence, please do not mis-quote my post. I made no reference
to "[Ranty McRantFace]", and by quoting a segment of a post out of
context you risk mis-representing other posters. It is usually better
to leave original posts untouched, so that any quotes you make can be
seen in context.
I said:
"From that article, the summary saying "Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
in the Ides of March massacre) for ''sporting'' purposes." seems
quite accurate - she did not just raise the issue, but suggested
changes to security and storage requirements, and proper vetting
processes. If there is a lie or cognitive failure it appears most
likely to be from Tony rather than Lawrence, but perhaps Tony was
speaking from memory of a verbal exchange and merely did not correctly
recall detail . . .. Of concern to others will be the statement "If
you think about what the Christchurch terrorist did five years ago, he
did that in about 17 minutes. He reached two locations, was able to
kill 51 people, bullet wound more than 40 and then impact all those
who were present for the rest of their lives." - and in that case I
understand he gained access to the semi-automatic firearms through
being a member of a gun club . . ."
While I agree with your statement that most mass-shooters get their
weapons legally, we do hear from police that they are concerned at the
level of forearms held by gangs. I believe we need to assist police by
making the rules very clear, so that if firearms are found they can be
very easily identified as to ownership and where they are supposed to
be stored elsewhere. I recall an article from some time ago that
pointed out that in Australia, police responding to a domestic
incident are able to be told by a dispatcher what forearms are listed
as being held on that property, so they can adequately prepare. It
appears that National. With NAct1st discussing not even having police
attend some "domestic" calls, it is even more important that a social
worker or other worker have such knowledge.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)