Pratt takes a chunk out of Jorian

johnboy 16 November 2006 28

Having had the pleasure on being on the receiving end of a Jorian Gardner spray it’s interesting to see in CityNews that he’s copped a savaging from Steve Pratt that required Brendan Smyth to respond to the screams and separate the theatre promoter from the MLA.

“Mr Pratt had earlier forcefully indicated a need to talk to me,” said Gardner. “I was waiting to interview Mr Stefaniak when Mr Pratt came in shouting and led me to an advisor’s office. He then began screaming abuse at me to the point that fellow MLA Brendan Smyth rushed in between us and physically restrained him by pushing him by his shoulders away from me”

In a second article Gardner has Bill Stefaniak’s thoughts on future dark days ahead for the Canberra Liberals.

(It’s stuff like this that makes me avoid the Legislative Assembly like the plague.)


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to Pratt takes a chunk out of Jorian
Filter
Order
snahon snahon 10:32 am 17 Nov 06

Ahh the tranquility of living ‘rural-residential’ – hows the serenity folks, just listen to the serenity…

seepi seepi 10:22 am 17 Nov 06

The less guns around the better.
If I had one, I would be tempted to use it on my neighbour when she starts up with ACDC at the crack of dawn.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 9:14 am 17 Nov 06

Guns are an inanimate object. They are also dangerous as hell. I know. I used to own one.

Simbo – you can kill someone with a knife, a rope or a packet of rat poison. However it takes a lot more doing (knife) or some pretty serious malice aforethought (rope or rat poison). If you have a gun, all it takes is for you to lose your temper and someone has a sucking chest wound. You might not have “meant it” – but it’s very easy to kill someone.

Crims will always find a way to get guns, but on the whole, I’d say that crims use guns to kill other crims; rather than law-abiding people. If you start a culture of gun ownership (especially handguns for “self-defence”) crims start to use guns on the law-abiding people (they’re thinking of self-defence). It doesn’t make crims more careful about breaking and entering or assaults. They’ll just go in more heavily armed. It turns into an arms race. That’s a thought I’m very uncomfortable with.

There’s no need to ban guns – but going open slather is a vey bad idea IMO.

Thumper Thumper 8:45 am 17 Nov 06

Frankly, I’d rather not see gun ownership going up. Too many angry, mixed up people out there….

simto simto 8:41 am 17 Nov 06

Anyway, guns don’t kill people. Ammunition projected at great speed kills people!

Thumper Thumper 8:06 am 17 Nov 06

Yes, but we all know that happiness is a warm gun….

Yes it is mama…

shauno shauno 12:00 am 17 Nov 06

With ACT politics, what we have is a classic case of incompetence. It can be likened to times of war where the privates get made up to officers due to there being no one else available. Which is the case in Canberra. Its such a small irrelevant little govt that nobody of any standing can be bothered running so what were left with is these clowns.

KaneO KaneO 9:42 pm 16 Nov 06

Yes, *you* as a responsible car owner may use it for an acceptable and non lethal purpose. How would you feel if cars were banned or severly restricted for personal ownership due to the actions of a criminally minded minority?

Now change the word car to gun in the above sentence. If you’ve ever driven in Canberra you will have noticed that many idiots use their cars like weapons.
The practical function of a handgun is the same as the practical function of a longarm. Criminals prefer them for concealment purposes. Banning handguns has actually been followed by an increase in handgun crime in many places (such as Britian after the dunblane massacre).
If you think criminal dickheads don’t have ready access to guns then drive around Canberra and have a look at the road signs. Full of bullet holes.
Criminals don;t care about gun laws, or other laws: that’s why they’re called criminals.
Current gun laws have had a profoundly negative effect on police, army, farmers and sporting shooters (check out the debacle when the army imported a bunch of bang sticks and wasn’t allowed to take possession of them) – but bugger all effect on crims. No surprise there.

Incidentally, people *are* carrying guns around as ‘protection’ when out on the town. And knives, bats, clubs, swords, tonfa, nunchucks, knuckledusters etc. the law concerning such things makes no difference to crims. It only punishes the law abiding, responsible people.

Avacry Avacry 9:17 pm 16 Nov 06

All people that need guns for a practical function have them. Farmers, police, sporting people etc. No problem with that.

Whats the practical function of a handgun? A gun designed to do nothing else than shoot people.

Secondly, I drive a car to get places, not kill things or “protect” myself.

boomacat boomacat 8:41 pm 16 Nov 06

I too miss the real democrats

KaneO KaneO 8:33 pm 16 Nov 06

Practical function = Shooting things. You know, targets, feral animals, livestock you’re going to eat, stuff like that.
Liberals are bad, Labour is far worse due to its preference deals with Greens. Thanks to that bunch, the trees in my back yard have more rights than I do. Did you know you need a *licence* to swat a fly on ACT public land, and can be fined for doing so without said licence. I found this out when trying to get permission to collect bugs from Environment ACT. Only a 14-month runaround so far…

“Sure they are only as dangerous as the person wielding it, but why permit people to own an item that can so easily take life?”

Brilliant argument. You could use it to ban cars, which kill more people than firearms.
Firearms laws have nothing to do with reducing crime, and were never intended for that purpose.

Avacry Avacry 6:39 pm 16 Nov 06

wow, be more dumb!

All of the items you have mentioned have a practical function. What practical function to firearms have?

simbo simbo 6:27 pm 16 Nov 06

We allow people to have kitchen knives, ratpoison and rope, all of which can be used to take a life.

So why not guns?

Avacry Avacry 5:25 pm 16 Nov 06

I feel much safer knowing that people aren’t carrying guns around as “protection” when they are out on the town, and little emo kids aren’t going to take out their hatred of life at school using the gun out of his dad’s gun cabinet.

Sure they are only as dangerous as the person wielding it, but why permit people to own an item that can so easily take life?

Ralph Ralph 4:32 pm 16 Nov 06

I wouldn’t lose any sleep at night over more liberal gun laws. If crims want guns (and they do), they will get them regardless of any anti gun laws.

johnboy johnboy 4:13 pm 16 Nov 06

the desire to deprive others of an inanimate object seems like an odd thing to be the sole determinant of your vote…

bonfire bonfire 4:08 pm 16 Nov 06

guns are just tools.

smokey2 smokey2 3:56 pm 16 Nov 06

Makes a change to digging up the Rock spiders ala NSW ALP.

Avacry Avacry 3:38 pm 16 Nov 06

There is nothing sensible about more guns.

bonfire bonfire 3:17 pm 16 Nov 06

id vote ldp at the next assembly election.

the gun laws make sense to me. im a responsible adult though.

i miss the real democrats.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site