Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      07:57am | 18/12/12

      It is probably a reaction to Obama’s speech, however the task of really changing the US mindset is well beyond their President. Any new laws will probably just be ‘feel good’ and change nothing. There is one aspect which is disconcerting - the current economic situation and the way it must be affecting Americans. The moves to change the tax laws probably important - they could be looking at a large amount of civil unrest ?

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      08:33am | 18/12/12

      You gotta wonder if the Australian “outrage” would be the same if it was 20 African kids who got shot in their classroom by mates of, say, that Kony dude.

      Would we be screaming that Africa should be banning their guns too?

      Or is this just coz it’s 20 white American kids that we as Australians feel the need to tell another country what they should or shouldn’t do on their home turf?

    • Ravi says:

      09:08am | 18/12/12

      @Smoke Crack

      Humans identify with social groups by nature. Because of our similarities with the USA and our exposure to their culture, we tend to identify with them more strongly. This is why we respond to events there more strongly than to events in some other places. It is biological tribalism.

    • WTF says:

      09:16am | 18/12/12


      As I said in the other thread where you posted exactly the same pathetic strawman attempt at diversion, yes, it would, and no, it’s not. You didn’t learn anything yesterday, did you?

    • Markus says:

      09:32am | 18/12/12

      It has always been about more than self defense.
      The 2nd Amendment was written on the basis of a heavy distrust of large central government, and the ability for the states to have an independent army to fight back against one should it ever come to that again.

      People talk of changing the US mindset, but it is much more than just discouraging people from wanting guns. It would be a complete overhaul of the fundamental tenets upon which their nation was built.

      In essence, you would have to convince a country that formed through war with an overbearing central government, and went to war with itself over an overbearing central government, that if a central government acts it is only acting in your best interests.
      Good luck with that.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      09:58am | 18/12/12

      @WTF, why do I have to learn something?

      Is it only “right” when I am forced to adopt your way of thinking as the only way?

      Who died and made you god?

    • SnappyLegs says:

      10:14am | 18/12/12

      All this nonsense over trying to ban guns. Every time I hear this stupid argument I think of Jill Meagher. If she’d been allowed a gun to defend herself she might still be alive today.

    • Testfest says:

      10:40am | 18/12/12


      I don’t think you’ve thought that through. If Jill was allowed to have a gun, then her attacker would have been able to get one too.

      Given that he was a predator actively looking to commit a crime, he would have had his gun out and ready to use way before Jill could have grabbed hers. End result - nothing changes…

    • Ravi says:

      10:55am | 18/12/12


      Statistics trump anecdote. They trump hypothetical anecdote even more.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:02am | 18/12/12

      Thats a bullshit argument SnappyLegs and somethign that responsible and law abiding actual gun owners and shooters ARE NOT advocating for. No-one sane wants people carrying around firearms in public. Thats absurd and moronically stupid.

    • SnappyLegs says:

      11:13am | 18/12/12

      @Testfest, come off it. If he thought she might have a way of defending herself he might have thought twice about committing the crime in the first place. As it was, he knew she was totally helpless.

    • WTF says:

      02:19pm | 18/12/12


      You don’t have to learn anything, but if you weren’t so obviously averse to learning, you wouldn’t have to make such a fool of yourself with pathetic strawman diversion attempts.

    • sami says:

      03:11pm | 18/12/12

      No. If she hadn’t been attacked and murdered by that scumbag she would still be alive today. Don’t put the onus on her. What a bloody stupid thing to say.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      03:32pm | 18/12/12

      @WTF, I hate it when people think I actually care.

      Lady, go read my other reply to your moralistic diatribe on Tory’s post.


    • PsychoHyena says:

      03:42pm | 18/12/12

      @SnappyLegs, uhm that’s not how it would have gone down, and while I could give you a more than accurate breakdown of exactly how things would have gone, I don’t like doing it. Let’s just say that a swift blow to the head renders any weapon the victim might have useless.

    • Kipling says:

      03:43pm | 18/12/12

      @ Markus. It does not seem evident through action that self defense is anything more than an “angle”. If self defense was truly a seriously held issue then there would be a much more pro active (and not necessarily through gun ownership) approach to actual self defense. Relying on gun ownership for self defense is both limiting and self defeating. Genuine self defense would start with protective behaviour education, martial arts training (as a mandatory school thing) and then move on to other areas. I am not suggesting a gun provides no protection, but what it offers is seriously limited by things like accessibility (i.e. if one exercises safe gun storage practices), capacity (not everyone is a cool shot under pressure) and willingness to act - not everyone can act as they would wish under pressure or when fearful. I find the guns for self defense argument to be somewhat ludicrous and unrealistic to be honest, regardless of the “criminal element” and/or their capacity and willingness to use firearms. The self defense argument lacks serious credibility.

    • WTF says:

      04:09pm | 18/12/12


      Nobody thinks you care about making such a fool of yourself, Lady.

    • Jack says:

      05:33pm | 18/12/12


      Complete and utter bollocks.

      Nancy Lanza had lots of guns. That didn’t stop her son from killing her, and then a couple of dozen first graders and their teachers. In fact, he used hers.

    • Subotic ain't no lady says:

      05:49pm | 18/12/12

      I represent that fact.! ! !


      07:40am | 18/12/12

      Hi Punch Team,

      At least Mr Obama is talking about a positive change! And as long as it is getting people to ask questions and think, it is serving a good cause.  It seems that this affair with having personal weapons for the sole purpose of personal protection may actually be winding down with new generation of Americans who would like to see some kind of positive change. It may not happen straight away because it has taken such a long time to get to this place.  I personally feel that Mr Obama might be a bit isolated and alone trying to solve this issue all by himself. 

      By getting the other Democrats as well as the Republicans on board, they might be able to save the USA more tragedies like Sandy Hook. It is still too early to know for sure about the outcomes but seeing that someone admitting that there are faults in the gun licensing and ownership laws could be a place to begin.  Acknowledging that they have a problem to begin with,  could be giving the people of the USA some kind of hope towards minimizing the senseless loss of innocent lives in the future.  Kind regards.

    • stephen says:

      07:45am | 18/12/12

      I was surprized to learn yesterday that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were not born in this country.
      (This may explain why they, together, appear to not be able to secure our borders against the illegal boat : they don’t really want to.)

    • Nostromo says:

      08:39am | 18/12/12

      Was just chattin to Anubis about this yesterday - apparently Abbott is an Aussie by birth, as his Aussie parent were visiting in the UK when mum gave birth. Being on holidays doesn’t count, unless they sell you on the black market I guess.

      Now, as to how we (meaning:they/you) ever voted in a Welshwomun into power…even after the coup we had to have…the mind does something an order of magnitude above *boggle*, but hey, this is the lucky country I guess, just not for the majority or the sane it would seem. HO HO HO!

      For the record, we’ve had a few PMs from England and Scotland, as well as one from Chile, so I guess there’s precedent. But should we have the same rule as the US that they have to be born here? Would have saved us a whole lot of grief since the last election, eh.

    • Thommo says:

      08:47am | 18/12/12

      Well one doesn’t have legal authority to do so.  Just leaves us with Julia.

    • Achmed says:

      09:17am | 18/12/12

      Abbott was born in London, England to expatriate Australian parents. September 1960, his family moved to Australia on the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme.

    • Knemon says:

      09:19am | 18/12/12

      Bloody long holiday Nostromo…Abbott was born in London, England,on 4 November 1957 to expatriate Australian parents. On 7 September 1960, his family moved to Australia on the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme ship “Oronsay”. His mother was an Australian citizen and his father had lived in Australia since 1940 when he arrived as a 16-year-old to get away from the dangers of wartime Britain.

      Personally, I believe that our Governor General ( or President) and Prime Minister should be born in Australia.

    • Nostromo says:

      10:00am | 18/12/12

      Yeah, fair suck of the sauce bottle guys, I should learn to read wikipedia 1st, the den of all human knowledge, before using my memory banks, eh.

      Well, we’ve had at least one PM who was not an Aussie or from the British Isles, so I guess we could vote in Obama in a few years when he comes over & buys his citizenship, or one of the former Chinese communist party leaders, or maybe even one of the top Japanese businessmen, seeing they own half of Australia anyway! smile

    • marley says:

      10:02am | 18/12/12

      @Knemon - if Abbott’s mother was an Australian citizen, wouldn’t that have made him an Australian citizen by birth, regardless of the place of his actual birth? (That’s a question, BTW, not an argument).

    • George says:

      10:29am | 18/12/12

      Marley - no it doesn’t.  A person takes the nationality of the country of birth.  If what you suggest was the case there would be very few Aussies.

    • TimB says:

      10:52am | 18/12/12

      This is all a bit silly isn’t it? Almost up there with the Obama birth certificate stuff. Only difference is that in America they have a rule. We don’t so I’m not sure why it’s an issue for either Gillard or Abbott.

    • Knemon says:

      10:58am | 18/12/12

      Good call Nostromo re Wikipedia wink

      @Marley - “wouldn’t that have made him an Australian citizen by birth” - I believe that it would give TA duel citizenship, therefore, technically yes.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      11:13am | 18/12/12

      I was surprized to learn yesterday that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were not human beings but reptilian aliens.

      (This may also explain why they, together, appear to not be able to secure our borders against the illegal boat : they don’t really like water.)

    • Tim says:

      11:17am | 18/12/12


      Foreigners are taking over our government!!!!!!!

      Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    • Robin says:

      12:44pm | 18/12/12

      @Marley, it depends on where in the country you were born as well.  I was born in Aden but in the British RAF base so that makes me British.  At that time Aden had been given to the UAE so I could have been a lovely blond haired arab with freckles if mum had decided to go shopping that day.  Anyway, it gets even sillier when you consider that on becoming an Australian Citizen (renouncing my British citizenship)  I had to swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.  sigh

    • marley says:

      01:40pm | 18/12/12

      Well, I just asked about this (and I’m not trying to start a fight) because I know that under Canadian Citizenship laws, a child born overseas of a Canadian parent is a Canadian citizen by right, and under British Citizenship laws, I’d be entitled to UK citizenship because my mother was born in the UK, even though I was born in Canada and she was a Canadian citizen at that point.  Not that I want to be a Pom, I hasten to add.

      I’m not sure about Australian laws, though.

    • marley says:

      02:20pm | 18/12/12

      @Robin - umm, why did you have to renounce your British citizenship on becoming an Australian?  There’s nothing t I’m aware of in either British or Australian law to make that a requirement (unless you’re running for a seat in Parliament).  I’m a dual national Canadian-Australian, my better half is a dual national Brit-Australian.  I’ve got two passports, and I use them as appropriate (leave Oz on one, arrive in Canada on the other).

    • Robin says:

      03:05pm | 18/12/12

      @marley, fair question.  I just assumed it was the norm.  Mind you, I could be getting a bit mixed up here because I became a citizen on the same day I joined the Navy.  When joining you renounce all allegiances.  I always thought that becoming a citizen entailed the same.  I do stand to be corrected though.  Not that I want to be a pom, oh no, but then again I think if I was travelling in some countries overseas it might be nicer to have the British consulate backing me up than the Aussie one.  Would depend on the country though.  sigh, too difficult

    • PsychoHyena says:

      03:45pm | 18/12/12

      @Achmed, wait a minute, that would make Tony Abbott a…. boatperson.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:05am | 18/12/12

      I’ve seent hat Navy documentary - Sea Patrol…they regularly get overwhelemd by a guy with a frown….


    • Stephen T says:

      11:58am | 18/12/12

      @Dr B S Goh: A good article, thank you for the link.

    • Markus says:

      10:04am | 18/12/12

      Not surprised that you weren’t entirely convinced. What you describe as ‘highly informal writing style’ I saw as ‘overindulgence in sarcasm to the point that the original topic was in some cases completely missed’.

      Point 2 is an interesting one. I do hope Ms Ford also extends that right to not agree with or respect a woman’s choices to others in regards to her own choices.
      To not do so would just make her a giant hypocrite.

    • Tim says:

      10:26am | 18/12/12

      I’m getting a little worried about you spending so much time reading the Daily Life website. That stuff rots your brain.

      The article just read like a list of five stereotypes that she thinks she doesn’t fit so therefore they must be invalid.
      She didn’t really present any evidence other than “like duh, that can’t be true”.

      The one that really shits me though is people complaining about advertising not being directed at them. Do they honestly think that advertising agencies are so retarded that they do no market research?
      That they don’t direct their advertising at what their research says is their target market?
      If you don’t like the advertising, then don’t freaking buy the product.

    • Testfest says:

      11:06am | 18/12/12

      Both Clementine Ford & Clementine Bastow on The Daily Life come up with the most extraordinary things to be outraged about.

      They aren’t too forthcoming on ways to resolve any of their rage points, but they certainly know who is to blame.

      I actually read an article on their site last week that didn’t blame men for everything - almost choked on my coffee.

    • AdamC says:

      03:15pm | 18/12/12

      Tim says:


      Haha, just think of me as the ‘Daily Life’ digest!

      To some degree, I think I just go there to see what they are managing to be aggrieved about on any given day. Like I said, they are very good at maintaining the rage.

    • Aghast says:

      08:59am | 18/12/12

      That was Lord Blakes advice to Tony Abbott given as he departed Oxford about 30 years ago.
      Basically a posh pommy version of “stop with the aggression and think before you speak”
      Urban aborigine..Get it in writing..Shit happens..Died of shame..Make an honest women of herself..Housewives of virginity..physiology to exercise means no..Costa Concordia..I dont recall visiting Pell..Abortion the easy way out..shit happens
      Not one of the above comments was essential.If Abbott had the ability to discipline his off the cuff comments,if he had the humility to accept that well meant advice thirty years ago he would make a better PM.
      Was he just too arrogant to accept Lord Blakes advice or just to thick to figure it out.And why….why in heavens name would he bring attention to that advice that was so obviously dams him a brash fool.A thirty year on slow learning brash fool.

    • glenm says:

      10:15am | 18/12/12

      Why is it that that idiots like yourself continue to write crap taking spoken word comments out of context and then trying to use them as some kind of smoking gun evidence to support your narrow minded and preconceived ideas about Abbott. Maybe instead you should look at actions which are generally a much better benchmark against which to judge character.
      Gillard…...involved with the AWU fraud perpetrators, two affairs with married men, spoke out against pension increases in cabinet, lied about introducing carbon tax, lied about Rudd’s removal as PM, came up with some of the worst policy decisions ever for clunkers, Medicare gold, live animal trade mess, Malaysian people swap….

      But then you can always come back with but.. Abbott punched a wall, he voted against ru486, he’s a catholic, he rallied against Pauline Hanson and her racism, he wears budgie smugglers and has big ears. He obviously hates women because he said something about them ironing, and looked at his watch when Julia was speaking.

      Grow up

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:08am | 18/12/12

      You forgot the most important one Glen…. Abbott drinks SHANDIES!!!

      Now try and vote for him without being embarrassed…..

    • Aghast says:

      02:56pm | 18/12/12

      with regard to your criticisms of Gillard we are in absolute agreement…
      You deem it necessary to throw up a list of budgie smugglers big ears Hanson ru486 on and on…not me
      you seem to think in black and white…Gillard is no good therefore the alternative..Tony faultless…Do you believe that ????
      My comments on Tony were examples of his constant stream of gaffs that he produces UNNECESSARILY….Politics are hard enough without creating self inflicted situations that require apology.Abbott is an intelligent man. His endless aray of unnecessary gaffs display his lack of discipline
      Abbott not only lets himself down but also a hard working team battling to pull Australia out of this mess come election time.Tony should wake up to himself or move aside voluntarily before his own parties tolerance wears thin close to election time.
      The only possible chance Labor has for a win come election time is Abbott reducing himself to an article of ridicule…maybe he cant help himself

    • sami says:

      03:19pm | 18/12/12

      @glenm - because I don’t follow politics (or the personal lives of politicians) I must ask: was Gillard single when she ‘had affairs’ with married men?

    • David V. says:

      09:10am | 18/12/12

      Will anyone call Libya racist and bigoted for closing its borders:
      I doubt it. Then again, the media reported attacks by black South Africans on illegal immigrants as “xenophobic attacks”. They avoided using the “r” word because for them only white people can be racist.

      Just ask people in India and South Africa what they think of illegal immigration into their own countries. And Arab countries treat Palestinian refugees appallingly (just ask your Lebanese friends what they think of them!)

    • fml says:

      09:53am | 18/12/12

      Why you trying to create division, dude?

      Chill Winston, its christmas..

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      10:28am | 18/12/12

      @ fml. Thanks for reading my post. I am trying to bring forward some hard facts for people to make their own decisions.

      I just visited and attended an international conference in China and saw on TV the trailer of the new movie coming to Australia. It is called, Back to 1942. It is a story of how humans degenerated into wild animals and include cannibalism when central China had a famine in which 3m perished. In a related incident that I know well 800,000 Chinese died in central China when the Govt blew up the dams on the Yellow River to stop Japanese soldiers.

      What will happen in the critical food crisis in Asia before 2050 will be a lot worse and threatens the survival of Australia.

    • SoapBox says:

      11:22am | 18/12/12

      Dr BS Goh _ I watched a show on TV last night (Foxtel) that put forward the premise that the USA didn’t need to drop the second atom bomb on Nagasaki.  And that it was not about getting the Japanese to surrender but more a display of military power for the “benefit” of the Russians who were attacking Japanese troops occupying China etc and looking like they would invade Japan before the Yanks.

    • Gregg says:

      11:55am | 18/12/12


      Could be a new twist for a chef show - tasty dishes from the big pot for survival.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      12:05pm | 18/12/12

      @ SoapBox. I would agree with the story on Nagasaki. It was probably needless action.

      But the horrors of World War 2 and what the Japanese soldiers did to Australian soldiers and civilians in China require the Japanese Govt to follow the Germans and apologize to their victims and their relatives.

      On WW2 story which hits meet like a ton on bricks. Japan attacked Pearl Habour in Dec 1941. USA set up a special bomber squad and bombed Tokyo on 18 April 1942, see The Chinese helped about 80 of the US airmen who landed near Shanghai to escape. For that the Japanese army killed about 250,000 civilians in China. So should US feel guilty over Nagasaki when Japan has not apologized for its WW2 atrocities??

    • Tbird says:

      12:08pm | 18/12/12

      Show was called Hiroshima The Day After. Shocking what the citizens of both cities went through. You’d have thought the Americans could have offered some medical assistance to the survivors instead of just observing the effects of the radiation. Also as the narrator said at the start of the doco millions soldiers and civilians more would have been killed and the war against Japan would have continued for years.

    • fml says:

      12:22pm | 18/12/12

      Dr Goh,

      So you are David V?

    • Kipling says:

      03:56pm | 18/12/12

      Mr Goh,

      I am curious about your perspective on apoligising.

      Would it not simply be appropriate to apologies (regardless of who you are) for doing the wrong thing simply because apologising is the right thing to do?

      You seem to be promoting the idea that the apology is only given dependent on the action of others. That would seem then to undermine any value in the apology. I.E I don’t apologies because of your actions, I apologies because of mine….

    • Economist says:

      04:13pm | 18/12/12

      Tbird to clarify, The war with Japan would not have continued for years if it wasn’t for the bomb.

      The Russian were about to kick their backsides and they feared actually loosing Hokkaido to them.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      04:32pm | 18/12/12

      @ Kipling. As I wrote in reply to Soapbox if you dissect it clinically and technically the Nagasaki atom bomb was probably an unnecessary action. But you need to understand the circumstances why it happened. Things were happening quickly on the US side then and the Japanese did not understand what hit them in Hiroshima. The bottom line was that USA did NOT go out intentionally to kill more people at Nagasaki and so no apology is needed for Nagasaki.

      What the Japanese did in China in their atrocities from 1937 to 1945 were largely deliberate to terrorize the people/civilians. How else can you explain the rape of Nanjing where 300,000 civilians were killed in the most obscene manner as it was then the capital of China. It started on 13 Dec 1937,

      We in the West tends to be affected by the politically correct brigades. For example the Queen has just given very belatedly full recognition to Bomber Command for its actions in WW2. This was because of the criticisms that it did carpet bombing over Germany and for the long time it was said they did the wrong thing in WW2.  My brother-in-law was a member of a small team of survivals of Bomber Command who went to London for the celebration with the Queen this year.

    • Achmed says:

      10:31am | 18/12/12

      I’m still “amazed” at the lack of commentary by Punch regarding the latest OECD Report on the Aussie economy.
      Perhaps that’s because it was so positive about what the Govt has done????

    • Stephen T says:

      11:53am | 18/12/12

      @Achmed: Good call; I found it and had a read, not to bad although they did identify several priority areas for action.  I went back and checked with the ABS to get an idea what the were referring to, going on the figures Australia does seem to have a potentially serious problems unless action is taken to ameliorate negative trends, the stats can be found at.

    • Achmed says:

      12:40pm | 18/12/12

      “Australia’s long period of uninterrupted economic growth makes it the Iron Man among the OECD countries,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said.
      “The rise of Asia has driven Australian natural resource exports and is providing enormous new opportunities for the agriculture, education and tourism sectors, but it has also imposed significant challenges and strains. The strong Australian dollar resulting from the mining boom is imposing considerable structural changes on the economy,” Mr. Gurría said.

      @Stephen T - Yep.  Our Govt has some tough decisions to make.  And some people are going to be on the band wagon complaining about poor economic management more to further their own interests than in the future of Australia.  I’m sure the farmers will be top of the list if agriculture subsidies are reduced/removed with the Nationals screaming blue murder.
      Labor did try to lower corpaorate tax rate but the Opposition lead by Abbott and several Independents voted against it.  And with Abbott’s plan to increase business tax to fund the maternity leave plan it makes you wonder where we will end up.

    • Stephen T says:

      01:04pm | 18/12/12

      @Achmed: I know it is a faint hope but a bipartisan approach would be nice, not likely to happen though too many egos on both sides of the political fence would need to be put aside.  Anyway I’d be inclined to question our right to any expectation of sobriety and collaboration on the part of our politicians, you just have to look to these forums, if the average punter can’t manage it what hope do we have of the current political circus achieving it, and the sad thing is that irrespective of who we think is correct the current situation is to our detriment.

    • SoapBox says:

      01:40pm | 18/12/12

      Stephen T - I’m afraid that gone are the days when a person went into politics as a “community service”, the days when it was about the community as a whole and not about ego/power.  Today being a politician is a career and they do anything and everything to further and keep that career even if it is not the best for Australia.
      I don’t think we should be paying them more to attract the best of the best, like Packer or Rhineheart would give up their billions to be a pollie.  It should be seen as a community service.

    • glenm says:

      03:29pm | 18/12/12

      @Achmed, perhaps its because it is basically a puff piece written so as not to insult the leaders of the country to which it refers. Not a great deal of indepth research involved in its production , with generalisations and motherhood statements about the future with little basis in fact.

    • Traxster says:

      10:32am | 18/12/12

      To a certain extent,last weeks massacre is not all that surprising….
      Just check out almost any American movie…........
      There is nearly always a gun fight…or . multiple gunfights…...
      They seem to whip out a gun and start firing it at the drop of a hat !!
      And don’t get me started on their car chasers !

    • Arnold Layne says:

      11:33am | 18/12/12

      It has really struck me while watching The Walking Dead in recenty weeks (prior to this tragedy) actually.  Without including spoilers, the ongoing reverence of guns is extraordinary.  I realise it’s kind of like a “new frontier” situation the people find themselves in but it’s quite striking.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:35pm | 18/12/12

      Double You Tee Eff?!?!

      You’re equating the US gun culture, violence and crime with a fricken TV show - set during a Zombie Apocalypse, where most the characters are actually using axes, machetes, knives, a crossbow and even metal poles and rarely actually use firearms because of the polt device that the noise attracts zombies?!?!

    • sami says:

      03:25pm | 18/12/12

      Yet I have watched hundreds of gunfights in movies, played violent videogames, watched violent sports and I listen to death metal and I’ve not even killed a single person.

      It comes down to the individual, their situation and their mental health. To blame movies and the like is to completely miss the real issues.

    • Baloo says:

      11:36am | 18/12/12

      Anyone going to talk about the people massacred in china?
      He had a KNIFE.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan doesn't give a fork says:

      01:07pm | 18/12/12

      They weren’t white people Baloo, so that doesn’t count….

    • Philosopher says:

      01:36pm | 18/12/12

      we should ban everything apart from daisy chains. Daisy chains can stay. For now.

    • marley says:

      01:41pm | 18/12/12

      They aren’t dead, Baloo, so they don’t count as homicide statistics.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      02:18pm | 18/12/12

      @Philosopher, daisy chains as in flowers or porn movies?

      I’m down either way….

    • Baloo says:

      02:30pm | 18/12/12

      It’s just strange that people think America won’t have rampages if guns are banned, while a guy in China was running around stabbing people.

      With everything banned we could finally spend all our time getting offended at stuff.

    • sami says:

      03:32pm | 18/12/12

      Baloo- it was not a massacre. Nobody was killed. See the difference? I’d rather someone come at me with a knife than a gun, wouldn’t you?
      Yeah it’s still bloody awful and disturbing but the fallout is not the same.

    • Martin says:

      03:48pm | 18/12/12


      No, because nobody was. Everyone knows the difference between injured and massacred.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      03:58pm | 18/12/12

      Everyone knows the difference between injured and massacred.

      Yes, but not everyone knows the the difference between a daisy chain and a “daisy chain”....

    • Martin says:

      05:44pm | 18/12/12


      But of course, if he’d had a GUN, then we would have had a massacre.

    • Baloo says:

      05:47pm | 18/12/12

      OK guys will ignore it then, because nobody was killed.

    • Martin says:

      06:21pm | 18/12/12


      Try not to be too disappointed, Baloo. Maybe next time he’ll have a GUN.

    • Smoke Crack - Worship Satan says:

      01:04pm | 18/12/12

      With all the sci-fi nutjobs around here I can’t believe no-one noted that Steven Spielberg’s mother birthed him on this day back in ‘46.

      Mr. Burns: Get me Steven Spielberg.
      Smithers: He’s unavailable.


    • Achmed says:

      02:38pm | 18/12/12

      and yet despite all the rantings by the Liberals to undermine the Australian economy

    • ithastobesaid says:

      01:11pm | 18/12/12

      My children have grown up with the internet. You may think your kids are influenced by you, and to an extent they are. Parents used to worry about the influence of peer pressure in school.

      Your children now get it online.

      Their personalities now combine both virtual and real world psychology.

      Add to this mix the many pariahical parasites that inhabit this virtual world and you have yourself a future problem.This is not going away.

      We grew up in an era where certain subjects were considered taboo until you were mature enough ... read… psychologically able to reason why things were the way they were. Certain issues could be debated within the family unit. Or maybe with an older and wiser person who could help you examine an issue and its context, giving the younger person the opportunity to come up with different ways of approaching a problem.

      We all know teenagers are heavily influenced by their peers.

      The amount of gore, as in gorefests, death, murder and real time war footage, coupled with end of world prophecies… porn… abortion….rape…..etc.etc. etc…. that children are being subjected to on a daily basis cannot be reasoned away. It is in their face 24/7. As a parent you can’t police their internet use forever. Kids have a natural curiosity to explore and with impressionable, immature minds, coupled with peer pressure they will seek it out.

      Some of this stuff has to have an impact on them.

      It has since been revealed that the mother had guns and was a Doomsday Prepper.This kid had Aspergers, a double disabilty when it comes to frustration, bullying and not always getting the “why’s”. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to know where his mothers favourite passtime and his virtual world met up,.Add the end of world prophecies and maybe an incident with the school and he’s gone over the edge.

      If not him, then someone else, in some other country and some other poor victims. This kid acted his frustrations out. The nurse in the UK who hung herself internalised hers. What would have been the outcome had she decided to take a few people with her.

      Back too the internet.

      It needs to be free for the good and freedom of society, but as parents, teachers and leaders of this current and future generations, we are failing children when they can easily access subjects that should at least be behind an Age Classified Paywall ,if not eradicated altogether.

      This is an issue for goverments and the owners of Search Engines to manage.

      No more debates.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      01:32pm | 18/12/12

      Well said…...

    • fml says:

      02:23pm | 18/12/12

      “This is an issue for goverments and the owners of Search Engines to manage. “

      No. It’s. Not…

      It is an issue for parents to manage. Buy an internet filter, heck don’t even purchase the tinternet. It is not up to the government to manage because you either cannot or will not.

      Your child.. shouldn’t even have a facebook account until they are 16. If your child is smart enough to navigate around an internet filter, then give them the keys to the internet. You may have a child prodigy in the making who will sell secrets to the chinese…

    • sami says:

      03:58pm | 18/12/12

      I don’t have kids.
      Problem solved.

      But seriously, it is not for governments and search engines to manage. How would that even be logistically possible? If you are the grown up then you make the decisions and you control teh interwebz in your house. If you get your kid a computer or a smartphone, it’s your problem. If you can’t deal with that, don’t get them one.

      As a counter to the things they learn online, perhaps you can also converse with your kids regularly and teach them about the ‘real world’ vs what is portrayed in cyberspace. Tell them that the porn they see is not what real sex is like. Tell them that advertising is a sham. Tell them that their teenage dramas will not last forever. Tell them that there is a difference between “your” and “you’re”. Tell them whatever they put online will stay there forever. Educate them. Be the person they can go to for honest answers.

      As for “his virtual world”, apparently the shooter did not have a big online presence so it’s possibly not accurate to place much blame on the internet. His mental health + his situation + his easy access to guns = this tragedy. I’d say it would be wiser to focus on how to provide better mental health care to those who need it and control access to guns (nobody needs a semi-automatic, for example) rather than on how a young man may have been influenced by his experiences online.

    • Kipling says:

      04:07pm | 18/12/12

      Good points fml.

      It is by and large simply a parenting issue. Far too many parents appear disconnected from their kids these days.

      Kids are able to access facebook from 13 on by the way. However, that is not even the issue, building solid parent child relationships is the issue. If you can’t trust your kids then you probably don’t know them that well…

      I am astounded by the number of parents that can name the websites and games that negatively impact on their kids behaviour (apparently) and yet could not name five of their kids friends….. Is that being connected?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      04:22pm | 18/12/12

      I agree that Australia needs an internet filter- but not to block porn, violence and all the other crap. We need an internet filter to block Google, Amazon and all the other tax dodging internet companies. The kids can look after themselves…...

    • Tez says:

      04:33pm | 18/12/12

      Regarding your children,It’s not a matter for government it’s a matter for parents. Can these gun owning parents garantee that they will not have a ‘‘deeply troubled child ‘‘in the house if they can’t don’t buy a gun. simple.

    • PJ says:

      02:00pm | 18/12/12

      With the Gillard Government, Australia trundles along on the same train tracks built by the UK Labours Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

      As a result we have a picture of our possible future and a predictor of the type of policies and spin we can expect from the Gillard Government.

      The UK are at the post Labour phase of their journey. And there is clear evidence that there is a backlash against a Loony Left fringe that had sway within those Labor Governments, bringing in some whacky policies that crushed traditional idiosyncratic behaviours and pumped out a lot of socialist non sense that benefitted no one, but divided everyone.

      This Loony Left fringe, which exists in our Labor Party too, unfortunately has ushered in a backlash with some UK people moving far right than is tasteful.

      The rise of and elements in the new UK Independence Party are a case in point.

      What they lack in distasteful policies, their followers bring to the fore.

      For example, Winston McKenzie, the party’s culture person said same sex couples should be banned from the adoption process, because it breached the human rights of children.

      I wonder, in order to protect Australian society and people from suffering the long term damaging effects of a small but powerful Far Left loony fringe in the Gillard Government, whether some are going to have to vote against their normal party of choice in 2013. Just to prevent a counter far right backlash later, with the rise of an Australian equivalent to the UKIP?

      ha ha a new dimension to tactical voting.

    • PJ says:

      02:33pm | 18/12/12

      Winston Smith is an example of the trend toward far right politics in young Black Britain’s.

    • Tim says:

      02:38pm | 18/12/12

      Wait, What????

      Let me get this straight, it’s the “Left’s” fault that right wing people are putting forward what you call “distasteful” policies?

      Is there nothing you don’t blame on the Left?

      And you do realise that only Western Australia, NSW and the ACT allow homosexual adoption by couples in Australia?

      I’m beginning to warm to the notion that you really are a left wing troll.

    • PJ says:

      03:09pm | 18/12/12


      No personal attacks please.

      I know it’s the modus operandi of your Gillard Government, whom after making smears and personal attacks, then turn around and accuse others of being ‘all about Smears and personal attacks.’

      Swan ‘Abbott is a Thug for using personal attacks all the time?’

      Drop it Mate, it’s not becoming.

      What I have reported above is what is happening in the UK. It’s important to note what has happened there after 13 years of Socialist Left Labour rule. Because many elements, including resources, have been adopted by this Gillard Government.

      So it’s logical to suggest we are heading in the same direction and therefore will face the same consequences, except worse as their GDP dwarfs ours and we are dependent upon a boom.

      Many people with central political views are for Gay Marriage.

      I’m all for Gay Marriage and I am as much against Far Right Wing Politics as I am Far Left Wing politics. Equal evils. There are no significant Far Right Political Parties here, but the same cannot be said for Far Left.

      Thats why I have reported the trend in the UK toward far right wing ideals as a result of some peoples reaction to suffering Far loony Left ideas.

      We should be having a discussion about the similarity between the Blair/Brown Governments and the Gillard Government and how the Blair Brown Governments economy meant that after the GFC in 2008, Britain was the only economy not to break away from recession.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      04:02pm | 18/12/12

      @PJ, the cause of the UKs problem was the result of illegal activities by some of the lenders that resulted in the UK economy looking better than what it was.

    • Tim says:

      04:43pm | 18/12/12

      What personal attack?

      And I’m not a Labor supporter, so what’s Gillard got to do with anything other than providing evidence for my last statement about you blaming everything you disagree with on the ‘Left’.

      I say I’m warming to the notion of you being a left wing troll because your comments often contain ridiculous and false statements that make Right wing supporters look silly and ignorant.
      And that annoys me because my political persuasions are far more to the right than to the left.

    • achmed says:

      05:40pm | 18/12/12


    • sami says:

      04:04pm | 18/12/12

      It’s amazing what can be done these days smile I love this idea.

    • Gregg says:

      02:45pm | 18/12/12

      Maybe Winston is angling for a future cardinalship or even Popeship given the latest Vatican views.
      Sorry, link is coming up as a black listed item!, interesting that but basically, the Vatican is of the opinion that gays seeking marriage are in another reality.
      And I doubt you’ll find too much Papal twittering to believers.

    • Gregg says:

      02:50pm | 18/12/12

      Getting on terms with our National Dictionary Centre, seems as just about anything goes in this age of new language.
      Like, now a term is the latest word of the year!

      Yep, Green on Blue is now a word we are led to believe.
      ” The Australian National Dictionary Centre based at the Australian National University in Canberra has selected ‘green-on-blue’ as its word of the year. “

      Maybe we ought to have an annual award for crazy language developments just like fashions etc.

    • John says:

      04:37pm | 18/12/12

      Obama has been bombing children in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, going on massive shooting suppress’‘s, Obama gives the Israeli’s trillions of dollars to get guns to fire at the Palestinians, yet he wants all Americans all to hand in their guns because of their danger to society? I don’t think Obama cares about human life, I think all he care’s about is just taking the gun’s off American’s in order make them defenseless. I think the people who rule the US at this moment, are not conformable with millions of American’s having guns, as it’s a threat to their rule. So they use tragic event, with heavy marketing like we just had as an opportunity to disarm the Americans.

    • Baloo says:

      05:55pm | 18/12/12

      STFU smile

    • Curmudgeon says:

      06:30pm | 18/12/12

      Peter Siddle for PM!!!


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house


Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?


Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”


Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings


Tim says:


From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:


Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving




Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter