Re: MrBishi 380 more Aussie than VE Commie!

[Ext User(Dan---)]

Clockmeister wrote:

>
> Wouldn't you rather the extra fuel excise windfall the government bagged
> fixes the roads problem instead?

Would like a lot of things fixed but life is short as it is i tend to
not dwell on it.



Yet.


--
Regards
Dan.
V8 owner and will always be.
:-p

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Dan---" <farq@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4328bb23$0$12643$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And our shit roads. That hasn't changed, our roads are still shit in
> > comparison to European roads.
>
> Well move to Europe then.
> :-)
>

Wouldn't you rather the extra fuel excise windfall the government bagged
fixes the roads problem instead?

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Dan---" <farq@spam.com> wrote in message
news:432941f5$0$12652$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >
> > Wouldn't you rather the extra fuel excise windfall the government bagged
> > fixes the roads problem instead?
>
> Would like a lot of things fixed but life is short as it is i tend to
> not dwell on it.
>

Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country roads in
this supposed first world country.

>
> Yet.

You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)

[Ext User(Dan---)]

Clockmeister wrote:


>
>
> Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country roads in
> this supposed first world country.

Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be but
if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is more
questions than answers. :-(

>
>
>>Yet.
>
>
> You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)

Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash me and
the neighbors away (well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).
Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
their own driveway. ;-)


--
Regards
Dan.
V8 owner and will always be.
:-p

[Ext User(atec)]

Dan--- wrote:

> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country
>> roads in
>> this supposed first world country.
>
>
> Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be but
> if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is more
> questions than answers. :-(
I suspect you have three morals to many .
>
>>
>>
>>> Yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)
>
>
> Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash me and
> the neighbors away
This IS Australia , more likely to be a wall of wind blown red dust
and choke to death
(well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).
> Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
> their own driveway. ;-)
maybe you could get a life ? ( guns don't kill people )
>
>

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Dan---" <farq@spam.com> wrote in message
news:432a0a6d$0$12644$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country
roads in
> > this supposed first world country.
>
> Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be but
> if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is more
> questions than answers. :-(
>
> >
> >
> >>Yet.
> >
> >
> > You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)
>
> Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash me and
> the neighbors away (well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).

Instead we have water restrictions, a growing population and no answers to
the problem unless you count lip service and sitting on hands as a solution
;-)

> Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
> their own driveway. ;-)
>

he, and I'm starting to sound like Toby :-O

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"atec" <atec77@xxxhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:432ae433$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Dan--- wrote:
>
> > Clockmeister wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country
> >> roads in
> >> this supposed first world country.
> >
> >
> > Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be but
> > if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is more
> > questions than answers. :-(
> I suspect you have three morals to many .
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> Yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)
> >
> >
> > Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash me and
> > the neighbors away
> This IS Australia , more likely to be a wall of wind blown red dust
> and choke to death
> (well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).
> > Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
> > their own driveway. ;-)
> maybe you could get a life ? ( guns don't kill people )

Like fuck they don't. Check out murder rates in countries with liberal gun
laws. Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like is
a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.

To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.

[Ext User(Dan---)]

atec wrote:
> Dan--- wrote:

>
> maybe you could get a life ? ( guns don't kill people )

I have a life thanks a great life actually. :-p


--
Regards
Dan.
V8 owner and will always be.
:-p

[Ext User(Dan---)]

Clockmeister wrote:


>
> he, and I'm starting to sound like Toby :-O

Run run away now!
:-)


--
Regards
Dan.
V8 owner and will always be.
:-p

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Clockmeister wrote:
>
> "atec" <atec77@xxxhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:432ae433$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Dan--- wrote:
> >
> > > Clockmeister wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country
> > >> roads in
> > >> this supposed first world country.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be but
> > > if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is more
> > > questions than answers. :-(
> > I suspect you have three morals to many .
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Yet.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash me and
> > > the neighbors away
> > This IS Australia , more likely to be a wall of wind blown red dust
> > and choke to death
> > (well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).
> > > Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
> > > their own driveway. ;-)
> > maybe you could get a life ? ( guns don't kill people )
>
> Like fuck they don't. Check out murder rates in countries with liberal gun
> laws.

Statistically speaking, in areas of the US where gun laws have become
tighter, violent crime is up. The lowest rates are those with the most
liberal gun laws.

I think that the problem is their overall murder rates are a hell of a
lot higher, and that in and of itself is a concern.

>Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like is
> a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
>
> To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.

ACtually you'd be surprised what the evidence says.

I have to say I'm ethically against guns, and would love a world without
them, but unfortunately I'm also aware that that desire doesn't equal
evidence that it ever could be so.

Want to know about a place that outlawed civilian gun ownership saying
only the police or the army need guns, and how well it turned out? Pre
ww2 Germany.

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"John McKenzie" <jmac@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:432B7BE5.30B7@alphalink.com.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> >
> > "atec" <atec77@xxxhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:432ae433$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > > Dan--- wrote:
> > >
> > > > Clockmeister wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world country
> > > >> roads in
> > > >> this supposed first world country.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be
but
> > > > if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is
more
> > > > questions than answers. :-(
> > > I suspect you have three morals to many .
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Yet.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash me
and
> > > > the neighbors away
> > > This IS Australia , more likely to be a wall of wind blown red dust
> > > and choke to death
> > > (well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).
> > > > Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
> > > > their own driveway. ;-)
> > > maybe you could get a life ? ( guns don't kill people )
> >
> > Like fuck they don't. Check out murder rates in countries with liberal
gun
> > laws.
>
> Statistically speaking, in areas of the US where gun laws have become
> tighter, violent crime is up. The lowest rates are those with the most
> liberal gun laws.
>
> I think that the problem is their overall murder rates are a hell of a
> lot higher, and that in and of itself is a concern.

America is a festering shithole in parts, taking guns away now won't solve
the problems they already have.

> >Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like is
> > a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
> >
> > To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.
>
> ACtually you'd be surprised what the evidence says.

Check out the European countries that have tight gun controls, they have
very low murder rates.

> I have to say I'm ethically against guns, and would love a world without
> them, but unfortunately I'm also aware that that desire doesn't equal
> evidence that it ever could be so.
>
> Want to know about a place that outlawed civilian gun ownership saying
> only the police or the army need guns, and how well it turned out? Pre
> ww2 Germany.

It wouldn't have altered the cause of history either way since there were
many factors that determined what happened back then.

[Ext User(TheTaipan)]

I don't know where you guys are getting your figures from, but murder rates
really don't figure too high on the major killer list anyway... Heart
disease is the biggest killer on this continent, so I say we should ban
hearts!


"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:432bcf84$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> "John McKenzie" <jmac@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:432B7BE5.30B7@alphalink.com.au...
>> Clockmeister wrote:
>> >
>> > "atec" <atec77@xxxhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:432ae433$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> > > Dan--- wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Clockmeister wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Typical Australian apathy is the reason we have third world
>> > > >> country
>> > > >> roads in
>> > > >> this supposed first world country.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Well I aint the prime minister will never be and never wanted to be
> but
>> > > > if I was I would hope things would be for the better but there is
> more
>> > > > questions than answers. :-(
>> > > I suspect you have three morals to many .
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Yet.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You want them whilst you can enjoy them ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Indeed I don't want to walk out my house and a wall of water wash
>> > > > me
> and
>> > > > the neighbors away
>> > > This IS Australia , more likely to be a wall of wind blown red dust
>> > > and choke to death
>> > > (well maybe a few neighbors that I can live without).
>> > > > Hmm maybe I should get a cop mate to write them a parking ticket in
>> > > > their own driveway. ;-)
>> > > maybe you could get a life ? ( guns don't kill people )
>> >
>> > Like fuck they don't. Check out murder rates in countries with liberal
> gun
>> > laws.
>>
>> Statistically speaking, in areas of the US where gun laws have become
>> tighter, violent crime is up. The lowest rates are those with the most
>> liberal gun laws.
>>
>> I think that the problem is their overall murder rates are a hell of a
>> lot higher, and that in and of itself is a concern.
>
> America is a festering shithole in parts, taking guns away now won't solve
> the problems they already have.
>
>> >Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like is
>> > a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
>> >
>> > To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.
>>
>> ACtually you'd be surprised what the evidence says.
>
> Check out the European countries that have tight gun controls, they have
> very low murder rates.
>
>> I have to say I'm ethically against guns, and would love a world without
>> them, but unfortunately I'm also aware that that desire doesn't equal
>> evidence that it ever could be so.
>>
>> Want to know about a place that outlawed civilian gun ownership saying
>> only the police or the army need guns, and how well it turned out? Pre
>> ww2 Germany.
>
> It wouldn't have altered the cause of history either way since there were
> many factors that determined what happened back then.
>
>
>

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Clockmeister wrote:
>
> America is a festering shithole in parts, taking guns away now won't solve
> the problems they already have.

Shithole or not, there's very very clear evidence that honest law
abiding citizens having guns does discourage criminal shitbags from
being as keen to prey on the public.

England is doing really well, some of it's larger cities, despite some
of the tightest gun laws in the world are THE most likely place to get
mugged or assaulted on the planet. I'll concede more often than not the
weapon of choice there is a knife. Which proves that criminals just use
whatever they can get, and banning guns doesn't stop them. But knowing
their intended victim might have a gun just might stop them.

>
> > >Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like is
> > > a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
> > >
> > > To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.
> >
> > ACtually you'd be surprised what the evidence says.
>
> Check out the European countries that have tight gun controls, they have
> very low murder rates.

Yeah but you have to compare it to what they had previous to tight gun
controls to make it apples to apples, and lower overall (dramatically)
it might be compared to the US does not equal lower _because_ of the gun
laws. There's other places on earth that have high gun ownership without
high crime involving them.

After ww2 I'd be very curious to know what actual gun ownership was
like. I can say categorically that practi8cally everyone of that
generation that I know (i.e. older relatives and their friends) actually
somehow still had their military issue firearms. So that's a hell of a
lot of people armed, but we didn't exactly have anarchy in the streets.

HOw about our own - tighter gun laws yet from what i've read crimes
involving guns have gone up in that time. It stops the one in 15 million
fruitloops from going on a killing spreee like Martin Bryant, but it
does nothing to stop criminals who never got their firearms legally in
the first place before the tighter laws, and now they know that less and
less of the community is armed, so they have a green light.

I hate that it's so, and wish it wasn't but wishful thinking won't save
anyone from crimes being commited against them. I'd love to be able to
put forward a convincing argument for gun control, but the more I look
into it, the more unlikely it is.

It's also interesting that in the US the ban was initially on so called
'assault rifles' even though their use was in less than 1% of crimes
involving guns. It seems the anti gun people (and I mean over there, not
you) aren't particularly interested in facts.

10 years ago if people talked about stashing firearms incase this
country was invaded, they were dismissed as kooks, but now it's fairly
well accepted that Indonesia trying to take over Australia is a matter
of when not if. Might not be for 50+ years, but probably inevitable with
their population and our natural resources.
--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

TheTaipan wrote:
>
> I don't know where you guys are getting your figures from, but murder rates
> really don't figure too high on the major killer list anyway... Heart
> disease is the biggest killer on this continent, so I say we should ban
> hearts!

Prove I've got one.


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:17:46 +1000, John McKenzie
<jmac@alphalink.com.au> scribbled thusly:

>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>> America is a festering shithole in parts, taking guns away now won't solve
>> the problems they already have.
>
>Shithole or not, there's very very clear evidence that honest law
>abiding citizens having guns does discourage criminal shitbags from
>being as keen to prey on the public.

In a country full of guns, it becomes necessary to own a gun to
protect yourself.

Thank God we have looked to alternatives.
>



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"John McKenzie" <jmac@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:432C79EA.61E3@alphalink.com.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> >
> > America is a festering shithole in parts, taking guns away now won't
solve
> > the problems they already have.
>
> Shithole or not, there's very very clear evidence that honest law
> abiding citizens having guns does discourage criminal shitbags from
> being as keen to prey on the public.

Or it encourages criminals, even petty ones to carry guns as well, and they
are more likely to use them since the crooks invariably have the element of
surprise in their favour. It's a catch 22 situation.

> England is doing really well, some of it's larger cities, despite some
> of the tightest gun laws in the world are THE most likely place to get
> mugged or assaulted on the planet.

But murdered? I would hate to think what would happen if places like
Bradford had armed communities or the Muslim community had the right to bear
arms.

I'll concede more often than not the
> weapon of choice there is a knife. Which proves that criminals just use
> whatever they can get, and banning guns doesn't stop them. But knowing
> their intended victim might have a gun just might stop them.

Or more likely they will carry a gun and use it if they suspect the other
person may have a gun.
> >
> > > >Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like is
> > > > a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
> > > >
> > > > To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.
> > >
> > > ACtually you'd be surprised what the evidence says.
> >
> > Check out the European countries that have tight gun controls, they have
> > very low murder rates.
>
> Yeah but you have to compare it to what they had previous to tight gun
> controls to make it apples to apples, and lower overall (dramatically)
> it might be compared to the US does not equal lower _because_ of the gun
> laws. There's other places on earth that have high gun ownership without
> high crime involving them.
>
> After ww2 I'd be very curious to know what actual gun ownership was
> like. I can say categorically that practi8cally everyone of that
> generation that I know (i.e. older relatives and their friends) actually
> somehow still had their military issue firearms. So that's a hell of a
> lot of people armed, but we didn't exactly have anarchy in the streets.

Hardly surprising after an event like WWII, people had enough of killing by
then. My grandad had a gun too, not that we ever saw it or was in a place
where it was accessible.

> HOw about our own - tighter gun laws yet from what i've read crimes
> involving guns have gone up in that time. It stops the one in 15 million
> fruitloops from going on a killing spreee like Martin Bryant, but it
> does nothing to stop criminals who never got their firearms legally in
> the first place before the tighter laws, and now they know that less and
> less of the community is armed, so they have a green light.

I really don't think criminals think about gun ownership as a deterrent,
much like jail isn't a deterrent. Organised crime may have gone up, but that
rarely affects Joe Public and is more indicative of other problems in
society, like an increase in drug use which has flow on effects to the
underworld.

> I hate that it's so, and wish it wasn't but wishful thinking won't save
> anyone from crimes being commited against them. I'd love to be able to
> put forward a convincing argument for gun control, but the more I look
> into it, the more unlikely it is.

Quite a few points we don't agree on.

> It's also interesting that in the US the ban was initially on so called
> 'assault rifles' even though their use was in less than 1% of crimes
> involving guns. It seems the anti gun people (and I mean over there, not
> you) aren't particularly interested in facts.

It's the small arms that are more likely to be used to kill you. Still,
since I'm an animal lover and I know what rednecks get up to (from first
hand experience) I look at things from that perspective also.

> 10 years ago if people talked about stashing firearms incase this
> country was invaded, they were dismissed as kooks, but now it's fairly
> well accepted that Indonesia trying to take over Australia is a matter
> of when not if. Might not be for 50+ years, but probably inevitable with
> their population and our natural resources.


A .22 or anything else for that matter isn't going to save us :-(

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Clockmeister wrote:
>
> Or it encourages criminals, even petty ones to carry guns as well, and they
> are more likely to use them since the crooks invariably have the element of
> surprise in their favour. It's a catch 22 situation.
>

I can only speak of my hometown, but suffice to say I could get any
pistol you could care to name, with enough cash within 24 hours. There
aren't any hardcore crims that don't have guns. The gun laws mean
nothing to them.



> > England is doing really well, some of it's larger cities, despite some
> > of the tightest gun laws in the world are THE most likely place to get
> > mugged or assaulted on the planet.
>
> But murdered? I would hate to think what would happen if places like
> Bradford had armed communities or the Muslim community had the right to bear
> arms.

Then again if the whole population had them, can you say categorically
what would happen. There's countries on this planet that had rifles in
practically every home and don't have a ridiculous crime problem.
Believe it or not Iraq actually qualified there pre 'liberation'

> I'll concede more often than not the
> > weapon of choice there is a knife. Which proves that criminals just use
> > whatever they can get, and banning guns doesn't stop them. But knowing
> > their intended victim might have a gun just might stop them.
>
> Or more likely they will carry a gun and use it if they suspect the other
> person may have a gun.

That's what I would have instinctively thought, but it doesn't actually
pan out statistically in the US. Criminals are cowards (and I'll justify
that by saying anyone who turns to crime generally is too piss weak to
slog it out and earn money through hard work, working two jobs etc.) and
killing someone for fifty bucks ends up being more trouble than it's
worth. But if they know the pensioner is unarmed, they'll mug them.

> > Yeah but you have to compare it to what they had previous to tight gun
> > controls to make it apples to apples, and lower overall (dramatically)
> > it might be compared to the US does not equal lower _because_ of the gun
> > laws. There's other places on earth that have high gun ownership without
> > high crime involving them.
> >
> > After ww2 I'd be very curious to know what actual gun ownership was
> > like. I can say categorically that practi8cally everyone of that
> > generation that I know (i.e. older relatives and their friends) actually
> > somehow still had their military issue firearms. So that's a hell of a
> > lot of people armed, but we didn't exactly have anarchy in the streets.
>
> Hardly surprising after an event like WWII, people had enough of killing by
> then. My grandad had a gun too, not that we ever saw it or was in a place
> where it was accessible.

Yes and so did most people. And I agree about not wanting to ever take a
life again, but I'm sure you'd agree if some piece of shit attacked your
grandmother in the family home, then it would be a very real option. And
it no doubt served as a deterrant. Palatable or not.

> > HOw about our own - tighter gun laws yet from what i've read crimes
> > involving guns have gone up in that time. It stops the one in 15 million
> > fruitloops from going on a killing spreee like Martin Bryant, but it
> > does nothing to stop criminals who never got their firearms legally in
> > the first place before the tighter laws, and now they know that less and
> > less of the community is armed, so they have a green light.
>
> I really don't think criminals think about gun ownership as a deterrent,
> much like jail isn't a deterrent. Organised crime may have gone up, but that
> rarely affects Joe Public

Speak for yourself, I've been shot at twice, since the tighter gun laws.
(and I won't detail it here, but I will via email if you really want)

and is more indicative of other problems in
> society, like an increase in drug use which has flow on effects to the
> underworld.

On that I'll agree. Around the mid-late 90s a new type of speed started
doing the rounds. Chemically it's probably the same (I don't know and
definitely don't care) but it's sold in pure form, known as ice. and
people are definitely losing their fucking minds to it.


> > I hate that it's so, and wish it wasn't but wishful thinking won't save
> > anyone from crimes being commited against them. I'd love to be able to
> > put forward a convincing argument for gun control, but the more I look
> > into it, the more unlikely it is.
>
> Quite a few points we don't agree on.

Would you be interested in some of the info I've looked at (seriously).
As I definitely didn't think this way at all some time back.


> > It's also interesting that in the US the ban was initially on so called
> > 'assault rifles' even though their use was in less than 1% of crimes
> > involving guns. It seems the anti gun people (and I mean over there, not
> > you) aren't particularly interested in facts.
>
> It's the small arms that are more likely to be used to kill you. Still,
> since I'm an animal lover and I know what rednecks get up to (from first
> hand experience) I look at things from that perspective also.

I'm with you on that front. I wouldn't mind a cull on people who think
it's fun to hurt animals. Interestingly, it's come up in discussion, and
the only reason I've occasionally really wished I'd had a firearm to
carry in the car is the times I've seen animals hit by cars, but still
alive. I remember one where the car in front of me hit a dog. They
stopped, got out and checked their car for damage, then got in and drove
off, leaving the dog in a terrible state (among other things one of it's
eyes had popped out) and still alive.

In disbelief that they could just leave it like that (and having to make
a choice to square the account with them, or help the dog) I had no
choice but to act. It was bleeding to the shithouse, and no way it could
survive. I ended up breaking it's neck (and I do know how, long story,
but it was very much via humanitarian calling that I do know) but it was
still twitching. Considering the state of it, I didn't want to take a
chance that it was still feeling any of the pain, so ended up having to
bash it's head in with a steering wheel lock. The whole thing probably
lasted less than 20 seconds, but the memory honestly still gets to me
(over five years later)

I can honestly say if I never have to again, I'll be forever indebted to
a higher power..But if I had a firearm I would at least have been able
to put an end to the dogs suffering quicker (and there is a way to aim
to do that right, and I won't discuss it here.)


> > 10 years ago if people talked about stashing firearms incase this
> > country was invaded, they were dismissed as kooks, but now it's fairly
> > well accepted that Indonesia trying to take over Australia is a matter
> > of when not if. Might not be for 50+ years, but probably inevitable with
> > their population and our natural resources.
>
> A .22 or anything else for that matter isn't going to save us :-(

It's one of the reasons the 'coalition of the willing' is having so much
fucking trouble in Iraq, a country of similar population to Aus, with an
invasion force well in excess technologically that our neighbours.

And no _a_ 22 won't save us, unless they invade with rabbits in army
fatigues, but you get my drift (without necessarily having to agree with
it)

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"John McKenzie" <jmac@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:432D225F.7A98@alphalink.com.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> >
> > Or it encourages criminals, even petty ones to carry guns as well, and
they
> > are more likely to use them since the crooks invariably have the element
of
> > surprise in their favour. It's a catch 22 situation.
> >
>
> I can only speak of my hometown, but suffice to say I could get any
> pistol you could care to name, with enough cash within 24 hours. There
> aren't any hardcore crims that don't have guns. The gun laws mean
> nothing to them.
>

I agree there, laws in general mean nothing to them.

>
> > > England is doing really well, some of it's larger cities, despite some
> > > of the tightest gun laws in the world are THE most likely place to get
> > > mugged or assaulted on the planet.
> >
> > But murdered? I would hate to think what would happen if places like
> > Bradford had armed communities or the Muslim community had the right to
bear
> > arms.
>
> Then again if the whole population had them, can you say categorically
> what would happen. There's countries on this planet that had rifles in
> practically every home and don't have a ridiculous crime problem.
> Believe it or not Iraq actually qualified there pre 'liberation'

Yeah, I'm ashamed to be a westerner when ignorant (often Americans though)
refer to the Iraqi population as sand niggers and a culturally backward
people.

Iraq has a very rich cultural past IMO. (I know this strays off the point
you were making, I'm aware that guns in certain cultures are normal and I'm
happy to concede that)

> > I'll concede more often than not the
> > > weapon of choice there is a knife. Which proves that criminals just
use
> > > whatever they can get, and banning guns doesn't stop them. But knowing
> > > their intended victim might have a gun just might stop them.
> >
> > Or more likely they will carry a gun and use it if they suspect the
other
> > person may have a gun.
>
> That's what I would have instinctively thought, but it doesn't actually
> pan out statistically in the US. Criminals are cowards (and I'll justify
> that by saying anyone who turns to crime generally is too piss weak to
> slog it out and earn money through hard work, working two jobs etc.) and
> killing someone for fifty bucks ends up being more trouble than it's
> worth. But if they know the pensioner is unarmed, they'll mug them.

Yeah, we had a spate of that sort of activity in Perth usually carried out
by a certain minority group. They don't need guns because they have a gang
mentality... bit like what happens in the US probably.

> > > Yeah but you have to compare it to what they had previous to tight gun
> > > controls to make it apples to apples, and lower overall (dramatically)
> > > it might be compared to the US does not equal lower _because_ of the
gun
> > > laws. There's other places on earth that have high gun ownership
without
> > > high crime involving them.
> > >
> > > After ww2 I'd be very curious to know what actual gun ownership was
> > > like. I can say categorically that practi8cally everyone of that
> > > generation that I know (i.e. older relatives and their friends)
actually
> > > somehow still had their military issue firearms. So that's a hell of a
> > > lot of people armed, but we didn't exactly have anarchy in the
streets.
> >
> > Hardly surprising after an event like WWII, people had enough of killing
by
> > then. My grandad had a gun too, not that we ever saw it or was in a
place
> > where it was accessible.
>
> Yes and so did most people. And I agree about not wanting to ever take a
> life again, but I'm sure you'd agree if some piece of shit attacked your
> grandmother in the family home, then it would be a very real option. And
> it no doubt served as a deterrant. Palatable or not.

Gun or no, I'd kill the bastards.

> > > HOw about our own - tighter gun laws yet from what i've read crimes
> > > involving guns have gone up in that time. It stops the one in 15
million
> > > fruitloops from going on a killing spreee like Martin Bryant, but it
> > > does nothing to stop criminals who never got their firearms legally in
> > > the first place before the tighter laws, and now they know that less
and
> > > less of the community is armed, so they have a green light.
> >
> > I really don't think criminals think about gun ownership as a deterrent,
> > much like jail isn't a deterrent. Organised crime may have gone up, but
that
> > rarely affects Joe Public
>
> Speak for yourself, I've been shot at twice, since the tighter gun laws.
> (and I won't detail it here, but I will via email if you really want)

Holy shit John, who do you associate with :-O

I'm curious what happened though, you can mail me at my clo......... at
internode dot on dot net
(fill in the dots)

> and is more indicative of other problems in
> > society, like an increase in drug use which has flow on effects to the
> > underworld.
>
> On that I'll agree. Around the mid-late 90s a new type of speed started
> doing the rounds. Chemically it's probably the same (I don't know and
> definitely don't care) but it's sold in pure form, known as ice. and
> people are definitely losing their fucking minds to it.

If you mail me I'll tell you about the drive car at work with a little hole
in the back... it relates directly to what we are discussing.

>
> > > I hate that it's so, and wish it wasn't but wishful thinking won't
save
> > > anyone from crimes being commited against them. I'd love to be able to
> > > put forward a convincing argument for gun control, but the more I look
> > > into it, the more unlikely it is.
> >
> > Quite a few points we don't agree on.
>
> Would you be interested in some of the info I've looked at (seriously).
> As I definitely didn't think this way at all some time back.

Well you have put forth some good arguements and I've got an open mind ;-)

>
> > > It's also interesting that in the US the ban was initially on so
called
> > > 'assault rifles' even though their use was in less than 1% of crimes
> > > involving guns. It seems the anti gun people (and I mean over there,
not
> > > you) aren't particularly interested in facts.
> >
> > It's the small arms that are more likely to be used to kill you. Still,
> > since I'm an animal lover and I know what rednecks get up to (from first
> > hand experience) I look at things from that perspective also.
>
> I'm with you on that front. I wouldn't mind a cull on people who think
> it's fun to hurt animals. Interestingly, it's come up in discussion, and
> the only reason I've occasionally really wished I'd had a firearm to
> carry in the car is the times I've seen animals hit by cars, but still
> alive. I remember one where the car in front of me hit a dog. They
> stopped, got out and checked their car for damage, then got in and drove
> off, leaving the dog in a terrible state (among other things one of it's
> eyes had popped out) and still alive.
>
> In disbelief that they could just leave it like that (and having to make
> a choice to square the account with them, or help the dog) I had no
> choice but to act. It was bleeding to the shithouse, and no way it could
> survive. I ended up breaking it's neck (and I do know how, long story,
> but it was very much via humanitarian calling that I do know) but it was
> still twitching. Considering the state of it, I didn't want to take a
> chance that it was still feeling any of the pain, so ended up having to
> bash it's head in with a steering wheel lock. The whole thing probably
> lasted less than 20 seconds, but the memory honestly still gets to me
> (over five years later)
>
> I can honestly say if I never have to again, I'll be forever indebted to
> a higher power..But if I had a firearm I would at least have been able
> to put an end to the dogs suffering quicker (and there is a way to aim
> to do that right, and I won't discuss it here.)
>

My dad has had to do it to a kangaroo years ago and he is still haunted by
the way the poor thing was looking at him as he finished it off with the
only thing available to him at the time, a wheelbrace.

Yet I know of others who deliberately go out to kill these and other animals
and think it's funny when they suffer a prolonged death.

Fucking subhuman scum.

> > > 10 years ago if people talked about stashing firearms incase this
> > > country was invaded, they were dismissed as kooks, but now it's fairly
> > > well accepted that Indonesia trying to take over Australia is a matter
> > > of when not if. Might not be for 50+ years, but probably inevitable
with
> > > their population and our natural resources.
> >
> > A .22 or anything else for that matter isn't going to save us :-(
>
> It's one of the reasons the 'coalition of the willing' is having so much
> fucking trouble in Iraq, a country of similar population to Aus, with an
> invasion force well in excess technologically that our neighbours.

That and they don't understand their enemy or their tactics.

> And no _a_ 22 won't save us, unless they invade with rabbits in army
> fatigues, but you get my drift (without necessarily having to agree with
> it)

I agree in principle but I fear the redneck scum that get a kick out of
killing, there seems to be a lot of them around here.

Interesting discussion btw :-)

Regards,

Clockmeister.

[Ext User(Fraser Johnston)]

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:432b1e37@duster.adelaide.on.net...

> Like fuck they don't. Check out murder rates in countries with liberal gun
> laws. Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like
> is
> a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
>
> To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.

Actually Scotland has the most violence of any developed country followed by
England and Wales. Most of the crime is knife related.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html>

Whereas Canada and the US that have fairly liberal gun laws are behind them.
An armed society is a polite society.

Fraser

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Fraser Johnston" <fraser@jcis.com.au> wrote in message
news:3p9ihtF9cls7U1@individual.net...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:432b1e37@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> > Like fuck they don't. Check out murder rates in countries with liberal
gun
> > laws. Popping of a few rounds in the direction of someone you don't like
> > is
> > a hell of a lot easier then planting a knife between their ribs.
> >
> > To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all the evidence.
>
> Actually Scotland has the most violence of any developed country followed
by
> England and Wales. Most of the crime is knife related.
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html>
>
> Whereas Canada and the US that have fairly liberal gun laws are behind
them.
> An armed society is a polite society.
>

Americans are far from polite, in fact they are as rude as they are
ignorant.