Brenton, at 11:18 on May 25 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> Just because Tasmania happened to have say twice its annual average of gun 
BG> deaths in just one day, IMO that's no excuse for the positively draconian 
BG> knee-jerk reaction seen in Canberra.

BV> Personally, I don't see why Tasmania should be referred to at all.

Because it's topical, relevant, and worst of all, political

BV> I would much prefer to see it done without any reference to Tasmania
BV> as I don't feel that it is required.

Couldn't agree more, but it was, after all, the catalyst which created all
of this current madness.  "Oh shit, another bus crash at Grafton has
killed 65 people, so let's ban all buses and nuke Grafton, just to be
sure!".  That's about the level of political forethought which has
gone into this debacle.

BG> But I won't pursue the point, because I know you agree with them.

BV> Although I might not necessarily agree with the reason.

Sure, just as some weapons (and owners) DO need tighter restrictions placed
on them, but not the eventual total disarmament they're proposing now.

BG> Pity that 3 or 4 million others don't though.

BV> Bloody Hell. There can't be that many lunatics in Australia. Don't we
BV> only have a population of about 18 Million ? If we've got 3-5M gun
BV> owners, and 3-4M poofs, that's nearly half the population before you
BV> start.

Many poofs are gun-owners too, so adjust your estimates accordingly.  :)

BG> when some armed crim breaks into your house, rapes your wife and murders
BG> your kids, you can spend the rest of your life considering how different 
BG> things might have been if you'd kept a rifle in your wardrobe.  Paranoia?  
BG> Perhaps, but hundreds of Australians each year would disagree with you.

BV> What ? Only hundreds ? A few lines ago it was 3-4 Million ???

:)  No, I'd sincerely hope that the _really_ paranoid would only number in
the hundreds, but who knows?  We're entitled to defend our families if
necessary.

BV> Oh, come on Bill. Don't treat me like a moron. There are about 1,000
BV> replies to the standard "rape and pillage" drivel above, but unlike
BV> yourself, I won't treat you like an imbicile.

Look, in an ideal society, the only person with a gun would be me, and I
KNOW that it would never be used as an offensive weapon, but I'd sure as
shit use it to defend my family, or anybody else for that matter.  There
are 100s of 1000s of people out there who feel exactly the way I do, but
there also an awful lot of evil (or potentially evil) gun-owners out there
as well, and these are the ones who WON'T suurrender their illegal weapons
when asked, so if all of the honest types give up their best form of
defence like good little sheep, they become literally defenceless against
those who didn't.  One real problem is distinguishing between the two
types, and coming down hard on the bastards who really deserve it, instead
of decent types like me.  :)

BV> Whoops. We're back to the 3-4 Mil figure. They're fast breeders.

'Twas a group (paranoids) within a group.

BV> No. More like, "Oh, no probs. We'll just raise the Medicare levy",
BV> whenever they need to slip in another tax that isn't a tax.

BG> Agreed, and I don't think it'll be the last time either.

BV> Sadly, neither do I.

Watch that short-arsed little bastard very carefully, too.  If he gets in
for a second term, we'll almost certainly end up with a fucking GST.

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- MsgedSQ/2 3.30