JT> I keep telling people occasional war is a good thing.

> I agree. There are thousands of people who like that sort of
> thing, and if you don't send them off to war, they end up turning
> Muslim and buy automatic weapons to shoot each other anyway.

JT> I knew a few people like that, they don't even bother turning
JT> muslim first. They're the type of people who go crazy on a
JT> shooting rampage and everyone wonders *why* they did it, it
JT> wasn't in their character.

JT> The hell it wasn't.

 I think it's in *everyone's* character, in the same way that all
dogs bite, given the right circumstance. I do believe that guns are
the problem... they make it too easy. Without automatic weapons, a
drive-by is reduced to throwing rocks or at most, a Molotocv cocktail
that probably doesn't work becuase the sort of dimwit who has so
little control over his emotions would have big problems building and
testing a bomb. Any dill can poke bullets into amagazine, cock it, and
pull the trigger.

 It amazes me that Carr is talking about tough penalties for what
amounts to attempted-murder when the real penalty should be for
*possession*. How hard would it be for the cops to plant a few
weapons and put half of Muslim Lakemba in gaol? We need a Sullivan
Act, like New York's that got rid of armed gangs back in 1920.

 The problem is GANGS and GUNS. Are our pollies so stupid that they
can't see how to fix it? There is no way to convict a gang-member
legally! Is has to be illegal, and a 20-year penalty for possession of
a gun would solve it. They do it with drugs! POSSESSION is the offence
because it is so easy for cops to plant evidence!


Regards,
Bob


--- BQWK Alpha 0.5