>> I see you Taswegians have made a claim to fame... a loony who
 >> shot 1% of the total sane population of Tasmania. A World record!

 >  NP> It was about 5 % actually.

 >> But it could be worse. At least they saved the murderer.

 >  NP> Yeah. He will claim insanity, be out in a few years, and join
 >  NP> the rest of the looneys in the population. The public is still
 >  NP> at risk from idiots lke this, and they want me to give them my
 >  NP> firearm free of charge!!!

It seems quite rational to this point

 >   Maybe you can sell your Armalite

Why do you say I have an Armalite?

 >  and buy a small tactical nuclear device.

Have you  been sniffing the glue again?

 > Or a bazooka. Claymore mines work well against 6 year old
 > children and pregnant women.

This appears to be an accusation that I would consider doing harm to
pregnant women and children.

 >  NP> When the break and enters, muggings, sensless destrucion of
 >  NP> property, murders, rapes and the like stop rising and it is
 >  NP> obvius that the police have got crime under control, then the
 >  NP> firearm owners _ may _ consider another position.

 >   Yair - shooters can look at another position:

By "Shooters", do you mean people who shoot people, or people who
own a firearm?

 > inside establishments
 > like Port Arthur. Gaols work very well for those who set themselves
 > above the law.

And that is (I hope) where Bryant ends up. And anyone else who  would
intentionally kill innocent people, by whatever means.

But in another thread you were advocating "shooting the fuckers"
instead of gaoling them as it was cheaper.
You even suggested that it didn't matter if if a few innocents got killed
in the process.
I find the two positions you have taken to a little contradictory.

 >  NP> Until then, their firearm is the only protection that they have
 >  NP> for their own and their families lives, because it is obvious
 >  NP> that the police can't protect them.

 >   Good luck in your future career as a convict... maybe you can
 > discuss it with Bryant for the next 50 years.

That is a very offensive remark.
By stating that I would kill somome and end up in jail seems to me to be on
the other side of the line that you said to Christian existed between a
joke and being offensive.
Isn't this something of a double standard position you are taking.??

 >  NP> One person, with a .22 from 100 yards could have dropped him,
 >  NP> and saved the lives of all those who were outside the cafe.
 >  NP> Then the police could have booked that person for the murder of
 >  NP> the looney. What would have been the public reaction to that
 >  NP> scenario?

Can you understand the paragraph above???
It is a scenario and a question.

If you  wish to answer it in some semblance of intelligent manner, then I
am interested in your answer.

If you can't answer intelligently and can only rave on about Bazooka and
mortars and such, as you have in other messages, than you may as well not
waste your own or my time.


 > It's no good when gutless shits with guns go up against children. I
 > reckon all kids ought to carry an Armalite... and especially psychos.
 > Everyone would be shooting psychos, and they'd need to defend
 > themselves.

 >   What do you recommend as a good all-purpose weapon? I think Bryant
 > has proved the effectiveness of the Armalite, but the AK-47 worked
 > well for the PLO over many years. Hand grenades are good too.

And I thought in replying to you, I would get an answer somewhere above the
mindless rantings that one sees from RS & RTL.
I seem to have misjudged you.


 >  NP> The toll was so high, because once he started firing, NO ONE
 >  NP> had the means to stop him.

 >   Your fucking useless Tasmanian police certainly didn't stop him. But
 > I agree. Anarchy is the answer. We need to arm the population. And the
 > first thing I'll do is shoot all the fucking gun nuts.

Now you are saying that you will do as Bryant did, and shoot anyone who you
feel like shooting, even though they have committed no crime.

Your writings and the contradictions therein seem to indicate that your
mind is not functioning in a logical and rational manner.


 >  NP> As was shown, reasoned argument and pleas from people for him
 >  NP> to stop gave them no protection from a looney.

 >  NP> If criminals want firearms for crimes, and looneys want them
 >  NP> for whatever reasons then they will get them from somewhere,
 >  NP> legally or illegally.

 >   Good thinking. Let's arm the population, go anarchy and cut to the
 > chase. There's no need to get rid of the police... they don't do
 > anything anyway.

I made a simple statement of fact.

Your reply has gone from a position of wanting ALL firearms banned to
arming the population.
Are you going to _force_ everyone to accept a firearm?
Are you going to give kiddies the hand grenades that you suggested earlier
were good weapons.?
Or are you going to stop sniffing the glue?

 >  NP> It was a known fact that this looney was not licenced to have
 >  NP> firearms, but still had them. The police did NOT enforce the
 >  NP> existing law, and with their numbers being cut once again
 >  NP> because of budget allocations, their ability to enforce
 >  NP> existing laws will be further reduced.

 >   What weapon would you recommend that we all carry? I find the
 > Armalite a little clumsy. What about a HP35 Browning or a SIG? But
 > then... we would be at a disadvantage over 50 metres. Perhaps you're
 > right. We should all carry Armalites, an automatic shotgun for close
 > work, and two or three frag grenades with a mortar in the boot of the
 > car and a kilo of Semtex, just in case. I like it. It sounds perfectly
 > practical to me. And a thousand rounds of ammunition.

I state some facts, and you start raving again.

Bob must be away, some looney is answering his mail

And you are writing that I suggested everyone has an Armalite when I have
_never _made that suggestion at all.

I find it offensive when you are crediting me with uttering statemants that
are NOT mine, and are clearly ludicrous.
What's more, this is not the only case where you have completely falsified my words.


 >  NP> Until the law acknowledges that an _armed_ person entering a
 >  NP> bank or business has left his right to life at his point of
 >  NP> entry, we will see a continuing rise in armed holdups until
 >  NP> they reach the proportions that currently exist in other
 >  NP> states.

 >   We are actaully discussing the problem of psychos gaining access to
 > an SLR like an Armalite.

I hadn't noticed much "discussion" at all.
 You seem to completely missed (whether intentionally or not) that the
point I have been endeavouring to make is that the issue is a "Law and
Order" issue.

Please note a previous paragraph where I said it was a known fact that he
had firearms without a licence, and the police did nothing about it.
I have since discovered that the police station that did exist in the area,
no longer is manned.  The Police had to come from Hobart in a helicopter.

The Pollies who cut the police funding back _certainly_ didn't help the
"law and order issue" in the local community.  A _local_ copper
could have done something about Bryant  and his  illegally held firearms
before he decided to use them.

 > You seem to have slipped a cog.

 I seem to have slipped a cog???


 > The simple
 > fact remains that without his Armalite, Bryant is just another loony.

I think the whole of Australia will agrere with you that he is a looney.


> What possible justification do you offer for not banning all SLRs?

As I said before ....
Banning will only force the law abiding owners to hand their weapons in.
The looneys and the crims will still keep theirs, as they have no respect
for the law anyway.

Net result, law abiding citizens are unarmed.

Crims and looneys still have their "military style" weapons.

Notice I used Military style and not SLR's
Do you know _anything_ about the differing sorts of SLR's???
I have no interest in and have not studied the specifications of ANY of the
military style automatic and semiautonatic weapons but if my memory is
correct in it's recollection, some time in the past, you quoted the specs
of military weapons?
But you didn't quote anything about small calibre rifles. (.22)

 > What possible use is an SLR... except to a gun nut or a psycho?

SLR it too wide a term.
You have not designated what rifles you mean  when you say SLR

If you are talking about a .22 calibre rifle, then a semiautomatic gives
the rabbit shooter who is not a "Queens Cup expert shot" a second
chance before the rabbit or roo disappears.


 >   The answer is very simple, and you are about to see democracy in
 > operation, Niels. We, the People, are about to ban all SLRs,

It's a knee jerk political reaction.
They should have banned all high power semiautomatics years ago.
Then like pistols, and full automatics, (which have been banned for years)
it still wouldn't have stopped the weapons being available in the market if
a nutter or crim wants one

 > Your police may be pretty useless stopping mass murder.

Blame the pollies who cut the police force back.!!!
Burglaries quadrupled from 1994 to 1995.  Probably 10 times the 94 figures
by now cause the cops don't catch them.
We are now seeing professional theiveing groups operating in Hobart. That
was something I left Brisbane to get away from.  The cops knew about them,
but wouldn't do anything.  In one raid, I lost $17,000 of property and they
completely wrecked 2 years of my hard labour.
And before you say it, I couldn't get the stuff insured.

Now do you understand why I feel so strongly about people who have no
respect for the lives, property or rights of others.

It is a LAW and ORDER issue.
If the cops can't enforce the laws, how does a person protect themselves
from the looneys and crims??

Again.... this is a question.!!!!
If you have a sensible reply to make, then I am interested to hear it.
If not, then lets not waste each others time.


 >  NP> Taking firearms from existing registered owners will only leave
 >  NP> the crims free to ply their trade with less chance that will
 >  NP> bump into a stray piece of lead

 >   What a heap of shit!

It is simple logic.  Crims don't obey the law

 > When was the last time someone stopped a crime with an Armalite?

You seem to have a fetish about Armalites.


 > You gun nuts are crazy,

Oh!  So now I am a gun nut.  More offense that I can do without.

 > and you are about the have
 > the full weight of the people land on you. Your little guns do not
 > amount to a rat's arse, in spite of your silly Rambo dreams of glory.
 > Go on, fight the law... hide your guns and see how you go.

So now I have silly Rambo dreams.

Bloody Hell !!
And you have the hide to complain about someone saying something offensive to
you.

SINCE FUCKING WHEN DID YOU GET THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT MY THOUGHTS SHOULD BE?

SINCE FUCKING WHEN DID YOU GET TO TELL ME WHAT MY ATTITUDE TO THE LAW IS OR
SHOULD BE.?

The ravings and offense that you are dishing out belongs to the idiotic
teenagers in LTUAE.

From someone in AVTECH I expected at least a _bit_ of intelligence.

Seeing offence seems to be the in thing I might as well speak my mind and
not worry who it offends.  .

If you can't get back to taking you red _and_ blue pills again, and raise the
intelligence level of your postings above that of RTL then I'll just have
to add another name to the twit filter.  Bloody pity though, you can be
funny and quite informative when you are your normal self.

   >  Origin: Precision Lies - Sydney (3:711/934.12)

At least I'm still taking my yellow pills!

--- FMail/386 0.98