Violent crime in Australia

[gmatov]

Michael,

I don't understand what you mean by your society, which is so much more trustworthy than my sciety.

Do you only have angels running for office inAU? No one there has ever run for an office who has his own agenda? I am going to have to look into emmigrating to AU, as it is the only place in the world where the common politician is totally altruistic.

No one needs the capacity to kill someone. But many people, obviously not the AU people, but most others do need the capacity to keep from being killed.

Jesus Christ, man, do you think that all those people who dumped pieces of scrap iron into the hopper, and got a "very reasonable price" for their totally unneeded weapons, because "we have a very good police force", were getting rid of Uncle Reginald's Purdy and Purdy. 9 of 10 of them were getting rid of either crime guns (remember, the ******** said "no questions asked"), or they went out and robbed your neighbors to get another piece of junk to turn in. As an "I wouldn't touch one of them immoral things" I know they didn't rip any of them off you. Stereo, maybe.

The ******** are doing the same thing in Iraq as we type back and forth. 500 bucks, probably 29 years income to an Iraqi, at this time, to throw a piece of junk into the hopper

Hope Will doesn't get pissed at this reply. He's even more anti than you, and more vocal, or should I say verbal?

Ah, well, you will feel as you do, or as you are taught to do, which, in the long run, is normal, no?

Talking to some of you is like talking to a brick wall. Everything is what you have been brainwashed into and you ain't gonna change my mind.

Cheers, anyhow, tho' I fear for the future of all our countries. Will talk about Ausies some time later. You ain't the same ones who went to war in the past 50 years. You might just as well live in Hollywood. And most of our Brit friends.

Cheers,

George

[vitualis]

Surely there's a big difference between guns and electricity in their intended applications?

It was an analogy. Sure there are safety devices for guns (and many other things), but not everyone (or even many people) use them -- which makes the "but we have safety devices" arguement rather weak.

I don't understand what you mean by your society, which is so much more trustworthy than my sciety.

I don't think that there is much difference between "your" society versus "mine". The difference is in our ATTITUDES towards them, which in anything was brought out by your last post.

I'm pretty sure that "9 out of 10" people who handed in guns in the amnesty were not criminals getting rid of "crime guns" or people who "stole" a gun from their neighbor. Basically, they were just ordinary folk who thought that they didn't have any need to actually own a firearm anymore and the buy back was a good way of getting some money for it.

Basically, your idea of "self defence" involves having the capacity to kill someone (otherwise, you wouldn't need a gun). If you just want to capacity from being killed then I would suggest having a lockable bunker in your basement with a phone line to the police to be much more effective. The gun is not a defensive weapon, it is a weapon of offense.

As for your "politicians having their own agenda" arguement, of course they have. What's your point? That's the reason you live in a democratically elected government. If you don't like your elected representatives as a whole of society, then vote them out.

You would give up all your rights to a minority who get enough votes to say "Them commoners shouldn't have any rights."?

That's the nature of a democratic system mate... For a functioning society of any size, someone has to do the work for the public infrastructure. At least in a democracy, you have a say on who gets elected or not. You even have an opportunity to try to get elected yourself. Furthermore, there are lots of checks and balances on the system no matter how high up the heirachy someone is (e.g., your PRESIDENT not too long ago was censured).

What you are saying, is that you want all the advantages of a democratic political system, but none of the responsibility. If you don't like a decision (which may I remind you is still the collective will of the nation as a whole), you say that is is a "minority" of people making decisions against you. Well, do you ever say that when there is a decision you do like, that "there is a powerful minority of people conspiring FOR you??". I guess not...

I don't think that there ever will be a society/political system you would be comfortable in, except perhaps one where you get to make all the decisions that YOU think are right -- of course, that would be despotism wouldn't it...

Regards.

[vitualis]

Talking to some of you is like talking to a brick wall. Everything is what you have been brainwashed into and you ain't gonna change my mind.

You, know, I have EXACTLY the same feeling...

It's like talking to someone who is convinced that guns are his God given right regardless of the impact to society.

Cheers, anyhow, tho' I fear for the future of all our countries.

I don't. Amazingly, most civil democratic societies who aren't obsessed with firearms in the domestic setting are ticking along JUST FINE.

Regards.

[Craig Tucker]

What I was curious about originally what that several members had previous stated that there was some sort of massive increase in violent crime in Australia... originally I thought that the 500% thing was just a one off exaggeration and then I saw somebody posting the same stats...

We have just (this week) had a show aired on the brawlings of Russel Crowe, could well be a contributing factor.

[Craig Tucker]

Just out of interest George would you be prepared to give up your firearms if it meant that the US was completely vanquished of guns. So if there was absolutely no need to have one for self defence, could you do without.

[Will Hay]

Hope Will doesn't get pissed at this reply. He's even more anti than you, and more vocal, or should I say verbal?

Pathetic George, very lame
I don't ever remember proclaiming to be anti-gun, what I always objected to was your constant repetition that our ignorance to the truth on gun crime in the UK was blinded, and it was only a matter of time before we would 'see the light'.
The very simple fact is that you will never ever convince me that the US rights to gun ownership are a benefit when compared to those of the UK.
I'll re-iterate a point I've always made and say that we are more likely to be shot at by an armed robber if we have a gun that if not, and that is the whole ethic of my point.
I am sick and ******* tired of you lambasting the ignorance of the British public for embracing a policy that works for us.
Keep your ******* guns, I don't care.
In fact, I think you'd be better off with WMD, you certainly be happier.

...or should I say verbal?

That's insulting George, and only based on your reluctance to accept that my opinion differs from yours.
As an aside, what brings a smile to my face is the fact that this thread mirrors a recent gun control thread which was closed by Baldrick, yet this one is allowed to continue and Georgie is given a soapbox for the third time?
How come?
Will Hay

[rhegedus]

It is my understanding that gun control laws have failed to reduce gun crime in the UK since their implementation (after Hungerford and Dunblaine). This is borne out by a simple search.

The most obvious reason for this is that laws only effect the law abiding, and not those who have utter contempt for law and authority. I thus find the view that removing guns unilaterally from the public will somehow make the UK a safer place. Strange too, the view that someone who is a responsible gun owner suddenly becomes more likely to be a victim of a gun crime - criminals take the path of least resistance, that’s why old people get mugged instead of 6-foot bodybuilders. Is a criminal is likely to choose a victim knowing that they have a comparable method of self defence?

Norway requires all guns to be registered and traceable – as a consequence, gun crime is low despite being second only to the US in gun ownership statistics.

I’m not advocating a gun free-for-all. What is needed well thought out laws, not blanket bans which protect only the criminals.

[gmatov]

Oh, for Pete's sake, Will. Don't get your ass in an uproar over a little joke.

We've fenced on this before, you (gotta say it) vehemently deny anything can possibly be wrong with any part of the UK as far as crime is concerned, only the barbarians acrosss the sea, those Rebels, per King George, could have so much crime .

We, on the other hand, kill one another at the drop of a hat, and if you won't drop it, I will.

We are not quite so bloodthirsty as you might think. You DO seem to go a whole hell of a lot by what you see on the telly. You know, good news doesn't sell papers. 94 % of the workink population is in good shape is not nearly as newsworthy as 6 % of the population is out of work.
275 million people did not get murdered today, not as newsworthy as 7 people did.

I seriously doubt that your news mongers, the talking heads, are any different.

Somehow, you seem to get the idea that the "civilized" people here, who may have a permit, and may carry a handgun, are the ones who are knocking each other off..

If I were to read the Economist, and were to give them the same weight you seem to give our news, of course I would assume things were out of control in Old Blighty, and any day now Tony Blair would be inviting us to come in to set up a Democracy in your country as you obviously can't run a country yoursselves.

Australia, either.

And then, when you do realize that most of the killings are done by such as the Burger Bar Boys, and the Johnson Crew, almost like the turf wars from the Al Capone era, the Brits do not seem to be quite so blood thirsty.

However, you seem, still, to think that no one, not even an American, should be allowed any form of defense greater than what an attacker may have. Naturally, an Ausssie may not have more than those in the Homeland do, but to decree that "those rebels" may not, either, is the height of holier than thous.

You may click on the attached links if you wish. You usually seem to treat them as "propaganda", tho' one is from "The Economist", an anarchic group, to be sure, trying to bend the ill-informed to their point of view. The others are from the Telegraph, surely a totally unbelievable source.

Ah, well, you're gonna be pissed off at something, might as well be a Yank.

http://www.economist.com/diversions/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1732682

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F08%2F31%2Fnsafe31.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F11%2Fnstab111.xm

You probably don't believe it, but I didn't bring you up to get you pissed off, regardless of your language, or the vitriol you are flinging at me. That was a little tongue in cheek, but it really seems to have gotten under your skin.

As to why I have gotten a "soap box", I haven't the foggiest notion. maybe no one here is as influential as the last where one guy said seems it should be locked, so locked it was, immediately.

Is this really my 3rd forum? Huh! Didn't think I had gotten that many words in.

Chill out, Will, really, no one, least of all me, is picking on you.

Cheers,

George

Oh, just as an addendum, the dodos who say I, or anyone else wishes to have a WMD, what a stupid term, news talking head invented it, is a severely ... I am trying to make a sensible reference, but can't, so must call them some kind of asses.

No one here has said we should have an atom bomb, even a tactical nuke,nor a vial of anthrax, only dodos would make such "asinine" statements. (FW). The only reference has been from some of the most "anti", "So you should be allowed to have an atom bomb?", nudge, nudge, snicker, snicker, let's see them get out of that one..

[vitualis]

It is my understanding that gun control laws have failed to reduce gun crime in the UK since their implementation (after Hungerford and Dunblaine). This is borne out by a simple search.

Or perhaps, we are having too narrow a view. I agree, simple gun control laws that are implemented in the short term are unlikely to have much of an impact on gun crime since the impact would be mainly on those who are law abiding to begin with.

However, there are some immediate benefits that I think are not without merit, including less accidental injury with a firearm.

Furthermore, I believe that it is in the longer term that a reduction of gun related crime will occur.

What is needed well thought out laws, not blanket bans which protect only the criminals.

Certainly a fair comment.

As for you George, still relying on anecdotes my good man?

The trend for the increase in crime in both UK and AU have been going on for a while -- and I think that the whole gun thing is a side issue. The root cause? who knows, but I would think that the general state of the economy and the degree in poverty have a much greater effect than gun ownership.

In Australia, the ban on certain firearms was in response to the mass killing by Martin Bryant.

Do I think that this policy will make another "Port Arthur" more unlikely? Possibly, but probably not.

Do I think that this policy was a kneejerk reaction? Definitely.

Do I think that it was a BAD policy? Well, I have serious reservations on its implementation but I don't think that the fact that there are now less firearms out there is a bad thing at all.

Regards.

[vitualis]

No one here has said we should have an atom bomb, even a tactical nuke,nor a vial of anthrax, only dodos would make such "asinine" statements. (FW). The only reference has been from some of the most "anti", "So you should be allowed to have an atom bomb?", nudge, nudge, snicker, snicker, let's see them get out of that one..

I believe that was already covered, or are you suffering from selective memory??

No one has suggested that you WANT to have a nuclear device. The question is that of a hypothetical -- what if someone did want one... What are the logical reasons behind the reasons against it (beyond the "ha ha, what an "ansinine" statement made by an ass response)...

The process of analysing this "extreme" case can in many ways be applied to that of firearms as well -- this I've already discussed.

Regards.

[themichael]

Forget the gun control laws---


BAN ALL THE BULLETS!!!!

If you ain't got the ammo, the gun is now a club......[/b]

[gmatov]

Michael,

The only problem I have with any of your posts is they ALL contain the word anecdote.

Where have I used anything anecdotal. I would have thought a link to a site, which must be sacrosanct, as it is on the Web, would be sufficient.

Anecdotal would be your reliance on the AIC, or whatever the anagram of the day is. I know, they would never shade the truth to make things look more serious than they are, as that would be totally unethical, and we have already asscertained that ALL the politicians in the UK, as well as AU, are as pure as the driven snow.

They probably even refuse to accept their pay checks, they are so altruistic.

I do know that when a Brit calls 911, or, I suppose, 999, and the bobbies arrive 20 to 30 minutes later, and there is a body ready to be bagged, something is wrong with the system.

I do know, that, contrary to the comments above, that if you resist an armed assailant, with your own weapon, you are NOT more likely to be killed than if you did not.

I DO know, that when a woman says you will not rape me, and pulls a handgun on her attacker, she is 30, reread that number, 30 times less apt to be raped. The obverse is that only 3 % of armed women have been raped successfully, 97% have chased off, shot the rapist.

There is another paid consultant to the antis who maintains that you are 44 times more apt to be killed with your own gun in your own home, if you have the chutzpah to pull a gun when your home is invaded..

Anecdotal? I'd like to know how many times some of your hooligans have gone to roust a farmer, because there ain't no guns no mo', only to hear a slide racked back, and run shittin' and a gittin' away from that house, and never report it as they'd have to admit they were on a tear and going to tear up a farmer's house.

Would you admit you were gonna go play ssome sexual pranks on some out of the way farmers, and his "illegal" shotgun scared your yellow ass away, yellow because you needed a pack behind you to do this shit in the first place?

I must admit, you youngsters will never cease to amaze me.

Balls like cantaloupes when it comes to ripping off a downloaded DVD, but call the cops, and wait, and wait, and wait, to tell a bobbie that man made a terroristic threat against me, he said he'd blow my ass off, he must have an illiciit gun, go get him.

The hell of it is, you are not Germans, where if it is not expressly permitted it is prohibited, you're English, as in the US, if it is not expresly prohibited, it is permitted.;

'Nough for tonight, you guy seem to be getting bored.

For the last, Michael, Michael, Michael,

Having fewer arms out there will not reduce gun related crime because the guns turned in were not used for crime , but it's still a good thing, is a political cop out.

We did something!!! Of course the only ones turning in guns were those who weren't going to use them. And (This argument is used in the US, also), there are fewer out there to be stolen and used in crimes.

Do you, personally, feel you are a no good SOB if you have a firearm in your house, a total traitor to your ilk?

Do you ever have the urge to go out with a dozen mags and blow away as many as you can, and then when ONE person in whatever venue you are in pulls a legally carried weapon and tells the yoyo she will blow his head off if he doesn't lay down his weapon (of mass destruction, per you guys, since it is not a single shot).

Had enough, talk at you tomorrow, if we're not locked. You too, Will

George

[rhegedus]

However, there are some immediate benefits that I think are not without merit, including less accidental injury with a firearm.

Very true, but the same would apply to the restriction of anything that has the capacity to cause accidents, and is thus not exclusive to firearms.

Furthermore, I believe that it is in the longer term that a reduction of gun related crime will occur.

Over what period of time? Hungerford was in '87 and Dunblane was in '96.

After at least 7 years of a ban on anything other than a shotgun or rifle, and numerous gun 'amnesty' initiatives, there are still 3 million illegal guns circulating in Britain.

I know that such measures take time to have an effect, but one would expect that 7 years after Dunblane and 16 years after Hungerford and the gun laws introduced since, gun crime would not still be on the increase.

[RabidDog]

But the good point abut making guns illegal is that here in the uk it is a criminal offence to walk around with a gun in your waistband, like a modern fashion accessory. If this was not the case I suspect many many young people would carry guns as a type of macho gesture, and what once might have been a scuffle or fight becomes a gun battle with many many casualties and many deaths.

[rhegedus]

As far as I'm aware, it always was illegal to carry a firearm about one's person, even before the gun bans.

[Will Hay]

I still think the baby crib was great
W.

[Will Hay]

initial message deleted, I've had too great a weekend with my wife and son to get into this shit again, take care George
Will

[Will Hay]

But the good point abut making guns illegal is that here in the uk it is a criminal offence to walk around with a gun in your waistband, like a modern fashion accessory. If this was not the case I suspect many many young people would carry guns as a type of macho gesture

Very true but rest assured, Nokia would never allow the law passed, the mobile phone industry would colapse
Will

[gmatov]

Will,

If that crib note was to me, thanks.

Happy you had such a good weekend.

Had a pretty good whole week my own self. Grandaughter booted in her first goal of the season last week, and ran like a gazelle in today's game. They played so well that even losing wasn't a disappointment. 3 to 2.

You get back in to it yet?

Cheers,

George

[vitualis]

Where have I used anything anecdotal. I would have thought a link to a site, which must be sacrosanct, as it is on the Web, would be sufficient.

Anecodotal as the links your provide generally involve a "story" of some sort with cross-sectional statistics. If we want to go for a tit-for-tat war, we can find articles from all over the popular press to "prove" a point until the cows come home.

Anecdotal would be your reliance on the AIC...

The AIC is the Australian Institute of Criminology -- which if anything primarily collects statistics on crime. Insinuations of tampering with the data is... what would I call it... asinine.

No data collection will be perfectly accurate, but I trust the data from the AIC more than from any short term analysis from a "consultant".

I do know that when a Brit calls 911, or, I suppose, 999, and the bobbies arrive 20 to 30 minutes later, and there is a body ready to be bagged, something is wrong with the system.

Yes, and that system is called society. Unfortunately, we have "bad" people -- no amount of policing (short of "pre-crime") will stop that.

I do know, that, contrary to the comments above, that if you resist an armed assailant, with your own weapon, you are NOT more likely to be killed than if you did not.

Give me a credible reference.

I DO know, that when a woman says you will not rape me, and pulls a handgun on her attacker, she is 30, reread that number, 30 times less apt to be raped. The obverse is that only 3 % of armed women have been raped successfully, 97% have chased off, shot the rapist.

There is another paid consultant to the antis who maintains that you are 44 times more apt to be killed with your own gun in your own home, if you have the chutzpah to pull a gun when your home is invaded..

Credible reference please. Remember, this post started out with the statistic that violent crime has gone up 500%...

Both the above sound like crap.

Anecdotal? I'd like to know how many times some of your hooligans have gone to roust a farmer, because there ain't no guns no mo', only to hear a slide racked back, and run shittin' and a gittin' away from that house, and never report it as they'd have to admit they were on a tear and going to tear up a farmer's house.

Now, you are just making up hypothetical situations. How about the hypothetical (or probably not so hypothetical) of a depressed suicidal person thinking of the best way to knock him/herself off and thinking -- that the firearm is a good way...

Would you admit you were gonna go play ssome sexual pranks on some out of the way farmers, and his "illegal" shotgun scared your yellow ass away, yellow because you needed a pack behind you to do this shit in the first place?

Ok... now you are going way out... Perhaps something from your childhood? I don't think that I've EVER thought about this.

Of course the only ones turning in guns were those who weren't going to use them. And (This argument is used in the US, also), there are fewer out there to be stolen and used in crimes.

Again, you miss the point entirely. Regulating firearms makes it easier to restrict illegal firearms.

Do you, personally, feel you are a no good SOB if you have a firearm in your house, a total traitor to your ilk?

Do you feel naked at the thought of not having a firearm? I don't think "I" will feel like a "traitor" -- what a bizarre thing to say. I just don't think I would want to have a dangerous weapon in house.

Do you ever have the urge to go out with a dozen mags and blow away as many as you can, and then when ONE person in whatever venue you are in pulls a legally carried weapon and tells the yoyo she will blow his head off if he doesn't lay down his weapon (of mass destruction, per you guys, since it is not a single shot).

You sir, need some more sleep.

Keep your finger off the trigger George.

Regards.

[gmatov]

Michael,

You seem to take the simplest comment and twist it to mean something else.

First, read the article this link takes you to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F10%2Fncrime10.xml

It is UK, not AU, but pertinent, and is not the one I referred to on being told to not worry about unsolvable crimes, but close.

Of course you can find stats to prove your point. In the States we have a saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Anyone can come up with "stats" to "prove" their point. Whether they are true or not is another question.

And to take a bit of the AIC's whole output and use it to say "We gotta do sometning!!", is naive or dishonest.

True, the system is a "society" that says you may not protect yourself, nor your loved ones, again, because you would be a danger to burglars, or whatever.

I'll find the credible reports and post later, I know you won't accept most of what I do post, as it would be totally against what you have been convinced is the truth.

I find it hard to feel more remorse for a disturbed person who uses a firearm to commit suicide in leau of a bottle of pills or a rope or jump off a building, or anything else. If one is determined to end his life, read the statistics on Japanese, and European, so far as that goes, suicide rates. Almost none are done with a firearm, but it does not stop a person from killing themselves, just they have to choose another method.

Would you prefer they jump in a car and go down the main drag at 100 MPH and head-on a mother and her kids?

I can sympathize, but this doesn't call for outlawing hard surfaces, only firearms.

You really don't think you have thuggish kids in your land who go out to harrass people? You DO live in a dream world. Even if you are in that age bracket yourself, you have to know a bunch of kids to whom this would sound like an exciting weekend.

You miss the point, time after time. You keep harping on the theme that regulating firearms makes it easier to restrict illegal firearms. The problem is, to you, all firearms should be illegal. To you, there is no posible need for them, because we have a "society", and in a "society", even in a "perfect society", you don't think there are people who are "anti-society", antisocial, to whom a law is just something to be ignored or broken.

In our own country, those 20,000+ firearms control laws, most of which, from early days,as I have said, were instituted to keep guns out of the hands of, first, our freed slaves, and, later, out of the hands of "furriners" brought here to build the railroads and the rest of the country.

They were percieved as "Anarchists" who should not be permitted to have arms.


The law also says that a criminal cannot incriminate himself by admitting that he has a firearm, as it is illegal, so a new law won't help there, unless you revoke the Constitution.

Traitor to your ilk. Keep that in mind. Not a traitor to your country, traitor to your ilk, to think of having a firearm, when your "ilk" is so vehemently anti.

Sleep is not the problem, your perception does seem to be, as your reply shows. I asked have you ever....? Of course you haven't. Nor have I, nor 5 9s of the rest of the world's population, maybe 9 9s, but that leaves one hell of a lot of crazies, in a population of over 6 billion, some of whom, you must admit, are probably in your own homeland.

Here's a question you might look up the answer to and post the link. Were the early gun control laws in AU primarily designed to keep guns out of the hands of the Aborigenes, and the less desireable immigrants?

I'm sure the country's infrastructure was not all built by the "transportees" and their descendants, who are probably a minority ar this time.

Cheers,

George

BTW,is the Telegraph a rag such as our "Star" and "Enquirer" or a legitimate front line daily?

[RabidDog]

8) slightly off the point, but in one of the states of AU it was legal to hunt aborigines until 1925. Hunt, as in run down your quarry and shoot them, thus putting them on a par with kanagroos and lower than domestic dogs and cats.

[rhegedus]

BTW,is the Telegraph a rag such as our "Star" and "Enquirer" or a legitimate front line daily?

It's a legitimate 'broadsheet'.

[pacmania_2001]

8) slightly off the point, but in one of the states of AU it was legal to hunt aborigines until 1925. Hunt, as in run down your quarry and shoot them, thus putting them on a par with kanagroos and lower than domestic dogs and cats.

If you look into the history of Australia you'll see many violations of Aboriginals as a race such as the stolen generation (portrayed in the film Rabbit Proof Fence), the withholding of the right to vote (till the 60's) and the forementioned denial of basic human rights.

Then again if you look at most western countries (i.e America) they've had problems/issues with the indigenous population.

[gmatov]

Pacman,

It goes without saying that the early Americans treated the indigenous population, the American Indian as vermin. They lived on land the white man wanted,so they had to go.

They're till treated shabbily, or were at least till the 1980s.

And, if you read back a ways, you will see my mention of the first gun control laws as designed to keep guns, means of self defense, out of the hands of the freed slaves after the Civil War of 1861-65. From then on they were expanded to keep guns out of the hands of the Anarchists, the Hunky immigrants who built our infrastructure, the Irish who came here after The Potato Famine, everyone but the "real" English immigrants.

As to religion, the Mormons were persecuted as well, but got guns and fought too well to be trampled on, and carved out their own state of Utah. They were fair game at the time, but by shooting back and shooting better, they were finally left alone

No one screwed around with the "Avenging Angels"after a while.

Same with the Chinese coolies who built the railroads. Shoot one "It's just a Chinaman, no big deal!"

Every people unable to protect themselves has suffered this way, from the beginning of time, and I don't mean "civilization". Hell, the caveman kept his club handy, no Bobby over the next rise to zip a body bag and track down the perp.

Cheers,

George

[zzyzzx]

I heard another report recently of a child accidentally killed his sister to death with unattended gun. Do the gun owners have any safety sense of having guns lying around the house? The Americans have too many guns and they must stop.

That has more to do with stupid parenting than guns.

[gmatov]

And the last reply from a citizen of one of the latest states to try to out-California California.
The state which has set up a database of fired bullets and casings from all new guns sold

The State which went house to house to confiscate every .223 caliber rifle in their records to find the Beltway Sniper, and every rifle that a neighboring snoop told the police a townie might have.

This is the case where the "great" Chief Moose ignored the reports of a Chevy car because they were sure it was a white van,and the experts came up with a "profile" of a white man 30 to 45 years old, with a grudge, etc., etc.

Turned out to be a sick 30 something black male and a teenager from the Caribbean.

Great police work. I think it was a trucker who found them sleeping in a car.

Sniper, my gigbutt. Not even decent plinkers. Yet they managed to paralyze half the Eastern Seaboard.

Cheers,

George

[zzyzzx]

The State which went house to house to confiscate every .223 caliber rifle in their records to find the Beltway Sniper, and every rifle that a neighboring snoop told the police a townie might have.

This is the case where the "great" Chief Moose ignored the reports of a Chevy car because they were sure it was a white van,and the experts came up with a "profile" of a white man 30 to 45 years old, with a grudge, etc., etc.

I doubt it was the "state" that did that (if it happenned). More likely it would be Montgomery County which is overrun with flaming liberals who think that only the government and criminals should have guns.

[thayne]

Here's some good news

Campaigns Won't Target Gun Control
Analysts predict politicians will not focus on issue in 2004 elections

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99939,00.html

[gmatov]

ZZ,
You should know better than I who did the house to house thing.

You're from MD. I'm in PA. Absolutely, they did a house to house, Joe Schmoe has registered a KAR 15, .223, we'll go get his gun and test fire it.

My neighbor hunts poor little animals. He has a gun. Go get it. (And I hope you put him in jail for killing Bambi.)

Moose was and is a farce. Pretty soon, if not already, he will be a rich farce.

Ah, only in America. A 6 year old has a 1 inch long plastic pistol on his key holder, he gets expelled. A 6 year old goes to the Halloween party as a fireman, complete with plastic, 6 inch long, axe, he gets expelled.

Who the hell are we to criticize the Aussies and the Brits?

We're just as stupid, when it comes to "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

No cheer here,

George