Does gun control work?

[Stahlberg]

I'm against too much gun control. There has to be some, but beyond a certain point the laws stop affecting the criminals, and only affect the law-abiding, and past that point the law becomes useless. What we really need is gun education, the earlier the better. Teach parents to lock away their weapons, perhaps with those new palm-print quick release gun safes, teach kids that guns are dangerous, and teach everyone in between how to handle them properly and safely. Each year a couple thousand people are killed by "accidental" discharge of a gun, we need to get that down to zero, and the way to do that is not by confiscating their guns, but by educating them. There's no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a person doing something incredibly stupid and breaking some basic rules. Sort of like someone driving their SUV into a tree without a seat belt on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY...feature=related

Woman with gun calls 911

Here's another one, that's funny in a dark way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCezcAHXxRY...feature=related

Here's one that happened recently, right here in Atlanta where I live:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html#

10 people saved by 1 person with a gun

[Colt45]

If what we're really after is to save lives, let's take away everyone's automobiles.

[Guest RobertU]

If what we're really after is to save lives, let's take away everyone's automobiles.

But then where would we smoke?

[PigFish]

Man have I tried to stay away from this topic!

If what we're really after is to save lives, let's take away everyone's automobiles.

Because, as you know Ross, the raising of revenue and the usurpation of control are the ultimate goals of most governments. Governments are not controlled by gods, but everyday greedy, jealous, good and evil, smart and mostly stupid people! Yes… plain, ordinary everyday; that ******* took my parking spot, that person cut me off, he lied to my boss to get the position, she stopped taking the pill to make me marry her, people!

Firearms should be a privilege earned over time and not a right. Too many morons in this country ruined it for the rest. Jesus, your ******* kidding! How about politician control? A mental case with a gun can kill hundreds, the mental cases in politics can kill millions... and they have! Who would you rather be protected from? Those morons that you don't trust with guns are the same morons that run government; there is no difference. They control taxes, armies and weapons far more potent than your typical 9mm semi-auto.

It is easy to hide behind safety, security, fairness and equality; all the talking point hot words when you are a politician seeking power. And it is easy to stir up a drone populace to think that your legislation and another small hole where your freedom used to reside is acceptable because of the noble intentions.

Public safety has nothing the **** to do with gun laws, it is just the pitch. Check out any and all tyrannical governments existing on the planet. They all support stripping the population of firearms (for their own safety of course!) and arming to the hilt themselves to preserve the peace for all. If that is not indication enough of what gun control is all about it is fruitless to discuss it because the majority that support it are either seeking the legislation for similar reasons or they are too ignorant of history to understand it. Oh yes of course; it could not happen here you say. Tell that to the Chinese, the Cambodians and to the families of millions of Jews.

Safety huh, yeah, you believe it! If safety was the goal, as Ross stated, why are newer smaller, WAY MORE DANGEROUS, cars always being pitched as cars that we should be buying? When so many kids die on skateboards and bicycles are they still legal? How come certain sexual activities which promote the spread of AID’s is still legal? How come someone has not banned sun bathing, an activity that leads to one of the most prolific forms of cancers? The answer is it is all bullshit!

Safety… that’s right. That is the reason why DDT is no longer in use. This is a pesticide that could have all but eliminated malaria, especially in the third world. The proponents that used bad science to stop the production of DDT are personally, in fact should be criminally liable for the deaths of millions as a result their politically driven radical environmentalists views. Oh that's right, the hell with people lets save the environment!

Read some books, do some research for yourself, check out your country’s crime statistics, follow the evidence or just be a drone. It is not about hunting or sporting use… it is about the preservation of your freedom.

My apologies if I offended anyone. -Piggy

[El Presidente]

Piggy...you and Ross represent the right, Ken the Left, I am somewhere in between but Leaning to the left on this one.

I am going to give you the other side of the coin.

You may rail about Govt (mostly correct) but let me turn your argument to the gun lobby.

They care Sweet F All about your Fricken rights Ray. They care about selling Fricken firearms to a population they put the fear of God into by raising the issues of "Increased Crime" and "Self Protection" and "Protection of Freedom".

Does anyone seriously believe that out of all developed countries (OECD) the USA per capita does not have the highest rate of Gun deaths or the highest rate of Gun mass murder?

What statistics are being manipulated here? Keep in mind I mentioned the one in OZ. Before the Gun Laws of 1996 13 Mass shootings in 18 years. In the 13 years since ......NONE.

Everytime someone at your Colleges blow 20 people away the gun lobby comes out with "Automobiles kill more people...are you going to take them away?" What are we Morons!!!!! Not one Automobile sets out to kill 20 fricken strangers and destroy 20 families in one go! Automobiles are a necessary part of daily life for most people. Firearms are not. It must be the most inane argument I have ever heard but the Gun lobby continues to feed these lines to its "followers" akin Jim Jones and Jonestown.

If you want to know what I really think......I believe in Jesus and those close to me. I sure as hell don't believe that Government works in my interest or that the Gun Lobby is actually gives a flying "F" about my freedoms. What they both do is recruit pawns to push their idiotic agendas : Govt = Control Gun Lobby = Sales and Profit.

The US situation is very different to others around the world as weapons are so ingrained in the culture that removal is impossible. You guys will have to find your own balance of what is right. But the next time the "Gun Lobby" feeds you some coolaide about gun crime in other countries.....think a little before you take a drink. Same goes for Govt. Both are different sides of the same coin and both are Lying sons of *******.

[Ken Gargett]

Okay, I know I promised but the thread keeps sending me emails that posts are being made so I snuck a look. There are some of the most irrelevant, facile, and simply mindbogglingly stupid arguments being put forward that I can't help myself.

First, I've never been accused of being on the left before. Quite a weird feeling. If this is where the left wishes to reside on this issue then for once we are in sync.

I, as past posts would confirm, am no fan of politicians or governments. So anything I may say is not directed to any sort of 'our govt is cleverer than yours' stance. For the record, I think our current mob is even more cynical, hypocritical, dishonest, self-centred, egotistical and focused purely on self interest than the last lot and I have nothing but contempt for them, though I fall a long way short of the ratbag, Timothy McVeigh-like idiocy that some of mindbogglingly stupid comments here and elsewhere seem to support. I am very much in support of letting the govt have as little control and interference as possible, but there are some matters where it becomes a necessary evil and this is/should be one of them.

Equally, this is not one more outsider doing a bit of seppo bashing. As some members know, a while back I lived in the States and I loved my time there. I came very close to staying there for good. I reckon I've lived in or visited around 60 plus countries and the USA is the only one, other than Oz, that I would remotely considered living in on a permanent basis. My thoughts on this issue are solely in relation to the gun issue (and for the record, I don't believe in a complete ban – I know that there are legitimate uses for guns).

And yes, I know that I am probably in the minority on the gun issue but a majority of support for Hitler in Germany would not have made him right either.

And as for taking offence, I am very hard to offend. Equally, I mean nothing personally offensive in my opposition to this and in anything I might say (there are many people who I otherwise respect who hold different views to me on this), even if I might think this has really brought out the whacko, nutjob, conspiracy theory element in the forum.

Cars? Guns = cars? This is just one more example of how utterly desperate the idiocy involved in gun support is when they equate the two. As Rob alluded to, how many people got in a car and set out to kill or injure someone else? Probably there have been a few but the comparison is ludicrous and wrong. Perhaps electricity next. People get electrocuted. Ban it. Water? Well, people drown. Ban that. It is just as stupid and ridiculous. You want to ban something that has caused endless unnecessary deaths around the world throughout history? Try religion. As for “How come certain sexual activities which promote the spread of AID’s is still legal?”, that sounds a lot like *** bashing to me. Is that where you'd like this forum to go? It is one thing to poke a bit of fun at gays – though I suspect that they may not find it terribly amusing – but taking that line is a little too extreme and if the forum heads down that track, I'm gone. But there is, of course, a solution. Gays can go and arm themselves and go around shooting people to defend themselves.

DDT? My first reaction (and every one since) was that it was yet another diversion by the gun lobby for the real issues. We've had cars, the initial crock of crap posting, lies, false stats and more. Now DDT. I'm not sure what DDT has to do with guns. What I really thought was that now we really do have members lining up for the rubber room but I thought in fairness, perhaps I should try and learn a bit more. No question that it was once an effective pesticide but I had always believed that the dangers far outweighed the benefits. So I tried to do some research. Can't find much that suggests otherwise. As a pesticide, it is now far less effective than it was – mosquitoes seem to be able to develop amazing resistance to whatever we throw at them with a little time. It is an environmental disaster (when we have completely cocked up this world, what are we going to do? Hop over to the next one? Doesn't quite work like that) and carcinogenic as well. One thing I did learn was that apparently the banning of DDT is one of the main factors in the re-emergence of the bald eagle. Touch of irony there?

But of course, these facile arguments have done exactly what was intended. Divert attention from the issues because there is simply no sane argument that can support the braindead stupidity of the gun lobby – nothing personal.

Rob's figure of 'none' for massacres since control is surely compelling. Even govts with the nuclear arms race realised that you need to start somewhere. I've heard the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms crap so many times. They seemed to be a rather intelligent lot who in the main, did an amazing job. And back then, they had reasons that seem to be legitimate and just. But is anyone so completely out of touch that they think the current situation is what they had in mind, or that these otherwise intelligent and capable men would not have seen the folly and agreed that something must be done. As for rights, apparently victims' rights are worth less.

One last item. The situation in the States is such that it is easier to load up and massacre your fellow citizens than it is to buy a bottle of 1993 Mouton. If that isn't priorities out of control, then I can't think what is. For those not aware, Mouton have a world famous artist design their label artwork every year. Dali, Picasso, many others have done so. The 1993, by Balthus from memory, included an ink outline of a semi naked woman. It was banned. Can't corrupt the youth! Quite what youth was going out and spending hundreds of dollars per bottle for a bottle of wine with something far more innocent and less revealing on the label than what could be seen in any number of ads or on the beach or wherever, never seemed to have dawned on the geniuses behind this. And I understand that these geniuses came from what was then known as the BATF, the same mob that won't act to prevent senseless slaughter.

[Jimmy2]

Ken do you at least own a water gun ?

Guns are good everyone should have them...

[Colt45]

Equally, this is not one more outsider doing a bit of seppo bashing.

Seppos? I haven't heard this one since the early days of the forum. For newer members unfamiliar with some of the Aussie slang you'll see here from

time to time, seppo is short for septic tank which rhymes with yank - all of which refer to Americans. I believe that at times these terms are supposed

to be somewhat endearing, though personally, I don't get all warm and fuzzy when referred to as a septic tank.

And as a Red Sox fan, being called a yank is the worst. I'd prefer being called a baby molester - it'd be far less insulting.

Have fun celebrating queen's birthday next month.

[Ken Gargett]

Seppos? I haven't heard this one since the early days of the forum. For newer members unfamiliar with some of the Aussie slang you'll see here from

time to time, seppo is short for septic tank which rhymes with yank - all of which refer to Americans. I believe that at times these terms are supposed

to be somewhat endearing, though personally, I don't get all warm and fuzzy when referred to as a septic tank.

And as a Red Sox fan, being called a yank is the worst. I'd prefer being called a baby molester - it'd be far less insulting.

Have fun celebrating queen's birthday next month.

colt, i assure you that seppo is a term of endearment and no offense meant at all.

interesting re your comments on yank. for aussies, and i suspect a lot of non-americans, yank has always been a common term, and again certainly not a perjorative one for americans. you may have brought some of this on yourselves - 'the yanks are coming' etc. never knew it was not common to all.

i remember talking to some south africans who were surprised that aussies and kiwis and others referred to them as yarpies. again, just the sort of non-offensive term (like kiwis for new zealanders, frogs for the french, seal bashers for canadians etc etc) that is more a nickname than anything else.

and merely because our idiot govts, federal and state, chose to provide a holiday for the old dear, doesn't mean i have to like. i assume that like most people, i do not like all decisions that our respective govts inflict on us.

and jimmy, at least you've made me laugh!

[Jimmy2]

Good Ken than i did my job ..LOL

[Colt45]

colt, i assure you that seppo is a term of endearment and no offense meant at all.

Too late - my delicate sensibilities are shattered.

[Habanos2000]

Before the Gun Laws of 1996 13 Mass shootings in 18 years. In the 13 years since ......NONE.

Just curious if you can take this fact and apply it to the current talk of eliminating nuclear weapons in order to make the world safer? I don't think so. Hence my belief that there are underlying psycho/social issues that create the environment for mass killings to take place and those need dealing with. While they are a tool, it's not the availability of guns themselves that make those events happen. Does the availability of high explosives create the act of suicide bombers, clearly not.

We (American's) do need stricter laws on not only who is eligible to buy a gun (and where guns can be legally bought and sold) but also what types of guns are available for public purchase. Assault rifles, 50 cal sniper rifles etc should not be available to the public. We have a lot of work to do and a HUGE gun lobby that will unfortunatly prevent this from taking place.

[Colt45]

We (American's) do need stricter laws on not only who is eligible to buy a gun (and where guns can be legally bought and sold) but also what types of guns are available for public purchase. Assault rifles, 50 cal sniper rifles etc should not be available to the public.

I don't need lots of things. I don't need to smoke cigars. I don't need to drink alcohol. What I do need is for my government

to stay out of my personal business as much as possible, to not coddle criminals, and to expect personal responsibility from individuals.

But, I accept points of view other than my own, and would not resort to name calling of those who offer differing opinions.

[SmokinLightning]

What we NEED to do, is enforce the laws we already have... instead of giving criminals a slap on the wrist and letting them go.

Laws only stop law-abiding citizens. I am a big fan of less gov't in my life. I also oppose seat belt, helmet and anitsmoking laws (for adults).

With regards to "assault" weapons and .50 BMG rifles... do you know how many of the actual gun crimes are commited with these types of weapons? A tiny fraction... The most common firearms used in crime are cheap, small caliber pistols. They demonize the evil black rifles because it's easy to get the sheep scared of them.

During the last "Assault Weapons Ban", they banned rifles with certain features... like bayonet and grenade launcher mounts. Whens the last time someone got killed with a bayonet mounted to a rifle?

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

[rallones]

With regards to "assault" weapons and .50 BMG rifles... do you know how many of the actual gun crimes are commited with these types of weapons? A tiny fraction... The most common firearms used in crime are cheap, small caliber pistols. They demonize the evil black rifles because it's easy to get the sheep scared of them.ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Does the fact that "a tiny fraction" of gun crimes have been committed with these kinds of guns justify them being legally available? I have yet to hear ANY logical, reasoned commentary from the pro-gun lobby as to why these kinds of weapons should be available to the public. The"it's my Constitutional right" argument doesn't quite cut it -- Constitutional rights are not absolutes to be viewed and applied in a vacuum.

[Stahlberg]

Does anyone seriously believe that out of all developed countries (OECD) the USA per capita does not have the highest rate of Gun deaths or the highest rate of Gun mass murder?

There are several causes for this I believe, but you are right, ONE of the causes must be the increased availability of firearms compared to other countries. But this is the price Americans pay for living in the most free country in the world.

Now, it's too late to get rid of guns there. No law would make all guns disappear, I think in fact what most people would do if they really wanted to keep a particular gun, and they knew the government was coming for it, they'd hide it and claim it was stolen. Certainly no law would affect the illegal ones.

So: to live here, with all these guns around, I think it's utter stupidity to choose to walk around defenseless and unarmed, simply because of some principle.

This Australian massacre statistics is not quite right either, see this excerpt I found on the internet.

First, he points out that in the 10 years before the gun-law change in 1996, "Australia suffered 11 mass shootings (five or more victims)," but none in the 10 years since.

This is true, but largely irrelevant. Very few victims of gun crime are killed or wounded in mass shootings, which are thankfully rare and largely the product of disturbed minds rather than the legal availability of guns. Such incidents grab a lot of media attention, but the gun crimes most people are (rightly) worried about are acquaintance murders, armed robberies and home invasions.

My point, which Mr. Alpers did not even address, was that while gun crimes in Australia are now noticeably lower than in 1996, shooting incidents of the kind most people worry about actually rose by more than two-thirds in the five years following the gun ban, and only declined after 2001 because of increased police vigilance concerning street crimes, gun smuggling and drug dealing.

Again, those were not "gun lobby myths," but Australian government statistics. Mr. Alpers then pulled a switch common among gun control advocates. He began talking about "firearm fatalities" rather than firearms homicides. Fatalities include suicides by firearm and accidental shootings, not just murders.

Like Mr. Alpers, Canada's gun control lobby likes to cite declines in suicides involving guns as proof that strict new laws introduced in both countries in the 1990s are having beneficial effects. The trouble is, overall suicide rates in both countries have not fallen -- or have fallen only a little -- during the lifetime of these laws; meaning, while there may have been fewer firearms suicides, at best there have been only marginally fewer total suicides.

In Canada, for instance, since our latest gun laws were introduced in 1995, gun suicides have fallen by more than a quarter, but suicides by hanging have risen by more than 50%, fully offsetting the drop in gun suicides. People are still killing themselves at similar rates, they are just not using guns as often to do it.

In Australia, firearms suicide rates are now nearly as high again as they were before the gun ban of 1996. They are higher than they were in 1990, when Australian gun laws were relatively lax compared to today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1724272/posts

[Stahlberg]

Does the fact that "a tiny fraction" of gun crimes have been committed with these kinds of guns justify them being legally available? I have yet to hear ANY logical, reasoned commentary from the pro-gun lobby as to why these kinds of weapons should be available to the public.

I'm not sure what you mean, no sane person is lobbying for fully-automatic weapons to be available to the general public. These are only available to law enforcement and military, and not likely to ever change.

The problem here is that many SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles look like their deadlier cousins, and mass-media sometimes states that it's very easy to convert one to the other. This is bull-****. But people fall for it and just because a rifle has a plastic black folding stock instead of a traditional wooden one, and some other cosmetic changes (which I saw a guy on youtube change out literally in a few seconds), they want it banned. But the inner workings are exactly the same. One pull on the trigger, one shot.

Or perhaps you're worried about large capacity magazines? Say, the 30 shot magazine of a Mac 10? Just take an old Browning handgun with 14 shot magazine (and incidentally firing similar bullets) and learn how to replace it in a couple seconds. With two of those, you're about equal to the Mac 10.

So if they ban one type of weapon - semi-autos that look like assault weapons, then they're VERY close to banning every single damn hunting rifle shotgun and handgun in the land. That's the problem, that's why the gun lobby isn't liking those type of bans.

[rallones]

I'm not sure what you mean, no sane person is lobbying for fully-automatic weapons to be available to the general public. These are only available to law enforcement and military, and not likely to ever change.

The problem here is that many SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles look like their deadlier cousins, and mass-media sometimes states that it's very easy to convert one to the other. This is bull-****. But people fall for it and just because a rifle has a plastic black folding stock instead of a traditional wooden one, and some other cosmetic changes (which I saw a guy on youtube change out literally in a few seconds), they want it banned. But the inner workings are exactly the same. One pull on the trigger, one shot.

Or perhaps you're worried about large capacity magazines? Say, the 30 shot magazine of a Mac 10? Just take an old Browning handgun with 14 shot magazine (and incidentally firing similar bullets) and learn how to replace it in a couple seconds. With two of those, you're about equal to the Mac 10.

So if they ban one type of weapon - semi-autos that look like assault weapons, then they're VERY close to banning every single damn hunting rifle shotgun and handgun in the land. That's the problem, that's why the gun lobby isn't liking those type of bans.

Thanks for the post. I learned something about the pro-gun perspective, and you responded without rancor. Kudos. I wish all disagreements about contentious issues could be discussed on bulletin boards in this manner.

[El Presidente]

This Australian massacre statistics is not quite right either, see this excerpt I found on the internet.

Actually...no they are correct.

Sure....if you decide to take away Massacres (I mean...they are nasty data...and they don't happen that often...so lets not include them) and you take away Firearm suicides (not fair at all....not a real gun death....he could have used a rope or tablets) then Voila!.....numbers really haven't tumbled!

In Australia Gun deaths go up during periods of prolonged drought and unemployment. Farmers are permitted ready access to licensed firearms so it is no surprise that our Gun death numbers rise and fall along drought and periods of rural unemployment. Suicide in rural areas of Australia is a serious problem. There are always reasons for movements in stats.

For what it is worth, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures showed crimes involving firearms had dropped by 44 per cent since 1997 (2008 figures).

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

[PigFish]

Just so the thread does not die before I comment again! -LOL

by Howard Nemerov

In a previous article, we examined the revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent “gun-free” massacre of 135 Australians.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. Peace Movement Aotearoa, based in New Zealand, calls itself a “national networking organization…interested in peace and social justice.” A fact sheet on their site is entitled Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws. It’s very revealing that gun ban organizations validate gun control by focusing on gun-involved violence while avoiding any mention of overall violent crime trends.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.”

Even the head of Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence …

There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.

Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of “the arrest of those responsible.”

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%.

Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns):

More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it’s apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.

References

Violent crime rates compiled from Australian Bureau of Statistics and U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation sources. Email request for Excel workbook.

****************************************

For in-depth analysis of the dangerous side-effects of Britain’s and Australia’s gun bans, read Chapter 2 of Howard’s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense

[armedak]

Great post pigfish! Those massacre stats are so misleading... As far as I'm concerned the solution to the massacres is more armed law abiding citizens not less. How far do you think these miscreants would get if only a few armed law abiding citizens were present. Notice how they mostly occur where the criminals know people will be disarmed like schools etc... In the U.S., it has also been shown that the violent crime rates go down where concealed carry is legal and widespread.

[Evo03]

Great post Pigfish

[Shelby07]

Great post pigfish! ...

Notice how they mostly occur where the criminals know people will be disarmed like schools etc...

They are called "safe zones."

Pigfish +1

[Ken Gargett]

sadly, our softcock president has 'strongly requested' that i make no further posts in relation to this issue and therefore i am unable to express my views in respect of, what i view as, some of the imbecilic drivel posted. perhaps we should have a thread on the tyranny of censorship!!

[Ken Gargett]

ps - softcock is, of course, an aussie term of endearment.