Tim Blair

yes, quite right. we need to, as phil sheridan said during the campaign in the shenandoah valley, "smash 'em up, boys!"

I'm not worried for myself.

There are lots of ways to die. Adding "fundamentalist losers" to the list doesn't change things much.

Mind you, if I were a parent, I probably wouldn't have such a casual attitude towards things.

They go after soft targets. Oz attitudes toward guns have created a lot of soft targets.

"They go after soft targets. Oz attitudes toward guns have created a lot of soft targets."

Yeah Fred, the right to bear arms did a shitload of good on 9/11 and in Oklahoma city didn't they?

Guns are so terribly useful against car bombs, chemical weapons or anthrax in an envelope.

But back on topic, I think Mr Downer has progressed a great deal since his early days in the job.

And you, Harry, are useful for what?

Andjam

Being a parent only makes you willing to get really cranky. If it's for a good cause.

I'm really cranky about Islamic terrorism/expansionism.

My kids are 7 and 4.

They will not have to take on this fight.

Cheers.

"And you, Harry, are useful for what?"

Poor Fred, you made an arse of yourself pushing your little barrow and now you have to play the man not the ball.

Are you going to tell us how effective guns are at stopping car bombs, truck bombs and airliners?

of course you aren't.

You were given an opportunity, harry, to state what you would do that is useful. You haven't done that. All you have in you is rant.

Well, here's an article on the usefulness of a gun against a car bomber -- true, the car wasn't kept from exploding and killing people, but it is obvious that many more people would have been killed had the driver not been shot. And it is equally obvious that peace chants, warm hugs, or complaints to the UN would have been quite ineffectual at preventing anyone's death that day. I suppose the same could be said for truck bombs. As for planes -- well, I have heard it argued that a gun would be a very useful thing with which to shoot a terrorist who had just announced he was taking over the plane; more useful than those plastic forks you get with airline food, anyway.

"You were given an opportunity, harry, to state what you would do that is useful. You haven't done that. All you have in you is rant."

Poor Fred, I don't see any reply on how useful a gun is in the real world against a car bomb.

Give us those examples, how did all those guns go in Oklahoma city pal?

Or against the envelopes full of anthrax?

The Sarin in the Tokyo subway, if only they had guns, eh.

Put up or shut up Freddy boy.

Re the article Andrea produced - how do you know what his target was? and to put it in context - it was a GUARD who shot the bomber, guards in Australia carry guns, so poor Freddies point (inasmuch as he could be said to have one) is moot.

Guns on planes, great idea Andrea, then your terrorists can bring theirs too - ask a pilot how they feel about the cattle in back brandishing firearms in flight.

So far, passengers without guns have been quite sufficient to subdue hijack attempts now that they know the situation. but keep trying.

Harry, you didn't say shit about who should be allowed to carry firearms, your demand was to tell you -- since you are too lazy or stupid to do your own research -- what use guns would be in the situations you named. I provided an example, and you did the usual troll trick of pretending you had asked some other question. It's sort of like asking someone "What's the weather like in your area?" and, after they tell you, complaining that they hadn't told you what they had for breakfast. Despite the fact that you were obviously looking to pick a fight, I decided to treat your question seriously. My mistake.

By the way, the "cattle in back" quip was oh so sweet. Why don't you leave this blog -- go back to masturbating to Kate 'n' Ashley porn or whatever it is that no-life shitwits like you do on the internet.

Andrea, try not to be any more stupid than is entirely neccessary for you?

If you talk to pilots you will find that ANY arsehole in back carrying a firearm scares them and I note, you pathetic cunt, that you seem unwilling to acknowledge the fact that you -

a. Don't know the target of the bomber you raised,

b. Choose to avoid the fact that unarmed civilians and cabin staff have proved up to the task of disarming/defeating terrorists of late,

c. like the dishonest piece of shit you are, are trying to avoid the context of the argument.

Poor little Andrea, can't win on the facts can you?

BTW I read Tims Blog, not yours, you sad piece of shit - I'm sure that if Tim wants to cut down on his readership he will inform me of the decision himself.

Well, sweetums, just for that you won't be able to comment on it anymore. Read to your heart's content, you big real man you.

Oh -- and if you do log in from another IP, that will also be banned. And if you continue to log in from other IPs and post your crap here, all your posts will be altered to say "Andrea, I worship you like a goddess and want to have your children."

Well, sweetums, just for that you won't be able to comment on it anymore. Read to your heart's content, you big real man you.

Oh -- and if you do log in from another IP, that will also be banned. And if you continue to log in from other IPs and post your crap here, all your posts will be altered to say "Andrea, I worship you like a goddess and want to have your children."

Twice, for emphasis!

'No hint of appeasement there. Good.'

!