XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
On 4/22/2013 4:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
> news:atjmslFm001U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 4/22/2013 12:07 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>>> news:atjh2kFku7dU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 4/21/2013 7:35 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>>>>> news:atev54Fkl0sU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:atec94Fgv0lU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 11:19 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> news:ate4m7Ffj68U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 9:44 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:ate2shFf89pU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 9:27 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ate000Fek8tU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 8:39 AM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "RD Sandman" wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:XnsA1A782B5E82D8hopewell@216.196.121.131...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:atc1j0F11bvU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 7:56 AM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... something as simple as universal background checks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed. Maybe the US is just a sick and violent society
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Not so much. The US is saddled with a bunch of gutless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politicians,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who value the opinions of the NRA more than their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of Americans are probably disgusted with their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> senators. They need to be reminded of just how weak these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creatures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not interested in the well-being of the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are interested in re-election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sad, so election is more important than dead Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It would seem so. Except to a tiny handful of Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> senators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the majority of Democrat senators. Americans should keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names in mind. Both the brave ones and the gutless ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, the ones that voted for it need to go,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **Why do you support a criminal's right to obtain firearms?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who said I do?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **You object to good, sane controls on guns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do? Where did I do so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **In every single discussion you and I have had regarding gun
>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In every single discussion there was no good, sane gun control being
>>>>>>> proposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **That would your opinion. As shown by events, a wrong opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's a matter of opinion then that means you can't really define
>>>>> exactly what a good sane gun control law is other than it's something
>>>>> YOU approve of.
>>>>
>>>> **Wrong. Good, sane gun control laws acheive results.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> **Yes, necessarily.
>
> So if you can't show results that were actually caused by that law, then
> we can both agree it wasn't a good, sane law?
**I've already provided the results of the Australian gun control laws.
All good.
>
>
>> Bad, tyrannical, even evil laws can also achieve
>>> results.
>>
>> **Indeed. Bad results.
>
> So simply pointing to results, assuming you can actually prove any,
> doesn't automatically mean it was a good, sane law. You still have to
> PROVE that.
>
> IOW, you've just made the criteria of proof even harder for yourself.
>
>
>> Just because you have results doesn't make the law good and sane.
>
> Exactly, and thanks for stepping into the trap.
**There is no trap to step into. I've cited the changes to gun laws in
Australia. You cannot show where these changes are bad. In fact, the
reverse is true.
>
>> **We have good results. Gun related crimes are down.
>
> You do realize they were going down before the law, so I'm not sure you
> can prove the law resulted in that CONTINUED decline.
**Were they?
Show me where:
Gun thefts were trending down.
Mass murders committed via the use of firearms were trending down.
Gun crimes in general were trending down.
Gun related homicides were trending down.
Let's see you data. I'll wait.
>
>
>> Gun thefts are dramatically down.
>
> Wow, eliminate a whole shit load of guns, and then act surprised when
> there are fewer to be stolen.
**Except that there are now more guns legally held by Australians than
there was prior to 1996. Gun thefts are WAY down, however.
>
> So tell me, how many of those guns end up in the hands of criminals?
>
> 100%?
**I don't know.
>
>> Mass murders, via the use of firearms have completely ceased.
>
> And the same thing occurred in New Zealand and without the laws. Maybe
> it's something else?
**Like what? Let see if I understand you:
In 1996, Australia had experienced 13 mass murders, via gunshot, in the
previous 18 years. Since 1996, there have been NO mass murders, via
gunshot. Not one. The most significant difference were the suite of gun
control laws introduced in 1997. Those laws were SPECIFICALLY designed
to deal with mass murder, via the use of guns. Can you point to a
different reason for the massive and sustained fall in mass murder, via
gunshot?
Face it: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then sometimes,
it is a duck.
>
>> Therefore, a reasonable person will accept that the 1996 gun control
>> laws were a good change.
>
> No,
**Yes. In fact, the vast majority of Australians (including most gun
owners) fully supported those changes.
because a reasonable person would ask you to show that the 1996 gun
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
