XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"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?
> 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.
> **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.
> Gun thefts are dramatically down.
Wow, eliminate a whole shit load of guns, and then act surprised when there
are fewer to be stolen.
So tell me, how many of those guns end up in the hands of criminals?
100%?
> 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?
> Therefore, a reasonable person will accept that the 1996 gun control laws
> were a good change.
No, because a reasonable person would ask you to show that the 1996 gun laws
CAUSED these 'good changes'. Then when we look we find criminals still have
as many guns as ever.
Wasn't the whole idea to get guns out of the hands of criminals?
>>> Like the laws we have here in Australia. All have been shown to
>>> acheive results.
>>
>> Really?
>
> **Yes, really.
>
>>
>> Please produce your scientific proof of causality.
>
> **Impossible, without a proper double blind study.
Then by your own admission you can't show the laws caused the changes you
claim were the result of those laws.
You have now painted yourself into the corner.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
