XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au   
      
   On 4/22/2013 4:45 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message   
   > news:atk47kFoj0aU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, you've asserted them, and you claimed they were the result of the   
   > change in the laws.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>  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.   
   >   
   > I don't have to show the changes were bad, you have to show they were   
   > good by the standard you set.   
   >   
   > So let's see the causality you claim exists.   
   >   
   > Until then, it's just a matter of opinion.   
   >   
   >    
      
   **I've just unsnipped my questions and comments that you failed to   
   respond to. Gutless worm. Just because you know you're beaten, doesn't   
   mean you can snip my questions.   
      
   As for you claim that no causal link between Australia's gun control law   
   changes and changes to various crimes can be proven, I'll state once   
   more: Unless a full placebo study is undertaken, no proof can exist.   
   Your claim, however, is just as moronic as a claim made that there is no   
   causal link between the dramatic fall in road deaths, here in NSW and   
   the introduction of random breath testing (for alcohol). Whilst   
   causation is difficult to prove, the correllation is very strong. Same   
   deal with the gun crimes I've previously outlined.   
      
   >   
   >   
    > 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.   
    >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)