XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au   
      
   On 4/24/2013 10:30 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   > "F Murtz"  wrote in message   
   > news:kl8ijc$kb6$2@dont-email.me...   
   >> Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >>> On 4/24/2013 1:26 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>> "F Murtz"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:kl7d83$rib$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   Just because you have results doesn't make the law good and sane.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> **We have good results. Gun related crimes are down. Gun thefts are   
   >>>>>> dramatically down. Mass murders, via the use of firearms have   
   >>>>>> completely   
   >>>>>> ceased.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Too bad It has not had the same effect on total murders.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>  Therefore, a reasonable person will accept that the 1996 gun   
   >>>>>> control laws were a good change.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Has not changed the status quo discernibly.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They don't really care that the TOTAL number hasn't changed   
   >>>>     The fact that "murders by guns" prove them right.   
   >>>   
   >>> **PROVE that the total number has not changed.   
   >>> PROVE that the same number of people would have been murdered, if the   
   >>> 1996 gun control law changes had not been enacted.   
   >>>   
   >>> In your proof, make reference to the fact that in the 18 years prior to   
   >>> the 1996 gun control law changes, there were 13 mass murders committed   
   >>> via the use of firearms in Australia and that since 1996, there have   
   >>> been none.   
   >>   
   >> No mass gun murders but there have been mass murders by other means   
   >> which the gun laws did nothing to stop.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But then that is the logic of imbeciles.   
   >>>   
   >>> **The logic of imbeciles is this:   
   >>>   
   >>> * Everything the NRA says is correct and in the best interests of the US   
   >>> public.   
   >   
   > That's just a stupid strawman spouted by gun-control imbeciles that is   
   > not supported by ANY evidence   
      
   **Incorrect. It is fact.   
      
   >   
   >>> * That good, sane HOMOGENEOUS gun control laws will not lead to a   
   >>> reduction in firearm related homicide.   
   >   
   > You just proved my point,  which was   
   >     ++ They don't really care that the TOTAL number hasn't changed   
   >     ++   The fact that "murders by guns" prove them right.   
   >   
   > The CDC and NAS have demonstrated VERY CLEARLY that there is NO EVIDENCE   
   > that gun control has ANY EFFECT on reducing crime.   
      
   **I realise that, as an American, your ability to comprehend plain   
   English is likely to be severely compromised, so I suggest you read the   
   CDC conclusion CAREFULLY. They stated (to paraphrase), that there is   
   insufficient data available to form a conclusion.   
      
   The reason there is insufficient data, is because the NRA has   
   consistently blocked government studies into the issue.   
      
   >   
   > What iditos like trevor ignore is that criminals are more than happy to   
   > use other tools for their thuggish acts if guns are not available   
      
   **Fine. I'd rather face a criminal armed with a knife than one armed   
   with a gun.   
      
      
   > The evidence for this is CLEAR in Australian crime rates, which have   
   > INCREASED after the gun ban/confiscation.   
      
   **Cite which crimes have increased since 1996.   
      
   > Criminals just switched to other "tools" while leaving the law-abiding   
   > citizens helpless and disarmed.   
      
   **I'll wait for your proof.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>> * That background checks on ALL gun sales will not reduce the number of   
   >>> firearms in the hands of criminals.   
   >   
   > We don't need to demonstrate a negative   
   > YOU on the other hand have a duty to demonstrate the positive   
      
   **Already done. Since 1996 there have been no mass murders committed via   
   the use of firearms. Not one.   
      
   > There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that "background checks" had ANY EFFECT   
   > in reducing guns in the hands of criminals   
      
   **How would you know? The US has not introduced an EFFECTIVE form of   
   background checks.   
      
   >     There is something called the black market, after all.   
      
   **How do you think guns make their way onto the black market?   
      
   >     And guess what, criminals have NO PROBLEMS getting what they want on   
   > the black market.   
      
   **They do in Australia. A handgun that costs (say) $50.00 in the US,   
   will typically cost well in excess of $500.00 in Australia. Illegal   
   handguns are far more expensive in Australia, thus placing then out of   
   reach of many criminals.   
      
      
   --   
   Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)