XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au   
      
   On 4/25/2013 2:54 PM, F Murtz wrote:   
   > Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >> On 4/24/2013 10:19 PM, F Murtz wrote:   
   >>> Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >>>> On 4/24/2013 11:44 AM, F Murtz wrote:   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **It has, but since Australians rarely use firearms to commit murder,   
   >>>> the total change will always be much smaller. In any case the 1996 gun   
   >>>> control laws were desiged to deal with the crime of mass murder, via   
   >>>> the   
   >>>> use of guns. In that respect the 1996 gun control laws, introduced by   
   >>>> the Howard government, can be judged as a tremendous success.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The US is very different. More than 60% of US homicides involve the use   
   >>>> of firearms. As a consequence, any reduction in the availability of   
   >>>> firearms to undesirables, is likely to cause a far greater reduction in   
   >>>> total homicides. Of course, as long as the NRA controls the Republicans   
   >>>> and remains unanswerable to the US people, the killing will continue   
   >>>> unabated.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   Therefore, a reasonable person will accept that the 1996 gun   
   >>>>>> control laws were a good change.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Has not changed the status quo discernibly.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **You need to prove that. In your proof, you should care to note   
   >>>> that in   
   >>>> the 18 years prior to the Howard gun control law changes, there were 13   
   >>>> mass murders, comitted via the use of firearms. Since 1996, there have   
   >>>> been none, nada, zip, zero incidences.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Seems like a good thing to me.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> You keep on and on inexorably about mass gun  murders which play so   
   >>> little part in the great scheme of things  as to be almost non existent   
   >>   
   >> **Tell that to the relatives of the 35 people killed and the 23 wounded   
   >> at Port Arthur, you disgusting sack of shit. Fuck you morons piss me   
   >> off. You continually neglect that 35 people are now dead, thanks to your   
   >> worship of guns. They are completely unnecessary toys for civilians. 35   
   >> people dead. Think on that, cunt.   
   >>   
   > There is little point arguing about law making with someone whos   
   > arguments are mainly emotional.   
      
   **Tell that to the relatives of the Port Arthur dead. The deaths of   
   humans _IS_ an emotional issue. Let's see YOU face them and explain why   
   you think you should be allowed to have deadly toys to play with.   
      
      
     Law making should be done with   
   > statistics,facts and the effect of those laws.   
      
   **35 dead at Port Arthur. Seems like compelling statistics to me.   
      
   > That is why it is good you are not making those laws directly.   
      
   **John Howard did.   
      
   > the problem is that those making the law may listen to you and think   
   > there may be votes in it therefore causing them to make laws not based   
   > on fact, statistics and general benefit.   
      
   **Facts are facts. 95% of the Australian population approves of the 1996   
   gun control law changes. That includes the vast majority of gun owners.   
      
      
   --   
   Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)