XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au   
      
   On 4/29/2013 6:08 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > Trevor Wilson  wrote in   
   > news:au356iF4rk6U1@mid.individual.net:   
   >   
   >> On 4/28/2013 9:05 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>> Trevor Wilson  wrote in   
   >>> news:au2vt3F3okfU2@mid.individual.net:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 4/28/2013 1:15 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>> "SaPeIsMa"  wrote in   
   >>>>> news:klgc61$5p1$4@dont-email.me:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> "RD Sandman"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>> news:XnsA1AE7951F463Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...   
   >>>>>>> Trevor Wilson  wrote in   
   >>>>>>> news:atts09Fu2eeU1@mid.individual.net:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 4/26/2013 7:49 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>> news:attl3lFsi9eU2@mid.individual.net:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2013 2:59 PM, F Murtz wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 10:21 PM, F Murtz wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2013 1:26 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "F Murtz"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:kl7d83$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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> **Are you a complete moron, or are you permanently drunk?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Do DUI laws stop people from being raped?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Do laws pertaining to bank robbery stop people from driving   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> whilst drunk?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Gun control laws are designed to address GUN RELATED crimes,   
   >>> you   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> idiot.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Only a moron would think that making a law that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> inconveniences a lot of people for almost no purpose   
   >>>>>>>>>>> factually to address such a miniscule problem in the total   
   >>>>>>>>>>> homicide statistic is the most wonderful thing since sliced   
   >>>>>>>>>>> bread   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> **That's just it: It doesn't inconvenience people.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That depends on your viewpoint.  If someone wishes to purchase   
   >>>>>>>>> certain firearms or accessories, it would have inconvenienced   
   >>> them.   
   >>>>>>>>> You don't think it inconveniences people simply because you   
   >>> weren't   
   >>>>>>>>> in the targeted group.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> **From your words, we can infer that you consider a minor   
   >>>>>>>> inconvenience, for a minority of people, worth trading the   
   >>>>>>>> deaths   
   >>> of   
   >>>>>>>> 10,000 people for.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Disgusting.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> NO, what is disgusting is assholes like you trying to twist   
   >>>>>>> comments into something they are not.  Trying to put your words   
   >>>>>>> into someone else's mouth.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Notice that he has no problems with the "convenience" traded for   
   >>>>>> the deaths of far more people  when it comes to other things like   
   >>>>>> cars, etc..   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Pretty much true.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **Another lie from you. I suggest you check back though previous   
   >>>> posts.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Suggest all you want, it will be ignored like most of your ideas are.   
   >>> Fix the problems in your own country before you start harping on   
   >>> ours.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> **We already have.   
   >   
   > You think that was the only problem your country has?   
      
   **Far from it. I am remaining on topic.   
      
   >   
   >   Our mass murder rate, via gunshot, has stood at   
   >> zero for 17 years.   
   >   
   > I know.  I am the one who had to point you to the stats before and after   
   > Port Arthur.   
   >   
   >   Our gun thefts, from civilians, are significantly   
   >> down. Gun crimes are down and homicide via gunshot is down.   
   >   
   > They would be.....the number of guns available to be stolen are very much   
   > reduced.   
      
   **Untrue. There are now more guns in our society today, than there were   
   prior to the 1996 gun control law implementation. The reason why there   
   are far fewer civilian guns being stolen, is due to the mandatory   
   storage conditions applied to gun ownership.   
      
   >   
   >> As for road safety and DUI, specifically, random breath testing (RBT)   
   >> was first introduced to Australia (NSW) in 1976. Naturally, it was   
   >> resisted by morons, but now even most of the morons accept that it has   
   >> dramatically reduced the number of road deaths in Australia.   
   >   
   > That's also done here.   
      
   **Since 1976? Or MUCH later?   
      
   >   
   >> Gun control laws work the same way. Morons resist, initially, but, in   
   >> the end even most of the morons accept that good, sane, homogeneous   
   >> gun control laws work for the common good.   
   >   
   > If you think I am a "gun moron", please don't ask my opinion of you.   
   > Have a nice day.   
      
   **I didn't say you were a gun moron. A gun moron is a person who resists   
   good, sane, sensible and homogeneous gun control laws that have been   
   shown to be effective. I am confident you would not resist such laws.   
   Only those idiots who slavishly follow the rantings of the NRA would do   
   such a thing.   
      
      
   --   
   Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)