XPost: aus.politics.guns, can.talk.guns, uk.politics.guns   
   From: haggisz@hotmail.com   
      
   Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   > "10x" <10x@teluös.net> wrote in message   
   > news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...   
   >> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> "10x" <10x@teluös.net> wrote in message   
   >>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill"    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.   
   >>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly   
   >>>>> suggests   
   >>>>> otherwise.   
   >>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.   
   >>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law   
   >>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?   
   >>> Perhaps you could elaborate.   
   >> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against   
   >> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering   
   >> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.   
   >   
   > **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun   
   > control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your   
   > specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding   
   > homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) laws   
   > which make homicide illegal are useless.   
   >   
   > You now see the error of your suggestion.   
   >   
   >>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what   
   >>>> method they use.   
   >>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.   
   >>>   
   >> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.   
   >> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.   
   >   
   > **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.   
   >   
   >> Canada has strict controls on firearms.   
   >> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.   
   >> Folks still get murdered in both countries.   
   >   
   > **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 10%   
   > the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict controls on   
   > firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. See a   
   > pattern here?   
      
   YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia   
   has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years   
   >   
   >>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms   
   >>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for   
   >>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly   
   >>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a   
   >>> replacement   
   >>> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control   
   >>> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun   
   >>> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied   
   >>> accros   
   >>> the entire nation.   
   >> Where they don't work, same as Canada.   
   >   
   > **You neglected to answer my questions. I will repeat them, so that you may   
   > answer:   
   >   
   > Really? That many? Got a cite for that?   
   >   
   >> In Canada the firearms laws are the same across the nation, yet crime   
   >> rates with firearms vary from region to region - totally unrealted to   
   >> the number of firearms in each region.  If the gun laws worked, the   
   >> crime rate would be the same in all regions.   
   >   
   > **I said (emphasis added):   
   >   
   > Perhaps the US could learn from places like AUSTRALIA, where the gun control   
   > laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros the   
   > entire nation.   
   >   
   > I did not say: "Canada". I said "AUSTRALIA". Canada's gun control laws are   
   > weak and inneffective, compared to the suite of laws employed in Australia.   
   >   
   >>>> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a   
   >>>> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the   
   >>>> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.   
   >>> **Of course. Thanks to the weak, haphazard and poorly regulated gun   
   >>> control   
   >>> laws in the US, it is a trivial exercise for a felon to buy a gun from a   
   >>> secondary source. Here's sort of how it might go:   
   >>>   
   >>> Felon: "I'd like to buy your second hand gun please."   
   >>> Gun seller: " Are you a convicted felon?"   
   >>> Felon: "Nope."   
   >>> Gun seller: "Good. Here's your gun. Have fun."   
   >> Do you have any numbers on the rate at which convicted felons do this   
   >> in the U.S.A.?   
   >   
   > **Since the US has no effective controls on the secondary gun market, no.   
   > Clearly, since it can happen (easily), then it does happen.   
   >   
   >> Or are you speculating?   
   >   
   > **Nope. Just based on fact, reason and logic.   
   >   
   > Now, how's about you answer the questions, you tried to avoid?   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)