XPost: aus.politics.guns, can.talk.guns, uk.politics.guns
From: 10x@teluös.net
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:38:38 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
>
>
>
>"10x" <10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>news:qv4gs4tfj314ejgsrjgf3qr69pemnc2tkm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:31 +1100, "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 certainly have a twist with words and logic.
>
>**It's my language of choice - Logic and reason.
>
>> The gun control laws do not work to stop homicides.
>
>**Not directly, no. Gun control laws, in part, attempt to restrict the
>availability of firearms to those who should not have them.
Please define "those who should not have them"?
>> Places like Jamaica have very strict gun laws and very high homicide
>> rates.
>
>**So? Is it your point that a third world nation has a crime problem? Is
>that you point? This is hardly news. Poor nations tend to place their
>resources into areas other than law and order. Developed nations tend to
>place proportionally more of their resources into law and order.
The U.S. is not a third world nation and it has a very high crime
problem. It has had a high crime problem for 200 years or more
compared to the United Kingdom.
>> Canada has the same gun laws in every jurisdiction yet the homicide
>> rate with firearms varies from area to area.
>
>**So? We've already discussed the poorly thought out gun control laws in
>Canada. Additional to that, the same can be said of any nation.
What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?
Police background checks on purchasers?
Mandatory safety courses?
Restrictions and prohibitions on the use of hadguns and some rifles.
Police oversite on every firearm purchased in Canada?
The gun registration system?
> If the laws worked the
>> homicide rate /100,000 should be the same in all areas.
>
>**Bullshit. I'll bite. Why do you think that to be the case? Be precise in
>your answer.
You claim "bullshit". You tell me how it is bullshit please?
>> There is no correlation between firearms, firearms laws, and the
>> homocide rate.
>
>**Yes, there is. Examine the homicide rates in the following places:
>
>* Australia.
>* The UK.
>* Holland.
>* Sweden.
>* Germany.
>* France.
>* The USA.
How come you left out Jamaica.
How come you didn't compare Mexico where private possession of
firearms is strictly contolled?
Are you cherry picking your information?
>Now examine the firearms control laws in each of these places. See a
>correlation?
I see you contriving a correlation by cherry picking data sets.
>> And folks who do not have any respect for the law (and religious
>> taboo) against murder are not going to be stopped by a gun law.
>
>**So, we should remove murder from the law books then? Is that your
>contention? Don't bother prosecuting murderers, since they'll commit murder
>anyway? Sounds like a dumb idea to me.
Yes removing murder from the law books is a dumb idea. Murder is
murder whether it be done with a gun, knife, or blunt object.
Totally different than outlawing the possession of firearms where
possesison of a gun is a crime even though there is no victim.
>> Guns available in a society are not a cause or catalyst for crime.
>
>**No one ever said they were. They do make, as evidenced by the homicide
>rate in the US, it easy to kill people.
Then why your plea for restrictions on guns?
>> They are a tool that people will use. Take guns out of the equation
>> and other tools (means) are substituted.
>
>**Prove it.
Jamaica, mexico, and some asian countries have very high murder rates
yet firearms are strictly controlled.
>> Here is some interesting reading for you from Firearms and Violence
>> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11
>
>**Let's see you answer some questions first. Then and only then, will I
>bother reading your cite. Here's what you snipped:
Why should I answer questions when you don't?
You are a time waster....
snipped again...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
