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:qn5is4db75g554dtb7aehiu326lsh6m7g7@4ax.com...   
   >> 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"?   
   >   
   > **If you can't work that out, then there is little I can do for you. Are you   
   > really stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > **Answer my questions please.   
   >   
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   > **Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.   
   > Additionally, the laws are not applied equally across the nation.   
   > Some places in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) have tougher gun control laws   
   > than other places.   
   > There is poor enforcement of the laws.   
   > There are poor controls over the sale of second hand guns.   
   >   
   > Again: Examine the laws in AUSTRALIA and you will see an example of well   
   > constructed and policed gun control laws.   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > **I'm waiting for you to justify your nonsensical claim. I accept your   
   > inability to justify the claim.   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > **I was careful to include developed nations, not third world shitholes.   
   >   
   >> How come you didn't compare Mexico where private possession of   
   >> firearms is strictly contolled?   
   >   
   > **I was careful to include developed nations, not third world shitholes.   
   >   
   >> Are you cherry picking your information?   
   >   
   > **Not by choosing developed nations. Feel free to list any developed nation   
   > as part of the comparison.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > **Not be using developed nations, rather than third world shitholes as   
   > examples.   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > **Who is suggesting that firearms should be "outlawed"?   
   >   
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   > **Because such restrictions can be shown to reduce the numbers of people   
   > shot to death.   
      
      
   At it again, reduce guns reduce people shot not reduce total   
      
   people killed   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)