Re: Gun control doesn't work--so what?

"Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:55:18 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anson Macdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > **Quite a bit:
> >> > * Fewer people will be killed.
> >>
> >> Murder rates in the UK and Australia have increased since the gun
> bans.
> >
> >**Have they? By how much? Cite your evidence please.
>
> In just the first year after the gun ban 96-97:

**Heheh. Do you understand the term: 'Cherry picking'? How about citing some
more recent evidence? Try comparing the figures from 2001-2002 to the
earlier numbers. See what you get.

I guess that does not fit with your peculiar view of life.

>
> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/6/7/00224
>
> "And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2
> percent (in a country that has a low homicide rate).
> Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
> Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
> In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent."
>
> Then check out the score in 97-99
>
>
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:-WpeILeE8jgJ:www.geocities.com/gunpamphlets/AustralinBan.pdf+%22australia%22+gun+ban&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>
> And for the latest on the UK adventure:
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml


**I have no specific knowledge of the UK situation. Facts are facts though.
Both the UK and Australia have very tough gun laws. They also have very low
levels of bullet related homicide, compared with the US. Australia has more
guns than the UK and more bullet realted deaths. Coincidence? I don't think
so.

>
> Then come back and apologize to the nice man.

**Apologise for what, exactly? For pointing out his mistake? I don't think
so.

 You, like all anti gun
> loons love to challenge then take off when you are caught at your
> nonsense. Apparently you are as afraid of factual data as you are of
> guns.

**Not at all. Feel free to present the data from (Australia) 1990 through
1996. Then compare it to 1996 though 2002. tell me what you see. Is the
homicide rate from bullets trending down, or up?


>
> >>
> >> > * Fewer people will beinjured.
> >>
> >> The rates of violent crimes in the UK in Australia have increased
> since
> >> the gun bans.
> >
> >**Is that so? By how much? Please cite your evidence.
>
> Hop right back up there, then come back and take your medicine like a
> man.

**Try and understand the term: 'Cherry-picked data'. See if it applies to
yours.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > * Costs of medical and rehabilitation will be reduced to the
> society.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It doesn't look that way.
> >
> >**Fewer people get shot, money is saved. That is an irrefutable fact.
>
> Oh?

**Absolutely. People get shot, the medical system patches them up, the
justice system has to track down the perps and put them on trial. If people
don't get shot, these costs do not occur. Them's the facts.

>
> Really?

**Really.

>
> Unlike you, dainty bit, we do our research.

**Unlike you, I try not to use cherry-picked data.

>
> I love when the creeps creep out of the wood work sure they can take
> down those gun nuts, only to discover we have been doing this for
> years and years, have archives that would choke a mainframe, and can
> pop out just about anything we need in supporting data in under 5
> minutes.

**Sure, as long as the data you cherry-pick suits your needs.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au