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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:49:23 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"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.

Yes, I notice that while I post what supports my position, because
that is what YOU asked for Trevor Twinkletoes, you post nothing at
all. How quaint.

I find the Canadian research organization, who enjoys very high
credibility with even those they find negative information on to be
very reliable. You may play, but you WILL PAY.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/about/index.asp?tnav=2 

for who they are, and

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf 

what they found in the time frame you asked for. 

Please notice the charts toward the "conclusion." Consistent over all
increase in nearly all violent crime with MORE gun control in AU and
UK while the US with more states during that time instituting by law
"shall issue" concealed carry permits for citizens...violent crime
dropping...and that with the US reporting all deaths by gunfire
including suicides under their homicide tables while UK AU and CA
separate out suicides.

No TT, you have screwed the pooch, as it looks like your hobby may
well be.

Still, of course YOU haven't produced a thing. Troll perhaps? Methinks
that's all yah got, TT.

>>
>> 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.

Yeah, I can see that. But you made a comparison, claiming that the UK
had even lower violent crime that AU and still no stats. Interesting.

>Facts are facts though.

Where? I see nothing but your babbling claims and opinions, and
demands that others produce, white, bummer, you provide nothing.

>Both the UK and Australia have very tough gun laws. They also have
very low
>levels of bullet related homicide, compared with the US.

"Levels" as in total numbers, or "rates" per 100k as properly
supported claims with citation should prove for you. So....?

>Australia has more
>guns than the UK and more bullet realted deaths. Coincidence? I don't
think
>so.

Of course not, but you haven't provided a single shread of evidence. 

The demographics are entirely different. You simple share a mutually
incomprehensibel language. I understand that Brits on vacation to AU
get a book of translations.

I love to teach. Shall we begin. Take the front row seat, Trevor
Twinkletoes.

The australian experience is a bit different than the UK one. You
might have notice in your drunken walkabouts that AU is a teensy bit
bigger than the UK hence it tends to be a tad more difficult to
police.

And yes, I did notice that you use "more" without stating "rate."

Why did you leave out rate, child? 

>>
>> Then come back and apologize to the nice man.
>
>**Apologise for what, exactly? For pointing out his mistake? I don't
think
>so.

Which "mistakes" would that be?

Apologize or not, but know that it's your credibility at stake.
Further crab walking won't save you the embarrassment the data is
going to show you and others.

>> 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?

Dear boy, as long as you insist on victims of violent deaths by
gunfire being more dead than all other violent homicidal deaths then
you are bound to win.

The folks with the guns don't have to use them all that much, or if
they are bigger and stronger, or catch you off guard if everone else
is disarmed?

Are you always this easy?

Simplistic claims from simplistic twits has been going on here for the
life of this USENET.

So, which is more important in deciding that guns are or are not the
cause of more violence in Australia...and you will provide some
citations won't you, duplicitious one?

And the Fraser institute seems to disagree with your premise. Where
are you getting the figures you AREN'T POSTING HERE, EH? Up your bum.

>>
>> >>
>> >> > * 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.

Isn't it interesting that you wish to limit my field of search, but
don't even provide a single citation yourself.

Do you find it odd that others post information that refutes yours and
the best you can come up with is, "you cherry-picked."

Do you always resort to such silliness when so clearly defeated?


>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > * 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.

Stabbed, coshed, mangled, poisoned, pummeled, strangled, drowned, or
kicked to death, 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.

It all goes on, now doesn't it...YOU have looked at the stats I
provided from Fraser, right? And looked at those alarming little items
that show AU and UK having higher rates of violent crime, among
others, than the "gun ridden US, right?

You do understand that the ownership of firearms for defense tends to
reduce the kinds of killings I listed above, do you not? Well I'll
pass on the poisoning one.

Tell you a little secret. AU had very very low violent crime rates
prior to the firearms confiscation and draconian laws. Even if crime
was down a bit it is still at the level it reached that stunned
everyone after the gun laws.

Babbling that it's going down suggests to me you are too stupid to
understand the meaning of it shooting up to 300% increase record high
rates.

But go ahead and read the PDF file I cited. 

Notice some things you might not like, such as the number of illegally
owned firearms in the Britain and Waled used in crimes. Illegally held
weapons mean that despite the draconian laws the bad boys WILL have
guns or whatever weapon they so choose.

All other's take the hindmost. 

>>
>> Really?
>
>**Really.

No, not really? 

>
>>
>> Unlike you, dainty bit, we do our research.
>
>**Unlike you, I try not to use cherry-picked data.

I know. It's amply proven by your lack of any. 

>>
>> 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.

No, actually we can pretty much take apart the garbage such as you
post...oh wait, you are going to win by running, aren't you little
man?

Kane