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

"Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

**Given the number of errors in that paper, I think it is safe to ignore it.
The forst one, I found was their claim that the gun buyback cost AUS$500
million. The real figure was less than AUS$300 million. See if you can find
a site which has real data, not bullshit data.

>
> 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/gunpamp
hlets/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.

**Nope. I claimed tha the UK and Australia both have lower levels of bullet
related homicide than the US. However, you may continue to mis-read what I
wrote, if you like. Violent crime rates in the US, the UK and Australia are
broadly similar.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap

>
> >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....?

**Rates.

>
> >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.

** http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

>
> 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.

**Do they? Evidence please.

>
> 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.

**Australia is very different to the UK. However, in the big stuff, the two
nations are remarkably similar. Similar government systems, public
transport, urbanisation of the population, etc, etc.

>
> And yes, I did notice that you use "more" without stating "rate."
>
> Why did you leave out rate, child?

**It was understood by anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature.

>
> >>
> >> 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?

**That gun control is all about reducing "crime". Gun control is all about
reducing very specific crimes, not crime, generally. Notably: Homicide.

>
> Apologize or not, but know that it's your credibility at stake.

**I never apologise for being right. Just as you seem unlikely to be able to
apologise for being wrong.

> 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.

**Good. I accept your admission that I am correct. We are getting somewhere.

>
> 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?

**You may need to re-phrase that in English.

>
> Are you always this easy?
>
> Simplistic claims from simplistic twits has been going on here for the
> life of this USENET.

**Sure. Look at the nutty claims from the gun nuts.

>
> 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?

**I never said that guns cause violence. Not once. Guns merely facilitate
easy and cheap destruction of human life for those with a violent
disposition. Look at the assault rates in the UK, the US and Australia:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap

The rates of assault for all three nations is broadly similar.

Now look at the homicide rates, from bullets in each country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap


American assaults seem to more often lead to homicide. Americans are far
more adept at killing each other, yet seen to have approximately similar
violent tendencies to other nations. The only glaring differnce, is the easy
availability of cheap firearms in the US.

>
> 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.

**Well, the Fraser Institute has been shown to be wrong, so we must assume
that their data is suspect. Their motives and finances certainly are.

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

**Huh? First off: I'm not LIMITING your "feild of research". I am suggesting
that you are cherry-picking data. A common ploy for those on the losing end
of an argument. Present a wide range of data and see where the chips fall.

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

**Which data (specifically) refutes mine. Be precise.

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

**Do you imagine that you have a clue?

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

**Nonsense. ALL (hospital) injuries cost money. Bullet related injuries tend
to cost more than kciking, knife and fist injuries.

>
> 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?

**I looked. I see no data. Further, I am and have always referred to bullet
related HOMICIDE rates. Assault rates are approximately similar in all three
nations, yet bullet related homicide is VASTLY higher in the US.

>
> You do understand that the ownership of firearms for defense tends to
> reduce the kinds of killings I listed above, do you not?

**Really? Do you ascribe to Lott's nonsensical assertion that some 2 million
defensive uses of firearms (in the hands of civilians) occur each year in
the US?

 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.

**Nope. We DID have a lower homicide rate though. We have a lower homicide
rate, because guns have always been more expensive and harder to obtain,
than in the US. Guns are more effieicnt at killing humans, as is evidenced
by the vastly higher homicide rate in the US.

 Even if crime
> was down a bit it is still at the level it reached that stunned
> everyone after the gun laws.

**HOMICIDE from bullets is down. Crime is up. Largely because fraud is
dramatically up.

>
> 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.

**300%? Cite please.

>
> But go ahead and read the PDF file I cited.

**Done. It is as much a work of fiction, as anything Lott has managed.

>
> 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.

**Not necessarily. Guns are FAR more expensive in the UK, than they are in
the US.

>
> 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?

**I'll wait for your interesting take on the facts I've provided.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au