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

"Cole Firearms Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Shane Yeager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > *snipped for brevity*
> > >
> > >
> > > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > >**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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --->From the nationmaster site, US firearm murders were 8259, and
> > > overall murders were 12689 (about 65% firearm related murders (FRM.))
> > >  The UK stats are 62 FRM from a total of 850 (7%.)  Overall murder
rates
> > > were .05 per 1000 for the US, and .01 per 1000 for the UK.  Assuming
> > > that guns availability were the only difference in the rates, what do
> > > you suppose the difference in non-gun rates comes from?  Non gun rate
> > > for the US= .05*(1-.65), or roughly .0175 per 1000, vs the UK's
> > > .01*(1-.07), or .0093 per 1000.  As murder without guns is almost
twice
> > > as common (per capita) in the US as the UK, there must be more
involved
> > > than just saying that the guns are responsible for the difference.
> > >  Comments?
> >
> > **Not just guns. The training and handling of those guns, is also at
issue.
> > Americans seem to be very proficient at killing their countrymen with
> > bullets. Given the rate of assault is similar in the US and the UK, it
is
> > reasonable to assume that UK residents may well be able to kill
(provided
> > they are similarly skilled to their US cousins) their countrymen at a
> > similar rate to Americans.
> >
> > Guns, as opposed to fists, knives, et al, do not require the personal
> > interaction between victim and assailant. As such, guns may be doubly
> > efficient at killing. This, BTW, is a fact known to military trainers
all
> > over the planet. Much time is spent on recruits, desensitising their
inbuilt
> > resistance to killing another human. Guns perform this task admirably.
>
> That is the purpose of the Gun. If Soldiers have a resistance to
> Killing, they need to be desensitized to that problem.
>
>

"the Gun" (sic) ?
Why on earth is it being capitalized ?
    Are you treating it like a deity ?

By the way, where do all those "amateur" killers, as oppoed to soldiers and
police,  go to get "de-sensitized" ?
    In particular where do all those British and Australian killers go ?