A lesson from the Third World about the value of gun control
D.L. Man
something that reporters are unable to do and that is check facts. But he
thinks that evil assault weapons should be banned and I'm sure that he knows
nothing about them and what exactly a retard politician thinks one is.
D.L. Man
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct05/362372.asp
By DEAN MUNDY
Posted: Oct. 11, 2005
I'm sort of an anomaly: a conservative who doesn't own a gun.
You read that right. Not one gun. I've never owned a gun, nor do I plan on
owning a gun in the future.
I've never really felt the need to own one. I don't hunt. I'm not in law
enforcement. I don't live on a farm where I might need one for varmints.
I'm not involved in anything else where a gun might be needed. I've never
felt the need to own one for self-defense. I've shot guns at targets or for
practice once or twice, but that's about it.
Part of the reason is that for most of 18 years, I lived in Papua New
Guinea, a Third World country that has very strict gun control laws. One
expatriate was kicked out for having a pellet gun. Yeah, a pellet gun. They
didn't want any guns at all. Period.
You would think in this country that had very strict controls on who could
own guns that there would be little violence, right?
Wrong. Their murder rate is twice that of the United States. And guess who
had the guns? Sometimes not even the police because the criminals would
steal them!
Many leaders here locally have been decrying gun violence, and rightly so.
They have instituted gun buyback programs and called for stricter gun
control laws hoping that this would cut down on the killings.
But will that curb the violence? It didn't work in Papua New Guinea. It
doesn't seem to work elsewhere, either.
Take Washington, D.C. In spite of some of the toughest gun control laws on
record, it has one of the highest homicide rates.
Furthermore, a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
"found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the
firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." These laws included banning
weapons or ammunition, restrictions or waiting periods on acquisition, or
any combination of the various programs including buy-backs.
I know it seems almost counterintuitive, so let me repeat it. The CDC report
said that none of the measures commonly called for to end gun-related crimes
necessarily accomplished that purpose.
To be honest, we must realize that the report didn't say there was no
evidence that gun control measures worked. It merely said that there was
insufficient evidence that gun control measures worked.
But surely, in all the studies that have been undertaken, we should be able
to see at least some conclusive evidence somewhere that these programs or
laws work. But there is none.
Some people have also criticized proponents of a newly introduced
concealed-carry law. They insist that this will open the door to even more
gun violence.
But will it? The fact of the matter is that in spite of having no
concealed-carry law, many people still carry guns. What good will any gun
control law do in these situations? None.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and
let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense
solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.
But the old adage is still true. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Until we reach a point where people cease resorting to violence, killings
will continue to take place, no matter how strict the gun control laws.
Lots of solutions have been proposed: more jobs, graduating more people from
high school, getting guns off the street, stricter prison sentences. If you
ask 10 people, you'll get 11 solutions.
The most popular solution by far is controlling guns.
Add to that the fact that a concealed-carry law is back in the news and gun
control advocates are upset. They insist this will only add to the problem.
Dean Mundy of Waukesha is a self-employed missionary with New Tribes
Mission. His e-mail
Trevor Wilson
"D.L. Man" <brave...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:-tGdnYD59oK...@comcast.com...
**Yeah, that makes sense. Comparing a nation which practised cannibalism
well into the last century to one of the most advanced nations on Earth.
Comparing a nation where illiteracy is the norm, to a nation where literacy
rates are amogst the highest on the planet. There are rumours that people
STILL practise canabalism in Papua. There are many Papuans who have never
seen a white man. SOP for a gun nut, though. Compare apples with bricks.
>
> Many leaders here locally have been decrying gun violence, and rightly so.
> They have instituted gun buyback programs and called for stricter gun
> control laws hoping that this would cut down on the killings.
>
> But will that curb the violence? It didn't work in Papua New Guinea. It
> doesn't seem to work elsewhere, either.
>
> Take Washington, D.C. In spite of some of the toughest gun control laws on
> record, it has one of the highest homicide rates.
**Sure. Let's take NYC. NYC has very tough gun control laws (tougher than in
DC), but has one of the lowest homicide rates of any large city in the US.
>
> Furthermore, a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention
> "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the
> firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." These laws included
> banning
> weapons or ammunition, restrictions or waiting periods on acquisition, or
> any combination of the various programs including buy-backs.
>
> I know it seems almost counterintuitive, so let me repeat it. The CDC
> report
> said that none of the measures commonly called for to end gun-related
> crimes
> necessarily accomplished that purpose.
**No, let's use the CDC's EXACT words, not the words you twisted to suit
your own ends.
>
> To be honest, we must realize that the report didn't say there was no
> evidence that gun control measures worked. It merely said that there was
> insufficient evidence that gun control measures worked.
**That's better.
>
> But surely, in all the studies that have been undertaken, we should be
> able
> to see at least some conclusive evidence somewhere that these programs or
> laws work. But there is none.
**I have one suggestion: Compare the homicide rates (via gunshot) in all the
WESTERN, DEVELOPED nations. Look at which nation has the most relaxed gun
control laws. Look at which nation has the highest homicide rates. See a
correlation?
>
> Some people have also criticized proponents of a newly introduced
> concealed-carry law. They insist that this will open the door to even more
> gun violence.
>
> But will it? The fact of the matter is that in spite of having no
> concealed-carry law, many people still carry guns. What good will any gun
> control law do in these situations? None.
**Conclusion drawn, without offering evidence.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and
> let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense
> solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.
>
> But the old adage is still true. Guns don't kill people; people kill
> people.
> Until we reach a point where people cease resorting to violence, killings
> will continue to take place, no matter how strict the gun control laws.
**Indeed. In the meantime, however, it would seem to makes sense to use
those gun control laws which seem to function well in every Western,
developed nation, except one.
>
> Lots of solutions have been proposed: more jobs, graduating more people
> from
> high school, getting guns off the street, stricter prison sentences. If
> you
> ask 10 people, you'll get 11 solutions.
>
> The most popular solution by far is controlling guns.
**Certainly. What does make sense, however, is to introduce laws which seek
to prevent bad guys from getting guns.
>
> Add to that the fact that a concealed-carry law is back in the news and
> gun
> control advocates are upset. They insist this will only add to the
> problem.
**It is unlikely to help. Miami allows it's citizens to carry handguns,
whilst NYC does not. Guess which city has a lower homicide rate? Point is:
Allowing violent people easy access to guns does not reduce homicide rates.
>
> Dean Mundy of Waukesha is a self-employed missionary with New Tribes
> Mission. His e-mail
**Ah, a religious nutter. Now it makes sense. He has clearly demonstrated
his inability to think rationally. As have ALL religious nutters.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
IP_St...@hotmail.com
and draw the conclusion that crime in the USA isn't that bad or that
gun control doesn't work over there.
Try comparing the USA to a country like Japan or Singapore that have
restrictive gun laws AND low rates of violent crime.
James Beck
IP_St...@hotmail.com says...
totally different culture and try to say that it is the restrictive gun
laws that are responsible for low rates of violent crime.
Herb Martin
news:1129118617.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I just love it when idjits compare the USA to some third world shithole
> and draw the conclusion that crime in the USA isn't that bad or that
> gun control doesn't work over there.
> Try comparing the USA to a country like Japan or Singapore that have
And those examples you offer (Japan, Singapore) are near police
states in regards to criminal suspects and investigations plus the
other cultural differences.
> restrictive gun laws AND low rates of violent crime.
>
Or Switzerland where practically EVER home has a firearm,
and there is almost no violent crime.
It makes far more sense to compare the US to the US in adjacent
jurisdictions where crime is high and the laws differ.
How about: Washington, DC, and Arlington, VA for instance?
Separated by a river and draconian gun control laws (in DC.)
--
Herb Martin
Trevor Wilson
"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
news:vW93f.30023$Q53....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> <IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129118617.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I just love it when idjits compare the USA to some third world shithole
>> and draw the conclusion that crime in the USA isn't that bad or that
>> gun control doesn't work over there.
>
>> Try comparing the USA to a country like Japan or Singapore that have
>
> And those examples you offer (Japan, Singapore) are near police
> states in regards to criminal suspects and investigations plus the
> other cultural differences.
>
>> restrictive gun laws AND low rates of violent crime.
>>
>
> Or Switzerland where practically EVER home has a firearm,
> and there is almost no violent crime.
**Switzerland, like ALL Western, developed nations (except one) has tough,
sane, HOMOGEOUS gun control laws. The US has haphazard, nonsensical and lax
gun control laws. The US also has, by a long margin, the highest gun related
homicide rate of any Western, developed nation.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
edi...@netpath.net
>Compare the homicide rates (via gunshot) in all the
>WESTERN, DEVELOPED nations. Look at which nation has the most >relaxed gun control laws. Look at which nation has the highest homicide >rates. See a correlation?
Find any other "western, developed" nation whose population is 1/8
made up of the group (blacks in America) that commits murder at EIGHT
times the rate of its white majority that makes up 3/4 of its
population to compare America to - and then let us know how your
comparison holds up. Until then, you are indeed comparing apples to
baseballs.
Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Trevor Wilson
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1129145585.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
**If black Americans are the problem, then why allow them to own guns?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Scout
Or the United Kingdom,which have restricting gun laws and high rates of
violent crime.
Herb Martin
news:434d...@news.comindico.com.au...
For two PRIMARY reasons:
As citizens of a free country this is their unalienable right.
(It shouldn't be anyone else's choice or business, especially the
government.)
If the law-abiding poor in general, and blacks in particular, were
to every realize their right to be armed then the CRIMINALS
would be the ones who would be afraid.
There is also a corollary to the first in that you may NOT take the
rights of one law-abiding citizen due to the (bad) actions of ANOTHER
criminal of the same class.
This is something the Liberals always overlook -- infringing the rights
of the law-abiding due to the assumption that it will somehow reduce
the crime of others is WRONG (even if it worked, which it doesn't.)
--
Herb Martin
Trevor Wilson
"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
**Exactly. Which is why sane, strong, homogenous gun control laws make
perfect sense.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
D.L. Man
Which one works? I would love to read up on this. Maybe since the assault
weapons ban died the gun crimes have gone up. Maybe we should reinstate it
and add features like triggers and ban guns that don't have a sear that will
keep it from firing without the bolt being closed.
Trevor Wilson
**I said: "sane, strong, homogenous gun control lawS" Note the emphasis. No
one law will do the job. A cohesive, sane and HOMOGENOUS set of gun control
laws, along with effective policing and punshment systems, applied
NATIONALLY do the job. That is what EVERY SINGLE Western, developed nation
does, WRT gun control laws. Except one: The USA. The US has a bewildering
array of laws, which are different in different juridictions. No other
Western, developed nation experiments with public policy in this way. No
other Western, developed nation has a gun related homicide rate which
remotely approaches that of the US. Consider the situation of the woman who
supplied guns to the Columbine killers. She received no punishment. This
makes a mockery of sane gun control laws.
> I would love to read up on this.
**Really? I doubt it. I've posted this information many times. Go read some
of my previous posts.
Maybe since the assault
> weapons ban died the gun crimes have gone up. Maybe we should reinstate it
> and add features like triggers and ban guns that don't have a sear that
> will
> keep it from firing without the bolt being closed.
**Or, perhaps, you could examine the laws all the other Western, developed
nations employ, rather than concentrate on one, spurious issue.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Felix D.
"James Beck" <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db6d8faa...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Ask him about all the suicides in Japan.
edi...@netpath.net
> Find any other "western, developed" nation whose population is 1/8
> made up of the group (blacks in America) that commits murder at EIGHT
> times the rate of its white majority that makes up 3/4 of its
> population to compare America to - and then let us know how your
> comparison holds up. Until then, you are indeed comparing apples to
> baseballs.
and replied:
>>If black Americans are the problem, then why allow them to own guns?
Get out of denial. Young black males - not guns - are America's
beyond-fistfight violent-crime problem. The fact that their appalling
misbehavior subculture exists - and isn't related to guns - is shown by
such things as the current 68.7% illegitimate-birth rate among black
Americans, compared to well under 25% for white Americans, VD
statistics far higher than for either Hispanics in America or white
Americans, and other federal statistics. And - as O.J. Simpson showed
- they will kill each other and (rarely) non-blacks, with or without
guns.
But you are - partly - correct. Take away the ability of that
superincorrigible subculture of young black males to own guns by
locking up young black felons until they age out of their peak crime
years - and see American murder rates plummet amazingly. Because
that's what the federal statistics saying that black Americans commit
murder at EIGHT times the rate of the white population that is six
times larger means.
Unfortunately, the American justice system has failed totally - to
the majority of the black community that isn't young males committing
felonies most of all - by failing to jail black (or white) felons for
more than a few years at a time until they kill or rape someone
typically. I did a court-appointed case of a gang leader just like
that; he had a three-page-long rap sheet before orchestrating the
gang's attack on a completely-innocent black man that left him crippled
and broke - but never had been jailed for more than 90 days before in
spite of a record including stabbings and robberies. I got him a 10
year sentence that, in reality, had him out in three years. Not
surprisingly, I soon read about him in the paper - this time charged
with murder.
Browse this gun show for FREE! Shop the
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Trevor Wilson
"Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org> wrote in message
news:Su6dnVMpBff...@comcast.com...
**These suicides?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_15_24&id=OECD
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_25_34
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_35_44&int=-1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_45_54&int=-1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_55_64&int=-1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_65_74&int=-1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sui_rat_in_age_abo_75&int=-1
What's your point? How does suicide (a personal choice) relate to homicide
(a non-personal choice)?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Herb Martin
> No one law will do the job. A cohesive, sane and HOMOGENOUS set of gun
> control laws, along with effective policing and punshment systems, applied
Frankly sane and homogenous would be Vermont or the Alaskan
model.
The Constitution says very explicitly (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1)
that your rights CANNOT change merely because you cross a state line;
that the rights you enjoy in the serveral states are protected in ALL OF
THE STATES.
I still think this is MORE important than the particular wording of the
Second Amendment which is their to protect the nation BY protecting
the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms enjoyed by the people.
Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 makes it clear that a generally
accepted right is clearly beyond argument through the nation.
--
Herb Martin
John P
> **Switzerland, like ALL Western, developed nations (except one) has tough,
> sane, HOMOGEOUS gun control laws. The US has haphazard, nonsensical and
> lax gun control laws. The US also has, by a long margin, the highest gun
> related homicide rate of any Western, developed nation.
Which is indicative of the violent nature of some of the people within that
society. It has nothing to do with guns. Take away their guns and those same
people will be equally as violent.
Trevor Wilson
"John P" <John...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p96dnaajIqH...@comcast.com...
**I never suggested otherwise. With guns, however, those violent people are
capable of more deadly violence. The problem with US gun control laws, is
that they allow those violent people easy and cheap access to guns (notably:
handguns). Those gun control laws are also not applied across the entire US,
in any kind of homogenous fashion. Nor are those gun control laws adequately
policed. This situation is not even remotely close to any other Western,
D.L. Man
So which one is it?
A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a sprinkle
of background checks?
Well?
D.L. Man
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:434d...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
Why don't you just come out and say it that you would like confiscation and
be done with it? A gun doesn't make a person anymore or less violent then if
they didn't have one and the gun isn't going to make them any different then
before.
Trevor Wilson
**Read my words again. lawS.
> A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a sprinkle
> of background checks?
>
> Well?
**Since you clearly can't be bothered finding out, I'll tell you.
* Each gun is to be licensed, as are the owners.
* Each gun is to be kept locked in a gun safe, when not being used.
* No civilian may carry concealed guns.
* ALL gun sales must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
* Authorities are able to inspect guns and gun safes, at any time, without
warning. Any breach of storage rules will result in confiscation of guns and
possibly licences.
That is the basic stuff. Every Western, developed nation (including
Switzerland) has similar laws. Oh, except the US.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**Because that would be a lie. However, you may continue to lie and
misrepresent my position, if that makes you feel better.
A gun doesn't make a person anymore or less violent then if
> they didn't have one and the gun isn't going to make them any different
> then
> before.
**I never said it did.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
IP_St...@hotmail.com
mean, you have DL Man who is comparing the USA to a country that has a
different culture AND vastly different socio-economic make up. DL Man
will be glad to find that you have grouped him with people who you
consider to be idjits
I am at least comparing the USA to countries that are at the same stage
of economic and socio political development.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
up. You witter ad nauseum about bleeding heart liberals etc but when
faced with examples of countries that have heavy penalties for drug
dealers and an intolerance for petty crime you label them as near
police states? Homeland Security anybody? lol
IP_St...@hotmail.com
more on our restrictive gun laws. As for high rates of violent crime,
one would think that our unarmed cops would be dropping like flies if
that sound bite was true. How many heavyly armed US LEOs have been
killed this year? Hello? Anybody there? lol
IP_St...@hotmail.com
must be because Americans are more homicidal by nature.
Gun nuts often argue that the American society is less violent because
you guys are armed. The number of armed US LEOs that are killed
compared to unarmed UK cops makes that a totally bogus argument. Other
gun nuts accept that American society is more violent but it has
nothing to do with guns they argue. Fine but they do not put forward
any explanation as to why American society is more violent
edi...@netpath.net
>It makes far more sense to compare the US to the US in adjacent
>jurisdictions where crime is high and the laws differ.
Or - better still - different neighborhoods of the same city, which
share the same city, state, and federal laws of every kind (gun laws
included). Why but racial demographics is the southeastern part of the
nearby big city of Greensboro, North Carolina so ridden with homicides
- while nil homicides occur in the entire rest of the city?
>How about: Washington, DC, and Arlington, VA for instance?
>Separated by a river and draconian gun control laws (in DC.)
And by a ocean of racial demographics. One is Sweden demographics -
the other Africa West.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Herb Martin
>> A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a
>> sprinkle
>> of background checks?
>>
>> Well?
>
> **Since you clearly can't be bothered finding out, I'll tell you.
>
> * Each gun is to be licensed, as are the owners.
Unacceptable to LICENSE a RIGHT. It is no longer a right and
so represent an infringement.
> * Each gun is to be kept locked in a gun safe, when not being used.
Dubious.
> * No civilian may carry concealed guns.
Every law abiding citizen has an unalienable right to keep AND
BEAR arms.a
35+ States now agree.
> * ALL gun sales must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
There you go licensing a right again.
> * Authorities are able to inspect guns and gun safes, at any time, without
> warning. Any breach of storage rules will result in confiscation of guns
> and possibly licences.
And giving up 4th and 5th Amendment rights in order to exercise
the 2nd Amendment and other rights....
Insane -- and I thought you were for SANE gun laws?
> That is the basic stuff. Every Western, developed nation (including
> Switzerland) has similar laws. Oh, except the US.
We can pity them.
--
Herb Martin
James Beck
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au says...
suicides.
If you removed those deaths the numbers would be much smaller.
They also like to include 19 year old gang bangers as "children" when
they add up gun deaths in that demographic.
Statistics, they are FANTASTIC.
Jim
John P
> **I never suggested otherwise. With guns, however, those violent people
> are capable of more deadly violence.
There's nothing worse than being more dead.
A can of gas and a match, a backpack full of explosives, or a box cutter and
an airplane would seem a lot more deadly than a gun.
John P
> You guys are in a lose-lose situation. If it is not the guns then it
> must be because Americans are more homicidal by nature.
"More" as compared to what or who?
> Gun nuts often argue that the American society is less violent because
> you guys are armed. The number of armed US LEOs that are killed
> compared to unarmed UK cops makes that a totally bogus argument.
Is it possible the number of US cops killed is greater because there are a
greater number of US cops?
> Other gun nuts accept that American society is more violent but it has
> nothing to do with guns they argue. Fine but they do not put forward
> any explanation as to why American society is more violent
I thought it was self evident. A society is violent (or not) because some
number of people within that society are violent (or not). There are other
countries that are far more violent than the US. If you want a simple one
line answer as to why some people are more violent than others, you won't
get one. That people choose violence or crime is a bit more complex than
that.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
John P wrote:
> <IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > You guys are in a lose-lose situation. If it is not the guns then it
> > must be because Americans are more homicidal by nature.
>
> "More" as compared to what or who?
As compared to people who are not American?
> > Gun nuts often argue that the American society is less violent because
> > you guys are armed. The number of armed US LEOs that are killed
> > compared to unarmed UK cops makes that a totally bogus argument.
>
> Is it possible the number of US cops killed is greater because there are a
> greater number of US cops?
Is it possible that I am fully aware that the UK pop is 60m compared to
the US's 300m and that the cops probably are roughly of the same ratio?
> > Other gun nuts accept that American society is more violent but it has
> > nothing to do with guns they argue. Fine but they do not put forward
> > any explanation as to why American society is more violent
>
> I thought it was self evident. A society is violent (or not) because some
> number of people within that society are violent (or not).
Do you are any more ground breaking insights (or not).
> There are other
> countries that are far more violent than the US.
Name one that is not some third world shithole or some former Soviet
Bloc country.
SaPeIsMa
> <IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>> You guys are in a lose-lose situation. If it is not the guns then it
>> must be because Americans are more homicidal by nature.
>
> "More" as compared to what or who?
>
>> Gun nuts often argue that the American society is less violent because
>> you guys are armed. The number of armed US LEOs that are killed
>> compared to unarmed UK cops makes that a totally bogus argument.
>
> Is it possible the number of US cops killed is greater because there are a
> greater number of US cops?
>
The other thing is that most US LEOs are killed in car accidents, not shot
>> Other gun nuts accept that American society is more violent but it has
>> nothing to do with guns they argue. Fine but they do not put forward
>> any explanation as to why American society is more violent
>
> I thought it was self evident. A society is violent (or not) because some
> number of people within that society are violent (or not). There are other
> countries that are far more violent than the US. If you want a simple one
> line answer as to why some people are more violent than others, you won't
> get one. That people choose violence or crime is a bit more complex than
> that.
Just look at the homicide rates of countries like Mexico and Jamaica.
They are far more violent than the US and yet guns are strictly controlled.
So CLEARLY it's not the presence of guns or even their lack of presence that
defines what causes a violent country.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129205791.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You really should include the part of the message that you are commenting
on. I have no idea what you are talking about.
But if I was an idjit I would surround myself with other idjits that were
progun. Its a no brainer to like guns. Only elitist douche bags think nobody
should own a gun.
D.L. Man
>
> > A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a
sprinkle
> > of background checks?
> >
> > Well?
>
> **Since you clearly can't be bothered finding out, I'll tell you.
>
> * Each gun is to be licensed, as are the owners.
> * Each gun is to be kept locked in a gun safe, when not being used.
> * No civilian may carry concealed guns.
> * ALL gun sales must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
> * Authorities are able to inspect guns and gun safes, at any time, without
> warning. Any breach of storage rules will result in confiscation of guns
and
> possibly licences.
>
> That is the basic stuff. Every Western, developed nation (including
> Switzerland) has similar laws. Oh, except the US.
>
a mountain out of a mole hill, because law abiding citizens don't need that
kind of nanny state to own firearms.
Sorry to stupid, won't work. I'm sorry the rest of the world doesn't stick
up for themselves.
D.L. Man
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129206445....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Be careful with those guns. Some people that think they know better might be
worried that you will go on a shooting spree and kill the children.
>
Trevor Wilson
>
>>
>> > A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a
> sprinkle
>> > of background checks?
>> >
>> > Well?
>>
>> **Since you clearly can't be bothered finding out, I'll tell you.
>>
>> * Each gun is to be licensed, as are the owners.
>> * Each gun is to be kept locked in a gun safe, when not being used.
>> * No civilian may carry concealed guns.
>> * ALL gun sales must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
>> * Authorities are able to inspect guns and gun safes, at any time,
>> without
>> warning. Any breach of storage rules will result in confiscation of guns
> and
>> possibly licences.
>>
>> That is the basic stuff. Every Western, developed nation (including
>> Switzerland) has similar laws. Oh, except the US.
>>
> And that is why it won't work. We have the right to privacy.
**Have you read the Patriot Act? You just lost a chunk of those rights.
Guess what? As long as Dubya is (incompetently) running the US, you will
probably have to endure further erosion of your rights.
And its making
> a mountain out of a mole hill, because law abiding citizens don't need
> that
> kind of nanny state to own firearms.
> Sorry to stupid, won't work. I'm sorry the rest of the world doesn't stick
> up for themselves.
**The rest of the world (well, the Western, developed part) has a vastly
lower homicide rate, via the use of firearms thanks to the controls listed
above.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
John P
>>> You guys are in a lose-lose situation. If it is not the guns then it
>>> must be because Americans are more homicidal by nature.
>> "More" as compared to what or who?
> As compared to people who are not American?
On a per capita basis, America ranks 24th for per capita homicide.... so,
you mean non-Americans other than those people from 23 other countries?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
>> Is it possible the number of US cops killed is greater because there are
>> a
>> greater number of US cops?
> Is it possible that I am fully aware that the UK pop is 60m compared to
> the US's 300m and that the cops probably are roughly of the same ratio?
I suppose it's possible.
>>> Other gun nuts accept that American society is more violent but it has
>>> nothing to do with guns they argue. Fine but they do not put forward
>>> any explanation as to why American society is more violent
>> I thought it was self evident. A society is violent (or not) because some
>> number of people within that society are violent (or not).
> Do you are any more ground breaking insights (or not).
I didn't find it ground breaking. I thought it to be self evident. I was
curious why you'd need anyone to put forth an explanation.
>> There are other
>> countries that are far more violent than the US.
> Name one that is not some third world shithole or some former Soviet
> Bloc country.
Why would we not count all countries when making a statement that Americans
are "more" (as compared to people who are not American)?
Do any of the 23 countries listed above the US in the provided per capita
chart fit your criteria?
John P
> **The rest of the world (well, the Western, developed part) has a vastly
> lower homicide rate, via the use of firearms thanks to the controls listed
> above.
Actually, the US per capita rate is 0.02 per 1,000. There are no countries
that have a *vastly* lower rate, as 0.02 is pretty low to begin with.
Countries with lower rates come in at 0.01 or 0.0 (the latter probably not
indicating that there are zero murders where a gun is involved, but rather
some number 0.009 or less.)
D.L. Man
>
> "D.L. Man" <brave...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:wsadnSTZvfV...@comcast.com...
> >
> >>
> >> > A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a
> > sprinkle
> >> > of background checks?
> >> >
> >> > Well?
> >>
> >> **Since you clearly can't be bothered finding out, I'll tell you.
> >>
> >> * Each gun is to be licensed, as are the owners.
> >> * Each gun is to be kept locked in a gun safe, when not being used.
> >> * No civilian may carry concealed guns.
> >> * ALL gun sales must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
> >> * Authorities are able to inspect guns and gun safes, at any time,
> >> without
> >> warning. Any breach of storage rules will result in confiscation of
guns
> > and
> >> possibly licences.
> >>
> >> That is the basic stuff. Every Western, developed nation (including
> >> Switzerland) has similar laws. Oh, except the US.
> >>
> > And that is why it won't work. We have the right to privacy.
>
> **Have you read the Patriot Act? You just lost a chunk of those rights.
> Guess what? As long as Dubya is (incompetently) running the US, you will
> probably have to endure further erosion of your rights.
Your changing the subject. We are talking about gun laws being a lost cause
and you are talking about something that doesn't match its title very well.
I get pissed by .gov's that can't protect all our freedoms and make more
choices for us to have. But some will grab guns othere will grab privacy and
I would like someone that will work hard not to run my life as they see fit.
>
> And its making
> > a mountain out of a mole hill, because law abiding citizens don't need
> > that
> > kind of nanny state to own firearms.
> > Sorry to stupid, won't work. I'm sorry the rest of the world doesn't
stick
> > up for themselves.
>
> **The rest of the world (well, the Western, developed part) has a vastly
> lower homicide rate, via the use of firearms thanks to the controls listed
> above.
Like where?
Who would want to live there?
Why not point out that more restrictions doesn't work. In fact less
restrictions and personal choices are proactive and gun control in anti
proactive and really bad reactive responses.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
New G and how that proves gun control does not work. You then flame the
guy for advocating gun control even though he has just proven gun
control does not work ... Yeah, in Papua New G.
As for wishing to surround yourself with other progun idjits, your wish
has been granted many times over bud.
I remember reading about some US inner city mums having an anti gun
protest march. I think they would disagree with your conclusion that
they are elitist douche bags.
Why do you guys think that there must be something wrong with anyone
who regard you as twitchy paranoid nut cases? Is it a self defence
mechanism? A bit like the all knowing party bore who tells himself that
he is disliked because people are intimidated by his brilliance.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
and is not a third world shithole or a former Soviet Bloc country and
you come back with a list of countries that is stacked with third world
shitholes or former Soviet Bloc countries????
Try comparing the US to countries where the people enjoy the same
standard of economic and political development. I mean, hasn't yo momma
ever taught you to compare like with like? When you are looking for a
pay rise do you compare yourself to some worker in Inda and say 'boy am
I overpaid'. No you don't. You compare yourself to someone in the same
company or country or evenGermany or Japan.
Some months ago a progunner made the argument that Iraqis are safer in
their countries compared to DC and co. Why? Because their citizens own
AK47s. Some war torn country is safer than your nation's capital and
you guys are making the point that guns keep Iraqis safe????
IP_St...@hotmail.com
answer.
There you guys go again comparing the USA to some developing country.
When you sit down with your boss and discuss your employment conditions
and renumeration do you compare yourself to your counterpart in Mexico
or Jamaica? Of course you don't. So why do you do it when it comes to
crime and gun control?
You can ban all the guns in Rwanda and that won't stop mass killings
with machetes and knives. But that doesn't mean gun control will have
no effect in the USA.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
right. lol
I'm supposed to be jealous that American society is more violent
compared to mine? lol some more. That is right bud. I'm jealous that I
don't like in a society where its members need to go armed in order to
feel safe or distrust their government so much that they cite as a
justification the need to be armed in order to protect themselves from
their elected officials.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
nuclear weapons so why restrict ownership of nuclear weapons eh? It
takes an idjit to advance the argument that you should only have an all
or nothing approach to controll things that can kill you.
Chris Morton
IP_St...@hotmail.com says...
>I remember reading about some US inner city mums having an anti gun
>protest march. I think they would disagree with your conclusion that
>they are elitist douche bags.
"Go to hell, it's every man for himself!" - The New Orleans PD to the public
Yeah, they don't need guns, the police will "protect" them....
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
James Beck wrote:
> In article <1129118617.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> IP_St...@hotmail.com says...
> > I just love it when idjits compare the USA to some third world shithole
> > and draw the conclusion that crime in the USA isn't that bad or that
> > gun control doesn't work over there.
> >
> > Try comparing the USA to a country like Japan or Singapore that have
> > restrictive gun laws AND low rates of violent crime.
> >
> >
> I just love it when "idjits" compare the USA to countries that have a
> totally different culture and try to say that it is the restrictive gun
> laws that are responsible for low rates of violent crime.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> > But surely, in all the studies that have been undertaken, we should be
> > able
> > to see at least some conclusive evidence somewhere that these programs or
> > laws work. But there is none.
>
> **I have one suggestion: Compare the homicide rates (via gunshot) in all the
> WESTERN, DEVELOPED nations. Look at which nation has the most relaxed gun
> control laws. Look at which nation has the highest homicide rates. See a
> correlation?
>
Why should being Western and devloped matter in regards to homicide
rates?
Mexico is a Western nation.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
> news:vW93f.30023$Q53....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> > <IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129118617.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>I just love it when idjits compare the USA to some third world shithole
> >> and draw the conclusion that crime in the USA isn't that bad or that
> >> gun control doesn't work over there.
> >
> >> Try comparing the USA to a country like Japan or Singapore that have
> >
> > states in regards to criminal suspects and investigations plus the
> > other cultural differences.
> >
> >> restrictive gun laws AND low rates of violent crime.
> >>
> >
> > and there is almost no violent crime.
>
> **Switzerland, like ALL Western, developed nations (except one) has tough,
> sane, HOMOGEOUS gun control laws. The US has haphazard, nonsensical and lax
> gun control laws. The US also has, by a long margin, the highest gun related
> homicide rate of any Western, developed nation.
Why do you want to restrict the comparsion to Western, developed
nations? Why not compare to all nations whose names start with the
letter "U"? That has as much relevance.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> > "Trevor Wilson" wrote in a message
> >
> >> **Switzerland, like ALL Western, developed nations (except one) has
> >> tough, sane, HOMOGEOUS gun control laws. The US has haphazard,
> >> nonsensical and lax gun control laws. The US also has, by a long margin,
> >> the highest gun related homicide rate of any Western, developed nation.
> >
> > that society. It has nothing to do with guns. Take away their guns and
> > those same people will be equally as violent.
>
> **I never suggested otherwise. With guns, however, those violent people are
> that they allow those violent people easy and cheap access to guns (notably:
> handguns). Those gun control laws are also not applied across the entire US,
> in any kind of homogenous fashion. Nor are those gun control laws adequately
> policed. This situation is not even remotely close to any other Western,
> developed nation.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
There you go again with this Western, developed thing? What does
that have to do with the subject at hand?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
IP_St...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I just love it when gun nut idjits get caught up in friendly fire. I
> mean, you have DL Man who is comparing the USA to a country that has a
> different culture AND vastly different socio-economic make up. DL Man
> will be glad to find that you have grouped him with people who you
> consider to be idjits
>
> I am at least comparing the USA to countries that are at the same stage
> of economic and socio political development.
That makes as much sense as comparing to USA to other countries
whose names start with the same letter. Why not compare USA to ALL
countries?
Michael
James Beck
meje...@hotmail.com says...
Guess you missed out on that one.
Maybe you should be a little more descriptive of your point.
Jim
James F. Mayer
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129292384.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So, you "don't 'like' in a society where its members need to go armed"?
And you post a spelling flame.
James F. Mayer
"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129297193.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
To cherry pick their data.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129289025....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You quoted an article from a guy who went on about gun control in Papua
> New G and how that proves gun control does not work. You then flame the
> guy for advocating gun control even though he has just proven gun
> control does not work ... Yeah, in Papua New G.
>
> As for wishing to surround yourself with other progun idjits, your wish
> has been granted many times over bud.
>
> I remember reading about some US inner city mums having an anti gun
> protest march.
What's a mum? Is that anything like mothers?
I think they would disagree with your conclusion that
> they are elitist douche bags.
Sheeple that don't know anybetter. Hippies that don't have a brain in their
heads and will follow the crunchy tunes and croad of other loosers.
>
> Why do you guys think that there must be something wrong with anyone
> who regard you as twitchy paranoid nut cases?
That's a pretty wide brush your are painting with there. Maybe you are just
deflacting your own worries onto others.
Is it a self defence
> mechanism? A bit like the all knowing party bore who tells himself that
> he is disliked because people are intimidated by his brilliance.
I have been at parties where I was talking to people who didn't get my
jokes. I don't think they were dumb and I was to brilliant. I just thought
they don't get me sense of humor.
Morton Davis
"James F. Mayer" <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:LuU3f.14984$QE1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
However, I like having that option if I so DESIRE.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
Morton Davis wrote:
> IP is a hoot. No one in our society NEDDS to go about armed to feel safe.
lol. You got posters who go on about how they carry full size 1911s in
a hot weather state like Arizona. You got guys who go on about carrying
extra clips of ammo. And these are non-leos talking. Do you want to
tell them that no one needs to go armed to feel safe and that they are
just being paranoid?
IP_St...@hotmail.com
guy. But if all you do is type ONE word and you can't get that right
then its a whole different ball game.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
world shithole where people still shit into holes dug into the ground.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129291668....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I asked you to cite a country that has a higher rate of violent crime
> and is not a third world shithole or a former Soviet Bloc country and
> you come back with a list of countries that is stacked with third world
> shitholes or former Soviet Bloc countries????
>
> Try comparing the US to countries where the people enjoy the same
> standard of economic and political development. I mean, hasn't yo momma
> ever taught you to compare like with like? When you are looking for a
> pay rise do you compare yourself to some worker in Inda and say 'boy am
> I overpaid'. No you don't. You compare yourself to someone in the same
> company or country or evenGermany or Japan.
There isn't a country like our good ol' USA. We are the best biggest and
freest. You can only compare states with in the US if you need a decent
sample. Other wise its comparing apples to oranges.
I would compare Virgina with DC or even rode island with DC. And if you use
the gun laws only and gun deaths you might find that restricting guns
doesn't reduce gun deaths and doesn't stop people from breaking the law.
Your arguement does hold water.
> Some months ago a progunner made the argument that Iraqis are safer in
> their countries compared to DC and co. Why? Because their citizens own
> AK47s. Some war torn country is safer than your nation's capital and
> you guys are making the point that guns keep Iraqis safe????
Describe a situation where some Iraqi that would use a gun for self
defense. Would not be better than a person that doesn't use one against a
person meaning them harm.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129292076.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How do you come to that conclusion? It seems like your grasping at straws
and hoping that it would work for us even though it has shown not to work
elsewhere.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
guns in order to feel safe.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129292384.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So you hate America and its freedoms and would attack all of its foundations
in order to spite it?
IP_St...@hotmail.com
wage jobs.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
Europeans but when it comes to crime, why do you insist on comparing
yourself to lesser developed nations? I mean, if US women can't vote
then would you then argue that in some Arab states women can get stoned
to death because their husband accuses them of adultery so isn't life
in the USA great. Or would you look to places like Germany or France
for a comparison. If some worn torn African nation was imploding would
you say that crime is DC is not that bad because its worse in Rwanda?
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129323384....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Morton Davis wrote:
>
> > IP is a hoot. No one in our society NEDDS to go about armed to feel
safe.
>
I think that he was being sarcastic. Do you know what sarcasm is?
> lol. You got posters who go on about how they carry full size 1911s in
> a hot weather state like Arizona.
What does that hove to do with anything that we are talking about. Denver
gets hot in the summer and I still carry a full sized EAA witness.
You got guys who go on about carrying
> extra clips of ammo.
Unless they are carrying a Garand or a Mauser pistol they wouldn't use
"clips" they would have magazines. Small difference but I thought I would
point that out since you wanted to spit hairs earlier.
And these are non-leos talking. Do you want to
> tell them that no one needs to go armed to feel safe and that they are
> just being paranoid?
Non LEOS carrying is a normal thing you twit. Nobody wants to argue with
someone filling their gas tanks when they are just driving to the store. Way
would someone care if they brought extra "magazines" with their privately
own gun? Are they being paranoid for filling their gas tanks? Such a stupid
argument for someone that isn't scared by hearing about someone carrying a
gun with evil banana clips. You would have to come up with something wrong
with that to be understood.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129292384.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> "Jelious" ?? You type one word in your reply and you can't ge that
> right. lol
>
Spell check doesn't always work. Blame Microsoft.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
bags' to include 'Hippies that don't have a brain in their
heads'. I'm still trying to figure out which of your categories these
mothers fall into.
Asmodeus
> How do you come to that conclusion? It seems like your grasping at
> straws and hoping that it would work for us even though it has
> shown not to work elsewhere.
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a
century and a half of trying, that they must sweep under the rug the
southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the
northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both
Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated,
complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime."
"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on
the Constitution," Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
February 1982, p. vii.
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/artkba1.html
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129325492.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I don't like to pigeon hole things. But if they are mothers that don't like
guns and they are supported by elitists douche bags then they are sheeple.
If they are just hippies with out a brain in their heads they are idiots
that hate war everything that can be related to war without any reason what
so ever. So its a combination of sheeple that hope to because elitists
douche bags if they ever sober up and get ambition.
D.L. Man
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129323957.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, Japan and Singapore make a better comparison than some third
> world shithole where people still shit into holes dug into the ground.
I shit in hole when I go camping. But I see what you are saying. But I can't
buy an AK-47 even though I would buy one if I could. What are you comparing
here? Money or government tyranny?
John P
>I asked you to cite a country that has a higher rate of violent crime
> and is not a third world shithole or a former Soviet Bloc country and
> you come back with a list of countries that is stacked with third world
> shitholes or former Soviet Bloc countries????
Actually, I provided a link to a page of statistics. We were talking about
the homicidal nature of humans. I felt it unreasonable to expect that it is
somehow more acceptable to be homicidal if you are from a third world or
Soviet bloc country. Poverty doesn't cause violence. Certainly, Soviet bloc
countries, with extremely strict gun control, should be expected to be LESS
violent.
> Try comparing the US to countries where the people enjoy the same
> standard of economic and political development. I mean, hasn't yo momma
> ever taught you to compare like with like?
Yes. Thus my comparison of humans to humans.
John P
> I'm supposed to be jealous that American society is more violent
> compared to mine? lol some more. That is right bud. I'm jealous that I
> don't like in a society where its members need to go armed in order to
> feel safe or distrust their government so much that they cite as a
> justification the need to be armed in order to protect themselves from
> their elected officials.
We'd have understood your point if you had simply admitted to being
clueless, rather than providing several examples.
John P
> lol. You got posters who go on about how they carry full size 1911s in
> a hot weather state like Arizona. You got guys who go on about carrying
> extra clips of ammo. And these are non-leos talking. Do you want to
> tell them that no one needs to go armed to feel safe and that they are
> just being paranoid?
The cool thing about freedom is that you don't have to justify "why" you do
anything. You only need to stay within the limits of the law and you can do
whatever you want, whether others agree or not.
John P
> When Americans talk about standard of living they compare themselves to
> Europeans...
I suppose we could compare standard of living to third world countries, but
pretty much anyone could guess what the results of such a comparison would
be without ever seeing the data. What would be the point?
> ... but when it comes to crime, why do you insist on comparing
> yourself to lesser developed nations?
Is your implication that high crime rates are acceptable if you don't have
running water and a big screen TV?
Felix D.
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:434d...@news.comindico.com.au...
> What's your point? How does suicide (a personal choice) relate to homicide
> (a non-personal choice)?
No guns, but a high suicide rate. Higher than here, where we still have
guns.
Trevor Wilson
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
>> news:vW93f.30023$Q53....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> > <IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1129118617.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>I just love it when idjits compare the USA to some third world shithole
>> >> and draw the conclusion that crime in the USA isn't that bad or that
>> >> gun control doesn't work over there.
>> >
>> >> Try comparing the USA to a country like Japan or Singapore that have
>> >
>> > states in regards to criminal suspects and investigations plus the
>> > other cultural differences.
>> >
>> >> restrictive gun laws AND low rates of violent crime.
>> >>
>> >
>> > and there is almost no violent crime.
>>
>> **Switzerland, like ALL Western, developed nations (except one) has
>> tough,
>> sane, HOMOGEOUS gun control laws. The US has haphazard, nonsensical and
>> lax
>> gun control laws. The US also has, by a long margin, the highest gun
>> related
>> homicide rate of any Western, developed nation.
> Why do you want to restrict the comparsion to Western, developed
> nations?
**Because it makes sense to compare apples with apples and not apples with
bricks. All Western, developed nations have approximately similar social
conditions, simlar laws (presumption of innocence, etc) and similar wage
levels.
Why not compare to all nations whose names start with the
> letter "U"? That has as much relevance.
**Do you REALLY think so? Or are you just being obtuse?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
ozark...@yahoo.com
Wrong.
As usual
Trevor Wilson
"D.L. Man" <brave...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:bf6dndSV1LV...@comcast.com...> news:434e...@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> "D.L. Man" <brave...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:wsadnSTZvfV...@comcast.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > A dash of trigger locks with a neutering of scary features. And a
>> > sprinkle
>> >> > of background checks?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well?
>> >>
>> >> **Since you clearly can't be bothered finding out, I'll tell you.
>> >>
>> >> * Each gun is to be licensed, as are the owners.
>> >> * Each gun is to be kept locked in a gun safe, when not being used.
>> >> * No civilian may carry concealed guns.
>> >> * ALL gun sales must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
>> >> * Authorities are able to inspect guns and gun safes, at any time,
>> >> without
>> >> warning. Any breach of storage rules will result in confiscation of
> guns
>> > and
>> >> possibly licences.
>> >>
>> >> That is the basic stuff. Every Western, developed nation (including
>> >> Switzerland) has similar laws. Oh, except the US.
>> >>
>> > And that is why it won't work. We have the right to privacy.
>>
>> **Have you read the Patriot Act? You just lost a chunk of those rights.
>> Guess what? As long as Dubya is (incompetently) running the US, you will
>> probably have to endure further erosion of your rights.
>
> Your changing the subject.
**YOU were the one talking about rights, not me. The US Patriot Act stripped
rights away from US citizens. One of those rights is the right to privacy.
We are talking about gun laws being a lost cause
> and you are talking about something that doesn't match its title very
> well.
>
> I get pissed by .gov's that can't protect all our freedoms and make more
> choices for us to have. But some will grab guns othere will grab privacy
> and
> I would like someone that will work hard not to run my life as they see
> fit.
>
>
>>
>> And its making
>> > a mountain out of a mole hill, because law abiding citizens don't need
>> > that
>> > kind of nanny state to own firearms.
>> > Sorry to stupid, won't work. I'm sorry the rest of the world doesn't
> stick
>> > up for themselves.
>>
>> **The rest of the world (well, the Western, developed part) has a vastly
>> lower homicide rate, via the use of firearms thanks to the controls
>> listed
>> above.
>
> Like where?
**Like:
Australia
New Zealand.
The UK.
Sweden
Switzerland
Holland
France
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Italy
Et al
> Who would want to live there?
**Presumably, most of the people who already live in those places.
Certainly, I like living in Australia.
> Why not point out that more restrictions doesn't work.
**Because they actually DO work in all the places listed.
In fact less
> restrictions and personal choices are proactive and gun control in anti
> proactive and really bad reactive responses.
**And yet, in the US vastly more people get shot to death (per capita) than
in any other Western, developed nation.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
John P
>> Why do you want to restrict the comparsion to Western, developed
>> nations?
> **Because it makes sense to compare apples with apples and not apples with
> bricks. All Western, developed nations have approximately similar social
> conditions, simlar laws (presumption of innocence, etc) and similar wage
> levels.
Since we are talking about the homicidal nature of a given group of humans,
is your implied statement then that it is OK or expected for non-western
nations to be more homicidal, or are you saying they aren't humans?
I am comparing humans to humans. Humans are very similar to humans. It's a
solid comparison.
John P
> **And yet, in the US vastly more people get shot to death (per capita)
> than in any other Western, developed nation.
0.02<something> per 1,000 vs. something less than 0.02<something> is
*vastly* more?
Would that be like traveling across a vast one acre prairie?
ozark...@yahoo.com
Really? Enumerate them?
Sorry, I forgot you can't.
But that hasn't changed. So apparently something else is at work
besides gun control laws. Any clue? (Of course not!!)
Michael Ejercito
privacy.
Australia and New Zealand are not Western nations. Mexico IS a
Western nation. Jamaica IS a Western nation.
>
> > Who would want to live there?
>
> **Presumably, most of the people who already live in those places.
> Certainly, I like living in Australia.
>
> > Why not point out that more restrictions doesn't work.
>
> **Because they actually DO work in all the places listed.
And they do not work in other place NOT listed.
>
> In fact less
> > restrictions and personal choices are proactive and gun control in anti
> > proactive and really bad reactive responses.
>
> **And yet, in the US vastly more people get shot to death (per capita) than
> in any other Western, developed nation.
Being Western and developed is wholly irrelevant to the subject.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
issue?
>
> Why not compare to all nations whose names start with the
> > letter "U"? That has as much relevance.
>
> **Do you REALLY think so? Or are you just being obtuse?
Yes, I really think so.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
is no reason that crime is acceptable because it happens in a
less-developed country.
Michael
IP_St...@hotmail.com
violent than the US? And then other pro gunners cite DGU stats that, if
they were true, show the US to be a crime shithole.
Trevor Wilson
>> > But surely, in all the studies that have been undertaken, we should be
>> > able
>> > to see at least some conclusive evidence somewhere that these programs
>> > or
>> > laws work. But there is none.
>>
>> **I have one suggestion: Compare the homicide rates (via gunshot) in all
>> the
>> WESTERN, DEVELOPED nations. Look at which nation has the most relaxed gun
>> control laws. Look at which nation has the highest homicide rates. See a
>> correlation?
>>
> Why should being Western and devloped matter in regards to homicide
> rates?
**Because we are comparing nation with nation. If you imagine that comparing
the US with, say, Somalia makes any kind of sense, then there is little I
can do to help you.
> Mexico is a Western nation.
**So? What does that have to do with my comments?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
IP_St...@hotmail.com
conversation.
In many of these countries there is no welfare. They have Aids, famine,
civil war. Sometimes you have no choice but to steal or starve. Compare
that to a country where anyone who is prepared to work can work. A guy
turning to crime in such an affluent society is a different man to
some African who is doing it just to survive.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
IP_St...@hotmail.com
African then chances are that half your children will never achieve
adulthood. You will probably have lost most of your family to Aids,
famine and civil wars. Human life does not have the same value as that
held by say an American or an Englishman.
Some African stealing to survive is not the same as some American
stealing because it beats working in Pizza Hut.
If you want to compare humans to humans without regard to socio
economic and political development then you have idjits posting about
how apartied South African weren't racist compare to Americans that
enslaved Blacks over a hundred years ago. You are saying lets compare
Americans to Africans. Fine so lets compare Americans to previous
generations of Americans.
IP_St...@hotmail.com
having Mexico grouped under "third world shithole".
Trevor Wilson
"John P" <John...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F8WdnedBCYU...@comcast.com...
> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in a message
>
>> **And yet, in the US vastly more people get shot to death (per capita)
>> than in any other Western, developed nation.
>
> 0.02<something> per 1,000 vs. something less than 0.02<something> is
> *vastly* more?
**In the US, approximately 10 times more people are shot to death than in
any other Western, developed nation.
>
> Would that be like traveling across a vast one acre prairie?
**Nope. The figures are clear and unequivocal.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in a message
>
>>> Why do you want to restrict the comparsion to Western, developed
>>> nations?
>
>> **Because it makes sense to compare apples with apples and not apples
>> with bricks. All Western, developed nations have approximately similar
>> social conditions, simlar laws (presumption of innocence, etc) and
>> similar wage levels.
>
> Since we are talking about the homicidal nature of a given group of
> humans, is your implied statement then that it is OK or expected for
> non-western nations to be more homicidal, or are you saying they aren't
> humans?
**No and no.
>
> I am comparing humans to humans. Humans are very similar to humans. It's a
> solid comparison.
**Good for you. You can compare anything you want. The rest of us consider
that comparing similar nations, with similar social conditions makes sense.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
John P
First of all, is there any particular reason why you don't quote the message
you are responding to?
> Who said anything about it being acceptable? You are making up your own
> conversation.
Nope. Just trying to follow your logic. We should count murders in western
countries, but discount those in non-western countries. To further harm your
argument here, you go on to say:
> In many of these countries there is no welfare. They have Aids, famine,
> civil war. Sometimes you have no choice but to steal or starve. Compare
> that to a country where anyone who is prepared to work can work. A guy
> turning to crime in such an affluent society is a different man to
> some African who is doing it just to survive.
Where you clearly indicate that "some times you have no choice..." (you say
to steal or starve, we were talking about murder). So, it is your belief
that crime, including murder, is OK, based on some living conditions, but
are willing to ignore that there are millions of people living in those same
conditions who *never* turn to crime.
I don't buy it. Humans are humans and they almost never turn to MURDER for
any justifiable reason (the least of which being employment or food). I will
continue to compare humans to humans. If you wish to find stealing and
murder acceptable under certain conditions, that is your choice. It does
nothing to invalidate a comparison of humans to humans.
John P
> Your environment shapes the person that you are.
The more we learn, the more it seems that environment place a very small
role in who people are. Especially in the area of crime, and especially with
a crime as serious as murder.
> If you are some African then chances are that half your children will
> never achieve adulthood. You will probably have lost most of your family
> to Aids, famine and civil wars. Human life does not have the same value
> as that held by say an American or an Englishman.
And this makes murder accpetable?
> Some African stealing to survive is not the same as some American
> stealing because it beats working in Pizza Hut.
We weren't discussing stealing, we were discussing murder.
> If you want to compare humans to humans without regard to socio
> economic and political development then you have idjits posting about
> how apartied South African weren't racist compare to Americans that
> enslaved Blacks over a hundred years ago. You are saying lets compare
> Americans to Africans. Fine so lets compare Americans to previous
> generations of Americans.
Let's stick with murder and compare humans to humans.
John P
>> 0.02<something> per 1,000 vs. something less than 0.02<something> is
>> *vastly* more?
> **In the US, approximately 10 times more people are shot to death than in
> any other Western, developed nation.
On a per capita basis, or just raw numbers?
The US is #8 at 0.0279271 per 1,000
Drop down to Switzerland at #19 and they are at 0.00534117 per 1,000
0.00534117 x 10 = 0.053412
Zimbabwe at #4 is lower than that (0.04<something>)
So... where did you get this 10 times more number?
> **Nope. The figures are clear and unequivocal.
Yup. Maybe you're using "new" math or something.
John P
> **Good for you. You can compare anything you want. The rest of us consider
> that comparing similar nations, with similar social conditions makes
> sense.
If it works as well as your math, you may want to look into making some
changes.
Personally, if I take a bullet to the head in the US or Africa, the results
are likely to be the same. If you understand the nature of murder, implying
that humans are more likely to murder because they don't have $300 Nikes is
beyond ridiculous. Millions of people, throughout the history of man, have
lived in dire conditions without resorting to murder.