The Acid Test - or What Happens If Guns Become Scarce

[Mr. B1ack]

If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?

Well ...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/14/acid-becoming-weapon-choice-among-teens-in-london-amid-growing-attacks.html

Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London
amid growing attacks :

A horrific wave of acid attacks have overtaken London, leaving victims
gruesomely disfigured and suffering life-altering injuries amid a
growing trend that's seen the corrosive liquid become the weapon of
choice for British attackers.

Two teenagers, 15 and 16, were arrested Friday following an overnight
swath of attacks in which men on mopeds injured several people by
tossing a noxious substance in their faces.

At least one victim, a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing
injuries, police said.

Similar high-profile attacks have been plaguing the British city in
recent months. In one assault, a 25-year-old man is accused of
throwing acid at an aspiring model and her cousin as they sat in their
car.

The number of reported attacks using corrosive liquids rose from 261
in 2015 to 454 in 2016, London police said. Some appeared to be
related to gang activity or the theft of cars and motorbikes.

Most notably, in April, two people were left partially blinded after
acid was sprayed at a crowded east London nightclub. A man has been
charged and is awaiting trial.

The use of acid in attacks has even spread to children as young as 12
who have been arming themselves with substances "for self-defense."

. . . . . . .

This isn't even terrorists ... it's the Johnny on the street.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
<now...@nada.net> wrote:

>If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?

Probably not. We have endemic violence because we are a violent,
aggressive people. What it might help is that, in a true "self
defense" situation, weapons escalation tends to favor the attacker.

This means that, if we're both unarmed, I will have a better chance
than if we both have machine-guns because I have no idea when or from
where the attack will come. (This assumes that *I* am the defender; if
I'm the attacker, I like guns... and I want *you* to have guns because
guns are valuable.)

Jones

[de chucka]

On 15/07/2017 12:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>
> Well ...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/14/acid-becoming-weapon-choice-among-teens-in-london-amid-growing-attacks.html
>
> Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London
> amid growing attacks :

Interesting! Black is claiming causation between lack of guns and acid
attacks

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:02:29 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
><now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
>>If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>
>Probably not. We have endemic violence because we are a violent,
>aggressive people. What it might help is that, in a true "self
>defense" situation, weapons escalation tends to favor the attacker.

Cites?

>
>This means that, if we're both unarmed, I will have a better chance
>than if we both have machine-guns because I have no idea when or from
>where the attack will come. (This assumes that *I* am the defender; if
>I'm the attacker, I like guns... and I want *you* to have guns because
>guns are valuable.)
>
>Jones

you are a true blithering idiot. Is it noted on your bus pass?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scout]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nb2mmc50ubfh54qab...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:02:29 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
>><now...@nada.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>>
>>Probably not. We have endemic violence because we are a violent,
>>aggressive people. What it might help is that, in a true "self
>>defense" situation, weapons escalation tends to favor the attacker.
>
> Cites?

I would like to see that as well, since the attacker, as a criminal, is
already armed with whatever they want. A weapons escalation can only close
or eliminate the gap between the capabilities of the criminal and their
intended victim, thus evening the odds.

After all, how are you going to keep a criminal from having, carrying and
using whatever weapon they chose in crime?

Pass a law?

If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 03:25:50 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nb2mmc50ubfh54qab...@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:02:29 -0500, !Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-idiots: yes
>>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
>>><now...@nada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>>>
>>>Probably not. We have endemic violence because we are a violent,
>>>aggressive people. What it might help is that, in a true "self
>>>defense" situation, weapons escalation tends to favor the attacker.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>
>I would like to see that as well, since the attacker, as a criminal, is
>already armed with whatever they want. A weapons escalation can only close
>or eliminate the gap between the capabilities of the criminal and their
>intended victim, thus evening the odds.
>
>After all, how are you going to keep a criminal from having, carrying and
>using whatever weapon they chose in crime?
>
>Pass a law?
>
>If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>
>

Absolutely correct. A simply proof is the city of Chicago..its ban on
handguns and its death rate each weekend.

[max headroom]

In news:vuOdnXPuXKPtTffE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

You really don't get this correlation/causation thing, do ya?

[max headroom]

In news:phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> typed:

> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?

> Well ...

> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/14/acid-becoming-weapon-choice-among-teens-in-london-amid-growing-attacks.html

> Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London

> amid growing attacks :...

Today's choice.

I think it's high time the PM, Interior Ministry, and Parliment stop being reactive and become
proactive. It's time to ban the use or possession of sticks and stones.

These ancient weapons of war lie scattered all over the United Kingdom, readily accessable to thugs
and ruffians without -any- restrictions at all!!! We all know they can break bones and even cause
death!!!!!

Common sense restrictions on guns, knives, chemicals, et al, don't go far enough.

It's for the children.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Like terrorists not using bombs when they have cars and TRUCKS that are
handy and less likely to to be thwarted?

--
That's Karma

[Wile E. Coyote]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
news:okfpn0$9pg$1...@dont-email.me:

It doesn't get much of anything that requires thought.

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[Wile E. Coyote]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

news:okfpn1$9pg$2...@dont-email.me:

Fuck it. Just throw all white, Christian, heterosexuals in
concentration/reeducation camps. They are the real problem.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:33:14 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Yep. People use the most formidible weapons
at hand. The violence rate doesn't really change,
just the means of doing violence.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:58 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
<nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:

>It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
>Coulter.

Coulter can kill a snowflake from 50 paces with
just a glance :-)

[Matt]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:17:03 PM UTC-4, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>
> Well ...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/14/acid-becoming-weapon-choice-among-teens-in-london-amid-growing-attacks.html

So, how many acid attacks are there in London?

How many lunatic gun massacres are there in the US?


Matt

[Mike Flannigan]

Mr. B1ack wrote

> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?

If you don't have a gun, how are you going to protect yourself
from the other guy with a gun?

Trump allows all kinds of folks with guns into his rallies. They
just need to leave their bullets at the door while he rants and
raves about protecting our right to keep and bear guns.

[gary]

Matt wrote

>
> So, how many acid attacks are there in London?

About 700 an hour. But Sweden has about 3 billion a day
according to Daily Caller. And that's only when the muzzies
aren't raping babies and chasing around the white men.

>
> How many lunatic gun massacres are there in the US?

None! Because we all have guns and they're afraid of getting
shot. There'd be even less if our ancestors weren't so damn lazy
that they needed to import black people to do all their work for
free while they sat back sipping mint juleps and giving them a
good whippin if they mouthed off.

[Matt]

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 5:33:01 PM UTC-4, gary wrote:
> Matt wrote
>
> >
> > So, how many acid attacks are there in London?
>
> About

Right.

You are a small child without a clue, and nobody really cares.

Back to the bitbucket with you.

Matt

[de chucka]

"r What Happens If Guns Become Scarce"is a claim of causation

[de chucka]

So ' What Happens If Guns Become Scarce"is not acid attacks

[Gunner Asch]

So you ancestors are black? You do know that the biggest slave
holders and slave dealers in America...were free blacks...right?

http://www.discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people-involved/traders-merchants-planters/slave-traders/african-slave-traders/

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly
4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million
of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks
residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689
lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American
historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that
in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of
the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is
certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all
American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The
statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became
slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five
slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of
bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked
and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop.
The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the
top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or
more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C.
Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane
plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100
slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued
at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of
southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves;
six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property
owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented
slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave
owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner.
In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors
Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of
Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71,
the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own
speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave
master.

At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves
of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her
birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white
slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught
the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how
to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.

On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with
five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to
free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina
legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To
end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved"
character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated,
the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good
character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence
of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."

Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast
public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became
law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who
would become a burden on the general public.

Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery,
authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes
petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were
unable to support themselves.

Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University
Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an
African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the
Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He
wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in
Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned
members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks
were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to
choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg.
Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he
built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine
dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had
purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four
years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem
perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also
achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the
period.

On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in
Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a
"freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name
change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a
tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from
degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to
the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as
a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be
changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white
Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family
bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families.
Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony.
Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor
worshippers.

Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small
empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South
Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far
away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the
States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in
newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the
Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.

Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave
labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such
situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other
whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither
Ellison's race or former status were considerations.

In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great
conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a
nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property
before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976
acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond,
Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune
Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to
purchase more despite the war."

Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave
blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in
other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free
black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable
value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of
$15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in
Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers,
fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County
parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and
personal property.

The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would
buy seed and equip ment on credit and settle their outstanding
accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free
Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of
contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men
for money owed him.

In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original
acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the
property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served
in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had
been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W.
Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century
mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States
as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.

By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He
raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating
foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves,
and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property,
owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by
their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy
American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal
education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from
Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.

In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at
$65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been
a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His
wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter
District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real
estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the
state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99
percent of the South's slaveholders.

Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major
source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding
was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of
most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12.
In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9).
Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.

While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping
young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his
cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to
become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male
children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400.
Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be
the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a
small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's
slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from
time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at
least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher.
According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had
purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him
to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville,
Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for
expenses.

William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate
should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two
surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.

Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively
supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly
their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn
shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in
taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in
Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the
Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper
became worthless.

The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and
money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner,
William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina
Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and
A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro.
Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the
Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in
the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July
12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised
by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."

Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But
many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of
circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example
Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation
owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer
during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10).

A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's
mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been
undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than
generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a
relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable
institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have
been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

And of course..my people were both slave holders and slaves.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html



Btw...I fixed the trollish behavior you exhibited and corrected the
Newsgroups: this was supposed to be sent to.

You exhibit the same mental illness that most Democrat
Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Marxists show daily.

[Ihor Procyk]

On 7/16/2017 4:13 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 21:33:00 +0000 (UTC), gary
> <garyllki...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> Matt wrote
>>
>>>
>>> So, how many acid attacks are there in London?
>>
>> About 700 an hour. But Sweden has about 3 billion a day
>> according to Daily Caller. And that's only when the muzzies
>> aren't raping babies and chasing around the white men.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> How many lunatic gun massacres are there in the US?
>>
>> None! Because we all have guns and they're afraid of getting
>> shot. There'd be even less if our ancestors weren't so damn lazy
>> that they needed to import black people to do all their work for
>> free while they sat back sipping mint juleps and giving them a
>> good whippin if they mouthed off.
>
> So you ancestors are black? You do know that the biggest slave
> holders and slave dealers in America...were free blacks...right?

False. The vast majority of slave owners were white, and the individual
slave owners who owned the most slaves were white.

[Frank]

On 7/16/2017 6:56 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 03:25:50 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:nb2mmc50ubfh54qab...@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:02:29 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
>>>> <now...@nada.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>>>>
>>>> Probably not. We have endemic violence because we are a violent,
>>>> aggressive people. What it might help is that, in a true "self
>>>> defense" situation, weapons escalation tends to favor the attacker.
>>>
>>> Cites?
>>
>>
>> I would like to see that as well, since the attacker, as a criminal, is
>> already armed with whatever they want. A weapons escalation can only close
>> or eliminate the gap between the capabilities of the criminal and their
>> intended victim, thus evening the odds.
>>
>> After all, how are you going to keep a criminal from having, carrying and
>> using whatever weapon they chose in crime?
>>
>> Pass a law?
>>
>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>
>>
> Absolutely correct. A simply proof is the city of Chicago..its ban on
> handguns and its death rate each weekend.
>
>

High shooting rate in Wilmington, DE. Police chief retires and they
want someone with experience so they hire a cop from Chicago. Maybe
they expect him to maintain the high rate ;)

[max headroom]

In news:DcudnTchOrVlf_bE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

Then what is it?

[max headroom]

In news:DcudnTQhOrUrf_bE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

You think so? Provide your proof and show your work.

[de chucka]

Know so

Provide your proof and show your work.

causation
kɔːˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: causation
the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
plural noun: causations
"a strong association is not a proof of causation"

Black claimed the acid attacks occured because guns are scarce

[de chucka]

Oh so your claiming that the reason for these acid attacks is the
scarcity of guns as well. I don't think the acid attacks have anything
to do with guns, maybe it is a question for a sociology ng

[max headroom]

In news:E_-dnTTXvuNpovHE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> On 17/07/2017 1:36 PM, max headroom wrote:

>> In news:DcudnTQhOrUrf_bE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka
>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

>>> On 16/07/2017 11:12 PM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> In news:vuOdnXPuXKPtTffE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka
>>>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

>>>>> On 15/07/2017 12:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:

>>>>>> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?

>>>>>> Well ...

>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/14/acid-becoming-weapon-choice-among-teens-in-london-amid-growing-attacks.html

>>>>>> Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London
>>>>>> amid growing attacks :

>>>>> Interesting! Black is claiming causation between lack of guns and acid
>>>>> attacks

>>>> You really don't get this correlation/causation thing, do ya?

>>> "r What Happens If Guns Become Scarce"is a claim of causation

>> You think so?

> Know so

> Provide your proof and show your work.

> causation

> k??'ze??(?)n/

> noun
> noun: causation
> the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
> plural noun: causations
> "a strong association is not a proof of causation"

> Black claimed the acid attacks occured because guns are scarce

No, he did not. He -may- be implying a correlation between the two, but you are the one inferring
causation.

[max headroom]

In news:E_-dnTfXvuM03fHE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> On 17/07/2017 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote:

>> In news:DcudnTchOrVlf_bE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka
>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

>>> On 17/07/2017 5:01 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:33:14 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 15/07/2017 12:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:

>>>>>> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?

>>>>>> Well ...

>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/14/acid-becoming-weapon-choice-among-teens-in-london-amid-growing-attacks.html

>>>>>> Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London
>>>>>> amid growing attacks :

>>>>> Interesting! Black is claiming causation between lack of guns and acid
>>>>> attacks

>>>> Yep. People use the most formidible weapons
>>>> at hand. The violence rate doesn't really change,
>>>> just the means of doing violence.

>>> So ' What Happens If Guns Become Scarce"is not acid attacks

>> Then what is it?

> Oh so your claiming...

... nothing. I'm asking.

> ... that the reason for these acid attacks is the

> scarcity of guns as well. I don't think the acid attacks have anything
> to do with guns, maybe it is a question for a sociology ng

Ya think?

[de chucka]

Yep Black claimed causation, you should try and educate yourself on this
topic
>
>

[de chucka]

Educate yourself on this topic and come back i.e. it not some mantra
that wards off the facts in a debate about guns which is how you use it.
They both have specific meanings

[max headroom]

In news:UaqdnQIrEquc1_HE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> Educate yourself on this topic and come back...

You first.

> ... i.e. it not some mantra that wards off the facts in a debate about guns which is how you use
> it....

I don't need to because you seldom present any.

> ... They both have specific meanings

Which you conflate.

[max headroom]

In news:UaqdnQMrEqvz1PHE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Black hasn't claimed any such thing.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 05:25:28 -0700, "max headroom"
<maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>> ... They both have specific meanings
>
>Which you conflate.
>

The idiot who thinks "interfere" is a synonym for "help" is bitching
about "specific meanings?"

"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

>> In news:phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com, Mr. B1ack
>> <now...@nada.net> typed:
>>
>>> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>>> Well ...

That plan works so well for DRUGS that even kids in grade schools can
get drugs....

The ban on drugs could be called a failure.

Why would a ban on guns work any better?

It might improve the guns so that they are harder to find like the 3D
plastic printer guns.

Banning drugs and giving money out as subsidized lifestyles hasn't
prevented drug use or poverty.


--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

>> In news:phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com, Mr. B1ack
>> <now...@nada.net> typed:
>>
>>> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>>> Well ...

That plan works so well for DRUGS that even kids in grade schools can
get drugs....

The ban on drugs could be called a failure.

Why would a ban on guns work any better?

It might improve the guns so that they are harder to find like the 3D

plastic printer guns. They could get past the metal detectors at the
schools.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Liberals say that they have less proof but that the consensus proves
that Global Warming is caused by man.

We may have a consensus that without guns then acid will become a
popular tool for crime.

How do you stop people from making/buying acid, will they need a
background check and a 3 day waiting period to service their pool or buy
a lead/acid battery?





--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

>> In news:DcudnTQhOrUrf_bE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka

>>> "What Happens If Guns Become Scarce" is a claim of causation

Criminals set up shops to make guns like they make passports or money or
labs where they make drugs.


Then criminals will be the ones with the guns.

--
That's Karma

[max headroom]

In news:rmdpmct7pchk6rp3h...@4ax.com, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> typed:

There seems to be a severe incidence of mass estrogen poisoning Down Under. They all seem so ...
EMOTIONAL. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with those whose feelings supersede logic.

[max headroom]

In news:Xb7bB.151312$np2....@fx06.iad, #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> typed:

That's basically what the UK government is proposing.

[Scout]

>>> In news:phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com, Mr. B1ack
>>> <now...@nada.net> typed:
>>>
>>>> If guns were really hard to get then violence would end, right ?
>>>> Well ...

This is the first time I've seen it suggested that violence only started
with the invention of the firearm.

I suppose all that violence in history was faked?

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:37:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Cites?

Sure

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 03:25:50 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:

>I would like to see that as well, since the attacker, as a criminal, is
>already armed with whatever they want. A weapons escalation can only close
>or eliminate the gap between the capabilities of the criminal and their
>intended victim, thus evening the odds.
>
>After all, how are you going to keep a criminal from having, carrying and
>using whatever weapon they chose in crime?

Myth!

>Pass a law?
>
>If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.

If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
rate instead of the highest.

Gun laws can eliminate guns; that is well known. Neither you nor your
attacker can buy an AR-15 in Oz... and it works. OK, it works in the
sense that we can definitely pick up the guns.

Now, Americans are intrinsically violent and aggressive; picking up
the guns won't change that. We're not violent and aggressive because
we have guns; we have guns because we're violent and aggressive.

But, the data are pretty much in: high rates of gun proliferation
correlate with elevated crime rates... it's not a theory anymore; it's
pretty well proven fact. (Despite what Mary Rosh says.) A violent,
aggressive person without a gun is less dangerous than a violent,
aggressive person with an M-16. That you can't do anything about it
except arm yourself is a myth sold by your friendly gun lobby... with
big bucls for legislators.

Jones

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>
>Myth!
>
>>Pass a law?
>>
>>If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>
>If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>rate instead of the highest

Actually...we are not the highest and in fact..are something like
124th from the top.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>

>Gun laws can eliminate guns; that is well known. Neither you nor your
>attacker can buy an AR-15 in Oz... and it works. OK, it works in the
>sense that we can definitely pick up the guns.

Odd..the cops keep pulling Skorpian submachine guns from perps in Oz.

So much for that statement of yours....phettt!!

[de chucka]

On 18/07/2017 1:19 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Gun laws can eliminate guns; that is well known. Neither you nor your
>> attacker can buy an AR-15 in Oz... and it works. OK, it works in the
>> sense that we can definitely pick up the guns.
>
>
> Odd..the cops keep pulling Skorpian submachine guns from perps in Oz.

News to me so I'd love to see a cite about how they keep pulling
Skorpian sub-machine guns from perps in Oz

[Scout]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Myth!
>>
>>>Pass a law?
>>>
>>>If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>
>>If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>rate instead of the highest

Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico would be one of the
least criminally violent nations on the planet.

[de chucka]

On 18/07/2017 2:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Myth!
>>>
>>>> Pass a law?
>>>>
>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>>
>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>> rate instead of the highest
>
> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico would be one of the
> least criminally violent nations on the planet.

They don't have gun control, they have laws but no control. On the other
hand Canada has both and they are much better off compared to the US

[Steve Newman]

On 7/17/2017 8:17 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Myth!
>>
>>> Pass a law?
>>>
>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>
>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>> rate instead of the highest
>
> Actually...we are not the highest and in fact..are something like
> 124th from the top.

Bullshit. You just pulled that number out of your asshole.

[Steve Newman]

On 7/17/2017 8:19 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Gun laws can eliminate guns; that is well known. Neither you nor your
>> attacker can buy an AR-15 in Oz... and it works. OK, it works in the
>> sense that we can definitely pick up the guns.
>
>
> Odd..the cops keep pulling Skorpian submachine guns from perps in Oz.

Bullshit.

[Steve Newman]

On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Myth!
>>>
>>>> Pass a law?
>>>>
>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>>
>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>> rate instead of the highest
>
> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico

There is no gun control in Mexico.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/17/2017 8:01 PM, !Jones wrote:
>
> But, the data are pretty much in: high rates of gun proliferation
> correlate with elevated crime rates... it's not a theory anymore; it's
> pretty well proven fact.
>

Show the proof.
Oh, you can't, because it's not a fact,
it's not even a good theory,
it's proven bullshit.
Two undisputed facts prove your statement to be bullshit:
1. Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last ten years.
2. Gun violence rates have declined over the last ten years.

[de chucka]

On 18/07/2017 3:47 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/17/2017 8:01 PM, !Jones wrote:
>>
>> But, the data are pretty much in: high rates of gun proliferation
>> correlate with elevated crime rates... it's not a theory anymore; it's
>> pretty well proven fact.
>>
> Show the proof.
> Oh, you can't, because it's not a fact,

Shows a strong corelation

> it's not even a good theory,
> it's proven bullshit.

Show your proof

> Two undisputed facts prove your statement to be bullshit:
> 1. Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last ten years.

not in % terms it hasn't in the US

> 2. Gun violence rates have declined over the last ten years.

Could that be a correlation between fulling gun ownership rates?

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yhhbB.164954$z73....@fx22.iad...

And only a few people have guns in Mexico, yet the overwhelming majority of
those are criminals and Mexico is having a major problem trying to come to
grips with the crimes those few criminals commit.

[Scout]

"Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...

Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen to get/have a
gun, and the ONLY gun store in the entire country is in Mexico City and run
by the Mexican military.

So, yes, they have extremely strict gun control..... Not working so well is
it?

[de chucka]

So they actually don't have gun control by your own admission. Laws
don't work if you live in a country with little rule of law
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/

[de chucka]

because of corruption and little rule of law.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/18/2017 12:05 AM, de chucka wrote:
> On 18/07/2017 3:47 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/17/2017 8:01 PM, !Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> But, the data are pretty much in: high rates of gun proliferation
>>> correlate with elevated crime rates... it's not a theory anymore; it's
>>> pretty well proven fact.
>>>
>> Show the proof.
>> Oh, you can't, because it's not a fact,
>
> Shows a strong corelation
>> it's not even a good theory,
>> it's proven bullshit.
>
> Show your proof
>
>> Two undisputed facts prove your statement to be bullshit:
>> 1. Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last ten years.
>
> not in % terms it hasn't in the US
>

The federal government estimated that in 2009 there were about 310
million guns in civilian hands.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

During 2010-2016, there were over 143 million
NICS Firearm Background Checks:
2010 14,409,616
2011 16,454,951
2012 19,592,303
2013 21,093,273
2014 20,968,547
2015 23,141,970
2016 27,538,673
143,199,333
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view

If only 60% of those background checks was tied to a new gun sale, that
would be about 85 million new guns in civilian hands for 2010-1016,
making total gun ownership 453 million by the end of 2016.

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), that's approximately the same as the
number of new guns (per BATFE records) from gun manufacturers for that
time period.
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/2016-firearms-commerce-united-states/download
(New manufacture numbers for 2016 are not out yet. I estimated 2016 was
the same as 2015, which is conservative considering 2016 background
checks were 17% higher than in 2015).

http://weaponsman.com/?p=33875 makes a reasoned argument that the actual
number may be closer to 600 million.

So from official FBI and BATFE records, private gun ownership increased
by over 46% from 2009 to 2016.

I call that skyrocketing. If you want to call it something else, go
right ahead.

>> 2. Gun violence rates have declined over the last ten years.
>
> Could that be a correlation between fulling gun ownership rates?
>

Yes, there does appear to be a positive correlation in the USA between
increasing private gun ownership and decreasing gun violence rates.

[de chucka]

The % of households is decreasing in the US

>
>
>>> 2. Gun violence rates have declined over the last ten years.
>>
>> Could that be a correlation between fulling gun ownership rates?
>>
> Yes, there does appear to be a positive correlation in the USA between
> increasing private gun ownership and decreasing gun violence rates.

Really, give us the year by year % of Americans or American households
owning guns. All the information available suggests it is more guns in
the hands of a lower % of the population. However we've done this before.

[Just Wondering]

All you have to back that up is an unscientific 2013 telephone survey,
not even that for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. So even if you accept the
earlier data (I don't), you have no idea what the current trend is.

>>
>>
>>>> 2. Gun violence rates have declined over the last ten years.
>>>
>>> Could that be a correlation between fulling gun ownership rates?
>>>
>> Yes, there does appear to be a positive correlation in the USA between
>> increasing private gun ownership and decreasing gun violence rates.
>
> Really, give us the year by year % of Americans or American households
> owning guns. All the information available suggests it is more guns in
> the hands of a lower % of the population.
>

All of the information DOESN'T suggest any such thing. The only thing
that suggests this is the aforementioned telephone survey whose data is
already four years old.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 20:17:58 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Actually...we are not the highest and in fact..are something like
>124th from the top.

You are correct; however, it depends on what you count as a "crime"
and how you choose the comparison population. If you simply take all
reported acts of homicide and lump every country in the mix, you find
the US at roughly the midpoint... or so, by United Nations numbers.
We're clearly doing better than Honduras, Venezuela, or South
Africa... wow!

What I meant was that you have to have a method of grouping societies
by some metric of social development. The United Nations uses what
they call the Human Development Index or HDI (read more here:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/2016-report). This gives us a scale of zero to
one where zero is utter anarchy and one is utopia. So sort by HDI and
take an arbitrary cutoff score; I use 0.9, FYI; your milage may vary.
Limiting the group to societies scoring 0.9 or better gives us a group
of about 25 countries where the US ranks about the middle; it varies
year by year.

Thus, sorted descending by HDI (using 2016 numbers), we end up with:
Norway
Australia
Switzerland
Germany
Denmark
Singapore
Netherlands
Ireland
Iceland
Canada
United States
Hong Kong, China (SAR)
New Zealand
Sweden
Liechtenstein
United Kingdom
Japan
Korea (Republic of)
Israel
Luxembourg
France
Belgium
Finland
Austria
Slovenia

... all of which are reasonably comparable to the US.

So, this is what I mean when I say "the world"; I mean countries which
one might compare to the US and keep a straight face while doing so.
If you take the violent crime rates of this group, the US is not only
the highest, but we're a full six standard deviations above the mean.
We're so far out of the ballpark that you have to take the US out of
the standard deviation calculation or we skew the data badly... WRT
crime rate, we aren't even in that population.

Jones

[Gunner Asch]

Oddly enough..if you take (5) Democratic run and controlled cities out
of the equation..we fall down to 244.

Further....

(see the link for graphics)

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective
Gangs Remain Key Unaddressed Problem in Gun Debate

By Dustin Hawkins, About.com Guide. March 2013


There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of
those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (less
than 1,000). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and
2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths. Sometimes the 32,000 and
11,000 figures are used interchangeably by gun control advocates.
Clearly, the 32,000 figure is a far more dramatic number and is often
used for impact. These numbers are also regularly compared to other
countries' gun statistics. But are they true? Here, we will examine
some of the most common gun control arguments used and put those
figures into perspective.

Gang Violence Driving Force of Gun Violence

To hear gun control advocates speak, one would be led to believe that
gun violence is a widespread problem whereby the mere existence of a
gun is as much a problem as the person who intends to wield it. But
the reality is that gun homicides are overwhelmingly tied to gang
violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides
accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and
2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm
murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250
million guns.

Cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Cleveland,
and New Orleans all have very high per-capita murder rates. Individual
police estimates usually find at least 65% and often more than 80% of
all murders in those cities are gang-related. Solve the problem of
gang violence, and a huge chunk of the gun homicide and violence
problem is solved. And what national gun control measures would slow
the gang violence problem, when local gun control laws have failed in
cities like Chicago? If politicians were really worried about gun
deaths, wouldn't they be specifically targeting where a majority of
the problems exist?

2,200 Gun Homicides Per Year Beyond Gangs

The 2,200 figure is perhaps the most relevant of all gun statistics in
the gun control debate given that the gun control laws are
specifically targeted to this segment. If the government were
interested in stopping gangs - and as a result also stopping the major
contributor of gun violence - the gun laws would be more targeted. Yet
most gun control legislation would do little-to-nothing to slow the
growing gang problem. Most of the gun laws are aimed at a segment of
the population that is mostly law-abiding and outside of the gang
culture and would likely do little to stop any of the violence.

The United States is one of the most gun-friendly countries in the
world. Roughly half of American households have a gun.


There are almost as many guns in America as people. It's common sense
to know that, yes, the United States will probably have more gun
murders than a country with almost no guns and no households with
guns. I'd would also assume that Florida will have more swimming pool
drowning deaths than, say, Michigan. But unlike swimming pools, guns
can also be used for self-defense reasons. The reality remains that in
a country of 315 million people (and almost as many guns) very few of
the guns are ever used in any crime. If the mere existence of guns
made people more violent, more likely to murder, and more likely to
commit crime, the gun problem in America would be much worse.


Suicide Rates

Suicide is often a secondary reason gun control advocates use for
wanting to "control" guns. It is true that roughly half of suicides in
America are done by use of a firearm. Gun control advocates argue that
suicides are often a momentary impulse and the availability of a gun
makes people more likely to act on those impulses. Japan is probably
the opposite of the United States in regards to a gun culture. With
few guns and gun-related deaths, Japan is one of the most heavily
cited countries by gun-control advocates. But while the cultural
differences between Japan and the USA (and resulting gun violence
comparisons) make a gun control argument hard to realistically
swallow, one thing stands out: the suicide rate in Japan is more than
twice the United States' suicide rate. The US suicide rate is about
the same as Great Britain, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, and Iceland
and well below France and Greenland. In reality, suicide rates seem to
have little to do with the availability or accessibility of guns. It
just so happens that in the US guns are the suicide weapon of choice,
while in Japan it might be jumping in front of a train or poisoning.
The method of "jumping" is so common in Japan that the families of
train-jumpers are often charged a fine for clean-up.

Mass Shootings Remain a Rarity

The reason that horrible tragedies like the Newton, Connecticut and
Aurora, Colorado shootings are so gut-wrenching and shocking is rooted
in a reality that such incidents are extremely rare. Unfortunately,
politicians often aim to stir up emotional reactions and exploit these
tragedies for political gain. With the incredible number of statistics
that get thrown around and abused, it's important to sometimes step
back and actually look at what the numbers say. Are the gun laws being
proposed anything more than window dressing and "feel-good"
legislation that will have little actual impact? Should more efforts
actually be used in a results-oriented way, targeting the actual
concentrated areas where gun crime occurs? Politics is often a
processed-based and not results-oriented exercise, where "doing
something" is often rewarded more than actually ever accomplishing
anything.

[Steve Newman]

On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...
>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Myth!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pass a law?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>>>>
>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>> rate instead of the highest
>>>
>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>>
>> There is no gun control in Mexico.
>
> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen

Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

[max headroom]

In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:

> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:

>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...

>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Myth!

>>>>>>> Pass a law?

>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.

>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>>> rate instead of the highest

>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico

>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.

>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen

> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average Mexican citizen to legally
buy a gun.

[max headroom]

In news:qevrmc1okbj0h90vd...@4ax.com, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> typed:

> x-idiot: jones

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 20:17:58 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
> <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Actually...we are not the highest and in fact..are something like
>> 124th from the top.

> You are correct; however, it depends on what you count as a "crime"
> and how you choose the comparison population. If you simply take all
> reported acts of homicide and lump every country in the mix, you find
> the US at roughly the midpoint... or so, by United Nations numbers.
> We're clearly doing better than Honduras, Venezuela, or South
> Africa... wow!

> What I meant was that you have to have a method of grouping societies

> by some metric of social development....

IOW, cherry-pick.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

We had a Military man from the U.S. stuck in their jail on gun charges.

Apparently they do have gun control and since he wanted to turn around
and get back to the U.S. and declared he had the gun, their regulations
seem fairly strict. They wouldn't even let him just turn around and get
back to the U.S. where he owns the gun legally.

If they were lax in their gun control they would have turned him around
and just sent him back to the U.S. and laughed at the stupid gringo that
told them he had a gun and accidentally got on that road by accident.

--
That's Karma

[Gunner Asch]

Rudy is in strong denial again. Simply because Mexico is a ready,
easy and easy to prove country that shows beyond any shadow of a
doubt..gun control is an utter failure.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 20:19:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Odd..the cops keep pulling Skorpian submachine guns from perps in Oz.

That's not the way I hear it; however, I don't live there. If you do,
then I will defer to your intimate knowledge.

Fully automatic weapons are highly over-rated. Just anecdotally, *I*
can't hit much of anything in "twist & shout" mode... although, I do
put out a lot of fire power! In the one or two times of my life where
I *might* actually have used fully automatic fire, the over-riding
incumbency was that I *not* run out of ammunition.

If I want full-auto, I'd go with a heavy, belt-fed device where I had
lots of ammunition and that triggered from an open breech; these take
heating better. I prefer that these be vehicle-mounted because they
can carry the ammo more easily. Or, you know... call in the tac-air.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:47:08 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Show the proof.

OK, but, first, from you, I want a shrubbery.

Do you have anything in a purple sage? Say, a five-gallon container?

Jones

[Elizabeth Boudreaux]

On 7/18/2017 6:36 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

More bullshit. You never even conducted that phony thought experiment.

Fuck off, Wieber, you gutless nutless little sclerotic bitch.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:21:23 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

>Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico would be one of the
>least criminally violent nations on the planet.

And if the contrapositive held, the US would be thus. If you factor
out the wars for the US drug trade, the US and Mexico are quite close.

I got an idea! Why don't we just quit buying the Mexican dope?

It's really simple when you think about it. (Just say "No"... get
it?)

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:28:49 +1000, in talk.politics.guns de chucka
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>They don't have gun control, they have laws but no control. On the other
>hand Canada has both and they are much better off compared to the US

Somewhat. Canadians, like the Swiss, are disgustingly law abiding.
When you cross the border, it's a different world! If the speed limit
is 100 clicks and you're doing 105, you'll pass everything on the road
besides the RCMP.

Canada gets lots of "bleed-over" from the US in terms of guns; they
tend to have no sense of humor about it. They are not lenient on US
gun smugglers... or Canadian smugglers, either. They'll wink at the
rum-runners from the French Islands as long as they don't have any
guns.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:50:08 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Steve Newman
<i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote:

>Bullshit. You just pulled that number out of your asshole.

Ohhhh... it's a well-published factoid. If you take the world's
homicide rate, break it down by country, and rank them, the US is
about the middle... somewhere in there. We're better 'n Honduras,
anyway... this fact gives me much national pride!

We're also better than Yemen!

Jones

P.S.: We're *lots* better than South Africa!!!

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:36:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm

Since 2014, the "Jews for [guns]" has been controlled by the "Second
Amendment Foundation" which, in turn, is fully funded by the US gun
interests.

Do you have any independent statistics? I well know what the "Second
Amendment Foundation" thinks and I don't care to hear it... it's just
the usual gun lobby stuff... if I want that, I'll read the *American
Rifleman*.

Shoot me some CDC statistics? Got anything by the UN? What about
JAMA? Get away from the money, dude. Guns are big money and, if you
want to predict their position, follow the money.

Jones

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:28:38 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:36:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
><gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm
>
>Since 2014, the "Jews for [guns]" has been controlled by the "Second
>Amendment Foundation" which, in turn, is fully funded by the US gun
>interests.


>
>Do you have any independent statistics? I well know what the "Second
>Amendment Foundation" thinks and I don't care to hear it... it's just
>the usual gun lobby stuff... if I want that, I'll read the *American
>Rifleman*.

Yet you constantly use MSM claims as valid. You really need to be
consistent.

>
>Shoot me some CDC statistics? Got anything by the UN? What about
>JAMA? Get away from the money, dude. Guns are big money and, if you
>want to predict their position, follow the money.
>
>Jones

CDC stats? Like these?

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

JAMA? Oh..you mean the self professed antigun group? That JAMA?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/jama-gun-control-study-more-mush-from-the-wimps/

JAMA Gun Control Study: More Mush from the Wimps
March 8, 2013 42 comments

Dr. Michael S. brown writes:

The headline at the top of Thursday’s front page of The Columbian:
50-state study says more gun laws equal fewer deaths. It’s an AP story
based entirely on an article published in JAMA Internal Medicine
called Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the
United States. The study is a heavily biased, scientifically
unsustainable piece of “research” cobbled together from suspect data,
created by the usual suspects (e.g., Harvard’s David Hemenway). For
years, small groups of Northeast intellectuals have been churning out
anti-gun agit prop supported by grants from liberal donors. They never
stand up to careful scrutiny . . .

The text of this document includes the following admission: “our study
could not determine cause-and-effect relationships.” And no wonder.
The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence and another notoriously
anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence provided the data. The
Joyce Foundation provided funding.

Anyway, here’s the stated methodology:

Using an ecological and cross-sectional method, we retrospectively
analyzed all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and
Reporting System from 2007 through 2010. We used state-level firearm
legislation across 5 categories of laws to create a “legislative
strength score,” and measured the association of the score with state
mortality rates using a clustered Poisson regression. States were
divided into quartiles based on their score.

The process is riddled with “issues.” “All firearms related deaths”
includes suicides, which account for 60.9 percent of these fatalities.
The correlation between firearms laws and suicides is both unlikely
and unproven. The Brady Campaign chose the “5 categories of laws”
applied in the study. They examined laws that . . .

(1) curb firearm trafficking; (2) strengthen background checks on
purchasers of firearms beyond those required by the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act; (3) ensure child safety; (4) ban military
style assault weapons; and (5) restrict guns in public places

Not only are the categories ridiculous vague (“ensure child safety”)
and arbitrary, they are misleading and scientifically dubious. As less
than five percent of all homicides involve a rifle of any sort, why
consider laws banning “assault rifles” when attempting to examine the
cause and effect relationship between gun control and homicide rates?

Bottom line: this is a throw-away study. Another piece of faux
scholarship [rightly] discounted by independent researchers and
dissected by bloggers. of course, its publication has nothing to do
with social science; it’s a key part of the civilian disarmament
movement’s plan for influencing fence straddlers.

Each study is picked up by the mainstream media, reduced to a headline
or a few soundbites and spewed forth into the news stream to make a
single, brief, anti-gun, impression on the public consciousness.
Almost everyone will read the headline, very few will read the
uncritical article, and virtually nobody will actually go online and
look up the study itself. That’s how editors get away with publishing
junk science, they know you won’t look behind the curtain.

I was surprised that good folks at The Columbian were taken in by the
anti-gun propaganda machine, but then I noticed that there was also an
editorial calling for more gun laws and it started to make sense. When
I saw the unflattering cartoon depicting the President of the NRA, I
finally got the complete picture. The Columbian simply hates guns and
they don’t care who knows it. They chose to run the sycophantic AP
article, because it appeared to back up their appeal for more gun
laws.

I decided to take a look at the Elway poll mentioned in the editorial.
While some anti-gun measures did get a majority, it does not look like
Washingtonians are strongly in the mood for more gun laws. In fact by
55 to 37 percent, respondents said they felt protecting gun rights was
more important than controlling gun ownership. It sounds to me like
some people are simply confused and I don’t blame them a bit.

The gun debate has always been carried out with a distinct lack of
logic and evidence. The fight is waged with emotional soundbites and
buzzwords intended to obfuscate and influence opinion without causing
any deep thinking. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to
do their own research online and bypass the media mavens who feel they
know what is best for you. Fortunately, that is slowly changing.

Dr. Michael S. Brown is a member of Doctors for Responsible Gun
Ownership


JAMA...thats the same group that has Kellerman writing for it..isnt
it?

The same Kellerman who was proven to be a liar and who actually
admitted his "errors" a year or two later?

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

You may also wish (or not) to read this article

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/

[max headroom]

In news:WaqbB.167016$L47....@fx41.iad, Elizabeth Boudreaux <anothe...@jeanerette.la> typed:

Says Rudy's gutless, nutless little sclerotic sockpuppet.

[de chucka]

On 19/07/2017 12:31 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:
>
>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...
>
>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...
>

>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Myth!
>
>>>>>>>> Pass a law?
>
>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>
>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>>>> rate instead of the highest
>
>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>
>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.
>
>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen
>
>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.
>
> You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average Mexican citizen to legally
> buy a gun.
>
>

Totally irrelevant if the actual ability to enforce the laws occurs as
it does in Mexico

[max headroom]

In news:gYKdnUX7l-MN_fPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> On 19/07/2017 12:31 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman
>> <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:

>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...

>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> Myth!

>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?

>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.

>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>>>>> rate instead of the highest

>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico

>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.

>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen

>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

>> You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average
>> Mexican citizen to legally buy a gun.

> Totally irrelevant if the actual ability to enforce the laws occurs as
> it does in Mexico

Totally relevant if the actual ability of an average Mexican citizen to bribe a LEO to look the
other way is nonexistant.

[The newsgroup Janitor]

"My Arse Has Spoken" dumped by t.p.g. troll, Balthazar Jones
<u...@signed.tr> using the following headers:

"Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-
september.o
rg!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Balthazar Jones <u...@signed.tr>
Newsgroups: aus.politics.guns,aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Acid Test - or What Happens If Guns Become Scarce
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:37:52 -0600
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <oklh1g$uaj$9...@news.mixmin.net>
References: <phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com>
<bvhlmchdr1phca2vv...@4ax.com>
<nb2mmc50ubfh54qab...@4ax.com> <okf46u$uqg$1@dont-
email.me>
<9ipqmchupb2b40o2o...@4ax.com>
<yhhbB.164954$z73....@fx22.iad>
<a6ednTG0fueiOPDE...@westnet.com.au>
<pkibB.273974$Id1.2...@fx33.iad>
<zuCdnYcXEalVJfDE...@westnet.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:37:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net;
posting-host="d454ecda214454a026a850ec22d10a11da27b460";
logging-data="31059"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@mixmin.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
In-Reply-To: <zuCdnYcXEalVJfDE...@westnet.com.au>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org aus.politics.guns:27032
aus.politics:664763
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US"

> de chucka wrote:
>> give us the year by year % of Americans or American households owning
>> guns
>

> Do your own research you moronic Auztard!
> And fuck off out of OUR groups.

t.p.g. is an International Usenet forum.
Gun-obsessed rightard raving loons who infest that group have delusion if
they believe they own it.
As long as someone posts on topic and observes a residual modicum of
respect towards opposing opinions there can be no sane objections against
any posters.

You, retarded and abusive septic Yank fucker, are yet another arrogant
bastard specimen from that t.p.g. sewer pool.
You do a great disservice to your country by opening your mouth at all.
Do humanity a great favour and remove yourself from the gene-pool ASAP!

--
Septics always say:
Mein Po riecht, weicher Stuhl, viele Blähungen
< http://tinyurl.com/y9baocwt >

[Scout]

"Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message

news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad...

No, there is extensive gun control. What you've just shown is that gun
control isn't going to stop criminals.

[The newsgroup Janitor]

"My Arse Has Spoken" dumped by Balthazar Jones <u...@signed.tr>:

> Path:
> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-
september.o
> rg!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Balthazar Jones <u...@signed.tr>
> Newsgroups: aus.politics.guns,aus.politics Subject: Re: The Acid Test -

> or What Happens If Guns Become Scarce Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:54:39
> -0600 Organization: Mixmin Message-ID: <okm02v$l4m$7...@news.mixmin.net>
> References: <phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com>
> <bvhlmchdr1phca2vv...@4ax.com>
> <nb2mmc50ubfh54qab...@4ax.com>
> <okf46u$uqg$1...@dont-email.me>
> <9ipqmchupb2b40o2o...@4ax.com>
> <0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com>
> <okk25r$70j$1...@dont-email.me>
> <f_adnU3XOb8XE_DE...@westnet.com.au>
> <okk36p$ohe$7...@news.mixmin.net>
> <iMWdnTvLkaWIBfDE...@westnet.com.au>
> <oklhac$uaj$1...@news.mixmin.net>
> <gYKdnUr7l-OC_fPE...@westnet.com.au>
> Mime-Version: 1.0 Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:54:40 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net;
> posting-host="6025bb1e2da72a3754928ba6066dbe7a3b2a47fe";
> logging-data="21654"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@mixmin.net"

> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/52.2.1

> In-Reply-To: <gYKdnUr7l-OC_fPE...@westnet.com.au>
> Xref: news.eternal-september.org aus.politics.guns:27034
> aus.politics:664796 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
> format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US
>
> On 7/18/2017 1:23 PM, de chucka wrote:

>> Nice snip didn't like the evidence did you

> need to die, soon.

Said the septic Yank trash to the image in its bathroom mirror.
I don't think anyone in OZ newsgroups would disagree with that assessment.

[The newsgroup Janitor]

"My Arse Has Spoken" dumped by Balthazar Jones <u...@signed.tr>:

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-
september.o
rg!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Balthazar Jones <u...@signed.tr>
Newsgroups: aus.politics.guns,aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Acid Test - or What Happens If Guns Become Scarce

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:58:44 -0600
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <okm0ak$l4m$1...@news.mixmin.net>

References: <phuimchdvgbqr316g...@4ax.com>
<bvhlmchdr1phca2vv...@4ax.com>
<nb2mmc50ubfh54qab...@4ax.com> <okf46u$uqg$1@dont-
email.me>
<9ipqmchupb2b40o2o...@4ax.com>
<yhhbB.164954$z73....@fx22.iad>
<a6ednTG0fueiOPDE...@westnet.com.au>
<pkibB.273974$Id1.2...@fx33.iad>
<zuCdnYcXEalVJfDE...@westnet.com.au>

<oklh1v$uaj$1...@news.mixmin.net>
<abGdnV-ZqaYh-_PE...@westnet.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:58:45 -0000 (UTC)

Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net;
posting-host="6025bb1e2da72a3754928ba6066dbe7a3b2a47fe";
logging-data="21654"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@mixmin.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1

In-Reply-To: <abGdnV-ZqaYh-_PE...@westnet.com.au>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org aus.politics.guns:27035
aus.politics:664797

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US

> the research DOE

The what??? What are you smokin'???

> I'd love to see you take a shovel to the face.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:okm06c$4gv$1...@dont-email.me...

If they could enforce the laws, then they wouldn't need gun control. Rather
they could simply enforce the existing laws on violent crimes and solve the
whole issue right then.

So clearly we don't need gun control, what we need is enforcement of the
laws concerning violent crime.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message

news:okl69v$du7$4...@dont-email.me...

Further it might be pointed out that his "metric of social development" is a
greater factor in violent crime than all the gun laws that exist.

So why are we wasting time trying to control objects when what we need is
"social development" like throwing violent criminals in jail and keeping
them there.

[de chucka]

On 19/07/2017 6:43 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:gYKdnUX7l-MN_fPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>> On 19/07/2017 12:31 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman
>>> <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:
>
>>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...
>
>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...
>

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Myth!
>
>>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?
>
>>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>
>>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>>>>>> rate instead of the highest
>
>>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>
>>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.
>
>>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen
>
>>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.
>
>>> You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average
>>> Mexican citizen to legally buy a gun.
>
>> Totally irrelevant if the actual ability to enforce the laws occurs as
>> it does in Mexico
>
> Totally relevant if the actual ability of an average Mexican citizen to bribe a LEO to look the
> other way is nonexistant.

except it isn't
Your did look at my cite for the level of corruption in Mexico didn't you

[Steve Newman]

[de chucka]

On 19/07/2017 10:46 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:okm06c$4gv$1...@dont-email.me...
>> In news:gYKdnUX7l-MN_fPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka
>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On 19/07/2017 12:31 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>
>>>> In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman
>>>> <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:
>>
>>>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...
>>
>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...
>>

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com>

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Myth!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest
>>>>>>>>>> violent crime
>>>>>>>>>> rate instead of the highest
>>
>>>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>>
>>>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.
>>
>>>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen
>>
>>>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.
>>
>>>> You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an
>>>> average
>>>> Mexican citizen to legally buy a gun.
>>
>>> Totally irrelevant if the actual ability to enforce the laws occurs as
>>> it does in Mexico
>
> If they could enforce the laws, then they wouldn't need gun control.
> Rather they could simply enforce the existing laws on violent crimes and
> solve the whole issue right then.
>
> So clearly we don't need gun control, what we need is enforcement of the
> laws concerning violent crime.

part of the problem being the proliferation of guns. Look at Europe and
Aus where there is gun control and eforcement of the rule of law

[max headroom]

In news:b4udnZ7wM4y_LvPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> On 19/07/2017 6:43 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> In news:gYKdnUX7l-MN_fPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka
>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

>>> On 19/07/2017 12:31 AM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman
>>>> <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:

>>>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...

>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Myth!

>>>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?

>>>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.

>>>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>>>>>>> rate instead of the highest

>>>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico

>>>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.

>>>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen

>>>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

>>>> You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average
>>>> Mexican citizen to legally buy a gun.

>>> Totally irrelevant if the actual ability to enforce the laws occurs as
>>> it does in Mexico

>> Totally relevant if the actual ability of an average Mexican citizen to
>> bribe a LEO to look the other way is nonexistant.

> except it isn't

It is.

> Your did look at my cite for the level of corruption in Mexico didn't you

I don't need to -- they tell me how corrupt their country is. They're mostly from rural areas, and
their abilities to afford both a gun and the bribe necessary to keep it were nonexistant.

[max headroom]

In news:6sybB.173191$L47.1...@fx41.iad, Steve Newman <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:

> On 7/18/2017 5:38 PM, Scout wrote:

>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>> news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad...

>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...

>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:

>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <︰on...@fubahor.com>

>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>> Myth!

>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?

>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.

>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent
>>>>>>>> crime rate instead of the highest

>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico

>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.

>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen

>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

>> No, there is extensive gun control.

> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

Give it up, Rudy.

[de chucka]

On 19/07/2017 11:55 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:b4udnZ7wM4y_LvPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>> On 19/07/2017 6:43 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> In news:gYKdnUX7l-MN_fPE...@westnet.com.au, de chucka
>>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>>>> On 19/07/2017 12:31 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>>>> In news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad, Steve Newman
>>>>> <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:
>
>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...
>
>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...
>

>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Myth!
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent crime
>>>>>>>>>>> rate instead of the highest
>
>>>>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>
>>>>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.
>
>>>>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen
>
>>>>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.
>
>>>>> You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average
>>>>> Mexican citizen to legally buy a gun.
>
>>>> Totally irrelevant if the actual ability to enforce the laws occurs as
>>>> it does in Mexico
>
>>> Totally relevant if the actual ability of an average Mexican citizen to
>>> bribe a LEO to look the other way is nonexistant.
>
>> except it isn't
>
> It is.

Why is there an inability of an average Mexican citizen to
bribe a LEO to look the other way is non-existent.

>
>> Your did look at my cite for the level of corruption in Mexico didn't you
>
> I don't need to -- they tell me how corrupt their country is. They're mostly from rural areas, and
> their abilities to afford both a gun and the bribe necessary to keep it were nonexistant.

What is the going rate to bribe a LEO in Mexico?

[de chucka]

On 19/07/2017 11:57 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:6sybB.173191$L47.1...@fx41.iad, Steve Newman <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> typed:
>
>> On 7/18/2017 5:38 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>> news:VuobB.182574$IX3....@fx19.iad...
>
>>>> On 7/17/2017 10:49 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>> "Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%sgbB.81302$eP5....@fx20.iad...
>
>>>>>> On 7/17/2017 9:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:0evqmchm0m9fs2lr9...@4ax.com...
>

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:01:57 -0500, !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com>

>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Myth!
>
>>>>>>>>>> Pass a law?
>
>>>>>>>>>> If so, gun crime would already be non-existent.
>
>>>>>>>>> If guns reduced crime, we would have the world's lowest violent
>>>>>>>>> crime rate instead of the highest
>
>>>>>>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>
>>>>>> There is no gun control in Mexico.
>
>>>>> Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen
>
>>>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.
>
>>> No, there is extensive gun control.
>
>> Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.
>
> Give it up, Rudy.

Don't like the facts?

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:33:30 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>> What I meant was that you have to have a method of grouping societies
>> by some metric of social development....
>
>IOW, cherry-pick.

Hi, Max; one man's data stratification is another's cherry-picking.
If you compare crab-apples to gourds, the crab-apples aren't so bad.
Apples to apples, they're not great eating... unless you're hungry...
or baking an apple pie (I do favor crabs in pies!)

My last name is "Smith" (*not* Jones) and we have an apocryphal family
legend that the "Granny Smith" apple was named after my grandma.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:51:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Steve Newman
<i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote:

>> Ad if gun control stopped violent crime, then Mexico
>
>There is no gun control in Mexico.

Moreover, Mexico has a "second amendment"... only it's called article
ten or something like that as I recall.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:49:04 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

>Sure there is. It's all but impossible for the average citizen to get/have a
>gun, and the ONLY gun store in the entire country is in Mexico City and run
>by the Mexican military.

I see that you haven't lived in Mexico. If you're a citizen or legal
resident, you can buy a gun in almost any hardware store. Handguns
have to be permitted; however, they should be here, also.
Furthermore, Mexico is absolutely lousy with guns imported from the
US.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:59:18 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Steve Newman
<i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote:

>Mexico is awash in guns. There is no gun control.

Absolutely! Over 15 millions guns were sold in the US (or, there were
that many background checks run) and we don't even have anything
*close* to that market. Any fool knows where the guns go.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:31:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>You're wrong, Scout's right, Rudy. It's nearly impossible for an average Mexican citizen to legally
>buy a gun.

When I lived there, it was as simple as walking into a hardware store
and dropping a big pile of colorful bills on the counter... I say a
*big* pile because a small pile will only get you a packet of
Chiclets.

Ever heard the saying: "[something] looks like about fifteen cents
worth of Mexican money"? You hear it a lot in Texas.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:33:39 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rudy is in strong denial again. Simply because Mexico is a ready,
>easy and easy to prove country that shows beyond any shadow of a
>doubt..gun control is an utter failure.

What you people don't understand is that Mexican citizens have very
similar freedoms to the ones we enjoy in the US. You can buy a gun
almost anyplace.

If Trump were to try to build his wall, he would run smack into the
issue that it would interdict the south-bound arms trade; the gun
lobbyists would have a quiet conversation with a few of their pet
legislators and that's the last you'd hear of it... not to mention
that the dope trade is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:27:47 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

>We had a Military man from the U.S. stuck in their jail on gun charges.
>
>Apparently they do have gun control...

Yupper. Mexican swimmers don't carry guns for that very reason... the
US would put 'em in jail. The second amendment only applies to a
select few people.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:57:55 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>JAMA? Oh..you mean the self professed antigun group? That JAMA?

No sir, "The Journal of the American Medical Association"... *that*
JAMA. Any researcher would give a kidney to get a piece published
therein.

You see, JAMA doesn't have much to say about guns; however, they're a
bit cool to the idea in general. Essentially, the entire medical
community has pretty well gone on record against guns and JAMA is
their voice... however, most medical professionals don't spend a lot
of energy on it.

If it's published in JAMA, it's a well-vetted article.

Jones

[Scout]

"Steve Newman" <i.hate.w...@we.all.do> wrote in message

news:6sybB.173191$L47.1...@fx41.iad...

There is gun control. All you're pointing out is that gun control doesn't
keep criminals from having them.

It's like the southside of Chicago, and the gang bangers with their illegal
guns....

You can enact all the gun control you want, and they will still have their
guns, and will still use them to kill each other.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message

news:okmev0$7pr$4...@dont-email.me...

Poor Rudy, so desperate to be relevant. It's sad really.