- Aus. vs USA ... who is lying ?
- Prof. Jonez©
March 23, 2000
Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the U.S. National Rifle
Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the nation's gun reform laws
had backfired.
The video, presented as a television news story, claims that crimes involving guns have
increased in Australia since the laws, which ban all semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic
shotguns and pump action shotguns, were introduced.
Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams said the NRA was using inaccurate statistics and
urged the group to remove "any reference to Australia" from its Web site.
"I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws
introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States,"
he said.
Williams sent a letter today to NRA president Charlton Heston, asking for the immediate
withdrawal of misleading information.
Australia's gun-related homicide rate was 0.28 per 100,000 people in 1998 compared to 4
per 100,000 in the United States, Williams wrote in the letter, which was distributed to
reporters.
"There are many things that Australia can learn from the United States," he wrote. "How to
manage firearm ownership is not one of them."
Australia adopted the gun laws after an April 1996 rampage by Martin Bryant, who opened
fire with military-style rifles at the Port Arthur historic site in the state of Tasmania.
Bryant, who killed 35 people and injured 19, is serving a life sentence.
More than 640,000 firearms were removed from the Australian community under a buyback
program. The NRA video shows footage of guns being sawed to pieces, and thousands of
destroyed guns piled on scrap heaps.
South Australia's Attorney General Trevor Griffin -- who is seen in the video talking
about crime -- said he was not interviewed by the NRA and a quote from him was taken from
a previous interview and used out of context.
The video claims that after the gun laws took effect, armed robbery in Australia went up
69 percent, assaults involving guns rose 28 percent, gun murders increased 19 percent and
home invasions rose 21 percent. It does not give a source for the data.
Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, said the statistics
were misleading.
He said the latest annual crime figures, for 1998, showed that assaults had increased but
that most attacks did not involve guns. He said homicides decreased and were only rarely
committed with guns.
Because there were so many other factors involved, such as population change, it was
"enormously difficult" to draw conclusions about what effect the gun laws have had on the
level of crime, Graycar said.
"It is a very long bow to draw," to claim the ban led to an increase in crime, he told
Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
"What we've got here is an American group with a heavy gun culture -- guns figure very
significantly in crime in the United States -- trying to transpose that into Australia.
There is no comparison," Graycar said.
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
--
=======================================
Free Directory Assistance - NumberFinder.com
Free Email Address - Alias.org
Free Trademark Searches - TrademarkSearch.org
Free Multi-Auction Searches - AuctionFeed.com
5¢ Phone Calls to Australia - SuperPhone.net
=======================================
Ric Trask
- Prof. Jonez© <jo...@norcom.to> wrote in message
news:aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net...
> Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>
> March 23, 2000
> Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>
> SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the
U.S. National Rifle
> Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the nation's
gun reform laws
> had backfired.
> The video claims that after the gun laws took effect, armed robbery in
Australia went up
> 69 percent, assaults involving guns rose 28 percent, gun murders increased
19 percent and
> home invasions rose 21 percent. It does not give a source for the data.
>
> Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology,
said the statistics
> were misleading.
>
If they are misleading then please cite the statistics side by side.
> He said the latest annual crime figures, for 1998, showed that assaults
had increased but
> that most attacks did not involve guns. He said homicides decreased and
were only rarely
> committed with guns.
>
If most attacks do not involve guns then please cite the numbers.
SNIP
>
> Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
>
AP..... Go figure. If they are going to debunk the numbers put forth by
the NRA then shouldn't they put the numbers on the line and not put vague
statements like "most attacks did not involve guns." Lets us see the
numbers for ourselves. Untill then I will trust the NRA's numbers.
Ric
--
I see your $.02 and raise you $.02
Panhead
>
> Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>
> March 23, 2000
> Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>
> SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the U.S. National Rifle
> Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the nation's gun reform laws
> had backfired.
If they are all that pissed, let the Aussies try to shoot it out
with us.
The-Trainers
He claims the NRA lied, but then he does NOT say one word that relates
to what the NRA actually said.
He KNOWS that his own government stats PROVE the NRA was telling the
TRUTH, so since he cannot actually attack the facts the NRA stated,
he spews a bunch of unrelated figures and hopes no Aussie will be
smart enough to notice.
It appears he was right, about how easily fooled the Aussies are, that is.
MT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, - Prof. Jonez© wrote:
> Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>
> March 23, 2000
> Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>
> SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the U.S. National Rifle
> Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the nation's gun reform laws
> had backfired.
>
> The video, presented as a television news story, claims that crimes involving guns have
> increased in Australia since the laws, which ban all semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic
> shotguns and pump action shotguns, were introduced.
>
> Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams said the NRA was using inaccurate statistics and
> urged the group to remove "any reference to Australia" from its Web site.
>
> "I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws
> introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States,"
> he said.
>
> Williams sent a letter today to NRA president Charlton Heston, asking for the immediate
> withdrawal of misleading information.
>
> Australia's gun-related homicide rate was 0.28 per 100,000 people in 1998 compared to 4
> per 100,000 in the United States, Williams wrote in the letter, which was distributed to
> reporters.
>
> "There are many things that Australia can learn from the United States," he wrote. "How to
> manage firearm ownership is not one of them."
>
> Australia adopted the gun laws after an April 1996 rampage by Martin Bryant, who opened
> fire with military-style rifles at the Port Arthur historic site in the state of Tasmania.
> Bryant, who killed 35 people and injured 19, is serving a life sentence.
>
> More than 640,000 firearms were removed from the Australian community under a buyback
> program. The NRA video shows footage of guns being sawed to pieces, and thousands of
> destroyed guns piled on scrap heaps.
>
> South Australia's Attorney General Trevor Griffin -- who is seen in the video talking
> about crime -- said he was not interviewed by the NRA and a quote from him was taken from
> a previous interview and used out of context.
>
> The video claims that after the gun laws took effect, armed robbery in Australia went up
> 69 percent, assaults involving guns rose 28 percent, gun murders increased 19 percent and
> home invasions rose 21 percent. It does not give a source for the data.
>
> Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, said the statistics
> were misleading.
>
> He said the latest annual crime figures, for 1998, showed that assaults had increased but
> that most attacks did not involve guns. He said homicides decreased and were only rarely
> committed with guns.
>
> Because there were so many other factors involved, such as population change, it was
> "enormously difficult" to draw conclusions about what effect the gun laws have had on the
> level of crime, Graycar said.
>
> "It is a very long bow to draw," to claim the ban led to an increase in crime, he told
> Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
>
> "What we've got here is an American group with a heavy gun culture -- guns figure very
> significantly in crime in the United States -- trying to transpose that into Australia.
> There is no comparison," Graycar said.
>
> Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
>
>
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
Ferg wrote in message ...
>er, you got your backsides tanned by little men in black
>pyjamas not so long ago, remember? We, on the other hand,
>haven't ever had that kind of trouble.
>>>>
YOU forget that Aussie dumbfucks were in Vietnam too.
--------------------------------------------
Lee Harrison
fergu...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/23/00 8:40 PM:
>> If they are misleading then please cite the statistics
>> side by side.
>
> Have a look for yourself, freak, try the Australian Bureau
> of Statistics & the AIC (mentioned above).
>
> Since the new gun laws, homicide fell by 10%, suicide fell,
> firearms accidents fell, the percentage of armed robberies
> involving firearms fell.
>
> And where they got "armed robbery increased by 69%" is a
> total mystery, considering the trend of annual rise in armed
> robbery actually fell in the year succeeding the
> introduction of the gun laws, with armed robbery up by only
> 22%, as opposed to the 2 years preceeding the gun laws when
> it had increased by a cumulative 70%-odd.
>
> I think this is what is meant by "misleading". He was
> diplomatically trying to avoid saying that "Americans are a
> bunch of dishonest ignorant gun-loving liars"
Actually, these NRA gunloons are only about 7% of all American gun owners,
and maybe 2% of all Americans.
Most gun owners are responsible, loyal American citizens, and know that the
Second Amendment doesn't provide any right to have a gun unless their
possession or use of that gun has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
> But then again, this is the NRA, we don't really expect them
> to give us real facts, do we?
Unfortunately, no.
Famous Last Words Of Gunloons - Glock
Last week, Smith & Wesson, the nationÄ…s largest gun manufacturer, agreed to
make its handguns more childproof by installing safety locks and developing
Å‚smart gunË› technology. Smith & Wesson also agreed to the same oversight
commission that Glock opposes.
Smith & Wesson accepted the restrictions in exchange for some protection
against lawsuits. At least 15 of 29 cities and counties that had sued the
gun industry have agreed to drop Smith & Wesson from their lawsuits.
Any changes at Glock, however, will not be made with an eye toward avoiding
lawsuits, Jannuzzo said.
NobodyÄ…s going to drop any of these lawsuits unless we sign on to the
commission," Jannuzzo said. "And we will never do that."
ABC News - March 22, 2000
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Hall of Fantasy
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/hall/
Richard G Cheek
Henry Glenworthy <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
news:FDAC4.512$Wr5....@nntp2.onemain.com...
>
> Ferg wrote in message ...
>
> >er, you got your backsides tanned by little men in black
> >pyjamas not so long ago, remember? We, on the other hand,
> >haven't ever had that kind of trouble.
>
>
> >>>>
>
> YOU forget that Aussie dumbfucks were in Vietnam too.
Dammit, Dave, "Aussie dumbfucks" is a VERY redundant phrase. Lets save those
electrons now.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Olly <watk...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:8beos0$rk1$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> there are lies, damn lies, then there's the NRA
>
>
If that were true, then the NRA would be a natural Democratic party
affiliate. The fact is, however, that of the parties involved it is only
CLINTON that is a known and confirmed PERJURER, dickhead.
RGlenCheek
stereotype
>Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>
> March 23, 2000
>Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>
>SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the U.S. National Rifle
>Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the nation's gun reform laws
>had backfired.
>
>The video, presented as a television news story, claims that crimes involving guns have
>increased in Australia since the laws, which ban all semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic
>shotguns and pump action shotguns, were introduced.
>
>Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams said the NRA was using inaccurate statistics and
>urged the group to remove "any reference to Australia" from its Web site.
What about the statistics on Legal Aid Daryl? How many people can't get proper
representation in court because your government cut the LA budget by 40%. Let's
talk about justice Daryl.
>
>"I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws
>introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States,"
>he said.
>
>Williams sent a letter today to NRA president Charlton Heston, asking for the immediate
>withdrawal of misleading information.
On yer Daryl. Fire a few at an easy target. Might win you a few votes.
>
>Australia's gun-related homicide rate was 0.28 per 100,000 people in 1998 compared to 4
>per 100,000 in the United States, Williams wrote in the letter, which was distributed to
>reporters.
>
>"There are many things that Australia can learn from the United States," he wrote. "How to
>manage firearm ownership is not one of them."
But we're trying aren't we Daryl. Can't afford a lawyer, well, that's just too
bad. Did we learn that from the USA?
snip.
Ferg
Panhead <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:38DA6AE8...@intac.com...
> "- Prof. JonezÅ " wrote:
> >
> > Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
> >
> > March 23, 2000
> > Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
> >
> > SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded
today that the U.S. National Rifle
> > Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming
that the nation's gun reform laws
> > had backfired.
>
>
it out
> with us.
er, you got your backsides tanned by little men in black
Ferg
Ric Trask <nospa...@htc.net> wrote in message
news:8bdrao$i7i$1...@ns2.htc.net...
>
> - Prof. JonezÅ <jo...@norcom.to> wrote in message
> news:aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net...
> > Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
> >
> > March 23, 2000
> > Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
> >
> > SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded
today that the
> U.S. National Rifle
> > Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming
that the nation's
> gun reform laws
> > had backfired.
> > The video claims that after the gun laws took effect,
armed robbery in
> Australia went up
> > 69 percent, assaults involving guns rose 28 percent, gun
murders increased
> 19 percent and
> > home invasions rose 21 percent. It does not give a
source for the data.
> >
> > Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute
of Criminology,
> said the statistics
> > were misleading.
> >
>
side by side.
Have a look for yourself, freak, try the Australian Bureau
of Statistics & the AIC (mentioned above).
Since the new gun laws, homicide fell by 10%, suicide fell,
firearms accidents fell, the percentage of armed robberies
involving firearms fell.
And where they got "armed robbery increased by 69%" is a
total mystery, considering the trend of annual rise in armed
robbery actually fell in the year succeeding the
introduction of the gun laws, with armed robbery up by only
22%, as opposed to the 2 years preceeding the gun laws when
it had increased by a cumulative 70%-odd.
I think this is what is meant by "misleading". He was
diplomatically trying to avoid saying that "Americans are a
bunch of dishonest ignorant gun-loving liars"
Ferg
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.00032...@shell11.ba.best
.com...
> The OZ A.G. is LYING by mis-direction.
liar.
> He claims the NRA lied, but then he does NOT say one word
that relates
> to what the NRA actually said.
liar.
> He KNOWS that his own government stats PROVE the NRA was
telling the
liar.
> TRUTH, so since he cannot actually attack the facts the
NRA stated,
liar.
> he spews a bunch of unrelated figures and hopes no Aussie
will be
liar.
> smart enough to notice.
liar.
> It appears he was right, about how easily fooled the
Aussies are, that is.
liar.
Dave Proctor
>
>Ferg wrote in message ...
>
>>pyjamas not so long ago, remember? We, on the other hand,
>>haven't ever had that kind of trouble.
>
YOU forget that we had the good sense to puu out in 1972 when it became
apparent that the war (oops, police action) was not going to be won.
Dave
Olly
Steve Hix
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
The U.S. didn't hang in for much longer, did it?
"Duane" K/ Kelly
>
> Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>
> March 23, 2000
> Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>
> SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the U.S. National Rifle
> Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the nation's gun reform laws
> had backfired.
Yep, I would admit... gun control has backfired and it would appear that
the leaders in Australia are more worried about saving face, than
addresses the issue...
Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in
Australia 1997
Release Date: July 15th, 1998
The upward trend in property crime presently occurring in NSW appears to
be part of an Australia-wide trend, according to figures released today
by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
The ABS figures show trends in crime recorded by police in every
Australian State and Territory over the period 1996-1997.
Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and
Western Australia all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery.
The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the
increases in some other States were also quite substantial.
Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%,
Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an
increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%.
New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia also recorded increases
in unarmed robbery (+29%, +19% and +40%, respectively).
Other States have also experienced the increase in break and enter and
vehicle theft announced earlier this year in New South Wales.
Recorded rates of break and enter rose by 8% in NSW and 4% in Victoria.
Recorded rates of motor vehicle theft rose by 11% in NSW, 6% in Western
Australia and 5% in Victoria.
Commenting on these figures, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that they suggested
that the underlying causes of the upward trend in property crime in New
South Wales were probably national rather than State-based.
"They also highlight the need for a nationally coordinated approach to
the development of strategies for reducing the level of property crime."
--
========================================================
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
[James Madison - The Influence of the State and Federal Governments
Compared From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 29, 1788]
A government that cannot trust its citizens, is a government its
citizens cannot trust.
=========================================================
Dan Day
>
>I think this is what is meant by "misleading". He was
>diplomatically trying to avoid saying that "Americans are a
>bunch of dishonest ignorant gun-loving liars"
My, you're certainly an obnoxious little twit, aren't you?
>But then again, this is the NRA, we don't really expect them
>to give us real facts, do we?
Yes, actually, we do, and they've got a spectacularly good
track record.
Which is more than I can say for how often I've caught the
anti-gun factions lying through their teeth. And ironically,
often those lies are about the NRA's track record.
Rod Speed
Simon Slade <solic...@camattalempens.com.au> wrote in
message news:38DB003B...@camattalempens.com.au...
> Henry Glenworthy wrote:
>> YOU forget that Aussie dumbfucks were in Vietnam too.
> To our eternal shame!
Eternal eh ? Bet its forgotten in a millennium or two.
Benjamin
You're so fucking right, MT.
Aussies are a bunch of sheep who constantly applause the government for
controlling things.
Look at my other post regarding Sandgroper as a FUKKWIT.
Australia interpolates into Southern Chinese States. FUCKING YUCK!!!
Kimbo
Sort of an inane comment since your here...........and the land of the great
Septic is over there.
If you are so anti-OZ all there is to say is .....see y'all later
Trevor Calder
following:
>Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology,
> said the statistics
>were misleading.
>Because there were so many other factors involved, such as population
>change, it was
>"enormously difficult" to draw conclusions about what effect the gun
>laws have had on the
>level of crime, Graycar said.
>"It is a very long bow to draw," to claim the ban led to an increase
>in crime, he told
>Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
The other side of this, of course, is that it is drawing an equally
long bow to claim that the ban led to a decrease in crime of any type.
You'd think that the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology
would realise that, wouldn't you?
--
Trevor Calder
"..it is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a
stone at every dog that barks at you.."
David Lentz
Lee Harrison wrote:
<snip>
> Most gun owners are responsible, loyal American citizens, and know that the
> Second Amendment doesn't provide any right to have a gun unless their
> possession or use of that gun has some reasonable relationship to the
> preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
Citizen who understand the Constitution know the Constitution
does not establish, provide for, any rights what so ever. The
Constitution protects rights.
Further, students of the Constiution realize that the Second
Amendment is redundant, as the Constitution provides no authority
to Congress to control private ownership of weapons by
individuals.
David
Julie Cochrane
"- Prof. JonezÅ " <jo...@norcom.to> wrote:
> Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>
> March 23, 2000
> Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>
> SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the
U.S. National Rifle
> Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the
nation's gun reform laws
> had backfired.
<snip>
> Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology,
said the statistics
> were misleading.
>
> He said the latest annual crime figures, for 1998, showed that
assaults had increased but
> that most attacks did not involve guns. He said homicides decreased
and were only rarely
> committed with guns.
>
<snip>
"Most attacks did not involve guns"
That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
guns.
A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
Victims don't get to choose who attacks them, and are usually
attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
Criminals DO get to choose who they attack, and NATURALLY attack
people they perceive to be weaker than themselves.
Criminals don't need guns to carry out their criminality as much
as victims need guns to defend themselves from criminal attack.
By making the invalid argument that an increase in non-gun assaults
could not indicate a negative consequence of their law, it is
Dr. Graycar who is using statistics in a misleading fashion.
It is, of course, POSSIBLE that Dr. Graycar is unaware of the
arguments proposing a mechanism for a link between gun confiscation
and increases in non-gun assaults, but VERY, VERY UNLIKELY.
Regardless, to say what he did would amount to EITHER blatant
intellectual dishonesty OR a lack of insight into evaluating
statistical data for social science purposes that amounts to
flaming incompetence OR he did acknowledge the possible relationship
between confiscation and an increase in non-gun assaults and
the statements quoted here have been taken terribly out of context
and misrepresented by the reporter. Take your pick.
If the Australian government side doesn't have any better arguments
than this (ie-- -"assaults are way up, but we don't want to count
big thugs beating up little old ladies now that they have a government
guarantee the little old ladies are disarmed"-), then apparently
they're wrong and NRA is right.
Julie
--
Money isn't Speech? When you spend it to rent a
printing press, and the restrictions on what you
spend are based on the nature of what you choose
to print, money BECOMES speech.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Julie Cochrane
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Henry Glenworthy > wrote in message ...
> >
> >Ferg wrote in message ...
> >
> >>er, you got your backsides tanned by little men in black
> >>pyjamas not so long ago, remember? We, on the other hand,
> >>haven't ever had that kind of trouble.
> >
>
became
> apparent that the war (oops, police action) was not going to be won.
Oh, right, a big one year difference in leaving---since we left
in 1973.
>
> Dave
rain...@hogtrader.com
Julie Cochrane <julie_c...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net>,
>
> "Most attacks did not involve guns"
>
> That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
> year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
> that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
> confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
> emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
> they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
> guns.
>
>
> Julie
>
I cannot add to your post, you are exactly right.
Bert Hyman
<38dbc390$0$21...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
>Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an
>explosion of drug addicts.
>This has had the result of increased incidents of home invasions ,
>bag snatching , car thefts and muggings ...etc , it is a direct
>result of the drug addicts needing extra cash to support their habit
>, it has NOTHING to do with any so called "restrictive gun laws".
> ...
>That is the fact that you yanks do not realise , Aust people NEVER
>carry guns in public , Aust people only use guns for the purpose of
>carrying out their profession ( farmer, ringer , fisherman ..etc ) or
>because they belong to a gun club.
>
So, you believe that as your drug problem grows and drug trafficking
becomes more lucrative, your criminals will refrain from carrying and
using guns? If not on "civilians", then at least on each other?
American criminals didn't really start using firearms in earnest until
our government banned the sale of alcohol, thereby establishing
organized crime. The current "war on (some) drugs" serves to keep
organized crime in business.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>Julie Cochrane wrote in message <8bg8ge$486$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net>,
>>That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
>>year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
>>that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
>>confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
>>emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
>>they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
>>guns.
>>A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
>>new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
>>if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
>>effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
>Wrong , wrong , wrong, wrong ,wrong !!!!!!!
>You do not know anything about Aust culture
[Aussie drivel deleted]
>>>>
Australian "culture"? Hahahahahahahahahaha.
----------------------------------------------
Dave
Sandgroper <stev...@NOSPAMERS.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38dbc390$0$21...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Julie Cochrane wrote in message <8bg8ge$486$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net>,
> >
> >That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
> >year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
> >that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
> >confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
> >emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
> >they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
> >guns.
> >
> >A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
> >new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
> >if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
> >effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
> >
>
> Wrong , wrong , wrong, wrong ,wrong !!!!!!!
>
> Aust recent years.
> Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an
explosion
> of drug addicts.
> This has had the result of increased incidents of home invasions , bag
> snatching , car thefts and muggings ...etc , it is a direct result of the
> drug addicts needing extra cash to support their habit , it has NOTHING
to
> do with any so called "restrictive gun laws".
Are you saying, perhaps, just perhaps, that "correlation doesn't necessarily
imply causation?" Hmmm. Yet you will spout on about the US crime rates
versus Oz's. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
Dave
Julie Cochrane
"Sandgroper" <stev...@NOSPAMERS.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> rain...@hogtrader.com wrote in message
<8bg9e6$5bc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <8bg8ge$486$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >>
> >I cannot add to your post, you are exactly right.
>
culture.
>
Oh garbage. The scientific method, mathematics, and logic are
true, independent of culture.
My post---go back and read it, if you didn't, dealt with
purely questions of logic. Dr. Whatshisname's comment about
non-gun assaults was a Straw Man* argument, because the pro-gun
contention is NOT that confiscation necessarily causes crimes
committed WITH GUNS to go up, BUT INSTEAD that confiscation
causes criminal acts against people IN GENERAL to go up by
giving the criminal a government guarantee that his victim
is disarmed.
The pro-gun contention may or may not be accurate in Australia,
but the fact remains that Dr. Whatshisname did NOT successfully
refute the pro-gun contention because he DID NOT ADDRESS IT.
Instead, he addressed his own strawman. By the rules of logic,
demolishing your own strawman says nothing about your opponent's
actual argument.
Logic is logic is logic. If an argument is logically flawed,
it is logically flawed REGARDLESS of where on the globe the
the argument happens to be made, and REGARDLESS of which people
happen to be milling about, and REGARDLESS of those people's
social behaviors.
Social science results vary across different cultures and
societies. The rules of science, mathematics, and logic
that underly social science methodologies are consistent
across all societies and all cultures.
If you screw up in your application of the laws of science
and mathematics and logic in building a bridge, your bridge
falls down.
If you screw up in your application of the rules of logic
in building an argument, your argument falls down.
That's true no matter WHAT side of the world you're on.
Julie
*Straw Man Argument: One of the major logical fallacies, in
which someone fabricates an argument (the "straw man") that
may resemble his opponent's argument, but is weaker and easier
to refute than his opponent's actual argument, then refutes
the "straw man" argument he fabricated, and claims to have
refuted his opponent's argument.
> Sandgroper
> ==========
> Remove NOSPAMERS for Email
>
>
--
Money isn't Speech? When you spend it to rent a
printing press, and the restrictions on what you
spend are based on the nature of what you choose
to print, money BECOMES speech.
Julie Cochrane
of this
> year (2000) alone , is more than double to what was seized in the
whole of
> 1996 before the new gun laws came into effect.
>
> Most of these crimes have been perpetrated without using guns ,
because they
> are drug addicts out for a quick dollar , and NOT because they know
that the
> people are not carrying guns .
> In Aust society , NOBODY CARRIES GUNS OF ANY KIND WHILE OUT IN PUBLIC
,NEVER
> HAVE AND NEVER WILL ( except for the coppers ) .
>
> That is the fact that you yanks do not realise , Aust people NEVER
carry
> guns in public , Aust people only use guns for the purpose of carrying
out
> their profession ( farmer, ringer , fisherman ..etc ) or because they
belong
> to a gun club.
>
scenarios
> based on USA standards and culture.
>
Oh, GARBAGE!!!
It's not a matter of CULTURE it's a matter of LOGIC.
If you erect a straw-man argument and then refute it, you have
NOT refuted your opponent's argument, no matter WHERE in the
world you live nor what your "society" is nor what your "culture"
is.
Again, you run into the issue that the criminals know fewer
honest people have guns, and therefore the criminals know there
is less chance of their victim being armed.
Some assaults may occur in your house, or on your land around
your house, or on your farm---the criminal now knows such potential
victims are unarmed.
The issue is NOT any specific example, the issue is that the
general pro-gun contention is NOT that confiscation causes
crimes committed WITH GUNS to rise, but that confiscation causes
crimes committed AGAINST PEOPLE to rise, and the issue of LOGIC
is that Dr. Whatshisname did NOT address that contention, but
ONLY the subset of crimes committed WITH GUNS---WHICH WAS HIS
OWN STRAW MAN.
Logic.
Logic. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Culture.
He tilted at his own Straw Man instead of addressing his opponent's
real argument, therefore he proved nothing.
The NRA commercial MAY well have factual errors, but Dr. G-something's
comments don't demonstrate any specific ones.
I'm a great fan of letting people go to hell in their own way,
and I have no intention of trying to tell you Australians how
to live in your own country.
HOWEVER, when an organization in our country is basically called
liars by someone using flawed logic, I'm going to point that error
in logic out.
Live how you like, but we're still going to feel free to comment
on it (as your people quite freely comment on us). Where the
statistics are inaccurate or taken out of context, by all means
let's get to accurate numbers and the various accurate contexts
for those numbers. Just do it with sound logic, accurate math,
and sound science.
Julie
The-Trainers
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Benjamin wrote:
> > It appears he was right, about how easily fooled the Aussies are, that is.
> You're so fucking right, MT.
I usually am.
> Aussies are a bunch of sheep who constantly applause the government for
> controlling things.
Well, not 100% clearly there are some Aussies with a clue.
> Look at my other post regarding Sandgroper as a FUKKWIT.
I'll look for it.
> Australia interpolates into Southern Chinese States. FUCKING YUCK!!!
I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you elaborate?
MT
The-Trainers
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Kimbo wrote:
> If you are so anti-OZ all there is to say is .....see y'all later
I am not "anti-OZ", I am pro-gun-rights, I am pro-thinking-for-yourself,
I am pro-learning-the-facts.
Far too many Aussies and Americans and Europeans and ....humans
simply choose not to dig below the surface white-wash paint-layer
to see the rotten wood underneath to learn the truth.
They would prefer to live on blind faith rather than be self-reliant
and prepared.
MT
Carman
Sandgroper wrote in message <38dc2920$0$33...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>...
>
>Bert Hyman wrote in message <8F018554Cb...@192.61.219.6>...
>>>
>>So, you believe that as your drug problem grows and drug trafficking
>>becomes more lucrative, your criminals will refrain from carrying and
>>using guns? If not on "civilians", then at least on each other?
>>
>
to
>pocess a gun and hence there is not an over supply of guns in circulation
in
>Aust., like it is in the USA.
>When Aust criminals arm themselves , it is more likely they would use other
>means like knives , swords ....etc.
>In short , having a very restrictive set of gun laws makes it even harder
>for criminals to obtain , carry and use guns.
>
>>American criminals didn't really start using firearms in earnest until
>>our government banned the sale of alcohol, thereby establishing
>>organized crime. The current "war on (some) drugs" serves to keep
>>organized crime in business.
>
>very accessable , so it was very easy for crimminals to arm themselves when
>they became organised .
>
>Sandgroper
Sir: If you intend to talk about the history of firearms in the US, then
please acquaint yourself with that history before you post. The laws have
been changing almost constantly since they were first introduced. I
recommend the work of Clayton Cramer Ph.D., on the subject.
Jim Patrick
>Wrong , wrong , wrong, wrong ,wrong !!!!!!!
>
>You do not know anything about Aust culture or what has been happening in
>Aust recent years.
>Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an explosion
>of drug addicts.
It still proves that guncontrol has no effect on reducing crime.
Jim Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhead
>
> Benjamin wrote in message <38db3f42$0$18...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
> >> It appears he was right, about how easily fooled the Aussies are, that
> is.
> >
> >You're so fucking right, MT.
> >
> >controlling things.
> >
>
> you import banned reptiles into Aust.... Ie Corn snakes.
And just what IS "the majorities" problem with these harmless
pets?
Those snakes are a hell of a lot cuter than the females you ever
dated.
Richard G Cheek
< Aussie submissive wuss BS deleted >
Your nothing but a nation of former criminals, and now you're just a bunch
of idiots. You have given up the very idea of natural rights so that Nanny
state can take care of your lazy asses from cradle to grave. Your whole
country is little more than a bunch of loafing thieves and cowards.
Who gives a flying fuck what you try to think?
Richard G Cheek
MC <comr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38DC23B5...@hotmail.com...
> What on earth makes you think that you have the information to determine
who is lying
Its easy, really. Like any other LEftist crew of criminals, they are lying
whenever their lips move.
> Johnny Lee Pettimore wrote:
>
> > "- Prof. JonezÅ " wrote:
> >
> > > Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
> > >
> > > March 23, 2000
> > > Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
> > >
> > > SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the
U.S. National Rifle
> > > Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the
nation's gun reform laws
> > > had backfired.
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Aus is lying, they're all a bunch of disarmed liberal lefties now and
have to lie like the
> > Clintons.
> >
> > Johnny Lee Pettimore,
> > Same as my daddy and his daddy before
>
Richard G Cheek
> Dave wrote in message ...
> >
>
> >
> >Are you saying, perhaps, just perhaps, that "correlation doesn't
> necessarily
> >imply causation?" Hmmm. Yet you will spout on about the US crime rates
> >versus Oz's. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
> >
>
> the kids in their high school.
>
They wouldnt have the brains to pull it off anyway, so what?
Richard G Cheek
Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:ySVC4.3105$xz1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...
were
> >very accessable , so it was very easy for crimminals to arm themselves
when
> >they became organised .
You thus totally prove that you are an idiot and an ignoramus. In the
Western frontier areas, people could openly carry guns on their hip.
Sandgroper
Benjamin wrote in message <38db3f42$0$18...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
>> It appears he was right, about how easily fooled the Aussies are, that
is.
>
>You're so fucking right, MT.
>
>Aussies are a bunch of sheep who constantly applause the government for
>controlling things.
>
You are just pissed off because the the Aust Gov will not let a whacko like
you import banned reptiles into Aust.... Ie Corn snakes.
If you hate Aust that much , then why don't you piss off the US , or
perhaps you are too scared to go because you won't be able to get to dole
there , like you do here in Aust.
Sandgroper
Julie Cochrane wrote in message <8bg8ge$486$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net>,
>
>That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
>year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
>that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
>confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
>emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
>they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
>guns.
>
>A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
>new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
>if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
>effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
>
Wrong , wrong , wrong, wrong ,wrong !!!!!!!
You do not know anything about Aust culture or what has been happening in
Aust recent years.
Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an explosion
of drug addicts.
This has had the result of increased incidents of home invasions , bag
snatching , car thefts and muggings ...etc , it is a direct result of the
drug addicts needing extra cash to support their habit , it has NOTHING to
do with any so called "restrictive gun laws".
The amount of high grade imported drugs seized in the first 3 months of this
year (2000) alone , is more than double to what was seized in the whole of
1996 before the new gun laws came into effect.
Most of these crimes have been perpetrated without using guns , because they
are drug addicts out for a quick dollar , and NOT because they know that the
people are not carrying guns .
In Aust society , NOBODY CARRIES GUNS OF ANY KIND WHILE OUT IN PUBLIC ,NEVER
HAVE AND NEVER WILL ( except for the coppers ) .
That is the fact that you yanks do not realise , Aust people NEVER carry
guns in public , Aust people only use guns for the purpose of carrying out
their profession ( farmer, ringer , fisherman ..etc ) or because they belong
to a gun club.
Learn about Aust and Aust culture before you start giving out scenarios
based on USA standards and culture.
Sandgroper
rain...@hogtrader.com wrote in message <8bg9e6$5bc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8bg8ge$486$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>
>I cannot add to your post, you are exactly right.
...........For USA society and culture , NOT for Aust society and culture.
Benjamin
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you elaborate?
Australia slowly turns into China. I'm scared!
That's all.
(Sorry for my french, I was a bit off mood last night).
Benjamin.
MC
Johnny Lee Pettimore wrote:
Sandgroper
Julie Cochrane wrote in message <8bgvej$ujp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
><snipped the gun loon crap>
>
>The NRA commercial MAY well have factual errors, but Dr. G-something's
>comments don't demonstrate any specific ones.
The commercial had that many factual errors that it leaked like a sieve , it
also took some people interviews and twisted it out of context , and one
person didn't even know that he was being used in that commercial to promote
NRA propaganda.
>
>I'm a great fan of letting people go to hell in their own way,
>and I have no intention of trying to tell you Australians how
>to live in your own country.
Good , keep your nose out of Aust and don't tell us how to run our country.
>
>HOWEVER, when an organization in our country is basically called
>liars by someone using flawed logic, I'm going to point that error
>in logic out.
Your "organization" , the NRA , took Australian Brueau of Statistics figures
and twisted them around to suit their own purposes in than effort to twist
and distort the facts about Aust and Aust way of life.
The Aust Brueau of Statistics is a neutral Gov non political , non
<whatever> organization that just compiles statistics about Aust , it has a
reputation as being a very credible and accurate Gov agency.
The NRA are LIARS and I would believe a very credible ABS over a whacko ,
gun loon organization with their "facts and figures".
>
>Live how you like, but we're still going to feel free to comment
>on it (as your people quite freely comment on us). Where the
>statistics are inaccurate or taken out of context, by all means
>let's get to accurate numbers and the various accurate contexts
>for those numbers. Just do it with sound logic, accurate math,
>and sound science.
Yeah , the yanks still want to play god to another country.
>
Your original presumption is that Australians were allowed to carry guns in
public to defend themselves and that since the new Aust gun laws were
introduced, the Aust public were not allowed to carry any guns in public ,
so this has caused an increase in crime rate because your scenario article
it says :
"criminals may have been emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker
people now that they are more confident those physically weaker people don't
have
guns".
Aust people has NEVER been allowed to carry guns in public to defend
themselves for the last 80-100 years.
That is the point that you yanks do not understand about Aust laws and
society.
Sandgroper
>
>
>Are you saying, perhaps, just perhaps, that "correlation doesn't
necessarily
>imply causation?" Hmmm. Yet you will spout on about the US crime rates
>versus Oz's. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
>
Yeah , at least Aust doesn't has 15 year old school kids blowing away half
the kids in their high school.
Panhead
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Benjamin wrote:
>
> > > It appears he was right, about how easily fooled the Aussies are, that is.
>
> > You're so fucking right, MT.
>
And modest as well I have to assume.
Sandgroper
Bert Hyman wrote in message <8F018554Cb...@192.61.219.6>...
>>
>So, you believe that as your drug problem grows and drug trafficking
>becomes more lucrative, your criminals will refrain from carrying and
>using guns? If not on "civilians", then at least on each other?
>
Aust gun laws past and present , make it very hard for the average person to
pocess a gun and hence there is not an over supply of guns in circulation in
Aust., like it is in the USA.
When Aust criminals arm themselves , it is more likely they would use other
means like knives , swords ....etc.
In short , having a very restrictive set of gun laws makes it even harder
for criminals to obtain , carry and use guns.
>American criminals didn't really start using firearms in earnest until
>our government banned the sale of alcohol, thereby establishing
>organized crime. The current "war on (some) drugs" serves to keep
>organized crime in business.
Your gun laws has never changed since the old wild west days and guns were
very accessable , so it was very easy for crimminals to arm themselves when
they became organised .
Sandgroper
Scott Gilbert
"Ferg" <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> liar.
[snip]
> liar.
Pants on Fire.
--
"The emperor is not at forgiving as I"
Darth Vader
Sandgroper
>And just what IS "the majorities" problem with these harmless
>pets?
>Those snakes are a hell of a lot cuter than the females you ever
>dated.
At least I date human FEMALES , looks like you fancy snakes , probably males
one at that.
Aust is a reasonably isolated place that does not have any of the
flora/fauna diseases that other parts of the world have, very strict laws
were introduce to prevent any of these disease from entering and destroying
Aust native fauna and also to prevent any upsets in the native ecological
systems.
Before these laws were introduced , some flora/fauna species was introduced
into Aust with very bad consequences.
Any imported reptiles would greatly upset the local native fauna if the were
to escape and start breeding in the wild , this would have devasting
consequences for Aust small marsupials, insects and a whole range of other
native fauna.
Every plant, animal , animal/plant by products that comes into Aust is
quarantined and checked.
Eiley
Sandgroper wrote in message <38dc2664$0$33...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>...
>Dave wrote in message ...
>>
>
>>
>>Are you saying, perhaps, just perhaps, that "correlation doesn't
>necessarily
>>imply causation?" Hmmm. Yet you will spout on about the US crime rates
>>versus Oz's. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
>>
>
>Yeah , at least Aust doesn't has 15 year old school kids blowing away half
>the kids in their high school.
I think you misspelt "6" and "primary"!
Eiley
Jim Patrick wrote in message <1obods4q9aq2b36co...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>You do not know anything about Aust culture or what has been happening in
>>Aust recent years.
>>Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an
explosion
>>of drug addicts.
>
?? How does one prove such a negative?
Could you tell me, of all the gun related deaths in the USA each year, what
percentage is "intruder killed by homeowner protecting his/her
property/family"? What percentage are escalated domestic arguments? What
percentage are accidents? I bet the first one is so miniscule as to only be
lumped in with "other" and the other two are substantial.
The section of the ad I saw on TV said something along the lines of
"Australians barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out after
dark". This is a blatant lie, unless I missed the bit where they said
"agrophobic Australians". I live in what would be considered a lower
socioeconomic suburb and I have never once felt afraid when at home alone or
walking around at night. The thought that someone might pull a gun on me is
so remote as to be laughable.
But this is the NRA, the same organisation who suggested after Littleton
that "teachers should be armed to prevent incidents like this" and went wild
when someone suggested that it might have been a good idea if the gun the
6-year-old picked up had some sort of safety catch on it. Intelligent,
coherent argument indeed!
Cheers,
eiley
=== I doubt, therefore I might be. ===
Kevin Sandford
1)As an old German (ex WW2) workmate used to say,"when the German Army
shoots,the British duck.When the British Army shoot,the Germans duck.When
the US Army shoot,EVERYBODY ducks!!
2)Australia is a pretty big place,marked on lots of maps,etc,but you can
bet the USAAF/Army etc would still shoot at and bomb Austria instead
"Waal,we kinda figured it sounded pretty damn much the same,so we just went
right ahead and bombed it anyways"
Panhead <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in article
<38DA6AE8...@intac.com>...
> "- Prof. JonezÅ " wrote:
> >
> > Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
> >
> > March 23, 2000
> > Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
> >
> > SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the
U.S. National Rifle
> > Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the
nation's gun reform laws
> > had backfired.
>
>
> If they are all that pissed, let the Aussies try to shoot it out
> with us.
>
Trevor Calder
following:
>In short , having a very restrictive set of gun laws makes it even har
>der
>for criminals to obtain , carry and use guns.
This is, unfortunately, a complete load of bollocks.
--
Trevor Calder
"..it is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a
stone at every dog that barks at you.."
Clayton E. Cramer
> Sir: If you intend to talk about the history of firearms in the US, then
> please acquaint yourself with that history before you post. The laws have
> been changing almost constantly since they were first introduced. I
> recommend the work of Clayton Cramer Ph.D., on the subject.
Ph.D.? When did that happen? No one ever tells me anything!
I only have an MA in History. Web page at http://www.ggnra.org/cramer.
--
Clayton E. Cramer http://www.ggnra.org/cramer to see excerpts from my
five published books and full text of a number of scholarly and popular
articles. Looking for startup opportunity. Skills: Java, embedded C,
TL1, SNMP, large user interface system design, project management,
writing.
Joe Bridgehouse
> >and I have no intention of trying to tell you Australians how
> >to live in your own country.
>
> Good , keep your nose out of Aust and don't tell us how to run our
country
> Sandgroper
> ==========
> Remove NOSPAMERS for Email
>
Does this mean you will practice what you preach?...And keep YOUR nose out
of of UK affairs.....This is UK politics.Guns....Stick to what your best at,
Shearing Sheep, and bribing IOC officials.
--
Joe Bridgehouse
www.joe-bridgehouse.cwc.net
>
>
>
Carman
Clayton E. Cramer wrote in message <38DCFB27...@callatg.com>...
>Carman wrote:
>
>> Sir: If you intend to talk about the history of firearms in the US,
then
>> please acquaint yourself with that history before you post. The laws have
>> been changing almost constantly since they were first introduced. I
>> recommend the work of Clayton Cramer Ph.D., on the subject.
>
>Ph.D.? When did that happen? No one ever tells me anything!
>
>I only have an MA in History. Web page at http://www.ggnra.org/cramer.
Profound apologies. I was sure I'd seen you mention you'd ascended.
Forgive me if you can.
Richard G Cheek
> Panhead wrote in message <38DBDA64...@intac.com>...
>
> >And just what IS "the majorities" problem with these harmless
> >pets?
> >Those snakes are a hell of a lot cuter than the females you ever
> >dated.
>
> At least I date human FEMALES ,
Oh, so you are marginally more intelligent than the average Aussie then. But
then again, with Aussie women, can you ever really be sure?
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Panhead <Panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:38DC0919...@intac.com...
Yes, he is the most modest man in the Universe; just ask him, heheheh
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Joe Bridgehouse <joe...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:g89D4.1078$JM1.25688@news2-hme0...
> >
> > Julie Cochrane wrote in message <8bgvej$ujp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >I'm a great fan of letting people go to hell in their own way,
> > >and I have no intention of trying to tell you Australians how
> > >to live in your own country.
> >
> > Good , keep your nose out of Aust and don't tell us how to run our
> country
>
> > Sandgroper
> > ==========
> > Remove NOSPAMERS for Email
> >
>
> Does this mean you will practice what you preach?...And keep YOUR nose out
> of of UK affairs.....This is UK politics.Guns....Stick to what your best
at,
> Shearing Sheep, and bribing IOC officials.
Well, I hear that they more than just shear those poor sheep.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Eiley <eiley...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:pUXC4.55924$3b6.2...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Jim Patrick wrote in message
<1obods4q9aq2b36co...@4ax.com>...
> >On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 , "Sandgroper" <stev...@NOSPAMERS.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
> >>Wrong , wrong , wrong, wrong ,wrong !!!!!!!
> >>
> >>You do not know anything about Aust culture or what has been happening
in
> >>Aust recent years.
> >>Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an
> explosion
> >>of drug addicts.
> >
> >It still proves that guncontrol has no effect on reducing crime.
>
>
> ?? How does one prove such a negative?
Well, one COULD look at the numbers, like the rise in gun ownership (from
24% in 88 to 37% in 96) while gun related crimes have dropped across the
country since 94. Since there is no apparent relationship between gun
availability and gun crime, it is only reasonable to assert that restricting
gun availability further would continue to have no effect, except perhaps to
increase crime as lawful citizens are increasingly disarmed.
> Could you tell me, of all the gun related deaths in the USA each year,
what
> percentage is "intruder killed by homeowner protecting his/her
> property/family"?
That is irrelevant, not all crime preventions result in the death of the
perpetrator. Often the perp is arrested or simply flees. It is still crime
prevented and is estimated to be from 1 million per year to 2.5 million per
year..
> What percentage are escalated domestic arguments?
Most domestic murders are not committed with handguns, but with available
household implements like rolling pins frying pans, etc.
>What
> percentage are accidents?
In 1988, the last year that accidental gun death statistics were kept by the
FBI, there were only 200 gun deaths due to accidents in all of the US. And
the majority of them (178) occured in states that do not have must issue
laws for concealed carry.
> I bet the first one is so miniscule as to only be
> lumped in with "other" and the other two are substantial.
Then you would lose your money, because there are far more criminals killed
by gun owners ( I seem to remember around 15,000 per year) than accidental
deaths (200).
> The section of the ad I saw on TV said something along the lines of
> "Australians barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out after
> dark". This is a blatant lie, unless I missed the bit where they said
> "agrophobic Australians".
Oh, so you know for a fact that NO Australians ever barricasde themselves in
their homes?
>I live in what would be considered a lower
> socioeconomic suburb and I have never once felt afraid when at home alone
or
> walking around at night.
That could be attributable to many things, such as your naivete.
>The thought that someone might pull a gun on me is
> so remote as to be laughable.
Then why ban guns at all?
> But this is the NRA, the same organisation who suggested after Littleton
> that "teachers should be armed to prevent incidents like this"
That is working today in Isreal and the PLO have not attempted any school
terrorism since the Isrealis started doing this.
>and went wild
> when someone suggested that it might have been a good idea if the gun the
> 6-year-old picked up had some sort of safety catch on it.
The only thing wild here is your supposition that a crack dealer is going to
obey the law and use trigger locks, LOL!
> Intelligent,
> coherent argument indeed!
Judging from your post above, I dont think you have a clue about what
"Intelligent, coherent argument" actually is at all.
RGlenCheek
Richard G Cheek
Kevin Sandford <KevinS...@postoffice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01bf9648$ace34350$bbca2c0a@scpoa084...
> This is not a good idea for two very good reasons-
> 1)As an old German (ex WW2) workmate used to say,"when the German Army
> shoots,the British duck.When the British Army shoot,the Germans duck.When
> the US Army shoot,EVERYBODY ducks!!
> 2)Australia is a pretty big place,marked on lots of maps,etc,but you can
> bet the USAAF/Army etc would still shoot at and bomb Austria instead
> "Waal,we kinda figured it sounded pretty damn much the same,so we just
went
> right ahead and bombed it anyways"
Kevin, I can put 25 of 30 shots from a 44 magnum into a two inch circle at
25 yards. From the time I was fourteen, I could hit a 55 gallon drum at 400
yards with a 30-06. I am at best an average shooter in Texas.
The American infantry stopped the Germans at the battle of the Bulge,
stopped the Japs at Guadalcanal (and saved your asses), and stopped the Red
Chinese Army and rolled it back recapturing Seoul while heavily outnumbered.
It decimated the VietCong in the 68 TET offensive, and we made the battle
hardened Iraqui's look like amateurs in the Gulf War (where were you guys?).
That BS you quoted above is simple jealousy.
RGlenCheek
Scott Steel
<julie_c...@my-deja.com> wrote:
For you folks in the US, please forgive my follow countrymen
for being rather, shall we say, full of conviction on the
matter of gun control, the NRA and its use of incorrect
statistics.
We in Australia have always found it difficult to understand
the NRA and its politics, primarily because of our different
philosophy on firearms as a body politic (which Im sure you
folk in the US have suddenly become aware of reading these
newsgroup discussions)
So, when we see an organisation like the NRA use incorrect
statistics and attempt to portray Australia as having a
social environment that she does not, we are somewhat pissed
off for being used as political pawns in someone elses
games, which ordinarily we couldnt give a shit about because
its your concern, not ours.
We dont take lightly to other countries portraying us as
something we are not, surely you can understand our agro at
the NRA for being, if not dishonest, certainly amatuerish in
their accumulation of facts, at our expense.
That said, on with the debate }B^)
>In article <38dbc390$0$21...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>,
>"Sandgroper" <stev...@NOSPAMERS.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Julie Cochrane wrote in message <8bg8ge$486$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net>,
[snip]
>> That is the fact that you yanks do not realise , Aust people NEVER
>carry
>> guns in public , Aust people only use guns for the purpose of carrying
>out
>> their profession ( farmer, ringer , fisherman ..etc ) or because they
>belong
>> to a gun club.
>>
>> Learn about Aust and Aust culture before you start giving out
>scenarios
>> based on USA standards and culture.
>>
>
>
>Oh, GARBAGE!!!
>
>It's not a matter of CULTURE it's a matter of LOGIC.
Logic does dont preclude the possibility that culture and
other influences of behavioral psychology have different
prioritisations within the psychology of seperate,
identifiably different populations.
To give you an example, many cultures within South East Asia
place a higher priority on avoiding conflict and ensuring
interpersonal harmony than does your average Australian.If,
for instance, the head of a S.E.A government department
(Person A) became aware that another government department
was publishing incorrect data on their department and, in
the process, making them look bad and causing a 'loss of
face', the two heads of the relevant departments (Persons A
and B) would meet and negotiation would begin on how to
rectify the problem without aportioning blame.The end result
would be that the data would probably be changed, the people
responsible for the publishing of the incorrect data would
not be held to account and life would go "harmoniously"
onward as it did before.
If this situation was transposed onto Australia, the
departmental head (Person X), witnessing the publication of
false data about their department, would come down like a
ton of bricks on the head (Person Y) of the offending
department.Person X would demand that the responsible people
be held accountable, that disciplinary action be taken and
accountability mechanisms be upheld, that blame be
aportioned and that Person Y understands fully, beyond
doubt, that they comprehensively fucked up.
The exact same stimulus would elicit a completely different
set of responses between the Persons A&B and Persons X&Y,
purely because the culture and other influences of
behavioural psychology create a different set of
prioritisations of behaviour within the psychology of the
two groups.
For you to argue that culture is irrelevent and logic is the
predetermining factor in behavioural dynamics would require,
among a great many other things, that there exists an
overidingly homogenous set of cultural norms and mores that
are universally recognised and that there is a universally
recognised set of psychological prioritisations
homogeneously applied to global civilisation.
Since neither of these things exist, to say that culture is
irrelevent and that logic is the predetermining influence on
the psychological mechanics of decision making, is, in
itself, an illogical argument }B^)
>If you erect a straw-man argument and then refute it, you have
>NOT refuted your opponent's argument, no matter WHERE in the
>world you live nor what your "society" is nor what your "culture"
>is.
>
>Again, you run into the issue that the criminals know fewer
>honest people have guns, and therefore the criminals know there
>is less chance of their victim being armed.
>
>Some assaults may occur in your house, or on your land around
>your house, or on your farm---the criminal now knows such potential
>victims are unarmed.
But this precludes the possibility of factors such as the
overall availability of firearms, the willingness of people
to utilise violence as a self-defence mechanism, the ethics
of violent retaliation and the magnitude of that retaliation
(independent of the weapon, if any, used) from being
relevent, which is just not the case.
The availability of firearms in Australia has never been
similar to that of the USA for multiple reasons such as the
lack of domestic gun manufacturers in Oz, the nature of our
enitrely maritime border and how that changes the economics
of gun importation compared to the geography of the US
borders, the different sizes of our respective populations
and economies and the increased opportunities that large
economies like the US provide for importing arms through
ordinary trade routes.
The Australian population has historically had a different
philosophy on firearms to our US brethren, where our
philosophy is more utilitarian and the US philosophy has a
large streak of government deterence as a fundamental part
of its doctrine.We have in Australia (for a rather complex
set of reasons), tended to trust our governments and wield
our democratic authority through the ballot box (we have
compulsory voting - I know I know, weird you say) , whereas
the US population has tended to have a distrust of
government and have always preffered to have a safety catch
(being armed resistance) should democracy through the ballot
box fail to prevent State tyranny.
Because of these vast differences in perspective between us
and you folks in the US on the philosophy of firearms, what
may be a high prioritisation to a criminal in the US (such
as wondering whether or not a proposed victim is armed) has
never really been an issue in the mind of a criminal in
Australia because the overwhelming majority of Australian
households have never and will never own a firearm.
>The issue is NOT any specific example, the issue is that the
>general pro-gun contention is NOT that confiscation causes
>crimes committed WITH GUNS to rise, but that confiscation causes
>crimes committed AGAINST PEOPLE to rise,
That may well be the case in the US, but it is not
necesarrily the case in Australia because of the enormous
differences between our respective societies.
[snip]
>The NRA commercial MAY well have factual errors,
It does, pretty big ones, which is our primary concern,
despite all the baiting that's going on.
>but Dr. G-something's
>comments don't demonstrate any specific ones.
>
>I'm a great fan of letting people go to hell in their own way,
>and I have no intention of trying to tell you Australians how
>to live in your own country.
Likewise - it is just a pity that the NRA thought it
necesarry to drag Australia into their problems, through
falsely portraying us.
>HOWEVER, when an organization in our country is basically called
>liars by someone using flawed logic, I'm going to point that error
>in logic out.
The NRA may well be liars, I do not know whether they
deliberately or conveniently used verifiably false data.But
one does not need logic to bring to the US public's
attention the NRA's irresponsible use of false statistics.
>Live how you like, but we're still going to feel free to comment
>on it (as your people quite freely comment on us).
You always have ;-)
Why stop now }B^)
Scott Steel.
Carman
Andrew Yong wrote in message <8bjreu$mtj$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
>
>Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:8bhfq7$h4f$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Your nothing but a nation of former criminals, and now you're just a
bunch
>> of idiots. You have given up the very idea of natural rights so that
Nanny
>> state can take care of your lazy asses from cradle to grave. Your whole
>> country is little more than a bunch of loafing thieves and cowards.
>> Who gives a flying fuck what you try to think?
Is there someone, somewhere who cares what you try to think?
>Presumably the fact that it's their country might have some bearing on the
>matter....
Do you think so? I wonder if it is their country anymore. I was under the
impression they'd sold it to the Japanese.
That was a nasty crack. I should be ashamed of myself. Here I am living
among these nice Canadians who are so generous and open handed they gave
most of their country to the Americans. Perhaps "gave" isn't strong enough.
The Canadians, (in the person of Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada
from 1984, to 1993), practically ran down the street after the Americans
begging them to take the place.
It is perhaps significant that Mr Mulroney now lives in New York.
pyotr filipivich
>In article <aDsC4.420$N47....@news.uswest.net>,
>"Prof. Jonez" <jo...@norcom.to> wrote:
>> Australia rejects America's NRA claims on gun bans
>>
>> March 23, 2000
>> Web posted at: 10:58 a.m. HKT (0258 GMT)
>>
>> SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australian officials demanded today that the
>U.S. National Rifle
>> Association pull a video airing on its Web site claiming that the
>nation's gun reform laws
>> had backfired.
><snip>
>> Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of Criminology,
>said the statistics
>> were misleading.
>>
>> He said the latest annual crime figures, for 1998, showed that
>assaults had increased but
>> that most attacks did not involve guns. He said homicides decreased
>and were only rarely
>> committed with guns.
>>
><snip>
>"Most attacks did not involve guns"
>That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
>year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
>that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
>confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
>emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
>they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
>guns.
You know what bugs me about this?
It is the assumption that the only physically violent
individuals are the big hulking dudes.
What ever happen to the 5'8" 150# punk who feels he has
something to prove by being toughter than everybody else? He can use
his fists with just as much malice, can kick someone weaker than he to
death, can generally be far more dangerous than the big person - if for
no other reason than he feels he has to prove how tough he is.
"Nobody takes me serious, so I get in their face immediately!"
>A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
>new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
>if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
>effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
>Victims don't get to choose who attacks them, and are usually
>attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
Or just meaner, and more inclined to physical violence.
>Criminals DO get to choose who they attack, and NATURALLY attack
>people they perceive to be weaker than themselves.
Yep. "Easier that way."
>Criminals don't need guns to carry out their criminality as much
>as victims need guns to defend themselves from criminal attack.
>By making the invalid argument that an increase in non-gun assaults
>could not indicate a negative consequence of their law, it is
>Dr. Graycar who is using statistics in a misleading fashion.
>It is, of course, POSSIBLE that Dr. Graycar is unaware of the
>arguments proposing a mechanism for a link between gun confiscation
>and increases in non-gun assaults, but VERY, VERY UNLIKELY.
>Regardless, to say what he did would amount to EITHER blatant
>intellectual dishonesty OR a lack of insight into evaluating
>statistical data for social science purposes that amounts to
>flaming incompetence OR he did acknowledge the possible relationship
>between confiscation and an increase in non-gun assaults and
>the statements quoted here have been taken terribly out of context
>and misrepresented by the reporter. Take your pick.
>If the Australian government side doesn't have any better arguments
>than this (ie-- -"assaults are way up, but we don't want to count
>big thugs beating up little old ladies now that they have a government
>guarantee the little old ladies are disarmed"-), then apparently
>they're wrong and NRA is right.
>Julie
>--
>Money isn't Speech? When you spend it to rent a
>printing press, and the restrictions on what you
>spend are based on the nature of what you choose
>to print, money BECOMES speech.
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
pyotr filipivich
Why did Mr Clinton take it personally when Mr Heston made the general
statement: "When you say something wrong, that's a mistake. When you know
it's wrong - that's a lie."?
Clayton E. Cramer
> Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8bjgc1$cb3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > The section of the ad I saw on TV said something along the lines of
> > > "Australians barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out after
> > > dark". This is a blatant lie, unless I missed the bit where they said
> > > "agrophobic Australians".
> >
> > Oh, so you know for a fact that NO Australians ever barricasde themselves
> in
> > their homes?
>
> If you say "Australians barricade themselves in their homes" it only takes
> one Australian who doesn't to disprove that obvious lie.
I recall seeing a news story recently about a Sydney police station
where the police couldn't leave because of an attack by an armed
gang firing handguns at the station.
Clayton E. Cramer
> >What
> > percentage are accidents?
>
> In 1988, the last year that accidental gun death statistics were kept by the
> FBI, there were only 200 gun deaths due to accidents in all of the US. And
> the majority of them (178) occured in states that do not have must issue
> laws for concealed carry.
I am not aware that the FBI has EVER kept accidental gun death statistics.
This is the job of the National Center for Health Statistics.
> > I bet the first one is so miniscule as to only be
> > lumped in with "other" and the other two are substantial.
>
> Then you would lose your money, because there are far more criminals killed
> by gun owners ( I seem to remember around 15,000 per year) than accidental
> deaths (200).
Not everywhere near 15,000 -- typically about 9% of firearms deaths by
civilians in the U.S. are eventually ruled justifiable or excusable.
Clayton E. Cramer
> > "Most attacks did not involve guns"
> >
> > That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
> > year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
> > that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
> > confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
> > emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
> > they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
> > guns.
>
> In maybe one case out of 10 million, the fact that the victim didn't have
> their pump action of semi-auto with them to defend themselves may have
> resulted in a worse outcome. Come on.... anyone who owned a semi-auto or
> otherwise would also own a "less deadly" firearm. Do you seriously think the
They would? For many years, the only guns that my wife and I owned
were semiautos. I know that I am not unique in that respect.
>
> > If the Australian government side doesn't have any better arguments
> > than this (ie-- -"assaults are way up, but we don't want to count
> > big thugs beating up little old ladies now that they have a government
> > guarantee the little old ladies are disarmed"-), then apparently
> > they're wrong and NRA is right.
>
> The NRA is never right. They are a rabid socially-evil organisation that
> spread about as much lies and dishonesty as all of America's TV evangelists
> put together.
Your statement appears to be a statement of faith unrelated to the remarks
to which you were responding.
Clayton E. Cramer
> Dave,
>
> if you had the most basic understanding of statistics you would know that
> correlation does not mean causation (In a theoretical classroom, if Wendy
> got 98% for algebra and 95% for geography - that does not mean that getting
> good marks for algebra CAUSED her to get good marks for geography).
>
> By the same token if an industrialised nation has a high murder rate, that
> may not be caused by it's liberal gun laws. However in the case of the USA I
> cannot find any other CAUSE that would give it such a gigantically high
> murder rate compared to other western countries.
>
> Dave, how about you give me a better CAUSE other than guns that would
> explain America's staggeringly high homicide rate. Think hard about this
> one......
How about the same reason that our non-gun murder rate is staggeringly
high? That's a hint to look at the underlying cause of violence.
Clayton E. Cramer
> > > Could you tell me, of all the gun related deaths in the USA each year,
> > what
> > > percentage is "intruder killed by homeowner protecting his/her
> > > property/family"?
>
> The pro-gunners don't like this statistic but it is one in 43.
And that statistic was gathered in King County, Washington (not
necessarily typical of the U.S.), and 37 of those 43 were suicides.
That study also excluded all non-lethal confrontations between armed
homeowners and intruders. Guess what: the goal of having a gun
isn't to kill the intruder, but to drive him away or hold him for police.
> > That is irrelevant, not all crime preventions result in the death of the
> > perpetrator. Often the perp is arrested or simply flees. It is still crime
> > prevented and is estimated to be from 1 million per year to 2.5 million
> per
> > year..
>
> try 80,000
That's the LOWEST number (now 108,000 with the latest NCVS results),
with most studies producing numbers in the mid-six figures area.
>
> .... by far most of those incidents were to scare off a criminal that had no
> intention of physically harming the victim in the first place.
How do you know that?
Andrew Yong
> Your nothing but a nation of former criminals, and now you're just a bunch
> of idiots. You have given up the very idea of natural rights so that Nanny
> state can take care of your lazy asses from cradle to grave. Your whole
> country is little more than a bunch of loafing thieves and cowards.
>
> Who gives a flying fuck what you try to think?
Presumably the fact that it's their country might have some bearing on the
matter....
andrew
Ausstu
Richard G Cheek wrote:
> Sandgroper <stev...@NOSPAMERS.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:38dc25bc$0$32...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> < Aussie submissive wuss BS deleted >
>
> Your nothing but a nation of former criminals, and now you're just a bunch
> of idiots. You have given up the very idea of natural rights so that Nanny
> state can take care of your lazy asses from cradle to grave. Your whole
> country is little more than a bunch of loafing thieves and cowards.
>
> Who gives a flying fuck what you try to think?
Then don't bother to post on Aus.Politics, we don't need people like you
poluting our NG.
Andrew Yong
> > The section of the ad I saw on TV said something along the lines of
> > "Australians barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out after
> > dark". This is a blatant lie, unless I missed the bit where they said
> > "agrophobic Australians".
>
> Oh, so you know for a fact that NO Australians ever barricasde themselves
in
> their homes?
If you say "Australians barricade themselves in their homes" it only takes
one Australian who doesn't to disprove that obvious lie.
> >I live in what would be considered a lower
> > socioeconomic suburb and I have never once felt afraid when at home
alone
> or
> > walking around at night.
>
> That could be attributable to many things, such as your naivete.
What would you say then about the fact that British policemen don't normally
carry firearms? That they're 'naive' and that some dumb-fuck American who
can't even find the UK / Australia / [insert name of country] on the map
knows better than the local authorities what the local situation is?
> >The thought that someone might pull a gun on me is
> > so remote as to be laughable.
>
> Then why ban guns at all?
Presumably so that it remains laughable.
> > But this is the NRA, the same organisation who suggested after Littleton
> > that "teachers should be armed to prevent incidents like this"
>
> That is working today in Isreal and the PLO have not attempted any school
> terrorism since the Isrealis started doing this.
I suppose the Israelis can be confident that the threat comes from the PLO
and not from Israeli six-year olds. What is an armed teacher going to do to
a six-year old with a gun? Shoot him?
[snip]
andrew
Sandgroper
>
>Well, I hear that they more than just shear those poor sheep.
>
You have got the Aussies mixed up with the Kiwis , the Kiwis are the ones
that are noted for doing funny things to sheep.
Aust is the big land mass between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans, and it
is also not in the middle of Europe as some of you yanks believe that
australia = austria.
Sandgroper
>
>Does this mean you will practice what you preach?...And keep YOUR nose out
>of of UK affairs.....This is UK politics.Guns....Stick to what your best
at,
>Shearing Sheep, and bribing IOC officials.
This thread has been posted to a number of NGs ,I am responding to this
thread in Aus.politics.
Blame the original poster for crossposting to all these different NGs.
And BTW , al least we aussies know what a bar of soap is and bath regularly
, not like you Poms
Olly
> "Most attacks did not involve guns"
>
> That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
> year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
> that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
> confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
> emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
> they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
> guns.
In maybe one case out of 10 million, the fact that the victim didn't have
their pump action of semi-auto with them to defend themselves may have
resulted in a worse outcome. Come on.... anyone who owned a semi-auto or
otherwise would also own a "less deadly" firearm. Do you seriously think the
solution is arming grannies all around the country with semi-automatic
rifles?
> A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
> new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
> if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
> effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
There are other factors. One of them is the rise of heroin. The tighter gun
laws is a ridiculous factor.
The overall robbery assaults is up and has steadily increased over a three
year period. This does NOT mean it is a consequence of tighter gun laws.
Heroin has become cheaper and the number of heroin deaths has almost
overtaken the road toll. It is a monumental problem.
Want some other some other factors? How about youth unemployment....? How
about the increasing gap between the rich and the poor?
> Victims don't get to choose who attacks them, and are usually
> attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
they still shouldn't take the law into their own hands. The law is there for
a reason.
Olly
> >Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an
> >explosion of drug addicts.
> >bag snatching , car thefts and muggings ...etc , it is a direct
> >result of the drug addicts needing extra cash to support their habit
> >, it has NOTHING to do with any so called "restrictive gun laws".
> > ...
> >That is the fact that you yanks do not realise , Aust people NEVER
> >carry guns in public , Aust people only use guns for the purpose of
> >carrying out their profession ( farmer, ringer , fisherman ..etc ) or
> >because they belong to a gun club.
> >
> becomes more lucrative, your criminals will refrain from carrying and
> using guns? If not on "civilians", then at least on each other?
Do you have any idea what a heroin junkie is? They are thin pathetic human
beings that have their brains programmed to take more and more heroin. They
are mostly extremely poor and sleep in doorways. They have this need to get
money somehow to feed their habit and do lots of breaking into homes. They
mostly have no access to guns because the normal PROCESS of obtaining a gun
would not allow them to have one. Gun registration works.
I have yet to see a pro-gun argument that refutes this argument that drugs
is not the cause of increased crime here in Australia.
> American criminals didn't really start using firearms in earnest until
> our government banned the sale of alcohol, thereby establishing
> organized crime. The current "war on (some) drugs" serves to keep
> organized crime in business.
why not try drug education like most sensible countries do?
Olly
>
> Australian "culture"? Hahahahahahahahahaha.
people who lose arguments have nothing left ...except to throw a few
insults.
Olly
> > This has had the result of increased incidents of home invasions , bag
> > snatching , car thefts and muggings ...etc , it is a direct result of
the
> > drug addicts needing extra cash to support their habit , it has NOTHING
> to
> > do with any so called "restrictive gun laws".
>
> Are you saying, perhaps, just perhaps, that "correlation doesn't
necessarily
> imply causation?" Hmmm. Yet you will spout on about the US crime rates
> versus Oz's. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
Olly
> what
> > percentage is "intruder killed by homeowner protecting his/her
> > property/family"?
The pro-gunners don't like this statistic but it is one in 43.
> That is irrelevant, not all crime preventions result in the death of the
> perpetrator. Often the perp is arrested or simply flees. It is still crime
> prevented and is estimated to be from 1 million per year to 2.5 million
per
> year..
try 80,000
.... by far most of those incidents were to scare off a criminal that had no
intention of physically harming the victim in the first place.
> > What percentage are escalated domestic arguments?
>
> Most domestic murders are not committed with handguns, but with available
> household implements like rolling pins frying pans, etc.
ha hahaha!!!
> >What
> > percentage are accidents?
>
> In 1988, the last year that accidental gun death statistics were kept by
the
> FBI, there were only 200 gun deaths due to accidents in all of the US. And
> the majority of them (178) occured in states that do not have must issue
> laws for concealed carry.
200? oh dear..... try 1,300
> > I bet the first one is so miniscule as to only be
> > lumped in with "other" and the other two are substantial.
>
> Then you would lose your money, because there are far more criminals
killed
> by gun owners ( I seem to remember around 15,000 per year) than accidental
> deaths (200).
then by your fatal logic, if 15,000 criminals were killed in justifiable
self-defence (taking into account the 1/43 statistic).... there must have
been (let me get the calculator), 645,000 homicides involving guns in the
US...
> > The section of the ad I saw on TV said something along the lines of
> > "Australians barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out after
> > dark". This is a blatant lie, unless I missed the bit where they said
> > "agrophobic Australians".
>
> Oh, so you know for a fact that NO Australians ever barricasde themselves
in
> their homes?
Old Joe Henry down the street does. But that's probably because he's a
paranoid schozophrenic.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Olly
> > What on earth makes you think that you have the information to determine
> who is lying
> Its easy, really. Like any other LEftist crew of criminals, they are lying
> whenever their lips move.
once again you have lost the argument so you're left to just throw insults
Benjamin
> > attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
>
> they still shouldn't take the law into their own hands. The law is there
for
> a reason.
You fuckwit!
You honestly think the law should stop people from legally defending
themselves.
Gee, you're the dumbest cunt I've ever read on this NG!
Go fuck yourself, white ass chief!
Eiley
Benjamin wrote in message <38ddb772$0$11...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
Ah, the informed, coherent, eloquent argument of the gun-lover! Such biting
wit, such brilliant dissection of the opposing argument - I'm convinced!
The NRA must be so proud to have an intellectual giant such as you putting
forth their viewpoints for them...
And is it true that holding a gun makes your penis grow an extra *three
inches*?
Go away, little boy. The grown-ups are talking here.
Cheers,
eiley
=== I doubt, therefore I might be. ===
thinkin...@my-deja.com
> I recall seeing a news story recently about a Sydney police station
> where the police couldn't leave because of an attack by an armed
> gang firing handguns at the station.
> --
Someone please confirm this, it would be useful.
I believe the statistic presented, the Australian government offered
them up. However, the Australia I know about is quite sublime and
friendly. So the Australian uproar over the specific statement of
"barricade themselves in their homes" is understandable, at least from
the perspective of many Australians. I believe, considering the
source, that gun control is failing communities that needed the
protection. Where are these areas?
> Clayton E. Cramer http://www.ggnra.org/cramer to see excerpts from my
> five published books and full text of a number of scholarly and
popular
> articles. Looking for startup opportunity. Skills: Java, embedded C,
> TL1, SNMP, large user interface system design, project management,
> writing.
>
>
--
Never Shoot to Kill
Always Shoot to Live.
Edmund Esterbauer
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@callatg.com> wrote in message
news:38DDBE87...@callatg.com...
> Andrew Yong wrote:
>
> > Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:8bjgc1$cb3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > "Australians barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out
after
> > > > dark". This is a blatant lie, unless I missed the bit where they
said
> > > > "agrophobic Australians".
> > >
> > > Oh, so you know for a fact that NO Australians ever barricasde
themselves
> > in
> > > their homes?
> >
takes
> > one Australian who doesn't to disprove that obvious lie.
>
> where the police couldn't leave because of an attack by an armed
> gang firing handguns at the station.
That is correct-I believe it was Bankstown .
> --
Edmund Esterbauer
> Olly wrote:
>
> > > > Could you tell me, of all the gun related deaths in the USA each
year,
> > > what
> > > > percentage is "intruder killed by homeowner protecting his/her
> > > > property/family"?
> >
> > The pro-gunners don't like this statistic but it is one in 43.
>
> necessarily typical of the U.S.), and 37 of those 43 were suicides.
Males, who had child support (sic) liabilities that were in excess of their
incomes.
> That study also excluded all non-lethal confrontations between armed
> homeowners and intruders. Guess what: the goal of having a gun
> isn't to kill the intruder, but to drive him away or hold him for police.
>
> > > That is irrelevant, not all crime preventions result in the death of
the
> > > perpetrator. Often the perp is arrested or simply flees. It is still
crime
> > > prevented and is estimated to be from 1 million per year to 2.5
million
> > per
> > > year..
> >
> > try 80,000
>
> That's the LOWEST number (now 108,000 with the latest NCVS results),
> with most studies producing numbers in the mid-six figures area.
>
> >
> > .... by far most of those incidents were to scare off a criminal that
had no
> > intention of physically harming the victim in the first place.
>
> How do you know that?
Carman
Olly wrote in message <8bk9gg$96s$3...@possum.melbpc.org.au>...
>
>
>
>> "Most attacks did not involve guns"
>>
>> That's NOT significant, and here's why: If a 200 lb 6'1" 19
>> year old thug attacks a 65 year old man or woman, without a gun,
>> that is STILL symptomatic of the failure of Australia's gun
>> confiscation because bigger, stronger, criminals may have been
>> emboldened in their attacks on physically weaker people now that
>> they are more confident those physically weaker people don't have
>> guns.
>
>In maybe one case out of 10 million, the fact that the victim didn't have
>their pump action of semi-auto with them to defend themselves may have
>resulted in a worse outcome. Come on.... anyone who owned a semi-auto or
>otherwise would also own a "less deadly" firearm. Do you seriously think
the
>solution is arming grannies all around the country with semi-automatic
>rifles?
Lets have a cite for the "one case out of 10 million" statistic.
>> A rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath of restrictive
>> new gun laws is a significant component of what would be expected
>> if removing the guns from their honest owners removed a deterrent
>> effect upon the criminal population that those guns were having.
>
>There are other factors. One of them is the rise of heroin. The tighter gun
>laws is a ridiculous factor.
>The overall robbery assaults is up and has steadily increased over a three
>year period. This does NOT mean it is a consequence of tighter gun laws.
>Heroin has become cheaper and the number of heroin deaths has almost
>overtaken the road toll. It is a monumental problem.
>Want some other some other factors? How about youth unemployment....? How
>about the increasing gap between the rich and the poor?
"How about", "how about", you sound like a broken record. How about the
passage of the restrictive firearms laws? Or can't you bear to consider that
at all?
When the State takes the guns away from thousands of people and there is, "A
rise in non-gun assaults in the immediate aftermath..." that is pretty
suggestive of a connection.
>> Victims don't get to choose who attacks them, and are usually
>> attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
>
>they still shouldn't take the law into their own hands. The law is there
for
>a reason.
This is a classic! Self-defense is equated with taking, "...the law into
their own hands." Beautiful! This is where all this Socialistic nonsense of
gun-control is going to take you. Right into the corner where you are
forbidden to defend yourself lest you somehow injure your assailant.
>> If the Australian government side doesn't have any better arguments
>> than this (ie-- -"assaults are way up, but we don't want to count
>> big thugs beating up little old ladies now that they have a government
>> guarantee the little old ladies are disarmed"-), then apparently
>> they're wrong and NRA is right.
>
>The NRA is never right. They are a rabid socially-evil organisation that
>spread about as much lies and dishonesty as all of America's TV evangelists
>put together.
Not maybe a little prejudiced are you? Though I can understand that
someone who doesn't want people to defend themselves from criminal attack
might not like the NRA.
I wonder how it must feel to be so concerned with the safety and
well-being of muggers and rapists? How can someone with enough brains to
keep their ears apart come to espouse such flagrantly vile and perverted
nonsense? I flatly fail to understand why anyone would care so much for that
scum.
thinkin...@my-deja.com
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@callatg.com> wrote:
>
> > .... by far most of those incidents were to scare off a criminal
that had no
> > intention of physically harming the victim in the first place.
>
> How do you know that?
Yeah, how *do* you know that? Are you going by criminal statements?
"Maaan, I wasn't REALLY gonna fucking kill her if she moved, man. You
know, I mean, dude, I just wanted to scare her!"
How are we to read the minds of those robbing us, threatening our
personal safety? However, they ran off, and weren't shot in the backs,
therefore there are *A LOT* of responsible self-defense gun owners,
obeying laws and morality out there by your own account.
> --
> Clayton E. Cramer http://www.ggnra.org/cramer to see excerpts from my
> five published books and full text of a number of scholarly and
popular
> articles. Looking for startup opportunity. Skills: Java, embedded C,
> TL1, SNMP, large user interface system design, project management,
> writing.
>
>
thinkin...@my-deja.com
"Edmund Esterbauer" <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
> Males, who had child support (sic) liabilities that were in excess of
their
> incomes.
And what a wonderful legacy they left their children. No sympathy.
Sorry, my ex makes six figures and pays 500 in change per month. It
doesn't pay for pre-school.
thinkin...@my-deja.com
"Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@callatg.com> wrote:
> I am not aware that the FBI has EVER kept accidental gun death
statistics.
> This is the job of the National Center for Health Statistics.
Either they collect from the NCHS, or they track themselves, because
the annual report I downloaded has these.
>
> > > I bet the first one is so miniscule as to only be
> > > lumped in with "other" and the other two are substantial.
> >
> > Then you would lose your money, because there are far more
criminals killed
> > by gun owners ( I seem to remember around 15,000 per year) than
accidental
> > deaths (200).
>
> Not everywhere near 15,000 -- typically about 9% of firearms deaths by
> civilians in the U.S. are eventually ruled justifiable or excusable.
> --
> Clayton E. Cramer http://www.ggnra.org/cramer to see excerpts from my
> five published books and full text of a number of scholarly and
popular
> articles. Looking for startup opportunity. Skills: Java, embedded C,
> TL1, SNMP, large user interface system design, project management,
> writing.
>
>
--
thinkin...@my-deja.com
"Eiley" <eiley...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Ah, the informed, coherent, eloquent argument of the gun-lover! Such
biting
> wit, such brilliant dissection of the opposing argument - I'm
convinced!
> The NRA must be so proud to have an intellectual giant such as you
putting
> forth their viewpoints for them...
>
> And is it true that holding a gun makes your penis grow an extra
*three
> inches*?
>
> Go away, little boy. The grown-ups are talking here.
>
> Cheers,
> eiley
>
Though I am pro-gun, Eiley, I couldn't agree more with what you said.
Although, I doubt there is a female on this planet that has been
willing to appraise his "appendage" size.
Carman
>> > attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
>>
>> they still shouldn't take the law into their own hands. The law is there
>> for a reason.
>
>
>You honestly think the law should stop people from legally defending
>themselves.
The answer is yes, he probably does mean exactly that. It is enough to put
your lunch in your lap, I know. But this vile belief is fairly standard
among the true believers of the Socialist, anti-gun crowd. These people can
go on for hours about how the poor misunderstood rapist shouldn't have to
fear getting shot by some terrible gun-toting woman just because he wants a
little fun!
To those who think I may exaggerate, go thou to the archives and look up
the posts of one Osmo Ronkonnan. (I may have miss-spelled the last name) A
Finnish gentleman, (I use the term loosely), who said of women who were
being sexually assaulted, "... then they may bite their attackers if they
wish", but not possess a weapon with which to inflict bodily harm.
>Gee, you're the dumbest cunt I've ever read on this NG!
>
>Go fuck yourself, white ass chief!
>
Just wait till you meet Osmo. He makes this one look good.
Carman
Eiley wrote in message ...
>
>Benjamin wrote in message <38ddb772$0$11...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
>>> > Victims don't get to choose who attacks them, and are usually
>>> > attacked by people bigger and stronger than they are.
>>>
>>> they still shouldn't take the law into their own hands. The law is there
>>> for a reason.
>>
>>You fuckwit!
>>
>>You honestly think the law should stop people from legally defending
>>themselves.
>>
>>
>>Go fuck yourself, white ass chief!
>
This too, is a classic. The poster indicates astonishment that anyone
could be so morally bankrupt as to equate self-defense with taking, "...the
law into your own hands", so he must be a "gun-lover"! QED!
>Such biting wit, such brilliant dissection of the opposing argument - I'm
>convinced! The NRA must be so proud to have an intellectual giant such as
you >putting forth their viewpoints for them...
Thus speaks the cool intellectual with his faint smile of superiority. Now
just which viewpoint of the NRA was the poster putting forth? Can't you tell
me, oh wise one?
>And is it true that holding a gun makes your penis grow an extra *three
>inches*?
Odd how many of the anti-gun people are so concerned with penises. The
subject has actually been studied!
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"
Sigmund Freud
General Introduction
to Psychoanalysis
(1952)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution -- A Realistic Assessment of Gun
Control" by Don B. Kates, Jr. page 13:
In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and
emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and
loathing of weapons.
In the footnotes Kates writes:
Compare the passage from the 10th Lecture (at 507 of The Major
Writing of Sigmund Freud, Great Books ed., 1952) ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In point of fact, Freud stated that a fear of weapons was a sign of
retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
See the 10th Lecture of Freud's "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"
(1952) and Freud and Oppenheim's "Dreams in Folklore" (1958).
Carl Jung, on the other hand, said that an interest in weapons is
indicative of a desire for psychological wholeness and growth
("individuation").
-------------------------------------------------------------
The common claim that gun ownership is a reaction to male sexual
inadequacy is rejected in the only studies analyzing it, by Drs.
Nicole Varzos and Bruce Danto [respectively, "Aspects of the
Priapic Theory of Gun Ownership" in W. Tonso (ed.), THE GUN CULTURE
AND ITS ENEMIES (1989) and "Firearms and Violence", 5 INT'L. J.
OFFENDER THER. 135 (1979)]. Both find gun ownership explicable by
pragmatic explanations while the penile inadequacy theory fails to
explain numerous aspects of gun ownership. Consider, for instance
the fact that 50% of those who own a gun for protection are FEMALE.
That is explicable by reference to women's felt need for protection
-- and NOT by feelings of penile inadequacy. Dr. Danto also notes
that if the penile inadequacy theory were true, male gun owners
would want not little handguns but the largest barrel and bore
weapons available. The penile inadequacy theory fails to explain
other demographic differentials in gun ownership. When all gun
owners are counted (not just those who own for protection alone),
survey evidence shows that "gun owners are disproportionately
rural, Southern, male, Protestant, affluent and middle class...
[and that] weapons ownership tends to increase with income, or
occupational prestige, or both." The explanations here are, once
again, purely pragmatic; hunting is more an activity of rural
people generally, and Southerners particularly, than of city
dwellers; among urbanites, guns are most owned by the affluent
because they are more likely to hunt -- and also to have the money
to afford guns and property that they may feel the need to defend;
most guns are owned for sport and males engage in gun sports more
than females. As to Protestants, survey evidence shows them more
likely to hunt than Catholics or Jews (Protestantism is most
predominant in rural areas); and, beyond that, Protestants and gun
owners both tend to be descended from older American stock,
retaining cultural values redolent of the "individualistic
orientation that emanated from the American frontier...." [Young,
"The Protestant Heritage and the Spirit of Gun Ownership", 28 J.
SCI. STUDY OF RELIG. 300, 307 (1989).] In contrast, the penile
inadequacy theory fails to explain any of these demographic trends.
Are Protestants or the affluent or better educated people or rural
dwellers or Southerners MORE subject to feelings of penile
inadequacy than Catholics or urbanites or the poor etc., etc.?
Insofar as proponents of the penile inadequacy theory cite any
evidence for it, they cite Freud's view that weapons have penile
symbolism in dreams. This, Freud says, is true of dreams involving
any long object (e.g. "sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees") but
especially of objects that may be viewed as penetrating, and
injuring ("knives, daggers, lances, sabers; firearms are similarly
used...."). This passage refers to dreams in general without
distinguishing gun owners from others. Opponents of gun ownership
are apparently unaware that Freud's views cut against them, not in
their favor. Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional
development not with gun ownership, but with FEAR AND LOATHING OF GUNS. S.
Freud & D. Oppenheim, DREAMS IN FOLKLORE (1958) at 33.
The truly crushing blow to the Priapic Theory of gun policy debate was
delivered by Massad Ayoob when he said, "If guns were penile substitutes, no
one would buy a 2" snubby".
>Go away, little boy. The grown-ups are talking here.
If what you have offered here thus far is your idea of how the grown-ups
talk, then you have a lot to learn young fellow.
thinkin...@my-deja.com
"cunts" was pretty bad. He/She may have equated this type of language
and outburst as the "pro-gun" movement, but that is what the world
would have her believe we are made up of. If we don't stand against
it, there is no reason for someone on the other side to think
differently. Personally that word is an unspoken one for me, even
though I'm known to talk like a sailor.
The assumption may have been made that this was typical, but I think it
important that, even though most of us (myself included) may sling
profanity from time to time, the blanket statement that "anyone against
self defense is a fucking cunt" is something that the rational pro-gun
folks should completely stand against. Being a "fucking cunt" is not
the issue, is it?
In article <JNkD4.3274$xz1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
Sandgroper
Clayton E. Cramer wrote in message <38DDBE87...@callatg.com>...
>
>I recall seeing a news story recently about a Sydney police station
>where the police couldn't leave because of an attack by an armed
>gang firing handguns at the station.
That's right , there has been a bit of trouble in Sydney recently because of
a Lebanese gang , that have sort of like declared war on the coppers for
gaoling or arresting some Lebanese gang members.
These gang members are Lebanese immigrants and that has brought their own
mid eastern culture and violent ideas to Aust , they are not indicative of
what normal aussies are like.
Sandgroper
>Someone please confirm this, it would be useful.
>I believe the statistic presented, the Australian government offered
>them up. However, the Australia I know about is quite sublime and
>friendly. So the Australian uproar over the specific statement of
>"barricade themselves in their homes" is understandable, at least from
>the perspective of many Australians. I believe, considering the
>source, that gun control is failing communities that needed the
>protection. Where are these areas?
>
The incidents that has happened in Sydney is because of a gang of LEBANESE
shithead waging a war on the coppers for arresting some of their whacko
mates.
These gang members are Lebanese IMMIGRANTS that has brought their mid
eastern culture and ways to aust.
The problems with these Lebanese gang members is an isolated one and is no
indication of what the rest of aust is like.
thinkin...@my-deja.com
"Sandgroper" <stev...@NOSPAMERS.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> The incidents that has happened in Sydney is because of a gang of
LEBANESE
> shithead waging a war on the coppers for arresting some of their
whacko
> mates.
>
> These gang members are Lebanese IMMIGRANTS that has brought their mid
> eastern culture and ways to aust.
>
> The problems with these Lebanese gang members is an isolated one and
is no
> indication of what the rest of aust is like.
But it ***IS*** a good example for you of what the US is like.
Multiply that by a billion. You've got some ethnic, social, economic
and cultural diversity to understand.....hence OUR crime. We are a
melting pot of maniacs.....and also wonderful people.
(No racial bashing occuring) Do you know that Los Angeles, at the time
I lived there, had the 2nd LARGEST mexican population in the world.
Second to Mexico City. Forget that there are many other cities in
MEXICO. Well, I'm not saying it's the Latino's causing crimes, or any
other group. But we have lots and lots of different people here, one
could make a similar remark (and if you were in Canada, you'd be
prosecuted for hate speech) about ANY ethnicity here, there are so
many. It contributes to diversity, and it makes our crime very
different, too.
>
> Sandgroper
> ==========
> Remove NOSPAMERS for Email
>
>
Carman
Olly wrote in message <8bkc0r$9br$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au>...
>
>> >Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence , an
>> >explosion of drug addicts.
But despite this you still expect to keep the guns out of the hands of the
criminals, right?
>> >This has had the result of increased incidents of home invasions ,
>> >bag snatching , car thefts and muggings ...etc
Well,obviously then this is a great time to take some of the guns away
from the law-abiding homeowners. Otherwise they might frighten some poor
junky who was only mugging them to get the cash for his next fix. right?
What is WRONG with this picture? Are we engaged in making the world safe for
the junkies, the muggers, and the home invaders now?
>> >It is a direct result of the drug addicts needing extra cash to support
their
>> >habit, it has NOTHING to do with any so called "restrictive gun laws".
You have no possible way to prove this. Your self serving statements are
no more than the wishful thinking of someone who can't conceive of any
explanation for the facts that might place gun ownership in a positive
light. Your dishonesty is transparent and pathetic.
>> >That is the fact that you yanks do not realise , Aust people NEVER
>> >carry guns in public , Aust people only use guns for the purpose of
>> >carrying out their profession ( farmer, ringer , fisherman ..etc ) or
>> >because they belong to a gun club.
"NEVER", is just one more of your sweeping generalizations isn't it? And
this goes SO far in explaining why your government believes it's subjects
are morally unfit to possess particular kinds of firearms.
>> So, you believe that as your drug problem grows and drug trafficking
>> becomes more lucrative, your criminals will refrain from carrying and
>> using guns? If not on "civilians", then at least on each other?
The fellow doesn't care if the junkies use their weapons on the
law-abiding. He has already stated that self-defense is taking "the law into
your own hands".
>Do you have any idea what a heroin junkie is?
You obviously know as little about addiction as you do about firearms.
>They are thin pathetic human beings that have their brains programmed to
take >more and more heroin.
Wow! "...thin pathetic human beings that have their brains programmed..."!
Do you know what an idiot you sound like to everyone who has actually
encountered heroin addicts?
>They are mostly extremely poor and sleep in doorways.
More profundity! I guess this guy has been out on those hard streets,
"looking for an angry fix". Well, maybe not. More likely he read something
in the Sunday Supplements.
>They have this need to get money somehow to feed their habit and do lots of
>breaking into homes.
Not to mention attacking anyone who has the misfortune to have anything
they happen to want. A junkie in withdrawal is not likely to be the most
reasonable burglar you ever encounter.
>They mostly have no access to guns because the normal PROCESS of >obtaining
a gun would not allow them to have one. Gun registration works.
Try to understand. The people you are talking about are criminals.They
aren't going to follow, "...the normal PROCESS of obtaining a gun"!
Criminals are not allowed to have guns anywhere. These people will actually
break the law and have any kind of weapon they can illegally purchase,
borrow or steal. They are criminals! Criminals ignore the law as a matter of
course!
>I have yet to see a pro-gun argument that refutes this argument that drugs
>is not the cause of increased crime here in Australia.
You can't keep the illegal drugs out of the hands of criminals, but
somehow you appear to believe you can keep them from getting guns. It
doesn't work. Wishing won't make it so.
>> American criminals didn't really start using firearms in earnest until
>> our government banned the sale of alcohol, thereby establishing
>> organized crime. The current "war on (some) drugs" serves to keep
>> organized crime in business.
>
>why not try drug education like most sensible countries do?
I suppose you would consider Australia one of the sensible countries? Yet
you began this post with the following line:
"Aust has had a very large increase in drug activity and hence, an
explosion of drug addicts."
Remember now? So I guess the "drug education" hasn't worked out too well?
But you'll still be able to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals,
right? Right?
You've obviously got all the ingredients in place for a truly major
meltdown. Your government will, of course, respond with "regrettably harsh
measures", and you people will get to watch the rest of your civil liberties
go right down the drain. I honestly had no idea it had gotten so bad there.
What a tragedy.