"WindsorFox<SS>" <darkshado666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:frskt8$ol3$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> You are not 'the law'
>>
>> **I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
>> behalf of the gun pushers.
>>
>
> They protect our Constitutional right against people who would remove
> them, like people from other countries who don't really understand.
**Nope. The NRA acts solely on behalf of the gun manufacturers. It's sole
reason to exist is to ensure that as many guns are sold to Americans (and
others) as is possible. The NRA cares not one whit for the proliferation
of
guns to violent individuals. Their actions prove this to be so. IF the NRA
cared about people (other than those who profit form guns), then it would
sup****t sane, strong and homogeneous gun control laws. Since it does not
do
so, it is clear where their allegiances lie.
>
>>>
>>> What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
>>> matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
>>> intended.
>>
>> **The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people. It
would
>> seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what
is
>> truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.
>
> By ultra Liberal Socialists who would have total power over all.
Russia
> comes to mind.
**Rhetoric notwithstanding, we all live in societies which have laws. Some
societies have different laws to others. The US has (in most
jurisdictions)
comparatively liberal, lax, stupid and haphazard gun control laws, in
comparison to all the other Western, developed nations. The result is an
obscenely high homicide rate, via gunshot. Some European nations have
relatively lax drug laws, compared to the US. We're all different. The BIG
difference with the US is that poor gun control legislation appears to be
causing the needless deaths of 10,000 Americans each and every year.
>
>>
>> Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
>>> from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?
>>
>> **People are free to defend themselves. I do, however, challenge the
>> delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st
>> Century. In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via
gunshot
>> each year, whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun
Uses'
>> (DGUs). It would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year,
>> around 10,000 must die. I'll hand that equation over to the
statisticians
>> to mull over.
>>
>
> That's the idiotic, blind Liberal POV.
**It's just the truth. I understand that you don't like, nor appreciate
the
truth when it is presented to you.
How is it that all the
> pounding can not seem to make you understand that by removing the guns
> from those 200 lawful owners who protected themselves is *NOT* going to
> stop the 10,000 murdered by criminals?
**Because a large chunk of those 10,000 were murdered by legal gun owners.
In any case, gun control laws (in Australia and most other Western,
developed nations) actively seek to limit the availability of guns to bad
people.
(I doubt those numbers, but the
> point still works.)
**Doubt all you wish. The US FBI list them quite succinctly:
Total homicides, broken down by weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Total justifiable homicides, broken down by weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
If anything by making guns illegal for lawful owners
> then only the criminals will have them and the 10,000 will rise.
**Please cite where _I_ stated that lawful citizens whould not be allowed
to
own guns. Be precise in your answer.
By
> making laws against guns you will *NOT* stop a criminal from owning a
gun,
> it's already illegal and they ignore the law. That's why we call them
> criminals.
**Wrong. In 1996 the Australian federal government pursuaded the states to
adopt a uniforn set of gun control laws, in order to deal with the problem
of mass murder, committed via the use of guns. Additionally, the laws also
sought to limit the chances that criminals could easily buy guns, or steal
guns. Since 1997, several things have occured:
* Mass murder, committed via the use of guns, has fallen from an average
of
one incident per year to zero. That's right: ZERO, nada, none, zip. Not
one
mass murder has been committed in Australia, by an offender using a
firearm,
since 1996.
* Gun thefts, from civilians have dropped dramatically (down to around 25%
of the figure, before 1997).
* Homicide via gunshot has fallen.
* Robbery committed with guns has fallen.
* Attempted murder, via the use of guns has fallen.
* It is now, due to the checks and balances, virtually impossible to sell
a
legally owned gun to a criminal (without being caught).
These are all very positive moves and Australians (gun owners and non-gun
owners) can be justly proud of these excellent figures.
Trevor Wilson
|
