> After attacks, Europe hurries to tighten gun laws
> By  MATTI HUUHTANEN, 
> Wed Mar 11, 9:36 am 
>  
> ETHELSINKI â€" Several European countries have restricted gun laws in
> the wake of school massacres, gang violence and other gun-related
> crimes: 
>  
> _Finland announced plans Wednesday to impose stricter restrictions on
>  firearms, including raising the minimum age for handgun ownership
> from 15 to 20.  The proposal was prompted by two school massacres
> within a year in which lone  gunmen opened fire on classmates and
> teachers. 
>  
> _Germany, where a gunman killed at least 11 people Wednesday, raised
> the legal age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21
> following a 2002 shooting in Erfurt that killed 16 people, including
> 12 teachers. 
>  
> _Belgian lawmakers passed strict new gun control laws in 2006 in
> reaction  to the racially motivated shooting deaths of a toddler and
> her black baby sitter 
>  in Antwerp.
>  
> _Swiss citizens are demanding a referendum aimed at confining army
> weapons  to military compounds and banning private purchases of
> pump-action rifles and automatic weapons â€" following a spate of
> suicides and homicides. 
>  
> _The Portuguese Parliament is currently discussing a government
> proposal to tighten gun laws, including denying bail to anyone
> suspected of a gun  crime. 
>  
> _Denmark's government said last week it will raise the penalty for
> illegal gun possession as part of a crackdown on gang violence that
> has killed three people and injured 25 in recent months.
>  
> _European Union lawmakers proposed tighter gun control across the
> bloc last year, including guidelines saying that only people over 18
> not deemed a threat 
> 
>  to public safety could buy and keep guns. EU members have until 2010
>  to 
> adopt  the measures.
>  
> In addition, some U.S. states have recently tightened gun laws as 
> well: 
>  
> • Colorado, a year after the 1999 Columbine High School shootings,
> made it a felony to buy a firearm for another person who should know
> the transaction is 
>  illegal, barred anyone from giving a firearm to a juvenile without
>  the 
> consent  of the parents; made it illegal for a person not to try to
> prevent a juvenile  from committing a gun crime; and increased the
> penalty for possession of a  weapon by a felon.
>  
> But three years later, the state expanded gun rights instead, by
> requiring sheriffs to issue gun permits to people who pass a criminal
> background check, prohibiting local governments from making gun laws
> more restrictive than the state's, and abolishing local registries of
> gun owners. 
>  
> • In Virginia, where a student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in
> 2007 before committing suicide April 16, 2007, the governor signed an
> executive order  requiring that anyone ordered by a court to get
> mental health treatment be added  to a database of people barred from
> buying guns. 
>  

In the case of European gun related crimes, their governments and the
people once again call for more of what consistantly fails and leads to
more "gun violence". Note that once again, the gun is blamed for the
crime, not the perpetrator(s), and conversly the people are left more
and more at the mercy of evil. 

Arm your people Europe, and teach them the use of arms from their
earliest days, and your criminals will slink in fear of them. Evil
cannot be defeated fleeing from it, or by surrendering yourselves to
it. It must be met head on wherever and whenever it is encountered.

If criminals walk about armed and doing violence wherever they please,
what use is there to surrender the only time proven defense? 

The properly trained, armed citizen is the ONLY thing that has worked,
and it works almost everytime it is tried, even when he has little or
no formal training. In the history of the world, nothing matches the
track record of the armed citizen.

WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD TRUTH TO ACCEPT?


"What fools these mortals be!"
 Puck 
"A midsummer night's dream"

"And he that hath no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one."
  Jesus

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>
>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly 
>>suggests
>>otherwise.
>
> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.

**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law 
books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else? 
Perhaps you could elaborate.

> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
> method they use.

**Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.

>
> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms

**Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for 
the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly 
regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a replacement 
for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control 
laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun 
control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros 
the entire nation.


> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a
> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the
> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.

**Of course. Thanks to the weak, haphazard and poorly regulated gun control 
laws in the US, it is a trivial exercise for a felon to buy a gun from a 
secondary source. Here's sort of how it might go:

Felon: "I'd like to buy your second hand gun please."
Gun seller: " Are you a convicted felon?"
Felon: "Nope."
Gun seller: "Good. Here's your gun. Have fun."


>
> Not to mention every year the net number of firearms increases in the
> U.S.A. while the total crime rate and the crime rate with firearms
> decreases. Please explain that.

**What? Explain your lie? Not possible.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Bert Hyman"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9BD6693554101VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7...
> In news:49c5f569$0$79318$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net "Blinky Bill"
>  wrote:
>
>> Not true - the FBI figures for firearm homicide are
>> 2001  8890
>> 2002  9528
>> 2003 9659
>> 2004 9385
>> 2005 10100
>> 2006 10177
>
> A list of raw numbers without a corresponding tally of population size
> isn't particularly useful.

I notice you snipped the claim I was replying to - let me help you by 
putting it back.

">>> The bottom line is, there are more guns available in the U.S. every
>>> year and there are fewer murders with guns every year."

And look at that - a claim was made concerning the number of murders every 
year, and my reply addressed that claim.

Apart from that, the firearm homicide rate increased by more than 14% over 
the period cited - the population didn't increase by anything like that 
amount.

In news:49c6c247$0$26361$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net "Blinky Bill"
 wrote: 

> I notice you snipped the claim I was replying to

That's because I never actually read anything you post. 

I only saw your post because someone posted a followup to it.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

"Bert Hyman"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9BD74D714715CVeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7...
> In news:49c6c247$0$26361$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net "Blinky Bill"
>  wrote:
>
>> I notice you snipped the claim I was replying to
>
> That's because I never actually read anything you post.

That doesn't explain anything.

>
> I only saw your post because someone posted a followup to it.

You were replying directly to my post, just as you did this time - how was 
anyone else involved.

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:22:58 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
wrote:

>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:j9kas41oo1bc8ursnpq66m4krgrl4fkk38@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:58:31 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>suggests
>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>> method they use.
>>>
>>>And ???? The reality is that 2 /3 of of murders use firearms in the US.
>>
>> Yes that is a reality.  IF you take guns out of the equation will the
>> number of murders drop or will will the methods change?
>> The bottom line is, there are more guns available in the U.S. every
>> year and there are fewer murders with guns every year.
>
>Not true - the FBI figures for firearm homicide are
>2001  8890
>2002  9528
>2003 9659
>2004 9385
>2005 10100
>2006 10177
>
>Only one year where firearm crime decreased.

How does that compare to the population increaste in the U.S.A.?
How many firearms homicides are there per 100,000 for those years?
How does that compare to the increase in guns per 100,000 citizens?
Are the legally justified homicides by law enforcement and self
defence factored out of these totals?
You are using raw data in an inapropirate way.

By itself the data you posted means very little. 

>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>
>>>A claim often made but never proved. Can youn prove it?
>>
>> You may be right, the 20,000 laws restricting guns may be an urban
>> legend.
>> However gun laws in the U.S. range from total prohibition to few if
>> any restrictions at all.  Data shows that the crime rate and crime
>> rate with firearms doesn't seem to have any correlation to whether or
>> not guns are freely available to the law abiding public.
>>
>>>> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a
>>>> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the
>>>> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.
>>>
>>>According to the FBI lesss than a quarter have a connection with crime.
>>
>> 100% of murders have a connection to crime.
>
>Depends on the meaning of "connection". The original poster made a claim 
>concerning killings connected with a "criminal enterprise".
>
Most homicides are a result of a criminal act....

>>  Murder in iself is a crime.
>
>Go figure - the discussion up to this point concerned killings as part of a 
>"criminal enterprise". A homicide that occurs during an argument is not 
>connected to a "criminal enterprise".

Homicide is homicide.
>>>> Not to mention every year the net number of firearms increases in the
>>>> U.S.A. while the total crime rate and the crime rate with firearms
>>>> decreases. Please explain that.
>>>
>>>Provide evidence for your claim instead of asking me to explain it.
>>
>> No!
>> You can see if you find evidence that proves me wrong on
>> 1) the increase in number of guns in the U.S.
>> and
>> 2) the decrease in gun crime in the U.S. since 1976
>
>That's not the way it works - you made a claim so the onus is on you to 
>provide evidence. 

That isn't the way it works because you can't prove me wrong bucko....

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>
>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly 
>>>suggests
>>>otherwise.
>>
>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>
>**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law 
>books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else? 
>Perhaps you could elaborate.

My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.

>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>> method they use.
>
>**Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>
You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
Canada has strict controls on firearms. 
Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
Folks still get murdered in both countries.

>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>
>**Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for 
>the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly 
>regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a replacement 
>for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control 
>laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun 
>control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros 
>the entire nation.

Where they don't work, same as Canada.
In Canada the firearms laws are the same across the nation, yet crime
rates with firearms vary from region to region - totally unrealted to
the number of firearms in each region.  If the gun laws worked, the
crime rate would be the same in all regions.

>> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a
>> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the
>> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.
>
>**Of course. Thanks to the weak, haphazard and poorly regulated gun control 
>laws in the US, it is a trivial exercise for a felon to buy a gun from a 
>secondary source. Here's sort of how it might go:
>
>Felon: "I'd like to buy your second hand gun please."
>Gun seller: " Are you a convicted felon?"
>Felon: "Nope."
>Gun seller: "Good. Here's your gun. Have fun."

Do you have any numbers on the rate at which convicted felons do this
in the U.S.A.?
Or are you speculating?

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>
>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>suggests
>>>>otherwise.
>>>
>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>
>>**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>Perhaps you could elaborate.
>
> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.

**No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun 
control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your 
specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding 
homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) laws 
which make homicide illegal are useless.

You now see the error of your suggestion.

>
>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>> method they use.
>>
>>**Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>>
> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.

**Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.

> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
> Folks still get murdered in both countries.

**They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 10% 
the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict controls on 
firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. See a 
pattern here?

>
>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>
>>**Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for
>>the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
>>replacement
>>for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control
>>laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun
>>control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied 
>>accros
>>the entire nation.
>
> Where they don't work, same as Canada.

**You neglected to answer my questions. I will repeat them, so that you may 
answer:

Really? That many? Got a cite for that?

> In Canada the firearms laws are the same across the nation, yet crime
> rates with firearms vary from region to region - totally unrealted to
> the number of firearms in each region.  If the gun laws worked, the
> crime rate would be the same in all regions.

**I said (emphasis added):

Perhaps the US could learn from places like AUSTRALIA, where the gun control 
laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros the 
entire nation.

I did not say: "Canada". I said "AUSTRALIA". Canada's gun control laws are 
weak and inneffective, compared to the suite of laws employed in Australia.

>
>>> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a
>>> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the
>>> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.
>>
>>**Of course. Thanks to the weak, haphazard and poorly regulated gun 
>>control
>>laws in the US, it is a trivial exercise for a felon to buy a gun from a
>>secondary source. Here's sort of how it might go:
>>
>>Felon: "I'd like to buy your second hand gun please."
>>Gun seller: " Are you a convicted felon?"
>>Felon: "Nope."
>>Gun seller: "Good. Here's your gun. Have fun."
>
> Do you have any numbers on the rate at which convicted felons do this
> in the U.S.A.?

**Since the US has no effective controls on the secondary gun market, no. 
Clearly, since it can happen (easily), then it does happen.

> Or are you speculating?

**Nope. Just based on fact, reason and logic.

Now, how's about you answer the questions, you tried to avoid?


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:22:58 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
wrote:

>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:j9kas41oo1bc8ursnpq66m4krgrl4fkk38@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:58:31 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>suggests
>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>> method they use.
>>>
>>>And ???? The reality is that 2 /3 of of murders use firearms in the US.
>>
>> Yes that is a reality.  IF you take guns out of the equation will the
>> number of murders drop or will will the methods change?
>> The bottom line is, there are more guns available in the U.S. every
>> year and there are fewer murders with guns every year.
>
>Not true - the FBI figures for firearm homicide are
>2001  8890
>2002  9528
>2003 9659
>2004 9385
>2005 10100
>2006 10177
>

Firearms and Violence, you should read it...
This bit is very interesting.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:31 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>suggests
>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>
>>>**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>>books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>>Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>
>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>
>**No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun 
>control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your 
>specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding 
>homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) laws 
>which make homicide illegal are useless.

You certainly have a twist with words and logic.
The gun control laws do not work to stop homicides.
Places like Jamaica have very strict gun laws and very high homicide
rates.
Canada has the same gun laws in every jurisdiction yet the homicide
rate with firearms varies from area to area.  If the laws worked the
homicide rate /100,000 should be the same in all areas.
There is no correlation between firearms, firearms laws, and the
homocide rate.
And folks who do not have any respect for the law (and religious
taboo) against murder are not going to be stopped by a gun law.
Guns available in a society are not a cause or catalyst for crime.
They are a tool that people will use.  Take guns out of the equation
and other tools (means) are substituted.

Here is some interesting reading for you from Firearms and Violence
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11

"Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message 
news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> "10x"  wrote in message 
> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>
> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for 
> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly 
> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed 
> gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, 
> where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously 
> applied accros the entire nation.
>
A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:qv4gs4tfj314ejgsrjgf3qr69pemnc2tkm@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:31 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>suggests
>>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>
>>>>**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>>>books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>>>Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>
>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>
>>**No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
>>control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
>>specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
>>homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) 
>>laws
>>which make homicide illegal are useless.
>
> You certainly have a twist with words and logic.

**It's my language of choice - Logic and reason.

> The gun control laws do not work to stop homicides.

**Not directly, no. Gun control laws, in part, attempt to restrict the 
availability of firearms to those who should not have them.

> Places like Jamaica have very strict gun laws and very high homicide
> rates.

**So? Is it your point that a third world nation has a crime problem? Is 
that you point? This is hardly news. Poor nations tend to place their 
resources into areas other than law and order. Developed nations tend to 
place proportionally more of their resources into law and order.

> Canada has the same gun laws in every jurisdiction yet the homicide
> rate with firearms varies from area to area.

**So? We've already discussed the poorly thought out gun control laws in 
Canada. Additional to that, the same can be said of any nation.

  If the laws worked the
> homicide rate /100,000 should be the same in all areas.

**Bullshit. I'll bite. Why do you think that to be the case? Be precise in 
your answer.


> There is no correlation between firearms, firearms laws, and the
> homocide rate.

**Yes, there is. Examine the homicide rates in the following places:

* Australia.
* The UK.
* Holland.
* Sweden.
* Germany.
* France.
* The USA.

Now examine the firearms control laws in each of these places. See a 
correlation?

> And folks who do not have any respect for the law (and religious
> taboo) against murder are not going to be stopped by a gun law.

**So, we should remove murder from the law books then? Is that your 
contention? Don't bother prosecuting murderers, since they'll commit murder 
anyway? Sounds like a dumb idea to me.

> Guns available in a society are not a cause or catalyst for crime.

**No one ever said they were. They do make, as evidenced by the homicide 
rate in the US, it easy to kill people.

> They are a tool that people will use.  Take guns out of the equation
> and other tools (means) are substituted.

**Prove it.

>
> Here is some interesting reading for you from Firearms and Violence
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11

**Let's see you answer some questions first. Then and only then, will I 
bother reading your cite. Here's what you snipped:

---
> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.

**Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
---
**They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 10%
the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict controls on
firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. See a
pattern here?
---
The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms

**Really? That many? Got a cite for that?
---
**I said (emphasis added):

Perhaps the US could learn from places like AUSTRALIA, where the gun control
laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros the
entire nation.

I did not say: "Canada". I said "AUSTRALIA". Canada's gun control laws are
weak and inneffective, compared to the suite of laws employed in Australia.
---

-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

-- 

"APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote in message 
news:49c824be$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message 
> news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> "10x"  wrote in message 
>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>
>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for 
>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly 
>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
>> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly 
>> policed gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like 
>> Australia, where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed and 
>> homogeneously applied accros the entire nation.
>>
> A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure
>
> http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

**It does indeed. Thanks for the link. Like everything written by '10x', it 
appears that the 20,000 figure is complete bullshit.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:q8vfs41v6rlfg6e5jsdc2uvteutk216m93@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:22:58 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>news:j9kas41oo1bc8ursnpq66m4krgrl4fkk38@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:58:31 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>suggests
>>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>>> method they use.
>>>>
>>>>And ???? The reality is that 2 /3 of of murders use firearms in the US.
>>>
>>> Yes that is a reality.  IF you take guns out of the equation will the
>>> number of murders drop or will will the methods change?
>>> The bottom line is, there are more guns available in the U.S. every
>>> year and there are fewer murders with guns every year.
>>
>>Not true - the FBI figures for firearm homicide are
>>2001  8890
>>2002  9528
>>2003 9659
>>2004 9385
>>2005 10100
>>2006 10177
>>
>>Only one year where firearm crime decreased.
>
> How does that compare to the population increaste in the U.S.A.?

I don't know - you will need to find that out yourself. Your claim was about 
the number of murders, not the murder rate.

> How many firearms homicides are there per 100,000 for those years?

Try the FBI UCR - I am not you personal research assistant.

> How does that compare to the increase in guns per 100,000 citizens?

See above

> Are the legally justified homicides by law enforcement and self
> defence factored out of these totals?

See above. You would be tghe laziest or stupidest gunloon I have encountered 
in quite some time.


> You are using raw data in an inapropirate way.

To prove you wrong? ROTFLMAO  Your claim was "there are fewer murders with 
guns every year" - I showed that to be incorrect. How else was I supposed to 
examine and rebutt a claim about the actual number?

>
> By itself the data you posted means very little.

Except that you were wrong or lying. It was a direct rebuttal of what you 
claimed!!!!

>
>>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>>
>>>>A claim often made but never proved. Can youn prove it?
>>>
>>> You may be right, the 20,000 laws restricting guns may be an urban
>>> legend.
>>> However gun laws in the U.S. range from total prohibition to few if
>>> any restrictions at all.  Data shows that the crime rate and crime
>>> rate with firearms doesn't seem to have any correlation to whether or
>>> not guns are freely available to the law abiding public.
>>>
>>>>> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a
>>>>> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the
>>>>> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.
>>>>
>>>>According to the FBI lesss than a quarter have a connection with crime.
>>>
>>> 100% of murders have a connection to crime.
>>
>>Depends on the meaning of "connection". The original poster made a claim
>>concerning killings connected with a "criminal enterprise".
>>
> Most homicides are a result of a criminal act....

And most are not committed when connected to "a criminal enterprise", which 
is the claim that was being discussed.

>
>>>  Murder in iself is a crime.
>>
>>Go figure - the discussion up to this point concerned killings as part of 
>>a
>>"criminal enterprise". A homicide that occurs during an argument is not
>>connected to a "criminal enterprise".
>
> Homicide is homicide.

And no one has claimed homicide isn't homicide, but thanks for your deep and 
valuable insight. However you came into a discussion about what proportion 
of homicides occur in connection with a "criminal enterprise". If you can't 
catch up or don't understand what that means just ask, instead of making 
idiotic statements.

>>>>> Not to mention every year the net number of firearms increases in the
>>>>> U.S.A. while the total crime rate and the crime rate with firearms
>>>>> decreases. Please explain that.
>>>>
>>>>Provide evidence for your claim instead of asking me to explain it.
>>>
>>> No!
>>> You can see if you find evidence that proves me wrong on
>>> 1) the increase in number of guns in the U.S.
>>> and
>>> 2) the decrease in gun crime in the U.S. since 1976
>>
>>That's not the way it works - you made a claim so the onus is on you to
>>provide evidence.
>
> That isn't the way it works because you can't prove me wrong bucko....

You have the peculiar mindset of many gunloons that you can make a claim 
without any supporting evidence and believe it to be a fact until proven 
wrong - like your claim about fewer murders every year. That isn't reality.

On Mar 23, 8:42 am, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:
> "10x"  wrote in message
>
> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...

> > The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>
> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for
> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a replacement
> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control
> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun
> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros
> the entire nation.

So, Trevor is unaware that there are over 20,000 Federal, State and
Local laws in the US governing the purshase, ownership, possession and
use of firearms and wants references to prove it.

Let's see now...........

**Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, June 17, 1981

**Congressional Record - Senate S4062 May 17, 2000

**"Youth Violence - Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy" Daniel
J Flannery and C. Ronald Huff (Page 217)

It would appear that Trevor knows no-where near as much about gun laws
as he pretends to know..........

Funny about that.

"John - Melb"  wrote in message 
news:ef79ea21-4b68-45bc-8abe-c11263f6b2aa@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 8:42 am, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:
> "10x"  wrote in message
>
> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...

> > The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>
> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for
> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
> replacement
> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control
> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun
> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied 
> accros
> the entire nation.

So, Trevor is unaware that there are over 20,000 Federal, State and
Local laws in the US governing the purshase, ownership, possession and
use of firearms and wants references to prove it.

**Exactly.


Let's see now...........

**Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, June 17, 1981

**Congressional Record - Senate S4062 May 17, 2000

**"Youth Violence - Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy" Daniel
J Flannery and C. Ronald Huff (Page 217)

It would appear that Trevor knows no-where near as much about gun laws
as he pretends to know..........

**I see no clear evidence of the "20,000" gun control laws that you are 
claiming.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "10x"  wrote in message 
> news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>> suggests
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
> 
> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun 
> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your 
> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding 
> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) laws 
> which make homicide illegal are useless.
> 
> You now see the error of your suggestion.
> 
>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>> method they use.
>>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>>>
>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
> 
> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
> 
>> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
>> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
>> Folks still get murdered in both countries.
> 
> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 10% 
> the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict controls on 
> firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. See a 
> pattern here?

YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia 
has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years
> 
>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for
>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
>>> replacement
>>> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control
>>> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun
>>> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied 
>>> accros
>>> the entire nation.
>> Where they don't work, same as Canada.
> 
> **You neglected to answer my questions. I will repeat them, so that you may 
> answer:
> 
> Really? That many? Got a cite for that?
> 
>> In Canada the firearms laws are the same across the nation, yet crime
>> rates with firearms vary from region to region - totally unrealted to
>> the number of firearms in each region.  If the gun laws worked, the
>> crime rate would be the same in all regions.
> 
> **I said (emphasis added):
> 
> Perhaps the US could learn from places like AUSTRALIA, where the gun control 
> laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros the 
> entire nation.
> 
> I did not say: "Canada". I said "AUSTRALIA". Canada's gun control laws are 
> weak and inneffective, compared to the suite of laws employed in Australia.
> 
>>>> including a federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a
>>>> convicted felon.  Many of the murders commited by all means in the
>>>> U.S.A. are by felons with histories of violence.
>>> **Of course. Thanks to the weak, haphazard and poorly regulated gun 
>>> control
>>> laws in the US, it is a trivial exercise for a felon to buy a gun from a
>>> secondary source. Here's sort of how it might go:
>>>
>>> Felon: "I'd like to buy your second hand gun please."
>>> Gun seller: " Are you a convicted felon?"
>>> Felon: "Nope."
>>> Gun seller: "Good. Here's your gun. Have fun."
>> Do you have any numbers on the rate at which convicted felons do this
>> in the U.S.A.?
> 
> **Since the US has no effective controls on the secondary gun market, no. 
> Clearly, since it can happen (easily), then it does happen.
> 
>> Or are you speculating?
> 
> **Nope. Just based on fact, reason and logic.
> 
> Now, how's about you answer the questions, you tried to avoid?
> 
>

"F Murtz"  wrote in message 
news:49c85128@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "10x"  wrote in message 
>> news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>> suggests
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>
>> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun 
>> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your 
>> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding 
>> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) 
>> laws which make homicide illegal are useless.
>>
>> You now see the error of your suggestion.
>>
>>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>>> method they use.
>>>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>>>>
>>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
>>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
>>
>> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
>>
>>> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
>>> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
>>> Folks still get murdered in both countries.
>>
>> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 
>> 10% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict 
>> controls on firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the 
>> US has. See a pattern here?
>
> YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia 
> has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years

**No, it has not. It has, however, remained lower than the US figure for a 
long time.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:9t4gs4lbm4lsj8hb8acog92vd0elqkdgtr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:22:58 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>news:j9kas41oo1bc8ursnpq66m4krgrl4fkk38@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:58:31 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>suggests
>>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>>> method they use.
>>>>
>>>>And ???? The reality is that 2 /3 of of murders use firearms in the US.
>>>
>>> Yes that is a reality.  IF you take guns out of the equation will the
>>> number of murders drop or will will the methods change?
>>> The bottom line is, there are more guns available in the U.S. every
>>> year and there are fewer murders with guns every year.
>>
>>Not true - the FBI figures for firearm homicide are
>>2001  8890
>>2002  9528
>>2003 9659
>>2004 9385
>>2005 10100
>>2006 10177
>>
>
> Firearms and Violence, you should read it...
> This bit is very interesting.
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11

I have - it contains nothing to contradict the numbers I cited.

On Mar 24, 2:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:
> "F Murtz"  wrote in message
>
> news:49c85128@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "10x"  wrote in message
> >>news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
> >>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 흝, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>>  wrote:
>
> >>>> "10x"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 흝, "Blinky Bill" 
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
> >>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
> >>>>>> suggests
> >>>>>> otherwise.
> >>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
> >>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
> >>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
> >>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
> >>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
> >>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
> >>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>
> >> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
> >> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
> >> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
> >> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind> >> laws which make homicide illegal are useless.
>
> >> You now see the error of your suggestion.
>
> >>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
> >>>>> method they use.
> >>>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>
> >>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
> >>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
>
> >> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
>
> >>> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
> >>> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
> >>> Folks still get murdered in both countries.
>
> >> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around
> >> 10% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict
> >> controls on firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the
> >> US has. See a pattern here?
>
> > YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia
> > has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years
>
> **No, it has not. It has, however, remained lower than the US figure for a
> long time.

Actually, the homicide rate in this country has remained relatively
stable over the past century or so.

AIC "Trends and Issues No 61" "Violent Crime in Australia;
Interpreting the Trends"

I guess Trevor will tell us he can't find that too..............

"John - Melb"  wrote in message 
news:69b6a278-c699-4771-a502-9a3afb04da83@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 2:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:
> "F Murtz"  wrote in message
>
> news:49c85128@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "10x"  wrote in message
> >>news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
> >>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>>  wrote:
>
> >>>> "10x"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
> >>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
> >>>>>> suggests
> >>>>>> otherwise.
> >>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
> >>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the 
> >>>> law
> >>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something 
> >>>> else?
> >>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
> >>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
> >>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
> >>> others. Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>
> >> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
> >> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
> >> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
> >> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind)
> >> laws which make homicide illegal are useless.
>
> >> You now see the error of your suggestion.
>
> >>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
> >>>>> method they use.
> >>>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>
> >>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
> >>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
>
> >> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
>
> >>> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
> >>> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
> >>> Folks still get murdered in both countries.
>
> >> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around
> >> 10% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict
> >> controls on firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that 
> >> the
> >> US has. See a pattern here?
>
> > YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia
> > has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years
>
> **No, it has not. It has, however, remained lower than the US figure for a
> long time.

Actually, the homicide rate in this country has remained relatively
stable over the past century or so.

AIC "Trends and Issues No 61" "Violent Crime in Australia;
Interpreting the Trends"

I guess Trevor will tell us he can't find that too..............

**I take it then, that if your wages were cut by 50%, you'd regard that is 
insignificant? Australian homicides have varied by more than that.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "F Murtz"  wrote in message 
> news:49c85128@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "10x"  wrote in message 
>>> news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>> suggests
>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun 
>>> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your 
>>> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding 
>>> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) 
>>> laws which make homicide illegal are useless.
>>>
>>> You now see the error of your suggestion.
>>>
>>>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>>>> method they use.
>>>>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>>>>>
>>>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
>>>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
>>> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
>>>
>>>> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
>>>> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
>>>> Folks still get murdered in both countries.
>>> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 
>>> 10% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict 
>>> controls on firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the 
>>> US has. See a pattern here?
>> YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia 
>> has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years
> 
> **No, it has not. It has, however, remained lower than the US figure for a 
> long time.
> 
> 
Different bunch of people, different morals, different mixture of 
peoples, different mindsets, nothing to do with guns. Explain the 
countries with extremely strong gun laws and high rates of homicides

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "John - Melb"  wrote in message 
> news:69b6a278-c699-4771-a502-9a3afb04da83@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 2:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>> "F Murtz"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:49c85128@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>> news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>>> suggests
>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the 
>>>>>> law
>>>>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something 
>>>>>> else?
>>>>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>>>> others. Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>>> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
>>>> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
>>>> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
>>>> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind)
>>>> laws which make homicide illegal are useless.
>>>> You now see the error of your suggestion.
>>>>>>> Folks who have the intent to commit murder don't really care what
>>>>>>> method they use.
>>>>>> **Perhaps. In the US, however, they prefer to use a gun.
>>>>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
>>>>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
>>>> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
>>>>> Canada has strict controls on firearms.
>>>>> Jamaica has a complete ban on firearms.
>>>>> Folks still get murdered in both countries.
>>>> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around
>>>> 10% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict
>>>> controls on firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that 
>>>> the
>>>> US has. See a pattern here?
>>> YES they use other methods for homicide. The homicide rate in australia
>>> has remained almost constant per 100000 people for 100 years
>> **No, it has not. It has, however, remained lower than the US figure for a
>> long time.
> 
> Actually, the homicide rate in this country has remained relatively
> stable over the past century or so.
> 
> AIC "Trends and Issues No 61" "Violent Crime in Australia;
> Interpreting the Trends"
> 
> I guess Trevor will tell us he can't find that too..............
> 
> **I take it then, that if your wages were cut by 50%, you'd regard that is 
> insignificant? Australian homicides have varied by more than that.
> 
> 
50% of 4/5 of SFA

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:38:38 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:qv4gs4tfj314ejgsrjgf3qr69pemnc2tkm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:31 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>>suggests
>>>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>>
>>>>>**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the law
>>>>>books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something else?
>>>>>Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>>
>>>**No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
>>>control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
>>>specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
>>>homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind) 
>>>laws
>>>which make homicide illegal are useless.
>>
>> You certainly have a twist with words and logic.
>
>**It's my language of choice - Logic and reason.
>
>> The gun control laws do not work to stop homicides.
>
>**Not directly, no. Gun control laws, in part, attempt to restrict the 
>availability of firearms to those who should not have them.

Please define "those who should not have them"?

>> Places like Jamaica have very strict gun laws and very high homicide
>> rates.
>
>**So? Is it your point that a third world nation has a crime problem? Is 
>that you point? This is hardly news. Poor nations tend to place their 
>resources into areas other than law and order. Developed nations tend to 
>place proportionally more of their resources into law and order.

The U.S. is not a third world nation and it has a very high crime
problem.  It has had a high crime problem for 200 years or more
compared to the United Kingdom.

>> Canada has the same gun laws in every jurisdiction yet the homicide
>> rate with firearms varies from area to area.
>
>**So? We've already discussed the poorly thought out gun control laws in 
>Canada. Additional to that, the same can be said of any nation.

What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?
Police background checks on purchasers?
Mandatory safety courses?
Restrictions and prohibitions on the use of hadguns and some rifles.
Police oversite on every firearm purchased in Canada?
The gun registration system?

>  If the laws worked the
>> homicide rate /100,000 should be the same in all areas.
>
>**Bullshit. I'll bite. Why do you think that to be the case? Be precise in 
>your answer.

You claim "bullshit". You tell me how it is bullshit please?

>> There is no correlation between firearms, firearms laws, and the
>> homocide rate.
>
>**Yes, there is. Examine the homicide rates in the following places:
>
>* Australia.
>* The UK.
>* Holland.
>* Sweden.
>* Germany.
>* France.
>* The USA.

How come you left out Jamaica.
How come you didn't compare Mexico where private possession of
firearms is strictly contolled?
Are you cherry picking your information?

>Now examine the firearms control laws in each of these places. See a 
>correlation?

I see you contriving a correlation by cherry picking data sets.

>> And folks who do not have any respect for the law (and religious
>> taboo) against murder are not going to be stopped by a gun law.
>
>**So, we should remove murder from the law books then? Is that your 
>contention? Don't bother prosecuting murderers, since they'll commit murder 
>anyway? Sounds like a dumb idea to me.

Yes removing murder from the law books is a dumb idea. Murder is
murder whether it be done with a gun, knife, or blunt object.
Totally different than outlawing the possession of firearms where
possesison of a gun is a crime even though there is no victim.

>> Guns available in a society are not a cause or catalyst for crime.
>
>**No one ever said they were. They do make, as evidenced by the homicide 
>rate in the US, it easy to kill people.

Then why your plea for restrictions on guns?

>> They are a tool that people will use.  Take guns out of the equation
>> and other tools (means) are substituted.
>
>**Prove it.

Jamaica, mexico, and some asian countries have very high murder rates
yet firearms are strictly controlled.

>> Here is some interesting reading for you from Firearms and Violence
>> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11
>
>**Let's see you answer some questions first. Then and only then, will I 
>bother reading your cite. Here's what you snipped:

Why should I answer questions when you don't?
You are a time waster....

snipped again...

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:02:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>-- 
>
>"APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote in message 
>news:49c824be$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message 
>> news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "10x"  wrote in message 
>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>
>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for 
>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly 
>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
>>> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly 
>>> policed gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like 
>>> Australia, where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed and 
>>> homogeneously applied accros the entire nation.
>>>
>> A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure
>>
>> http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
>
>**It does indeed. Thanks for the link. Like everything written by '10x', it 
>appears that the 20,000 figure is complete bullshit.

A bit of research shows some 300 laws on state books regarding
firearms.
Considering that municipal govenrments also have firearms laws
regarding use there are somewhere between 300 and 20,000 firearms
laws.
Much depends on which levels of govenrment are included.
If local municipal laws are included then the number may be well over
20,000.
So my comment may not be bullshit after all.
Would you like to tally all of the federal, state, and municipal laws
in the U.S. regarding firearms and then tell us for certian how many
there are?

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:qn5is4db75g554dtb7aehiu326lsh6m7g7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:38:38 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>news:qv4gs4tfj314ejgsrjgf3qr69pemnc2tkm@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:31 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>>news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>>>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>>>suggests
>>>>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the 
>>>>>>law
>>>>>>books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something 
>>>>>>else?
>>>>>>Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>>>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>>>
>>>>**No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
>>>>control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
>>>>specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
>>>>homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind)
>>>>laws
>>>>which make homicide illegal are useless.
>>>
>>> You certainly have a twist with words and logic.
>>
>>**It's my language of choice - Logic and reason.
>>
>>> The gun control laws do not work to stop homicides.
>>
>>**Not directly, no. Gun control laws, in part, attempt to restrict the
>>availability of firearms to those who should not have them.
>
> Please define "those who should not have them"?

**If you can't work that out, then there is little I can do for you. Are you 
really stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

>
>>> Places like Jamaica have very strict gun laws and very high homicide
>>> rates.
>>
>>**So? Is it your point that a third world nation has a crime problem? Is
>>that you point? This is hardly news. Poor nations tend to place their
>>resources into areas other than law and order. Developed nations tend to
>>place proportionally more of their resources into law and order.
>
> The U.S. is not a third world nation and it has a very high crime
> problem.  It has had a high crime problem for 200 years or more
> compared to the United Kingdom.

**Answer my questions please.

>
>>> Canada has the same gun laws in every jurisdiction yet the homicide
>>> rate with firearms varies from area to area.
>>
>>**So? We've already discussed the poorly thought out gun control laws in
>>Canada. Additional to that, the same can be said of any nation.
>
> What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?

**Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.
Additionally, the laws are not applied equally across the nation.
Some places in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) have tougher gun control laws 
than other places.
There is poor enforcement of the laws.
There are poor controls over the sale of second hand guns.

Again: Examine the laws in AUSTRALIA and you will see an example of well 
constructed and policed gun control laws.

> Police background checks on purchasers?
> Mandatory safety courses?
> Restrictions and prohibitions on the use of hadguns and some rifles.
> Police oversite on every firearm purchased in Canada?
> The gun registration system?
>
>>  If the laws worked the
>>> homicide rate /100,000 should be the same in all areas.
>>
>>**Bullshit. I'll bite. Why do you think that to be the case? Be precise in
>>your answer.
>
> You claim "bullshit". You tell me how it is bullshit please?

**I'm waiting for you to justify your nonsensical claim. I accept your 
inability to justify the claim.

>
>>> There is no correlation between firearms, firearms laws, and the
>>> homocide rate.
>>
>>**Yes, there is. Examine the homicide rates in the following places:
>>
>>* Australia.
>>* The UK.
>>* Holland.
>>* Sweden.
>>* Germany.
>>* France.
>>* The USA.
>
> How come you left out Jamaica.

**I was careful to include developed nations, not third world shitholes.

> How come you didn't compare Mexico where private possession of
> firearms is strictly contolled?

**I was careful to include developed nations, not third world shitholes.

> Are you cherry picking your information?

**Not by choosing developed nations. Feel free to list any developed nation 
as part of the comparison.

>
>>Now examine the firearms control laws in each of these places. See a
>>correlation?
>
> I see you contriving a correlation by cherry picking data sets.

**Not be using developed nations, rather than third world shitholes as 
examples.

>
>>> And folks who do not have any respect for the law (and religious
>>> taboo) against murder are not going to be stopped by a gun law.
>>
>>**So, we should remove murder from the law books then? Is that your
>>contention? Don't bother prosecuting murderers, since they'll commit 
>>murder
>>anyway? Sounds like a dumb idea to me.
>
> Yes removing murder from the law books is a dumb idea. Murder is
> murder whether it be done with a gun, knife, or blunt object.
> Totally different than outlawing the possession of firearms where
> possesison of a gun is a crime even though there is no victim.

**Who is suggesting that firearms should be "outlawed"?

>
>>> Guns available in a society are not a cause or catalyst for crime.
>>
>>**No one ever said they were. They do make, as evidenced by the homicide
>>rate in the US, it easy to kill people.
>
> Then why your plea for restrictions on guns?

**Because such restrictions can be shown to reduce the numbers of people 
shot to death.

>
>>> They are a tool that people will use.  Take guns out of the equation
>>> and other tools (means) are substituted.
>>
>>**Prove it.
>
> Jamaica, mexico, and some asian countries have very high murder rates
> yet firearms are strictly controlled.

**Lack of proof duly noted. Japan has very strict firearms laws, but has 
extremely low homicide rates. Japan is a developed nation.

>
>>> Here is some interesting reading for you from Firearms and Violence
>>> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11
>>
>>**Let's see you answer some questions first. Then and only then, will I
>>bother reading your cite. Here's what you snipped:
>
> Why should I answer questions when you don't?

**Liar. I answered all your questions. You answered none of mine. Typical.

> You are a time waster....

**You are a lying piece of shit.

I'll give you one more chance to answer the questions. I fully expect you to 
weasel out of answering the questions. You are a typical example of your 
kind -stupid, lazy and gutless.

---
> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.

**Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
---
**They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 10%
the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict controls on
firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. See a
pattern here?
---
The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms

**Really? That many? Got a cite for that?
---
**I said (emphasis added):

Perhaps the US could learn from places like AUSTRALIA, where the gun control
laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros the
entire nation.

I did not say: "Canada". I said "AUSTRALIA". Canada's gun control laws are
weak and inneffective, compared to the suite of laws employed in Australia.
---

-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:af6is41aoanesq38kotdptddflgck8gp5o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:02:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>"APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:49c824be$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message
>>> news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>>
>>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you 
>>>> for
>>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a
>>>> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly
>>>> policed gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like
>>>> Australia, where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed and
>>>> homogeneously applied accros the entire nation.
>>>>
>>> A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure
>>>
>>> http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
>>
>>**It does indeed. Thanks for the link. Like everything written by '10x', 
>>it
>>appears that the 20,000 figure is complete bullshit.
>
> A bit of research shows some 300 laws on state books regarding
> firearms.
> Considering that municipal govenrments also have firearms laws
> regarding use there are somewhere between 300 and 20,000 firearms
> laws.
> Much depends on which levels of govenrment are included.
> If local municipal laws are included then the number may be well over
> 20,000.
> So my comment may not be bullshit after all.
> Would you like to tally all of the federal, state, and municipal laws
> in the U.S. regarding firearms and then tell us for certian how many
> there are?

**YOU claimed 20,000 gun control laws. Let's see the proof. Else you could 
retract your claim.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

>>10x"  wrote:
>> What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?
>
> "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
> **Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.

Wrong! The firearms act requires all firearms must be registered and, the 
owners in order to legally own them must have a government issued firearms 
acquisition and possession licence which can only be obtained after taking a 
federal government mandated safety course and pass a test. If you wish to 
hunt you are also required to take a Provincial mandated firearms safety 
handling course and pass a further test as well, all at your own 
considerable expense.
Now if you had said that the 2 billion dollar registration program was 
useless when it comes to catching criminals I bet every gun owner in Canada 
would wholeheartedly agree with you because it is. For $2 billion,Yes that's 
right $2 billion and counting all we got was a list of legal gun owners. It 
does absolutely squat in terms of ensuring the safety of the public on which 
was the premise it was sold by a lying government to the people.

> Additionally, the laws are not applied equally across the nation.
> Some places in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) have tougher gun control laws 
> than other places.

Wrong again. The Firearms Act is a federal act that comes under The Criminal 
Code of Canada and must be applied equally all across the country. Where you 
may get variations from province to province is when firearms are used for 
hunting purposes and, the various provinces enact legislation governing what 
type or size of firearm can be used when harvesting game.

> There is poor enforcement of the laws.

Wrong again. I can assure you the firearms act is most vigourously enforced 
by the RCMP and other police forces across the land. Up to and including law 
approved searches of owners homes without benefit of a search warrant.

> There are poor controls over the sale of second hand guns.

Wrong again. All sales must be recorded by law and, reported to The Firearms 
Centre in New Brunswick. You may only sell a firearm to the holder of a 
current Acquisition/possession licence. Failure to comply fully can net you 
a term of 5 years in jail and your rghts to own firearms permanently 
rescinded.


> Again: Examine the laws in AUSTRALIA and you will see an example of well 
> constructed and policed gun control laws.

And before you spout off about the inadequacies of the CANADA Firearms Act I 
would suggest you read it and digest it a LOT more fully before shooting of 
your mouth.

-- 
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.

"Alex Cunningham"  wrote in message 
news:5ZOdnVXwj_lJyVTUnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.toastnet...
>
>
>>>10x"  wrote:
>>> What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
>> **Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.
>
> Wrong!

**Cite your proof. Here's mine:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf

 The firearms act requires all firearms must be registered and, the
> owners in order to legally own them must have a government issued firearms 
> acquisition and possession licence which can only be obtained after taking 
> a federal government mandated safety course and pass a test. If you wish 
> to hunt you are also required to take a Provincial mandated firearms 
> safety handling course and pass a further test as well, all at your own 
> considerable expense.
> Now if you had said that the 2 billion dollar registration program was 
> useless when it comes to catching criminals I bet every gun owner in 
> Canada would wholeheartedly agree with you because it is. For $2 
> billion,Yes that's right $2 billion and counting all we got was a list of 
> legal gun owners. It does absolutely squat in terms of ensuring the safety 
> of the public on which was the premise it was sold by a lying government 
> to the people.
>
>> Additionally, the laws are not applied equally across the nation.
>> Some places in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) have tougher gun control laws 
>> than other places.
>
> Wrong again.

**Cite your proof. Here's mine:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf

 The Firearms Act is a federal act that comes under The Criminal
> Code of Canada and must be applied equally all across the country. Where 
> you may get variations from province to province is when firearms are used 
> for hunting purposes and, the various provinces enact legislation 
> governing what type or size of firearm can be used when harvesting game.
>
>> There is poor enforcement of the laws.
>
> Wrong again.

**Cite your proof. Here's mine:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf

 I can assure you the firearms act is most vigourously enforced
> by the RCMP and other police forces across the land. Up to and including 
> law approved searches of owners homes without benefit of a search warrant.
>
>> There are poor controls over the sale of second hand guns.
>
> Wrong again.

**Cite your proof. Here's mine:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf

 All sales must be recorded by law and, reported to The Firearms
> Centre in New Brunswick. You may only sell a firearm to the holder of a 
> current Acquisition/possession licence. Failure to comply fully can net 
> you a term of 5 years in jail and your rghts to own firearms permanently 
> rescinded.
>
>
>> Again: Examine the laws in AUSTRALIA and you will see an example of well 
>> constructed and policed gun control laws.
>
> And before you spout off about the inadequacies of the CANADA Firearms Act 
> I would suggest you read it and digest it a LOT more fully before shooting 
> of your mouth.

**Proof cited. Cite yours.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mar 25, 9:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:
<SNIP>

So, Trevor proves he knows fuck-all about Canadian gun laws other than
what he reads on the web-site of an anti-gun political lobby group.

He's already demonstrated he knows fuck-all about US gun laws despite
whingeing constatntly about them.

Through his sock-puppet Blinky Bill he's also demonstrated he know's
fuck-all about gun laws in his own state.

Ho-Hum, Ho-Hum, nothing new here

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "10x"  wrote in message 
> news:qn5is4db75g554dtb7aehiu326lsh6m7g7@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:38:38 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>> news:qv4gs4tfj314ejgsrjgf3qr69pemnc2tkm@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:31 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:3hvfs4hv83larbqrrb51tk75qmr35larnr@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The exisiting laws are entirely adequate.
>>>>>>>>> What is your evidence for that? The US gun homicide rate certainly
>>>>>>>>> suggests
>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>> Murder is against the law in the U.S.A.
>>>>>>> **Well that law doesn't work. Perhaps it should be removed from the 
>>>>>>> law
>>>>>>> books. Is that your inference? Or are you trying to say something 
>>>>>>> else?
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>>>> My point is that folks willing to break the law and taboo against
>>>>>> murder are not going to care about a gun law or method of murdering
>>>>>> others.  Firearms do not cause the intent to murder.
>>>>> **No. Your point was clear. [To paraphrase] You claim that "20,000" gun
>>>>> control laws don't work, so they should be dispensed with. I used your
>>>>> specious claim to suggest that you should treat the laws surrounding
>>>>> homicide the same way. People commit homicide. Therefore (in your mind)
>>>>> laws
>>>>> which make homicide illegal are useless.
>>>> You certainly have a twist with words and logic.
>>> **It's my language of choice - Logic and reason.
>>>
>>>> The gun control laws do not work to stop homicides.
>>> **Not directly, no. Gun control laws, in part, attempt to restrict the
>>> availability of firearms to those who should not have them.
>> Please define "those who should not have them"?
> 
> **If you can't work that out, then there is little I can do for you. Are you 
> really stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
> 
>>>> Places like Jamaica have very strict gun laws and very high homicide
>>>> rates.
>>> **So? Is it your point that a third world nation has a crime problem? Is
>>> that you point? This is hardly news. Poor nations tend to place their
>>> resources into areas other than law and order. Developed nations tend to
>>> place proportionally more of their resources into law and order.
>> The U.S. is not a third world nation and it has a very high crime
>> problem.  It has had a high crime problem for 200 years or more
>> compared to the United Kingdom.
> 
> **Answer my questions please.
> 
>>>> Canada has the same gun laws in every jurisdiction yet the homicide
>>>> rate with firearms varies from area to area.
>>> **So? We've already discussed the poorly thought out gun control laws in
>>> Canada. Additional to that, the same can be said of any nation.
>> What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?
> 
> **Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.
> Additionally, the laws are not applied equally across the nation.
> Some places in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) have tougher gun control laws 
> than other places.
> There is poor enforcement of the laws.
> There are poor controls over the sale of second hand guns.
> 
> Again: Examine the laws in AUSTRALIA and you will see an example of well 
> constructed and policed gun control laws.
> 
>> Police background checks on purchasers?
>> Mandatory safety courses?
>> Restrictions and prohibitions on the use of hadguns and some rifles.
>> Police oversite on every firearm purchased in Canada?
>> The gun registration system?
>>
>>>  If the laws worked the
>>>> homicide rate /100,000 should be the same in all areas.
>>> **Bullshit. I'll bite. Why do you think that to be the case? Be precise in
>>> your answer.
>> You claim "bullshit". You tell me how it is bullshit please?
> 
> **I'm waiting for you to justify your nonsensical claim. I accept your 
> inability to justify the claim.
> 
>>>> There is no correlation between firearms, firearms laws, and the
>>>> homocide rate.
>>> **Yes, there is. Examine the homicide rates in the following places:
>>>
>>> * Australia.
>>> * The UK.
>>> * Holland.
>>> * Sweden.
>>> * Germany.
>>> * France.
>>> * The USA.
>> How come you left out Jamaica.
> 
> **I was careful to include developed nations, not third world shitholes.
> 
>> How come you didn't compare Mexico where private possession of
>> firearms is strictly contolled?
> 
> **I was careful to include developed nations, not third world shitholes.
> 
>> Are you cherry picking your information?
> 
> **Not by choosing developed nations. Feel free to list any developed nation 
> as part of the comparison.
> 
>>> Now examine the firearms control laws in each of these places. See a
>>> correlation?
>> I see you contriving a correlation by cherry picking data sets.
> 
> **Not be using developed nations, rather than third world shitholes as 
> examples.
> 
>>>> And folks who do not have any respect for the law (and religious
>>>> taboo) against murder are not going to be stopped by a gun law.
>>> **So, we should remove murder from the law books then? Is that your
>>> contention? Don't bother prosecuting murderers, since they'll commit 
>>> murder
>>> anyway? Sounds like a dumb idea to me.
>> Yes removing murder from the law books is a dumb idea. Murder is
>> murder whether it be done with a gun, knife, or blunt object.
>> Totally different than outlawing the possession of firearms where
>> possesison of a gun is a crime even though there is no victim.
> 
> **Who is suggesting that firearms should be "outlawed"?
> 
>>>> Guns available in a society are not a cause or catalyst for crime.
>>> **No one ever said they were. They do make, as evidenced by the homicide
>>> rate in the US, it easy to kill people.
>> Then why your plea for restrictions on guns?
> 
> **Because such restrictions can be shown to reduce the numbers of people 
> shot to death.  


At it again, reduce guns reduce people shot not reduce total

people killed
> 
>>>> They are a tool that people will use.  Take guns out of the equation
>>>> and other tools (means) are substituted.
>>> **Prove it.
>> Jamaica, mexico, and some asian countries have very high murder rates
>> yet firearms are strictly controlled.
> 
> **Lack of proof duly noted. Japan has very strict firearms laws, but has 
> extremely low homicide rates. Japan is a developed nation.
> 
>>>> Here is some interesting reading for you from Firearms and Violence
>>>> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=11
>>> **Let's see you answer some questions first. Then and only then, will I
>>> bother reading your cite. Here's what you snipped:
>> Why should I answer questions when you don't?
> 
> **Liar. I answered all your questions. You answered none of mine. Typical.
> 
>> You are a time waster....
> 
> **You are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> I'll give you one more chance to answer the questions. I fully expect you to 
> weasel out of answering the questions. You are a typical example of your 
> kind -stupid, lazy and gutless.
> 
> ---
>> You are quite correct they do perfer to use a gun in the U.S.
>> However they also use other methods when firearms are not available.
> 
> **Do they? In EVERY case? Prove it.
> ---
> **They do, indeed. Australia has strict controls on firearms and around 10%
> the gun related homicide rate that the US has. The UK has strict controls on
> firearms and around 5% the gun related homicide rate that the US has. See a
> pattern here?
> ---
> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
> 
> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that?
> ---
> **I said (emphasis added):
> 
> Perhaps the US could learn from places like AUSTRALIA, where the gun control
> laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied accros the
> entire nation.
> 
> I did not say: "Canada". I said "AUSTRALIA". Canada's gun control laws are
> weak and inneffective, compared to the suite of laws employed in Australia.
> ---
>

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:04:05 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:af6is41aoanesq38kotdptddflgck8gp5o@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:02:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>
>>>"APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:49c824be$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message
>>>> news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>>>
>>>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you 
>>>>> for
>>>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a
>>>>> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly
>>>>> policed gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like
>>>>> Australia, where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed and
>>>>> homogeneously applied accros the entire nation.
>>>>>
>>>> A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure
>>>>
>>>> http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
>>>
>>>**It does indeed. Thanks for the link. Like everything written by '10x', 
>>>it
>>>appears that the 20,000 figure is complete bullshit.
>>
>> A bit of research shows some 300 laws on state books regarding
>> firearms.
>> Considering that municipal govenrments also have firearms laws
>> regarding use there are somewhere between 300 and 20,000 firearms
>> laws.
>> Much depends on which levels of govenrment are included.
>> If local municipal laws are included then the number may be well over
>> 20,000.
>> So my comment may not be bullshit after all.
>> Would you like to tally all of the federal, state, and municipal laws
>> in the U.S. regarding firearms and then tell us for certian how many
>> there are?
>
>**YOU claimed 20,000 gun control laws. Let's see the proof. Else you could 
>retract your claim.

I quoted a source that claimed 20,000 gun laws.  
With federal gun laws, state gun laws, and municipal gun laws  in
20,000 separate municipal  jurisdictions that number could be low.

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:44:22 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>
>"John - Melb"  wrote in message 
>news:ef79ea21-4b68-45bc-8abe-c11263f6b2aa@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 23, 8:42 am, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>
>> > The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>
>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you for
>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a 
>> replacement
>> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun control
>> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the gun
>> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied 
>> accros
>> the entire nation.
>
>So, Trevor is unaware that there are over 20,000 Federal, State and
>Local laws in the US governing the purshase, ownership, possession and
>use of firearms and wants references to prove it.
>
>**Exactly.
>
>
>Let's see now...........
>
>**Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, June 17, 1981
>
>**Congressional Record - Senate S4062 May 17, 2000
>
>**"Youth Violence - Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy" Daniel
>J Flannery and C. Ronald Huff (Page 217)
>
>It would appear that Trevor knows no-where near as much about gun laws
>as he pretends to know..........
>
>**I see no clear evidence of the "20,000" gun control laws that you are 
>claiming.

Why don't you tell us how many federal, state, and municpal gun laws
there really are then???

"F Murtz"  wrote in message 
news:49c98cca@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> **Because such restrictions can be shown to reduce the numbers of people 
>> shot to death.
>
>
> At it again, reduce guns reduce people shot not reduce total
>
> people killed

**Prove it.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:4o1js4t87garb4ujjic8hc0g1srhtt0fcn@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:04:05 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"10x"  wrote in message
>>news:af6is41aoanesq38kotdptddflgck8gp5o@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:02:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>
>>>>"APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:49c824be$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 +1100, "Blinky Bill" 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>>>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a
>>>>>> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly
>>>>>> policed gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like
>>>>>> Australia, where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> homogeneously applied accros the entire nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
>>>>
>>>>**It does indeed. Thanks for the link. Like everything written by '10x',
>>>>it
>>>>appears that the 20,000 figure is complete bullshit.
>>>
>>> A bit of research shows some 300 laws on state books regarding
>>> firearms.
>>> Considering that municipal govenrments also have firearms laws
>>> regarding use there are somewhere between 300 and 20,000 firearms
>>> laws.
>>> Much depends on which levels of govenrment are included.
>>> If local municipal laws are included then the number may be well over
>>> 20,000.
>>> So my comment may not be bullshit after all.
>>> Would you like to tally all of the federal, state, and municipal laws
>>> in the U.S. regarding firearms and then tell us for certian how many
>>> there are?
>>
>>**YOU claimed 20,000 gun control laws. Let's see the proof. Else you could
>>retract your claim.
>
> I quoted a source that claimed 20,000 gun laws.

**YOU claimed 20,000 gun control laws. Let's see your proof.

> With federal gun laws, state gun laws, and municipal gun laws  in
> 20,000 separate municipal  jurisdictions that number could be low.

**Let's see your proof.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:br1js4l7rca909lr5mcv6udkt91hiivt6s@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:44:22 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>"John - Melb"  wrote in message
>>news:ef79ea21-4b68-45bc-8abe-c11263f6b2aa@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>On Mar 23, 8:42 am, "Trevor Wilson"
>> wrote:
>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>
>>> > The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>
>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you 
>>> for
>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a
>>> replacement
>>> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun 
>>> control
>>> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the 
>>> gun
>>> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied
>>> accros
>>> the entire nation.
>>
>>So, Trevor is unaware that there are over 20,000 Federal, State and
>>Local laws in the US governing the purshase, ownership, possession and
>>use of firearms and wants references to prove it.
>>
>>**Exactly.
>>
>>
>>Let's see now...........
>>
>>**Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, June 17, 1981
>>
>>**Congressional Record - Senate S4062 May 17, 2000
>>
>>**"Youth Violence - Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy" Daniel
>>J Flannery and C. Ronald Huff (Page 217)
>>
>>It would appear that Trevor knows no-where near as much about gun laws
>>as he pretends to know..........
>>
>>**I see no clear evidence of the "20,000" gun control laws that you are
>>claiming.
>
> Why don't you tell us how many federal, state, and municpal gun laws
> there really are then???

**I made no claim as to how many laws there are. YOU did. YOU must supply 
the proof of YOUR claim. I will not supply proof of YOUR claim.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mar 25, 1:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:
> "10x"  wrote in message
>
> news:4o1js4t87garb4ujjic8hc0g1srhtt0fcn@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:04:05 흝, "Trevor Wilson"
> >  wrote:
>
> >>"10x"  wrote in message
> >>news:af6is41aoanesq38kotdptddflgck8gp5o@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:02:03 흝, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>--
>
> >>>>"APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:49c824be$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message
> >>>>>news:72npm8Fql8llU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:15 흝, "Blinky Bill"
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>
> >>>>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
> >>>>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a
> >>>>>> replacement for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly
> >>>>>> policed gun control laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like
> >>>>>> Australia, where the gun control laws are tough, sane, well policed
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> homogeneously applied accros the entire nation.
>
> >>>>> A reputable PDF that might shed some light on the 20,000 figure
>
> >>>>>http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
>
> >>>>**It does indeed. Thanks for the link. Like everything written by '10x',
> >>>>it
> >>>>appears that the 20,000 figure is complete bullshit.
>
> >>> A bit of research shows some 300 laws on state books regarding
> >>> firearms.
> >>> Considering that municipal govenrments also have firearms laws
> >>> regarding use there are somewhere between 300 and 20,000 firearms
> >>> laws.
> >>> Much depends on which levels of govenrment are included.
> >>> If local municipal laws are included then the number may be well over
> >>> 20,000.
> >>> So my comment may not be bullshit after all.
> >>> Would you like to tally all of the federal, state, and municipal laws
> >>> in the U.S. regarding firearms and then tell us for certian how many
> >>> there are?
>
> >>**YOU claimed 20,000 gun control laws. Let's see the proof. Else you could
> >>retract your claim.
>
> > I quoted a source that claimed 20,000 gun laws.
>
> **YOU claimed 20,000 gun control laws. Let's see your proof.
>
> > With federal gun laws, state gun laws, and municipal gun laws  in
> > 20,000 separate municipal  jurisdictions that number could be low.
>
> **Let's see your proof.

Proof for that claim has been cited, it's not the other posters fault
that you're too stupid to find the references.

>>>>10x"  wrote:
>>>> What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
>>> **Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.
>>
>> Wrong!
> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote:
> **Cite your proof. Here's mine:

> http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf

This is proof of nothing other than the manipulated and cherry picked 
rantings of a rabid anti gun lobby group who want ALL guns banned. It does 
not give you any facts regarding the restrictions placed on honest people 
who wish to possess firearms.
Try reading the information provided in the link below then you may gain 
some true insight as to how, The Firearms Act works.
Your assertion "the big one" about the 'Lack of compulsory registration is 
totally wrong. All firearms are subject to registration. The fact that 
criminals do not comply is self explanatory or are you implying that 
Australian criminals register their guns.

 http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1995-c-39/latest/sc-1995-c-39.html

>>10x"  wrote:
> > With federal gun laws, state gun laws, and municipal gun laws in
> > 20,000 separate municipal jurisdictions that number could be low.
>>

>"Trevor Wilson"wrote:
> **Let's see your proof.
>
John - Melb"  wrote:
Proof for that claim has been cited, it's not the other posters fault
that you're too stupid to find the references.

There's none as blind as those who WILL NOT see.

-- 
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:45:04 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>
>
>
>"10x"  wrote in message 
>news:br1js4l7rca909lr5mcv6udkt91hiivt6s@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:44:22 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"John - Melb"  wrote in message
>>>news:ef79ea21-4b68-45bc-8abe-c11263f6b2aa@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Mar 23, 8:42 am, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> wrote:
>>>> "10x"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:b6i9s4lsaf6so7lq3ks9ctb9crg16drjiq@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> > The U.S.A. has over 20,000 laws restricting the use of firearms
>>>>
>>>> **Really? That many? Got a cite for that? However, just to humour you 
>>>> for
>>>> the moment, you should understand that 20,000 weak, haphazard, poorly
>>>> regulated and just plain nonsensical gun control laws are not a
>>>> replacement
>>>> for a dozen well thought out, tough, sane and properly policed gun 
>>>> control
>>>> laws. Perhaps the US could learn from places like Australia, where the 
>>>> gun
>>>> control laws are tough, sane, well policed and homogeneously applied
>>>> accros
>>>> the entire nation.
>>>
>>>So, Trevor is unaware that there are over 20,000 Federal, State and
>>>Local laws in the US governing the purshase, ownership, possession and
>>>use of firearms and wants references to prove it.
>>>
>>>**Exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's see now...........
>>>
>>>**Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, June 17, 1981
>>>
>>>**Congressional Record - Senate S4062 May 17, 2000
>>>
>>>**"Youth Violence - Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy" Daniel
>>>J Flannery and C. Ronald Huff (Page 217)
>>>
>>>It would appear that Trevor knows no-where near as much about gun laws
>>>as he pretends to know..........
>>>
>>>**I see no clear evidence of the "20,000" gun control laws that you are
>>>claiming.
>>
>> Why don't you tell us how many federal, state, and municpal gun laws
>> there really are then???
>
>**I made no claim as to how many laws there are. YOU did. YOU must supply 
>the proof of YOUR claim. I will not supply proof of YOUR claim.

It is time you did some research Trevor Wilson, on both Canada and the
U.S.  You should find out what some of those laws are,
Your opinion on Canadian laws is as follows.

I asked Trevor Wilson
>> What part of Canada's gun control is poorly thought out?

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>**Lack of compulsory firearms registration is the big one.

That is simply not true.  Registration of some firearms in Canada has
been compulsary since 2001. There also has been compulsory
registration of handguns since 1934.
It is a criminal code offence to be in possesion of an unregistered
firearm in Canada for eight years now.  See Section 91 and 92 of the
Canadian Criminal code.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_III//en#anchorbo-ga:l_III
91. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), every person commits an
offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of 

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.

The penalty for knowling being in possession of an unregistered gun is
a maximum ten year prision sentence.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>Additionally, the laws are not applied equally across the nation.

Are you telling us the police are not enforcing Canadian Criminal code
and the firearms act?  Could you give us examples please?

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>Some places in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) have tougher gun control laws
>than other places.

Once again, could you give us examples?  BTW: Quebecs gun laws mirror
the federal laws in Chapter 39, statutes of Canada.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>There is poor enforcement of the laws.

Give some examples please?  Are you saying Canadian police are
incompetent or are you claiming they are careless, or indiffernet to
firearms and criminal code offences?

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:25 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
 wrote:

>There are poor controls over the sale of second hand guns.

This is a blatant lie.  All firearm sales and transfers  be approved
and recorded in the gun registry under the autority of the Canadian
firearms Centre. Both the buyers and sellers firearms license, date of
birth, address, and personal information are checked.  A check is done
on CPIC - the Canadian police iquiry database and a Chief Fiearms
Officer approves each transfer. 
Any sale of a firearm without these steps is a criminal code offense
and the penalty for illegally transfering a registered gun is a
maximum ten year prision sentence.
See chapter 39, statutes of Canada
See the Canada Criminal Code for penalties.

Trevor, you obviously don't know much about gun laws.
You have blown your credibility with this one.
Too bad, so sad

On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, 10x  wrote:

> Trevor, you obviously don't know much about gun laws.
> You have blown your credibility with this one.
> Too bad, so sad

You're wrong, Trevor blew his credibility a very, very, long time ago.

>On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, 10x  wrote:
> Trevor, you obviously don't know much about gun laws.
> You have blown your credibility with this one.
> Too bad, so sad
>
"John - Melb"  wrote:
You're wrong, Trevor blew his credibility a very, very, long time ago.

What do you expect from a twelve year old spotty social misfit who spends 
all his time cooped up in his parents basement?

-- 
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.

On Mar 28, 12:53 am, "Alex Cunningham"  wrote:
> >On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, 10x  wrote:
> > Trevor, you obviously don't know much about gun laws.
> > You have blown your credibility with this one.
> > Too bad, so sad
>
> "John - Melb"  wrote:
> You're wrong, Trevor blew his credibility a very, very, long time ago.
>
> What do you expect from a twelve year old spotty social misfit who spends
> all his time cooped up in his parents basement?
>

Yep, and you'll notice Trevor has slunk away and his sock-puppet is
now venting his spleen and spreading nastiness.

> --
> Cheers!
> Alex.C
> There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
> Problem is nine million of them think they are people.