On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:02:32 +1100, "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?

What I have figured out is that if individuals can not be trusted with
firearms in a society, then they can not be trusted with anything else
that can be used as a weapon.  Individuals who are that dangerous need
to be incarcerated or put into a position of very carefull
supervision. 
You honestly believe that someone who has no reservations about
murdering other peopel will keep a promise to not touch guns?

"10x"  wrote in message 
news:et0js4l9uqhb396rq4uc7n63nt6bq4qjh8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:02:32 +1100, "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?
>
> What I have figured out is that if individuals can not be trusted with
> firearms in a society, then they can not be trusted with anything else
> that can be used as a weapon.  Individuals who are that dangerous need
> to be incarcerated or put into a position of very carefull
> supervision.

**You fail, yet again, to answer my questions. I shall repeat them:

Are you really stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?


> You honestly believe that someone who has no reservations about
> murdering other peopel will keep a promise to not touch guns?

**Non-sequitur. Good, strong, sane gun control laws have little to do with 
promises.

>
>>> 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

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

>>
>> What I have figured out is that if individuals can not be trusted with
>> firearms in a society, then they can not be trusted with anything else
>> that can be used as a weapon.  Individuals who are that dangerous need
>> to be incarcerated or put into a position of very carefull
>> supervision.
>
>**You fail, yet again, to answer my questions. I shall repeat them:
>
>Are you really stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
>
Neither stupid or obtuse, but forty years of keeping watcjomg a
progression of more restricive  gun laws and and less draconian
penalties for convictions of crime have lead to some conclusions.

>> You honestly believe that someone who has no reservations about
>> murdering other peopel will keep a promise to not touch guns?
>
>**Non-sequitur. Good, strong, sane gun control laws have little to do with 
>promises.

And what ood, strong, sane gun control  laws would those be?
What jurisdiction has gun laws that work to reduce crime and violence?

>> 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.  Registraition 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.


>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?

>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.


>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?

>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.

Sorry Trevor Wilson but you are wrong on all counts.
As usual

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

>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.

You have displayed a complete lack of knowledge on Canada's gun laws.
I suspect your knowledge of Australia's gun laws is not much better.
Your credibility regarding gun laws is shot (pardon the pun).