Or, how about one from NYC? 6 Shot During Weekend

[Superfly]

This is happening in a city where the criminals keep their guns, the rich and connected can get concealed carry permits, while the average joe is neither rich, nor connected to receive a permit.

Link

Six people were shot in separate incidents between Saturday night and yesterday morning, including a man who was hit by a stray bullet while standing on a street in the Lincoln Center area, police said.

[Romulus]

1. that's pretty bad

when bullets are flying around Lincoln Center.

[billbuckhead]

2. And the solution is always more guns and less care in doling them out?

:crazy:

[MrBenchley]

3. Only to gun nuts

amd the corrupt industry that makes lots of blood money selling guns to criminals.

[Spoonman]

4. Plea for help.......

You seem to be very passionate about this. Please share the information you have that has sparked such an adamant campaign against gun manufacturers. (Totally biased articles from hardline anti-gun groups excluded)
If convincing evidence can be presented on this forum, I will publicly denounce the gun manufacturers, never buy another firearm, and destroy the ones I have.

[MrBenchley]

5. Happy to

Take a look at the level of gun violence in this country compared to countries with sane laws.

Or take a look at the insanity being peddled by the RKBA groups.

Or take a look at the sort of scum that go to a gun show.

(Totally biased articles from hardline anti-gun groups excluded)
So in other words, you would be willing to look at anything, except evidence.

"If convincing evidence can be presented on this forum, I will publicly denounce the gun manufacturers, never buy another firearm, and destroy the ones I have. "
Geeze, if Tim McVeigh and Columbine didn't fetch you, nothing I say is going to fetch you.

[Spoonman]

6. One by one #1

Take a look at the level of gun violence in this country compared to countries with sane laws.


Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous
Dr. Miguel Faria
Monday, June 26, 2000
Last August, the rugged Aussie survivalist whose real-life exploits inspired the "Crocodile Dundee" movies died in what then appeared to be a mysterious shootout with Australian police. A police sergeant was also killed in the incident.
It was reported that 44-year-old blond-haired Rodney William Ansell resembled uncannily Paul Hogan, the actor who played his part in the movie and the sequel. Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run-ins with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting "the Australian Outback on the map."

What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. "Crocodile Dundee" believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms.

In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.

It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked, and the government reacted quickly.

Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find individual freedom abhorrent. Consider the politics: There are three major parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party) and the ultra-left (Australian Democratic Party) – this last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues, land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.

As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22-caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.

Writing in The Gun Owners (Jan. 31, 2000), the newsletter for Gun Owners of America (GOA), former California State Senator H.L. Richardson notes: "They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100s. They even struck down pump shotguns: the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870...Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn¹t miss a one."

Be that as it may, at a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated.

Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban.

Australia, a semi-arid, isolated continent and a vast nation-state, in many ways parallels the history of the United States. In the 1850s and 1860s, it had gold rushes and pioneering settlers, reminiscent of our own western migration.

In World War I and World War II, it fought with the allies. Australia remained a subject of Great British until 1986, when the last ties with the British crown were dissolved.

With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.

Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned.

Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and Canada, is not recognized in Australia, Like Americans, Australians loved and possessed firearms – that is, until the ban. Freedom has been extinguished. A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen here!

Dr. Miguel A. Faria Jr. is a physician and editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

12. Please cite a publication from which you derive these

numbers. Or, did you pull them out of your arse?

B

[MrBenchley]

17. Gee, fly...

Since you asked so nice.....average some of these numbers for yourself...

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/index.html

(And remember, it's the idiotic contention of the RKBA goons that Texas ought to have much less crime than Australia...not several times more crime than the land down under.)

[Superfly]

19. Maybey I'm missing something...

but the first one does not distinguish between crimes committed with a firearm and crimes committed without.

So, the question still stands: where did you find the numbers for #'s of gun deaths per year in Texas?

[Superfly]

20. And, looking at the second one...

no distinction is made between crimes committed with a firearm and crimes committed without.

I still think you are trying to fudge the numbers.

[Spoonman]

18. Peddle it elsewhere

Australia has always had a lower gun death rate than texas, even when gun laws were lax.
The truth is that the new gun laws have not had a significant impact on crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Face it, the facts are their, criminals commit crimes regardless of the weapon they use!!!!!!!!!

Only one out of every five armed robbery in Australia involves a gun, and the "number of armed robberies involving a firearm (have) decreased to a six-year low"(2). In contrast, robberies involving weapons such as a knife or stick have increased by nearly 20%, which indicates that other weapons are replacing firearms.

Murder rate up 20 per cent

03apr03

THE number of murders in Australia jumped by 20 per cent last year, with babies aged under one year the most common victims.

New figures released today by the Australian Institute of Criminology also showed a dramatic 25 per cent drop in the number of people killed by guns in the 2001-02 financial year.
The National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report found the number of homicides in Australia had increased by 64 people, or 20 per cent, from 317 deaths in 2000-01 to 381 last year.

Multiple killings jumped to 21 last financial year compared with seven the previous year.

Six of the 21 multiple victim incidents involved the deaths of three people, while 15 incidents involved two victims.

Children under one were the most common victims of homicide, with 15 babies under 12 months killed in 2001-02.

"The second highest single age group of homicide victims was 35 years, with 13 victims," the report said.

Criminology Institute director Adam Graycar said the 25 per cent drop in firearms use to commit homicide was the lowest since the NHMP began collecting data in 1989.

"(It) shows us the importance and need for a continued monitoring regime to identify these shifts in trends," he said.

In 2001-02 there were 354 homicides carried out by 375 alleged offenders.

A knife or other sharp instrument was the most common type of weapon used to commit homicide (36 per cent) followed by assaultive force (25 per cent).

Compared with 2000-01, the proportion of family homicides doubled to 23 per cent due to an increase in the death of children under five and an increase in triple homicides which mainly involved family members.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,6231463,00.html

And all of these are wrong too I guess?

The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

[Character Assassin]

31. (crickets)

I wonder if he's gone and peddled it elsewhere? Let me check....

Mmmmmm..... Nope.

He's still peddling it here.

[MrBenchley]

36. Who are you trying to kid?

"Australia has always had a lower gun death rate than texas, even when gun laws were lax."
When was that? Please tell us when Australia's gun laws were as lax as the ones in Texas.

And DO let us know the last time Texas had even fewer than 1,000 homicides by gun.

[Spoonman]

45. Australia

had virtually no significant laws regarding firearms prior to 1991.
Look it up

[MrBenchley]

48. Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

Pull the other one...

[iverglas]

58. or on tuberculosis!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The truth is that the new gun laws have not had a significant impact on crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Or on speeding in school zones!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or on dental decay!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or on marital breakdowns!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you cite someone like an Australian politician who supported the law AND CLAIMED THAT IT WOULD REDUCE CRIME, pretty please?

Or do you just prefer to persist in this DISINGENUOUS TILTING AT STRAW PEOPLE that is what claiming to prove that gun control does not reduce crime is?

"Only one out of every five armed robbery in Australia involves a gun, and the "number of armed robberies involving a firearm (have) decreased to a six-year low"(2)."

42% -- more than two out of every five -- of ROBBERIES -- not ARMED ROBBERIES -- in the US involved firearms in 2001.
http://www.athenaresearch.com/research/uniform_crime_report_2001.pdf
(i.e., obviously, a much higher percentage of ARMED robberies involved firearms)

8% -- almost one out of every twelve -- of HOMICIDES in the US were related to robberies in 2001 (same source).

Based on offence report information collected as part of the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP), an average of 13 per cent of homicide incidents occurring in Australia each year take place during the commission of another crime (42 out of an average of 316 incidents per year). This compares to 17 per cent in the United States in 2001 (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2002), 12 per cent in England and Wales in 2000–01 (Home Office 2002), and 23 per cent in Canada in 2001
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi252.pdf
(The figure for Canada seems very odd to me. Only half that percentage of solved murders in Canada in 2001 was committed by strangers ...)

Unless someone can rebut the common-sense conclusion from the available data, and simple common-sense assumption, that robbery victims who were killed were most commonly killed with firearms, I really don't care how many robbers beat their guns into knives and go on robbing when I come to assessing the efficacy of gun control laws. I'm more likely to die if I'm robbed at gunpoint than in any other way, it seems to me, and reducing THAT risk seems to me like a good thing and a thing that might be at least partially attributed to gun control laws.

"THE number of murders in Australia jumped by 20 per cent last year, with babies aged under one year the most common victims."

Please correct me if I'm confused ... but are you asserting that

- an increase in child killings can be attributed to a gun control law?

- an increase in child killings is evidence of the non-effectiveness of a gun control law?

If you are asserting one or both of these, can you PLEASE explain ...

- HOW a gun control law causes an increase in child killings?

- HOW a gun-control law could conceivably be effective to stop people from drowning, suffocating, shaking or beating their children to death?

If you are not asserting either of these, would you PLEASE tell me exactly what you ARE asserting?

"The National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report found the number of homicides in Australia had increased by 64 people, or 20 per cent, from 317 deaths in 2000-01 to 381 last year."

Out of a total population of 18.9 million. At that rate, the US, with a population pretty close to 20 times that population, would have had 7,620 homicides. It had "around 20,000" homicides in 1996, in fact: http://www.spanusa.org/SG_letter.html Conversely, at the US rate, Australia would have had "around 1,000" homicides.

Referring to a percentage increase when the numbers used are so small, and doing so without any information about the characteristics of the individual cases, is simply not very meaningful.

Just a couple more passing comments:

"There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."

Do you not realize how ridiculous anyone who attempts to draw conclusions from one-digit numbers like this looks? Have you any concept of the issue of significance??

There were 4,414,198 people in the Australian state of Victoria in 1996: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~dwalmsle/atlas-vic.htm The population of the US in 1996 was just over 270 million. Victoria had about 1.6% of the population of the US. If the US had had the same firearms homicide rate as Victoria in 1995-1996, that would have been somewhere around 368 firearms homicides in the entire United States. (Can you *imagine* such a utopia?)

On a quick search:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html
In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional ...

... it looks like very close to 14,000 people actually died in firearm homicides in the US in 1996. A far cry from the 368 who would have died if the US rate had mimicked Victoria's. Put another way, if Victoria had had the same firearm homicide rate as the US, it would have had about TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT firearm homicides in 1996. It had EIGHTEEN.

If that figure, in the US, had been 368 and had risen to 1,104 the next year -- 1,104 firearms homicides in a population of more than a quarter of a billion people, when mearly 13 times that many people were actually killed in firearm homicides -- would you seriously think that this could be characterized as evidence of some horrific trend??

Can you find me a REAL statistician who will assure me that the conclusion that there is a TREND can be drawn from an observed increase in a phenomenon from SIX to EIGHTEEN in a population of over 4 MILLION -- most especially without any information as to the characteristics of each instance of the phenomenon?

I didn't think so.

.

[iverglas]

29. man, I'm confused

"What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. "Crocodile Dundee" believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms."

Am I missing something? This tale is offered as some kind of evidence that "Australian Gun Ban Proves Disastrous"?

Hands up anyone who doesn't HONESTLY see this as the tale of someone -- someone either deranged or extremely stupid or extremely antisocial, or some or all of them -- getting himself killed for absolutely no reason?

He had unregistered firearms. Could he have registered them? One would imagine so, in the case of at least some of them. People with unregistered firearms in Canada, for instance (which was anyone with most firearms before the legislation passed) just hop on the computer, or down to the local office, or whatever, and register them. Is there a reason that a sane, smart or socially responsible person would choose, instead, to refuse to register his firearms and then shoot it out with the cops???

If he had firearms that he could not legally register and was required to surrender under the new law, why would he not do that -- why would he choose the alternative of initiating a shoot-out with the cops??? HE KILLED A POLICE OFFICER who was performing the duty that THE CITIZENS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT had mandated him to perform. He DISOBEYED a properly enacted law of the country in which he was living. Was he insane, stupid, or just a CRIMINAL?

And why would the actions of an insane, stupid or criminal person be presented as substantiation for the assertion that a LAW is DISASTROUS? Do we often suggest that speeding laws are DISASTROUS because people who break them kill people?????

One has not much difficulty seeing why some people call some people (and their publicists) "gun nuts".

Writing in The Gun Owners (Jan. 31, 2000), the newsletter for Gun Owners of America (GOA), former California State Senator H.L. Richardson notes: "They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100s. They even struck down pump shotguns: the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870...Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn¹t miss a one."

SO WHAT? What does that do to substantiate the allegation that "Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous"??? What earthly relevance does it have to the apparent thesis of the article cited???

"What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated."

While I am loath even to accept all the facts and figures asserted at face value, let's do so for the sake of argument. (Let's even ignore the fact that "armed robbery" does not mean "robbery with firearm" ...)

I want some explanation by someone who finds this article a cogent and persuasive argument against restrictions on access to firearms of HOW the new restrictions CAUSED all the mayhem that is cited. HOW is that mayhem the RESULT of the law?

WHAT IS THE MECHANISM by which this gun control law -- particularly since it appears to have been widely if not virtually universally ignored by the public -- CAUSED the crime rate increases asserted?

THAT IS what the article is saying. It offers the opinion that the law is "disastrous" and then cites, apart from the bizarre Crocodile Dundee tale and the irrelevant information about the kinds of weapons banned, figures that purport to show enormous increases in various crimes.

There is no other reasonable interpretation of the article.

Well, there's one of those possible but highly improbable interpretations ... that the author is saying that the law failed to prevent the crime rate increases. What he'd need to be showing, then, is that there is sound reason to believe that the crime rate increases would not have been worse if the law had not been passed, and/or that there has been effective enforcement of the law (since really, having a law on the books does absolutely nothing to influence behaviour without enforcement), and/or that the law was designed to have and capable of having an influence on those crime rates in the first place.

"With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please."

Truly outrageous, truly outrageous. Beyond belief that anyone would think such outrageous falsehoods acceptable in polite company.

This fellow -- http://www.globebuster.com.au/shoot/hunter1.htm -- has some problems with what he regards as inadequate regulation of hunting of things like native waterfowl. How can that be -- if "hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but ..." yada yada yada?

Not even this sour AUSTRALIAN opponent of the gun law supports what your silly, obviously either sadly misinformed or rottenly dishonest physician says about this:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/hunting_down_under.htm
The Government also dictated that the population could not own firearms for self-defence purposes, and that all firearms needed to be registered and owners licensed. One of the conditions of license was that the licensee has to justify the need for the firearm. Hunting, target shooting, collecting, club use or tools for primary production (farm use, culling etc) are considered legitimate justification, self defence or protection is not accepted by the government as a reason for firearms ownership.

I see no complaint at all about anything being "prohibitively difficult".

It is more than blatantly obvious that huge amounts of what Dr. Faria has to say are flat out false. I can't think of any reason to believe anything at all that he says.

Just for further confirmation of his complete ignorance of apparently much of anything that goes on in Australia:

"Australia remained a subject of Great British ..."

A physician wrote this, you say? I am afraid that a physician who does not know that there is no such country as "Great British" (sheesh) and that countries are not "a subject" of other countries just doesn't have enough of a clue about the world outside his back yard for me to be taking him seriously about matters outside that backwater.

"... until 1986, when the last ties with the British crown were dissolved."

It just gets worse. The Queen is the head of state in Australia, and Australia is a member of the Commonwealth. Sounds like some "ties" to me. Of course, the constitutional ties are not to the "British crown" as such, since the Queen's status as the head of state of Australia has nothing to do with "British" anything; it is purely Australian. I know you folks don't understand these things, so lemme help you out:

http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm

"As a state is an abstract idea, a legal and political concept, it must have a living person as head of state to represent it and for some purposes to embody it. How the head of state is chosen depends on the constitution of each individual state. ..."

Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because:

The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).

Australia "fought with the allies" in WWI and WWII? No, Australia was one of the allies, and how disrespectful to say otherwise; in both cases, the US was johnny-come-lately to the party, and joined the allies some years after they had already begun defending the free world and all that.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1939.htm
3 September 1939,
Begin of World War II. Irak and Saudia-Arabia break diplomatic relations, Great Britain and France, follow by India, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, declare war on Germany ... .
<Canada declared war on Germany on September 10, 1939>

Credibility, as someone even barely knowledgable enough to listen to, let alone expert enough to pay attention to -- nil.

.

[MrBenchley]

32. Don't be

like most other gun nut gibberish, the "Australian bloodbath" is the purest 100% sick honky bullshit.

[Romulus]

34. guy you cite

did say this:

Criminal offences in Australia involving firearms have risen following implementation of these draconian laws. There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulus]

62. thanks to whoever alerted

I never got to read the post, but I appreciate you watching my back.

[iverglas]

63. explanation required

The post was mine, I believe, and as far as I recall I pointed out that I cited a source for a particular reason, and it was ... inappropriate ... to suggest that I cited it because I agreed with its moronic and dishonest opinions. Hey -- I can call third parties morons and liars, right?

So I'll be needing one of those private messages containing my post and explaining to me what the problem with it was. Then I'll put on my happy face and rewrite it in a way that will make everybody else smile too.

Oh, hell, I can probably just say it again.

I cited the source in question because the author looked to me to be AUTHORITATIVE, and acceptable to the cheap seats as authoritative, on the question of the difficulty of access to firearms in Australia, IN ANSWER TO some pretty idiotic and, in my informed opinion, dishonest assertions by another source concerning that matter, alleging that it was something like virtually impossible to have legal access to hunting weapons in Australia. That source was a USAmerican physician who plainly knew less than nothing about Australia. My source was an Australian hunter. Duh.

The passage in question was:

The Government also dictated that the population could not own firearms for self-defence purposes, and that all firearms needed to be registered and owners licensed. One of the conditions of license was that the licensee has to justify the need for the firearm. Hunting, target shooting, collecting, club use or tools for primary production (farm use, culling etc) are considered legitimate justification, self defence or protection is not accepted by the government as a reason for firearms ownership.

Those are FACTS.

I DID NOT cite the source because I agreed with his OPINIONS about ANYTHING.

So, what and only what did I get in response??

guy you cite
did say this:
Criminal offences in Australia involving firearms have risen following implementation of these draconian laws. There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Here we have an assertion of fact: X happened at a particular time.
Then we have a statement that a "saying" is TRUE.
Do we have any EVIDENCE for the TRUTH of that saying?

NO. NONE. NO EVIDENCE. What we have is a disingenuous juxtaposition of two facts
A - the fact that offences involving firearms have risen
B - the fact that there is an old saying

and a conclusion -- unstated but OBVIOUSLY INTENDED TO BE READ -- that Fact A proves the truth of the old saying referred to in Fact B.

FACT "A" DOES NO SUCH THING.

So why in dog's name would I care whether this source said any such thing?

I believe I may have offered the example of an expert in the composition of planetoids saying that the moon is not made of green cheese. There we have an AUTHORITATIVE opinion about a matter of fact. That expert in the composition of planetoids then says:

"My sunflowers have been mysteriously disappearing. There's a lot of truth in the old saying 'there are fairies at the bottom of the garden'."

Am *I* somehow to be presumed to have adopted, let alone somehow to be bound by, the expert's opinion that the disappearance of his sunflowers is caused by the fairies at the bottom of his garden?? Because I cited him as an authority on the composition of the moon??? Bloody think again, I'd say.

So my question to Romulus, who quoted the opinion of the author of the article I cited, about something (the effect, if any, of firearms control legislation on the rate of offences committed with firearms) on which the author in question is so unauthoritative as to be a laughing-stock, is:

SO WHAT?
More precisely:
WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN QUOTING THAT OPINION,
and WHAT DID THAT OPINION HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I SAID?

Are we tender little shoots here all happy now?

.

[Romulus]

64. dance with him that brung 'ya

hey, you cited the guy as an expert. You can't just run away from what that expert said - in the same article. It all bears on that expert's credibility.

A lot of people here like to bash Lott for his non-firearms-related studies, or NRA board members for their non-NRA activities.

Here you cite a guy for a point concerning Australian firearms policy, and I just posted what he said about the efficacy of that policy in meeting it's supposed goals.

Hope that helps. I won't be checking back because I have a lot of work today.

Am *I* somehow to be presumed to have adopted, let alone somehow to be bound by, the expert's opinion that the disappearance of his sunflowers is caused by the fairies at the bottom of his garden?? Because I cited him as an authority on the composition of the moon??? Bloody think again, I'd say.

[iverglas]

65. try it again, sammy

"hey, you cited the guy as an expert. You can't just run away
from what that expert said - in the same article. It all bears on
that expert's credibility."

And this time try answering the questions.

If I cited Dr. Sptlmeomrf as an expert on the composition of the moon - something that his qualifications make him expert on - am I deemed to agree with his opinion as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Our first question might be: is he an expert on the existence and habitat of fairies?

So, if I cite Joe Big Australian Game Hunter as an expert on the accessibility of firearms for the purpose of hunting in Australia - something that his qualifications make him an expert on - am I deemed to agree with his opinion as to whether firearms control legislation causes crime rates to rise?

Might our first question be: is he an expert on the causes of crime?

"It all bears on that expert's credibility."

Do you think? I don't. I think that a person can be completely and totally loony, and actually lie about just about everything, and still be qualified to say, and credible when s/he says, that the sky is blue on a sunny day -- and be just as expert on that subject as anyone who has ever looked at the sky on a sunny day.

"A lot of people here like to bash Lott for his on-firearms-related
studies, or NRA board members for their non-NRA activities."

So the fuck what? Do I look like "a lot of people" to you?

You need to learn a little more about the concept of "bias", and how it affects credibility.

In our instant case, the author I cited WAS biased, no question. That is actually why I quoted him. His bias was AGAINST me, and so when he said something (about a matter of fact that is in fact otherwise verifiable, anyway) that I found credible, I presented him as a source that I expected other people whose bias was against me would find credible.

On the other hand, his "opinion" about the causes of crime and the effects of legislation came with no factual foundation whatsoever and is incapable of verification. It looks like it is based on nothing but bias. Just as if I were to say that global warming is caused by black people, or earthquakes are caused by white people; "increased crime rates are caused by firearms control laws". Statements based on bias and nothing else ... and fairly obviously just plain stupid, to anyone with a grain of sense.

(I mean, surely YOU are not saying that firearms control laws cause crime rates to rise .. are you????)

His bias AGAINST FIREARMS CONTROL LAWS does not affect the accuracy of his statements about the accessibility of firearms for hunting. How obvious is that?

"Here you cite a guy for a point concerning Australian firearms
policy, and I just posted what he said about the efficacy of that
policy in meeting it's supposed goals.

I admire your talent for bafflegab, if not your grammar.

Nope, I did NOT cite him "for a point concerning Australian firearms policy". NOT REMOTELY. The fact that you have to phrase your false allegation so vaguely and tortuously makes that plain all by itself, to the even slightly keen observer.

I cited him ON A MATTER OF FACT: the accessibility of firearms for hunting in Australia. A matter of fact that is independently verifiable. (I assume that you're not disputing the fact I posted using him as a source.)

I know you see the difference.

And you "just posted" that other bit of blah? You had no purpose at all in posting it; I see. Except that now you ARE attempting to tie me to that other bit of blah. And it doesn't work now any better than it did the first time.

And you do know how entirely uninterested I am in any more bafflegab you might offer in response. I get my own fun just pointing out for the world at large how ... hmm, how shall I phrase this ... less than candid such contributions to the discussion are. And I know that anyhow who counts can see that as plainly as they can see the moon in that blue sky.

.

[Romulus]

66. point made

I cited him ON A MATTER OF FACT: the accessibility of firearms for hunting in Australia. A matter of fact that is independently verifiable. (I assume that you're not disputing the fact I posted using him as a source.)

You have a point there about the context of your use of the guy cited, which was a response to the doctor guy saying:

Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections.

Rereading your post,you did make it clear that you were reluctantly using him as a source concerning the issue of firearms availability.

*******

The doctor guy did seem to imply that land ownership is related to the permissible ownership of firearms for hunting purposes.

For an example of what he might have been getting at, see the UK restrictions on granting the "hunting purpose" permit for a firearm are explained here:

The second important point is the suitability of the land, which must be safe for the use of the calibre of the weapon in question. Initially land is deemed suitable, or not, by the Chief Officer of Police. This necessitates a land inspection by a Firearms Enquiry Officer, in conjunction with the land owner or his agent. Many and various factors must be taken into consideration including the acreage, position of public footpaths, surrounding roads and dwellings and the general lay of the land. The land owner, or his agent, must also give written permission for the firearms requested to be used on his land for the purpose stated.

When all these points are satisfied, a firearm certificate may be granted, authorising specific weapon/s and ammunition for use on a specific piece of land and "any other land deemed suitable by the Chief Officer of Police."

There doesn't seem to be any mention of public lands being acceptable for the inspection, so people might either need to own a sizeable amount of land or get permission from a private landowner that does before the police will grant a firearms permit for hunting purposes.

Anyone know if the same situation applies in Australia?

[iverglas]

67. thank you ... (hey, Spentastic)

but still, no, not quite:

"you did make it clear that you were reluctantly using him
as a source concerning the issue of firearms availability."

I don't think I did do that.

Here is the sum total of what I did say about that source:

Not even this sour AUSTRALIAN opponent of the gun law supports what your silly, obviously either sadly misinformed or rottenly dishonest physician says about this:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/hunting_down_under.htm
The Government also dictated that the population could not own firearms for self-defence purposes, and that all firearms needed to be registered and owners licensed. One of the conditions of license was that the licensee has to justify the need for the firearm. Hunting, target shooting, collecting, club use or tools for primary production (farm use, culling etc) are considered legitimate justification, self defence or protection is not accepted by the government as a reason for firearms ownership.

I see no complaint at all about anything being "prohibitively difficult".

And I see nothing "reluctant" about my use of that source. I used that source deliberately; I characterized him as a "sour opponent of the gun law"; I used him because he was a sour opponent of the gun law, and NOT EVEN HE supported the previous source's allegations about the inaccessibility of firearms for hunting.

"The doctor guy did seem to imply that land ownership is related
to the permissible ownership of firearms for hunting purposes.

I wouldn't characterize what he did as "implying" that; I would characterize it as much more along the lines of SAYING that:

"Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a
handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections."

That statement is completely inconsistent with what my source said -- now, I grant you that my source did not squarely contradict that statement, but given the source, I would think that if what the doctor guy had said were an accurate representation, my source might have pointed the "problem" out.

"For an example of what he might have been getting at, see the UK
restrictions on granting the "hunting purpose" permit for a firearm
are explained here: ...
There doesn't seem to be any mention of public lands being acceptable
for the inspection, so people might either need to own a sizeable
amount of land or get permission from a private landowner that does
before the police will grant a firearms permit for hunting purposes."

Allow me to recommend something from the horse's mouth. I RECOMMEND THIS SITE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. I do not adopt or reject, agree or disagree with, anything on that site that is not demonstrated fact. I do hope that this disclaimer is heeded.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/uc95/uc9507.htm

SAFETY TRAINING AND PROFICIENCY IN RIFLE HANDLING

It has been suggested from time to time that the lack of proficiency testing for those who wish to own a rifle for deer stalking or vermin control should be addressed. It might be considered anomalous that a person who wishes to own a rifle for target shooting on ranges should have to undergo a probationary period at a target shooting club, while the deer stalker is not obliged to undergo any training before shooting deer in forests or moorland.

Despite this apparent anomaly, the actual number of accidents involving firearms is limited and the shooting organisations involved in this field are to be commended for their good record of training and advice on safe shooting practice.

Those countries that do impose a safety test on hunters also have a far larger proportion of hunters per head of population and a stronger tradition of hunting on public land. If a large number of people with guns are to hunt independently in the same area, the risk of accidental shootings is likely to increase and the need to ensure safe shooting practice much greater.

This is an area which should be further explored in discussions between the police, the Home Office and the main shooting organisations.

"Forests" and "moorlands" can, I think, in the UK context, be taken quite confidently as referring to "public lands". It seems to me that the source you cited regarding licences to shoot on private lands was in fact because private lands are an exception to the general rule: private lands must be demonstrated to be suitable for shooting; I would think that public lands are designated as places where shooting is permissible, or not, independently of the licensing process.

It appears that hunting on public lands is indeed a permissible activity still in the UK. I might just point out the small size and relatively high population density of the UK, and the fact that hunters there might just have to share some of the public lands with people using it for other purposes, and that it might well not be possible for hunters to "share" some public lands.

http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/deer1.htm
(another page of the source you cited)

Apart from target shooting, some Section 1 firearms, mainly rifles, can be authorised for the shooting of quarry on farmland and other suitable areas, where the certificate holder has permission to shoot and it is safe to do so. Quarry is a general term for live animals shot over land, and includes game and pest species.

In such circumstances a condition will appear on the firearms certificate relating to the authorisation. In the case of a grant for the first time, a limited condition will normally be allowed. That is to say that the actual address or location of the land or area in question will appear on the certificate, plus "any other land deemed suitable by the Chief Officer of Police". Needless to say, this means that those weapons specified for vermin control can only be used for that purpose on such land.

I would surmise that those "any other lands" would be, or include, the public lands in the bailiwick that the Chief Officer of Police for that bailiwick deems suitable for the activity.

Perhaps Spentastic can elucidate the situation somewhat.

On the other hand, one might look at the huge expanse and low population density of Australia, and think it might be surprising to find that hunting on public land was universally outlawed, and that city dwellers, for instance, would be prohibited from obtaining licences to do that. But I'm just surmising.

.

[Spoonman]

7. One by one #2

Or take a look at the sort of scum that go to a gun show.

Is this a factual point or an opinion?
What surveys have been done to determine the level of "scum" at Gun shows?
Is there a recognized scale of scumness?
Because I have been to several gun shows, do I qualify as "scum"?
If so, being college educated (MS), am I higher on the scumness scale.

[MrBenchley]

13. Hand us a frigging laugh

Peddle that crap to someone who hasn't been to a few gun shows.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2003/05_15/news_upfront1.html

http://racetraitor.org/gunshow.html

www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/weaver1.htm

www.rickross.com/reference/christian_identity/christianidentity15.html

http://www.adl.org/mwd/gunshow.asp

http://groups.northwestern.edu/protest/may2002/medlock.html

[Spoonman]

27. That still

does not answer the questions posed to you.
I have no affiliation with any of those in your articles. I could also care less if everyone in them fell off the planet. Yours was a blanket term. So qualify it for us.
By the way, did you just admit to going to a few gun shows yourself?

What was the term you used for people that go to them????

[MrBenchley]

37. So what?

"I have no affiliation with any of those in your articles."
Goody for you, sweetie.

[Spoonman]

8. One by one #3 out of order

Or take a look at the insanity being peddled by the RKBA groups.

Please explain your definition of "insanity".
Could the "definition" be applied to your logic?

[MrBenchley]

14. No, it fits RKBA scum perfectly

http://gunguys.com/archives/mailbag/2002/mailbag_101802.htm

[Spoonman]

22. Opinions are now insanity?

I saw lots of opinions.
So by the same token, your opinion is insanity as well?!

[MrBenchley]

35. These "opinions" are insanity, pal

drivel from the scum of the earth...

typical gibberish from the RKBA crowd....

"I'm willing to spend the money to fly from Hawaii to your location so I can beat your liberal, facist ass. When and where can we meet?"

"You "guys" are nothing more than smug, liberal cocksuckers.
You think you are so witty, destroying this country for your own personal entertainment.
You will never take my freedom. NEVER. "

"I'm not an expert at much, other than shooting. But, I can tell a coward when I read, or hear their trash. You people at Gunguys definetly sound like a bunch of cowards. Have you ever had the nerve to back up your mouth. No, I didn't think so. "


"I suggest everyone do with this site as the saying directs "Go forth from an ignorant man when you perceive not in him the lips of knowledge." Also, use my real name not my e-mail address,
Proud NRA Life Member"

"Get your head out of Sarah Brady's ass and learn the truth. .50 BMG rifles CANNOT knock down a jumbo jet. .50 BMG cannot shoot thru an entire nuclear plant..50 BMG's sold to civilians are 12 feet long, weigh 30 .lbs and cost about $2.00 every time you fire it, I dont see many people sneaking these past security at airports do you? You do nothing but repeat ignorant bullshit you have read. You talk of being indviduals....learn to generate your own thoughts. "

"I just found your site today, I don't like it because your just another blockhead socialist liberal who thinks if someone is having a good time with a particular freedom { crime excluded} there must be something unsafe or at best some other socialist is being offended. your ideas are pathetic, your mentality of your thoughts are pure dribble. "

[Spoonman]

9. One by one #4

Geeze, if Tim McVeigh and Columbine didn't fetch you, nothing I say is going to fetch you

First off Tim McVeigh used Ammonium nitrate, an explosive, to commit his crime. That’s a whole different topic that I believe everyone would agree on. So stay focused on the issue at hand.

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from “unlicensed sellers” otherwise known as an individual selling his/her property.
This applies everywhere, not just at gun shows. Look in your local paper and you will see hundreds of people selling everything from guns to washing machines. There is no law prohibiting someone from selling personnel property without a license, so the term “unlicensed seller” is nothing more than a play on words used by anti-gun nuts.
However, because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase."
Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500. This too constituted an illegal sale.
Seeing as the guns used in that horrific act were obtained illegally, your point actually demonstrates that criminals do not obtain their guns legally.

[Superfly]

10. Very well put

The Columbine tragedy was just that, a tragedy. It was brought about by 2 people bent on causing pain and suffering. No amount of gun control would have changed that.

Another tragedy in the making can be averted, namely the stripping of rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Given that criminals, by definition, will obtain their weapons through illegal sources, it is only fitting that the law abiding be afforded avenues to protect themselves in the manner they see fit, without restriction.

[MrBenchley]

15. Peddle it elsewhere

"Tim McVeigh used Ammonium nitrate...stay focused on the issue at hand."
I'm focused on the issue at hand...and you're trying to spin it away...

"His love for guns, going back to his boyhood when he enjoyed target practice with his grandfather, Ed McVeigh, became a bigger part of his life. One day he sent off for a book advertised in the back of a gun magazine called "The Turner Diaries."
The novel was written by former American Nazi Party official William Pierce under the pen name Andrew MacDonald. It tells the story of a gun enthusiast who reacts to the government's tightening of restrictions on private firearms by bombing a federal building. McVeigh often referred to the book and introduced it to other people he met.
McVeigh began a life of wandering from state to state, buying and selling weapons on the gun-show circuit and preaching a message of the evils of government. He spent time with old Army buddies -- Terry Nichols in rural Michigan and Michael Fortier, who lived near Kingman, Arizona. All three shared a bond of the love of guns and anger at a government they believed was trying to take away their rights and weapons. "

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/mcveigh/profile.html

"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from “unlicensed sellers” otherwise known as an individual selling his/her property."

That would be the gun show loopholes certainn dishonest people claim doesn't exist.

"Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500. This too constituted an illegal sale."
Of course, they would never have met Manes except for the gun show.

[schnellfeuer]

23. Cute cartoon.

"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from “unlicensed sellers” otherwise known as an individual selling his/her property."

That would be the gun show loopholes certainn dishonest people claim doesn't exist.

That can happen anywhere, not just at gunshows. Its not specific of gun shows.

"Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500. This too constituted an illegal sale."

I think the key word here is illegal.

Of course, they would never have met Manes except for the gun show.

How do you know this?

[MrBenchley]

28. And accurate

"That can happen anywhere"
Yeah? You mean if you wander around the neighborhood long enough you find somebody peddling guns?

"I think the key word here is illegal. "
Funny, I think the key word is gun...

"Harris and Klebold also used two shotguns and a rifle legally purchased by Klebold's friend Robyn Anderson. Under Colorado law, an 18-year-old without a felony record can furnish minors with rifles and shotguns. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/colo/colo179.htm

By the way, a couple years ago there was an effort to amend Colorado law so that it would become illegal to give a gun to a minor without parental notification. The NRA opposed it bitterly.


"Jefferson County Judge Henry Nieto said Mark Manes "had a history of ignoring rules of law" and should serve a tough sentence because "the harm caused by this is almost too hard to comprehend."
"I fear that the habit of ignoring rules of law came into play here," Nieto said.
Manes received six years in prison for selling a weapon to a minor and three years for possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The sentences will run concurrently.
Manes pleaded guilty in August to felony counts of providing a juvenile with a handgun and possession of an illegal weapon -- a sawed-off shotgun. "

http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/13/columbine.manes.01/

And this sounds just like the gun nuts here pleading for the innocence of the gun industry...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/12/videos/

[schnellfeuer]

33. No, the key word IS illegal

To cut through the crap, what they did, from plan to do what they did, to aquire the weapons they used, and the crimes they committed, were all "illegal" acts. If they were 16 and used their parents car to run down kids in the school yard, would you be calling for the cars to be banned? They are regulated too you know. If they had drank a case of beer and used the bottles for bombs, would you be calling for proibition? Alcohol is also regulated. What about cigarettes? What if they used a cigarette as a fuze to ignite the pipe bombs, would you call for their ban too? What else? I think this is really just a hoplophobic issue. The real issue is a dislike of an inanimate object by some here, rather that the real issue and cause, the people commiting the crimes.

[MrBenchley]

38. But in fact

it WAS legal for Robyn to buy them the guns...

It's always amusing to see how desperately gun nuts spin when they fear their loved ones are beinng slandered..

[schnellfeuer]

41. I know your "desperately" trying to convince us

this all happened because of the guns, and not because of the criminals using them. I think thats quite amusing, and quite a pantload, if I do say so myself! :)

[MrBenchley]

49. Really?

The spinning is on the RKBA side, not mine.

[Spoonman]

42. "But in fact part two"

You are wrong!!!!! again!!!

it WAS legal for Robyn to buy them the guns...
It was called a "straw purchase" because she bought them knowing they were too young to legally by them.
That was even pointed out by your beloved anti crowd.
Don't even go to the under 18 year olds can possess BS either, cause if you do your homework that only applies to "under supervision" during a recognized activity.

[MrBenchley]

50. Nope...I am CORRECT again

"Manes and Duran both were charged with weapons violations, but Anderson has not been. Her actions were legal under Colorado law.
Anderson bought a carbine and two shotguns for Harris and Klebold at a gun show because she was 18 and they were 17 at the time. They later sawed off the shotguns and used them and the carbine to shoot students at Columbine.
It is not a crime to buy so-called long guns for persons under 18 in Colorado."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0510col3.shtml

Now, guess which group is fighting to keep it legal to supply persons under 18 with guns in Colorado. That's right....it's the NRA.

[Spoonman]

53. Thank you for

Providing the link that demonstrates your wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anderson has not been charged, despite a federal law that prohibits "straw purchases" of weapons by one person on behalf of another.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0619guns.shtml

[Spoonman]

46. Your own post

discredits your previous statement that Manes met them at a gun show.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/colo/colo179.htm

So now we should believe anything you say?

[MrBenchley]

51. Get a clue

"Duran introduced Harris and Klebold to Manes at a gun show to arrange the pistol sale, according to court records."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0619guns.shtml

[Spoonman]

55. This is one out of hundreds,

but I'll give it to you, it does however proove you wrong on another point, so thanks.

[Spoonman]

24. OH MY GOD!!!

So now we are to believe that anyone who hunts, shoots clays or even target shoots is going to "freak out" and blow up a building.

That would be the gun show loopholes certainn dishonest people claim doesn't exist.
I'll wager a c note the man didn't have a booth there!
In addition there is no "loophole".

Of course, they would never have met Manes except for the gun show.

How do you know were they met him?!
I could be wrong, but I've never heard anything about how they met Manes.

[TreadNot]

16. "violence in this country compared to countries with sane laws"

Like Brazil, Mexico, and Jamaica?

All of them have "reasonable gun control laws," and all are fantastically violent, far more than here.

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee

why don't you go to one of those countries and explain that they need MORE guns?

[Spoonman]

25. Hmmmm....

Instead of spewing ad hoc one liners lacking substance, we keep this an exchange of facts.

TreadNot’s rebuttal is valid, the point he made is not invalidated with why don't you go to one of those countries and explain that they need MORE guns?
Your original point was Take a look at the level of gun violence in this country compared to countries with sane laws. .
TreadNot did, so lets hear an explanation relevant to his post.

[MrBenchley]

39. Who are you kidding?

"TreadNot’s rebuttal is valid"
Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

[Spoonman]

44. OK

then tell us why.

[schnellfeuer]

43. In his own words.

"Yeah, surrrrrrrre....." :)

[schnellfeuer]

26. Maybe you should go with him and explain

why their "reasonable gun control laws" are not working.

[MrBenchley]

40. Who says they're not?

Second, who in their right mind thinks that the answer to the problem in those third world countries is MORE guns...apart from those hoping to make blood money selling small arms there.

[schnellfeuer]

47. So you say they are and the violence is caused by something else?

:shrug:


"Second, who in their right mind thinks that the answer to the problem in those third world countries is MORE guns...apart from those hoping to make blood money selling small arms there."

Who ever said they needed more guns? Seems the ones in power have plenty, and are not afraid to use them. But the "reasonable gun control laws" are taking care of those who had to give them up or dont have them, right?

[MrBenchley]

52. What a pantload

If youu ever get near a real fact, please shoot off a flare or something.

"With unregistered guns accounting for most of the firearms deaths in Brazil, residents are calling for tighter gun-control measures, Reuters reported July 22.
Brazil's Congress is considering legislation that would tighten handgun-purchase rules and impose strict prison sentences for illegal gun ownership. The measure also would require a referendum in 2005 to ban gun sales, similar to that enforced in Britain.
"We have to move toward disarmament in Brazil because firearm use has reached absurd levels," said lower house deputy Eduardo Greenhalgh, chief sponsor of the arms bill."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,565639,00.html

http://www.iansa.org/regions/camerica/camerica.htm

[Spoonman]

54. Quick question

Is gun registration required (law) in Brazil?

[MrBenchley]

56. Look it up

You asked me awhile back what my opposition to the gun industry and the RKBA crowd was...and I think the desperate spin and silliness that followed frrom the gun nuts here more than demonstrates that I am justified in my opposition.

[Spoonman]

68. I "looked it up"

June 22, 2000
Brazil Bans Firearms Sales
.c The Associated Press
By STAN LEHMAN
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) - Marco Aurelio Sprovieri is the owner of one of Sao Paulo's largest gun stores and cannot sell firearms.
``The government just declared my bankruptcy,'' Sprovieri said.
As part of a sweeping anti-crime package announced Tuesday, the government issued a decree forbidding issuing gun permits for six months in a nation where recent statistics say a killing takes place every 13 minutes.
The decree, which went into effect Wednesday, in effect imposes a nationwide ban on firearm sales, because nobody can buy a gun without a permit.
``This is not a six-month ban,'' Sprovieri said by phone. ``It's going to last forever, because the government can and will renew the decree until the law (on gun control) is passed.''
``Our store, which first opened its doors for business 75 years ago, will have to shut down. The government has wiped us out. It is really absurd. Criminals don't buy their weapons in stores.''
The decree suspends issuing of gun permits until Dec. 31, 2000, and exempts only the armed forces, and federal, state and municipal law enforcement agencies.
Norman Gall, executive director of the Fernand Braudel Institute of World Economics, a Sao Paulo-based think tank that has studied violence, agrees the decree ``will have absolutely no impact on diminishing crime.''
``Legally purchased weapons are not the problem,'' Gall said. ``The illegal ones, mostly bought on the contraband market are the problem.''
He said the ban could even increase the demand for illegal weapons ``like prohibition did with booze in the United States.''
``The ban may even increase crime rates because criminals could feel bolder knowing law-abiding citizens are unarmed,'' he said.
Brazilians own an estimated eight million guns, of which about six million are unregistered and mostly in the hands of criminals, government figures say.
The government acted when it became aware that a gun control bill being discussed in Congress could take several months before being approved while the country was clamoring for action because of rampant crime and recent violence.
``Society is demanding from all of us a quicker response,'' President Fernando Henrique Cardoso said when he announced the National Security Plan with the decree on gun permits.
``We could ask, who among us has not suffered because of violence?''
The National Security Plan aslo includes hiring 2,000 new federal agents, providing better training and equipment for police forces and building new prisons.
The 124-step, $1.7 million National Security Plan was announced a week after a bus kidnapping that left a 20-year-old teacher and her kidnapper dead.
The episode shocked viewers who followed the incident on live television for four hours.
Brazil ranked fourth last year in kidnappings after Colombia, Mexico and Russia.
The bill in Congress would restrict possession of firearms to the armed forces, police, private security personnel, collectors and gun clubs, people in rural areas, and private security agencies.
Everyone else would have 360 days to turn in their guns and ammunition under the Congress bill. Those who return the guns will be compensated, but the bill doesn't say by how much. Illegal weapons would be confiscated.


In 1999 there were 17,651 Homicides.
After this was implemented, which by the way is still in effect.

two years later in 2001 there were 39,618 homicides.

[Romulus]

69. Brazil is not in the "civilized" world

Don't forget that tidbit. :eyes:

In 1999 there were 17,651 Homicides.
After this was implemented, which by the way is still in effect.

two years later in 2001 there were 39,618 homicides.

Therefore, your stats are meaningless. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee, why is that?

Because many of its citizens have dark skins?

Is that what gun nuts are saying now?

[Romulus]

72. hey, you tell me

anti-gunowner groups never compare Brazil's stats with the U.S. when they talk about gun violence in the "civilized" world. It's always stats from Northern Europe and Japan.

[MrBenchley]

76. Gee, and yet we don't see

the NRA pointing to Brazil to show us why the assault rifle ban ought to be dropped, either.

[TreadNot]

80. there is no ban

Mr. Pantload said: "...why the assault rifle ban ought to be dropped, either."

There is no ban on "assault rifles." One must pay the $200, undergo the background check, and jump some regulatory hurdles (takes about four months), and then you can pick up your "assault rifle," asuming that such a thing is legal according to your state law.

[MrBenchley]

81. What better way to describe that post than "pantload"?

There's no gun show loophole either, is there?

Amazing the hooey gun nuts try to peddle....

"The assault-weapons ban outlaws the sale and possession of 19 types of firearms by name, and a host of others that have certain characteristics. It will expire Sept. 13, 2004, unless Congress passes a Feinstein bill that would make it permanent.
President Bush said he would support extending the ban, but he is not pressing for a vote from congressional conservatives, who don't want Republicans to weigh in on the politically touchy matter just before the election. "

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20030527-9999_1n27ban.html

and here's a bull goose gun loony screaming about the very thing YOU say doesn't exist...

http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00137.html

[Spoonman]

74. I would not EVEN go there...

The two fathers of gun control were Hitler and Stalin.
You've got little or no footing when it comes to playing that card.

[MrBenchley]

77. Who are you trying to kid?

The board of the NRA is full of bigots, criminals and right wing lunatics..

And that Hitler crack is a tired old RKBA fraud...(one of the many the movement depends on).

http://www.urbanlegends.com/politics/hitler_gun_control.html

[Spoonman]

78. Urban legend this,

Let me remind you of your own reference first:

http://www.urbanlegends.com/politics/hitler_gun_control.html

This thread reminds me that I need to credit the folks over on alt.folklore.urban with helping me shoot down that bogus Hitler quote praising gun registration.

This ain't no quote pal, this is the actual law.
If you want to "question" this, don't bother I already verify via e-mail with this group http://www.adl.org/adl.asp

But, then again, we all know you know more about that time period than they do. :eyes:

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten- German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered:
§ 1
Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
§ 2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
§ 3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
§ 4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
§ 5
For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
§ 6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick

So go back to the drawing board and try again, I'll repeat it; HILTER WAS THE FATHER OF GUN CONTROL get it?!

Here's another quote for ya -
Those who fail to remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.

[MrBenchley]

82. Peddle it to somebody dumb enough to buy it

It will be have to be somebody dumb enough to think Stalin took away all those guns the Tsar let the Russains have...

[Spoonman]

87. Now,

address the point concerning Hiltler.

I see your up to your standard tactics of "change the subject" and

spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin

[iverglas]

91. and now

You prove that "Hitler was the father of gun control".

All you've proved is that firearms control legislation was instituted under Hitler's authority.

(Actually, characterizing those laws as "gun control" is kinda like characterizing laws allowing escaped slaves to be killed as "labour relations", but what the hell.)

If I say "I am the mother of shortbread cookies" and I produce my shortbread cookie recipe, have I proved that I invented shortbread cookies?

If you say "Hitler was the father of gun control" and you produce Hitler's firearms legislation, have you proved that Hitler invented gun control?

That was what you claimed. "Hitler was the father of gun control." When might you planning to prove it? (Hey. Feel free to retract it. Even, if you're feeling particularly civil, to apologize for making such a demonstrably false claim and repeating it after its falsehood was brought to your attention in case you weren't already aware of it.)

Or were you just going to keep rapidly revolving on the spot?

.

[Spoonman]

94. You know

Your right, I have never proven Hitler was the father of gun control.

I'M SO ASHAMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any reasonably minded person would understand the point I was making.
I guess it would take a really anally retentive person to take it literally.

[iverglas]

97. I do know

"Any reasonably minded person would understand the point I was making."

I think I've made it perfectly clear at this point that I understood the point you were making, without any difficulty and as clearly as a bell.

If you're still unclear on what I understood you to be saying or why I did understand you to be saying it, or if you have any basis at all for claiming that the understanding of what you were saying that I have is a misunderstanding, feel free to let me know what that is.

You could also retract what you were saying at any time, if you're unhappy with it now. If you don't really want to be seen to be comparing advocates of firearms control on this board to Nazis and finding them to be substantially similar, just go ahead and agree that it was intolerable to make that comparison in the first place and apologize.

.

[iverglas]

85. rampant assholism

Subcategory, associationism. A deliberately deceptive method of argument.

You remember, don't you:

http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html
And this is not just any distortion. It's a type that is also very common in the new jargon ... . Associationism deletes all of logical connections among ideas, and instead works to create certain strategically chosen associations among concepts, and to break others. ...

YOU are associating ALL firearms control policies with NAZISM. FALSELY.

If we were discussing speed limits and I could prove to you that Adolph Hitler approved of speed limits, would I have proved THAT SPEED LIMITS ARE NAZISM?

If I may dare to try to be as insufferably rude as you: "GET IT??????"

You are plainly deliberately engaging in deceptive argument (prove me wrong, and I'll retract with abject apologies) -- whether or not the first firearms control measures in the world were instituted by Adolph Hitler.

(THAT was your assertion. That "Hitler was the father of gun control". NOT that Hitler made laws to restrict access to firearms. The latter is all you have proved at this point. Given that what you have proved is not what you claimed, "big fucking deal" is the only response needed to that part of your "evidence".)

Are you really making the incredibly stupid assertion that Adolph Hitler instituted the first firearms control measures in the world? Are you really making the TOTALLY FALSE ASSERTION that Adolph Hitler instituted the first firearms control measures in the world?

Adolph Hitler DID NOT institute the first firearms control measures in the world. Since it is universally accepted that the "father of" something is THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT IT INTO BEING (if that person is a man), how can you possibly make, let alone repeat, your assertion that "Hitler was the father of gun control" WITHOUT YOUR NOSE GROWING TEN METRES LONG? How would you respond to the ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL characterization of your inaccurate and false statement that "Hitler was the father of gun control" as a lie? (That's just a hypothetical question, you see. I'm saying that it's inaccurate and false; you can decide whether you think it should be called a lie. Far be it from me to call a statement that is made by someone who knows full well that it is inaccurate and false "a lie".)

From YOUR OWN DOGMA about firearms control:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html
Consequently, Kates notes, in 1870 Tennessee banned "selling all but 'the Army and Navy model' handgun, i.e., the most expensive one, which was beyond the means of most blacks and laboring people." In 1881, Arkansas enacted an almost identical ban on the sale of cheap revolvers, while in 1902, South Carolina banned the sale of handguns to all but "sheriffs and their special deputies--i.e., company goons and the KKK." In 1893 and 1907, respectively, Alabama and Texas attempted to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites through "extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes" on the sale of such weapons. In the other Deep South states, slavery-era bans on arms possession by blacks continued to be enforced by hook or by crook.

Note that I AM NOT citing that source for ANYTHING except what I expect to be a confirmation THAT YOU WILL FIND CREDIBLE of the fact that firearms control measures were implemented IN YOUR COUNTRY before Adolph Hitler was born.

(same source)
Attempts to regulate the possession of firearms began in the northern states during the early part of the 20th century, and although these regulations had a different focus from those that had been concocted in the South, they were no less racist and elitist in effect or intent. Rather than trying to keep handguns out of the price range that blacks and the poor could afford, New York's trend-setting Sullivan Law, enacted in 1911, required a police permit for legal possession of a handgun. This law made it possible for the police to screen applicants for permits to posses handguns, and while such a requirement may seem reasonable, it can and has been abused.

I DO NOT CITE this source as authority for the assertion that any firearms control measure whatsoever is either "racist" or "elitist"; that is an opinion apparently formed by the author of those passages. I am not engaged in a discussion of whether firearms control measures are racist or elitist, I am engaged in a discussion of whether Adolph Hitler "was the father of gun control", and I cited the relevant FACTS, and only those facts, for that purpose, and only that purpose. I am in no way bound by any conclusion allegedly drawn from those facts unless its inescapability can be demonstrated, which it cannot, and in any event such a conclusion would still be IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Your statement, which I have now completely rebutted by offering only a tiny smattering of evidence to the contrary, was that "Adolph Hitler was the father of gun control".

EVEN IF THAT STATEMENT WERE TRUE, which it is not, it would PROVE NOTHING about the goodness or badness of firearms control measures.

Just exactly as the statement that Mussolini made the trains run on time, which I shall assume to be true for the sake of argument, DOES NOT and WOULD NOT PROVE ANYTHING about the goodness or badness of trains that run on time.

Hitler and Mussolini absolutely undeniably also slept in beds, ate off plates, engaged in heterosexual sexual activities, and listened to music.

If -- as could be THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THE CLAIM YOU MAKE, false though that claim is -- the fact that Hitler approved of firearms control makes firearms control "bad", why does the fact that Hitler listened to music not make listening to music "bad"? If YOU listen to music, why does the fact that Hitler listened to music not make YOU a Nazi??

WHY does your ASSOCIATIONISM only work when YOU say it does??

LET ME PUT THIS IN LITTLE WORDS.

Proof that Nazis practised firearms control is not proof that all advocates of firearms control are Nazis.

GET IT????

ASSOCIATING something that one claims to be "bad" with someone "bad" who practised it, and claiming to have proved, and attempting to persuade anyone that one has now proved, that the thing is actually "bad" because it was practised by someone "bad", is the height of ...

Lemme see, I wouldn't want to express my own opinion now, because telling the truth about what that is would for some reason probably be contrary to the rules. So let me just ask some questions.

Is it honest to make a claim that is demonstrably false, and to repeat that claim once one has been given every assistance and opportunity to know that it is false?

Is it honest to identify one's adversaries with some of the most evil people imaginable, by pretending that the association established between their actions proves identity of intent or of anything else, for the purpose of demonizing those adversaries?

Not purely rhetorical questions; if they were, I might be understood to be calling someone names. No, questions that want answers. The floor is open.

.

[Superfly]

86. What a pantload! Go peddle that elsewhere!

Master Benchly...am I doing it right?

MrBenchly-Lite

[MrBenchley]

90. So true

For that matter, Wyatt Earp and his brothers forbade the carrying of firearms in both Dodge City and Tombstone years before Hitler was ever born.

"Is it honest to make a claim that is demonstrably false, and to repeat that claim once one has been given every assistance and opportunity to know that it is false?"
No, but it is par for the course among the RKBA crowd.

[Spoonman]

95. Ah yes isn't it

"Is it honest to make a claim that is demonstrably false, and to repeat that claim once one has been given every assistance and opportunity to know that it is false?"

Posted by MrBenchley

And that Hitler crack is a tired old RKBA fraud...(one of the many the movement depends on).

http://www.urbanlegends.com/politics/hitler_gun_control.html

I proved the above horse hockey to be false, so thanks for crappin in your own plate.

Well maybe not if you take "crack" to mean remark. But then again I never was refering to the "crack" in my initial post. So once again, thanks for crappin in your own plate.

[Spoonman]

92. Once again, swing and a miss..........

YOU are associating ALL firearms control policies with NAZISM

NO, I was not. Anyone past grade 9 would not draw such a ridiculous conclusion.

You are inferring that I said that because you are so anxious to go off on a long winded rant, you fail to see the, how did you put, ah yes, face value of the entire post.

While Hitler may not have been the “father” of gun control, it still demonstrates a legitimate point to which you seem incapable of seeing due your over analyzing single sentence meanings. To use your own words “LET ME PUT THIS IN LITTLE WORDS” you fail to see the forest for the trees.

Are you really making the incredibly stupid assertion that I said Adolph Hitler instituted the first firearms control measures in the world?

Surely, a person of your intelligence would not have derived that from what I posted.

Regardless of your total and irrelevant break down of the post, the information and implications of said information stand clear to those with both eyes open.

The underlying point to this exercise in futility is the desire to retain our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights to include the second amendment was put in place to protect the citizens of this country from the government, not to protect the government from the people.
With this in mind, if we start implementing policies and laws such as those created and implemented by people such as Hitler, this would greatly undermine that document to the point were it might no longer exist.

Don’t try to analyze this and say “no ones going to outlaw Jews having guns” or any crap like that. Look at the BIG picture, before you draw a conclusion.
Just sit back give your fingers a rest and think about the underlying implications of it all.

[iverglas]

96. all you gotta do

NO, I was not <associating ALL firearms control policies with NAZISM>.
Anyone past grade 9 would not draw such a ridiculous conclusion."

All you gotta do ... is tell me what you WERE doing. What was the point of posting the statement "Hitler was the father of gun control" in this forum?

"Are you really making the incredibly stupid assertion that I said
Adolph Hitler instituted the first firearms control measures in the world?"

All you gotta do ... is tell me what you intended "Hitler was the father of gun control" to mean, and why anyone would have taken it to mean anything other than "Hitler invented gun control".

(A hint: if you said "Marconi was the father of the radio", or "Bell was the father of the telephone", what should we think you meant? If I asked you "who was the father of television", how would you answer?)

A person of my intelligence assumes that other people say what they mean and mean what they say.

"The underlying point to this exercise in futility is the desire
to retain our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

A desire is not a point ... but never mind, eh?

My question is: if you have points to make, why don't you try making them some other way than by pretending to prove that your adversaries are analogous to and as bad as Nazis? That really IS what you were doing.

AND YOU ARE STILL DOING IT:

"With this in mind, if we start implementing policies and laws such as
those created and implemented by people such as Hitler, this would greatly
undermine that document to the point were it might no longer exist."

You are STILL COMPARING the policies advocated by people here with the policies advocated by Hitler, and you are STILL SAYING that they are analogous.

You are STILL COMPARING people who advocate policies that you oppose TO HITLER and saying that they are like.

You are STILL PRETENDING that two things can be ASSOCIATED and regarded as SIMILAR based on a single point of comparison and without regard to any dissimilarities found in respect of any of the infinite numbers of other possible comparisons.

Let me do it, again.

I say with absolute certainty and not the least fear of being contradicted that both you and Hitler have advocated that umbrellas be carried if it looks like rain. So, when next I hear you advising someone to take an umbrella because it looks at rain, I shall shout out "HITLER SUPPORTED USING UMBRELLAS!!" And if you don't agree that you would think that my purpose in doing that was to portray you as a Nazi, you're more disingenuous than I'd imagined.

"Don’t try to analyze this and say “no ones going to outlaw Jews
having guns” or any crap like that. Look at the BIG picture, before
you draw a conclusion."

Don't try to divert me from the patently nonsensical and less than candid nature of what you are doing.

The BIG picture tells me that there is no similarity whatsoever between myself and Adolph Hitler, apart from our mutual preferences for sleeping on beds, eating off plates, and a myriad other things that have nothing to do with being or not being a Nazi.

I DO NOT advocate that access to firearms be restricted based on race, religion, ethnicity, class, sex, sexual orientation, or any other distintion that is IRRELEVANT and INTOLERABLE in a liberal democracy / free and democratic society.

So you can take your ongoing insinuation that what I DO advocate is equivalent to Nazism and stick it in that barrel of yours.

"Just sit back give your fingers a rest and think about the
underlying implications of it all."

I've already told you what I quite well KNOW to be the underlying implications of it all.

There are people who seek to influence public policy, not through the straightforward, complete and honest public presentation of their own position and a straightforward, complete and honest treatment of their adversaries' position, but through circuitous rhetoric, refusal to acknowledge let alone respond to what is said to them, and both false characterization of what is said to them and demonization of those who say it.

Oddly enough, fascists do those things. But far be it from me to pretend that I have successfully argued against any public policy anyone advocates by pointing out that their tactics are shared by fascists. After all, that's a tactic a fascist would use.

.

[MrBenchley]

98. By the way, iverglas...

I wonder if spoonman's claim explains why neoNazi groups like the Aryan Nation are always so gung-ho about gun control <snicker>.

[iverglas]

100. heh, yeah, eh?

"why neoNazi groups like the Aryan Nation are always so gung-ho about gun control"

Imagine, me doing all that over-analyzing and not mentioning that part.

It looks like somebody just isn't a Nazi around here. Is it Hitler? Is it the Aryan Nations? Is it me & you? How shall we tell if we can't apply that "pro or con on restricting access to firearms" yardstick???

I do get so confused.

.

[MrBenchley]

101. You're doing just fine....n/t

[MrBenchley]

70. Funny you missed some basic facts

"In Brazil, the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 11.7 in 1980 to 26.2 in 1999, a 223 percent increase."

http://www.csis.org/americas/pubs/h020719.htm

"Wielding assault rifles, firing armor-piercing bullets and lobbing hand grenades, a band of 40 "cocaine commandos" as young as 14 had launched an offensive from a neighboring slum to expand their turf and grab a bigger share of the cocaine market. They made it as far as the entrance, where they encountered a police patrol. After a half-hour shootout and desperate calls for reinforcements, two squads of officers dispersed the attackers with M-16s and 9mm submachine guns.
The number of homicides in Sao Paulo jumped to 3,249 last year, a 41 percent increase from five years ago. In all of Brazil, more than 70 percent of homicides are now caused by firearms, the highest rate of any country not at war, according to Brazilian research firms and U.N. reports. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28372-2001Jul6

Seems like its guns and not the effort to control them that is the problem. But its nice to see what we can look forward to here at home if you gun nuts end that assault weapons ban, like the corrupt gun industry wants so bad.

"Nine out of 10 homicides in Brazil are committed by handguns,
and contrary to what many people think, a majority of these
crimes in the city of São Paulo are committed by people without
criminal records. Almost 60 percent of the victims die for futile
motives such as arguments on buses and disputes in bars. "

http://www.brazzil.com/2003/html/news/articles/aug03/p106aug03.htm

[Spoonman]

73. "Funny you missed the basic logic"

Brazil has mandatory registration and mandatory licensing and it still doesn’t work!!!! Their murder rate continued to climb after all guns sales were banned!!!!
According to you, if you make it illegal to buy or sell guns these numbers would drop.
It didn’t happen did it – no!!!

[MrBenchley]

75. That's no more logic than fish is fowl

I suggest you go down there and explain to them that what they really need is MORE guns...I'm sure they'll be grimly amused.

Or did you expect that a ban on gun sales would somehow make those existing guns disappear?

[Spoonman]

79. You tell me

Isn't that what your always claiming?
"Corrupt gun industry" i.e. needs to stop selling the guns to criminals so that noone else gets killed with a gun.

Given your logic, a total ban on gun sales would achieve the same thing.

Your logic not mine, I just showed you it doesn't work that way and now you don't like it.

If you would like, here's some more logic,
Criminals get their guns illegally, criminals shoot people.
If you make it illegal to own a gun the criminals won't care, their already criminals. they will continue to shoot people.... aw hell never mind!

[MrBenchley]

83. I told you

Now go peddle your hooey to someone dumb enough to believe a word of it.

[Superfly]

84. Yeah! Go peddle that elsewhere!

See Master Benchly? I serve your evil will.

[MrBenchley]

88. No, all you do

is show how lame and hysterical the RKBA position is..

[Superfly]

89. Yes, Master!

Don't yell at me, please! I only live to emulate you!

[Spoonman]

93. Darn,

Another brain washed fatality.
Were gonna miss ya fly........:(

[MrBenchley]

99. Nothing more than a quick rinse

and he'll be back to babbling RKBA rubbish in no time...

[556]

57. Ouch!

Hey, I go to gun shows and do not consider myself scum. I make $40,000/yr own several military type rifles and pistols and have never committed a felony nor do I have plans too. I use all my guns in a safe and unviolent manner and will only use one on another human when my life or the life of a loved one is confronting a lethal threat and there is no other choice. Does this make me scum?

Also what makes everyone think gun violence is such an epidemic? They say, on average, close to 30,000 people die each year from a gun related incident. Almost 2/3rds of those deaths are by suicide. Most people discount suicide as being a violent act. Lets just use 30,000 people to do the math. If you take 30,000 and divide it by a conservative 240,000,000 person population you get 0.000125% of the population is killed by a gun each year. Hardly an epidemic. Now lets just say that half of those people die by the hands of some one else. Total % of population MURDERED by guns each year = 0.0000625%.

[iverglas]

60. listen up now!

(I imagine you're still listening, even if "you" aren't "here".)

Aristotle is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

See how that one works? Absolutely unassailable LOGIC.

Scum go to gun shows.
You go to gun shows.
Therefore you are scum.

See how that one DOESN'T work? See how it ISN'T WHAT ANYONE SAID?

We could try a few more.

Dogs have tongues.
You have a tongue.
Therefore you are a dog.

Oops -- didn't work either.

My catalpa tree is 5'10" tall.
You are 5'10" tall.
Therefore you are a catalpa tree.

I go to work in the morning.
You go to work in the morning.
Therefore you are I.

Damn, eh? They just don't work.

And if MrBenchley HAD SAID:

Scum go to gun shows.
You go to gun shows.
Therefore you are scum.

... well, you'd have really good grounds for being outraged. Anyone who used such deceptive "logic" in civil discourse should be sent to bed without supper.

Oops. He wasn't the one using it. You were. No supper for you.

.

[MrBenchley]

61. Par for the course

What would RKBA arguments be without that sort of rubbish? And it's almost always followed by the claim that anyone for regulating the sale and ownership of guns is "without logic."

[iverglas]

30. I'm SO confused

In exactly which of the cases you refer to by citing this article would the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens have prevented the firearm injury/death that occurred? Or ... what was your point?

Lemme guess. If that guy standing in line by the Lincoln Center had just taken out his machine gun when he first arrived on the scene and mowed down everyone in sight, he wouldn't have got shot.

.

[idadem]

102. NO GUNS!

I wish nobody had guns because guns only kill even when they are owned by cops and they kill bad guys who might not ne bad after all.

Get rid of all guns and people will stop dieing.

[MiniBalrog]

103. yeah...

...nobody ever got killed before they invented gunpowder...