On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:50:54 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"The Raven" > wrote in message
u...
>> "Peter Lucas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> GCA believe that it is profoundly unwise to be associated with
>>> organizations that preach the possibility of insurrection against an
>>> elected government.
>>
>> You are in breach of the terms for this group (aus.sport.shooting) which
>> does not allow political comment.
>>
>>> We are worried, therefore, that some shooter
>>> groups in australia remain associated with such extremist American
>>> groups.
>>
>> Name them!
>>
>>> Guns murdered more than 7000 people in australia in the past decade.
>>> Nine out of 10 of the victims were male.
>>
>> and more than 90% of those firearms were not legally registered or owned
>> by registered shooters.
>
>**Or, put another way: 10% of all firearms related homicides were committed
>by legally licesenced shooters, using registered weapons. A sad indictment
>indeed.

Indeed. Perhaps you could make laws against homicide......


>
>In other words, they were already in breach of firearms
>> laws in place at the time. Trying to connect a reduction in shootings to
>> stronger gun laws is flawed, because many of those shootings would still
>> have occurred regardless of what the law said.
>
>**Prove it. Place your data he
>
>
>>
>>> The number of killings caused by firearms dropped almost 65 per cent
>>> between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming
>>> after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
>>
>> So before and after Port Arthur firearm deaths dropped...so what relevance
>> is this to anything? I'm sure shooting deaths before and after WWII were
>> comparably low to.
>>
>> > A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology found that the
>>> number of deaths caused by guns each year dropped to 333 in 2001 from
>>> 729 in 1991.
>>
>> Good to see the rate is reducing but to conclude that is solely the result
>> of tightened gun laws is flawed.
>
>**Is it? What else has changed?

The average daily temperature.If you want to prove causality,
***YOU*** need to post your data.

Post it right here. Be sure it is properly footnoted and cited.



>
> Perhaps better customs screening reduced
>> the death toll through a reduction in illegal arms imports, perhaps it's
>> all related to the 'recession we had to have', perhaps there was an
>> ammunition shortage. You've ignored all other possible influences of
>> shooting so as to credit gun laws for the full reduction in death toll.
>
>**Maybe it was global warming too. Sheesh! Consider the possibility that gun
>control laws may actually alter exactly what they were designed to alter:
>The misuse of guns. A wild and crazy idea, I'll admit, but one which
>deserves some examination.

Excpet you haven't proven it....

What a wild and crazy idea; to demand proof from trevorboy


>
>>
>>
>>> The above facts tell me its CASE CLOSED when it comes to the benefits
>>> of proper gun restrictions;
>>
>> If you ignore all other possible factors so as to leave only a conclusion
>> that supports your belief.
>>
>> Please explain the frequent shootings that are still occuring now.
>>
>>> anyone who argues the collary is ignoring
>>> the big negatives
>>
>> You're ignoring the fact that a total ban on firearms won't eliminate
>> shootings, plenty of illegal firearms make it into Australia every year.
>> Those that buy them aren't interested in what the legislation says.
>
>**You're making the fundamental mistake of assuming that a law will
>automatically reduce the incidence of a specific crime to zero. Here in the
>real world, that never occurs. We have laws which address the following:
>
>* DUI
>* Rape
>* Bank robbery
>
>None of those laws is perfectly effective at reducing the incidence of those
>crimes to zero. By your twisted logic, you would have all laws that are not
>100% effective removed from the law books. It does not work like that here
>on planet Earth.

And you haven't presented evidence that gun control laws work. Nor
have you considered any unintended consequences.


>
>>
>> No one is going to argue against proper firearms legislation provided it
>> doesn't disadvantage citizens who wish to use firearms in a safe and
>> proper manner. The problem is that legislation doesn't stop criminals from
>> getting illegal weapons.
>
>**Prove it.

As soon as you present your proof.

>In your proof, examine the situation here in Australia (where an
>illegal handgun might typically sell for several hundred Dollars) and the US
>(where an illegal handgun might typically sell for less than $50.00).

Present your proof



>Consider how many more criminals can, therefore, be armed with handguns in
>the US, compared to Australia. The reason for the cost difference is largely
>down to how easy it is to obtain these weapons on the legal market.

Prove it



>Therefore, good gun control laws do reduce the likelihood that many
>criminals can obtain handguns. Further: Due to the existence of those gun
>control laws, police have an extra layer of charges that can be laid, if an
>undesirable person is caught using/carrying a handgun.


Be sure all your proof is properly footnoted and cited.

After all, you demand proof - so let's see you meet your own standard.
Tha's not asking too much, is it trevorboy?