Re: The Antis are hard at work - are you?

On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:09:13 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nef7721c6k32ff2h4qf0cjkjvalmob6qev@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 23 May 2006 11:29:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qtn4721spekca7h8nn9jvihohv71ifecvs@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:39:16 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:74fr621n8ota2l94frn2hc6ph44gal73e4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 19 May 2006 13:50:34 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vgbq62t0hdmeneej30as9hsj26iha2e6eo@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 19 May 2006 07:54:59 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ummn62tpsevt4d44fghveqib88li82n0np@xxxxxxxxxx
snip

Just because some clown
publishes something on the web (or anywhere else, for that
matter),
does
not
make it the truth.


I'll keep that in mind as I read your posts, trevor.

By the way, why have you been avoiding answering my question?

**List your questions. I'll answer any sane, on topic,
non-rhetorical
question.

LOL Still tryimng to dodge; you will claim the question I ask is
"off topic".

But, I'll try anyway. This is from a post back in March


You mean there are no laws prohibiting an Australian from carrying
a
gun for self defense?

**Nope.

LOL So an Australian can take his 1911A1, put it in a holster,
walk
around town, and that is perfectly legal?

**I don't know what a 1911A1 is. If it is a gun, then the answer is
no.


And then there is this exchange:

**Australians have never had a right to carry guns for self defence.
Not
ever.

Well, that is direct opposition to what you say above.

**Nope.
My words are consistent. Your ability to understand is your problem


If there are no laws preventing an Australian from carrying a gun
for
self defense, then they must have the right to do so.

**Australians may not purchase a gun, specifically for the purpose of
self
defence. Australians may not carry a gun for the purpose of self
defence.
Australians may use a gun for self defence.


Your words are consistent?

**I believe so.


You mean there are no laws prohibiting an Australian from carrying
a
gun for self defense?

**Nope.

So here you say there are no laws preventing an Australian from
carrying a gun for self defense.

**I did not. Read my answer.




**Australians may not purchase a gun, specifically for the purpose of
self
defence. Australians may not carry a gun for the purpose of self
defence.
Australians may use a gun for self defence.

And here you say "Australians may not carry a gun for the purpose of
self defence."

**SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of self defence. Yes.



I confess I do have a lot of trouble understanding how you can make
two opposing statements and then accuse me of having trouble
understanding.

**Read your question and my answer. You are the one with comprehension
problems. Do not make more out of somethig waht is written.


Feel free to explain what you mean.

**I'm not the one who can't read properly.

trevor.

Try answering in an honest and open manner:

**I always do. It is not my problem that you cannot phrase your questions
in
a fashion which allows you to understand plain English answers. English is
my first and only language. I am sorry that I am not able to converse with
you in your first language.


Can an Australian legally carry a gun for the purpose of self defense?

**Asked and answered.

And is there a law which prohibits Australians from carrying a gun for
the purpose of self defense?

**Civilians, yep (again)

Outstanding. Now we are getting somewhere.

Now please bear with me; I have found that things need to be made very
simple for you to comprehend them.

If you own a car in Australia, are you "allowed" to paint it blue?




. Some LEOs and security guards are allowed to carry
them, however.














So which is it?




And then this one:

**Sure I do. The right to freedom, freedom of speech (which has been
abridged for US citizens), the rights to travel wherever and
whenever
I
wish
(which has been abridged for US citizens), the rights to all the
usual
stuff. I understand entirely. What Australians don't have, is an
automatic
'right' to own a gun. In fact, we don't have a 'right' to own a
whole
bunch
of things. We can't own nuclear weapons, live handgrenades,
biological
weapons, etc, etc. No big deal.

The point is, trevor boy, why don't you have the right to own a live
hand grenade?

**I have no idea. Probably because they are potentially dangerous
items,
which could be used to kill people, but serve no useful purpose.


Might it be because it is "against the law"?

**Yep.

No, let's make this perfectly clear: You say there is a law on the
books that prohibits you from owning a hand grenade?

**Maybe. I haven't read all the law books. It is extermely unlikely that
Australians would be allowed to keep a live grenade.

Maybe? Trying to dodge eh?

**Nope. Just answering your question truthfully. Do you have a problem
with
the truth?

Not a bit - except you are notnoted for being honest except in your
own eyes.

**You'll need to provide a cite to prove where I have deliberately deceived
anyone.

No need to provide a cite - it is posted right above in the discussion
about possessing a gun for self defense.






So, may we both assume there is a law that prohibits the average
Australian from keeping a live hand grenade?

**That would be a reasonable assumption.

Now, just for the sake of argument, pick an arbitrary date when that
law was enacted.



















Then there is this exchange which you ignored:

**Nope. As a legal, law abiding gun owner, rhw appears to be taking
a
balanced view of things. Arming citizens does not reduce loss of
life.
As
shown by the experience of US citizens, it merely increases the
likelihood
that they will be murdered.

Really?

**Yes, really.

Then why does Washington D.C. have so many murders?

**Here's a few possible reasons:
* Poverty.
* The cheap, easy availability of handguns.
* The fact that so-called 'straw purchases' of handguns is not
actively
prevented in the US.
* The fact that there is no effective rehabilitation of criminals in
the
US.
* The fact that is trivially simple to 'smuggle' guns into DC.
* Etc.

And
Chicago

**See above.

So, you have some "possibilities", but no proof of anything.

**Sure. Providing proof would require an expensive, unpopular and
extensive
trial.


So, in other words, you are simply "guessing".

**I like to call it: 'Educated guessing'.


Similar to the DoJ and their estimates on DGU's?

**Yep.


Excellent. I am glad you are rescinding your remarks quite a few
months back where you chastised folks for using their estimates on
DGU's.

So now we have established that DGU's occur a lot mor frequently than
you claim.






I thought that yopu
stated in an earleir post that you only deal with "facts".

**I related some FACTS about DC. Do you have a problem with facts?

Not a bit. Except your "facts" are not facts, but opinion.

**Nope. They're actual facts. If you think they're not facts, then refute
them with your own facts.


* Poverty.
Poverty? An arbitrary thing. Compared to some places it is
"wealthy". So provide proof of yur "fact".

**Approximately 40 million US citizens are regarded as living below the
poverty line. A number of those people live in DC. Therefore, there is
poverty in DC.

Sorry, your opinion is not fact. Provide a cite for your claim.




* The cheap, easy availability of handguns.
Again, your opinion. You provide no statistics, or cite a source,
etc.

**A number of bad people have handguns in DC. A number of those people are
poor. Therefore, they have managed to obtain handguns, cheaply and easily.

Again, your opinion. You have not presented a cite to shore up your
claim.




* The fact that so-called 'straw purchases' of handguns is not
actively
prevented in the US.
Completely false: specifically the BATF works on this quite a bit.

**Then explain how the Columbine killers obtain some of their weapons.

Illegally


Also
explain why the person who obtained some of those weapons was not punished
for supplying those guns.

I have no idea; I personally think they should have been prosecuted.

However, harping on one incident does not all the other work being
done.





* The fact that there is no effective rehabilitation of criminals in
the
US.
Again, your opinion only. You offer no proof of your allegation.

**I cannot offer proof of something which does not exist.

Sure rehabilitation exists; I provided you with that informtion. Your
claim is that there is no "effective rehabilitation". All you have to
do is prove the current rehabilitation efforts are ineffective. Feel
free to cite all the studies, etc you want.





* The fact that is trivially simple to 'smuggle' guns into DC.
Proof? Of course not, simply your opinion.

**There are many (hand)gun related homicides in DC. Given the restrictions
on the purchase of handguns in DC, it is clear that many (hand)guns are
being transported into DC.

I agree. The onus on you is to back up your claim that is is
"trivally simple"; provide all the cites, studies, etc that you wish.





* Etc.
"*Etc" is not a fact.

So much for your "facts" about DC.

**They're facts. The homicide figures speak for themselves.


No they don't.






Yet here
you are simply "guessing".

**Nope. I am suggesting possible reasons why DC has such serious crime
problems. Have you forgotten, already? YOU asked the question.

"Suggesting possible reasons" = "guessing"

**Educated guessing.

Really? Cite your educational background which makes you an expert on
criminology, psychology, economics and law.








hypocrite




All we know for certain is that guns are banned from the good citizen
and that Washington DC has a lot of murders.

**We know several other things as well. We know that DC has:

* Poverty.

There is poverty in many places that have extremely low murder rates.

**No argument from me there.

And there is poverty in areas where guns are commonly owned by the
good citizens. So why isn't crime rampant in those areas?

**What? Like Miami?

No, like Newton Mass.








* The cheap, easy availability of handguns.

Sorry, wrong. Handguns are illegal.

**I'll ask you a question, then:

Are handguns cheap and easy to buy in DC (by *any* means)?

You are the one who made the claim; provide your proof.

**There is a lot of handgun crime in DC. Since DC has strict handgun laws,
it is clear that handguns MUST be easy to buy in or around DC.

No, it is not clear. Do you need the lecture on cause and effect
again?








* The fact that so-called 'straw purchases' of handguns is not actively
prevented in the US.

Sorry, it is.

**Then explain why the supplier of guns to the Columbine killers was not
punished.

LOL Jumping around like a frog, aren't you? But, one incident does
not a pattern make - or has that escaped you?

**Would you care to explain why the supplier of guns to the Columbine
killers was not punished for her part in the 'straw purchase' of those
weapons? If the US REALLY cared about straw sales of guns, she would have
been punished to the full extent of the law. She wasn't. Therefore, the US
does not care about straw sales of guns.

LOL An amazing assumption from one incident.

May we assume that Australian police do not care about murders? Or
that they are inept?

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2003/s1042100.htm
CAROLINE JONES: Hello, I'm Caroline Jones. Tonight's story takes us
inside Australia's longest-running and most expensive murder
investigation. Eight years ago, three young women went missing from
the wealthy Perth suburb of Claremont. Two of the girls were found
murdered. The body of the third has never been discovered. Now some
are suggesting that the subsequent disappearance of other young women
from different areas of Perth could possibly be linked, an idea
strongly rejected by the Claremont investigators





The BATF is, whether you like it or not, actively trying to prevent
'straw purchases'. In fact, as this article demonstartes, perhaps too
zealously.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&cid=1137834132638&c=MGArticle
WASHINGTON -- A crackdown on illegal firearm sales at Richmond-area
gun shows led to a congressional inquiry yesterday into whether
federal agents trampled the rights of gun buyers.

The organizer of an August gun show at Richmond Raceway Complex told a
House panel that a large team of federal agents from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and city, state and county
police patrolled the two-day show, harassing law-abiding gun buyers
while looking for illicit gun sales.



And here in one area alone it seems they have conducted 7 operations
against illegal gun sales.

http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=896354&FILTER=
In a subsequent report, Cybercast News Service detailed that ATF had
conducted at least seven similar gun show "sting operations" targeting
Richmond-area residents since July of 2004. ATF refused to discuss any
of the operations with Cybercast News Service and refused to provide
any documentation in response to Freedom of Information Act requests
filed by the sponsors of the Richmond gun shows.

What? No comment? Here I have shown that the legal beagles are
diligently working to stop 'strawman purchases' but you ignore it?








* The fact that there is no effective rehabilitation of criminals in the
US.

Your opinion; another "guess" - not a fact.

**Please cite all the rehabilitation facilities and their programmes for
violent offenders in the US.

No need for me to do so. You are the one who is making an
unsubstantiated claim.

However, I will help you. Simply put " rehabilitation for violent
offenders" into Google and read page after page about the programs
available.

No comment?








* The fact that is trivially simple to 'smuggle' guns into DC.

Yep - criminals can do that that.

**Correct. It makes a mockery of any laws surrounding firearms in DC.

Yep. Pretty much like Australia, or any country where there is a black
market.

**Not quite. In most parts of the US, a cheap handgun can be purchased
easily for as little as US$30.00.

And of course you have proof of your "fact"? Cite away.



In some areas, very little in the way of
identification is required for the legal purchase of a second hand gun.

An NCIS check is required in every state on all public purchases.

In
Australia similar guns can cost MUCH more and are far more difficult to
obtain

Cite



. It is impossile to legally purchase a second hand gun, without
filling in the appropriate government paperwork.

That's right, the good Australian citizen needs permission from big
brother to buy a gun.





So wWhy don't areas that also have poverty and have what you describe
as lax, ineffective gun laws, why isn't their crime right equal to DC?

**What? Like Miami? As I understand it, Miami has a serious crime problem.

Newton Mass.











These are all things we know for certain. We also know that these things
*may* affect the gun related homicide rate of DC.

And may not.

**Indeed.

So it appears gun control laws accomplish one thing: Thye disarm the
good citizen.

**Not necessarily. Sensible, homgenous gun control laws may make if more
difficult for bad people to otain guns.

"May make"? Sorry, I don't trust my safety to "might.

And, of course, your ideas are not "sane" nor "sensible". As
evidenced by Washington, where guns are essentially banned,gun crime
continues.






So here we have yopur opinion, no fact - just opinion.

**Nope. I stated FACTS. Absolute, irrefutable facts. Those facts may be
responsible for the appalling gun related homicide rate for DC.

Well, you claim they are facts; but you present no sources from
experts, or anything. Just your claim they are facts.

**Well, they are facts.

BUT OF COURSE!!!! I forgot that if you believe something to be true,
they are "facts". How silly of me!!! <sarcasm intended>

You have been given ample opportunity to provide evidence of your
"fatcs" and have not done so.





And I refuted two of your "facts" (see above about straw purchases and
rehabilitation). If you have something else, put it up.

**Then you still need to explain why the supplier of guns to the Columbine
killers was not punished

No, I don't need to explain one incident.


. As for rehabilitation, I suspect that the US is
much like Australia. Particularly with private gaol companies. Private gaol
companies have no incentive to rehabilitate offenders. In fact, if the
criminal re-offends and is subsequently captured, the company makes more
money. Moreover, state run gaols have very little in the way of
rehabilitation facilities. If the US is significantly different, I would be
very surprised.

Well, you have the opportunity to back up your claim - go ahead.

And, by the way, "I suspect" is not adequate.








Yet you cannot explain why other areas that have more liberal gun
control laws don't have the same level of crime.

**Can't I? Have you asked?

Here is your opportunity.

**OK. Let's discuss Miami.

No, let's discuss Newton Mass.






You simply choose to
try and back your misbeliefs by cherry picking data.

**Nope. YOU asked the question. I answered. That you have problems with my
answers is not my problem.

Well, I always have problems with people who make claims with "facts"
that appear to be simply their opinions. You haven't presented a
shred of evidence to support your "facts". I have, on the other hand,
refuted at least 2 of your "facts".

**Not quite. I still want to know why the supplier of guns to the Columbine
killers was not punished.

As above.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
    ... Only if the shrink also cannot reason using facts and logic. ... gun ownership but if you argue for making legal policy the you must use ... Laws are just that -- laws. ... An AR-15 is the civilian version and name of the M-16 Automatic Rifle used ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
    ... Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment ... Any argument not based on facts is illogical to begin with and is nothing more than and argument based on feelings/emotion. ... Pro-gun hasn't done step 1 yet. ... A similar study done under the Clinton administration had identical results--inability to determine the effectiveness of any gun laws. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: The Antis are hard at work - are you?
    ... If it is a gun, ... If there are no laws preventing an Australian from carrying a gun for ... defence. ... Australians may not carry a gun for the purpose of self ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State
    ... No more than the number of gun owners you say you know who are happy with ... Like all sane Australians, he welcomes the new regulations, ... >> with the new gun control laws?", which at the time most people wouldn't ... >>> and subsequent gun control laws. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: The Antis are hard at work - are you?
    ... If it is a gun, ... If there are no laws preventing an Australian from carrying a gun for ... Australians may not carry a gun for the purpose of self ... Do you have a problem with facts? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
Loading