Re: Why I <choke> have some grudging respect for Trevor Wilson and believe the there is hope.

"Jim Bianchi" <jimbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:24:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Jim Bianchi" <jimbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:20:11 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Nope. Swimming pools require extensive and expensive local government
approvals. And, as I stated before, they require expensive and
support systems.

Like I said, rigorous and expensive regulations aside, a swimming
pool can be owned in Australia. As opposed to owning a semi-automatic
firearm for defensive purposes.

**Correct. OTOH, pools are rarely used in the commission of homicides.
Firearms have been and still are a common method of committing homicide.
Additionally, firearms are hardly ever effective for defensive purposes.

They're NOT (hardly ever effective)? Of course! <smacking myself on
the forehead> I keep forgetting you Aussies are different..

**Nope. In the US there are 200 KNOWN DGUs each year. There are also
approximately 10,000 homicides each year, committed via the use of firearms.
The equation is hardly balanced.

**Incorrect. The Australian government has not collected all the guns.
In fact, gun ownership is legal in Australia, contrary to what you
apparently believe.

For what pupose is firearm ownership legal in Australia?

**Taret shooting, collecting, hunting, vermin extermination.

Can someone living in Sydney, say, legally buy one for defensive


**Nope. Australians see that secondary gun sales were a significant
problem and have done something about it.

By conforming their lives to what someone *might* do (sell their gun to

**Nope. By conforming their lives to what someone DID do.

Like I said, By conforming their lives to their fear of what someone
*might* do in the future.

**No. I said: "By conforming their lives to what someone DID do." Past
tense. It was an actual, historically accurate occurence. It happened. That
it actually happened ensures that it was not a theoretical possibility, but
an actual reality.

Taking action against what someone DID do would be
a matter of arresting, charging, convicting, and punishing the bloke.
that may well be done, your country has gone a step further by passing
that assume everyman *will be* guilty of murder or selling his gun, if
are allowed unincumbered possession of firearms.

**Nope. What the governments of Australia have done, is to introduce a set
of laws and cross checks which ensure that what actually has occured, cannot
occur (or at least far less likely to occur) again.

Seems to me what they've done is to adjust their lifestyle and the
they live under to conform to what criminals do, as opposed to forcing
criminals to adjust their own lifestyle.

**How so?

By legislating the hoops one must jump through in order to purchase and
possess a firearm (as long as it's not for defensive purposes).

**Oh well. No major loss.

Except to one who is the victim of an inimical encounter with a
criminal that may've been avoided or successfully defended against if
were a firearm (or the threat of a firearm) present.

**Except that so-called DGUs are largely mythical. Your own government
reports acknowledge this fact.

For a criminal to obtain a gun, they must take far more risky and
expensive options than simply using a 'straw purchase' or buying a
second hand gun. Even from a friend.

I see. And you feel that a person who'd rob, rape, or murder will be
deterred by the threat of prosecution for violating a mere 'gun law?'

**That would depend on the circumstances. Robbery with a firearm
attracts a more severe penalty than robbery without one. The incidence

Yet, you feel that a person who'd rob or murder will be deterred by
the threat of prosecution for violating a mere 'gun law?'

**IMO, no. What does occur, though, is that anyone committing such a crime
will face a stiffer sentence.

You guys are not
only weird, you're incurably naive.

**Wait for the answer young man.

of rape, committed via the use of a firearm, is so rare in Australia,
that it doesn't make the stats. Murder is usually a crime which entails
a bunch of factors. The weapon is one of those factors.

Sure. The weapon is a factor. It is not much of a contributing factor at
all -- in the sense that "the gun made me do it."

**Not necessarily.

Whoa! Surely you don't mean that in Australia your guns compel you
to do evil things using them? Remind me to never buy a firearm marked
in Australia."

**There is some evidence to suggest that possession of a firearm DOES alter
that person's intent. It certainly alters that person's ability to kill.

When examining the stats, we can see that the rate of violent assault is
very similar in Australia and the US. However, when we examine the
homicide rate, we can see that the figure in the US is 3 times the rate
that it is in Australia. Homicides, committed via the use of guns, is TEN
times the rate that it is in Australia. Guns are used in around 60% of
homicides in the US, whilst they are used in around 15% of homicides in
Australia. Given the effectiveness, the impersonal nature of the killing
and the concealability of firearms, it is possible that it is, indeed,
prescence of guns (notably: Handguns) which skew the US figures much
higher than Australian ones.

May I point out that the vast majority of these homicides occur in
cities that also have quite strict guncontrol.

**So? Most of the homicides which occur in Australia, also occur in the
cites, which also have strict gun controls.

Also that '60% of homicides
using a firearm' represents a LOT less than 1% of all firearms that will
ever be used in a crime of violence.


As is shown by the incidence of violent crime in Australia that does not
involve a firearm.

**Indeed. Violent crime is about the same as it is in the US. Thise
clearly invalidates the belief that civilians carrying guns is in any way

It also invalidates the belief that civilians possessing (and
sometimes carrying) guns is in any way detrimental (or leads to inimical

**I am unaware of such a belief.

To say otherwise is to admit to a form of animism. If you maintain that
what makes it a contributing factor is the guilty guy saying, "I had a
gun, so I did it," only drives home the point made below about how
Aussies are quite different. Must be the air..

**Nope. Guns simply make it easy for violent people to make thier violent
intent more deadly.

While true, they also provide a way for those preyed upon to defend

**Nope. That is the myth you have been handed. The truth is something quite
different. There are, for instance, around 200 DGUs each year in the US,
which result in the death of the perp. Beyond that, almost no data is
available. There are, of course, several flawed and discredited surveys,

As an example, Our FBI has stated that fewer than 1% of firearms will
ever be used in a crime. Guncontrol will actively penalise everyone in
order to prevent less than 1% of crime (and, given that a knife or a
pipe will suffice for a LOT of crime, that 'less than 1% of crime'
is WAY inflated).

**What percentage of automobiles are involved in fatal accidents? Do all
drivers need to conform to the same laws, despite the miniscule number
actually involved in fatal accidents?

No idea about percentages, the answer to your second question is

**I suspect that the number would be similar.

Yet in spite of the rather large number of fatalities and injuries,
property damage and lost time caused by their misuse, there is nothing in
any of these laws that is in any way preemptive about the use or
of a motor vehicle.

**There is, here in Australia and in most other places. All Australian
automoblies must pass a strict safety test each year. Additionally, if the
owner is found to be driving an unsafe auto, he/she may be subject to a
random inspection by police. Personally, I like the idea that the guy
driving behind me has had his car tested by an authorised agent for the
quality of his brakes and tyres.

You can do anything you want with one until (and unless)
you are pulled over. Only then (if you've broken a law) will a penalty be
assessed against you.

As I said, our FBI has stated that fewer than 1% of firearms will
ever be used in a crime. Guncontrol will actively penalise everyone

**Penalise? Nope. The only people penalised by Australian gun control laws
are criminals. Law abiding gun owners are not affected.

in order
to prevent less than 1% of crime (and, given that a knife or a lead pipe
will suffice for a LOT of crime, that 'less than 1% of crime' figure is
inflated). That's all crime where a firearm would've been used or merely
displayed in order to intimidate.

Now that's in the U.S. I suspect that similar can be said about most
other places on this planet -- except Australia.

**NOpe. YOU seem to forget that Australian gun control laws are pretty
similar to those in all the other Western, developed nations, except
one -
The USA.

There you go again with the "western, developed nations."

**Well, you know; That apples and apples thing.

Interesting thought: Might it be that the 'undeveloped nations' with such
high rates of criminal activity in spite of also having extremely strict
guncontrol are third world nations *in part* BECAUSE they have strict

**I doubt it. For several reasons:
* Poverty is a major contributor to violent crimes.
* Poverty stricken people cannot afford guns. Particularly in those nations
where gun are tightly restricted, because the cost is so high.

I'm refering to the mindset such legislative bushwa instills
into those who must live under those systems.

Those that rise to power think of those under them as ..well, serfs
(for want of a better term), and the 'serfs' think of themselves as
defenseless against any kind of assault at all except for their own
strength (which, of course, they ARE). Since this has always been that
it's taken for granted that it WILL always be that way. And guess what? It
IS always that way, for as EVERYONE KNOWS, guns are the root of all evil
the world

**Nope. They're not. Stupid, lax, haphazard gun control laws will exacerbate
the problem though.

-- so that's why only the polititians have them and why the serfs
(and the Australians) can't be *trusted* with them.

**For the record: Guns are available to virtually any law abiding Australian
citizen, contrary to what you clearly believe.

Those serfs are the people who, in spite of their nations' being
possessed of vast wealth and resources, etc, continue to be stepped on by
anyone who comes along including the polititians who rise from their own
ranks and their nations continue to be dismissed as just another 3rd world

Well, it's only a thought and I'm NOT saying it's the whole answer.
I'm also not saying that arming everyman in a given 3rd world nation would
help. I'm merely putting the thought that extreme, preemptive guncontrol
laws may tend to affect the way people think about themselves and thus
affect the ..ah, status, their nation has. I'd like yours (and anyone

**No. You are wrong. You need to understand the cost structures involved.
Let's, for the moment, restrict the discussion to handguns, because long
arms are rarely a weapon used in homicide. A cheap handgun in the US costs
(say) US$30.00. Due to the tough gun control laws in Australia, the same gun
is approximately US$250.00 in Australia. In the UK, the cost is higher
still. In Japan, much higher still. Now, US$250.00 is no big deal for most
(working, non drug addicted) Aussies. A day or two's work. However, in the
Third World shitholes, you mentioned, it is a VERY different matter.

In Rwanda, Eritrea and a bunch of other places, a handgun costs
significantly more than the yearly income of the average person. A gun would
be the last purchase on their mind. A bowl of rice would be the first, most
important purchase.

Trevor Wilson

Posted via a free Usenet account from