"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. 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.

> 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. 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.


> 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.

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.

> to allowing guns freely available like this.

What freely available guns?

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

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?

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.

>
>
>> 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.

>
> 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. 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).
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.
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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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?

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...

> You are in breach of the terms for this group (aus.sport.shooting) which
> does not allow political comment.
>
The OP is posting under the name of Peter Lucus. It is not Peter Lucus.
This person's goal is to besmirch the name of Peter Lucus.
He posts to many groups with outrageous content in the name of Peter Lucus.
Just killfile him.

Tom