NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought it was the jets of flammable petrol being sprayed above.

Well, that too.

Come on in, it's toasty warm here!

But gun threads bring out the worst in me...

Gun nuts irritate me to no end.

But gun threads bring out the worst in me...

Gun nuts irritate me to no end.

How about a thread about the Cheesy Religion (defined by the trinity of Ched, Chesus and the Chessiah)?

Or perhaps just about normal cheese...

How about a thread about the Cheesy Religion (defined by the trinity of Ched, Chesus and the Chessiah)?

Or perhaps just about normal cheese...

That sounds rather fun actually.

That sounds rather fun actually.

Come and revel in Their glory: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12637399

Well I am part of the gun control group. Oversight and heavy regulation of all firearms, including millitary weapons, is the way to go. It will serve as a reminder for the government to not rely on private storage groups and have better inventory keeping practices.

There is heavy regulation of military weapons, and regulation of civilian weapons simply doesn't work (if your aim is to increase public safety). The problem in the military is corruption. In other countries, the problem can also be political problems (there have for example, been inside thefts in the US military by IRA sympathisers).

Anyway we don't have much need in expanding the millitary, only replacing aging equipment. Unfortunately we seem to be expanding a bit.

You didn't understand me, I am talking about the physical security of military installations and equipment.

Like I said: theft. Inside theft, and its begs another question to the gun control fanatics: how do gun laws prevent corruption in the various security forces.
They don't, really, but the fact that a tiny, tiny proportion of weapons were "stolen" - realistically, we gave Ulster forces their weapons so that the problem would hopefully sort itself out on both sides and said that they were stolen so as to avoid a media coup.
Even the government admits that theft goes on.
Oh no. 21 weapons, mainly L1A1s by the sound of it, were nicked, between 1987 and 1997 and not given back.

Bloody hell... it's a wonder the whole of the population of the UK wasn't annihilated with such an arsenal.

In fact, I'm willing to bet quite happily that most of those weapons will have been put out of action by the IRA / Ulster forces who had them remaining, in line with the disarmament that's been going on in the last five or so years.
Also, the blithering that Yootopia has done about the PIRA's sources of arms begs yet another question: why did the strict gun laws not prevent any of that.

Bear in mind that the weapons favoured by the PIRA (SMG's, automatic rifles) have been illegal in Britain for decades, and not offered for routine civilian sale.
Because they will have been brought into the ROI, which the UK doesn't (and didn't back in the times of The Troubles) have any legal juristiction over, and then distributed to IRA members when we couldn't do anything about them.
And gun laws have gone from extremely strict, to downright tyrannical in that time.
Yeah. Our country's still not at all filled with guns, though, in the slightest, and as has been said, it's gone from one tiny fraction to two tiny fractions of your gun crime total, plus we've got ongoing efforts to reduce gun crime and the total's probably going to fall still lower what with Trident going on and all.

And the amount of murders with weapons in the US is just the amount of murders - we've not even taken the amount killed when they break into / go relatively near to peoples' houses, which might not be a huge amount, to be fair, but it's doubtless larger than the amount of people killed per year in the UK x 5 via guns.




PS I'm sorry to everyone who's tired of the futile bickering, but I really don't have much to do at this point in time, so I thought I'd just make a quick post and all.

They don't, really, but the fact that a tiny, tiny proportion of weapons were "stolen" - realistically, we gave Ulster forces their weapons so that the problem would hopefully sort itself out on both sides and said that they were stolen so as to avoid a media coup.

Who is talking about Ulster exclusively? It happens everywhere (except Switzerland, I suppose)

Because they will have been brought into the ROI, which the UK doesn't (and didn't back in the times of The Troubles) have any legal juristiction over, and then distributed to IRA members when we couldn't do anything about them.

Sorry, not an adequeate argument. The UK has jurisdiction over the Ulster/ROI border. If something is illegal in the UK, it should not be in the UK, and should not be brought into the UK.

Gun laws failed to keep weapons from crossing international borders illegally.

Now, the gun fanatics only solution is to take weapons away from the law abiding citizenry, not to have more border policing, or improved official accountability, or improved physical security of government installations.

Now, the gun fanatics only solution is to take weapons away from the law abiding citizenry, not to have more border policing, or improved official accountability, or improved physical security of government installations.
Yeah. That's the only solution they're thinking of. It's not like anybody is ever concerned with cross-border crime and gunrunning nor have established anything like a Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html) at the UN...

Andit's not like they're concerned about
* Illicit brokering
* Weapons left over from conflicts
* Illicit manufacturing
* Leakages from military and police stockpiles
* Smuggling
* Theft

So no, it's not like multiple routes are being explored to try to crack down on gun violence.

:rolleyes:

Gun laws failed to keep weapons from crossing international borders illegally.

So I suppose tougher guns laws are needed? Just like the drugs are completely stopped when tougher laws are passed.Just because it is Illegal doesn't mean that it will stop, look at the prohibition of alchol.

If the UN program runs like the other UN programs have run, I fully expect a shipment of AK-47s to arrive at my door, with ammunition and a manual translated into English with nice little colour pictures, followed by a shipment of US Government marked M-16's.

So I suppose tougher guns laws are needed? Just like the drugs are completely stopped when tougher laws are passed.Just because it is Illegal doesn't mean that it will stop, look at the prohibition of alchol.

That has been my point the entire time. Gun laws don't fracking work.

If the UN program runs like the other UN programs have run, I fully expect a shipment of AK-47s to arrive at my door, with ammunition and a manual translated into English with nice little colour pictures, followed by a shipment of US Government marked M-16's.
Funny, that's not what happened to smallpox when the UN started a programme to stamp that out.

That has been my point the entire time. Gun laws don't fracking work.
You don't have a point. You're confusing the two. Gun laws may work, but not by themselves. No laws work by themselves. They need to be enforced and aided by other things, like in this case - better customs and border control and international cooperation to stop smuggling. Gun control laws will never eradicate gun violence (only a complete gun ban would have hopes of accomplishing that) but it may - and seems to - significantly reduce gun violence by reducing accessability to guns!

But no, all you can do is say that they don't work - without proving it (especially for Australia) - and then offer no solutions on how to reduce gun violence at all.

If the UN program runs like the other UN programs have run, I fully expect a shipment of AK-47s to arrive at my door, with ammunition and a manual translated into English with nice little colour pictures, followed by a shipment of US Government marked M-16's.


Hey, if that happens, can I have an M-16? :D One with a 20" barrel would be great, since my AR-15 has a 16" barrel (I like variety).

Funny, that's not what happened to smallpox when the UN started a programme to stamp that out.

If the small pox programme was administered like the current gun laws are (plea bargaining etc) then I would imagine the world population would be half or less than what it is currently.

If the small pox programme was administered like the current gun laws are (plea bargaining etc) then I would imagine the world population would be half or less than what it is currently.

a) And the UN has got nothing to do with that.
b) Maybe with a US-centric viewpoint

You don't have a point. You're confusing the two. Gun laws may work, but not by themselves.

They do not attack the source of the problem. They attack the least problematic, and arguably the most beneficial aspect of firearms in society, namely their use in recreation and self-defence.

But no, all you can do is say that they don't work - without proving it (especially for Australia) - and then offer no solutions on how to reduce gun violence at all.

If a law to attack a problem does not attack the actual source of that problem, then it is a bad law.

It would be like drug laws that did nothing but place more regulations of pharmacies, doctors, and patients.

The gun control fanatics don't offer solutions, all they offer is a way to make the problem worse. It has taken about 18 pages for you to actually get to advocate strengthening border control measures, after I have dropped large hints in almost every post I make. That is the problem with gun control freaks, they see every problem like a nail, which can only ever be attacked by a hammer. Every "solution" the gun control fanatics have advocated has been a failure.

Solutions: The problem of criminals getting guns has proven basically impossible to solve. Drug laws and prohibition should have taught us this lesson. The real problem with firearms is not that criminals have them, but that ordinary people don't have them. Consider it: the state is fine, it is armed to the teeth; the criminals too, armed to the teeth; the only ones struggling by without weapons are the bulk of the law abiding population, and they are the ones against whom the criminals perpetrate their violence.

Widespread civilian carriage of firearms also confers a positive externality, because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.

Funny, that's not what happened to smallpox when the UN started a programme to stamp that out.

Wow, you found a single UN program that worked (against all those that haven't), that hardly makes a case that the UN is an effective organisation.

They do not attack the source of the problem. They attack the least problematic, and arguably the most beneficial aspect of firearms in society, namely their use in recreation and self-defence.
They attack a source of the problem, namely the accessability. With easy access to guns, guns will be used more frequently in crimes. That's what gun control laws adress.

If a law to attack a problem does not attack the actual source of that problem, then it is a bad law.
Then gun control laws aren't necessarily bad laws, as they attack a source then...

It would be like drug laws that did nothing but place more regulations of pharmacies, doctors, and patients.
And it's working. Pharmacies and doctors cannot give out just any drugs to any patient. As is evident by the fact that you don't get heroin over the counter at pharmacies.

The gun control fanatics don't offer solutions, all they offer is a way to make the problem worse. It has taken about 18 pages for you to actually get to advocate strengthening border control measures, after I have dropped large hints in almost every post I make. That is the problem with gun control freaks, they see every problem like a nail, which can only ever be attacked by a hammer. Every "solution" the gun control fanatics have advocated has been a failure.
It is a solution, though it's a controversial one - and that's what this thread is about. I doubt you'll find any serious poster here who does not believe that border control should be strengthened to stop the smuggling and trade in illegal guns. And as such, it's a moot point. And it's a distraction too, as the cross-border trade in illegal guns will only be a top priority problem in countries where gun control laws are in place and working.

And if every solution gun control fanatics have advocated has been a failure, I would expect you to offer up evidence - as you so far have not done that at all.

Solutions: The problem of criminals getting guns has proven basically impossible to solve. Drug laws and prohibition should have taught us this lesson. The real problem with firearms is not that criminals have them, but that ordinary people don't have them. Consider it: the state is fine, it is armed to the teeth; the criminals too, armed to the teeth; the only ones struggling by without weapons are the bulk of the law abiding population, and they are the ones against whom the criminals perpetrate their violence.
*Yawns*

And the relevance to gun control is...?

Widespread civilian carriage of firearms also confers a positive externality, because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.
*Yawns again*

And it makes sure that the criminals have access to guns and it causes an escalation in the area of crime - since the victim may be armed, it's better to shoot him than to hold him up.

Arming the populace is an even less magical cure than you seem to believe that "gun control fanatics" believe that gun control is.

Wow, you found a single UN program that worked (against all those that haven't), that hardly makes a case that the UN is an effective organisation.
And you have found none that didn't work. So far, I'm up one while you, as usual, fail to back up anything you say and instead just rant on and on.

They attack a source of the problem, namely the accessability. With easy access to guns, guns will be used more frequently in crimes. That's what gun control laws adress.

No, they do not address the routes of access criminals use.

And it's working. Pharmacies and doctors cannot give out just any drugs to any patient. As is evident by the fact that you don't get heroin over the counter at pharmacies.

No, they just go to a street dealer. Soooo effective.

It is a solution, though it's a controversial one - and that's what this thread is about.

It is not a solution, because it does not solve the problem.

And the relevance to gun control is...?

Gun control is disarming only those who don't need to be disarmed, while leaving the criminals well armed.

And it makes sure that the criminals have access to guns and it causes an escalation in the area of crime - since the victim may be armed, it's better to shoot him than to hold him up.

The criminals already have access to guns, and the results from the areas that have introduced CCW legislation do not bear out your conclusion.

And you have found none that didn't work. So far, I'm up one while you, as usual, fail to back up anything you say and instead just rant on and on.

I don't have to prove that the UN is ineffective, you have to prove that the UN is effective in small arms control and can be effective.

The burden of proof is yours, to show that gun control laws can be effective in disarming criminals (you have not met this burden, you have merely argued by assertion), and that the UN can be effective (you have merely mentioned the existance of a UN program, and not shown that this program in particular is effective, or that the UN in general is effective).

No, they do not address the routes of access criminals use.
"Memememem I have my finges in my ears!"

Yes, they do. Reduced access to guns remember? Less theft, less legal guns sold on the black marked? Less guns used in anger?

No, they just go to a street dealer. Soooo effective.
So you believe that the legalislation against drugs do not stop a single person from getting their hands on it? Interesting... Would there be less drug use if no drugs were illegal?


It is not a solution, because it does not solve the problem.
If the problem is people getting their hands on guns and using it for criminal purposes, then yes, it does indeed go some way to reduce that problem.

How would "no gun control" in any way reduce the problem og "Criminals getting their hands on guns"?

Gun control is disarming only those who don't need to be disarmed, while leaving the criminals well armed.
Not true.

The criminals already have access to guns, and the results from the areas that have introduced CCW legislation do not bear out your conclusion.
Nor does it prove conclusively that conceal carry reduce gun violence or even crime. Arming the populace is one way to go, but I still fear the long-term consequencs.

I don't have to prove that the UN is ineffective, you have to prove that the UN is effective in small arms control and can be effective.

The burden of proof is yours, to show that gun control laws can be effective in disarming criminals (you have not met this burden, you have merely argued by assertion), and that the UN can be effective (you have merely mentioned the existance of a UN program, and not shown that this program in particular is effective, or that the UN in general is effective).
No, you are quite mistaken. I only stated that there were action being taken, that there were a program aimed at fighting cross-border smuggling of weapons. You, however, took it upon yourself to claim that the UN is ineffective. Thus, the burden of proof lies on YOU, as it was you who made the statement concerning the efficiency of the UN. I even extended you the curtecy of showing you one single UN programme that was efficient, and I'm still waiting for your conclusive evidence that the trend among UN programs is, well, failure.

And the burden of proof is also on you concerning gun control laws in general. You say they "don't fracking work", I say they seem to work in Australia and Scandinavia - and then I await your conclusive evidence concerning that statement as well. So far, you've failed completely.

Apparantly, in the UK, you can own a tank with an operating smoothbore 120mm gun on a shotgun licence!:D

Yes, they do. Reduced access to guns remember? Less theft, less legal guns sold on the black marked? Less guns used in anger?

Firstly, theft is not the main source of blackmarket firearms, secondly, most gun laws don't address storage, thirdly, they don't address theft from government armouries.

If a law leave the main part of the problem unaddressed, it is a bad law.

So you believe that the legalislation against drugs do not stop a single person from getting their hands on it? Interesting... Would there be less drug use if no drugs were illegal?

From the evidence, it hasn't. The war on drugs has made drugs more widespread, cheaper, and more dangerous.

A law restricting pharmacists, doctors, and patients would not make a dent in the existing drug problem, and the equivalent solution for guns hasn't worked.

If the problem is people getting their hands on guns and using it for criminal purposes, then yes, it does indeed go some way to reduce that problem.

No it doesn't. The majority of criminals do not source their arms from legal sources.

Nor does it prove conclusively that conceal carry reduce gun violence or even crime. Arming the populace is one way to go, but I still fear the long-term consequencs.

I will say it clearly, the only people armed by CCW legislation are those not causing the problem. Those causing the problem are already armed to the teeth.

Not true.

Bollocks.

A lot of the most prominent crimes committed with guns were committed by people who neglected legal niceties in acquiring their weapons, or got through because those employed to enforce the law weren't doing their jobs.

No, you are quite mistaken. I only stated that there were action being taken, that there were a program aimed at fighting cross-border smuggling of weapons. You, however, took it upon yourself to claim that the UN is ineffective.

And its history bears me out, besides, mentioning the UN program implies that you believe that it has been/will be effective in reducing arms smuggling.

Now, the history of UN, and UN-mandated initiatives in reducing smuggling of arms have not been effective. These programs have addressed more substantial arms, such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as conventional weapons in certain situations (Iran-Iraq War), and these have not been effective, indeed, Iraq managed to acquire arms all through the war, and during the times that the US and Israel were willing to supply Iran with arms, they were not stopped by the UN.

Now, if the UN cannot stop the smuggling of nuclear technology, tanks, missiles, planes, and artillery, how the heck are they going to stop smuggling of small arms.

they seem to work in Australia

The only measure by which the gun laws have worked in Australia is that we have not had a mass shooting in 11 years. That is like saying "I have been in good health for the last 11 years because I didn't lose any limbs."

The fact is that violent crime, including gun crime, has been increasing in Australia (the murder rate has been going down, but other violent crimes are increasing). Also, Australia's gun laws have not helped keep Army rocket launchers out of the hands of bikies.

if you have gun youre off to a good foot. And even if guns were illlegal crimanals can just make a zip gun shop class.

The fact is that violent crime, including gun crime, has been increasing in Australia (the murder rate has been going down, but other violent crimes are increasing). Also, Australia's gun laws have not helped keep Army rocket launchers out of the hands of bikies.

You do realise that it was only about 7 rpgs don't you?They aren't going to go to bikies and the reason they (whoever has them now) were able to 'aquire' them was due to poor inventory security and management.

Firstly, theft is not the main source of blackmarket firearms
Nonetheless, the black market is illicit. Laws cover that area.

secondly, most gun laws don't address storage,
"Most", eh? So some do? Thus not a fatal flaw where gun control legislation is concerned.
thirdly, they don't address theft from government armouries.
Theft is illegal. Laws cover that area. Not a gun control issue, as that's concerning the legal market.

If a law leave the main part of the problem unaddressed, it is a bad law.
No, it's not - and no, it doesn't. We need many laws, gun control laws would be but a part in the legislative complex.

From the evidence, it hasn't. The war on drugs has made drugs more widespread, cheaper, and more dangerous.
Then provide such evidence.

A law restricting pharmacists, doctors, and patients would not make a dent in the existing drug problem, and the equivalent solution for guns hasn't worked.
Back this up.

No it doesn't. The majority of criminals do not source their arms from legal sources.
Read my post again. You're commenting on something other than what I wrote.
*Snip rest of post*
Frankly, why bother, when you don't back up anything, don't source anything, and don't provide proof of anything.

Prove that gun control laws "don't fracking work", or we are done here. And not to worry, you've got the whole world to grab evidence from, so it shouldn't be difficult if they well and truly don't ever work.

Nonetheless, the black market is illicit. Laws cover that area.

Are you that naive? It is not a question of law, it is a question of policing, and police historically have not been able to stop black markets. Look at drugs, look at alcohol during prohibition, and look at the black market in guns now. The police aren't doing the job.

"Most", eh? So some do? Thus not a fatal flaw where gun control legislation is concerned.

It is a tiny aspect of the law, and it does not make the case for the whole set of laws.

Theft is illegal. Laws cover that area. Not a gun control issue, as that's concerning the legal market.

Its not a question of law, it is a question of integrity, physical security, and policing.

We need many laws, gun control laws would be but a part in the legislative complex.

No, you have not made that case. You have asserted that gun control laws are effective, and necessary. You have made no logical argument to prove the case that they are necessary, and you have shown no evidence that they are effective.

I remind you that the burden of proof is yours, to prove that these initiatives are succeeding.

Read my post again. You're commenting on something other than what I wrote.

You said the problem was criminals getting their hands on guns for criminal purposes, and the solution you propose does not address the main sources criminals use.

Prove that gun control laws "don't fracking work", or we are done here. And not to worry, you've got the whole world to grab evidence from, so it shouldn't be difficult if they well and truly don't ever work.

You are the one with the burden of proof. You are the one arguing that these laws are necessary, and effective. All you have done is assert that they are necessary and effective, you have not attempted to make any such case, all you have done is insist that I take your assertions as immutable facts.

Firstly, theft is not the main source of blackmarket firearms,
What is the main source of "blackmarket firearms"?

secondly, most gun laws don't address storage,
Which is the main reason why more than $93,487,243 worth of firearms were stolen in 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_24.html)? Gun owners are not storing their firearms in a safe place?

thirdly, they don't address theft from government armouries.
As noted earlier there are laws addressing theft of government property?

The majority of criminals do not source their arms from legal sources.
Where do they acquire them???

Those causing the problem are already armed to the teeth.
How so? Please prove this.

A lot of the most prominent crimes committed with guns were committed by people who neglected legal niceties in acquiring their weapons,
Again, where did they acquire their guns?

or got through because those employed to enforce the law weren't doing their jobs.
Almost $100 million in stolen firearms in 2005 and you want to blame the police for not doing their job? Nice one!!

At any rate, I would love to see your source(s) for your above points.

Which is the main reason why more than $93,487,243 worth of firearms were stolen in 2005? Gun owners are not storing their firearms in a safe place?

The question here is whether or not those gun owners are compliant with the regulations. According to the Security Industry Association (in Australia), most thefts from security companies occur in companies in which all regulations are being followed.

As noted earlier there are laws addressing theft of government property?

Do I have to repeat myself. It is not a question of law, it is a question of physical security, integrity of personnel, and police investigation after the fact.

Where do they acquire them???

If you don't want to bother reading, don't post, but just for your benefit, according to an article I posted long before, street dealers are the major source.

At any rate, I would love to see your source(s) for your above points.

Then read the bloody thread.

Are you that naive? It is not a question of law, it is a question of policing, and police historically have not been able to stop black markets. Look at drugs, look at alcohol during prohibition, and look at the black market in guns now. The police aren't doing the job.
So completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand, I agree. Gun control laws do not concern themselves with illegal smuggling; anti-smuggling laws does.


It is a tiny aspect of the law, and it does not make the case for the whole set of laws.
Yet it's important enough as it deflates your entire argument.


Its not a question of law, it is a question of integrity, physical security, and policing.
And thusly, irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

No, you have not made that case. You have asserted that gun control laws are effective, and necessary. You have made no logical argument to prove the case that they are necessary, and you have shown no evidence that they are effective.
All I've said is that the Scandinavian countries and Australia have strict laws and a low rate of gun crime (compare Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 for the US (3.6) with Australia (0.3073) and the Murder rate per capita (per 100,000 people) in Denmark and (1.06775 ) Norway (1.06684)) is an indication that those laws are working.
Source 1 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop) Source 2 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)

But don't take just my word for it:
Stricter gun controls implemented after the world's worst shooting massacre 11 years ago may have saved 2500 lives, Australian researchers said on Monday.
The Australian National University's Andrew Leigh told Australia's ABC Radio that Howard's policy had saved between 120 and 280 lives a year and that the buy-back had paid for itself many times over in simple economic terms.

"Even if we take the bottom level of that and take the standard estimate that economists put on the value of a statistical life - AUS$2,5-million - then that suggests to us that the buy- back paid for itself in the first two years," the Canberra researcher said.

Leigh said the statistics showed that gun-deaths had not been replaced by intentional deaths by others means.

"The fact that overall violent deaths have fallen since 1996 ... strongly suggests there has not been substantial method substitution," he said.

Leigh's conclusion bears out a similar finding by Sydney University's Simon Chapman. His study shows deaths from firearms have halved since Bryant was locked away in Hobart's Risdon Prison - and there have been no mass killings since the buy-back.

"The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides," Chapman said after the shootings in the US.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=2024&art_id=nw20070423092103299C688294


I remind you that the burden of proof is yours, to prove that these initiatives are succeeding.
No, it wasn't - bacause if you look back, it was you that made the (unfounded) statement that gun control laws "don't fricking work" which I attacked - and you've yet to back that up in any way.


You are the one with the burden of proof. You are the one arguing that these laws are necessary, and effective. All you have done is assert that they are necessary and effective, you have not attempted to make any such case, all you have done is insist that I take your assertions as immutable facts.
Because you're wrong again; the burden of proof lies on you since you stated bluntly that gun control laws don't work.

Above I've shown you some statistics. Now it's your last time to put up or shut up: Prove that gun control laws don't fricking work, as you claim! Explain how the strict gun control laws in the above-mentioned countries have no effect yet the countries in question have a low rate of (gun) crime. And back that explanation up.

So completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand, I agree. Gun control laws do not concern themselves with illegal smuggling; anti-smuggling laws does.

This is more revealing than you might realise. You don't see gun control as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. You don't seem to get that the overall goal here is to increase public safety. You insist that I take it as given that gun control will increase public safety, even though you have consistantly refused to prove that.

Yet it's important enough as it deflates your entire argument.

Its not important at all.

And thusly, irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

No, the goal here is to increase public safety. All factors that lead to the arming of criminals are relevant.

The question is whether or not gun control laws create any benefit to public safety, and if they do, is the benefit sufficient to outweight the costs.

All I've said is that the Scandinavian countries and Australia have strict laws and a low rate of gun crime (compare Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 for the US (3.6) with Australia (0.3073) and the Murder rate per capita (per 100,000 people) in Denmark and (1.06775 ) Norway (1.06684)) is an indication that those laws are working.

I have already shown the stats for Washington DC, which has more strict gun laws than Scandanavia and Australia, and is surrounded by Maryland (with strict laws also), Washington DC has the highest rate of violent crime in the US, and in Australia, other violent crimes have been increasing. This is also the case in Canada and the UK.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html

No, it wasn't - bacause if you look back, it was you that made the (unfounded) statement that gun control laws "don't fricking work" which I attacked - and you've yet to back that up in any way.

You are presenting a case that gun laws are necessary and effective. All you have done in defence of this case is make more and more assertions.

Explain how the strict gun control laws in the above-mentioned countries have no effect yet the countries in question have a low rate of (gun) crime.

Considering the previous posts of this thread, this is either an example of ignorance or dishonesty on your part. Gun control fanatics love talking about Scandanavia and Japan, but hate talking about the District of Colombia, or the UK.

*Snip*
You fail to understand my post.

You fail to adress the point that even if gun control laws don't work somewhere they might work someplace else.

You fail to explain Scandanavia and Japan, which "Gun control fanatics love talking about", and the decline in gun crime - and homicide - in Australia.

You fail to explain how current gun control laws in the US - like the ones prohibiting criminals from buying guns - don't work at all and how the society would be better without said laws.

In short: You fail to back up or prove your bombastic claim that gun control laws "don't fricking work".

Time's up, and we're done here.

[/Thread]

Lots of stolen firearms coming from the police:

http://www.examiner.com/a-695624~Audit__County_police_firearms_not_safeguarded.html?cid=rss-Baltimore
http://www.nbc5.com/news/11113626/detail.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/682/story/506115.html
http://www.fmpolice.com/inside/releases2002/rel_121702.htm
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5501442,00.html
http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/24/news/story06.html

Maybe the police have an idea on how to stop this:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070410_Letters___One_Readers_View.html
http://bp2.blogger.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/Rf_hssIHoII/AAAAAAAAAKk/wlvR8lwcgwk/s1600-h/Dr+Form+Inquiry1166.jpg

The question here is whether or not those gun owners are compliant with the regulations. According to the Security Industry Association (in Australia), most thefts from security companies occur in companies in which all regulations are being followed.

Do I have to repeat myself. It is not a question of law, it is a question of physical security, integrity of personnel, and police investigation after the fact.

If you don't want to bother reading, don't post, but just for your benefit, according to an article I posted long before, street dealers are the major source.

Then read the bloody thread.
As usual, you make a pile of statements/claims, that when challenged about their source, you either evade the question or go off in a completely different tangent.

What do firearm thefts in the US have to do with your reference to Australia?

Now......please try again:

Quote: Originally Posted by Mesoriya
Firstly, theft is not the main source of blackmarket firearms,
What is the main source of "blackmarket firearms"?

Quote: Originally Posted by Mesoriya
secondly, most gun laws don't address storage,
Which is the main reason why more than $93,487,243 worth of firearms were stolen in 2005? Gun owners are not storing their firearms in a safe place?


Quote:Originally Posted by Mesoriya
thirdly, they don't address theft from government armouries.
As noted earlier there are laws addressing theft of government property?

Quote: Originally Posted by Mesoriya
The majority of criminals do not source their arms from legal sources.
Where do they acquire them???

Quote: Originally Posted by Mesoriya
Those causing the problem are already armed to the teeth.
How so? Please prove this.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mesoriya
A lot of the most prominent crimes committed with guns were committed by people who neglected legal niceties in acquiring their weapons,
Again, where did they acquire their guns?

Quote: Originally Posted by Mesoriya
or got through because those employed to enforce the law weren't doing their jobs.
Almost $100 million in stolen firearms in 2005 and you want to blame the police for not doing their job? Nice one!!

At any rate, I would love to see your source(s) for your above points.

Lots of stolen firearms coming from the police:

http://www.examiner.com/a-695624~Audit__County_police_firearms_not_safeguarded.html?cid=rss-Baltimore
http://www.nbc5.com/news/11113626/detail.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/682/story/506115.html
http://www.fmpolice.com/inside/releases2002/rel_121702.htm
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5501442,00.html
http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/24/news/story06.html
Small potatoes compared to the overall scheme of things?

$93 MILLION worth of stolen firearms in 2005 alone. That is a lot of fire power that will end up in some criminals hands.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html
I find your "sources" amusing to say the least. Try for something more substantial........please.

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:

1. If we take away guns nobody will have them.
Do you really think that crimminals will obey that law? How many criminals have illegal guns anyway? If the guns are taken away from the criminals do you really think that they won't just make guns? All you need is a barrel, a combustion chamber, a projectile and propelant.

2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

i am a gun owner...and it is a no brainer to me...but...nevermind...some like a nanny state...some dont....the ones that hate inanimate objects project there dislike by accusing the gun owners of being physically challenged and the guns make up for the shortcomings tyhey project,some dont like guns cause people get shot to death....and feel if no guns were paround people would not die from murder..lol...some like guns some dont.it is a pissing in the wind argument,i have guns and have never shot anyone..go figure.in 30 years of ownership...but i guess some teenage gangbnger that cant legally own a gun pops a cap in the other young joc's head makes guns the evil thing..not the rap mentality or the subjugation of women or the other evils of the world..greed...etc..it has to be the gun,the object not the person behind the trigger...but just call me sexually inadequate cause i like guns and i am the asshole..not the people glorifying violence and the subjectifying of women..i am just a hick that likes guns..lol...forget the glorifying of the gangsta life by hollywood,and the incessant bloodbath they call tv desensitising our kids...no..it is the object.

You fail to adress the point that even if gun control laws don't work somewhere they might work someplace else.

No, that is not an argument. There is no logic whatsoever to that argument. With strict gun control laws, we are not talking about extremely wide differences between the strict gun laws of different locations. There are differences of degree, for example, Australia bans semi-automatic long arms, slide action shotguns, and some handguns, while the UK bans all handguns, while Washington DC bans all civil ownership of guns.

Now, if gun control laws worked, logic suggests that the more strict the laws, the greater the effect they would have, but this has not proven to be the case.

You're doing the same thing again, insisting that I accept whatever you say as an immutable fact. You have not made any argument that gun controls work differently in different places (other than differences in strictness), nor have you proven that gun control laws have themselves worked.

Now, one could point to a variety of other factors that lead to the lower rates of violent crime in Scandinavia, but you run straight to gun control without any justification whatsoever, and insist that I accept it without any justification.


You fail to explain Scandanavia and Japan, which "Gun control fanatics love talking about", and the decline in gun crime - and homicide - in Australia.

I don't have to explain it. You have to explain how gun control laws were responsible for it, not just insist that I accept it as given.

Also, Australia has not had a decline in gun crime, or violent crime in general, just a decline in homocide. That trend is decades old.

I have been doing some checking, and Sweden is, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, experiencing a rise in violent crime.

http://english.people.com.cn/200610/29/eng20061029_316071.html

Rape seems to account for a portion of the increase, and there are three gun crimes a day:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09/sweden-steep-rise-in-crime.html

According to the US Department of State,

Violent crime, although rare, occurs and appears to be increasing.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_990.html

More on Norway: http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm

According to this source I posted previously, Denmark is not exempt from the increase in violent crime, with burglaries on the rise: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

This previous source also lists a Danish increase in serious assault and murder, and murder: http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm

Checking into your claims is profitable, because the violent crime rates in the places you hold up as shining examples of gun control are increasing.

You fail to explain how current gun control laws in the US - like the ones prohibiting criminals from buying guns - don't work at all and how the society would be better without said laws.

Lets look at some gun control laws.

Virginia designates universities "gun free zones", and only a few weeks ago, 32 people were murdered by gunfire at Virginia Tech (do I need to show you a link to prove that happened?)

Federal gun laws also prohibit the mentally ill purchasing firearms ("adjudicated as a mental defective"), yet the murderer could buy his firearms. (Again, do I need to show you a link to prove that the Virginia Tech Massacre happened, and that the shooter acquired his firearms illegally?)

Here is another source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Time's up, and we're done here.

I don't respond to adolscent chest thumping, kid.

All you have done is make wild assertions, and insist that I accept every thing you say as an immutable fact. That is not a basis of proof.

What do firearm thefts in the US have to do with your reference to Australia?

We're talking about gun control, not gun control in a particular country.

Which is the main reason why more than $93,487,243 worth of firearms were stolen in 2005? Gun owners are not storing their firearms in a safe place?

As noted earlier there are laws addressing theft of government property?

Where do they acquire them???

Again, where did they acquire their guns?

I've addressed this crap before, if you don't want to read the thread, don't insist that I hold your hand, and direct you through everything.

Now, your remarks on stolen firearms lack the essential proof, i.e. that the victims of the thefts are not following the government's regulations. Now, as I said before, Australian security companies have had thefts, and they are bound by storage regulations,:

But the chief of the Security Industry Association, Terry Murphy, said all the guns stolen over the past few days had been stored and carried in full accordance with the State Government's own guidelines. He said less than 1 per cent of stolen handguns were from security firms. The rest came from sporting shooters or "other sources".

I find your "sources" amusing to say the least. Try for something more substantial........please.

So, you are going to dismiss any source I offer, after insisting that I provide them. I don't respond to trash talk, kid.

We're talking about gun control, not gun control in a particular country.
Ahhhh, the usual song and dance. You make claims, I ask you to prove them or support them and you cannot or refuse to, or as per your above answer you go off on another tangent.

FYI, the OP was definitely referring to gun control in the US. Now either answer the questions I asked or quit pretending that you know what you are talking about.

I've addressed this crap before, if you don't want to read the thread, don't insist that I hold your hand, and direct you through everything.
Ohhh, you have addressed this "crap" before, but it is your "crap" and you fail to support it with any kind of reliable source.

Now, your remarks on stolen firearms lack the essential proof, i.e. that the victims of the thefts are not following the government's regulations.
Again, you are going off on a tangent and ignoring the fact that $93 Million worth of guns were stolen in the US in 2005, and failing to recognize the obvious solutions that are available to curtail gun thefts (http://www.agsfoundation.com/media/AGS-fin.pdf):

Firearm theft rates vary widely between states. The rate of firearm thefts per household is 15 times greater in Alaska than it is in Massachusetts. Firearm theft rates tend to be highest in southern and western states, where both firearm ownership and crime rates are high. In addition, firearm theft rates are far lower in states that have gun storage laws.

Now, as I said before, Australian security companies have had thefts, and they are bound by storage regulations,:
Again, this has nothing to do with the point I raised, and a further avoidance of answering the questions that I asked. You are the artful dodger aren't you?

So, you are going to dismiss any source I offer, after insisting that I provide them. I don't respond to trash talk, kid.
Firstly, I am not a kid. Secondly, look at the links you provided.....one from Wiki that states clearly that the posted material is "not supported", one from a weblog, and one from a pro gun "conservative" writer for NewsMax. I will not "dismiss" any link that is factual or at least supported by factual references.

How long til this gun thread dies?

FYI, the OP was definitely referring to gun control in the US.

So what? Are you afraid of talking about gun control in general?

Ohhh, you have addressed this "crap" before, but it is your "crap" and you fail to support it with any kind of reliable source.

Like most gun control nuts, you dismiss facts you disagree with.

Again, you are going off on a tangent and ignoring the fact that $93 Million worth of guns were stolen in the US in 2005, and failing to recognize the obvious solutions that are available to curtail gun thefts:

Sorry, but the topic is gun control, and storage rules are not general rubbish like "Keep your guns in a safe place", they specify specific storage conditions, they specify the sorts of equipment to be used, and the standards it must reach.

The question with gun thefts is whether or not those stolen from have met the requirements. Now, in the case of New South Wales security firms, the firms stolen from have, according to the Security Industry Association, met those requirements.

Again, this has nothing to do with the point I raised, and a further avoidance of answering the questions that I asked. You are the artful dodger aren't you?

I am not going to confine myself to the boundaries you stipulate. If you want to talk about gun control, then you must talk about in the context of any place, not just the ones you like.

You haven't actually answered the questions I asked about the storage regulations. I don't confine myself to the US when discussing gun control, all places are relevant.

Firstly, I am not a kid. Secondly, look at the links you provided.....one from Wiki that states clearly that the posted material is "not supported", one from a weblog, and one from a pro gun "conservative" writer for NewsMax. I will not "dismiss" any link that is factual or at least supported by factual references.

You act like a kid, thats close enough for me.

The sources I posted are secondary sources, nothing wrong with that. The fact that you don't like guns does not give you license to dismiss out of hand anything from anyone who opposes gun control.

Now, the International Crime Victims Survey, which is cited by the NewsMax article remains unaddressed by you, the links in the Weblog article remain unaddressed by you, the parts of the wiki reporting violent crime increases do have supporting links.

As someone who lives in norway, I felt like i had to comment:
I have been doing some checking, and Sweden is, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, experiencing a rise in violent crime.

http://english.people.com.cn/200610/29/eng20061029_316071.html
Violent crime has increased, but violent gun crime has gone down lately. 6% reduction in gun related murders (59 cases down from 63 in 2005, which was up from 37 in 2004 which was down from 40 in 2003). The numbers are low, so small changes give a big change in %.

Rape seems to account for a portion of the increase, and there are three gun crimes a day:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09/sweden-steep-rise-in-crime.html
I advise you to stay away from using Fjordman-bloggs as evidence, even second-hand. Hes notoriously unreliable and not accurate.

And gun crime is not on the increase... Armed robbery is down, as robberies as a whole is down 9% since last year alone. Still small numbers so small changes make big differences.
http://www.bra.se/extra/measurepoint/?module_instance=5&name=/statistik/10/10La_anm_10_ar.xls&url=/statistik/10/10La_anm_10_ar.xls

According to the US Department of State,


http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_990.html

More on Norway: http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm
The gun control laws Norway have are working well. There are a lot of guns in this country, but a relatively low level of gun crime. 6 people were killed by handguns in 2003.
http://www.ssb.no/emner/03/01/10/dodsarsak/kap-xx-v01-y89.html

And violent crime has increased - per capita its rissen from 5,3 (pper 1000) in 2000 to 5,5 in 2006. Use of firearms have not increased significantly however.

According to this source I posted previously, Denmark is not exempt from the increase in violent crime, with burglaries on the rise: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
I dont understand what burgleries alone has to do with gun control though. Shouldn't you be lookin at armed burglary?


Checking into your claims is profitable, because the violent crime rates in the places you hold up as shining examples of gun control are increasing.
Not a whole lot in Norway tho. And not gun related in Norway or Sweden.



Virginia designates universities "gun free zones", and only a few weeks ago, 32 people were murdered by gunfire at Virginia Tech (do I need to show you a link to prove that happened?)

Federal gun laws also prohibit the mentally ill purchasing firearms ("adjudicated as a mental defective"), yet the murderer could buy his firearms. (Again, do I need to show you a link to prove that the Virginia Tech Massacre happened, and that the shooter acquired his firearms illegally?)
This you should link to, because he did buy those guns legally under state laws didnt he?

Small potatoes compared to the overall scheme of things?

$93 MILLION worth of stolen firearms in 2005 alone. That is a lot of fire power that will end up in some criminals hands.


So why didn't you comment on the police recommendations? Oh, right because they're not blaming the victims of crime.

I guess it's only "small potatoes" if you consider that it's the police having firearms stolen yet they're the ones who are supposed to be "responsible" w/ them and the fact that those are only a few of the instances.

As someone who lives in norway, I felt like i had to comment:

Fiar enough, however you have not shown that it is the gun laws that are responsible for this, nor has anyone else shown this.

This is the biggest flaw in the anti-gun nuts' argument, their unwillingness to provide a causal link between gun laws and a more peaceful society, they merely insist that everyone accept the argument as given.

This is wrong, and dishonest. Take Washington DC as a counter-example, it has some of the most strict gun control laws in the world (a ban on civilian ownership of firearms), and is surrounded by Maryland, with very strict laws also, yet it has the worst violent crime rate in the United States.

Not one of the gun control freaks has addressed this, their only tactic has been to ignore it.

The gun control laws Norway have are working well. There are a lot of guns in this country, but a relatively low level of gun crime. 6 people were killed by handguns in 2003.

You found a correlation. That seems to be all the gun control freaks want us to be satisfied with. What I want is causation.

I advise you to stay away from using Fjordman-bloggs as evidence, even second-hand. Hes notoriously unreliable and not accurate.

Prove it (and your Norwegian passport is not proof).

This you should link to, because he did buy those guns legally under state laws didnt he?

But not under Federal laws (as the Wiki article says). US Federal law makes it illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

How long til this gun thread dies?
It's a gun thread, so never.

This is wrong, and dishonest. Take Washington DC as a counter-example, it has some of the most strict gun control laws in the world (a ban on civilian ownership of firearms), and is surrounded by Maryland, with very strict laws also, yet it has the worst violent crime rate in the United States.

Not one of the gun control freaks has addressed this, their only tactic has been to ignore it.
I addressed it, yet you ignore the response.

You have ignored many requests for proof of your claims. You are the dishonest one here.

So what? Are you afraid of talking about gun control in general?

Like most gun control nuts, you dismiss facts you disagree with.

Sorry, but the topic is gun control, and storage rules are not general rubbish like "Keep your guns in a safe place", they specify specific storage conditions, they specify the sorts of equipment to be used, and the standards it must reach.

The question with gun thefts is whether or not those stolen from have met the requirements. Now, in the case of New South Wales security firms, the firms stolen from have, according to the Security Industry Association, met those requirements.

I am not going to confine myself to the boundaries you stipulate. If you want to talk about gun control, then you must talk about in the context of any place, not just the ones you like.

You haven't actually answered the questions I asked about the storage regulations. I don't confine myself to the US when discussing gun control, all places are relevant.

You act like a kid, thats close enough for me.

The sources I posted are secondary sources, nothing wrong with that. The fact that you don't like guns does not give you license to dismiss out of hand anything from anyone who opposes gun control.

Now, the International Crime Victims Survey, which is cited by the NewsMax article remains unaddressed by you, the links in the Weblog article remain unaddressed by you, the parts of the wiki reporting violent crime increases do have supporting links.
More song and dance. You make claims that you cannot back up factually and try to insult those that have you backed up against the wall.

You have failed miserably trying to make your case. You need to try a little harder and dig a little deeper.

Fiar enough, however you have not shown that it is the gun laws that are responsible for this, nor has anyone else shown this.

This is the biggest flaw in the anti-gun nuts' argument, their unwillingness to provide a causal link between gun laws and a more peaceful society, they merely insist that everyone accept the argument as given.

This is wrong, and dishonest. Take Washington DC as a counter-example, it has some of the most strict gun control laws in the world (a ban on civilian ownership of firearms), and is surrounded by Maryland, with very strict laws also, yet it has the worst violent crime rate in the United States.

Not one of the gun control freaks has addressed this, their only tactic has been to ignore it.



You found a correlation. That seems to be all the gun control freaks want us to be satisfied with. What I want is causation.

Well, the way it goes is that gun control laws reduce the number of guns floating around, and hence there are less guns to commit crimes with, hence less gun crime.

But not under Federal laws (as the Wiki article says). US Federal law makes it illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
Yes, but it's hardly stringent. The VT killer was thought to be mentally defective, but the extent of the mental health examination he went through was ticking a box saying "no I'm not crazy", which is utterly pointless.

So what? Are you afraid of talking about gun control in general?
Why bother anymore? You lost this debate a long time ago, by refusing to answer specific questions related to your claims.....and ya, you said this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615481&postcount=48):

Congratulations!

The penny dropped at last. Gun control tends not to work in free societies.

You have been shuffling your feet ever since!!!

Here is where you have lost this debate:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615481&postcount=48

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12650736&postcount=282

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12647349&postcount=276

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12643236&postcount=267

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12635165&postcount=239

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12627467&postcount=217

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12626740&postcount=215

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12620464&postcount=205

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12616308&postcount=124

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615567&postcount=61

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615542&postcount=54

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615533&postcount=53

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12615493&postcount=51

Well, the way it goes is that gun control laws reduce the number of guns floating around, and hence there are less guns to commit crimes with, hence less gun crime.

As I, and PBS, and CNN said, gun control laws do not attack the main source of guns used by criminals, street dealers.

Yes, but it's hardly stringent. The VT killer was thought to be mentally defective, but the extent of the mental health examination he went through was ticking a box saying "no I'm not crazy", which is utterly pointless.

He was not "thought" mentally defective, he was "adjudicated" mentally defective, which means that this is a court decision, not just some dude saying "I think he's a few beers short of a six pack".

The way the law is supposed to work is that the US Government keeps a database of those who can't buy firearms, but it is the state government is the one that frequently makes that call (usually criminal convictions, because most criminal matters are handled by the state), the state should inform the Federal Government who adds the person in question to the database (or takes him out, depending on the circumstances), and then the gun dealer runs the name of the person attempting to buy against the database.

It didn't happen in Cho's case (obviously).

Why bother anymore? You lost this debate a long time ago, by refusing to answer specific questions related to your claims

I answered, you response was to dismiss everything, and claim that I haven't answered. You haven't answered my questions.

Claiming victory and winning are not the same thing.

I addressed it, yet you ignore the response.

No, you didn't. You just insisted that you didn't want to talk about it.

More song and dance. You make claims that you cannot back up factually and try to insult those that have you backed up against the wall.

No, you don't. Now, you claimed you rebutted my sources, when you have done no such thing, you have simply dismissed them, and you show no evidence of having even read them.

Can you rebut the International Crime Victims Survey?

Can you address the links in the weblog article? (Did you even read them)

Can you show that violent crime rates in Canada have fallen (against the sources cited by the wiki that show an increase)?

I asked you all this before. If you're going to question the use of secondary sources, you have to attack the primary sources on which they are based, not just dismiss the secondaries because you find them disagreeable.

You don't have a real critique of my sources, or you would have answered those questions. Since you just ignored those questions, I can only conclude that your real objection to the sources is that they simply don't agree with you.

I answered, you response was to dismiss everything, and claim that I haven't answered. You haven't answered my questions.
You are the one refusing to back up your claims. And the ones that I may have "dismissed" are due to that they either failed to answer the question or that the links were totally unacceptable.

No, you didn't. You just insisted that you didn't want to talk about it.
A bold faced lie to say the least......

I responded here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12626740&postcount=215), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12635207&postcount=242), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12632802&postcount=224), and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12627467&postcount=217).

And despite all your further ramblings, I have quite clearly indicated where you have made claims to many posters and as yet, you have not proven your case. You have lost this debate many times over (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12654203&postcount=297)!!

I bought an 18-inch barreled wood-furniture Mossberg 500 yesterday.

I also took it to the range, and was able to control it well, shooting a nice, significantly lethal group at ten yards.

You are the one refusing to back up your claims. And the ones that I may have "dismissed" are due to that they either failed to answer the question or that the links were totally unacceptable.

No, you did not make any reasonable argument as to why they were unacceptable.

I will repeat my questions:

Can you rebut the International Crime Victims Survey?

Can you address the links in the weblog article? (Did you even read them)

Can you show that violent crime rates in Canada have fallen (against the sources cited by the wiki that show an increase)?

I responded here, here, here, and here.

The first one was not a response, a single example doesn't disprove my argument.

A short unacceptable link.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/letters/DrUSoped104.pdf

No doubt you will simply accuse him of lying, or being pro-gun, or being Conservative.

The unacceptable Fraser Institute does not agree with you, nor does the unacceptable Washington Times.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030810-103927-3346r.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

The unacceptable Washington Times also reports that in the five years before DC's gun ban, the murder rate was falling, and rose back in the five years after the ban. The murder rate in DC since has always been above the 1976 level.

The unacceptable article linked below from NewsBusters.org has an unacceptable bibliography.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6568

The second link actually supported my argument that gun control doesn't work, because if the guns are illegal, clearly they should not be there. If they are getting there anyway, it shows that the laws are not working.

The third link contained nothing of significance, nor did the fourth. Both were merely dismissals of what I have posted.

I bought an 18-inch barreled wood-furniture Mossberg 500 yesterday.

I also took it to the range, and was able to control it well, shooting a nice, significantly lethal group at ten yards.

Good show! :cool: :D

I bought an 18-inch barreled wood-furniture Mossberg 500 yesterday.

I also took it to the range, and was able to control it well, shooting a nice, significantly lethal group at ten yards.

Pics? :D

No, you did not make any reasonable argument as to why they were unacceptable.

I will repeat my questions:

Can you rebut the International Crime Victims Survey?

Can you address the links in the weblog article? (Did you even read them)

Can you show that violent crime rates in Canada have fallen (against the sources cited by the wiki that show an increase)?

The first one was not a response, a single example doesn't disprove my argument.

A short unacceptable link.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/letters/DrUSoped104.pdf

No doubt you will simply accuse him of lying, or being pro-gun, or being Conservative.

The unacceptable Fraser Institute does not agree with you, nor does the unacceptable Washington Times.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030810-103927-3346r.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

The unacceptable Washington Times also reports that in the five years before DC's gun ban, the murder rate was falling, and rose back in the five years after the ban. The murder rate in DC since has always been above the 1976 level.

The unacceptable article linked below from NewsBusters.org has an unacceptable bibliography.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6568

The second link actually supported my argument that gun control doesn't work, because if the guns are illegal, clearly they should not be there. If they are getting there anyway, it shows that the laws are not working.

The third link contained nothing of significance, nor did the fourth. Both were merely dismissals of what I have posted.
Shakes head.......laughs slightly and reminds Messoriya of his previous failures to prove his claims:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12654203&postcount=297

Nice touch with the Mauser/Lott links. :rolleyes:

Shakes head.......laughs slightly and reminds Messoriya of his previous failures to prove his claims:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12654203&postcount=297

Nice touch with the Mauser/Lott links. :rolleyes:

Mesoriya, you have to understand, this is a typical CH post. You can't argue with him, he just declares victory and struts.

As long as defensive gun uses in this country significantly outnumber the number of gun related deaths/injuries gun ownership is a net positive.

Pretty simple really.

Mesoriya, you have to understand, this is a typical CH post. You can't argue with him, he just declares victory and struts.

Danke.

As long as defensive gun uses in this country significantly outnumber the number of gun related deaths/injuries gun ownership is a net positive.

Pretty simple really.

True.

Mesoriya, you have to understand, this is a typical CH post. You can't argue with him, he just declares victory and struts.
And if you really know me that well, why are you posting with a newbie nation? You are just posturing yourself?

The fact remains that Mesoriya continues to post claims that he cannot or refuses to backup. He cannot win the debate simply by making unsubstantiated claims, or disappearing, or changing topics when confronted.

As long as defensive gun uses in this country significantly outnumber the number of gun related deaths/injuries gun ownership is a net positive.

Pretty simple really.
Now, if you could actually prove the above statement, then we might have something we could debate?