Right to Bear Arms

[Walker]

True, or false?

http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm

Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

[Arising_uk]

]Cue the moron who says compared with that many deaths, massacre deaths are few, so what’s the hubbub?

But I didn't say that did I numbnuts. I said that you have the perfect right to kill, one way or another, 33,000 of your citizens through gun ownership and it's your own business. I said that given you kill 35,000 per year through car ownership the first figure is of no surprise.

[Walker]

]Cue the moron who says compared with that many deaths, massacre deaths are few, so what’s the hubbub?

But I didn't say that did I numbnuts. I said that you have the perfect right to kill, one way or another, 33,000 of your citizens through gun ownership and it's your own business. I said that given you kill 35,000 per year through car ownership the first figure is of no surprise.

Same principle, different labels and numbers.

[Arising_uk]

True, or false?

False.

"The American National Rifle Association claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws. Then federal Attorney General Daryl Williams wrote to the NRA to protest."

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent ...

What was the original number and how do these figures compare to past years?

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

What type of assaults and where are the statistics making the correlation?

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

44% of what?

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. ...

300% of what?

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.[/i]

All supposition as the facts are that no-one has made any good statistical studies to confirm or refute the effectiveness or not of this law. Statistics eh!

What is a fact is that over here we have no easy gun ownership and we have about 160 times less gun killings(of all types) than the US which only has a population six times larger. No idea how that happens?

[Arising_uk]

Same principle, different labels and numbers.

The principle being? As I thought it that to give guns to idiots who can't drive is a bad idea.

[Walker]

No idea how that happens?

True to form.

Yes, I do have ideas how that happens.

You may not be surprised to know that it involves the consequences of idiotic Progressive policies.

The principle is that morons use numbers rather than life as the measure of all things.

[Arising_uk]

Yes, I do have ideas how that happens.

You may not be surprised to know that it involves the consequences of idiotic Progressive policies.

As if America has 'progressive' policies.

The principle is that morons use numbers rather than life as the measure of all things.

LMFAO! Oh the irony!! Given the link you just posted.

[Walker]

LMFAO! Oh the irony!! Given the link you just posted.

True to form, and proof that the shoe fits.

The question was asked if the statements were true or false, for the purposes of enriching discussion.

You voiced your observations, which are really just stalling, since you only addressed methodology.

Maybe someone who actually knows something about the subject will speak up.

I'll lighten asshole to sophomoric, and petty.

[Walker]

As if America has 'progressive' policies.

The Great Society, Chuckles.

[Arising_uk]

The question was asked if the statements were true or false, for the purposes of enriching discussion.

You voiced your observations, which are really just stalling, since you only addressed methodology. ...

No, I pointed out that the governor general of Australia complained about the inaccuracy of your NRA propaganda.

Maybe someone who actually knows something about the subject will speak up.

Just do a wiki and you'll see that no-one has done accurate studies that confirm or refute any correlation or causation in your NRA assertions, that's why methodology is important when considering statistics as is providing the contextual numbers and not providing them is pretty much always evidence of an agenda rather than anything else.

I'll lighten asshole to sophomoric, and petty.

What have donkey's anuses got to do with anything?

[Arising_uk]

The Great Society, Chuckles.

I thought them right-wing democrats?
p.s.
Still nice of you to confirm that right-wing republicans are not interested in eliminating poverty and racial injustice. But again no surprise there as how on earth in a consumer capitalist system would you be able to value yourself against others.

[Walker]

The Great Society, Chuckles.

I thought them right-wing democrats?
p.s.
Still nice of you to confirm that right-wing republicans are not interested in eliminating poverty and racial injustice. But again no surprise there as how on earth in a consumer capitalist system would you be able to value yourself against others.

False.

You speak of intentions only, and wrongly deny Republicans those intentions.

Underhanded. Let me guess. You're a Progressive.

[Arising_uk]

False.

You speak of intentions only, and wrongly deny Republicans those intentions.

So you're progressive then?

[Walker]

False.

You speak of intentions only, and wrongly deny Republicans those intentions.

So you're progressive then?

Idiot.

[Arising_uk]

So how would you achieve such goals non-progressively?