In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:46:57 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


This still brings me back to Australia. They virtually banned guns and
their homicide rate, that was already declining, continued to decline
at the same rate. It is virtually a straight line when averaged out.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...iciderate2.png


Why do you keep that old link? It's laughable.
And what's this crazy talk about guns being "virtually banned?"
Never happened. Aussie gun ownership is about the same as before your
so-called "ban."
That's all NRA and gun nut BS.

There like here, most are acquaintance murders. Will found a way after
the guns were gone.

And bikies too. Guess that's their version of gangbangers.
Hey, anybody can find out what's going on in Australia.
Ever hear of the internet?
http://www.news.com.au/national-news...ring-down-the-
barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325

Australians still kill one another with guns. Violent culture.
Australia has higher assault, rape and burglary rates than the U.S.
Folks in the U.S. appear to be kinder and more law-abiding than Aussies.
Sure, the U.S. gun homicide rate is 4 times greater.
But the U.S. has the NRA and gun nuts who worship guns.
That's what probably accounts for the high U.S. gun homicide rate.
The NRA and gun nuts fighting to make guns available for everyone, and
boosting gun ownership.
It'a mostly PR. They sold a lot of Pet Rocks and Swatches too.
The NRA wants criminals and nut cases to have guns too.
That's why they don't want background checks for all gun sales, or gun
registration. The criminal market is a big piece of gun profits.
Nasty business. Kind of reminds me of the cigarette business.

You do tend to make up a lot of ****, don't you?

Please show what is not true in his above paragraph.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:12:02 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

All handguns should be banned or highly regulated.
Especially to ex-military types... as shown once more they seem to be the most likely group to engage in mass killings in the over 35 age group.

cite that.

The Navy Yard.
Ft. Hood
Robert Lee Yates

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:46:57 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


This still brings me back to Australia. They virtually banned guns and
their homicide rate, that was already declining, continued to decline
at the same rate. It is virtually a straight line when averaged out.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...iciderate2.png


Why do you keep that old link? It's laughable.

It is from the Aussie government. Are you saying they lie?

That chart is old, and could be tracking somebody's cholesterol level.
It's a joke, saying absolutely nothing.

And what's this crazy talk about guns being "virtually banned?"
Never happened. Aussie gun ownership is about the same as before your
so-called "ban."

Cite that.


I'm not Loogy, and you can google. I can guarantee you that getting
that through google will be as easy and definitive as it gets.
That kind of government statistical data is now easy to find.
Unlike your "big bad ADA shut downs successful restaurant" story.
I googled for that, didn't see anything, but didn't give it more than a
few minutes.


So we can stop having to hear about the Australian miracle now. Thanks

Never heard me mention it. In fact, I see mostly gun nuts posting about
it to deny it. Like you do.
All I can ken is the Aussie laws stopped mass murder by firearms.
Australia can't be compared to the U.S. anyway.
Different culture. No 2nd Amendment Holy Book there, no NRA there, and
many fewer gun worshipers.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:39:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:46:57 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


This still brings me back to Australia. They virtually banned guns and
their homicide rate, that was already declining, continued to decline
at the same rate. It is virtually a straight line when averaged out.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...iciderate2.png


Why do you keep that old link? It's laughable.

It is from the Aussie government. Are you saying they lie?

That chart is old, and could be tracking somebody's cholesterol level.
It's a joke, saying absolutely nothing.

And what's this crazy talk about guns being "virtually banned?"
Never happened. Aussie gun ownership is about the same as before your
so-called "ban."

Cite that.


I'm not Loogy, and you can google. I can guarantee you that getting
that through google will be as easy and definitive as it gets.
That kind of government statistical data is now easy to find.
Unlike your "big bad ADA shut downs successful restaurant" story.
I googled for that, didn't see anything, but didn't give it more than a
few minutes.


So we can stop having to hear about the Australian miracle now. Thanks

Never heard me mention it. In fact, I see mostly gun nuts posting about
it to deny it. Like you do.
All I can ken is the Aussie laws stopped mass murder by firearms.
Australia can't be compared to the U.S. anyway.
Different culture. No 2nd Amendment Holy Book there, no NRA there, and
many fewer gun worshipers.

From where comes your graph? And what makes you think the passage of a law stopped mass murder by
firearms - that there haven't been any since passage of the law? Can you not see any fallacy in that
argument?
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:39:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Never heard me mention it. In fact, I see mostly gun nuts posting about
it to deny it. Like you do.

If you don't remember seeing gun control groups citing the Australian
gun confiscation as a panacea, you are just not paying attention.


Being aware of an argument and buying into it are 2 different things.
As I've said, I can look at empirical data and make up my own mind.

They just had one of the Australian politicians who lost his job over
it on CNN commenting on the Colorado people who were recalled
He swears it was a major turning point, in spite of statistics that
say otherwise.


There you go again, bringing up the "Australia" argument.
CNN is really getting trashy - again.
Remember when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire some years ago, and solemnly
said, "This show is bad for America?"
Standing ovation from the audience, or close to it.
Shortly thereafter it was taken off the air.
CNN just brought it back. I just watched a piece of it.
Same "left/right" yelling at each as before.
They won't invite Jon Stewert on there again.
He'd say the same thing, and it will be as true now as it was then.
Same bull**** yelling at each other, just different faces.
It's one I'll avoid, along with the yellow journalist Brit.
That idiot Brit sure makes Larry King look good.


All I can ken is the Aussie laws stopped mass murder by firearms.

So far. There is nothing to prevent another one. Bear in mind, one of
our deadliest ones was done with a bolt action rifle.


You could say the same "so far" in 100 years.
Let me know when there's a Texas Tower massacre in Australia.
Then we can crunch the numbers.


Australia can't be compared to the U.S. anyway.
Different culture. No 2nd Amendment Holy Book there, no NRA there, and
many fewer gun worshipers.

Many fewer people overall.

Total numbers have little, if anything, to do with rates.
I was talking about rates really.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:45:17 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:12:02 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

All handguns should be banned or highly regulated.
Especially to ex-military types... as shown once more they seem to be the most likely group to engage in mass killings in the over 35 age group.

cite that.

The Navy Yard.
Ft. Hood

That is TWO

Robert Lee Yates

Not a mass murderer. If we are going to throw **** around, try to get
the definition right. This guy killed hookers, one at a time over a
number of years. He is a serial killer.

How about the DC sniper, Aurora, Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook etc

Oh, I see! YOU get to decide the definition of a mass murderer, eh?

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:26:29 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:31:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/19/13 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:23:38 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:41:39 -0400, wrote:


This still brings me back to Australia. They virtually banned guns and
their homicide rate, that was already declining, continued to decline
at the same rate. It is virtually a straight line when averaged out.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...iciderate2.png

There like here, most are acquaintance murders. Will found a way after
the guns were gone.

With the exception that they haven't had a mass murder since they
banned assault style weapons.

There's just as many guns, and there's still plenty of murder, just
not so many mass murders.

Mass murder makes the news but as a real contribution to death counts
it is a very small number.


Oh, well, then...mass murder with firearms is OK.

Only in Chicago.

Or Detroit, St Louis, Oakland, Baltimore, DC, NOLA etc. Democratically
controlled cities by and large.

Only "democratically controlled cities" have murder problems??? You're
getting quite narrow minded, and I didn't expect that of you.

On 9/20/13 10:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:45:17 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:12:02 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

All handguns should be banned or highly regulated.
Especially to ex-military types... as shown once more they seem to be the most likely group to engage in mass killings in the over 35 age group.

cite that.

The Navy Yard.
Ft. Hood

That is TWO

Robert Lee Yates

Not a mass murderer. If we are going to throw **** around, try to get
the definition right. This guy killed hookers, one at a time over a
number of years. He is a serial killer.

How about the DC sniper, Aurora, Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook etc

Oh, I see! YOU get to decide the definition of a mass murderer, eh?


The definition is loose, but typically refers to the killing of a number
of people over a relatively short period of time.

In article ,
says...

On 9/20/13 10:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:45:17 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:12:02 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

All handguns should be banned or highly regulated.
Especially to ex-military types... as shown once more they seem to be the most likely group to engage in mass killings in the over 35 age group.

cite that.

The Navy Yard.
Ft. Hood

That is TWO

Robert Lee Yates

Not a mass murderer. If we are going to throw **** around, try to get
the definition right. This guy killed hookers, one at a time over a
number of years. He is a serial killer.

How about the DC sniper, Aurora, Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook etc

Oh, I see! YOU get to decide the definition of a mass murderer, eh?


The definition is loose, but typically refers to the killing of a number
of people over a relatively short period of time.

Good Wiki reading....

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:13:10 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Only in Chicago.

Or Detroit, St Louis, Oakland, Baltimore, DC, NOLA etc. Democratically
controlled cities by and large.

Only "democratically controlled cities" have murder problems??? You're
getting quite narrow minded, and I didn't expect that of you.

The biggest concentrations of drug and gang murders are in big cities
and most have democratic leadership. Dispute that.

****, that's easy! One has NOTHING to do with the other.
Do you mean like Miami?