So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our totalThe back of your envelope is satanic.
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our totalThe back of your envelope is satanic.
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
mINE109 wrote:
Is Sack-Shmoo smart enough to cook up an algorithm with all
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our totalThe back of your envelope is satanic.
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
those IFs and THENs? I doubt it. He should admit to copping from
his satanic master.
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
How many more people could have been saved by Chang, had he survived?
His murder shocked and disgusted all Australians.
In 1991, Australia's finest heart surgeon (Victor Chang) was murdered,
via gunshot, in a bungled kidnapping attempt.
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
Here's the thing: If you make it harder for drunks, drug addicts and
violent people to buy firearms (legally or illegally), then the murder
rate, via gunshot, will fall.
Here's the thing: If you make it harder for drunks, drug addicts and violent people to buy firearms (legally or illegally), then the murder rate, via gunshot, will fall.And you be branded a racist by the left for your inequitable outcome of enforcement.
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.**Prove it.
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets**There's your problem, right there. Most murders are committed with illegally obtained firearms.
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total**I realise that you have likely been told this for your entire life,
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
but it does bear repeating: You are dumber than most people.
Here's the thing: If you make it harder for drunks, drug addicts and
violent people to buy firearms (legally or illegally), then the murder
rate, via gunshot, will fall.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.**Nothing is 100% effective. However, if the murder rate, via gunshot,
can be reduced by even a small amount, then US society is safer and richer.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,**That is a bogus claim. Criminals commit the smallest number of crimes
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
they can, in order to further their aims. Drunks, drug addicts and
insane people are excepted.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.**Let's say you are correct (and I do not believe for 1 millisecond that
you are even close to the mark), saving 33 lives is a good thing. Not a
bad thing. Let me give you an example:
In 1991, Australia's finest heart surgeon (Victor Chang) was murdered,
via gunshot, in a bungled kidnapping attempt. How many lives could
Victor Chang have saved, had he not been shot? The murder of one, particularly valuable, member of society can have far reaching ramifications.
Between 1984 and 1990, Chang's unit performed over 197 heart transplants
and 14 heart-lung transplants. The unit had a high rate of success with
90% of those receiving transplants from the unit surviving beyond the
first year.
How many more people could have been saved by Chang, had he survived?
His murder shocked and disgusted all Australians.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.**Read this moron:
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Sacktard has a ready solution for that problem: More guns. Did you hear
How many more people could have been saved by Chang, had he survived?
His murder shocked and disgusted all Australians.
the NRA and their loonier exponents proposing that teachers be trained
and armed? That is their "solution" to school shootings. "Good guys with guns"
is their bloodthirsty fantasy to counter, as JEB! Bush put it, "stuff that happens".
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 3:13:48 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Here's the thing: If you make it harder for drunks, drug addicts and
violent people to buy firearms (legally or illegally), then the murder
rate, via gunshot, will fall.
And you be branded a racist by the left for your inequitable outcome of enforcement.
ScottW
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:13:48 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.**Prove it.
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/16/steve-bullock/what-percentage-gun-sales-are-done-without-backgro/
**There's your problem, right there. Most murders are committed with
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
illegally obtained firearms.
Lordy!!!!
By criminals who already violate a multitude of existing firearms laws
**I realise that you have likely been told this for your entire life,
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
but it does bear repeating: You are dumber than most people.
I made a typo, its only 66 deaths to be saved,
Here's the thing: If you make it harder for drunks, drug addicts and
violent people to buy firearms (legally or illegally), then the murder
rate, via gunshot, will fall.
Your proposal
will not make it harder.
those people will continue to buy guns illegally
guns will be bought and sold illegally despite your proposals.
And I must remind you that the number if guns sold each year is only
5% of all the guns out on the streets, and only 13% of the guns sold are
sold without background checks,
You are chasing windmills into oblivion.
**Nothing is 100% effective. However, if the murder rate, via gunshot,
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
can be reduced by even a small amount, then US society is safer and richer. >>>
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,**That is a bogus claim. Criminals commit the smallest number of crimes
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
they can, in order to further their aims. Drunks, drug addicts and
insane people are excepted.
They buy guns like they buy crack, meth, heroin, and fetanyl.
Off of other criminals.
**Let's say you are correct (and I do not believe for 1 millisecond that
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
you are even close to the mark), saving 33 lives is a good thing. Not a
bad thing. Let me give you an example:
In 1991, Australia's finest heart surgeon (Victor Chang) was murdered,
via gunshot, in a bungled kidnapping attempt. How many lives could
Victor Chang have saved, had he not been shot? The murder of one,
particularly valuable, member of society can have far reaching
ramifications.
So, then , by your "logic", if one worthless criminal guns down another worthless criminal, that's a good thing, because it also saves lives.
And that if I good guy with a gun takes down an armed murderer,
that's a good thng, as he saved lives.
Between 1984 and 1990, Chang's unit performed over 197 heart transplants
and 14 heart-lung transplants. The unit had a high rate of success with
90% of those receiving transplants from the unit surviving beyond the
first year.
How many more people could have been saved by Chang, had he survived?
His murder shocked and disgusted all Australians.
Your proposal had about a 0.33% chance of averting Chang's death, had the incident happened in the US.
Here are some examples of good guys with a gun have saved lives.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/twelve-stories-about-good-guy-gun-progressives-wont-128052
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.**Read this moron:
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.
We have 350 million
660 thousand is a drop in the bucket.
Less than two tenths of a percent.
That would save even fewer lives than your previous proposal.
You're a fucking moron.
On 3/07/2023 10:17 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.**Read this moron:
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns)
B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.**PROVE IT!
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:30:13 AM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 10:17 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:**PROVE IT!
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.**Read this moron:
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns) >>>>> B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.
I already have.
if you have alternate evidence on how many lives it would save, provide it Remember the 350 million guns already in private hands., and prove how buying back
less than two tenths of a percent of them would have a greater effect.
On 4/07/2023 2:21 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:30:13 AM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 10:17 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:**PROVE IT!
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year. >>>>> The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved. >>>>>**Read this moron:
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of guns) >>>>> B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without >>>>> checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws, >>>>> and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.
I already have.**No, you have not. You have employed a strawman argument and claimed
that it is proof.
if you have alternate evidence on how many lives it would save, provide it Remember the 350 million guns already in private hands., and prove how buying back**I don't need to prove your claim. I merely point you to the PROOF that
less than two tenths of a percent of them would have a greater effect.
the 1996 gun control laws worked in Australia. Will they work in the US? Probably. What will it cost the US to emulate the Australian approach? Possibly as many as 10,000 live Americans each and every year.
BTW: You seem to be fixated on ONE aspect of the 1996 Australian gun
control laws. I suggest you examine the entire suite of law changes.
--
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:24:33 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:guns)
On 4/07/2023 2:21 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:30:13 AM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 10:17 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year.
The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved.
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of
provide it**No, you have not. You have employed a strawman argument and claimed**PROVE IT!B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without**Read this moron:
checks are .065% of existing guns)
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total
gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by
a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws,
and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.
I already have.
that it is proof.
if you have alternate evidence on how many lives it would save,
how buying backRemember the 350 million guns already in private hands., and prove
less than two tenths of a percent of them would have a greater effect.**I don't need to prove your claim. I merely point you to the PROOF that
the 1996 gun control laws worked in Australia. Will they work in the US?
Probably. What will it cost the US to emulate the Australian approach?
Possibly as many as 10,000 live Americans each and every year.
BTW: You seem to be fixated on ONE aspect of the 1996 Australian gun
control laws. I suggest you examine the entire suite of law changes.
--
Australia bought back about 20% of privately held guns, about 650,000
Here, that would be 70,000,000 guns, ten times the number of guns!
At about $200 per gun, that would cost $14 BILLION dollars here.
Not including the administrative costs of the program.
The total existing budget of our FBI, the primary Federal Law
Enforcement agency, is less than that, about $10.3 billion
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS!
On 4/07/2023 9:51 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:24:33 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:guns)
On 4/07/2023 2:21 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:30:13 AM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 3/07/2023 10:17 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year. >>>>>>> The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved. >>>>>>>
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of
provide it**No, you have not. You have employed a strawman argument and claimed**PROVE IT!B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without >>>>>>> checks are .065% of existing guns)**Read this moron:
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total >>>>>>> gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by >>>>>>> a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws, >>>>>>> and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.
I already have.
that it is proof.
if you have alternate evidence on how many lives it would save,
how buying backRemember the 350 million guns already in private hands., and prove
less than two tenths of a percent of them would have a greater effect. >> **I don't need to prove your claim. I merely point you to the PROOF that >> the 1996 gun control laws worked in Australia. Will they work in the US? >> Probably. What will it cost the US to emulate the Australian approach?Possibly as many as 10,000 live Americans each and every year.
BTW: You seem to be fixated on ONE aspect of the 1996 Australian gun
control laws. I suggest you examine the entire suite of law changes.
--
Australia bought back about 20% of privately held guns, about 650,000 Here, that would be 70,000,000 guns, ten times the number of guns!**And, once more, for the class moron: The gun buyback was ONE PART of
At about $200 per gun, that would cost $14 BILLION dollars here.
Not including the administrative costs of the program.
The total existing budget of our FBI, the primary Federal Law
Enforcement agency, is less than that, about $10.3 billion
the suite of gun laws passed by parliament in 1996. ONE PART. You need
to acquaint yourself with ALL the law changes passed that year.
10,000 Americans murdered each year, via gunshot, costs the US economy around 172 BILLION Dollars. ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS! Each
and every year. Oh, and those figures were established in 2010. It's
more today. Every year. Year in, year out. Figure on at least double
that number of people who are seriously wounded, requiring many months
or years of care.
It is estimated that each murder costs the US taxpayer around $17.25 million.
https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-cost-of-murder-the-price-of-innocence/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-much-does-murder-cost/
https://slate.com/culture/2010/10/does-every-murder-in-the-united-states-really-cost-society-17-million.html
So, although you seem unconcerned with the death of your fellow
Americans, perhaps you may be more concerned about the cost to YOU and
every other American citizen. The financial cost of horrendous. Way, WAY more more than the numbers you just promulgated.
And, I will say once more: The gun buyback was just one part of the gun
law changes brought about, by VERY popular support, in 1996. The
government (Conservative party) and Prime Minister, that enacted those changes to gun laws, was returned 3 more times to government. It was a seminal moment in Australian history and one that Australians are happy
and proud of. We don't need your fucking gun culture here. We like to
live safely and peacefully with our neighbours. You guys just shoot them.
--
Murder is sad, murder has its costs, but the best way to
abate its frequency is a tough on violent crime policy.
The Rev. Shmoo-Poo-Clueless stumps up to his rickety pulpit.
Murder is sad, murder has its costs, but the best way to
abate its frequency is a tough on violent crime policy.
For the 900th time, keep your inane, faith-based religious views to yourself.
As your fellow roadkill scavenger Super Shitty says, bring us "information". This "tough on crime" shit has been discredited for at least 50 years. Since you're apparently too stupid to figure this out for yourself, violent crime is a
symptom of social ills. It's not an annoying insect you can kill with a splat or a spray.
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 2:35:33 AM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/07/2023 9:51 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:24:33 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:guns)
On 4/07/2023 2:21 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:30:13 AM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 3/07/2023 10:17 am, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:27:46 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/07/2023 4:04 am, Art Sackman wrote:
Would save, at most, at maximum 100% compliance, 66 lives per year. >>>>>>>>> The more likely outcome would be about half that, 33 lives saved. >>>>>>>>>
350 million guns already on the streets
A) about 17 million gun sales each year (5% of total number of
provide it**No, you have not. You have employed a strawman argument and claimed**PROVE IT!B) about 13% of those without background checks. (Gun sales without >>>>>>>>> checks are .065% of existing guns)**Read this moron:
So..... Eliminating the unchecked sales would reduce our total >>>>>>>>> gun inventory by only 0.65% and woud]l reduce our gun deaths by >>>>>>>>> a corresponding .065%, or about 666 deaths.
And that would be only if the program were 100% effective.
And criminals being criminals, they don't obey our existing laws, >>>>>>>>> and they won't be obeying the new ones.
So at 50% compliance, Trevor's plan saves 33 lives.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
--
That would save about 19 lives here.
I already have.
that it is proof.
if you have alternate evidence on how many lives it would save,
how buying backRemember the 350 million guns already in private hands., and prove
**And, once more, for the class moron: The gun buyback was ONE PART ofless than two tenths of a percent of them would have a greater effect. >>>> **I don't need to prove your claim. I merely point you to the PROOF that >>>> the 1996 gun control laws worked in Australia. Will they work in the US? >>>> Probably. What will it cost the US to emulate the Australian approach? >>>> Possibly as many as 10,000 live Americans each and every year.
BTW: You seem to be fixated on ONE aspect of the 1996 Australian gun
control laws. I suggest you examine the entire suite of law changes.
--
Australia bought back about 20% of privately held guns, about 650,000
Here, that would be 70,000,000 guns, ten times the number of guns!
At about $200 per gun, that would cost $14 BILLION dollars here.
Not including the administrative costs of the program.
The total existing budget of our FBI, the primary Federal Law
Enforcement agency, is less than that, about $10.3 billion
the suite of gun laws passed by parliament in 1996. ONE PART. You need
to acquaint yourself with ALL the law changes passed that year.
10,000 Americans murdered each year, via gunshot, costs the US economy
around 172 BILLION Dollars. ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS! Each
and every year. Oh, and those figures were established in 2010. It's
more today. Every year. Year in, year out. Figure on at least double
that number of people who are seriously wounded, requiring many months
or years of care.
It is estimated that each murder costs the US taxpayer around $17.25
million.
https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-cost-of-murder-the-price-of-innocence/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-much-does-murder-cost/
https://slate.com/culture/2010/10/does-every-murder-in-the-united-states-really-cost-society-17-million.html
So, although you seem unconcerned with the death of your fellow
Americans, perhaps you may be more concerned about the cost to YOU and
every other American citizen. The financial cost of horrendous. Way, WAY
more more than the numbers you just promulgated.
And, I will say once more: The gun buyback was just one part of the gun
law changes brought about, by VERY popular support, in 1996. The
government (Conservative party) and Prime Minister, that enacted those
changes to gun laws, was returned 3 more times to government. It was a
seminal moment in Australian history and one that Australians are happy
and proud of. We don't need your fucking gun culture here. We like to
live safely and peacefully with our neighbours. You guys just shoot them.
--
I don't know the cost in Australia,
to cover the U.S. cost of yours. So far I'm at the $500 mark.
BTW, your proposed gun sale legislation will not work
Nor will your buyback proposal.
Nor does your previous ludicrous comment that professional criminals
would not violate gu laws to acquire a gun.
a professional criminal would obey the law by filling out a form
detailing lots of private information, and, subjecting
himself to a background check?
Murder is sad, murder has its costs, but the best way to
abate its frequency is a tough on violent crime policy.
Your idea of the failure of incarceration is insane.
Like letting criminals out of jail, and lax prosecution
of new cases will actually reduce murders? You're flat out bonkers lunatic crazy.
I don't know the cost in Australia,**Sadly, you don't know a damned thing about anything. You really should
try to appreciate just how stupid you are.
but I'm feverishly trying to raise the $17.25 million
to cover the U.S. cost of yours. So far I'm at the $500 mark.
BTW, your proposed gun sale legislation will not work**Prove it! In your proof, examine the results of the Australian gun
control laws, introduced in 1997.
Nor will your buyback proposal.**So you keep claiming, yet you provide ZERO evidence to support your insanity.
Nor does your previous ludicrous comment that professional criminals
would not violate gu laws to acquire a gun.
**Cite where I made any such claim. I won't hold my breath, since you
will fail to supply any proof to validate your claim.
Do you actually believe that
a professional criminal would obey the law by filling out a form
detailing lots of private information, and, subjecting
himself to a background check?
**Of course not. In the US, a violent, drunk, drug addict, or similarly inappropriate person need only ask a friend (or stranger) to buy a gun
for them.
Really? A criminal would do that?
Murder is sad, murder has its costs, but the best way to**AND remove the ability for such people to acquire firearms.
abate its frequency is a tough on violent crime policy.
Your idea of the failure of incarceration is insane.
**It's a fact. The US has the largest prison population on the planet,
yet still has levels of gun homicide unheard of outside of a war situation.
Like letting criminals out of jail, and lax prosecution**_IF_ I had made any such claim, yes.
of new cases will actually reduce murders? You're flat out bonkers lunatic crazy.
**Sadly, you don't know a damned thing about anything. You really should
I don't know the cost in Australia,
try to appreciate just how stupid you are.
but I'm feverishly trying to raise the $17.25 million
to cover the U.S. cost of yours. So far I'm at the $500 mark.**Prove it! In your proof, examine the results of the Australian gun
BTW, your proposed gun sale legislation will not work
control laws, introduced in 1997.
Done that
Nor will your buyback proposal.**So you keep claiming, yet you provide ZERO evidence to support your
insanity.
Nor does your previous ludicrous comment that professional criminals
would not violate gu laws to acquire a gun.
So you are saying that they would violate the law.
You idiot. If they would violate such a law, then the law would be useless.
**Cite where I made any such claim. I won't hold my breath, since you
will fail to supply any proof to validate your claim.
Do you actually believe that
a professional criminal would obey the law by filling out a form
detailing lots of private information, and, subjecting
himself to a background check?
**Of course not. In the US, a violent, drunk, drug addict, or similarly
inappropriate person need only ask a friend (or stranger) to buy a gun
for them.
Or buy it illegally on the street. A very common occurrence here.
Really? A criminal would do that?
**AND remove the ability for such people to acquire firearms.
Murder is sad, murder has its costs, but the best way to
abate its frequency is a tough on violent crime policy.
Your idea of the failure of incarceration is insane.
**It's a fact. The US has the largest prison population on the planet,
yet still has levels of gun homicide unheard of outside of a war situation. >>> Like letting criminals out of jail, and lax prosecution
of new cases will actually reduce murders? You're flat out bonkers lunatic crazy.**_IF_ I had made any such claim, yes.
More incarcerations would reduce gun violence.
Fewer incarcerations would increase it.
Common sense tells you that.
and the results of recent downgrading of other felonies proves that deterrence matters,
On 6/07/2023 2:15 am, Art Sackman wrote:
**Sadly, you don't know a damned thing about anything. You really should >> try to appreciate just how stupid you are.
I don't know the cost in Australia,
but I'm feverishly trying to raise the $17.25 million
to cover the U.S. cost of yours. So far I'm at the $500 mark.**Prove it! In your proof, examine the results of the Australian gun
BTW, your proposed gun sale legislation will not work
control laws, introduced in 1997.
Done that**Wrong. Proof requires that you perform an experiment. We did such an experiment here in Australia. The 1996 gun control laws were designed to reduce the likelihood of mass murder, committed via the use of firearms. They did precisely what they were intended to do. Mass murder, committed
via the use of firearms went from an average of one per year, in the ten years prior to 1997 to ONE in the TWENTY SIX years since.
THAT is how you provide proof. You do something and measure the results.
You do nothing and the bodies keep mounting.
Nor will your buyback proposal.**So you keep claiming, yet you provide ZERO evidence to support your
insanity.
Nor does your previous ludicrous comment that professional criminals
would not violate gu laws to acquire a gun.
So you are saying that they would violate the law.**They might, or they might not. In the US, it is VERY easy for a legal
gun owner to supply firearms to anyone (including violent criminals,
drunks, drug addicts and mentally unstable people).
You idiot. If they would violate such a law, then the law would be useless.**Not so. The laws in the US make it far too easy for legal guns to end
up in the illegal market place.
**Cite where I made any such claim. I won't hold my breath, since you
will fail to supply any proof to validate your claim.
**Cite where I made any such claim.
Do you actually believe that
a professional criminal would obey the law by filling out a form
detailing lots of private information, and, subjecting
himself to a background check?
**Of course not. In the US, a violent, drunk, drug addict, or similarly >> inappropriate person need only ask a friend (or stranger) to buy a gun
for them.
Or buy it illegally on the street. A very common occurrence here.**And THAT is precisely the problem. ALL guns begin life as legal
objects. At some point, they enter the illegal market-place. The
Australian gun control laws were designed to address that problem. They
have been very effective at doing precisely that.
Really? A criminal would do that?
**AND remove the ability for such people to acquire firearms.
Murder is sad, murder has its costs, but the best way to
abate its frequency is a tough on violent crime policy.
Your idea of the failure of incarceration is insane.
**It's a fact. The US has the largest prison population on the planet,
yet still has levels of gun homicide unheard of outside of a war situation.
Like letting criminals out of jail, and lax prosecution**_IF_ I had made any such claim, yes.
of new cases will actually reduce murders? You're flat out bonkers lunatic crazy.
More incarcerations would reduce gun violence.**So would preventing legal guns from entering the illegal market-place.
Fewer incarcerations would increase it.**Maybe, maybe not. Locking up wife beaters, violent people and others
make sense. Locking up drug addicts and those convicted of many other non-violent crimes, does not.
Common sense tells you that.
and the results of recent downgrading of other felonies proves that deterrence matters,
**AND you need to deal with the elephant in the room - the easy
availability of firearms.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:11:47 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,380 |