Hey, it was a great movie. Let's see the UK put out anything as good.

December, 1999 issue, page 18. (You can check it out for yourself, if you've got Adobe and are prepared to wait a bit)
An excerpt:

"Vehicle Stops Involving Extremist Group Members"

"Recognizing the Signs of Extremism"

"Members of extremist groups may reveal their affiliations in a number of ways. First, the vehicles they drive often provide clues that can help officers prepare for potential danger before making a stop. Specifically, extremists' vehicles may sport bumper stickers with antigovernment or pro-gun sentiments..."

Typical "if at first you don't succeed, vilify your opponents" tactic. They're getting more obvious day-by day.

Personally, I think that the above posters don't like "The Patriot" because it potrays the Brits as less than perfect gentlemen... which they were. Okay, perhaps the movie took a bit of dramatic licence, but then again, we didn't mention a few things, too. F'rinstance... yesterday, in response to Patriot-bashing, one of our local radio personalities read on-air an actual letter from a British major to a friend back home in England during the occupation of New York, describing with great glee instances of murder of civilians and gang-rape of a young woman.

So bite me, revisionists.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

I'd call a seventy percent increase in armed robbery a little more than a minor to moderate increase.

"rather questionable sources"

No one has yet pointed out any inaccuracy NewsMax's reporting. And considering I'm now getting my numbers directly from your Bureau of Statistics, I'd suggest you drop the 'biased source' crap.

"Your suggestion of a govt using the lists to round up the people and disarm them is a rather 'out there' theory."

Are you saying that they DIDN't do exactly that?

"Australia, the rise in crime happened in spite of the guns being removed, not because of it."

Hmm, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard something like this before...

But let me make sure I ABSOLUTELY understand what your freedoms with guns now entail. Are you allowed to have any sort of firearm in your home? If so, what types, exactly? Are you allowed to carry your firearm into a public place?

And tell me, if your recession ended eighteen months ago, why is crime still markedly higher than before the ban?

Liam:

If you don't think Clinton would declare martial law if it suited his purposes, you don't know Clinton.

It's funny, how we've seen no objections to the Brittish statistics posted...

"Hmm....do I declare martial law today so I can get rid of all the guns, thus oppressing the right-wing masses & coming one step closer to my ultimate goal of becoming Grand High Poobah & Grand Wizard Plenipotentiary? Or do I hit on that fine piece of intern ass Monica Lewinsky & see if she'd be willing t'give my pork snorkel a toot?"

In his position, I'd've done the same thing.

------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel

[This message has been edited for stupid spelling errors made by Shik after too much sleep & not enough caffeine, XV-VII-MMDCCLIII AUC. HAIL CAESAR!]

Sorry. But you could always wait for one of the other Brits to post. Oh, wait, you've already scared them all off. Bravo.

Ah, so you DON'T care about the truth. I didn't think so...

"...you could always wait for one of the other Brits to post. Oh, wait, you've already scared them all off."

Yeah, I guess they finally realized that they couldn't win.

And I, just speaking for myself, really hate to see it when discussion becomes "if you don't refute every one of my dotted i's I win." Intelligent discussion between intelligent people isn't about winning and loosing (of course having said that, you will now claim victory to build up your ego...or was that eggo). It's about bringing up points and talking about them in a rational manner. Someday you might understand that.

The very fact that Liam doesn't want to go and spend all day at the university library certainly brings up an interesing fact...he may have a life outside of the computer universe where people don't argue about the rightness or wrongness of shooting other people with farking guns every farking day!

So off to the pub with you Liam and lift one for me while you are there not talking about guns. Talk about girls or something interesting.

We've done guns to death in here.

What it comes down to is that some of folks think that guns are another appendage, something to stroke and clean like a second penis....and some of us other like to think that someday society might, just might move beyond the necessity to have your own personal arsenal. To paraphrase an evil red a journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step. None of the gun folks here seem willing to take any sort of first step toward any goal other than keeping a howitzer on the roof to repel black opps helos. Nor do some seem willing to recognize that there are other social problems that necessitate their desire to carry guns with them everywhere....little things like education levels and poverty. And corporations hijacking democracy too, there's a bit of a problem too but that's a thread with a whole different kind of ire.

Naw screw it say I, where did I put my 50 caliber?

Oh, and I'm also sick of this 'Clinton would declare martial law if'in his Arkansas ass could' crap. You haven't a scintilla of evidence so give up the Clinton hating and let him spend his last few months in office trying to take over Canada or someplace with no real value.

------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/

That is truly brilliant, Jay. But I think your comic talent will be wasted upon them. Pity.

Omega Said:

"Daryus: I'd call a seventy percent increase in armed robbery a little more than a minor to moderate increase."

70%? 70%? Which anally retentive moron came up with that figure?

"No one has yet pointed out any inaccuracy NewsMax's reporting. And considering I'm now getting my numbers directly from your Bureau of Statistics, I'd suggest you drop the 'biased source' crap."

Is it my imagination or are Newsmax facts and Limbaugh facts just about one and the same? Thus - crap. (Just in case you missed the insinuation).

"Your suggestion of a govt using the lists to round up the people and disarm them is a rather 'out there' theory. Are you saying that they DIDN't do exactly that?".

They rounded up some weapons, so what? Its not like we're suddenly living in a gulag. The more you prattle on about how every government is just out to enslave you, the more moronic and paranoid your entire stance sounds. Do you even understand the socio-economic conditions necessary to bring a dicatorial govt to power in a democratic state? I doubt it. Or as my friend says - Nyet.

"But let me make sure I ABSOLUTELY understand what your freedoms with guns now entail. Are you allowed to have any sort of firearm in your home? If so, what types, exactly? Are you allowed to carry your firearm into a public place?"

Yes you can have fire arms in your home. But they must be locked in a cabinet that meets certain safety specs. You may not own pump-action weapons, semi-automatic weapons or automatic weapons. Handguns need a specific handgun license.

Carrying firearms around in public? Are you fucking insane? Ok lets see. Aussies tend to get into fights pretty easily. So if we could all carry guns can you imagine the death toll oh wise one? You see, here we give each other a few bruises and a bit of a punch up. Over there, you just blow each others brains out. Tell me honestly, which system is better? Forget it, I'll answer. Ours.

Why would you need a weapon in public? Let me guess, when Clinton orders in the SS you'll use your trusty assault rifle to shoot a few M1-A1's or something? Get back to reality for a sec. You'd be obliterated. And remember, all dicators tend to come to power on a wave of popularity. You'd be hard pressed to do anything except die. Ye and yer militia.

"And tell me, if your recession ended eighteen months ago, why is crime still markedly higher than before the ban?"

Well first of all, there was no recession. Just a short term minor downturn. But it was enough. I'll point out that the relative crime rate to weapons related incidents in 60X higher per capita in the USA than in Aust. But I guess you'd just ignore that. Conveniently. And before you start on that population density crap, we have a higher average density then you do.

As for crime being 'markedly higher than before the ban', refer to my comment on Limbaugh facts.

"If you don't think Clinton would declare martial law if it suited his purposes, you don't know Clinton."

Oh and you are a close personal confidant? That's the kind of comment I'd expect from an overly passionate twat who mindlessly follows the words of the reverend, squad leader or any other smeghead who has been a part of his lifelong brainwashing. Kinda scary.

To protect yourself against criminals who also have firearms in public.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Frank is absolutely right." - Laz Rojas

Way to go. Facts aren't important, as long as you get to call your opponent a smeg-head or a Limbaugh.

*applauds*

Oh, and...
>"I haven't the time or the inclination to go scurrying around my local library"

Guess what? I DO! (Of course, being a librarian and all helps) Oh, yes. Unlimited Access opens your eyes to the whole world. And it also helps you sort out the bullshit dogma from the actual evidence. On all sorts of arguments.

Oh, and I resent the implication that we "scurry." I do NOT scurry. BUGS scurry. I shuffle.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

I wonder if something more basic can suffice...

Global assumptions...
Assumption 1: There were no firearms offences before firearms were invented.
Assumption 2: There are firearms offences now that there are firearms.
Assumption 3: There are more firearms offences now in a world with many guns compared to the world which saw the first invention of a firearm. (Chinese rocket-powered arrows)

Now take one step away from that. Hypothetically, we gave everyone (across the board) guns. From your pet dog, children who don't understand the concept of death, criminals in prison, people in asylums, the psychopath who doesn't care if he lives or dies, and Hanson band. Can we at least agree that in this odd scenario, there would be more firearms-related offences than today?

Thus, if you plotted these data points on a nice graph, you'd notice a nice slanted line or a curve.

So at your two extremes, the scenario of total gun saturation has more gun-related offences than the scenario of no guns whatsoever.

Thus, how can you argue that increasing the number of guns will reduce gun-related crimes when its blatantly obvious that there are no gun related offences with no guns in a society? Are you actually and insanely trying to argue that there will be more gun-related offences when no guns are present?

Or are you, Omega, actually arguing something more along the lines like this. "In a society like the United States which is filled with NRA looneys, the incompetent US government will create more crime with their half hearted attempts at gun control since gun owners will react violently to losing their vaunted combination security blankets/ego-stimulators much like the grade school child who resists the well-meaning attempts by a teacher to remove his spitwad tube?"
.....if this long run-on sentence is what you are actually arguing, I'd have to whole-heartedly agree.

------------------
Stealing from one author is called plagarism.
Stealing from many is called research.

And you say I'M ranting. At least I try to have a rational argument. You know, point, counter-point? Or maybe you don't. This discussion is not over what you apparently think it is. It's over whether the government preventing it's people from having guns is a good or bad thing. I have posted evidence that it's unarguably bad.

But as for YOUR argument, no, civilization will NEVER develop beyond the point where people need to defend themselves. This is the same kind of idealism that leads people to believe that communism could actually work. Basic human nature prevents it. Humanity will always have its criminals and its power-mongers, so there will always be a need for self-defence.

And the reason I'm pounding that note over and over and over is that people don't seem to realize that it's the RIGHT FREAKIN' NOTE. What would it take to prove to you that gun control simply doesn't work? I have all the numbers right here.

Daryus:

"70%? Which anally retentive moron came up with that figure?"

Someone who works in your Australian Bureau of Statistics, apparently. I reference this yet again:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/ab5039c379d8dfa8ca2568a90015499e!OpenDocument

Look in the first table you see, under "Armed Robbery". In '96, there were 6,256 armed robberies in Australia. In '98, there were 10,850. This is an increase of 73.43%. Or if you want to work with the RATES of robbery, the increase was 69.3 percent, from 34.2 to 57.9 per hundred-thousand.

"Is it my imagination or are Newsmax facts and Limbaugh facts just about one and the same?"

Well, considering that I've shown NewsMax's facts in this case, at least, to be right, well, then, that must mean Rush is right, too, doesn't it? And why do you guys keep flaming Rush when he has nothing to do with a discussion? It's kinda juvenile, you know.

As for the rest of your pointless flame, I think I'll just ignore it. There's not much real info there. Just a bunch of ad hominem attacks.

First:

"Think I'm gonna declare Jay and Liam Grand Masters of the ad-hominem and guilt by association argument styles."

I second that.

Mucus:

Why don't YOU pay attention to the numbers? They said that the numbers between '93 and '98 may not be comparable. And the numbers for '93 are irrelevant. The gun ban occured in '96 (maybe '97, not sure; somewhere thereabouts). If you check the statistics that I've posted *counts* three times now (twice from the ABS itself), you'll see that between '96 and '98, there was a 70% increase in armed robbery.

"Can we at least agree that in this odd scenario, there would be more firearms-related offences than today?"

'Course.

"So at your two extremes, the scenario of total gun saturation has more gun-related offences than the scenario of no guns whatsoever. Thus, how can you argue that increasing the number of guns will reduce gun-related crimes when its blatantly obvious that there are no gun related offences with no guns in a society?"

Ah, the two-dimentional reasoning of a liberal. This is the same kind of reasoning that refuses to grasp supply-side economics. You CAN NOT remove all the guns from a society. Brittian proved that. They tried, and failed. You also fail to figure in the lower number of instances of crimes related to OTHER weapons when there are more guns, which would help counter the number of gun related crimes. The optimum scenario is where the most responsible, adult civilians have guns, and the fewest criminals, loonies, and children have guns. Exactly what I'm going for.

*WARNING! Indirect ad hominem attacks follow! Proceed at your own risk! This is not intended to have any sort of impact on the remnants of the above argument.*

Too bad I can't find a liberal to argue with that actually has some desire to discover the truth, and has some idea how to make a rational argument. We could have fun.

Your response to Jay: "Basic human nature prevents it. Humanity will always have its criminals and its power-mongers, so there will always be a need for self-defence."

Or are you making the easy assumption that since your own basic nature is selfish and paranoid, everyone must automatically be as well?

Your response to Daryus: As anyone that has studied statistics knows, you absolutely must need a large sample of data in order to get accurate information. Small amounts of data can have wild fluctuations. The fact that you must unilaterally ignore the data before 1996 in order to support your argument obviously shows that.

Your response to First: "Think I'm gonna declare Jay and Liam Grand Masters of the ad-hominem and guilt by association argument styles."

Interesting notion considering in the next paragraph you immediately say "Ah, the two-dimentional reasoning of a liberal."

Funny, I never considered myself to be a liberal anyways. Considering my geographical location and social status you might find a big difference, case in point, I live in an area which elected conservatives to power...interesting.
But you immediately attach that label and attack that label rather than the argument.

And its also interesting that you trot out the tired old argument of supply-side economics. As anyone who has studied economics knows, this area is totally subjective.
ex: Half of the financial industry can look at the data and predict that lowering taxes will create jobs, while the other half can say raising taxes and funding job-creation programs will create jobs. Its totally subjective.

Luckily math is math. If a zero-guns scenario has no gun-related deaths, scenarios approaching this must have decreasing levels of gun-related deaths.

Your assertion that more guns would reduce other types of offences is laughable. Duhhhhh.....maybe its because gun-crazed maniacs are too busy killing people for anyone to get a parking ticket. Or perhaps you're saying that the assault rifles are for hunting deer in flak jackets.

------------------
Stealing from one author is called plagarism.
Stealing from many is called research.