Father slain in front of daughter after dog sniffs man's leg

[Heracles 417]

Learn to read yourself. Taking over 650,000 guns off the street did next to nothing to change the homicide rate. Fact.

It didn't? So reducing the rate from 1.57 per 100,000 to 1.20 is nothing? Strange considering it's lower than you liberal so-called highly educated state and city. Yet we're supposed to be the savage convicts.

Lets compare it to the US's 5.8 or better yet Brazil's 25.7. Wow

PS My source is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Aka a federal site. Not some idiots personal made up #######.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Learn to read yourself. Taking over 650,000 guns off the street did next to nothing to change the homicide rate. Fact.

It didn't? So reducing the rate from 1.57 per 100,000 to 1.20 is nothing?

Lets compare it to the US's 5.8 or better yet Brazil's 25.7. Wow

It is an insignificant reduction and only proves that people found other ways to kill. Don't try to do your usual subject changing. We are talking about your country here.

[Heracles 417]

Learn to read yourself. Taking over 650,000 guns off the street did next to nothing to change the homicide rate. Fact.

It didn't? So reducing the rate from 1.57 per 100,000 to 1.20 is nothing?

Lets compare it to the US's 5.8 or better yet Brazil's 25.7. Wow

It is an insignificant reduction and only proves that people found other ways to kill. Don't try to do your usual subject changing. We are talking about your country here.

As per usual, you failed. 1.2 is lower than 1.57; hence a reduction. Even someone in elementary school would see this reduction. Furthermore, the reduction discredits your theory that 'they found another way'. Or do I need to explain the concept of reduction to you?

Fact is that they have a lower homicide rate than Massachusetts. Way lower than the US.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Learn to read yourself. Taking over 650,000 guns off the street did next to nothing to change the homicide rate. Fact.

It didn't? So reducing the rate from 1.57 per 100,000 to 1.20 is nothing?

Lets compare it to the US's 5.8 or better yet Brazil's 25.7. Wow

It is an insignificant reduction and only proves that people found other ways to kill. Don't try to do your usual subject changing. We are talking about your country here.

As per usual you failed. 1.2 is lower than 1.57; hence a reduction. Even someone in elementary school would see this reduction. Further, the reduction discredits you theory that they found another way. Or do I need to explain the concept of reduction to you?

Think what you like. You've proved yourself to be a fool as usual. I posted links to support the facts. You didn't. And do your math and tell me how many less people were killed by the drastic reduction. Yea, taking away the guns had a huge impact. You lose again. Have a great day.

[Heracles 417]

Think what you like. You've proved yourself to be a fool as usual. I posted links to support the facts. You didn't. And do your math and tell me how many less people were killed by the drastic reduction. Yea, taking away the guns had a huge impact. You lose again. Have a great day.

I proved you are lying about a masters and everything else you say. Just like certain other posters, you have nothing better to do than come here for the sake of it.

You said "only proves that people found other ways to kill", which means the homicide rate should have stayed the same. Regardless of how much, I then illustrated to you that it has reduced, therefore, your opinion is wrong. In plain English, they have not found "other ways to kill".

You then proceeded to question the reduction, which I then responded by saying it is already lower than every other state in America, including the uber educated liberal state of Massachusetts, aka your state. Baaaawwston's rate is actually 11 per 100,000 vs Aus 1.2 per 100,000.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Think what you like. You've proved yourself to be a fool as usual. I posted links to support the facts. You didn't. And do your math and tell me how many less people were killed by the drastic reduction. Yea, taking away the guns had a huge impact. You lose again. Have a great day.

I proved you are lying about a masters and everything else you say. Just like certain other posters, you have nothing better to do than come here for the sake of it.

You said "only proves that people found other ways to kill", which means the homicide rate should have stayed the same. Regardless of how much, I then illustrated to you that it has reduced, therefore, your opinion is wrong. In plain English, they have not found "other ways to kill".

You then proceeded to question the reduction, which I then responded by saying it is already lower than every other state in America, including the uber educated liberal state of Massachusetts, aka your state. Baaaawwston's rate is actually 11 per 100,000 vs Aus 1.2 per 100,000.

You've proved one thing and we all knew that already.

[Heracles 417]

You've proved one thing and we all knew that already.

Good old spook 101. When you cannot argue facts resort to insults.

Better yet, run off with Scandal and A.J and cry on expats. Then actually scheme your next attack yet call me the loser. Back on the ignore list, you are a waste of time just like the above two.

PS I am surprised you didn't cry when I mentioned Brazil.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You've proved one thing and we all knew that already.

Good old spook 101. When you cannot argue facts resort to insults.

Better yet, run off with Scandal and A.J and cry on expats. Then actually scheme your next attack yet call me the loser. Back on the ignore list, you are a waste of time just like the above two.

PS I am surprised you didn't cry when I mentioned Brazil.

I prove my point about guns in Aussie land. Tell me how many less deaths your .37% reduction comes out to in real numbers with a population of 20 million. Tell us about the rise in violent crime too. I'm not dealing with insults, just your beloved facts. Maybe you should go to Expats and see if anyone is talking about you. Perhaps there is no grounds for your paranoia. I have issued no insults at all. Just the truth supported with facts. And speaking of paranoia, what attack are you talking about? I must have missed something.

[Heracles 417]

I prove my point about guns in Aussie land. Tell me how many less deaths your .37% reduction comes out to in real numbers with a population of 20 million. Tell us about the rise in violent crime too.

1.52 vs 1.2 is a 24% reduction. Therefore, the gun restriction and buyback has worked and has not resulted in people using "other ways to kill".

Call me old fashioned but I would rather be robbed than shot dead, however that is just me.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I prove my point about guns in Aussie land. Tell me how many less deaths your .37% reduction comes out to in real numbers with a population of 20 million. Tell us about the rise in violent crime too.

1.52 vs 1.2 is a 24% reduction. Therefore, the gun restriction and buyback has worked and has not resulted in people using "other ways to kill".

Call me old fashioned but I would rather be robbed than shot dead, however that is just me.

Tell me how many less total homicides there were by this reduction. I supported my claims with multiple sources. Thus far we are supposed to accept your word for it. But before you go off on a googling expedition, you tell me how many less people were murdered due to the reduction.

[Heracles 417]

Tell me how many less total homicides there were by this reduction. I supported my claims with multiple sources. Thus far we are supposed to accept your word for it. But before you go off on a googling expedition, you tell me how many less people were murdered due to the reduction.

I already quoted my source. The Australian Federal Bureau of Statistics. You quoted 'guns.com' and other sites that are based on an individuals opinion.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Tell me how many less total homicides there were by this reduction. I supported my claims with multiple sources. Thus far we are supposed to accept your word for it. But before you go off on a googling expedition, you tell me how many less people were murdered due to the reduction.

I already quoted my source. The Australian Federal Bureau of Statistics. You quoted 'guns.com' and other sites that are based on an individuals opinion.

Funny, one of my sites was from Australia and another linked to an Australian gov site. You still have provided no link. And we know why you won't answer my simple mathematical question.

[Heracles 417]

Tell me how many less total homicides there were by this reduction. I supported my claims with multiple sources. Thus far we are supposed to accept your word for it. But before you go off on a googling expedition, you tell me how many less people were murdered due to the reduction.

I already quoted my source. The Australian Federal Bureau of Statistics. You quoted 'guns.com' and other sites that are based on an individuals opinion.

Funny, one of my sites was from Australia and another linked to an Australian gov site. You still have provided no link. And we know why you won't answer my simple mathematical question.

Was that the gunowners.org site or nrawinningteam.org?

The information I quoted was from here. Which when you click on the sources further, you will notice is from the UN, INTERPOL and the Australian Federal Bureau of Statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ite_note-un9-43

PS You will need to scroll to the bottom amongst the countries with the lowest homicide rate to find Aus on the list.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

How many less homicides per years since gun restriction?

[Danno 1,228]

Really the bottom line is; some people and some countries are willing to trade certain freedoms for a promise of safety.

One could reasonably make the case that random searches in the homes a high crime areas would also result in lower crime rates as drugs, stolen items and illegal guns and wanted persons would be confiscated.

Others (The majority) would argue this type of police state would be too high a price to pay.

Bottom line is: Americans have historically and currently decided -people have a right to fire arms- with modest interference from the State.

Why do people from other countries have such a problem with that?

MOst Europeans act livid that we choose this path, I mean they take it personal!

Q:Booya, do you currently own or have access to any firearms, here or back home?