ON Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:27:48 -0400, "M. W. Eglestone"
 WROTE:

>Mike Haas wrote:
>
snip

> In order to present "PROOF" that removing the guns from the hands of
>"Those" citizens was a major factor in the rise in violent crime, you have
>to demonstrate, on a case by case basis, that there would have been a
>different outcome "IF" the gun laws had not been in place. In the case of
>the UK and Australia, where guns were hardly ever used for self defense by
>the citizens, that would be real damn difficult. The guns that were
>confiscated, for the most part, were "Recreational" weapons. Neither the
>U.K. or Australia had a high proliferation of handguns; the traditional self
>defense weapon of choice in the U.S.


As the government promised a reduction in crime as a justification for
the gun grab, I submit that anyone commenting on a post facto increase
in crime has absolutely no requirement to show "proof" of anything but
the increase.  I may not agree with Mike on many things, but Mike did
not make the Australian people any promises so why should he bear a
responsibility to prove anything other than a failure to have a
decrease in crime?

snip