Anti-gun lobby displaying it's ignorance again.

Be

im.

You're kidding right, the full text of every arguement you've lost would cause Usenet to go into meltdown.

When you get spanked for telling fibs on gun related forums, and then scuttle away and post the same anti-gun assertions on places like rec.audio.opinion, aus.hi-fi, aus.tv, aus.legal and now aus.electronics - you've lost the arguement.

When you post unsubstantiated assertions about gun dealers using gunshows to sell guns to criminals, but fail to provide ant evidence to support thos assertions when asked to - you've lost the arguement.

When you post unsubstantiated and possibly dematory claims that the NSW Shooter's Party is seeking to arm criminals, and fail to provide any evidence when asked to support that assertion - you've lost the arguement.

When you loudly claim that you never crosspost, and yet your identical posts appear at exactly the same time on aus.tv, aus.legal and aus.electronics - you've lost the arguement.

When you claim you only deal in facts at about the same time you're claiming your local library keeps Lotts work in the fiction section - you've lost the arguement.

When another poster asks to explain your assertions and the only reply you can come up with is "non-sequitur or "ask a nine year old to explain it to you" - you've lost the arguement.

When you claim to have a friend capable of stopping and restarting his heart at will whilst target shooting - you've lost the arguement.

When you claim to be able to diagnose medical or mental conditions over the internet without ever having done the necessary training - you've lost the arguement.

When you've got to rely on foul-mouthed sock-puppets like Blinky Blonk and No-One - you've lost the arguement.

On Jul 11, 11:25=A0am, "Trevor Wilson"

". Be

laim.

And a few more.

When you quote the FBI-UCR for the years 1976-86, and another poster asks for a reference, and you claim it's available on the FBI website, and it isn't - you've lost the arguement.

When another poster asks you to cite a reference and you reply www.google.c= om

- you've lost the arguement.

Should I continue?

in".

--=AD------

e...

ple

I think Trevor Tosspot has just be handed a first class spanking (sigh) again!

I'll answer this one.

You've claimed "how many" times there are only about 200 DGU's in the US each year taking figures from justifiable homicides published by the FBI-UCR.

It's been po> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:45:20 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

it

---------------------------------------------------------------- This appeared on aus.electronics

------------------------------------------------------------ - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

are

ice

be

ure

-------------------------------------------------------------------- There's that about 200 figure again based on FBI stats for homicides.

Point proven. Tosspot get's spanked again.

So you are yet another sock-puppet for piggy-shitcan LMAO

I'll answer this one.

You've claimed "how many" times there are only about 200 DGU's in the US each year taking figures from justifiable homicides published by the FBI-UCR.

It's been po> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:45:20 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

---------------------------------------------------------------- This appeared on aus.electronics

------------------------------------------------------------ - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------------------------------------------------------------- There's that about 200 figure again based on FBI stats for homicides.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You claimed TW cited 200 for the number of dgus each year. There is no claim in that quote about the number of DGUs each year - in fact "DGU" or "defensive gun use" doesn't appear in the text. What appears is the figure for "justifiable homicide" by civilians, as is clearly explained in the quoted text, and there is no claim thatv this figure represents total DGUs.

Point proven. Tosspot get's spanked again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Because you cited a text which doesn't contain what you claim - bravo ROTFLMAO

When you've got to rely on foul-mouthed sock-puppets like Blinky Blonk and No-One - you've lost the arguement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That means you have lost because on a foul mouthed sock-puppet like piggy-shitcan LMAO

When you've got to rely on foul-mouthed sock-puppets like Blinky Blonk and No-One - you've lost the arguement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So piggy-shitcan gets another sock-puppet - who calls itself "torn-arse". We can only wonder how piggy-shitcan acquired that condition.

I went there and found it, the fact that you couldn't just serves to demonstrate your stupidity.

Two rants from anti-gun politial lobby groups, one opinion/editorial and a Wikipedia article?

Sorry Trevor, doesn't wash, I don't accept rants by anti-gun political lobby groups as evidence of anything, an editorial is opinion, not fact, and your friends in the anti-gun movement will be real upset with you quoting Wikipedia

----------------------------------------------------------------- GUN POLITICS - CONCERNS ABOUT WIKIPEDIA "GUN POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA" ENTRY - Thursday 26th January 2006 All those studying gun politics in Australia should realise how bias and distortion dominate the Wikipedia website entry titled 'Gun Politics in Australia'. Wikipedia is a free public international encylopedia that anyone with internet access can modify and contribute to. Whilst this allows for a great flow of information it can also allow for a flow of misinformation and we have particular concerns about the contents of the 'Gun Politics in Austraila' entry - we believe we can show it to be a childishly biassed and ill-informed entry. Some examples:

(a) Section on settlement to 1980's

The grave misbehaviour of many settlers who used guns to create havoc amongst the indigenous population is ignored. The tragic consequences of this to relationships with today's Aboriginal population is ignored.

The high annual gun death figure of the 1970's and early 1980's is ignored. The role of licensed shooters in this tragic period is ignored.

(b) The so-called '1987 spree killings' section.

In 1987 six gun massacres took place in Australia. These were not spree killings but in most cases well-thought-out shootings where private gun owners infliced the utmost harm on specific innocent people.

The contributors to this entry ignored the immense political consequences of this tragic year where some 35 people died because the wrong people (in some cases legally) owned guns.

The contributors also conveniently ignored the enormously important gun massacre in the Strathfield shopping mall in 1991. Gun politics and gun laws in Australia changed dramatically because of this and the

(c) Port Arthur gun massacre section.

Crucial political aspects of the Port Arthur massacre and its aftermath have been ignored by the contributors entry. The attempts by pro-gun interests to blame Australian politicians rather than the culprit of this massacre constitute one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia's political history and must be fully known by students of gun politics in Australia.

The consequences of the new gun laws in regard to the reduced annual gun death tally is also ignored by the entry. It seems to us that the organised shooting fraternity hates to admit that strict gun laws might possibly save Australian lives. Every Australian should know that today less than half the number of people die from gun wounds compared to the days when the gun lobby had its tragic way with gun laws. Students should ask themselves the simple question: Are 400 fewer gun deaths each year important?

(d) Major players involved in gun politics section.

This section of the entry is almost a farce. The involvement of the public in attaining stricter gun controls is ignored, as is the crucial involvement of established and reputable community organisations. The role which important governmental groups played is also ingnored. The 'Americanisation' of gun groups such as the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) is ignored, as is the increasing extremism of such groups. The fact is that America's extremist pro-gun National Rifle Association (NRA) became entangled with the SSAA in the last two decades and the dangers of this extremism to Australian society must be understood by all students of Australian gun politics.

The bias and distortion of facts by this Wikipedia entry on Australian gun politics demands a response.

In February Gun Control Australia will publish a far more useful essay on this subject. We urge students to be aware of the pro-gun bias and distortion in this Wikipedia entry titled 'Gun Politics in Australia'.

Since the Australian gun lobby is now so strongly influenced by American pro-gun interests and the the gun trade we urge students to examine these American gun control sites to get some idea of the dangers which some Australian gun groups will present if they become further involved with the American gun lobby.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

Violence Policy Center:

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=