Gunloon massacres in the USA a daily event

"Magus" wrote in message
. ..
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
snip

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.


Damn it RD, your adamant refusal to argue someone else's strawman is just
mean. He went to all that trouble to interject it and you just ignore
it--repeatedly.

**Strawman? My comments were SOLELY made in reference to the errors in the
WorldNetDaily article. I even left those errors in my original post. It
seems that neither you, nor RD can read.

Trevor Wilson

Trevor Wilson wrote:
I even left those errors in my original post.

You are an error.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Magus" wrote in message
. ..
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
snip

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.


Damn it RD, your adamant refusal to argue someone else's strawman is
just mean. He went to all that trouble to interject it and you just
ignore it--repeatedly.

**Strawman?

Trevor, you were not the one who made the original cite of the
WorldNewsDaily comments. You made comments and provided a couple of
cites to support your comments. I simply am taking issue with your
comments on your own cites. I am not arguing the WorldNetDaily article,
cite, or comments on WorldNetDaily. I am simply sticking to your cites
and your comments. So, yes, to keep bringing that up in your responses
to me *is* a strawman.

My comments were SOLELY made in reference to the errors in
the WorldNetDaily article.

No, they weren't solely in reference to that article. You provided cites
of your own along with your conclusions you drew from those cites. I am
simply discussing YOUR comments and conclusions from YOUR cites.

I even left those errors in my original
post. It seems that neither you, nor RD can read.

It would seem that the reading disability (or lack of courage to address
my points on your own comments as raised) belongs in your court. I have
told you repeatedly that I am not addressing the WorldNet Daily comments
but apparently you keep failing to comprehend that.


--
RD (The Sandman)

War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Seth Hammond" wrote in message
...

"Dave Witmarsh" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:46:35 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

Dave Witmarsh wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:52:00 -0800 (PST), Ned Viking
wrote:

Massacres by American gunloons have become so common
(seemingly a daily event), they hardly qualify as "news"
any more.

This morning on a local AM talk radio show, some gunloon
tried to spin the massacres as a reason to support
concealed carry. The gunloon claimed gunloons would be less
likely to commit their acts if they thought some of the
people might be packing.
Not taking into account many of the gunloons are suicidal
and
are prepared to be taken out, preferring if they don't
survive.

The NRA Gunloon Lobby will be happy - they were worried that
they weren't going to meet their quota of massacres in
eductaional institutions this year.


They seem to be falling way behind in Postal Institutions"!

The nra gunloons have called an emergency meeting of their
u.s. postal service crisis committee, apparently.



Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

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

By Jon Dougherty
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com




Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996,
crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting
critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of
what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans
firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun
bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons,
which were later slated for destruction, according to
statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or
military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns.
The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million,
said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a
safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different
story:


a.. Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

THIS IS YOUR CONCLUSION FROM YOUR CITE LISTED BELOW, YOU MORON!

**Wrong. Gun homicides are down. ALL homicides are down:

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html

Do you agree so far? That is your cite and your comment.

Methinks he was addressing the latest trend which since 2004 is
up. I agree that it is down overall on the length of the chart
but that trend didn't continue for the last three years posted.

**Since the 1996 gun control laws were enacted, gun related
homicide rats have fallen.

Until 2004 when that trend changed. BTW, with the gun control laws
enacted, as you say, in 1996, how do you explain those peaks in
1998 (manslaughter) and 1999 (homicide)? It looks like there was a
change how those crimes are reported could be some of it. See the
corresponding dip in homicide while manslaughter peaked? It looks
like they are almost the converse of each other from 1996 to 2000.

The above was my response to your cite and your conclusions.

**Here are the first words in the WorldNetDaily article (It sees you
neglected to read them):

Of course I didn't read them, doofus.

**Then you should have. I left those erronious figures in, so my
comments made sense.

So what? I wasn't addressing that article, I didn't post that article, I
haven't commented on that article. I am addressing your cite, your
conclusion.

I am responding to *YOUR* cite.
What is so difficult to understand about that?

**The problem for YOU, is that my comments refer to WorldNetDaily's
innaccuracies. I even left those errors from WorldNetDaily in my post.
If you respond to my post, then you need to read the context that
those comments were made in.

That they do, HOWEVER, in your comments you brought in two cites and made
conclusions on that data. Your conclusions don't agree with your own
cites you posted and that is the focus of my comments.

"Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996,
crime has risen dramatically on that continent,..."

Please confine your comments in the context of that article and it's
erronious statements. I will say (yet again):

I didn't make the statement you are referencing. Argue that with the
person that made it. I am discussing *YOUR* cite and the conclusions
you drew from *YOUR* cite.

**Well, no. I pointed out the errors in the WorldNetDaily article.
Unless you read my comments along with the WorldNetDaily article, it
will be impossible for you to make an intelligent comment.

You must really be a ****ing moron to think I can't read a damn data
chart YOU cited. Your data, although in response to the WorldNetDaily
article, is a pair standalone cites and your drew conclusions from that
data and made comments that are erroneous.

**Since the 1996 gun control laws were enacted, gun related homicide
rates have fallen.

Until 2004 when that trend changed. BTW, with the gun control laws
enacted, as you say, in 1996, how do you explain those peaks in 1998
(manslaughter) and 1999 (homicide)? It looks like there was a change
how those crimes are reported could be some of it. See the
corresponding dip in homicide while manslaughter peaked? It looks
like they are almost the converse of each other from 1996 to 2000.

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.

**I never said you did. However, I am correcting errors in the
WorldNetDaily article. Unless you read the WorldNEtDaily article, you
can't make sensible comments.

IOW, you are claiming that the government of Oz cannot produce a data
chart without being accompanied by an article from WorldNetDaily? That
somehow your government cannot produce data on its own? That you cannot
comment on your own government data without that article from a
consrvative publication? That neither you or your government can have a
clue about what's going on in your own country without an article from
WorldNetDaily?

Your cites were standalone data sets and your comments were drawn from
them (I would assume) since you posted those cites to bolster your
comments.

b.. Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

**Correct. Assaults are slightly less frequent than they are in
the US.

Should be. You don't have the cultural demographics the US does.

**Assaults are slightly less frequent than they are in the US,
DESPITE the far more draconian gun control laws in Australia.

And only a very slightly less frequency even though, as you just
stated, the laws in Oz are much more draconian. Not much bang for
the buck was there.

**Wrong again. The 1996 gun control laws were designed to address
gun related crimes. Assault (in Australia) has rarely involved the
use of guns. Therefore, assault rates would not have been affected
by the 1996 gun control laws. The introduction of assault rates is,
of course, a strawman issue.

Then why are you mentioning it right above my response?

**I'm not. This is what was below my response:

You really do have a comprehension problem. I wasn't talking about what
was *BELOW* your comment, I was talking about your comment. The subject
was assault not robberies. Go back and re-read it or call your English
teacher and request your money back. You got robbed.

c.. Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

**Wrong. Armed robberies are down.

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

Which shows that they are up from 1993 (the beginning of your
chart) but down from their peak in 2001.

Wrong. Not only are armed robberies down,

They aren't.

**OK, I'll admit that are roughly the same. They're certainly not up
45%, as erroniously stated by WolrdNetDaily.

As I have said, I am not arguing the Worldnet Daily comments.

**I am. If you're not discussing the WorldNetDaily article, then you
can't make relevant comments.

You are one cluseless moron, Trevor. I can make relevent comments to any
subject in this forum I wish to. The subject I picked was your cites and
your erroneous conclusions from those cites.

I am
discussing yours and your cite.

**My comments are about the errors in WorldNetDaily.


The best you can claim is that they are even. Per your
chart, they are only down from the peak in 2001. Per the chart, in
1995 the number of armed robbery victims went from just over 400 to
slightly higher than that in 2005 with a peak in 2001. Meanwnhile
unarmed robbery victims went from just over 800 (perhaps 830 or
840) in 1995 to approximately a 1000 in 2005 with a peak in 2001
just like I stated.

**Armed robberies are not up by 45%, as erroniously stated by
WorldNetDaily.

So what?

**I am pointing out the errors in the WorldNetDaily article.

Argue that with the person who claimed Worldnet Daily as a
source.

**Already done. Naturally, that person has scurried away. I also note
that you cannot defend WorldNetDaily either.

I'm not trying to. I am discussing your comments on your cites.
Apparently, you can't defend your comments either.

but they have NOT climbed
45% as claimed.

Not my claim.

**I take it, then, that you dispute the lies promulgated by
WorldNetDaily?

As I have said, I haven't read them or looked at them.

**Then you should. Unless you read the article, you cannot make
intelligent, nor relevant comments about my post. .

Of course, I can. You included cites and your own comments.


My post is solely
concerned with the errors in the WorldNetDaily article

I am discussing
your cite and your source.

**What is wrong with my source?

Nothing is wrong with your source. I am commenting on your conclusions
from those cites.

However, let's discuss the claim. Do you feel that
armed robberies have climbed nearly 45%?

Between 1995 and 2001, the number of armed robbery victims more
than doubled.

**It is 2008. It is not 2001.

I know.

**Apparently, you don't. The WorldNetDaily article has a Copyright
date of 2008.

You are too ****ing stupid to continue this waste of time with. Go back,
learn what I am talking about or forget it.


--
RD (The Sandman)

War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Seth Hammond" wrote in message
...

"Dave Witmarsh" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:46:35 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

Dave Witmarsh wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:52:00 -0800 (PST), Ned Viking
wrote:

Massacres by American gunloons have become so common (seemingly a
daily event), they hardly qualify as "news" any more.

This morning on a local AM talk radio show, some gunloon tried to
spin the massacres as a reason to support concealed carry. The
gunloon claimed gunloons would be less likely to commit their
acts if they thought some of the people might be packing. Not
taking into account many of the gunloons are suicidal and are
prepared to be taken out, preferring if they don't survive.

The NRA Gunloon Lobby will be happy - they were worried that they
weren't going to meet their quota of massacres in eductaional
institutions this year.


They seem to be falling way behind in Postal Institutions"!

The nra gunloons have called an emergency meeting of their u.s.
postal service crisis committee, apparently.



Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

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

By Jon Dougherty
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com




Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime
has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S.
gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America
could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were
forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated
for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting
Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or
military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The
effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said
association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer
country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


a.. Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

**Wrong. Gun homicides are down. ALL homicides are down:

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html

Methinks he was addressing the latest trend which since 2004 is up. I
agree that it is down overall on the length of the chart but that trend
didn't continue for the last three years posted.

**Since the 1996 gun control laws were enacted, gun related homicide rats
have fallen.



b.. Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

**Correct. Assaults are slightly less frequent than they are in the
US.

Should be. You don't have the cultural demographics the US does.

**Assaults are slightly less frequent than they are in the US, DESPITE the
far more draconian gun control laws in Australia.


c.. Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

**Wrong. Armed robberies are down.

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

Which shows that they are up from 1993 (the beginning of your chart) but
down from their peak in 2001.

Wrong. Not only are armed robberies down, but they have NOT climbed 45% as
claimed. However, let's discuss the claim. Do you feel that armed
robberies have climbed nearly 45%? If you feel that they have, please
supply your data to prove it. Or do you feel that WorldNetDaily is wrong?

Trevor Wilson


You gunloons sure do get testy innit. Whyn't you go to an NRAA meeting and
learn the truth?

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Magus" wrote in message
. ..
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
snip

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.


Damn it RD, your adamant refusal to argue someone else's strawman is
just mean. He went to all that trouble to interject it and you just
ignore it--repeatedly.

**Strawman?

Trevor, you were not the one who made the original cite of the
WorldNewsDaily comments.

**No, I am not! The WorldNetDaily cite was made by another poster. I merely
responded to the errors in the WorldNetDaily article.

You made comments and provided a couple of
cites to support your comments. I simply am taking issue with your
comments on your own cites. I am not arguing the WorldNetDaily article,
cite, or comments on WorldNetDaily.

**I am.

I am simply sticking to your cites
and your comments. So, yes, to keep bringing that up in your responses
to me *is* a strawman.

**The discussion is about WorldNetDaily's errors. I pointed out the errors
and backed my comments with appropriate cites.


My comments were SOLELY made in reference to the errors in
the WorldNetDaily article.

No, they weren't solely in reference to that article.

**Yes, they were.

You provided cites
of your own along with your conclusions you drew from those cites. I am
simply discussing YOUR comments and conclusions from YOUR cites.

**You need to take my cites in context. That context is the my reference to
the errors in WorldNetDaily.


I even left those errors in my original
post. It seems that neither you, nor RD can read.

It would seem that the reading disability (or lack of courage to address
my points on your own comments as raised) belongs in your court. I have
told you repeatedly that I am not addressing the WorldNet Daily comments
but apparently you keep failing to comprehend that.

**This part of the thread is about errors in the WorldNetDaily article.
Anything else is a strawman.

Trevor Wilson

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Magus" wrote in message
. ..
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
snip

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.


Damn it RD, your adamant refusal to argue someone else's strawman is
just mean. He went to all that trouble to interject it and you just
ignore it--repeatedly.

**Strawman?

Trevor, you were not the one who made the original cite of the
WorldNewsDaily comments.

**No, I am not! The WorldNetDaily cite was made by another poster. I
merely responded to the errors in the WorldNetDaily article.

and he is responding to YOUR comments on these errors.

You made comments and provided a couple of
cites to support your comments. I simply am taking issue with your
comments on your own cites. I am not arguing the WorldNetDaily article,
cite, or comments on WorldNetDaily.

**I am.

We know, you are attempting to do so even when it is your very comments on
this that are what are being discussed. One can only wonder why you refuse
to defend your own comments and the cites you used in order to attempt to
support those comments.


I am simply sticking to your cites
and your comments. So, yes, to keep bringing that up in your responses
to me *is* a strawman.

**The discussion is about WorldNetDaily's errors. I pointed out the errors
and backed my comments with appropriate cites.

Right, and he is pointing out the errors in your claims of errors.

We do notice when you don't want to talk about your comments that it's
usually because those comments are inaccurate.

"Scout" wrote in message
news:NhIwj.4574$R_5.1681@trnddc08...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Magus" wrote in message
. ..
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
snip

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.


Damn it RD, your adamant refusal to argue someone else's strawman is
just mean. He went to all that trouble to interject it and you just
ignore it--repeatedly.

**Strawman?

Trevor, you were not the one who made the original cite of the
WorldNewsDaily comments.

**No, I am not! The WorldNetDaily cite was made by another poster. I
merely responded to the errors in the WorldNetDaily article.

and he is responding to YOUR comments on these errors.

**No, he is not. He has even admitted as much. He is refusing to examine my
comments in context. That is disingenuous, at best, at just plain idiotic,
at worst.


You made comments and provided a couple of
cites to support your comments. I simply am taking issue with your
comments on your own cites. I am not arguing the WorldNetDaily article,
cite, or comments on WorldNetDaily.

**I am.

We know, you are attempting to do so even when it is your very comments on
this that are what are being discussed. One can only wonder why you refuse
to defend your own comments and the cites you used in order to attempt to
support those comments.

**I presented the data to prove WorldNetDaily wrong. If you have alternate
data, present it. RD cannot prove that my data is incorrect. Perhaps you
can.



I am simply sticking to your cites
and your comments. So, yes, to keep bringing that up in your responses
to me *is* a strawman.

**The discussion is about WorldNetDaily's errors. I pointed out the
errors and backed my comments with appropriate cites.

Right, and he is pointing out the errors in your claims of errors.

**There are none. WorldNetDaily is wrong.


We do notice when you don't want to talk about your comments that it's
usually because those comments are inaccurate.

**WorldNetDaily is wrong. I proved it to be the case.

Trevor Wilson

Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip

**I presented the data to prove WorldNetDaily wrong. If you have alternate
data, present it. RD cannot prove that my data is incorrect. Perhaps you
can.

Aye, WorldNUTDaily was incorrect. However, let's say that you were...
incomplete... in some of your comments on the data you used. RD pointed
that out.

Again, RD has no need to disprove your data--that's another strawman
you're introducing. All RD did--successfully--was point out errors in
YOUR *comments*.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote in message
news:NhIwj.4574$R_5.1681@trnddc08...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Magus" wrote in message
. ..
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
snip

That is from your own cite, not Worldnet Daily. I didn't make the
Worldnet Daily comments and I am not going to argue them.


Damn it RD, your adamant refusal to argue someone else's strawman is
just mean. He went to all that trouble to interject it and you just
ignore it--repeatedly.

**Strawman?

Trevor, you were not the one who made the original cite of the
WorldNewsDaily comments.

**No, I am not! The WorldNetDaily cite was made by another poster. I
merely responded to the errors in the WorldNetDaily article.

and he is responding to YOUR comments on these errors.

**No, he is not. He has even admitted as much. He is refusing to examine
my comments in context. That is disingenuous, at best, at just plain
idiotic, at worst.

You claim he has admitted this. So where has he done so?



You made comments and provided a couple of
cites to support your comments. I simply am taking issue with your
comments on your own cites. I am not arguing the WorldNetDaily
article,
cite, or comments on WorldNetDaily.

**I am.

We know, you are attempting to do so even when it is your very comments
on this that are what are being discussed. One can only wonder why you
refuse to defend your own comments and the cites you used in order to
attempt to support those comments.

**I presented the data to prove WorldNetDaily wrong. If you have alternate
data, present it. RD cannot prove that my data is incorrect. Perhaps you
can.

I think that is what he is attempting to do, but you wish to dodge the
issue, as normal.