Gunloon massacres in the USA a daily event

"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




b.. Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

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



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

**Wrong. Armed robberies are down.

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


d.. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300
percent;

**Wrong. Victorian gun related homicides are down.


e.. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been
dropping steadily;

**Prove it.


There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and
assaults on the elderly.

**Nonsense. However, you may post your proof he


----------------------------
Asstrailer sure sounds like a dangerous **** hole to this peaceful
American gun owner. See can you dumb****ers figure out why....

**I can. You're an idiot, who believes the bull**** handed to you by the
NRA. I suggest you acquaint yourself with some actual facts, in future.

Trevor Wilson

"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.


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.

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.



--
RD (The Sandman)

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

"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

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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


Liar!

"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;

**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.

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.


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.f

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. 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.


but they have NOT climbed
45% as claimed.

Not my claim.

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. From 2001 they have come back down to just over 1995 levels.
Now, your claim was the 1996 gun control laws are responsible for that.
If so, how do you explain those peaks in 2001 when those crimes kept
climbing despite those laws? I would be more inclined to look and see
what transpired in 2000 or 2001. That would be more indicative of a
causal effect.

If you feel that they have,
please supply your data to prove it.

No need, your cite showed just what I claimed.

Or do you feel that WorldNetDaily is wrong?

Don't know. I used the source you provided. I believe that was the
government stats collected in Oz.



--
RD (The Sandman)

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

"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;

**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.

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.

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

"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):

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

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.f

**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.


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.

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.



but they have NOT climbed
45% as claimed.

Not my claim.

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


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.

From 2001 they have come back down to just over 1995 levels.
Now, your claim was the 1996 gun control laws are responsible for that.

**Is it?

If so, how do you explain those peaks in 2001 when those crimes kept
climbing despite those laws? I would be more inclined to look and see
what transpired in 2000 or 2001. That would be more indicative of a
causal effect.

**I ONLY claimed that WorldNetDaily promulgated innacurate data. Homicides
have not risen. Nor have homicides. WolrdNetDaily publishes lies.


If you feel that they have,
please supply your data to prove it.

No need, your cite showed just what I claimed.

**Is it your contention that WorldNetDaily is wrong? I proved them wrong.


Or do you feel that WorldNetDaily is wrong?

Don't know.

**Of course you do. I provided data which shows them to be wrong. You either
acceot or reject my data. If you reject it, then supply your alternate
figures.

I used the source you provided. I believe that was the
government stats collected in Oz.

**Then you DO dispute the lies promulgated by WorldNetDaily. I trust you
will inform the poster who re-published those lies of his error in using a
discredited source.

Trevor Wilson

On Feb 24, 3:19*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
SNIP

Interesting, "Mr Hubris" continues to waffle ****.

Hey Trevor Tosspot, tell us again about your friend who can STOP his
heart.

Trevor, it's really time you realised that after the highly
imaginitive assertions you've posted on these pages, most posters here
wouldn't believe you if you said water was wet.

"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;

**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.

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.

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

Of course I didn't read them, doofus. I am responding to *YOUR* cite.
What is so difficult to understand about that?

"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.

**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.

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?

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
discussing yours and your cite.

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

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. I am discussing
your cite and your source.

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. However your cite doesn't go to 2008, so just bear along with
what you did present.

From 2001 they have come back down to just over 1995 levels.
Now, your claim was the 1996 gun control laws are responsible for
that.

**Is it?

Am I to hear you say that the 1996 gun control laws were not responsible
for the overall drop in level?

If so, how do you explain those peaks in 2001 when those crimes kept
climbing despite those laws? I would be more inclined to look and
see what transpired in 2000 or 2001. That would be more indicative
of a causal effect.

**I ONLY claimed that WorldNetDaily promulgated innacurate data.
Homicides have not risen. Nor have homicides. WolrdNetDaily publishes
lies.

Argue that with World Net Daily or the guy who used that as a source. I
am simply discussing your cite.

If you feel that they have,
please supply your data to prove it.

No need, your cite showed just what I claimed.

**Is it your contention that WorldNetDaily is wrong? I proved them
wrong.

Sigh.......see above.

Or do you feel that WorldNetDaily is wrong?

Don't know.

**Of course you do. I provided data which shows them to be wrong. You
either acceot or reject my data. If you reject it, then supply your
alternate figures.

See the next paragraph below?

I used the source you provided. I believe that was the
government stats collected in Oz.

**Then you DO dispute the lies promulgated by WorldNetDaily.

I haven't read WorldNet Daily, Trevor. How many times do you need to be
told that before it starts to sink in. I will not take a stand on any
data I haven't looked at. Would you?

trust
you will inform the poster who re-published those lies of his error in
using a discredited source.

See above and then learn to fight your own battles.



--
RD (The Sandman)

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

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.

















(for the humor impaired readers, look up the word "facetious")

"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;

**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.

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.

**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.

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.


"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.


**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.


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:

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.

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.


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. 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?


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.

However your cite doesn't go to 2008, so just bear along with
what you did present.

**I do. I presented the errors in the WorldNetDaily article. It's Copyright
date was 2008. NOT 2001.


From 2001 they have come back down to just over 1995 levels.
Now, your claim was the 1996 gun control laws are responsible for
that.

**Is it?

Am I to hear you say that the 1996 gun control laws were not responsible
for the overall drop in level?

**I asked a question. I will repeat it:

You claimed:

"From 2001 they have come back down to just over 1995 levels. Now, your
claim was the 1996 gun control laws are responsible for
that."

I will ask again:

Is it?



If so, how do you explain those peaks in 2001 when those crimes kept
climbing despite those laws? I would be more inclined to look and
see what transpired in 2000 or 2001. That would be more indicative
of a causal effect.

**I ONLY claimed that WorldNetDaily promulgated innacurate data.
Homicides have not risen. Nor have homicides. WolrdNetDaily publishes
lies.

Argue that with World Net Daily or the guy who used that as a source.

**Akready done. He scurried away.

I
am simply discussing your cite.

**I cited WorldNetDaily.


If you feel that they have,
please supply your data to prove it.

No need, your cite showed just what I claimed.

**Is it your contention that WorldNetDaily is wrong? I proved them
wrong.

Sigh.......see above.

**Without reference to WorldNetDaily, you cannot make intelligent comments.


Or do you feel that WorldNetDaily is wrong?

Don't know.

**Of course you do. I provided data which shows them to be wrong. You
either acceot or reject my data. If you reject it, then supply your
alternate figures.

See the next paragraph below?

**I left the WorldNetDaily comments in my original post.


I used the source you provided. I believe that was the
government stats collected in Oz.

**Then you DO dispute the lies promulgated by WorldNetDaily.

I haven't read WorldNet Daily, Trevor.

**I left the WorldNetDaily comments in my original post.

How many times do you need to be
told that before it starts to sink in. I will not take a stand on any
data I haven't looked at. Would you?

**I cited the WorldNetDaily erronious data. I then supplied the correct
data. If you failed to read the WorldNEtDaily information, then that is not
my problem. I suggest you go back and read it.


trust
you will inform the poster who re-published those lies of his error in
using a discredited source.

See above and then learn to fight your own battles.

**Already done. The poster has gone to ground, in the face of the real data.

Trevor Wilson