Re: Increased gun crime in Britain


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46e36fb1$0$4422$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jfma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:22:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

jfma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:55:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:52:24 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John-Melb wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:59 pm, John-Melb <mcnamara_j...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 27, 1:10 am, John-Melb <mcnamara_j...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 26, 11:21 pm, Phil Smythe <smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Therefore would you explain what was your basis for claiming
"Gun
crime in Britan has doubled" given that the article you posted
does
not support this claim.
Wasn't my claim, whole text copied and pasted from another
source.
Sorry I didn't check the every aspect of the technical
correctness of
something I posted, would you demand the same level of technical
correctness from an anti-gun poster?
And I'm still waiting for a simple answer Phil, would you demand
the
same level of technical
correctness from an anti-gun poster?
Still waiting?

**You keep mentioning the words "anti-gun poster' as if they have
some meaning.
And you have used the term "nutter" as if it has some meaning.
**Non-sequitur.

You need to define "anti-gun poster".
And you "nutter".
**As you wish:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

"2. British Slang. an insane person."

or:

"Slang
A crazy or eccentric person."

or:

"noun
a person who is regarded as eccentric or mad"

Are you seriously incapable of looking this stuff up for yourself?


I, for instance, am not an "anti-gun poster". I am, however, very
much in favour of tough, sane, homogeneous gun control laws, which
operate across the entire nation.
Whic shows that you do not understand our Consitution, our laws and
customs here in the "States".
**Non-sequitur. Points:

* We are discussing gun crime in BRITAIN.
* As a cursory examination of my headers will indicate, I am not an
American.
* John is an Australian.
* This is an INTERNATIONAL newsgroup.


Educate yourself so you don't speak like an ignoramus.
**Gratuitous insult, duly noted. I suggest YOU do some rudimentary
research, BEFORE you type your posts.

I have ZERO problems with people who use guns responsibly in various
pursuits, including: Extermination of feral animals, culling sick,
injured and over-populated species, target shooting, collecting,
etc.
But not for self defense. LOL Strange set of priorites you have.
**Guns are so rarely used for self defence, that it barely factors
into the stats.

Only because you will only accept the lowest number that is
published and that is for dead bodies reported to the FBI. You keep
going back to those numbers even after you have been shown they are
too low. It seems that you cannot take in anything that isn't spoon
fed to you by gun control zealots like Tim Lambert and the gun
control organizations that intentionally distort the truth
**Then feel free to supply the truth.

Been there done that, but you don't want to hear the truth.

**Sure I do.


All
you want to do is continuously spread the same old and worn out
disproved material over and over again, hoping that it will magically
turn into the truth one day.

**Disproved? No chance. At no time has anyone disproven the FBI data. Not
once. Not ever.

Yes, they have. Time and time again cases have been shown to you which did
NOT make it into the FBI's count of "justifiable homicide" not because they
weren't a DGU, but simply because a homicide wasn't involved or it wasn't
reported as justifiable to the FBI. Your data has been shown to be
incomplete, and you have done NOTHING to do your own research necessary to
fill out the data set for your assertions in this matter.


Facts are facts and just because you
won't believe that they are true, you'll keep coming back with your
inane requests to prove over and over again that which you have been
shown over and over again.

Ensuring, of course, adequate backup for your statistics. Police and/or
FBI reports will be suitable.

Been there done that and you just keep coming back with the same
requests over and over again.

**I have regularly and consistently requested proof of 10 (TEN) DGUs which
occurred on any one day in the US.

Sorry, but when you're limiting people to only homicides reported to the FBI
as justified, it's going to be nearly impossible to find ten that occurred
on the same day. The fact you refuse to consider the full data set and
instead restrict yourself to one very limited subset is proof you are
uninterested in the facts.


.

Relevant Pages