Re: "If more handguns were the solution, the USA would have the lowest rate of gun violence of all the industrialized countries. Instead, we have the highest"

On Apr 12, 11:11 am, Zombywoof <fishwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 04:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe



<smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:55 am, Zombywoof <fishwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 19:57:23 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe

<smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:44 am, Zombywoof <fishwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 06:35:55 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe

<smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:27 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:31:20 -0400, slate_leeper

<bycy-r...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 04:01:55 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe
<smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<drivel>

Gee, same subject headline as previously proven wrong. Obviously a
proponent of the "lie often enough, and somebody will eventually
believe it" theory.

Please define "gun violence."

Please show that all countries define "gun violence" in the same way.
For example, the US includes in that number any incident where a gun
was present or even implied, even if it was never displayed or used or
existed at all.

Please explain why this should be the criteria rather than TOTAL
violence.

Please show that the US is highest in total violence. (Last time I
looked at the stats, it was 24th, well below many countries with
strict gun controls).

Please explain why you are making this assertion again, when you were
shown to be wrong only a few weeks ago.

He isn't making the assertion, the author of the article that he is.
Phil is simply reposting it without permission in attempt to troll
with another mans bait.
--

"Gustatus Similis Pullus"

I don't need permission as it is in the public interest and I have
quoted the article in its entirety and with attribution. You really
need to brush up on internet protocols, particularly the fair use
provisions.

Well just to make sure nothing had changed since I last reviewed the
provisions and did as you suggested.

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows
limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from
the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting,
research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal,
non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in
another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term
"fair use" originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair
dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law
jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

Since the key is " incorporation" in another authors work, and you do
no work of your own other then the simple reposting verbatim without
comment, criticism or as part of news reporting, research, teaching or
scholarship you are out of bounds on of the four-factor balancing
test.

Interesting how you cite the phrase "It provides for the legal, non-
licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material" yet then
claim "the key is " incorporation"". Clearly you can't even read what
you submit. Didn't you notice the word "or"? Remember, "legal, non-
licensed citation or incorporation".

Of course if you wish to ignore your own scribblings then you are
quite at liberty to start a case against me. Let me know how you get
on.

Only when & if you steal my work, until then I'll just continue to
point out your Plagiarism anytime somebody mistakes one of your posts
as an original thought.

No chance of me stealing your work Zombwoof, that would be like
leaning over in an exam and copying the answers from the class dunce.

I note that you'll continue to do what seems to be your modus
operandi, make claims but refuse to back them up.

But of course if you did that you'd have to stop whining every time
some anti-gun article is posted, and you'd be like a little boy who's
had his spade and bucket taken away from him.

Gee whining is pointing out that you've never had an original thought
on the subject on which you post?  Gee, how original of you!

Pity your claim above is pure bullshit, leaving you as a whiny bore.

If you recall I posted my own analysis on the apparent lack of
advantage of guns to US women in defence against rape. All you could
do then was squeal "The data was only included by those who
volunteered it" obviously not realising that the survey used was
entirely voluntary and nobody had claimed otherwise.

Yeah I recall your bullshit analysis, BFD.  Everybody else who saw it
thought it was bullshit as well.

Pity it was supported by VERIFIABLE FACTS. And contrary to your claim
pro-gunner Bill Smith wrote of my analysis "I guess you're right,
since this survey doesn't have a incidents of guns being used as a
defense against rape, it must not be happening." Likewise James F.
Mayer seemed to think it plausible, writing, "If true, why would Dr.
Kellermann want his wife to have one?". Of course you've never let
actual facts stand in the way of making bogus claims, have you?

Well golly gee, I'm glad you have your fans.  Even when the preface
their statements with "If True".

As pro-gunners, they are hardly my fans. Even some pro-gunners will
acknowledge the facts, sometimes, though not nearly enough.
.

Relevant Pages