OT Dave shreds Wheatons regurgitated OT propaganda was: Threads Liberals 50 to Conservatives 4
Question:
To the folks of AGA, below I tackle, er, expose the weakness and fallacies of the propaganda foisted upon this amp newsgroup by one alleged Mr. John Wheaton it’s a long read, but hopefully enlightening : : : >> In places where gun ownership has : >> been curtailed, crime goes up
: > Like Canada? The UK? Uh… No…. : 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; : : b.. Assaults are up 8.6 percent; : : c.. Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent; : : d.. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 : percent; : : e.. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been : dropping steadily; If this is so, why did people approve a ban in the first place? Something doesn’t add up here. Generally people don’t fix things that ain’t broke. Could it be that the bans were brought into play due to very recent increases in crime? The author certainly doesn’t clarify this. He says; "in the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;" Well if the crime rates had been dropping for 24 years and then suddenly rocketed in the 25′th year this would certainly still be a true statement. It reminds me of a cereal box that says ’sweetened with honey’ but is predominently sweetened with sugar yet the ingredients list a small amount of honey. So the statement is true, but it leads most people to believe that the cereal is sweetened *only* with honey ( diabetics beware) : f.. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and : assaults on the elderly. : It’s difficult to determine if gun control has any impact on crime one way or the other if the author doesn’t provide information about what the crime statistics would have been had guns not been controlled in those areas. Oh that’s right, he did say that it was sweetened with honey. Silly me! : At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port : Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an : annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe : society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and : rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling : for and supporting the weapons ban. : Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting : Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 — a 200 percent increase. : : Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of : weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of : the guns believed to be in the country. Aha, just as I thought, the ban doesn’t really doesn’t have anything to do with the increased crime rate since the citizens still have most of their guns anyway. damn John, do ever actually *think* about the shit you post? : According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms : in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for : example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total : of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction." Yup, confirmed again. The ban had virtually no effect. Unless one wants to contend that all of the remaing unseized guns are in the hand of criminals. If so I reckon 3-10 million criminals in the country might well account for an increased crime rate 
But then again, just whom possesses the 3-10 million remaining guns isn’t made clear so we have again in essence more useless information. Unless one wants to contend that it’s useful for manipulating ‘useful idiots’. : And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns : collected came from licensed gun dealers. So, even fewer decent law abiding citizens were deprived of their guns by the bans than I had even previously thought. Which only goes to reiterate the point that the bans had virtually nothing to do with the increased crime rates since the " check and balance" of armed citizenry against crime was effectively still in place the whole time during the period when the ‘alleged’ *gun control induced crime rate increases* occured.. : : Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report : said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun : specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold : throughout the country. Yup, more or less the same thing that happens with drug prohibition. Which IMO is what the gun control argument is really all about, a smokescreen to cover up one of the major causes of crime increase in the USA which is * the prohibition of drugs* Black markets generally cause things to be more expensive. Just think how many more guns the criminals might have been able to afford if it weren’t for the gun ban pushing guns off onto the black markets. : : Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation : in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have : passed similar restrictive gun control laws. No doubt for the same reasons, more than likely implemented due to an already increasing crime rate that was occuring in spite of a well armed populace : "In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn’t hear : you clearly — I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," : Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It’s hard to tell the difference between them." WND,, oh , small surprise the information is skewed. : Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the : criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the : power and influence of the criminal element. Yet in this same post it’s already been established that the gun ban never even put a dent in the "check on the power and influence of the criminal element." So, the gun ban can’t be the major cause of the crime increases, though it’s rather obvious that the author of this material intends for us to unthinkingly think so. : : Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I : don’t have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during : debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or : similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they’re "against : self defense." This makes good sense, but that’s often how propaganda works, mix up some common sense to cloak nonsense. : Most often, he said, "they don’t say anything — they just don’t answer me. : But occasionally I’ll get one of them to admit it and say ‘yes.’" So, I’d ask of this clown the same thing, would you deny me the right to defend myself by repealing the draconian prohibition on drugs that is generating much of the crime that threatens me? I’d like to hear this jerkwads answer to that one. probably some BS about drugs and kids (the usual unproven fearmongering) : : Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted : near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could : happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports : incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens : successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but : "liberals completely ignore this reality." Nice myth I spoze as many "liberals" carry guns. It would appear that the authors intent is twofold, champion the gun cause and also smear "liberals" in the process. : : Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in : the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on : Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to : protect themselves and their students on campus. : : Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, : armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke : Woodham. : : "By making schools and even entire communities ‘gun free zones,’ you’re : basically telling the criminal element that you’re unarmed and extremely : vulnerable," Pratt said. Whereas by letting the punk know that teacher is armed you’re telling the punk to be sure and plug teacher first : Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap. : : "Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use : those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It’s : happened countless times throughout history." Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Duly noted. : Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on : lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access : laws. : : "This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan : and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or : ’safe storage’ laws that make it a crime to … read more »
Response:
his sock to waste more bits: >To the folks of AGA, below I tackle, er, expose >the weakness and fallacies of the propaganda >foisted upon this amp newsgroup by one alleged >Mr. John Wheaton > it’s a long read, but hopefully enlightening
<worthless crap deleted> Crawl back under your rock. Claude
Response:
Claudel, could you expand that thought? What kind of rock?
Response:
Well lookie what we got here, a Mulay clone who plans on switching screen names every day or two to avoid the killfiles, but he’ll deny being a troll I suppose, yeah, right. Hey, how come the right-wing trolls maintain consistent screen names so anybody who wants to avoid their posts can do so, while the left-wing trolls keep swapping names in an effort to force their spew on the world?
Response:
>Well lookie what we got here, a Mulay clone who plans on switching screen >names every day or two to avoid the killfiles, but he’ll deny being a troll >I suppose, yeah, right. Hey, how come the right-wing trolls maintain >consistent screen names so anybody who wants to avoid their posts can do so, >while the left-wing trolls keep swapping names in an effort to force their >spew on the world?
Would you be so kind as to enlighten us with the names of said trolls that continually switch names, with original identity and alleged pseudonyms? Not that Samuel Clemens, publishing as Mark Twain, didn’t lend legitimacy to this avenue of social comment. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
> Well lookie what we got here, a Mulay clone who plans on switching screen > names every day or two to avoid the killfiles, but he’ll deny being a troll > I suppose, yeah, right. Hey, how come the right-wing trolls maintain > consistent screen names so anybody who wants to avoid their posts can do so, > while the left-wing trolls keep swapping names in an effort to force their > spew on the world?
some right wing trolls use socks to talk to themselves like Freeeper and his creeper.
Response:
: : Well lookie what we got here, a Mulay clone who plans on switching screen : names every day or two to avoid the killfiles, what, are you retarded or something Devin ? you saw my "screen name" eh? screen name is still Dave Moore yo, bozo, wasn’t the name Dave Moore sufficient for you to recognize that it was a post you didn’t want to read ? : but he’ll deny being a troll : I suppose, yeah, right. you suppose wrong. I am indeed a troll. i’m also one heck of a guitar amp designer. : Hey, how come the right-wing trolls maintain : consistent screen names so anybody who wants to avoid their posts can do so, : while the left-wing trolls keep swapping names in an effort to force their : spew on the world? er, uh, perhaps because the right-wing propagandists know that their fan base ain’t bright ’nuff to know the difference between a *screen name* and an *email address* ? Here’s an extremely generous tip for ya sonny. 99% of my posts will bear the *screen name* Dave Moore whereas the email address was changed to a more anonymous value to deflect spam. now, I realize ya ain’t to bright as exemplified by this post of yers son, so I’ll spell it out fer ya Set filters for "Dave Moore" and we’ll both be happy. : :
Response:
: > Well lookie what we got here, a Mulay clone who plans on switching screen : > names every day or two to annoy the assholes : some right wing trolls use socks to talk to themselves like Freeeper : and his creeper. yeah, but that don’t bother Devin the self-proclaimed free thinking "independent" one iota
Response:
To the folks of AGA, below I tackle, er, expose the weakness and fallacies of the propaganda foisted upon this amp newsgroup by one alleged Mr. John Wheaton it’s a long read, but hopefully enlightening : 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; : : b.. Assaults are up 8.6 percent; : : c.. Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent; : : d.. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 : percent; : : e.. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been : dropping steadily; If this is so, why did people approve a ban in the first place? Something doesn’t add up here. Generally people don’t fix things that ain’t broke. Could it be that the bans were brought into play due to very recent increases in crime? The author certainly doesn’t clarify this. He says; "in the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;" Well if the crime rates had been dropping for 24 years and then suddenly rocketed in the 25′th year this would certainly still be a true statement. It reminds me of a cereal box that says ’sweetened with honey’ but is predominently sweetened with sugar yet the ingredients list a small amount of honey. So the statement is true, but it leads most people to believe that the cereal is sweetened *only* with honey ( diabetics beware) : f.. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and : assaults on the elderly. : It’s difficult to determine if gun control has any impact on crime one way or the other if the author doesn’t provide information about what the crime statistics would have been had guns not been controlled in those areas. Oh that’s right, he did say that it was sweetened with honey. Silly me! : At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port : Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an : annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe : society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and : rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling : for and supporting the weapons ban. : Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting : Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 — a 200 percent increase. : : Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of : weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of : the guns believed to be in the country. Aha, just as I thought, the ban doesn’t really doesn’t have anything to do with the increased crime rate since the citizens still have most of their guns anyway. damn John, do ever actually *think* about the shit you post? : According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms : in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for : example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total : of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction." Yup, confirmed again. The ban had virtually no effect. Unless one wants to contend that all of the remaing unseized guns are in the hand of criminals. If so I reckon 3-10 million criminals in the country might well account for an increased crime rate But then again, just whom possesses the 3-10 million remaining guns isn’t made clear so we have again in essence more useless information. Unless one wants to contend that it’s useful for manipulating ‘useful idiots’. : And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns : collected came from licensed gun dealers. So, even fewer decent law abiding citizens were deprived of their guns by the bans than I had even previously thought. Which only goes to reiterate the point that the bans had virtually nothing to do with the increased crime rates since the " check and balance" of armed citizenry against crime was effectively still in place the whole time during the period when the ‘alleged’ *gun control induced crime rate increases* occured.. : : Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report : said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun : specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold : throughout the country. Yup, more or less the same thing that happens with drug prohibition. Which IMO is what the gun control argument is really all about, a smokescreen to cover up one of the major causes of crime increase in the USA which is * the prohibition of drugs* Black markets generally cause things to be more expensive. Just think how many more guns the criminals might have been able to afford if it weren’t for the gun ban pushing guns off onto the black markets. : : Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation : in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have : passed similar restrictive gun control laws. No doubt for the same reasons, more than likely implemented due to an already increasing crime rate that was occuring in spite of a well armed populace : "In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn’t hear : you clearly — I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," : Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It’s hard to tell the difference between them." WND,, oh , small surprise the information is skewed. : Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the : criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the : power and influence of the criminal element. Yet in this same post it’s already been established that the gun ban never even put a dent in the "check on the power and influence of the criminal element." So, the gun ban can’t be the major cause of the crime increases, though it’s rather obvious that the author of this material intends for us to unthinkingly think so. : : Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I : don’t have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during : debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or : similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they’re "against : self defense." This makes good sense, but that’s often how propaganda works, mix up some common sense to cloak nonsense. : Most often, he said, "they don’t say anything — they just don’t answer me. : But occasionally I’ll get one of them to admit it and say ‘yes.’" So, I’d ask of this clown the same thing, would you deny me the right to defend myself by repealing the draconian prohibition on drugs that is generating much of the crime that threatens me? I’d like to hear this jerkwads answer to that one. probably some BS about drugs and kids (the usual unproven fearmongering) : : Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted : near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could : happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports : incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens : successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but : "liberals completely ignore this reality." Nice myth I spoze as many "liberals" carry guns. It would appear that the authors intent is twofold, champion the gun cause and also smear "liberals" in the process. : : Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in : the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on : Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to : protect themselves and their students on campus. : : Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, : armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke : Woodham. : : "By making schools and even entire communities ‘gun free zones,’ you’re : basically telling the criminal element that you’re unarmed and extremely : vulnerable," Pratt said. Whereas by letting the punk know that teacher is armed you’re telling the punk to be sure and plug teacher first : Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap. : : "Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use : those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It’s : happened countless times throughout history." Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Duly noted. : Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on : lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access : laws. : : "This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan : and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or : ’safe storage’ laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it : is accessible by children," Brady said. : : Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan … read more »
Response:
did courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >: >: Well lookie what we got here, a Mulay clone who plans on switching screen >: names every day or two to avoid the killfiles, > what, are you retarded or something Devin ? >you saw my "screen name" eh? > screen name is still Dave Moore > yo, bozo, wasn’t the name Dave Moore sufficient for you >to recognize that it was a post you didn’t want to read ? >: but he’ll deny being a troll >: I suppose, yeah, right. >you suppose wrong. I am indeed a troll. >i’m also one heck of a guitar amp designer. >: Hey, how come the right-wing trolls maintain >: consistent screen names so anybody who wants to avoid their posts can do so, >: while the left-wing trolls keep swapping names in an effort to force their >: spew on the world? > er, uh, perhaps because the right-wing propagandists know >that their fan base ain’t bright ’nuff to know the difference >between a *screen name* and an *email address* ? > Here’s an extremely generous tip for ya sonny. >99% of my posts will bear the *screen name* Dave Moore >whereas the email address was changed to a more anonymous >value to deflect spam. > now, I realize ya ain’t to bright as exemplified by this post >of yers son, so I’ll spell it out fer ya > Set filters for "Dave Moore" and we’ll both be happy.
I wouldn’t worry about it Dave. I called the Schei
Related Posts