Wilso wrote :-
Quote:Based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. How are you going to answer it? By dribbling some more worthless sh!t?
I noticed you didn't comment on my reply.
Cat got ya tongue or penis in your case ?
ooragnak wrote:Wilso wrote :-
Quote:Based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. How are you going to answer it? By dribbling some more worthless sh!t?
I noticed you didn't comment on my reply.
Cat got ya tongue or penis in your case ?
Can you take your gun rants to the myriad threads especially for gun rants, please?
This is a thread about conspiracy theories.
dlowan wrote:
Can you take your gun rants to the myriad threads especially for gun rants, please?
This is a thread about conspiracy theories.
dlowan wrote ....
Quote:As far as I can work out, it seems mainly to be a gun nut thing....who say the government set it up so they could make tougher gun laws!
Well dlowan, you started the thread, now you want to stifle your own topic.
I find that amusing. It's a pity people get so "prickly" when someone disagrees with them.
Did the government have laws drafted and waiting for an incident to introduce them ? YES most certainly.
Did the government engineer the incident ? Most certainly NO .
msolga wrote :-
Quote:Remember those photographs of Howard, with the outline of his bullet proof vest visible under his suit jacket, as he addressed angry crowds about gun control? He obviously thought they were (gun) nuts & wasn't taking any risks!
Actually msolga, that "ill-fitting" vest was a carefully stage prop. It reinforced to the public that even the Prime Minister could be a target. I would bet Mr Howard had a beautifully tailored vest just like George W wears somewhere at home.
ooragnak wrote:dlowan wrote:
Can you take your gun rants to the myriad threads especially for gun rants, please?
This is a thread about conspiracy theories.
dlowan wrote ....
Quote:As far as I can work out, it seems mainly to be a gun nut thing....who say the government set it up so they could make tougher gun laws!
Well dlowan, you started the thread, now you want to stifle your own topic.
I find that amusing. It's a pity people get so "prickly" when someone disagrees with them.
Did the government have laws drafted and waiting for an incident to introduce them ? YES most certainly.
Did the government engineer the incident ? Most certainly NO .
Good...you made a comment on the conspiracy.
What evidence do you have that the government had gun laws drafted?
A couple of interesting articles, editorial on US gun laws in the New England Journal of Medicine out today
So Wilso posts something from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Ooragnak posts something from the Sidney Morning Herald . . . are we supposed to consider that to have trumped Wilso's source?
Setanta wrote:So Wilso posts something from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Ooragnak posts something from the Sidney Morning Herald . . . are we supposed to consider that to have trumped Wilso's source?
Wilso's report is not from the Australian Bureau of Stastics, but in fact a report put together by four men from the School of Public Health and published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. The report acknowledges using 29 sources for the material, INCLUDING twice from the Sydney Morning Herald. I might be mistaken but it appears the authors didn't quote directly from the ABS but from a National Injury Surveillance Unit report.
The article I quoted in the SMH was attributed to the head of the Bureau of Crime, Statistics and Research in which he quotes figures direct from the ABS.
dlowan wrote:
Good...you made a comment on the conspiracy.
What evidence do you have that the government had gun laws drafted?
I have none. Do you have evidence they didn't ?
After reading the Act and the Regulations, it was amazing how quickly a complex piece of legislation was put together. Just seems to me it was sitting in a folder awaiting a rubber stamp.
ooragnak wrote:Setanta wrote:So Wilso posts something from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Ooragnak posts something from the Sidney Morning Herald . . . are we supposed to consider that to have trumped Wilso's source?
Wilso's report is not from the Australian Bureau of Stastics, but in fact a report put together by four men from the School of Public Health and published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. The report acknowledges using 29 sources for the material, INCLUDING twice from the Sydney Morning Herald. I might be mistaken but it appears the authors didn't quote directly from the ABS but from a National Injury Surveillance Unit report.
The article I quoted in the SMH was attributed to the head of the Bureau of Crime, Statistics and Research in which he quotes figures direct from the ABS.
Translation: your source is not more reliable than his.
Interesting article margo ....
Here's one that shows more people die in America from medical mistakes than from gun shots.
Medical deaths
Setanta wrote:ooragnak wrote:Setanta wrote:So Wilso posts something from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Ooragnak posts something from the Sidney Morning Herald . . . are we supposed to consider that to have trumped Wilso's source?
Wilso's report is not from the Australian Bureau of Stastics, but in fact a report put together by four men from the School of Public Health and published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. The report acknowledges using 29 sources for the material, INCLUDING twice from the Sydney Morning Herald. I might be mistaken but it appears the authors didn't quote directly from the ABS but from a National Injury Surveillance Unit report.
The article I quoted in the SMH was attributed to the head of the Bureau of Crime, Statistics and Research in which he quotes figures direct from the ABS.
Translation: your source is not more reliable than his.
Setanta ... I admire your loyalty to Wilso regardless of the facts.
Wilso isn't my mate, while at the same time, i bear him no animus. The sources as you've explained them are no more impressive for one point of view than for the other. I don't need you to tell me about "facts."
Or, as they say in the Bronx, where i was born, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
Setanta wrote:Wilso isn't my mate, while at the same time, i bear him no animus. The sources as you've explained them are no more impressive for one point of view than for the other. I don't need you to tell me about "facts."
Or, as they say in the Bronx, where i was born, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
Setanta wrote:
Quote:So Wilso posts something from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Ooragnak posts something from the Sidney Morning Herald . . . are we supposed to consider that to have trumped Wilso's source?
I did post an article from the SMH.
Wilso did NOT post from the ABS as you said...
That are the facts I was referring to
Perhaps you need to read your own posts Setanta.
Maybe you should read what you post. I have looked at what you allege the evidence to be, and what you allege Wilso's evidence to have been. All of that taken aside, i have already responded to your later post, and said that i see no reason to consider your evidence more authoritative than Wilso's evidence. As far as i can, see neither of you offer conclusive evidence.
Bite me, clown.
Setanta, you have missed the point entirely. I agree with your last statement " i see no reason to consider your evidence more authoritative than Wilso's evidence "
When I disagreed with Wilso, and he took me to task over it, I commented that I could produce a report too . And posted a report from the SMH.
When you made a comment that I quoted from the SMH and Wilso from the ABS, I corrected that statement. Wilso did not quote from the ABS. That was the "facts" I was referring to.
Perhaps with maturity you will learn to refrain from name calling when people disagree with you. Bite you ? No thanks.
Good luck.
SMH Sydney Morning Herald
ABS Australian Bureau of Stastics
I understand the meaning of the acronyms, clown, and it is your snotty decision to "condescend" to explain things to me which leads me to refer to you as a clown.
You are the one who seems to have missed the point. After your exposition on sources, i did not question it, and my subsequent references were to that, and not the earlier posts. So when i said that i did not consider either source to be more authoritative than the other, and you came along to tell me about "facts," which was simply a recension of your earlier remarks, which i had already accepted, i got rather tired of your didactic style, given how unnecessary and inappropriate it is. So i told you not to piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
If anything, you seem to become more and more confused as this progresses.
So . . . bite me, clown.
