An addition to Trevor Tosspot's Porky List

[Gray Ghost]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aae1kF1uaoq3U1@mid.individual.net:

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a3f668f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**That was my point. In the US, a used, cheap handgun sells for as
little as US$50.00, through legal channels. Here in Australia, they are
MUCH more expensive. This restricts the number of handguns in the hands
of low level criminals. It does not eliminate ALL guns from the hands
of ALL criminals.

Even in the US, a $50 gun is likely to be more dangerous to the firer
than the firee.

**Perhaps. Nonetheless, cheap handguns are responsible for a very large
number of homicides in the US each year. I would certainly not stand at
the wrong end of such a gun. Would you?

My God you are easy.

Please cite statistic for homicides by firearms type inckuding cost of
handgun.

You can, can't you or as i replies yesterday you're just an ignorant
blowhard. Out of the killfile until answered you hoplophobe.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...



"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.



Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you know
no one who fears guns.



Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.



This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[r_c_brown@hushmail.com]

On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...



"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.



Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly described by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you know
no one who fears guns.



 Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project your own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.



 This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

 Your "facts" and assumptions

are grossly flawed, your desire for government to dictate your life is
well
known and your inability to be truthful or back up your assertion is well
documented.

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

I would sooner argue with Weasel

**Just answer the questions, else risk being targetting as a fool. You're
(apparently) making a case for lax, incoherent, poorly policed gun control
laws. You need to answer the above questions, if you are to make a case for
such an experiment.



You're an idiot. Get used to it.

**This, coming from one who cannot answer simple questions, is rich.



I look forward to seeing the answers to these questions.

**Still waiting.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3376F52CBEWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aae1kF1uaoq3U1@mid.individual.net:


"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a3f668f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**That was my point. In the US, a used, cheap handgun sells for as
little as US$50.00, through legal channels. Here in Australia, they are
MUCH more expensive. This restricts the number of handguns in the hands
of low level criminals. It does not eliminate ALL guns from the hands
of ALL criminals.

Even in the US, a $50 gun is likely to be more dangerous to the firer
than the firee.

**Perhaps. Nonetheless, cheap handguns are responsible for a very large
number of homicides in the US each year. I would certainly not stand at
the wrong end of such a gun. Would you?



My God you are easy.

Please cite statistic for homicides by firearms type inckuding cost of
handgun.

**I have no breakdown by cost, but I can certainly supply the other data you
requested:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Gray Ghost]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7ado4kF1ug0e8U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3376F52CBEWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aae1kF1uaoq3U1@mid.individual.net:


"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a3f668f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**That was my point. In the US, a used, cheap handgun sells for as
little as US$50.00, through legal channels. Here in Australia, they
are MUCH more expensive. This restricts the number of handguns in the
hands of low level criminals. It does not eliminate ALL guns from the
hands of ALL criminals.

Even in the US, a $50 gun is likely to be more dangerous to the firer
than the firee.

**Perhaps. Nonetheless, cheap handguns are responsible for a very large
number of homicides in the US each year. I would certainly not stand at
the wrong end of such a gun. Would you?



My God you are easy.

Please cite statistic for homicides by firearms type inckuding cost of
handgun.

**I have no breakdown by cost, but I can certainly supply the other data
you requested:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtabl
e_07.html

Unrelated to the question. So once again you make statements which you cannot
backup. How can you expect to be taken seriously? Asshole.

I note a particular asshole trait, changing your identity to defeat
killfiles. This will be the 4th Tosspot identity in my kill file. Just die
and do everyone a favor you lieing sack of shit.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3412D13AFD3Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7ado4kF1ug0e8U1@mid.individual.net:


"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3376F52CBEWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aae1kF1uaoq3U1@mid.individual.net:


"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a3f668f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**That was my point. In the US, a used, cheap handgun sells for as
little as US$50.00, through legal channels. Here in Australia, they
are MUCH more expensive. This restricts the number of handguns in the
hands of low level criminals. It does not eliminate ALL guns from the
hands of ALL criminals.

Even in the US, a $50 gun is likely to be more dangerous to the firer
than the firee.

**Perhaps. Nonetheless, cheap handguns are responsible for a very large
number of homicides in the US each year. I would certainly not stand at
the wrong end of such a gun. Would you?



My God you are easy.

Please cite statistic for homicides by firearms type inckuding cost of
handgun.

**I have no breakdown by cost, but I can certainly supply the other data
you requested:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtabl
e_07.html



Unrelated to the question. So once again you make statements which you
cannot
backup. How can you expect to be taken seriously? Asshole.

**I suggest you read the cite again. Don't be so rude when I supply what you
ask for.

I note a particular asshole trait, changing your identity to defeat
killfiles. This will be the 4th Tosspot identity in my kill file. Just die
and do everyone a favor you lieing sack of shit.

**Huh? Perhaps you need someone to explain to you how to use your
newsreader.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[atec 7 7]

Gray Ghost wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7ado4kF1ug0e8U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3376F52CBEWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aae1kF1uaoq3U1@mid.individual.net:

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a3f668f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**That was my point. In the US, a used, cheap handgun sells for as
little as US$50.00, through legal channels. Here in Australia, they
are MUCH more expensive. This restricts the number of handguns in the
hands of low level criminals. It does not eliminate ALL guns from the
hands of ALL criminals.
Even in the US, a $50 gun is likely to be more dangerous to the firer
than the firee.
**Perhaps. Nonetheless, cheap handguns are responsible for a very large
number of homicides in the US each year. I would certainly not stand at
the wrong end of such a gun. Would you?


My God you are easy.

Please cite statistic for homicides by firearms type inckuding cost of
handgun.
**I have no breakdown by cost, but I can certainly supply the other data
you requested:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtabl
e_07.html



Unrelated to the question. So once again you make statements which you cannot
backup. How can you expect to be taken seriously? Asshole.

I note a particular asshole trait, changing your identity to defeat
killfiles. This will be the 4th Tosspot identity in my kill file. Just die
and do everyone a favor you lieing sack of shit.

He needs a jila he does

come one wilson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:665071a8-85f6-4eb8-889b-945135234ffc@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 6:22 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

Failure by Trevor to make any attempt to actually answer the questions
put to him is noted.

Why am I not surprised.

** Clearly there is no love lost between you and TW.
** However your constant goading isn't scoring you any Brownie points.

 

[APR]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ab46hF1uritgU1@mid.individual.net...

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

I am very suprised Trevor. Why would you fire a gun given the vitriol you
have spat out here regarding gun use and ownership. You using a gun brings
feelings of extreme cynicism, why would a wanker like you even pick up a
gun. You are lucky you didn't seriously hurt yourself

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Trevor, I know far more people who are prepared to express their concern at

the level of violence being seen on the streets of a night time, such that
they don't willingly go out after dark. This has nothing to do with guns but
more to do with a lack of enforced law and order. Why don't you start
wheeling this barrow.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor, it is just that your type seem to believe that total control is the

only way to go. What do you say about those people who want to use guns for
sports/recreational shooting. Note that the majority of sports/recreational
shooters use their guns on private farm properties where irresponsible use
will result in them being ejected with no chance of returning in the future.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here are the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing, however, there is an issue with what nutters consider to be "good,
strong, sane gun control laws" and what really might be good, strong and
sane gun control laws.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

No I don't, however, there are a mass of other issues that I believe should
be preferentially addressed by control authorities and are not being
addressed appropriately, viz, law and order re general violence on the
streets..

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

Why is it that your interpretation of what constitutes "common sense, logic
and the progress of technology" is the penultimate interpretation.

**Just answer the questions, else risk being targetting as a fool. You're
(apparently) making a case for lax, incoherent, poorly policed gun control
laws. You need to answer the above questions, if you are to make a case
for such an experiment.

No Trevor, There are many scenarios that can result in a person being
targetted as a fool. Not answering quewstions from a fool is not necessarily
one of them

**Still waiting.
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Not wasting my time waiting for a non-event..

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4a41f47f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ab46hF1uritgU1@mid.individual.net...

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.


I am very suprised Trevor.

**Why?

Why would you fire a gun given the vitriol you

have spat out here regarding gun use and ownership.

**What "vitriol" would that be? Be VERY precise in your answer and cite my
PRECISE words. DO NOT PARAPHRASE nor project your own opinions. Cite my
words.

You using a gun brings

feelings of extreme cynicism, why would a wanker like you even pick up a
gun. You are lucky you didn't seriously hurt yourself

**Why? What makes you imagine that I am unaware of the risks of using a gun?
Again, be precise in your answer.

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Trevor, I know far more people who are prepared to express their concern
at the level of violence being seen on the streets of a night time, such
that they don't willingly go out after dark.

**Fair enough. There are some places in my city that I would not walk in at
night. That is just common sense. I am wondering about this alleged fear of
guns.

This has nothing to do with guns but

more to do with a lack of enforced law and order. Why don't you start
wheeling this barrow.

**Because the claims were:

* That there are people who are afraid of guns.
* That I am afraid of guns.

THAT is the topic under discussion. Walking around dangerous neighbourhoods
at night is a whole different matter. It is also based on some degree of
hard evidence. Some areas of most large cities are 'no go' zones for many
people for a variety of reasons. Should it be that way? Certainly not. It
would be much better that large cities are like Tokyo. I've wandered all
over Tokyo at all sorts of odd hours and never felt any fear in doing so.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor, it is just that your type seem to believe that total control is
the only way to go.

**Bullshit. Sane gun control is just that: Sane.

What do you say about those people who want to use guns for

sports/recreational shooting.

**I have no objection to anyone (in Australia) using guns for legal
recreational purposes. EXCEPT duck shooting. I personally object to that. I
have no problem with target shooting. I have no problem with vermin
elimination (in fact, I vigorously encourage it - it is a shame that the
blood thirsty psychopaths who shoot ducks, do not turn their weapons towards
feral pigs, cats, foxes, cane toads and dogs). PROVIDED those gun owners
obey the relevant laws in doing so and in weapons storage.

Note that the majority of sports/recreational

shooters use their guns on private farm properties where irresponsible use
will result in them being ejected with no chance of returning in the
future.

**I am well aware of that.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here are the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing, however, there is an issue with what nutters consider to be
"good, strong, sane gun control laws" and what really might be good,
strong and sane gun control laws.

**Examine the gun control laws in the US, for an example of insane,
haphazard and weak gun control laws.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have unfettered access to firearms?

No I don't, however, there are a mass of other issues that I believe
should be preferentially addressed by control authorities and are not
being addressed appropriately, viz, law and order re general violence on
the streets..

**What violence on our streets? Australia has approximately similar levels
of street violence as most other Western, develpoed Democratic nations.
Which is not to say, that we should not try to reduce that violence. We
should. Severe restrictions on alcohol trading would go a long way to
solving many of these problems. As would getting tough on bikie gangs and
other groups. I have zero problem with VERY tough penalties on ANY violent
crime.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress
of technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?


Why is it that your interpretation of what constitutes "common sense,
logic and the progress of technology" is the penultimate interpretation.

**Who said it was? Let me set out the scenario for you:


When the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution was framed, the folllowing was
extant:

* Dangerous slaves needed to be kept in check (Thomas Jefferson owned more
than 200 slaves). Guns were vital for this task.
* Dangerous and very pissed off natives roamed the countryside. Guns were
essential for the genocide of many US Indian tribes.
* Dangerous animals roamed free. (We, here in Australia, quickly forget that
there have essentially never been any seriously dangerous animals in our
nations. Except for the odd snake, of course).
* Refrigeration was non-existent. Fresh meat had to be killed close to where
it was consumed.
* The firing rate of firearms could be measured in MINUTES, not
milliseconds.
* The cost of a typical firearm easily exceeded six months of average wages.
* Rifling was VERY rare and accuracy was generally very poor.
* Guns were hardly compact (if the equipment necessary for reloading was
also taken into account)
* The nation had no army, as such.
* The nation was ruled by a vicious, colonial power.

OTOH, Now:

* There are no slaves.
* The natives are not quite as angry.
* Dangerous animals are pretty much restricted to national parks and some
very remote areas.
* Not only do we have refrigeration, but we have efficient, fast
refrigerated transport.
* The firing rate of some firearms can be measured in milliseconds. Even low
end guns can be reloaded in a couple of seconds.
* Rifling is very common and accuracy is quite good.
* Modern firearms can be compact, high power, carry many rounds and are
accurate.
* The US has the most powerful fighting force on the planet.
* The US is a completely independent nation.

One can only speculate if the US Founding Fathers may well have altered
their view on the 2dn Amendment, if they knew what is known today.

**Just answer the questions, else risk being targetting as a fool. You're
(apparently) making a case for lax, incoherent, poorly policed gun
control laws. You need to answer the above questions, if you are to make
a case for such an experiment.


No Trevor, There are many scenarios that can result in a person being
targetted as a fool. Not answering quewstions from a fool is not
necessarily one of them

**Incorrect. However, you are entitled to your opinion.

**Still waiting.
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Not wasting my time waiting for a non-event..

**Nor am I. Idiots don't like answering the hard questions.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:94e28834-cb74-4eda-a1fb-4cf9da5ef7d2@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

**It's not an opinion, when it's a fact.


So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

**90% of Australians.

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

**Which laws would they be? Cite them.


Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

**They sure are. Can a gun manufactured before WWI kill humans?


Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

**Yep.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

**If the shoe fits.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:665071a8-85f6-4eb8-889b-945135234ffc@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 6:22 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

Failure by Trevor to make any attempt to actually answer the questions
put to him is noted.

Why am I not surprised.

**Good one, idiot. I pop inside for my evening meal and you give me 11
minutes to answer your idiotic rants.

Sheesh!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 6:22 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

Failure by Trevor to make any attempt to actually answer the questions
put to him is noted.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 6:42 pm, "Alan Rutlidge"
<don't_spam_me_rutli...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

** Clearly there is no love lost between you and TW.
** However your constant goading isn't scoring you any Brownie points

So, you're saying it's OK for Trevor Tosspot to vent when questions
put by him are ignored, but not OK for Trevor to be reminded of
questions he has ignored? Am I correct?

I ain't looking for your Brownie points, or your approval. Don't like
it, take it up with Tosspot, he chose the "field"

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

And most, if not all, of what you propose as good, strong, sane gun
control laws do not meet our Constitutional standards, nor do they have
general agreement.

Given that even you admit they need to meed such criteria, why exactly
should anyone give your gun control proposals which lack these even
momentary consideration, much less serious consideration?

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 8:18 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:665071a8-85f6-4eb8-889b-945135234ffc@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 6:22 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

Failure by Trevor to make any attempt to actually answer the questions
put to him is noted.

Why am I not surprised.

**Good one, idiot. I pop inside for my evening meal and you give me 11
minutes to answer your idiotic rants.

Sheesh!

Check the times again fool...........

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 8:17 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:94e28834-cb74-4eda-a1fb-4cf9da5ef7d2@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

**It's not an opinion, when it's a fact.

It is your opinion that a particular set of laws are "good, strong or
sane", but then, you only deal in facts, don't you?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

**90% of Australians.

Really, when was that, and what do the people who you mention know
about the gun laws.

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

**Which laws would they be? Cite them.

They would be the 1996 Victorian Firearms Act, as accepted by courts
in Victoria,
read the posted information on aus.politics.guns.

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

**They sure are. Can a gun manufactured before WWI kill humans?

That's not the question I asked idiot, read it again.

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

**Yep.

You're a fool.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

**If the shoe fits.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 8:12 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**What "vitriol" would that be? Be VERY precise in your answer and cite my
PRECISE words. DO NOT PARAPHRASE nor project your own opinions. Cite my
words.

________________________________________________________

On Mar 13 2007, 9:47 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

but your suggestions are surprisingly similar to people like
TimMcVeyand The Unabomber. They were also people who felt the need to
divorce themselves from society and discarded the sense of community.
_____________________________________________________

Want me to keep looking?

**I have no objection to anyone (in Australia) using guns for legal
recreational purposes. EXCEPT duck shooting. I personally object to that. I
have no problem with target shooting. I have no problem with vermin
elimination (in fact, I vigorously encourage it - it is a shame that the
blood thirsty psychopaths who shoot ducks, do not turn their weapons towards
feral pigs, cats, foxes, cane toads and dogs). PROVIDED those gun owners
obey the relevant laws in doing so and in weapons storage.

BULLSHIT!

I haven't shot a duck in over a decade;
I am a target shooter;
The only hunting I do is of vermin species, mostly rabbits and foxes;
Most duck hunters also hunt vermin species;
My storage facilities EXCEED those laid down in the firearms act;
I have never been charged with any criminal offence;
I have never been judged mentally unsound (except by those who have NO
mental health qualifications whatsoever);

And you've claimed how many times people like me should not be allowed
to own guns?

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 8:12 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**What "vitriol" would that be? Be VERY precise in your answer and cite my
PRECISE words. DO NOT PARAPHRASE nor project your own opinions. Cite my
words.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 29 2007, 7:27 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**And the stupidity just keeps coming.

On Jun 25 2007, 5:22 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Your choice. Are you dumber than a rock, or can you find the flaw

On Jun 26 2007, 7:16 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Nope. I consider it bogus and misleading, because it is bogus and
misleading. But I certainly don't expect you (or John and Benj) to
understand why. You're far too stupid.
This post just serves to demonstrate to all, just how dumb you are.

On May 30 2004, 10:40 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Do read the whole thread, before demonstrating your
extreme stupidity to the world next time.

On May 28 2004, 9:45 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Nope. You STILL have no clue about rhetorical questions. You have not
exposed any hypocracy (sic) on my part. You merely expose your own
ignorance.

On May 26 2004, 8:15 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Perhaps you did. Now, you just need to understand it. That may take some
time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these responses, citing Trevor's words, were directed at
posters supportive of firearms ownership, there's probably a few
thousand more, but I can't be bothered looking for them.

Of course, then there's the number of times Trevor has been spanked
for telling prokies about gun ownership and gun owners on gun related
groups, only to run away to totally unrelatde groups like
"rec.audio.opinion", "aus.hi-fi", "aus.tv" and "aus.eletronics" where
he has posted rants about guns and gun owners thinking that no-one
there will know enough about the subject matter to challenge him.

He posted this on aus.hi-fi

-------------------------------------------------
On Mar 26 2008, 3:59 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Indeed. On the whole, however, this group is well behaved. If you want to
see some real nutty behaviour, visit one of the gun groups. One I
particularly like is talk.politics.guns. It is largely populated by
psychopaths. There are a handful of inhabitants who are interested in
learning some truth, but, on the whole, they rather enjoy stereotyping
people and cannot accept logic and reason, preferring, instead, rhetoric and
lies.

Trevor Wilson

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claiming that a discussion group talking about guns is largely
populated by psychopaths isn't displaying his hate of guns and gun
owners at all, is it?

You will also notice from the dates that Trevor was spitting his
"vitriol", arrogance and hate at gun owners long before I arrived on
the scene.