PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Epsilon" <not@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:h198ps$ioi$1@news.albasani.net...

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Get a 9 year old to explain what I wrote to you.


Hmmm.

**Nothing sinister in my words. I am not attempting to suggest that John
McNamara (aka: John Melb) is a paedophile. There is no evidence to suggest
that he is anything of the kind. Amongst his many problems he has
demonstrated the reading and comprehension abilities which are approximately
equivalent to a 7 year old child. Hence, I suggested he consult with someone
who can actually understand plain English at a higher level than he is able
to. A 9 year old should suffice.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Epsilon" <not@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:h198ej$i5d$1@news.albasani.net...

Sylvia Else wrote:
Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given
situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal
training and fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that
they will be (rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating
investigative prosesses. Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For
those and other reasons, civilians should not possess deadly (or
other weapons) when going about their daily routine.

Both police and civilians get subject to a rigorous and penetrating
investigative process. But in the absence of wrongdoing, that's as far
as it goes.


The cost to the shooter will be substantial. As it should be.
(Even in the US, it is not legal in many jurisdictions to kill an
assailant, just because a person fears for the loss of property.
You're confusing two situations. If someone has my wallet and is
running away with it, then I cannot lawfully kill them to retrieve
my property.

**Nor should you. Nor should you kill someone, just because they
demand your wallet either.

I wouldn't kill someone just because they demanded my wallet. But if
they make a credible threat to kill me or inflict serious bodily
injury, then I would act to obviate the threat (assuming I were
able), even if that involved killing them. And I wouldn't lose any
sleep over it.
Criminals are profit-oriented. They want to make a profit,
with as little risk as possible. Killing the victim means that they
are far less likely to profit from the crime.

But if someone is threatening to kill me unless I hand over my
wallet, then, since I am under no lawful compulsion to accede to
their request, they're actually making a direct and credible threat
to kill me. I can respond to that threat with lethal force. I don't
have to meekly hand over my property.

**No, you don't. You need to be aware that, by killing another
human, you will be subject to the law and will likely be charged
with (at least) manslaughter.

I don't think that's true. The police know that where self defence is
raised, the prosecution has to negate it beyond reasonable doubt. In
situations where it's credible that the deceased threatened the
accused with death or serious bodily harm (for example, with a gun or
knife), and in the absence of contradictory evidence, no prosecution
is likely.
The cases that go to court are those that lie in the murky area of
excessive self defence (for example, killing an assailant who didn't
represent a serious threat).


That doesn't address the issue of causality.

**Sure it doesn't. The correlation is compelling however.


Why? It seems entirely plausible that people carry guns in the USA
because it's a violent society, not the other way around.

Unless there is some evidence that the society in the USA is more
inherently violent than other countries, it's not entirely plausible.

**Correct. Based on these figures:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

It seems clear that the US is no more violent than any other Western,
Democratic, developed nation.

What is perfectly clear, however, is that the US is far more deadly than
most (all?) other Western, Democratic, developed nations:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Tellingly, most of those murders (in the US) are committed via the use of
guns (specifically: Handguns):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

It is more likely that, because people can carry guns, more people will be
shot than if people did not carry guns. That would include the police, of
course.

**The figures for people legitemately shooting alleged criminals (I say
alleged, because in places like Texas, it would seem that the authorites are
now prepared to accept the word of the 'last man standing', as to the
legitemacy of the shooting) are miniscule in the extreme. FBI figures show
that, in the US, something like 400-odd people are shot and killed by police
in so-called 'justifiable homicide' acts each year. This figure needs to be
examined in the same light as the number killed by civilians in similar
circumstances. The figure for civilians is approximately 230 PA. That figure
needs to be tempered by the inadequacies of the laws in places like Texas,
where lip service is paid by LEOs under many circumstances. Additionally,
one must bear in mind that the number of civilians killed by gunshot each
year in the US is approximately 10,000. Clearly, carrying guns for self
defence purposes is a failed experiment. It is an experiment that many of
the nutters in the pro-gun lobby, here in Australia, wish to duplicate.
These are the same individuals who seem to feel that shooting native ducks
and other indigenous critters is, somehow, sporting. They seem to consider
that the indiscriminate spraying of lead shot into pristine environments,
whilst causing the needless suffering of wild animals is all in a good
cause.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdf5ccd1-ac8f-404b-80f8-c6c5fdb23db9@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 9:40 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**The figures for people legitemately shooting alleged criminals (I say
alleged, because in places like Texas, it would seem that the authorites
are
now prepared to accept the word of the 'last man standing', as to the
legitemacy of the shooting) are miniscule in the extreme. FBI figures show
that, in the US, something like 400-odd people are shot and killed by
police
in so-called 'justifiable homicide' acts each year. This figure needs to
be
examined in the same light as the number killed by civilians in similar
circumstances. The figure for civilians is approximately 230 PA. That
figure
needs to be tempered by the inadequacies of the laws in places like Texas,
where lip service is paid by LEOs under many circumstances. Additionally,
one must bear in mind that the number of civilians killed by gunshot each
year in the US is approximately 10,000. Clearly, carrying guns for self
defence purposes is a failed experiment. It is an experiment that many of
the nutters in the pro-gun lobby, here in Australia, wish to duplicate.
These are the same individuals who seem to feel that shooting native ducks
and other indigenous critters is, somehow, sporting. They seem to consider
that the indiscriminate spraying of lead shot into pristine environments,
whilst causing the needless suffering of wild animals is all in a good
cause.

Trevor has posted such rants before, he posts them here because he
doesn't believe that anybody know enough about the subject matter to
challenge him, every time he posts such rants on gun related group he
gets spanked badly.

Reading the above Trevor, are you again asserting that a Defensive Gun
Use (DGU) requires a dead body, and if there's no dead body, then the
DGU didn't happen?


**Read what I wrote. If you don't understand what is written, ask a 9 year
old.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0aeb9238-c3e2-427b-a354-f9fe5decd8e3@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 8:56 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:78f4fe9e-8be6-4e61-b3de-cc0ccbd5cb08@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

**Read what I wrote. If you have trouble understanding my words, get
someone
to explain it to you.

I did read what you wrote, here it is again:

"**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given
situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal
training and
fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that they will be
(rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating investigative
prosesses.
Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For those and other reasons,
civilians should not possess deadly (or other weapons) when going
about
their daily routine."

You're saying Police should carry deadly weapons (as opposed to
civilians) because they are "highly trained" both in the use of arms
and in the legal aspects of using those arms, as well as being trained
in how to respond to potentially violent situations, am I right?

**Good to see you've consulted a 9 year old to explain it to you.

But you're now saying that civilians who have undergone similar
training (or perhaps even more extensive training) shouldn't carry
arms?

**Where (precisely) did I say that? Please cite my words.


You really are a quite confused little child aren't you.

Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

**Clearly, you are the confused one. Get a 9 year old to explain what I
wrote to you.

You've given me that advice before, what is it with you and 9 year
olds?

**A typical 9 year old has superior reading and comprehension abilities to
you.

Oops, forget I asked that question, I don't want the answer.

**Too late. I've already answered.


As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you
try?

**No point. I have neither the time, nor the patience to deal with idiots
like you. You are (allegedly) an adult. I suggest you acquire an adult level
education, so you can converse with the rest of the adults. There are many
places where you can do so. Start here:

http://carrickeducation.edu.au/

Or here:

http://www.vicnet.net.au/education/acfe/

Or here:

http://www.geos-mce.vic.edu.au/page/geos_melbourne.html

I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

**You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to firearms.
Ever.
That is just good public policy. Unless you feel that it makes sense for
nut
jobs to have access to firearms, of course.

You normally brand anyone who disagrees with you as a nut-job.

**Incorrect. I brand YOU as a nut job. I, for instance, frequently dissagree
with Sylvia. I do not regard her as a nut job. She appears to be well
educated, thoughtful and intelligent. You are none of those things.

That's
OK, I view being branded a nut-job by a self-centred arrogant zealot
like you to be a badge of honour.

**Of course you do. You may believe anything you wish.

I guess being branded a nut-job is an improvement on being compared to
Timothy McViegh or the Unabomber, as you've done to other gun owners
who've disagreed with you.

**Please compile a complete list of all the people I have compared to the
Unabomber. Please the list here:

----




----

After you compile that list, please cite the response from those people I
compared to the Unabomber and the context. Context, which you clearly do not
understand, is everything.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 16, 10:23 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:
**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given
situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal training and
fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that they will be
(rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating investigative prosesses.
Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For those and other reasons,
civilians should not possess deadly (or other weapons) when going about
their daily routine.

Both police and civilians get subject to a rigorous and penetrating
investigative process. But in the absence of wrongdoing, that's as far
as it goes.

So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

Go figure.

For the record, I have no desire to carry a weapon. I'm a licenced
collector and recreational shooter, but feel if there is no reason to
have a gun, there's no excuse for having a gun(meaning actuall in
possession). I do not believe that crime in the society I live and in
the social circles I inhabit has reached the stage where the average
person needs to carry a defensive weapon, therefore I have no desire
to carry one.

The cost to the shooter will be substantial. As it should be. (Even in
the US, it is not legal in many jurisdictions to kill an assailant, just
because a person fears for the loss of property.
You're confusing two situations. If someone has my wallet and is running
away with it, then I cannot lawfully kill them to retrieve my property..

**Nor should you. Nor should you kill someone, just because they demand your
wallet either.

I wouldn't kill someone just because they demanded my wallet. But if
they make a credible threat to kill me or inflict serious bodily injury,
then I would act to obviate the threat (assuming I were able), even if
that involved killing them. And I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

  Criminals are profit-oriented. They want to make a profit,

with as little risk as possible. Killing the victim means that they are far
less likely to profit from the crime.
Really, wow?

But if someone is threatening to kill me unless I hand over my wallet,
then, since I am under no lawful compulsion to accede to their request,
they're actually making a direct and credible threat to kill me. I can
respond to that threat with lethal force. I don't have to meekly hand over
my property.

**No, you don't. You need to be aware that, by killing another human, you
will be subject to the law and will likely be charged with (at least)
manslaughter.

I don't think that's true. The police know that where self defence is
raised, the prosecution has to negate it beyond reasonable doubt. In
situations where it's credible that the deceased threatened the accused
with death or serious bodily harm (for example, with a gun or knife),
and in the absence of contradictory evidence, no prosecution is likely.

The cases that go to court are those that lie in the murky area of
excessive self defence (for example, killing an assailant who didn't
represent a serious threat).

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

**Sure it doesn't. The correlation is compelling however.

Why? It seems entirely plausible that people carry guns in the USA
because it's a violent society, not the other way around.

Sylvia.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 8:56 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:78f4fe9e-8be6-4e61-b3de-cc0ccbd5cb08@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

**Read what I wrote. If you have trouble understanding my words, get someone
to explain it to you.

I did read what you wrote, here it is again:

"**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given
situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal
training and
fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that they will be
(rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating investigative
prosesses.
Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For those and other reasons,
civilians should not possess deadly (or other weapons) when going
about
their daily routine."

You're saying Police should carry deadly weapons (as opposed to
civilians) because they are "highly trained" both in the use of arms
and in the legal aspects of using those arms, as well as being trained
in how to respond to potentially violent situations, am I right?

But you're now saying that civilians who have undergone similar
training (or perhaps even more extensive training) shouldn't carry
arms?

You really are a quite confused little child aren't you.

Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

**Clearly, you are the confused one. Get a 9 year old to explain what I
wrote to you.

You've given me that advice before, what is it with you and 9 year
olds?

Oops, forget I asked that question, I don't want the answer.

As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you
try?

I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

**You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to firearms. Ever.
That is just good public policy. Unless you feel that it makes sense for nut
jobs to have access to firearms, of course.

You normally brand anyone who disagrees with you as a nut-job. That's
OK, I view being branded a nut-job by a self-centred arrogant zealot
like you to be a badge of honour.

I guess being branded a nut-job is an improvement on being compared to
Timothy McViegh or the Unabomber, as you've done to other gun owners
who've disagreed with you.

Tell us agin about your friend who can STOP his heart.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 9:39 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**Nothing sinister in my words. I am not attempting to suggest that John
McNamara (aka: John Melb) is a paedophile. There is no evidence to suggest
that he is anything of the kind. Amongst his many problems he has
demonstrated the reading and comprehension abilities which are approximately
equivalent to a 7 year old child. Hence, I suggested he consult with someone
who can actually understand plain English at a higher level than he is able
to. A 9 year old should suffice.

Trevor has of course the necessary psych and educational
qualifications to make such a statement (ROFLMAO)

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 9:40 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**The figures for people legitemately shooting alleged criminals (I say
alleged, because in places like Texas, it would seem that the authorites are
now prepared to accept the word of the 'last man standing', as to the
legitemacy of the shooting) are miniscule in the extreme. FBI figures show
that, in the US, something like 400-odd people are shot and killed by police
in so-called 'justifiable homicide' acts each year. This figure needs to be
examined in the same light as the number killed by civilians in similar
circumstances. The figure for civilians is approximately 230 PA. That figure
needs to be tempered by the inadequacies of the laws in places like Texas,
where lip service is paid by LEOs under many circumstances. Additionally,
one must bear in mind that the number of civilians killed by gunshot each
year in the US is approximately 10,000. Clearly, carrying guns for self
defence purposes is a failed experiment. It is an experiment that many of
the nutters in the pro-gun lobby, here in Australia, wish to duplicate.
These are the same individuals who seem to feel that shooting native ducks
and other indigenous critters is, somehow, sporting. They seem to consider
that the indiscriminate spraying of lead shot into pristine environments,
whilst causing the needless suffering of wild animals is all in a good
cause.

Trevor has posted such rants before, he posts them here because he
doesn't believe that anybody know enough about the subject matter to
challenge him, every time he posts such rants on gun related group he
gets spanked badly.

Reading the above Trevor, are you again asserting that a Defensive Gun
Use (DGU) requires a dead body, and if there's no dead body, then the
DGU didn't happen?

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 9:51 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**Read what I wrote. If you don't understand what is written, ask a 9 year
old.

I did read what you wrote, it appears you are unable to answer a
question about your posted assertion without the assistance of some
(apparently unavailble) 9 year old?

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 10:05 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0aeb9238-c3e2-427b-a354-f9fe5decd8e3@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 8:56 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:78f4fe9e-8be6-4e61-b3de-cc0ccbd5cb08@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

**Read what I wrote. If you have trouble understanding my words, get
someone
to explain it to you.

I did read what you wrote, here it is again:

"**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given
situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal
training and
fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that they will be
(rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating investigative
prosesses.
Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For those and other reasons,
civilians should not possess deadly (or other weapons) when going
about
their daily routine."

You're saying Police should carry deadly weapons (as opposed to
civilians) because they are "highly trained" both in the use of arms
and in the legal aspects of using those arms, as well as being trained
in how to respond to potentially violent situations, am I right?

**Good to see you've consulted a 9 year old to explain it to you.

But you're now saying that civilians who have undergone similar
training (or perhaps even more extensive training) shouldn't carry
arms?

**Where (precisely) did I say that? Please cite my words.

So you're saying when you assert something, the opposite is not also
true?

" **You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to
firearms.Ever.
That is just good public policy."

I've had training similar to, if not more extensive, than many Police
get in the subject matter, and I've been required to carry arms in
public where my rules for employing arms, if necessary, is actually
more "open" than the Police. I've have been in situations where a
Police oficer would not be entitled to employ deadly force, but I
would have been.

But then accroding to Trevor Tosspot, I'm a nut-job.

You really are a quite confused little child aren't you.



Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

**Clearly, you are the confused one. Get a 9 year old to explain what I
wrote to you.

You've given me that advice before, what is it with you and 9 year
olds?

**A typical 9 year old has superior reading and comprehension abilities to
you.

Oops, forget I asked that question, I don't want the answer.

**Too late. I've already answered.

That'd be the first question you've answered in a very long time.

As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you
try?

**No point. I have neither the time, nor the patience to deal with idiots
like you. You are (allegedly) an adult. I suggest you acquire an adult level
education, so you can converse with the rest of the adults. There are many
places where you can do so. Start here:

Failure to answer a question about an asertion you posted noted, and I
thought you "only deal in facts"?

http://carrickeducation.edu.au/

Or here:

http://www.vicnet.net.au/education/acfe/

Or here:

http://www.geos-mce.vic.edu.au/page/geos_melbourne.html



I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

**You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to firearms.
Ever.
That is just good public policy. Unless you feel that it makes sense for
nut
jobs to have access to firearms, of course.

You normally brand anyone who disagrees with you as a nut-job.

**Incorrect. I brand YOU as a nut job. I, for instance, frequently dissagree
with Sylvia. I do not regard her as a nut job. She appears to be well
educated, thoughtful and intelligent. You are none of those things.

 That's
OK, I view being branded a nut-job by a self-centred arrogant zealot
like you to be a badge of honour.

**Of course you do. You may believe anything you wish.

Thank you for giving me your permission to have an opinion, my but
you're an arrogant soul aren't you.

I guess being branded a nut-job is an improvement on being compared to
Timothy McViegh or the Unabomber, as you've done to other gun owners
who've disagreed with you.

**Please compile a complete list of all the people I have compared to the
Unabomber. Please the list here:

Ardeet........

----

----

After you compile that list, please cite the response from those people I
compared to the Unabomber and the context. Context, which you clearly do not
understand, is everything.

On Jun 17, 10:05 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"I have neither the time, nor the patience"

 

[John - Melb]

Here's another one for you

On Mar 14 2007, 9:34 pm, j...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:41:15 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

**And morons who could not be bothered reading my words, deserve zero
respect and a healthy dose of derision. Those who could not understand those
words require remedial English lessons.

Why is it that you are the only one that doesn't "require remedial
English lessons"? The rest of us seem to communicate quite clearly to
one and the other?-

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 10:26 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

After you compile that list, please cite the response from those people I
compared to the Unabomber and the context. Context, which you clearly do not
understand, is everything.

You're right, context is everything

On Mar 14 2007, 10:03 pm, j...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

That could be part of the problem. Many of us on the gun
rights side have been refereed to in derisive comparisons such as
those that Trevor has been using. People on earlier occasions and
some years ago had consistently used those comparisons to refer to
legal and law-abiding gun owners. We have become sensitized to those
words and it has become reflexive to become quite defensive when those
comparisons are made. It was quite common for gun owners, and in
particular NRA members, to be compared to Tim McVey after the bombing
took place. That reference strikes deeply and hard. Other ones that
goes right to the core is derisive references to the Waco incident and
the other one where the wife of the man went to the door and the feds
shot her and the baby she had in her arms. There may be others but
you catch the drift.
If Trevor continues with the derisive comparisons or perceived
derisive comparisons, he will get flamed every time

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 10:05 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

After you compile that list, please cite the response from those people I
compared to the Unabomber and the context. Context, which you clearly do not
understand, is everything.

Some more "context" for you

On Mar 14 2007, 10:29 pm, "John-Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mar 14, 11:03 pm, j...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

If Trevor continues with the derisive comparisons or perceived
derisive comparisons, he will get flamed every time.

IF?, it was a simple attempt of guilt by association on Trevor's part,
he compared the attitues and beliefs HE believed Ardeet held and
compared them with those of terrorists like McViegh and theUnabomber.

Ardeet may have not taken offence, I certainly did, I've seen the same
tactic employed by anti's like Trevor too often not to take offence.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 17, 10:05 am, "Trevor Wilson"

After you compile that list, please cite the response from those people I
compared to the Unabomber and the context. Context, which you clearly do not
understand, is everything.

On second thoughts, I'm not going to lower myself to your standard

______________________________________________________
On Mar 14 2007, 4:38 pm, "Ardeet" <ardeetNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:

And here's my response

"I'm not offended by the McVey/Unabomberreference, just a little confused..
I don't feel the need to divorce myself from society I just want to be able
to live in a society that doesn't force it's morals onto me. I want to live
in a society where *everyone* (not just those who are "right") can live how
they choose, providing they don't harm anyone."

Trevor, in some ways it could be read that you were infering I was *like*
McVey or theUnabomber. You said that my suggestions were "surprisingly
similar". However because you prefaced it with "Don't get this the wrong
way" then I didn't come to the conclusion that I *was* just like the them..

What I find frustrating, and I am guessing a number of others do as well
(from both sides of the debate), is the meaning and context of a phrase or
word versus the actual technical meaning. The reason that I find this
frustrating is that it is a tool that is abused by politicians (please don't
construe that I'm saying you're guilty of the same abuse).

As and example - When Howard says something like "I have reports that
refugees are throwing their children overboard" then I take that to mean he
is telling me that this is *actually* happening. Technically he is not and
when he says that he didn't lie then *technically* he is correct...BUT...he
knows what he was saying and what his words meant and when he comes back
with this weasly and gutless "clarification" of his words then I say to
myself "He is a liar".
_____________________________________________________-

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

5) As criminals are caught (and many are caught), their guns are
confiscated. Thus, if proper controls were instituted in places like the US,
fewer illegal guns would end up in the hands of Australian criminals.
Eventually, almost no criminal would have access to guns.

So, there are no lathes or milling machines in Oz? No one with any
metalworking skills, or any machine tools at their homes? All early
guns & rifles were made completely by hand. In your fantasy world, no
one would have hands, any tools, food or anything else, because you can
kill with almost anything you think of. What would you do without
water? It doesn't take long to hold someone's head under water, till
the drown. It only takes a couple gallons. Your shoe laces can be tied
around someone's neck, to choke them to death. You can run them down
with a car or truck.

And you call American's paranoid. Between you & Phil, I can see why
Oz wants to disarm everyone. Soon, they'll need babysitters to change
your diapers, for you, too.

I understand where the 'Rage' comes from. you are angry at the world
for being a world class sissy who would rather die, than own a gun.

The US Army taught me to kill, but I haven't. I can own almost any
weapon short of a tank, rocket launcher, fighter jet or bomber, but I
still have never aimed a weapon at anyone. The only time I needed one,
all I had was a hot soldering iron but it was enough to scare off that
drunken fool.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rIydnalCne9S66XXnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

5) As criminals are caught (and many are caught), their guns are
confiscated. Thus, if proper controls were instituted in places like the
US,
fewer illegal guns would end up in the hands of Australian criminals.
Eventually, almost no criminal would have access to guns.


So, there are no lathes or milling machines in Oz? No one with any
metalworking skills, or any machine tools at their homes? All early
guns & rifles were made completely by hand. In your fantasy world, no
one would have hands, any tools, food or anything else, because you can
kill with almost anything you think of. What would you do without
water? It doesn't take long to hold someone's head under water, till
the drown. It only takes a couple gallons. Your shoe laces can be tied
around someone's neck, to choke them to death. You can run them down
with a car or truck.

**Banal logic noted. FYI: It is legal for law-abiding Australians to own
guns. Australians who wish to own a gun, do not need to manufacture one. In
fact, the cost of a hand made gun, plus it's potential for poor reliability
and accuracy, makes it a non-viable option. Any criminal with the equipment
and skills to manufacture a firearm, is likely to be gainfully employed
anyway, so is unlikely to want to manufacture such a weapon.

And you call American's paranoid.

**I call it the way the entire world sees it. Americans ARE extremely
paranoid.

Between you & Phil, I can see why

Oz wants to disarm everyone.

**Non-sequitur. It is legal for law-abiding Australians to own firearms. I
have no problem with this, as long as they adhere to the law of the land. On
a personal level, I am bothered by the disturbing actions of SOME gun
owners, who seem to enjoy killing, for the sake of it. They have little
concern for the suffering of animals, nor for the contamination of pristine
environments with lead.

Soon, they'll need babysitters to change

your diapers, for you, too.

**You are most welcome to come visit our wonderful nation and repeat those
words in my local pub. Anytime you want.

I understand where the 'Rage' comes from. you are angry at the world
for being a world class sissy who would rather die, than own a gun.

**Huh? Perhaps you'd care to explain that little leap of logic. On this
planet, it makes no sense.

The US Army taught me to kill, but I haven't. I can own almost any
weapon short of a tank, rocket launcher, fighter jet or bomber, but I
still have never aimed a weapon at anyone. The only time I needed one,
all I had was a hot soldering iron but it was enough to scare off that
drunken fool.

**So?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rIydnalCne9S66XXnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

5) As criminals are caught (and many are caught), their guns are
confiscated. Thus, if proper controls were instituted in places like the
US,
fewer illegal guns would end up in the hands of Australian criminals.
Eventually, almost no criminal would have access to guns.

So, there are no lathes or milling machines in Oz? No one with any
metalworking skills, or any machine tools at their homes? All early
guns & rifles were made completely by hand. In your fantasy world, no
one would have hands, any tools, food or anything else, because you can
kill with almost anything you think of. What would you do without
water? It doesn't take long to hold someone's head under water, till
the drown. It only takes a couple gallons. Your shoe laces can be tied
around someone's neck, to choke them to death. You can run them down
with a car or truck.

**Banal logic noted. FYI: It is legal for law-abiding Australians to own
guns. Australians who wish to own a gun, do not need to manufacture one. In
fact, the cost of a hand made gun, plus it's potential for poor reliability
and accuracy, makes it a non-viable option. Any criminal with the equipment
and skills to manufacture a firearm, is likely to be gainfully employed
anyway, so is unlikely to want to manufacture such a weapon.

And you call American's paranoid.

**I call it the way the entire world sees it. Americans ARE extremely
paranoid.

Between you & Phil, I can see why
Oz wants to disarm everyone.

**Non-sequitur. It is legal for law-abiding Australians to own firearms. I
have no problem with this, as long as they adhere to the law of the land. On
a personal level, I am bothered by the disturbing actions of SOME gun
owners, who seem to enjoy killing, for the sake of it. They have little
concern for the suffering of animals, nor for the contamination of pristine
environments with lead.

Where do you think lead comes from? Could you quantify the amount of
firearm lead contaminating pristine environments?

Soon, they'll need babysitters to change
your diapers, for you, too.

**You are most welcome to come visit our wonderful nation and repeat those
words in my local pub. Anytime you want.

I understand where the 'Rage' comes from. you are angry at the world
for being a world class sissy who would rather die, than own a gun.

**Huh? Perhaps you'd care to explain that little leap of logic. On this
planet, it makes no sense.

The US Army taught me to kill, but I haven't. I can own almost any
weapon short of a tank, rocket launcher, fighter jet or bomber, but I
still have never aimed a weapon at anyone. The only time I needed one,
all I had was a hot soldering iron but it was enough to scare off that
drunken fool.

**So?

 

[ian field]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:004dfaf6$0$9376$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Gordon Lightfoot III wrote:
Dear Sylvia.

I'm on my way up to Jaycar to get components for a stun gun, would you be
able to give me a parts list.

Kind Regards,
GLIII
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=MF1086

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SB2490

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=WW4012

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=ZT2467 * 6

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=RE6240 * 2 * number of firings
required.

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=PP0425 * number of firings
required.

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=ZC4047

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=RR1656

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=RC5336

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SP0702

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SY4068 * 4

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=WH3050 * 10 metres

Have fun.

Sylvia.

Home made stun-gun coils can be had from gas stove igniter packs, they
usually come as a bank of 3 with a single primary. Some types run on a
single 1.5V cell for the inverter pcb - which can be beefed up with a bigger
transistor and up to 3 cells for a "baby stun-gun". Some types run off 230V
so you have no choice but to build your own inverter board.

The ferrite cored transformer from the SMPSU in a set top box or something
similar can be pressed into service as a blocking oscillator inverter by
using one of the low voltage windings as the collector winding. If the
original SMPSU used discrete transistors, it will have a base winding which
retains its original use.

If there is a lack of suitable windings, the blocking oscillator can be
wired in the same manner as a cheap photo-flash inverter.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John - Melb wrote:

Tell us agin about your friend who can STOP his heart.

Stopping his heart in nothing compared to Trevor, who shut down his
mind. Then it wouldn't restart. Rather a pathetic individual. I would
like to see his sorry ass go through basic training, crawling under barb
wire, and live machine gun fire. he would cry for weeks after being
gassed with real US Army (or NATO) tear gas inside a concrete block
building, and having to wait till they unlocked the doors to get out.
Then again, he thinks audio is rocket science.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you
try?

Too bad you're barely six years old, mentally.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!