Weird Australian Mommy Government?

[Ed]

This comes from the December 2003 Newsletter of the Arms and Armour Society (London):

"It has been reported that The State Government od Victoria, Australia is introducing a new set of laws and a collector of swords will now require a licence similar to that required to collect firearms. That is bad enough but that is only the beginning-when the collector has obtained his license he will be allowed to keep hisswords not on open display but locked in a safe. Worse is yet to come for every sword will have to be stamped With an official government number. Imagine those superb Japanese 16th century blades or a fine 16th century rapier so defaced!"

Is this true? If so, are Australians really so untrustworthy, as a nation, that such legislation is called for? My God, do they wipe you too?

[hammegk]

Perhaps their minority groups have graduated from clubs & spears to using swords? Are firearms not legally available to them?

[Tony]

Freedom to austrailia is like sex to Stephen Hawking.

[crimresearch]

The bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back (and the ensuing 400% increase in violent crimes is reported by the government to be unrelated)...now after a couple of endlessly publicized incidents involving 'Samurai Swords', it is apparently on the agenda of someone in the government to do the same with all blades....even theatrical prop blades which are unsharpened, Olympic fencing equipment, historical re-enactment, martial arts replicas magician's props, etc. would all be covered under the proposal..
There has been coverage of this on Sword Forum International for a while...looks like round two is coming up.

Paul Nunis

[crimresearch]

"Perhaps their minority groups have graduated from clubs & spears to using swords?"

Actually Australia's first round of gun control legislation came as a direct result of the Aboriginal people learning to shoot back at the Europeans.

Paul

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony
Freedom to austrailia is like sex to Stephen Hawking.

It really strikes me as odd.

Is there a big problem with edged weapons there that warrents such a law? If there was not a problem, why introduce a law?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by crimresearch
now after a couple of endlessly publicized incidents involving 'Samurai Swords', it is apparently on the agenda of someone in the government to do the same with all blades....

Sounds just like the US, a government full of reactionaries who pass laws everytime someone's death makes a news headline. Ephedra pill anyone?

A reactionary government is very dangerous since in the heat of the moment they can pass things much more dangerous than a silly sword ordinance.

[Andonyx]

I have seen a lot of Governmental over-reaching coming out of Australian newspapers lately. I first thought maybe it was sort of a bit of US ass-kissing because they are the first ones to comply with US requests for surveillance, and restrictions on travel and sales of technology and weapons. I'm not sure how they became so instantly buddy-buddy with us recently, but oh well.

Anyway, it's not that. From what I can tell there's a fairly long history of social censorship in Australia, with movies, video-games, and books being banned. MPs calling for internet porn restrictions and so forth...

I was kind of surprised.

[Skeptic]

Perhaps their minority groups have graduated from clubs & spears to using swords?

Really, hammegk, I had expected better trolling than THAT from you...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Really, hammegk, I had expected better trolling than THAT from you...

Sorry. What would you have preferred I would have said?

[Larspeart]

edit: double-post.

[Larspeart]

Proof positive that banning guns does NOTHING to stop crime, and now Austrailia is resorting to banning everything under the Sun that could even REMOTELY be dangerous.

After swords will come powertools, eating utensiles, and mother-in-laws- all of which have been deemed unsafe and/or dangerous.



BANNING GUNS WILL NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM GETTING ANGRY, GREEDY, SELFISH, HOSTILE, DRUNK, STONED, JEALOUS, OR. . .

HUMAN!!!!

Humans are, and have always been violent, and have always sought to do harm to other human, even before guns were ever around. Why is it that people can't get this through their thick skulls?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Larspeart

Humans are, and have always been violent, and have always sought to do harm to other human, even before guns were ever around. Why is it that people can't get this through their thick skulls?
I suspect many people recognize that truth. Some of us also agree it's better to fight poorly armed opponents.



Originally posted by crimresearch

Actually Australia's first round of gun control legislation came as a direct result of the Aboriginal people learning to shoot back at the Europeans.
Accepted as anecdotal (and I have no reason to dispute it).

Have you noticed the startling co-incidence in the USA of the need for gun control to the 1960's Black Panther/SLA/nutcase movements (off the pigs, blah, blah)? ;)


Where is the Da Fool to point out how many racists are posting??

And AUP_AWK_THE SKY IS FALLING to explain we should all just chill & feel the love. :D

Maybe it's something in the water down there .... ???

[Darat]

Originally posted by Larspeart
...snip...

Humans are, and have always been violent, and have always sought to do harm to other human, even before guns were ever around. Why is it that people can't get this through their thick skulls?

So is it not a good thing that we recognise normal human behaviour and try everything we can to reduce the likelihood that from this normal human behaviour someone is injured? (Is there a smilie for “really just an innocent question”.)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk

Where is the Da Fool to point out how many racists are posting??

whats the matter massa? Did your trolling not get the desired response? One day you will get over having your plantation repossesed....until then we can probably forgive you some lingering feelings of resentment.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed
This comes from the December 2003 Newsletter of the Arms and Armour Society (London):

"It has been reported that The State Government od Victoria, Australia is introducing a new set of laws and a collector of swords will now require a licence similar to that required to collect firearms. That is bad enough but that is only the beginning-when the collector has obtained his license he will be allowed to keep hisswords not on open display but locked in a safe. Worse is yet to come for every sword will have to be stamped With an official government number. Imagine those superb Japanese 16th century blades or a fine 16th century rapier so defaced!"

Is this true? If so, are Australians really so untrustworthy, as a nation, that such legislation is called for? My God, do they wipe you too?

Cry me a river Ed... I'm sure that people with "superb Japanese 16th century bladed or fine 16th century rapiers" keep them under thier car seats in case they meet someone they don't like. Anyone who is a collector would already have thier collection covered by paperwork for insurance...If one more form is going to destroy thier lives then tough luck... Because of our gun controls thugs who cannot now pick up a handgun in every bar for 10 bucks are taking to suddenly showing an interest in collecting swords...and using them to maim people.... I understand why you would not do anything about this, personal freedom to do drunken ninja impersonations and all..... but we are doing something about it...

You really should be more careful mentioning Australia, it gets Hammegk horny.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

You really should be more careful mentioning Australia, it gets Hammegk horny.
Good to see you too, fool. Family all ok???

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back (and the ensuing 400% increase in violent crimes is reported by the government to be unrelated)...

Sometimes the arguments of the guns-for-all crowd reminds me of the arguments put forward by creationists. There are just some facts that won't stay de-bunked. We found a whale that crosses three strata, that proves the world is less than 6000 years old. We carbon-dated an oyster that said it was 32 million years old, that proves the world is less than 6000 years old.

Or, if it's guns we're talking about, it's the ol' chestnut, "tonnes of guns were confiscated in Australia by the government, and crime went up".

Bullsh!t (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm)

Crim"research", post some sources next time you want to spout nonsense, especially nonsense of the tirelessly-trotted-out variety.

[Ed]

Talking swords here. Talking gun cases for bleeding swords. Swords, you know, a leaf spring ground down a bit. Is the thought that if all risk is removed you will live to 150?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed
Talking swords here. Talking gun cases for bleeding swords. Swords, you know, a leaf spring ground down a bit. Is the thought that if all risk is removed you will live to 150?

You might be talking swords, but CR used false claims to support his argument.

As to swords, no, that's where I personally draw the line, but I don't live in Vic so I can't do anything about it. I'm too busy trying to get the NSW government to see sense regarding the 'under 16's can't buy blades' law currently enacted.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk

Good to see you too, fool. Family all ok???
Family are fine Hammy. Youngest Daughters first birthday yesterday...I had to work and missed the cake.....Dammit. All ok with you and yours?

[crimresearch]

"Crim"research", post some sources we trolls are getting hungry for facts to ignore, redefine, and otherwise quibble over".

No thanks, I don't have the inclination to waste on your ignorance...


Paul Nunis

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"Crim"research", post some sources we trolls are getting hungry for facts to ignore, redefine, and otherwise quibble over".

No thanks, I don't have the inclination to waste on your ignorance...


Paul Nunis

Gee, I've never seen that dodge before.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

Family are fine Hammy. Youngest Daughters first birthday yesterday...I had to work and missed the cake.....Dammit. All ok with you and yours?
Yup. Thanks for asking. TTFN.

[crimresearch]

"Gee, I've never seen that dodge before"

Well, don't get caught lying again about what I said, and you probably won't see it, at least from me.

Keep on making fraudulent statements such as "CR used false claims to support his argument.", when I made neither an claim, or an argument, but merely relayed the explanation offered by members of the Australian government in response to reports of an increase after the 'mandatory buyback'/confiscation(which statements BTW are a matter of record, so look them up yourself), and I reserve the right to treat you as the anonymous troll you are.

Paul

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back (and the ensuing 400% increase in violent crimes is reported by the government to be unrelated)...now after a couple of endlessly publicized incidents involving 'Samurai Swords', it is apparently on the agenda of someone in the government to do the same with all blades....even theatrical prop blades which are unsharpened, Olympic fencing equipment, historical re-enactment, martial arts replicas magician's props, etc. would all be covered under the proposal..
There has been coverage of this on Sword Forum International for a while...looks like round two is coming up.

Paul Nunis
********.....
complete and utter ********....
"the bulk of privately and legaly owned firearm were confiscated? yea???? 400% increase in violent crime that is supposedly linked to it....yea?????

Do urban myths adds value to a discussion?

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"Gee, I've never seen that dodge before"

Well, don't get caught lying again about what I said, and you probably won't see it, at least from me.

Keep on making fraudulent statements such as "CR used false claims to support his argument.", when I made neither an claim, or an argument, but merely relayed the explanation offered by members of the Australian government in response to reports of an increase after the 'mandatory buyback'/confiscation(which statements BTW are a matter of record, so look them up yourself), and I reserve the right to treat you as the anonymous troll you are.

Paul

"The bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back," is a false statement, one which you made. If you are now trying to attribute it to the "Australian Government", cite your attribution.

[crimresearch]

Oh goody!! A sock puppet repeating the troll's patently fabricated claims...I'm so...whelmed...

As those who actually read what I said (instead of faking a quote and arguing with it) would know, my reference ( in specific response ONLY to the question "are firearms not legally available to them?" was that Australian government officials claimed no connection between confiscation and any increase.
If there was no buyback, and no increase, then the needless denial by the government should be the issue you want to research. But insrtead of engaging in facts, it appears that you want to mislead with the Snopes article claiming that the weapons weren't 'confiscated' they were part of a 'buyback'. (Right...And the consequences of refusing to participate in the buyback?. Oh, I see...)

If you think that isn't confiscation, then you are parroting the 'clever rapist' tactic, of throwing money on the bed and claiming that it wasn't rape. How...creative. :rolleyes

But then again, you aren't really here for research, or discourse are you?


Paul

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Oh goody!! A sock puppet repeating the troll's patently fabricated claims...I'm so...whelmed...

As those who actually read what I said (instead of faking a quote and arguing with it) would know, my reference ( in specific response ONLY to the question "are firearms not legally available to them?" was that Australian government officials claimed no connection between confiscation and any increase.
If there was no buyback, and no increase, then the needless denial by the government should be the issue you want to research. But insrtead of engaging in facts, it appears that you want to mislead with the Snopes article claiming that the weapons weren't 'confiscated' they were part of a 'buyback'. (Right...And the consequences of refusing to participate in the buyback?. Oh, I see...)

If you think that isn't confiscation, then you are parroting the 'clever rapist' tactic, of throwing money on the bed and claiming that it wasn't rape. How...creative. :rolleyes

But then again, you aren't really here for research, or discourse are you?


Paul

So where are these Australian government officials you're talking about? You haven't cited them either.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Oh goody!! A sock puppet repeating the troll's patently fabricated claims...I'm so...whelmed...

As those who actually read what I said (instead of faking a quote and arguing with it) would know, my reference ( in specific response ONLY to the question "are firearms not legally available to them?" was that Australian government officials claimed no connection between confiscation and any increase.
If there was no buyback, and no increase, then the needless denial by the government should be the issue you want to research. But insrtead of engaging in facts, it appears that you want to mislead with the Snopes article claiming that the weapons weren't 'confiscated' they were part of a 'buyback'. (Right...And the consequences of refusing to participate in the buyback?. Oh, I see...)

If you think that isn't confiscation, then you are parroting the 'clever rapist' tactic, of throwing money on the bed and claiming that it wasn't rape. How...creative. :rolleyes

But then again, you aren't really here for research, or discourse are you?


Paul
excellent attempt a fog and mirrors...Lets keep this simple eh? What facts did you use to conclude that the majority of legally owned guns in Australia have been either bought back/confiscated/transported to planet X?

And where did the 400% crime increase figure come from?

[Mr Manifesto]

Here (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/ACFBFD6BA9EB3689CA256CAE001052A7?Open&Highlight=0,Crime,firearm) is an Australian Bureau of Statistics article on crime. No 400% increase in here. So, unless crim"research" has any evidence to support otherwise, we're left with:

No 400% increase in crime after the buyback
No evidence that the bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back
No source for the ghostly Australian officials who denied that there was a link between two things that didn't happen.

[crimresearch]

Nice try...you get caught fabricating a statement, putting quotes around it, attributing it to me, posting a link to a specious rebuttal, fraudulently accusing me of nonsense, ********, and being linked to the arguments of the 'guns for all crowd', and you get to refuse to support YOUR assertions with any sources?

And now you change the subject to minutiae like the names of the officials who worked for the Australian government when this argument sufaced?

Sorry troll, it doesn't work that way...you've been outed as an anonymous liar, and I don't owe you anything.
Paul Nunis

[Shaun from Scotland]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimresearch
The bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back

(and the ensuing 400% increase in violent crimes is reported by the government to be unrelated)

it is apparently on the agenda of someone in the government to do the same with all blades


These statements are in a post made by you. You have not attributed them to anyone else, so it is reasonable to conclude they are your opinion. All they are asking is you provide some evidence they are true.

What is the big deal about that? These are perfectly straightforward questions to perfectly straightforward statements you made.

Are you saying that you don't stand by this post?

[crimresearch]

"What facts did you use to conclude that the majority of legally owned guns in Australia have been either bought back/confiscated/transported to planet X?"

What facts do you have to support the notion that I said that the majority was involved?...(notice that 'bulk' is defined as 'in large quantities'...Merriam Webster) )

And what facts do you have to refute the claims by various police agencies in Australia as to the quantities actually involved?

"And where did the 400% crime increase figure come from?"

I have a hard time believing that anyone can be this obtuse, so I will continue with the operating theory that you know better and are just trolling. Obviously the various claims that crime rose, up to and include the 400% figure, came from opponents of the ban...are you really so stupid as to think that when I comment that there was a denial of that claim that I am somehow the one *originating* the claim?

If so, you need to get a quick course in why magical thinking is a bad thing.

Paul Nunis

[crimresearch]

Cool!!! Another tro...er, I mean country...heard from.

I cited a discussion on Sword forum International of these topics...are you now claiming that you've read every single word on the subject and that no one other than myself ever cited an agenda to to restrict sword ownership?

Or do you just not have access to a good enough dictionary to translate the word 'apparently'?

To borrow a phrase, Bull...oh well, you get my point.

Paul Nunis

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Cool!!! Another tro...er, I mean country...heard from.

I cited a discussion on Sword forum International of these topics...are you now claiming that you've read every single word on the subject and that no one anywhere, ever cited an agenda on the part of anyone to restrict sword ownership?

To borrow a phrase, Bull...oh well, you get my point.

Paul Nunis

Oh great another....no hang on........

No, quite frankly I dont get your point. If your claiming that this post doesn't read like it's your opinion then you really need to brush up on your communication skills.

Or, not invest so much of your ego in posting rubbish you subsequently find you can't back up.....

[crimresearch]

I don't have to back up bogus interpretations from those who cannot (or will not) read.

Nor do I have to accept poor communications skills based on your inabiity to understand what I said...that burden would rest with you, the one attempting to make claims as to what I must have meant...get it right next time.

The original poster cited an article, I referenced an ongoing discussion of the same topic at SFI, and mentioned some of the APPARENT factors attributed to this issue. (Again...look up the word 'apparent'...it is a qualifier that means I don't neccesarily support the statement).

Someone asked if Aboriginal people could legally own firearms in Australia, and I posted that a lot of people had legally owned firearms taken (which could possibly include Aboriginal people, if you stop and think about it real hard... or if Heaven forbid, you actually knew anything about the topic at all), and again, in passing offered up a couple of claims and counterclaims that purported to frame the issue.

Nowhere did I ever make the statements put in quotation marks , or state my position on any of the issues or claims I mentioned, nor did I fail to reference the Sword Forum as you now claim.

In return, none of you has been able to offer up a single proof for your falsified and out of context misquotes or misinterpretations of my words, NOR have you offered up any proof against the imaginary windmills you are tilting at...(Not that I really want to hear more BS, since I clearly haven't taken the side of the windmills).

I'm sorry, if this is the best that JREF can offer up in either trolls, or discourse, I'm unimpressed.

Paul

[The Fool]

oooops..double post

[The Fool]

Crim....
wtf??? you are saying "the bulk of" does not mean most of? as in at least over 50%....wow, you are a live one.

Lol..... And If something is not your opinion dude, tell people that its not your opinion when you state it... and tell people where it comes from. Otherwise your time on this forum is going to be confusing to say the least......is that too much to ask?

[a_unique_person]

crim, lol. I haven't seen such a bad show of arguing since the days of the legendary "Jedi Knight". Keep up the good work.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I don't have to back up bogus interpretations from those who cannot (or will not) read.

Nor do I have to accept poor communications skills based on your inabiity to understand what I said...that burden would rest with you, the one attempting to make claims as to what I must have meant...get it right next time.

The original poster cited an article, I referenced an ongoing discussion of the same topic at SFI, and mentioned some of the APPARENT factors attributed to this issue. (Again...look up the word 'apparent'...it is a qualifier that means I don't neccesarily support the statement).

Someone asked if Aboriginal people could legally own firearms in Australia, and I posted that a lot of people had legally owned firearms taken (which could possibly include Aboriginal people, if you stop and think about it real hard... or if Heaven forbid, you actually knew anything about the topic at all), and again, in passing offered up a couple of claims and counterclaims that purported to frame the issue.

Nowhere did I ever make the statements put in quotation marks , or state my position on any of the issues or claims I mentioned, nor did I fail to reference the Sword Forum as you now claim.

In return, none of you has been able to offer up a single proof for your falsified and out of context misquotes or misinterpretations of my words, NOR have you offered up any proof against the imaginary windmills you are tilting at...(Not that I really want to hear more BS, since I clearly haven't taken the side of the windmills).

I'm sorry, if this is the best that JREF can offer up in either trolls, or discourse, I'm unimpressed.

Paul

did you write this?


"The bulk of privately and legally owned firearms were confiscated in Australia a few years back (and the ensuing 400% increase in violent crimes is reported by the government to be unrelated)...

and then claimed you said

"a lot of people had legally owned firearms taken"


ooops...the "bulk of" (blatantly incorrect) bit suddenly disappears....

and once again...where did the 400% figure come from, your imagination?


And I'm interested in your claim of being misquoted....which statement "put in quotes" was fabricated and who fabricated it....serious accusation, don't suppose you wish to tell up which statement it was?

[Zep]

This is NEARLY a gun thread, so if it keeps going that way I'm outa here, but meanwhile...
crimresearch (see above): Keep on making fraudulent statements such as "CR used false claims to support his argument.", when I made neither an claim, or an argument, but merely relayed the explanation offered by members of the Australian government in response to reports of an increase after the 'mandatory buyback'/confiscation(which statements BTW are a matter of record, so look them up yourself), and I reserve the right to treat you as the anonymous troll you are.crimresearch (see above): Nice try...you get caught fabricating a statement, putting quotes around it, attributing it to me, posting a link to a specious rebuttal, fraudulently accusing me of nonsense, ********, and being linked to the arguments of the 'guns for all crowd', and you get to refuse to support YOUR assertions with any sources?

And now you change the subject to minutiae like the names of the officials who worked for the Australian government when this argument sufaced?Excellent effort, CR. You have contradicted yourself thoroughly. And there are more if you read carefully.

Care to answer the questions posed to you? Care to argue your case that the official data is wrong and you are right? We would be happy to see you do that. Show your working.

[WildCat]

Bad news for all the Aussie Lord of the Rings (http://www.lordotringsshop.com/lotrshop/weapons.asp) fanatics. Imagine, a stamp on an Uruk-Hai Scimitar! It's just not right!

Good thing this wasn't the law in New Zealand while they were filming, would have ruined the whole series. ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat
Bad news for all the Aussie Lord of the Rings (http://www.lordotringsshop.com/lotrshop/weapons.asp) fanatics. Imagine, a stamp on an Uruk-Hai Scimitar! It's just not right!

Good thing this wasn't the law in New Zealand while they were filming, would have ruined the whole series. ;)
Dammit dammit dammit.... I was going to buy ten of them;) Oh well, can I still get a startrek phaser? I promise to always set it to stun only...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool

Dammit dammit dammit.... I was going to buy ten of them;) Oh well, can I still get a startrek phaser? I promise to always set it to stun only...
Don't worry, if you're ever in Chicago you can play w/ mine. But I get to be Aragorn! crimresearch will have to be a troll... :D

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I don't have to back up bogus interpretations from those who cannot (or will not) read.

Nor do I have to accept poor communications skills based on your inabiity to understand what I said...that burden would rest with you, the one attempting to make claims as to what I must have meant...get it right next time.

The original poster cited an article, I referenced an ongoing discussion of the same topic at SFI, and mentioned some of the APPARENT factors attributed to this issue. (Again...look up the word 'apparent'...it is a qualifier that means I don't neccesarily support the statement).

Someone asked if Aboriginal people could legally own firearms in Australia, and I posted that a lot of people had legally owned firearms taken (which could possibly include Aboriginal people, if you stop and think about it real hard... or if Heaven forbid, you actually knew anything about the topic at all), and again, in passing offered up a couple of claims and counterclaims that purported to frame the issue.

Nowhere did I ever make the statements put in quotation marks , or state my position on any of the issues or claims I mentioned, nor did I fail to reference the Sword Forum as you now claim.

In return, none of you has been able to offer up a single proof for your falsified and out of context misquotes or misinterpretations of my words, NOR have you offered up any proof against the imaginary windmills you are tilting at...(Not that I really want to hear more BS, since I clearly haven't taken the side of the windmills).

I'm sorry, if this is the best that JREF can offer up in either trolls, or discourse, I'm unimpressed.

Paul

Your "boo-hoo no-one understands me" charade is fooling noone..........

So, in an effort to move this discussion (note carefully what that means) do you have any opinion on these statements, or are you just an errand boy for what's written on other forums?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

Don't worry, if you're ever in Chicago you can play w/ mine. But I get to be Aragorn! crimresearch will have to be a troll... :D
No fair...you always get to be Aragorn....

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tony
Freedom to austrailia is like sex to Stephen Hawking.
Wow, you've managed to show complete ignorance about two different subjects using only nine words. That may be a new record for you.

[LW]

Originally posted by The Fool
Anyone who is a collector would already have thier collection covered by paperwork for insurance...If one more form is going to destroy thier lives then tough luck...

The form will not destroy their lives, but the stamp may well ruin the blades.

Sure, register all swords, keep them locked away in safes, that's all fine for me. But stamping a registeration number on blades of historical swords is sheer idiocy.

It would also be interesting to note that what criteria they use for deciding whether a weapon is a sword and not a knife as there is no clear dividing line between them. Or are they going to register also knifes?

[LW]

Originally posted by WildCat
Bad news for all the Aussie Lord of the Rings (http://www.lordotringsshop.com/lotrshop/weapons.asp) fanatics. Imagine, a stamp on an Uruk-Hai Scimitar! It's just not right!

I'd say that having a straight scimitar is much more wrong than anything that is done with it afterwards.

[Zep]

Read the REAL story, not some wild-assed guessing thrown together with one eye closed.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/02/1056825457398.html

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
crim, lol. I haven't seen such a bad show of arguing since the days of the legendary "Jedi Knight". Keep up the good work.

Hmm... My SockPuppet-Finder General Sense is tingling...

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, and can someone wake me up when crim"research" actually attributes some of his stuff? Maybe he's suffering a little culture shock from discovering a forum that asks people to back up what they say with some semblance of evidence. I'll PM RichardG and see if he'll give CR a NewsMax link or two.

[Lothian]

Grimresearch more like.

[crimresearch]

Well, gee folks, I'm sorry that references like the dictionary aren't enough for you. You know, you don't have to actually buy one, there is this place called a library that will let you look up words like 'bulk' and 'apparently'...it will be a little more effort to actually
learn how these words can be used in conversation.
(Hint: You don't get to decide for other people which of the various definitions they were using, just as you don't get to decide which side of your imaginary arguments the other person 'must' be on).

Those who are having fun trolling for an argument must surely be full by now, and I certainly can't help those who actually don't know how to read, so both lots of you will have to do better next time.

Paul

[Lothian]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, gee folks, I'm sorry that references like the dictionary aren't enough for you. learn how these words can be used in conversation.
(Paul Grim

Can you help me I have looked up each of the following words "400% increase in violent crimes" And tried to learn how they can convey meaning.

The only thing I can make out of them is that there were 4 times as many violent crimes after the ban as before. However that is not backed up by anything I can find anywhere.

I therefore conclude that I am being really stupid and '400% increase in violent crimes' means something else. Could you explain what it does mean.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Those who are having fun trolling for an argument must surely be full by now, and I certainly can't help those who actually don't know how to read, so both lots of you will have to do better next time.

Paul
Well since this thread is -- like all gun threads -- rapidly deteriorating, can I derail it by asking if you're by any chance The Bluescaster?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Lothian
Grim

Can you help me I have looked up each of the following words "400% increase in violent crimes" And tried to learn how they can convey meaning.

The only thing I can make out of them is that there were 4 times as many violent crimes after the ban as before. However that is not backed up by anything I can find anywhere.

I therefore conclude that I am being really stupid and '400% increase in violent crimes' means something else. Could you explain what it does mean.

Yeah but that isn't actually what he thinks. He decided to make a valuable contribution to the discussion by being an errand boy for other peoples opinions on other boards. It may read to any sane, rational person like he was putting these forward as his opinions, but we are apparantely all stupid trolls who can't see what is patently obvious.

I mean, it may look like he did actually believe that rubbish and was a bit perturbed to be shown it was, in fact complete rubbish and is simply incapable of admitting he is wrong, but that would be grossly unfair.

I'm sure once he does actually express an opinion the matter will be cleared up and we will all be shown to be the ignorant trolls that we so obviously are......

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


I mean, it may look like he did actually believe that rubbish and was a bit perturbed to be shown it was, in fact complete rubbish and is simply incapable of admitting he is wrong, but that would be grossly unfair.

I am sure grim research is adult enough to admit mistakes. If his case is strong enough he doesn’t need to rely on false statistics (particularly ludicrous ones). Unless he is a troll of course.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Lothian
I am sure grim research is adult enough to admit mistakes. If his case is strong enough he doesn’t need to rely on false statistics (particularly ludicrous ones). Unless he is a troll of course.

Sems to have a bit of a history (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870290863#post1870290863) of claiming no-one can read......

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Wow, you've managed to show complete ignorance about two different subjects using only nine words. That may be a new record for you.

Uh huh. Remember that next time the austrailian mommy state forces you to vote, or censors a videogame.