>Yes, did you? The link provides links (near the bottom) to statitistical data (in a PDF) which proves the inccorectness of the initial message. The statistical data is directly comming from a governmental source. It backs up the claim of the author that the chain letter is at least missleading and on one point totally incorrect.

I read them, and they did not support the claims that the author was trying to make.

>Can you tell me then that why this chain letter seems to have been accepted blindly by american media (because the 300% error mistake pops up in those links frequently) without any background check?

Can you not distinguish between the mainstream media outlets and special-interest websites? The "American media" has not blindly accepted this information.

>huh? Now you take the standpoint that any link I'm going to publish here is not a major news outlet... Great, why did you publish your link in the first place ??

Walter, the link I published in the first place was from CNN and regarded the Canadian PM trying to blame the US for an upswing in gun violence.

But in rebuttal, perhaps you would also like to examine a AU gov't paper:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/facts_and_figures_2002.pdf, as quoted in http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073

>Haha, I'm sure you know someone that is not happy with gun-control in australia and is happy to tell you that it does not work. However, for anyone else to believe what he is going to say, he has to back this up with numbers that are checkable, and providing the full statistical data, as anyone could make statistics lie.

A) You are insulting, have I pointed that out recently?
B) I would expect the man to provide statistics, he's pretty thorough that way.
>
>Example. If in a city like amsterdam the gun-related killings have risen 100%, you can NOT draw any conclusion out of it unless you know the full statistical data. It could be that in 2004 2 people where killed and in 2005 just 4. The significance of the statistical data is about zero.

>Daniel, If you really want to say something creditable, you better check your links at forehand on credibility (you can do this by checking if there is a reference to unbiased statistical data from a governmental source like CDC, CIA, FBI) You choose not too, that is why most of your links you provide, as some other formum member has classified as propoganda, are considered crap to me.

I'm sorry I don't measure up to your image of perfection. The link I posted for JL was to illustrate the differences in opinion. I cannot vett every URL I find, but by the same token, I'm not going to post URL's from sites that are obviously untrustworthy. You want to join the debate? Fine. Keep it civil and perhaps we can all learn from it. But you have repeatedly stooped to insults against my character and my intellect and I'm getting quite tired of it.