The only language you write in Issy is the Cock and Bull language, you just don't have the flair for comedy, although your opinions on guns are a joke! Actually the Three Stooges of the forum, not Moe, Larry and Curly, but rather Hassy, Indy and Issy are a real scream for me.

Hassy, Indy and Issy went to the pub and got blind drunk. The next day back at at their favourite watering hole, they talked about how drunk they were the night before. Hassy said, "I was so drunk last night, I went home and had to make out with the bed side lamp, my wife wouldn't let me near her." Indy said, "That's nothing, I was so drunk last night, I went home and had to to have it off with the fridge, my wife wouldn't let me near her either." Issy said, "I went home and got my rock off as normal, I blew Chunks, like the wife insists even when I'm sober." Hassy and Indy replied, That's amazing considering how drunk you were, by the way is Chunks your wife?" Nah, said Issy, Chunks is me pet dog!"

Goebbels,
That last post of your’s shews real desperation, seems she really nailed you.

The SFF party does not seek to bring in US gun laws, Australians already have the legal right to use a firearm in self defence, what they don’t have is the right to have it ready for defence current gun laws place the victim at the mercy of the criminal.
What the SFF seek is a return to the Australian law that served us well before the current contradictory law was introduced.

Of course fair play dosen’t sit well with the Greens,(from their NSW web site)
“7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.”
Such absolute stupidity is almost unbelieveable.

"current gun laws place the victim at the mercy of the criminal."

Current gun laws help there be less gun-victims in the first place.

As in...

FIVE TIMES LESS!

Max,
Reference please.

What is news?
Is it just information about something which happens?
Or is it more than that?

Better to think of it as something the population at large needs to know?
Knowledge which will allow better control of life?
To this end, news must have a basis of truth as well.
Fiction just won't cut it where the survival of our species is concerned.

When we assess something relevant to life, we should always go back to basics.
Strip away the outer layers, and examine what 'the something' is made of.
Examine the principles which support the material we are trying to understand.
Only then will we be able to assess its real importance.

False or misleading statements can waste time and energy in a fruitless pursuit of relevance?
Other statements might unfairly accuse a person of contributing less than they should to society?
In fact, someone might be accused of 'rather more take than give'!
For the latter, there are remedies in law. (not to be confused with father's in law? ^.^)

But always come back to basics.
Just what is being talked about?
Have that clear understanding.
Without it, one will struggle to reach meaningful conclusions.

USA 12.2 per 100,000.
Australia 0.88.

Oops - I forgot it's actually 13 times more likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate