On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:37:28 -0400, Cliff wrote:
Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.
Mace you first then pick up the money ... ?
You're really having trouble understanding this, aren't you Cliff?
You clearly don't grasp any of it.
Really Cliff? Maybe someone in Talk.Politics.Guns will address your
claim that one is safer carying mace, than carrying a firearm.
In fact, maybe someone from Talk.Politics.Guns will offer to EDUCATE
you on the inability of mace to stop an attacker (we should note that
the education will probably cost you some money, as well as some
bruises).
Go
over to talk.politics.guns and post a claim that you've got $100 in
your pocket that says your mace will stop any and all comers from
taking that money from you.
I doubt that being dead on the floor will help you any.
Face it: the Old West is long over & nobody really acted like in
those Italian westerns anyway.
Not the ones that lived ....
What a clever troll you are, Cliff. Why are we not surprised that you
won't post your nonsense over to Talk.Politics.Guns. Your fallacies
would be shredded, as you well know. Perhaps you think you can
convince the readers of alt.machines.cnc, misc.survivalism and
rec.crafts.metalworking with your lies.
But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.
Hard to kill anyone ...
Again Cliff assumes that criminals (those who break the law) will lay
down their firearms and use mace, just because Cliff said so.
You missed the odds again? Let me help you: 8 to 1 (at best)
against you.
Cliff clearly pulls these odds out of his ass. He's obviously using a
flawed Brady-like claim, comparing the ratio of accidental firearm
deaths to the number of perps KILLED in defense of ones person or
home. Of course, a defense does not necessarily require that the perp
be killed.
Even the antigun Kellerman gives the number of defensive firearm uses
in the range of 80,000. So Cliff, 800 accidental deaths/80,000 yearly
defensive uses is 1:100, not 8:1.
Most studies give the number of defensive uses as 500,000 to 800,000.
So Cliff, 800 accidental deaths/500,000 defensive uses is 1:625, not
8:1. 800,000 is 1:1000.
But some studies indicate the number may be more like 2,000,000
defensive uses per year. That's 1:2500.
Or we could run your statistics using the estimated Billion rounds of
ammunition that is fired in the US every year, against the 800
accidental deaths. That makes your ratio 1:1,250,000.
But those statistics won't support your LIES, will they Cliff?
Cliff suggested that another reader use mace, instead of a firearm.
Much safer for all, if you insist on being armed.
Still trying to perpetuate this LIE, huh Cliff?
Let's see Cliff put his money where his mouth is, and show the world
that mace will stop an attacker.
Can you count your toes (feel free to use all fingers)?
Put your money where your mouth is, coward. If you really believe
that mace will stop an attacker, ask if anyone in talk.politics.guns
is willing to demonstrate otherwise to you.
BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --
So are guns for very good reasons.
Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.
Too many guns?
LOL ...
Really Cliff? Here are the DC gun laws:
http://www.packing.org/state/washington_dc/
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=DC
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/DC.pdf
And these law certainly have stopped criminals from carrying firearms
in Washington DC...
And the morgue stats are what?
Perhaps the republicans & the NRA should consider enforcing the laws ...
Let us pursue your false allusion that the crime rate is due to the
Republicans, Cliff. The Democrats controlled Congress until 1995,
after which the Republicans controlled Congress (with an 50-50 split
in the Senate during the 107th Congress).
The Washington DC numbers are raw number of homicides (the DC
government didn't bother to normalize their numbers - feel free to do
the math, if you think the trend is not indicative) -- however, DC's
population shows very little change throughout this period (IIRC, the
population is about 500,000). The US homicide rate is per 100K
population.
Here are the sources for these data:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1...v_GID,1556.asp
DC Citywide Crime Statistics - Annual Totals, 1993-2004
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid.../totalstab.htm
Homicide trends in the U.S. - Long term trends - Homicide
victimization, 1950-2002
Year DC US
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 454 9.5
1994 399 9.0
1995 360 8.2 == Republicans take office
1996 397 7.4
1997 301 6.8
1998 260 6.3
1999 241 5.7
2000 242 5.5
2001 233 5.6
2002 262 5.6
2003 248
2004 198
Oops Cliff! It appears that the homicide rates, for both Washington
DC and National averages, _dropped_ after the Republicans took control
of the Congress. So much for your hypothesis that the high homicide
rate was due to Republicans.
But we've come to expect such nonsense from you.
Retief