wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:10:44 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote

relative stuff snipped

plonk



***** PLONK ***** ***** PLONK ***** ***** PLONK *****

The sound a turd makes when it hits the water. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Carl Nisarel wrote:
Jim Yanik muttered:

Lott,Gary Kleck of FSU;IIRC,they were both ANTI_GUN before they
began their research.

Pure, unsubstantiated gunhugger myth.

The claims about Lott and Kleck's views on guns only came after they
posted their pro-gun research.

Feel free to post your cite supporting that statement. Lott and Kleck
themselves have stated that their research changed their views.

Carl Nisarel wrote:
"Dave Bugg" muttered:

Carl Nisarel wrote:
Jim Yanik muttered:

Lott,Gary Kleck of FSU;IIRC,they were both ANTI_GUN before
they began their research.

Pure, unsubstantiated gunhugger myth.

The claims about Lott and Kleck's views on guns only came after
they posted their pro-gun research.

Feel free to post your cite supporting that statement.

Nice double-standard. Get back to me after Yanik produces his
evidence.

The weaseling doesn't work. Support your claim.

Yanik (and you) can easily prove that my statement is incorrect by
posting a statement, from a date prior to their gun research, from
Lott and/or Kleck where they say they were 'anti-gun'.

Straw man. It doesn't matter when the authors made their statement.

All claims that I have read from Lott or Kleck's where they say
that they were 'anti-gun' prior to their research were made
*after* they did the research.

So what? If you don't believe them, that's your opinion, not a matter of
fact.

IOW, they (and you) have no substantive evidence that shows that
they actually were anti-gun prior to their research.

I haven't looked, 'cause it's a non-issue. By the same token, the fact that
you say their is no evidence of such doesn't make it so. Please find a
statement, prior to their books, in which they stated that they were
pro-gun.

Their post-
hoc claims are nothing more than marketing for their books.

And your argument is just plain silly.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Dude - Yanik made the first claim. It's up to him to support it
with actual evidence.

You're stupidly asking for proof of a negative.

No, you said that that it was an "unsubstantiated gunhugger myth" that Lott
and Kleck were anti-gun before their research. So, prove it.

Yanik (and you) can easily prove that my statement is incorrect
by posting a statement, from a date prior to their gun
research, from Lott and/or Kleck where they say they were
'anti-gun'.

Straw man. It doesn't matter when the authors made their
statement.

It doesn't matter to a small-minded gunhugger like you.

And of course your irrational gunphobic small mind cannot substantiate
*your* claim of a 'myth'.

The fact that they only made their statements *after* they
produced their research is only evidence of post-hoc
rationalization.

It is not evidence of what they actually thought before they did
the research.

Then you'll find it easy to substantiate your 'myth' claim. We're waiting.

All claims that I have read from Lott or Kleck's where they say
that they were 'anti-gun' prior to their research were made
*after* they did the research.

So what? If you don't believe them, that's your opinion, not a
matter of fact.

It is a matter of fact.

Only in your mind, which makes it only your opinion. You have yet to produce
a fact which substantiates your claim.

But you're not intelligent enough to comprehend it.

You need to quit parroting what your teachers told you during your 'special
time'.

IOW, they (and you) have no substantive evidence that shows
that they actually were anti-gun prior to their research.

I haven't looked, 'cause

you're a lazy gunhugger who can't support a claim with real
evidence.

I didn't make the claim your 'myth' allegation, you did. Try to keep up.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On 09 Jan 2008 23:04:32 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote:

What they stated afterwards and what they failed to state before
is a matter of fact.

Cite the fact, so I can move on!

Gun Hugger, here!

Oren
--

Carl Nisarel wrote:
"Dave Bugg" sputtered:

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Dude - Yanik made the first claim. It's up to him to support it
with actual evidence.

You're stupidly asking for proof of a negative.

No,

Yes.

No.

you said that that it was an "unsubstantiated gunhugger
myth" that Lott and Kleck were anti-gun before their research.

The fact that there are no prior quotes

That you know of. And when your not looking, it's easy to claim they don't
exist.

from Lott or Kleck where
they state their support of gun control demonstrates that there is
no valid evidence that they were "anti-gun" prior to the
publication of the gun-control related research.

And the lack of of prior quotes from Lott or Kleck stating a pro-gun stance
demonstrates that it is valid to assume that they may have been anti-gun.

So, prove it.

BTDT

But I bought the t-shirt.

Yanik (and you) can easily prove that my statement is
incorrect by posting a statement, from a date prior to their
gun research, from Lott and/or Kleck where they say they were
'anti-gun'.

Straw man. It doesn't matter when the authors made their
statement.

It doesn't matter to a small-minded gunhugger like you.

And of course your irrational gunphobic small mind cannot
substantiate *your* claim of a 'myth'.

Dude, the lack of prior evidence

BTDT

for their positions is evidence
that it is a myth.

It's evidence of nothing.

You're too ****in' stupid to comprehend that
fact.

There is no fact, dood, only your irrationale grasp of logic.

You're probabably stupid enough to believe in the creation myths
in the bible as well.

Ah, a red-herring to over your rhetorical incompetence.

The fact that they only made their statements *after* they
produced their research is only evidence of post-hoc
rationalization.

It is not evidence of what they actually thought before they
did the research.

Then you'll find it easy to substantiate your 'myth' claim.

You're not a very sharp person.

Sharp enough to corner you, dood.

We're waiting.

like an dead stump.

I'm not talkin' about yer head, dood, I'm talking about evidence to back up
your claim.

All claims that I have read from Lott or Kleck's where they
say that they were 'anti-gun' prior to their research were
made *after* they did the research.

So what? If you don't believe them, that's your opinion, not a
matter of fact.

It is a matter of fact.

Only in your mind, which makes it only your opinion.

What they stated afterwards and what they failed to state before
is a matter of fact.

No, it is a matter of your opinion. Your inability to come up with a
evidence that they were anything besides anti-gun is a fact.

You're too stupid to comprehend it.

I'm not the one lacking comprehension.

Yanik did and you're stupidly trying to support it.

Nope, I'm asking you to prove your 'fact'.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Carl Nisarel wrote:
"Dave Bugg" muttered:

Carl Nisarel wrote:
Jim Yanik muttered:

Lott,Gary Kleck of FSU;IIRC,they were both ANTI_GUN before
they began their research.

Pure, unsubstantiated gunhugger myth.

The claims about Lott and Kleck's views on guns only came after
they posted their pro-gun research.

Feel free to post your cite supporting that statement.

Nice double-standard. Get back to me after Yanik produces his
evidence.

The weaseling doesn't work. Support your claim.

Yanik (and you) can easily prove that my statement is incorrect by
posting a statement, from a date prior to their gun research, from
Lott and/or Kleck where they say they were 'anti-gun'.

Straw man. It doesn't matter when the authors made their statement.

All claims that I have read from Lott or Kleck's where they say
that they were 'anti-gun' prior to their research were made
*after* they did the research.

So what? If you don't believe them, that's your opinion, not a matter
of fact.

IOW, they (and you) have no substantive evidence that shows that
they actually were anti-gun prior to their research.

I haven't looked, 'cause it's a non-issue. By the same token, the fact
that you say their is no evidence of such doesn't make it so. Please
find a statement, prior to their books, in which they stated that they
were pro-gun.

Their post-
hoc claims are nothing more than marketing for their books.

And your argument is just plain silly.


Consider that Kleck originally BEGAN his research to show guns were bad,and
then his research showed otherwise.If that were his FIRST gun research,he
would not have stated a position elsewhere before it.
It doesn't make any sense to go around stating you are anti-gun on non gun-
related topics.ESPECIALLY on non gun-related research papers.
At least he was honest enough to admit his anti-gun bias at all.

These fools are SO in denial....
I honestly believe that any legit research showing guns are good,useful
tools for ordinary decent citizens(ODCs) would not be accepted by these
fools,regardless of where it originated.
Thus,it being pointless to have discourse with them,I killfile them.
Catl has been in the KF for a long time.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Joseph Meehan wrote:

I agree,

You agree you top-posting, out-of-context-quoting moron? You snipped the
context of my statement, so you agree with nothing I said.

and apparently so did our founding fathers as under the
Constitution all amendments and all parts of the Constitution are
open for change.

Oh, now I understand your prolonged absence from this long dead thread, your
high school teacher finally covered some the basics of the Constitution in
Civics class.

The procedure is spelled out and it would appear
they intended that it be a living document, not a unchanging rock.

Either you flunked remedial Civics, or your teacher carries a bigger Sack 0'
Stupid than you do. The liberal concept of a "living document" has nothing
to do with Constitutional amendments. The "living document" concept is
rooted in he evil notion that the Constitution is an antiquated document and
is void in modern day life.


"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make
sense out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns
are both important issues and should be approached from a position
of knowledge not ignorance and gut feelings.

Well, let's open up all Constitutional Amendments using your
statement above:

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
...

You have chosen to reject information by tagging a 'bias' line onto
those sources which don't support your notions. That you fail to
show that the facts provided are biased puts the lie to your
statement that you try to be fair and that you truly seek
information.

I intended that line to apply to all the sources I have seen,
including those supporting gun control. However "bias" is not
really the most accurate term for my opinion. Inconclusive might
be better. There is a lot of bias information out there (on both
sides) I would like to get past that and lacking the ability to do
that to acknowledge that good information is not available or has
not been presented at this time.

Your statement is a Straw Man. The good sources are there, some have
been presented in this thread. You keep stating that you are waiting
for good information, and yet those who have a true interest, and
have accessed the data, never waited for it to show up. You honestly
don't expect us to believe that you cannot find data with the
current resources that anyone has at their fingertips, do you?

I am sorry, but I don't agree with you. I don't see good data on
either side. Please see another response on that subject one the
John Lott book.

The fact that you don't agree with me hurts my feelings and matters a whole
bunch.

Joseph "The Top-Posting Moron" Meehan, wrote:

I don't believe any of the data I have provided was "faulty?

I don't believe in your beliefs.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Sorry for the delay. It took me a while to find a copy of the
book and longer to find time to review it. I am now recovering from
the flu so I was able to find some time.

Sure, that's why you're dredging up a thread that died over a month ago.

In any case I can not accept the Lott book as an good solid
reference.

Well, that settles that. You don't accept Lott's book; someone should notify
CNN. Bwahahahahahaha

On Dec 10 2007, 12:06*am, "SteveB"
wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. *Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. *If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

I live about 4 miles from this weekends mall shooting in Tinley Park
IL. The damn Lane Bryant store had no security video system. No
video these days, how crazy is that? Lane Bryant should be sued for
that alone because now they cant ID the shooter. Lane Bryant is only
offering a 50k reward, they should have put that 50k into a video
system to cover their asses, now it will really cost them. IL outlaws
CC unfortunately, otherwise the incident probably would not have
happened as shooterrs would be more wary, or at least the shooter
would have been stopped. This shooter probably knew he would not be
on camera. CC and mandatory rifle/pistol classes at the high school
level would do a lot to deter gun crime.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:U%Jpj.2463$EK3.1805@trndny04:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

I agree,

You agree you top-posting, out-of-context-quoting moron? You snipped
the context of my statement, so you agree with nothing I said.

and apparently so did our founding fathers as under the
Constitution all amendments and all parts of the Constitution are
open for change.

Oh, now I understand your prolonged absence from this long dead
thread, your high school teacher finally covered some the basics of
the Constitution in Civics class.

The procedure is spelled out and it would appear
they intended that it be a living document, not a unchanging rock.

Either you flunked remedial Civics, or your teacher carries a bigger
Sack 0' Stupid than you do. The liberal concept of a "living document"
has nothing to do with Constitutional amendments. The "living
document" concept is rooted in he evil notion that the Constitution is
an antiquated document and is void in modern day life.


"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make
sense out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns
are both important issues and should be approached from a position
of knowledge not ignorance and gut feelings.

Well, let's open up all Constitutional Amendments using your
statement above:




the "Living Document" nonsense operates on the interpretation of what words
or phrases mean depending on the *popular opinion* of the current time.
(IOW,the concept of "written law" tossed under the bus)

It was never about changing law the RIGHT way and enacting Amendments
following established procedure,but about -avoiding- that intentionally
difficult process and using the FAR easier (and UNConstitutional) tactic of
re-interpretation.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:J8Kpj.1841$G94.491@trndny02:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Sorry for the delay. It took me a while to find a copy of the
book and longer to find time to review it. I am now recovering from
the flu so I was able to find some time.

Sure, that's why you're dredging up a thread that died over a month
ago.

In any case I can not accept the Lott book as an good solid
reference.

I wonder why???
Of course,that was expected.
Any data that doesn't fit with the liberal viewpoint is denied.


Well, that settles that. You don't accept Lott's book; someone should
notify CNN. Bwahahahahahaha






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

the "Living Document" nonsense operates on the interpretation of what
words or phrases mean depending on the *popular opinion* of the
current time. (IOW,the concept of "written law" tossed under the bus)

It was never about changing law the RIGHT way and enacting Amendments
following established procedure,but about -avoiding- that
intentionally difficult process and using the FAR easier (and
UNConstitutional) tactic of re-interpretation.

Very well stated, Jim. Kudos.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

RickH wrote in news:38bc2787-a01f-4e7a-
:

On Dec 10 2007, 12:06*am, "SteveB"
wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. *Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. *If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

I live about 4 miles from this weekends mall shooting in Tinley Park
IL. The damn Lane Bryant store had no security video system. No
video these days, how crazy is that? Lane Bryant should be sued for
that alone because now they cant ID the shooter. Lane Bryant is only
offering a 50k reward, they should have put that 50k into a video
system to cover their asses, now it will really cost them. IL outlaws
CC unfortunately,

Making it SAFE for criminals.(far safer for them than ODCs)

otherwise the incident probably would not have
happened as shooterrs would be more wary, or at least the shooter
would have been stopped. This shooter probably knew he would not be
on camera. CC and mandatory rifle/pistol classes at the high school
level would do a lot to deter gun crime.



I guess all of Illinois is a "gun-free"(and free-fire) zone.....
Making it SAFE for criminals.(far safer for them than ODCs)


I disagree that schools should make rifle/pistol classes -mandatory- .
it should be people's own free choice whether to use a firearm or not.
But,they could make firearm SAFETY part of their health class.



ODC= ordinary decent citizens.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:42:13 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

I agree, and apparently so did our founding fathers as under the
Constitution all amendments and all parts of the Constitution are open for
change. The procedure is spelled out and it would appear they intended that
it be a living document, not a unchanging rock.

Joseph Meehan,

Stupid Butt, about the Constitution.

Visit and see the real deal!!!!!!!!

Regardless of the gun...you won't get it!

See what I mean??!

Oren
--

On 4 Feb 2008 20:20:07 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(and UNConstitutional) tactic of
re-interpretation.

The California 9th District ticks me off.


Oren
--

Oren wrote:
On 4 Feb 2008 20:20:07 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(and UNConstitutional) tactic of
re-interpretation.

The California 9th District ticks me off.

And it gets overturned a lot, too; which means that it probably ticks of the
US Supreme court.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:09:34 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:U%Jpj.2463$EK3.1805@trndny04:

the "Living Document" nonsense operates on the interpretation of what
words
or phrases mean depending on the *popular opinion* of the current time.
(IOW,the concept of "written law" tossed under the bus)

The term "Living Document" may well mean as you indicate. If that was
so then I was in error to use it as I did. My intention was to indicate
that despite the popular opinion, the Constitution is a document subject to
change as all living creatures are subject to change.

While I understand there are two lines of thought on the subject, one
suggesting that the words as they appear in the document are fixed, but
since the English language changes somehow the meaning may change, and
another suggesting that the words and their meanings as they were known when
written are the true meaning. I tend to agree with the second. The
Constitution IMO should be interpreted today as it would have been when the
ink was still wet.

The problems are much the same as the religious arguments based on the
King James Bible compared to a modern translation. The English language of
King James is a whole different language that today's. In both cases it can
make interpretation difficult.

Joseph. You hate guns; never, to change my mind. Leave the Bible out
of it. You are the single person in the thread to want guns TAKEN from
citizens..................


Oren
--

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Some will love this line! -------- I am of the opinion that as long as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: I CAN NOT SUPPORT
ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking of
guns?

What I do believe we need is a good solid study. It appears it would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data collection,
collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.


Oren
--

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:48:44 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On 4 Feb 2008 20:20:07 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(and UNConstitutional) tactic of
re-interpretation.

The California 9th District ticks me off.

And it gets overturned a lot, too; which means that it probably ticks of the
US Supreme court.

AND I'm not mad.


Oren
--

Holy crap. I leave you alone for a few days and look what happens! Sheesh.

Steve ;-)

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:56:22 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

Holy crap. I leave you alone for a few days and look what happens! Sheesh.

Steve ;-)


Flying into Parump! What do you mean?

Oren
--

"Oren" wrote

Joseph. You hate guns; never, to change my mind. Leave the Bible out
of it. You are the single person in the thread to want guns TAKEN from
citizens..................


Oren

As in My Fair Lady, "By Jove, I think she's got it!" (gender neutral
reference)

Steve

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:56:22 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

Holy crap. I leave you alone for a few days and look what happens!
Sheesh.

Steve ;-)


Flying into Parump! What do you mean?

Oren
--

Hey, going "over the hump to Pahrump" constitutes leaving town. Actually, I
left where I'm now living (near St. George, Utah) and went to Sodom and
Gomorrah. (LV) I'm now officially a Utard.

I see Meehan ran short on meds again and is at his keyboard.

Steve

On Feb 4, 2:49*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
RickH wrote in news:38bc2787-a01f-4e7a-
:

On Dec 10 2007, 12:06*am, "SteveB"
wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. *Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. *If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

I live about 4 miles from this weekends mall shooting in Tinley Park
IL. *The damn Lane Bryant store had no security video system. *No
video these days, how crazy is that? *Lane Bryant should be sued for
that alone because now they cant ID the shooter. *Lane Bryant is only
offering a 50k reward, they should have put that 50k into a video
system to cover their asses, now it will really cost them. *IL outlaws
CC unfortunately,

Making it SAFE for criminals.(far safer for them than ODCs)

otherwise the incident probably would not have
happened as shooterrs would be more wary, or at least the shooter
would have been stopped. *This shooter probably knew he would not be
on camera. *CC and mandatory rifle/pistol classes at the high school
level would do a lot to deter gun crime.

I guess all of Illinois is a "gun-free"(and free-fire) zone.....
Making it SAFE for criminals.(far safer for them than ODCs)

I disagree that schools should make rifle/pistol classes -mandatory- .
it should be people's own free choice whether to use a firearm or not.
But,they could make firearm SAFETY part of their health class.

ODC= ordinary decent citizens.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Agreed, IL is pretty bad when it comes to gun sanity, in essense only
the criminals are allowed to own them. I think if a state does not
have CC then they should at least allow shop managers and store owners
to carry or set booby traps, etc. The Lane Bryant store especially
needs a woman with a gun, criminals know there will never be a man in
a small apparell store like that and that it would be a push over for
rape and robbery (which they disclosed may be involved today). If the
police can have guns, then why not law abiding citizens? In a medical
emergency they talk about the "golden minute" for paramedic service,
but in a robbery its more like a "golden second", you cant afford to
wait a whole minute for police service, you need to be ready with your
weapon. In Illinois it is even illegal to defend your home from an
armed intruder, unless the court proves that the entry wound is in the
front of the criminals body. So in IL if someone breaks in and begins
raping your daughter, you have to make sure you shoot him from the
front, now that is an insane law.

On Feb 5, 5:49*am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Joseph Meehan

*Dia 's Muire duit

"Oren" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

* *Some will love this line! -------- * I am of the opinion that as long
as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: *I CAN NOT SUPPORT
ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking of
guns?

* *What I do believe we need is a good solid study. *It appears it would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data collection,
collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.

Oren
--

Meehan

*Dia 's Muire duit

* * What I have believed was that if the data supported it, that I would
support making private ownership of guns illegal. *I do believe that we
would be better off with private ownership of guns illegal, but I am not
willing to support a change in the law forcing people to give up their guns,
based on what I believe to be true. *If I knew it to be true, then that
would be different.

* * All the the time I have spent on this subject as changed my thinking in
one way. *I expected to find that there was good evidence to support making
guns illegal, but I have not found that. *What I have found it the evidence
seems to be weak at best and about equally weighted both ways.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IOW "I will continue to believe in gun control no matter what the data
show"

You are asking for positive proof that no control is needed. Try
turning it around and ask for positive proof that _gun control_ is
needed.

The default position should be 'The constitution rules'

Harry K

Harry K

Harry K

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Some will love this line! -------- I am of the opinion that as long
as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: I CAN NOT SUPPORT
ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking of
guns?

What I do believe we need is a good solid study. It appears it would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data collection,
collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.


Oren
--

Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



What I have believed was that if the data supported it, that I would
support making private ownership of guns illegal. I do believe that we
would be better off with private ownership of guns illegal, but I am not
willing to support a change in the law forcing people to give up their
guns, based on what I believe to be true. If I knew it to be true, then
that would be different.

All the the time I have spent on this subject as changed my thinking in
one way. I expected to find that there was good evidence to support
making guns illegal, but I have not found that. What I have found it the
evidence seems to be weak at best and about equally weighted both ways.

Joseph:

I really think that what you said you read that you didn't really read what
the other person had said. Had you read what the other person had said,
then you would and could not say that you thought what they had said was
what they actually meant to say, but that you inferred into what you read
what they said was not really what they said at all. And then there's
the chance that what they said was actually what they said and you missed it
entirely or that you did not allow a difference of opinion of what they said
from any opinion other than your own. And as for what you say, I am never
sure of what you said, and even when I read what you said, I can see it's
what you said, but I am never sure that you intended to say what you said
because you change what you say about what you said so many times. So,
please just say what you say, and what you said about what you said, and let
other people say what they say without the need to correct what they said,
or your perception or imperception of what they actually said. And take
into account that what they said is not actually what they meant to say and
that what you heard them say is only what you meant to hear and not what
they intended to say, but only what you wanted to hear.

It just doesn't get any clearer than that, you blockhead.

Steve

"RickH" wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 2:49 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
RickH wrote in news:38bc2787-a01f-4e7a-
:

On Dec 10 2007, 12:06 am, "SteveB"
wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

I live about 4 miles from this weekends mall shooting in Tinley Park
IL. The damn Lane Bryant store had no security video system. No
video these days, how crazy is that? Lane Bryant should be sued for
that alone because now they cant ID the shooter. Lane Bryant is only
offering a 50k reward, they should have put that 50k into a video
system to cover their asses, now it will really cost them. IL outlaws
CC unfortunately,

Making it SAFE for criminals.(far safer for them than ODCs)

otherwise the incident probably would not have
happened as shooterrs would be more wary, or at least the shooter
would have been stopped. This shooter probably knew he would not be
on camera. CC and mandatory rifle/pistol classes at the high school
level would do a lot to deter gun crime.

I guess all of Illinois is a "gun-free"(and free-fire) zone.....
Making it SAFE for criminals.(far safer for them than ODCs)

I disagree that schools should make rifle/pistol classes -mandatory- .
it should be people's own free choice whether to use a firearm or not.
But,they could make firearm SAFETY part of their health class.

ODC= ordinary decent citizens.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Agreed, IL is pretty bad when it comes to gun sanity, in essense only
the criminals are allowed to own them. I think if a state does not
have CC then they should at least allow shop managers and store owners
to carry or set booby traps, etc. The Lane Bryant store especially
needs a woman with a gun, criminals know there will never be a man in
a small apparell store like that and that it would be a push over for
rape and robbery (which they disclosed may be involved today). If the
police can have guns, then why not law abiding citizens? In a medical
emergency they talk about the "golden minute" for paramedic service,
but in a robbery its more like a "golden second", you cant afford to
wait a whole minute for police service, you need to be ready with your
weapon. In Illinois it is even illegal to defend your home from an
armed intruder, unless the court proves that the entry wound is in the
front of the criminals body. So in IL if someone breaks in and begins
raping your daughter, you have to make sure you shoot him from the
front, now that is an insane law.

Most gun laws are insane. Unnecessary. Redundant. Meaningless.
Worthless.

I could go on.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Some will love this line! -------- I am of the opinion that as
long
as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: I CAN NOT
SUPPORT ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking
of guns?

What I do believe we need is a good solid study. It appears it
would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data
collection, collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.


Oren
--

Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



What I have believed was that if the data supported it, that I
would
support making private ownership of guns illegal. I do believe that
we would be better off with private ownership of guns illegal, but I
am not willing to support a change in the law forcing people to give
up their guns, based on what I believe to be true. If I knew it to
be true, then that would be different.

All the the time I have spent on this subject as changed my
thinking in
one way. I expected to find that there was good evidence to support
making guns illegal, but I have not found that. What I have found it
the evidence seems to be weak at best and about equally weighted both
ways.

Joseph:

I really think that what you said you read that you didn't really read
what the other person had said. Had you read what the other person
had said, then you would and could not say that you thought what they
had said was what they actually meant to say, but that you inferred
into what you read what they said was not really what they said at
all. And then there's the chance that what they said was actually
what they said and you missed it entirely or that you did not allow a
difference of opinion of what they said from any opinion other than
your own. And as for what you say, I am never sure of what you said,
and even when I read what you said, I can see it's what you said, but
I am never sure that you intended to say what you said because you
change what you say about what you said so many times. So, please
just say what you say, and what you said about what you said, and let
other people say what they say without the need to correct what they
said, or your perception or imperception of what they actually said.
And take into account that what they said is not actually what they
meant to say and that what you heard them say is only what you meant
to hear and not what they intended to say, but only what you wanted to
hear.

It just doesn't get any clearer than that, you blockhead.

Steve




ROTFLMAO. What a paragraph!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:49:31 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Some will love this line! -------- I am of the opinion that as long
as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: I CAN NOT SUPPORT
ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking of
guns?

What I do believe we need is a good solid study. It appears it would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data collection,
collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.


Oren
--

Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



What I have believed was that if the data supported it, that I would
support making private ownership of guns illegal. I do believe that we
would be better off with private ownership of guns illegal, but I am not
willing to support a change in the law forcing people to give up their guns,
based on what I believe to be true. If I knew it to be true, then that
would be different.

Have your local community fund a gun turn in program, say $50.00 a gun
- no questions asked. Get those illegal guns and leave mine alone!

All the the time I have spent on this subject as changed my thinking in
one way. I expected to find that there was good evidence to support making
guns illegal, but I have not found that. What I have found it the evidence
seems to be weak at best and about equally weighted both ways.

You had High Expectations, huh?

We have enough gun laws now..

Oren
--

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:17:51 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:
I really think that what you said you read that you didn't really read what
the other person had said. Had you read what the other person had said,
then you would and could not say that you thought what they had said was
what they actually meant to say, but that you inferred into what you read
what they said was not really what they said at all. And then there's
the chance that what they said was actually what they said and you missed it
entirely or that you did not allow a difference of opinion of what they said
from any opinion other than your own. And as for what you say, I am never
sure of what you said, and even when I read what you said, I can see it's
what you said, but I am never sure that you intended to say what you said
because you change what you say about what you said so many times. So,
please just say what you say, and what you said about what you said, and let
other people say what they say without the need to correct what they said,
or your perception or imperception of what they actually said. And take
into account that what they said is not actually what they meant to say and
that what you heard them say is only what you meant to hear and not what
they intended to say, but only what you wanted to hear.

It just doesn't get any clearer than that, you blockhead.

Steve


(BFG)

I once had a recalcitrant individual say a few things to me.

I asked him what he said; the reply was, "I said what I said and
I'll, say it again!!".

I said to him, say it again, so I understand.


Oren
--

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:35:59 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

However you should keep in mind that what the constitution really means has
not been answered by the only authority on the subject, the Supreme Court.
I for one don't know how they may rule.

Some how 1933 and this year comes to mind. Not sure of this current
ruling or when it's due.

Oren
--

On Dec 10 2007, 1:06*am, "SteveB"
wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. *Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. *If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by
Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive
Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per
year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

See complete statistics and references he


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

On Feb 4, 5:19*pm, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

...



I wonder why???
Of course,that was expected.
Any data that doesn't fit with the liberal viewpoint is denied.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

* *It was not the data, I had problems with, it was the interpretation of
what it means. *I could not find any valid conclusion that could be drawn
supporting private ownership of guns or a ban on guns.

* * Some will love this line! -------- * I am of the opinion that as long as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: *I CAN NOT SUPPORT
ANTI-GUN LAWS.

* * What I do believe we need is a good solid study. *It appears it would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data collection,
collecting the data that will provide answers.



According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by
Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive
Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per
year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

See complete statistics and references he


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

On 5 Feb 2008 18:47:15 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Some will love this line! -------- I am of the opinion that as
long
as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: I CAN NOT
SUPPORT ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking
of guns?

What I do believe we need is a good solid study. It appears it
would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data
collection, collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.


Oren
--

Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



What I have believed was that if the data supported it, that I
would
support making private ownership of guns illegal. I do believe that
we would be better off with private ownership of guns illegal, but I
am not willing to support a change in the law forcing people to give
up their guns, based on what I believe to be true. If I knew it to
be true, then that would be different.

All the the time I have spent on this subject as changed my
thinking in
one way. I expected to find that there was good evidence to support
making guns illegal, but I have not found that. What I have found it
the evidence seems to be weak at best and about equally weighted both
ways.

Joseph:

I really think that what you said you read that you didn't really read
what the other person had said. Had you read what the other person
had said, then you would and could not say that you thought what they
had said was what they actually meant to say, but that you inferred
into what you read what they said was not really what they said at
all. And then there's the chance that what they said was actually
what they said and you missed it entirely or that you did not allow a
difference of opinion of what they said from any opinion other than
your own. And as for what you say, I am never sure of what you said,
and even when I read what you said, I can see it's what you said, but
I am never sure that you intended to say what you said because you
change what you say about what you said so many times. So, please
just say what you say, and what you said about what you said, and let
other people say what they say without the need to correct what they
said, or your perception or imperception of what they actually said.
And take into account that what they said is not actually what they
meant to say and that what you heard them say is only what you meant
to hear and not what they intended to say, but only what you wanted to
hear.

It just doesn't get any clearer than that, you blockhead.

Steve




ROTFLMAO. What a paragraph!

Really! It could be a disclaimer..put in fine print.

Oren
--

Joseph Meehan wrote:
The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is
exactly non-biased.

A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that about
1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year.

To clarify for us what you think is meant by DGU, tell us what you think
'using a gun in a defensive manor (manner)' means.

Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance of
being in one of those situations. ... My brother is older so while
it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been involved
in such a situation. It is not a question I have asked many people
but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at least one
personal friend or family member who was one of the people involved
and I know of none.

And yet you say below that you were involved in such a situation.

I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to believe
them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider their
numbers as reliable.

Yet by your own example below, you seem to contradict your own suppostions.

I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me only
once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.

Do you believe that DGU (defensive gun use) only applies to those faced by
aggressors who display a gun?
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:O18qj.9992$EK3.5873@trndny04:

Joseph Meehan wrote:
The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is
exactly non-biased.

A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that about
1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year.

To clarify for us what you think is meant by DGU, tell us what you
think 'using a gun in a defensive manor (manner)' means.

Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance of
being in one of those situations. ... My brother is older so while
it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been involved
in such a situation. It is not a question I have asked many people
but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at least one
personal friend or family member who was one of the people involved
and I know of none.

And yet you say below that you were involved in such a situation.

I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to believe
them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider their
numbers as reliable.

Yet by your own example below, you seem to contradict your own
suppostions.

I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me only
once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.

Do you believe that DGU (defensive gun use) only applies to those
faced by aggressors who display a gun?

Perhaps Meehan is one of those who if it hasn't happened to them,then it
doesn't happen to anyone else?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 5, 8:01*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote innews:O18qj.9992$EK3.5873@trndny04:





Joseph Meehan wrote:
* *The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is
exactly non-biased.

* *A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

* *If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that about
1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year.

To clarify for us what you think is meant by DGU, tell us what you
think 'using a gun in a defensive manor (manner)' means.

Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance of
being in one of those situations. ... *My brother is older so while
it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been involved
in such a situation. *It is not a question I have asked many people
but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at least one
personal friend or family member who was one of the people involved
and I know of none.

And yet you say below that you were involved in such a situation.

I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. *Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to believe
them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider their
numbers as reliable.

Yet by your own example below, you seem to contradict your own
suppostions.

* *I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me only
once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.

Do you believe that DGU (defensive gun use) only applies to those
faced by aggressors who display a gun?

Perhaps Meehan is one of those who if it hasn't happened to them,then it
doesn't happen to anyone else?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But he says it _did_ happen to him but "it ended nicely".

Harry K