"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 6/12/2011 2:50 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...


You lot really worship your guns dontcha? Pathetic.

Poor Harry, doesn't hear a word the other person says, just chants his
slogan over and over....

Yeah, His mind is warped by Hollywood- he thinks we are all Dirty
Harry/Rambo wanna-be's.


Pathetic thing, isn't it...
But then all stupid trolls are rather pathetic.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 6:52 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message

...

Poor Harry, doesn't hear a word the other person says, just chants his
slogan over and over....
Yeah, His mind is warped by Hollywood- he thinks we are all Dirty
Harry/Rambo wanna-be's.

What he knows about America he gets from Hollywood, then he tries to tell
people who live in America they don't know what they're talking about
because their perceptions are warped by Hollywood movies. By the same
twisted logic I can insist the UK is a cesspool of violence because of
movies like Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, or The Long Good Friday.
#
# Not at all. I go by the opinions expressed so freely here. I very
# rarely watch Hollywood violence. More of an SF man.
# Hey bub is the typical American............right?


LOL
As if "Hollywood Violence" is the only thing out of Hollywood..
What a stupid bigot you are, harry.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


You have a number that are killed by civilian's in defense postures? I
don't mean the gang banger shooting back.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, do you mean innocent bystanders
killed by civilians using firearms defensively? I don't recall ever seeing
such a statistic, but it would be interesting to know. Apparently the rate
at which folks licensed to carry get into trouble with their firearms is a
fraction of one percent, I would imagine that isn't radically different from
the general population. On the other hand cops getting shot by other cops
isn't all that rare, so who knows?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 10:26 pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:26:09 -0500, "D.A. Tsenuf"

wrote:
During hurry's lifespan, where he lives has diminished in stature
What does that really say about where he lives ?

Volumes.

harry is the town cryer. I figure he is close to 500 years of age.

Put the guy on a special diet!
#
# I don't live in a Fascist State.
# Where everything Hitler stood for is practised.
# The only thing the American gov.does not practice
# that Hitler did is the operation of gaschambers.
# But hey, it would solve the GITMO problem! There's time yet.
#
# You escaped from monarchy into something far worse. Economic tyranny.
#

Shows how little you know, dummy.
Interesting that the US is STILL the #1 destination for immigrants
You know, those people that leave their own countries for a better place
Funny, how we also have a whole slew of immigrants from the UK
If the US is as much of a pest-hole as you fantasize, how could all those
people be so wrong.
Maybe they just know something you do NOT know..

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 8:26 pm, "D.A. Tsenuf" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





harry wrote:

Right then. The variations in enormous America come down to the size
of potatos?

I can within 100 yards experience over 1000 years of architecture and
history in many places.

I agree. Probably the oldest thing we've got representing civilization
is
Plymouth Rock (1619). But before you get too uppity, recall the
following
conversation:

Lord Balfour: "What is so special to you Jews about Jerusalem? It's just
another town."

Thedore Hertzl: "With all respect, Prime Minister, Jerusalem was a
thriving metropolis when London was a swamp."

And some American cultures were around when the ancestors of the Brits
were
still painting themselves blue..
Anyone trying to claim superiority based on the performance of those who
preceded them, are fools who have achieved little on their own.

During hurry's lifespan, where he lives has diminished in stature
What does that really say about where he lives ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# What makes you think America will last forever?
# It is on the brink of economic collapse right now.

Is it ?
It's still in better shape than the UK both economically and socially.


# It is run by and for the benefit of an economic elite that have robbed
# the entire country leaving it in poverty. The gov. then gave them
# more taxpayers money afterwards.
# Robbing the poor to pay the rich.

YAWN
Poor dummy
You have been well brainwashed..
But then that's easy to do with the really stupid

You are what was left behind when all the smart people moved to America.

#
# Which American cultures are you refering to?
# The ones you euthanised out of existance a hundred years ago?
#
# If you want to talk about recent achievements.
# We don't have a government that practices kidnap, murder, terrorism,
# subversion, torture, runs concentration camps, larceny, drug peddling
# and, until recently, eugenics. Unlike you.

LOL
Can you be more stupid ?
1) Concentration camps were a Britsh invention during the Boer War
2) And last time I checked the Brits were participating in Iraq..


#
# I think the most important things invented in America were the
# typewriter and the elevator.

TRouble is there is no evidence that you actually think
You're just a well-programmed parrot who spouts unthinkly what your handlers
taught you (rather well)..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

If you want to talk about recent achievements.
We don't have a government that practices kidnap, murder, terrorism,
subversion, torture, runs concentration camps, larceny, drug peddling
and, until recently, eugenics. Unlike you.

Only because you are no longer capable.


I think the most important things invented in America were the
typewriter and the elevator.

That, and being the world's longest surviving democracy (unless you insist
on counting the Isle of Man).



Iceland too.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 24, 3:22 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

If you want to talk about recent achievements.
We don't have a government that practices kidnap, murder, terrorism,
subversion, torture, runs concentration camps, larceny, drug peddling
and, until recently, eugenics. Unlike you.

Only because you are no longer capable.



I think the most important things invented in America were the
typewriter and the elevator.

That, and being the world's longest surviving democracy (unless you insist
on counting the Isle of Man).
#
# You have long ceased to be a democracy.

#

Sure, dummy.
Your only problem is that the US was NEVER a "democracy"
It's a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, you ignorant ****.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 2:30 pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:01:32 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:53:41 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

I can within 100 yards experience over 1000 years of architecture and
history in many places.

Heck harry, from my keyboard I found my state has a State Fossil:

"The Ichthyosaur (NRS 235.080)

This fossil (genus Shonisaurus) was found in Berlin, east of Gabbs.
Nevada is the only state to possess a complete skeleton (approximately
55 feet long) of this extinct marine reptile. Ichthyosaurs (a name
meaning "fish lizards") were predatory reptiles that filled the same
ecological niche as—and quite resembled in body form—the dolphins of
today, only many of them were much larger."

What ticks me more than most other things is Nevada doesn't have a
State Gun. I mean after all we also have a state dirt.

So, Americans are descended from Icthyosaurs.

I can understand why you're so down on yourself. You're not alone. Yes, we
evolved, unlike those our ancestors left behind.

Is that what you're
saying?Hmm. Possible. There are plenty of antediluvians here I think.

But I have to tell you we discovered them here in the UK in the
1600's.
We have several complete skeletons from our "Jurassic coast."
I claim no direct ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icthyos...of_discoveries

However we have no T. Rex.
Maybe that's why y'all are so violent.

Simple. We're not euro-sheep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# Good point. But not all of us.

#

That's right, dummy.
You're just a Euro-goat...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

harry wrote:

Just look at all those countries with strict gun controls and far
higher
homicide rates than the US.

Which ones are they? Oh the ones destablisedby the CIA. I get what you
mean.

Jamaica is one. In Jamaica (a member of the British Commonwealth),
handguns have been banned for more than a quarter century but has one of
the highest murder rates in the world.

Brazil is a good example, quite strict laws on guns, a murder rate four
times that of the U.S.

Mexico is another country with a handgun ban that has astronomical
gun-related homicides.

Mexico does not have a handgun ban (with the exception of handguns firing
certain cartridges) although to be fair slogging through the various
regulations and bureaucrats to comply with the law is apparently a
considerable pain in the ass.

I have no information that the CIA has been involved in either country.

Which is without doubt how the CIA wants it.

"D.A. Tsenuf" wrote in message
.. .


Don't you just love his attempt to move the goalposts and blame the CIA...

Harry's combination of ignorance and Ameriphobia requires him to be highly
"flexible" in presenting his arguments.

"harry" wrote in message
...


You only came running for help to us when the Japanese and Germans
declared war on you.

Only in the mind of a delusional goofball like you would the notion exist
that it was America which needed help from Britain in WWII.

"harry" wrote in message
...


A sudden move fromTV to newspapers?

Newspapers have been in the discussion for some time. Were you under the
impression that you're some sort of moderator and the conversation has to
proceed according to your rules?

So, you're telling me that there are no such newspapers in America?

Is that what I wrote? No? Then when are you making up something I didn't
express?

Of course there are gossip rags in America, but everyone knows they are
gossip rags, they aren't considered real newspapers as the Brit tabloids
apparently are. In America such rags are the butt of jokes as are the
people who read them. The best known such rag is the National Enquirer
which has circulation under 800,000, in contrast to the Daily Mail (over
2,000,000) or the Sun (almost 8,000,000). So it would seem that the
appetite for sleazy gossip and scandal in the UK is somewhat greater than it
is in America if circulation figures are any guide.

I imagine Americans watch baseball or basketball on the "telly". (Both
of them debased forms of minority sports invented over here).

Dear me, you just can't get that burr out from under your saddle. If
someone offered you a Café Américano you'd probably wet your pants in rage,
wouldn't you.

What a clown.

"harry" wrote in message
...

They believed it in America until the 1970s when eugenic programmes
were finally closed. You don't even know your own history unlike Duf.

What on earth are you talking about? Is there *any* topic that you won't
try to twist into one of your obsessive-compulsive anti-American rants?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Not if there are no jobs. Tighter enforcement at the employer level
would
keep many more illegals at home.

Of course, there is no evidence of any desire to actually do that.

Not so long as corporate America can buy all the Congressional votes it
needs.

So we should go ahead and exploit the immigrants.

The immigrants want to be exploited, it's how they feed their families. So
unless you can suggest how American agricultural will replace millions of
low-wage workers, what alternatives are there? Seriously, if we could
magically whisk every illegal alien out of the country and keep them from
coming back, the first effect you would notice is a huge jump in your
grocery bill as crops rotted in the field. Given the current state of govt.
finances it seems unlikely you would see any corresponding drop in your
taxes due to reductions in welfare or education or medical care for
illegals, so what exactly would you gain from this event?

Americans won't pick fruit and vegetables for minimum wage or not much more
than that. So how precisely do you plan to get those crops from the fields
to your grocery store?

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

For example, we have (best estimate) some three million defensive
gun uses per year.

Source for that number? The NRA has claimed two million in the past,
with the DOJ saying more like 1.5 million; I'd be interested in who
can document three million.


You're right, I misremembered:
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by
law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey
conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Of course that was eighteen years ago...

Some of these resulted in the aggressor being put down. Those cases
should go on the plus side of the ledger.

Indeed.

We also have a significant number of gang-bangers and dopers that
kill each other with some alacrity. In the big picture, that, too,
is a plus.

Sadly they also kill innocent bystanders, robbery victims, cops....


Well, yeah, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they kill each
other. As for robbery victims, and here I'm thinking of those that happen at
a pharmacy or Stop-N-Rob in my part of the country, probably more do-bads
are shot than the clerk behind the counter.

So, then, if you subtract out all the folks that needed killing,
you'd probably be left with a percentage of gun-related deaths
consistent with the rest of the world's civilized communities.

I doubt that, the sheer number of firearms in American society is
bound to lead to more shootings per capita than in other developed
nations.

Again, the point is missed. I say take out the righteous shootings first,
THEN do the counting.

Of course that isn't a factor that can be considered in
isolation, as high rates of firearms ownership do not necessarily
lead to higher rates of violent crime.

Right. There is no cause-and-effect connection.

Reporting techniques have a lot to do with the stats. In
some countries, they don't keep records as well as we do.
Our admin also wants to make the gun deaths look extreme,
like they want to make unemployment look minimal (only 9%
compared to the Bush disaster rate of 4%.).

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

And... ?

You're presuming that these gun-related deaths are in some
way bad. Without
knowing the particulars of each death, you can't make that
case.

For example, we have (best estimate) some three million
defensive gun uses
per year. Some of these resulted in the aggressor being put
down. Those
cases should go on the plus side of the ledger.

We also have a significant number of gang-bangers and dopers
that kill each
other with some alacrity. In the big picture, that, too, is
a plus.

There are other situations, also, that could be counted
toward the greater
good.

So, then, if you subtract out all the folks that needed
killing, you'd
probably be left with a percentage of gun-related deaths
consistent with the
rest of the world's civilized communities.

Where do you live? I'm in the USA which is a Constitutional
Republic. The USA has never been a democracy.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That, and being the world's longest surviving democracy
(unless you insist
on counting the Isle of Man).

D.A. Tsenuf wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

If you want to talk about recent achievements.
We don't have a government that practices kidnap, murder, terrorism,
subversion, torture, runs concentration camps, larceny, drug
peddling and, until recently, eugenics. Unlike you.

Only because you are no longer capable.


I think the most important things invented in America were the
typewriter and the elevator.

That, and being the world's longest surviving democracy (unless you
insist on counting the Isle of Man).



Iceland too.

Um, until 1918 Iceland was part of the Norwegian and Danish monarchies.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:34*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:29:16 -0500, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:





"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 12:31 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

It is part of a US government plot to have a reserve of part trained/
brainwashed boys to send off to various wars where many get killed.
But they are considered by the gov. to be expendable.

Nobody is "sent." They all volunteered for the opportunity to kill people
and blow things up.

If that's their "thing," it's better they practice their art far away than
in downtown Bakersfield.

Although on second thought...
#
# They "volunteer" because they are brainwashed.

#

Are you really this stupid ?

Let me guess... *You're new here, right?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think he is. The most stupid yet.

Nah, harry, you have that base well covered.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:25:57 -0500, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 2:30 pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:01:32 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:53:41 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

I can within 100 yards experience over 1000 years of architecture and
history in many places.

Heck harry, from my keyboard I found my state has a State Fossil:

"The Ichthyosaur (NRS 235.080)

This fossil (genus Shonisaurus) was found in Berlin, east of Gabbs.
Nevada is the only state to possess a complete skeleton (approximately
55 feet long) of this extinct marine reptile. Ichthyosaurs (a name
meaning "fish lizards") were predatory reptiles that filled the same
ecological niche as—and quite resembled in body form—the dolphins of
today, only many of them were much larger."

What ticks me more than most other things is Nevada doesn't have a
State Gun. I mean after all we also have a state dirt.

So, Americans are descended from Icthyosaurs.

I can understand why you're so down on yourself. You're not alone. Yes, we
evolved, unlike those our ancestors left behind.

Is that what you're
saying?Hmm. Possible. There are plenty of antediluvians here I think.

But I have to tell you we discovered them here in the UK in the
1600's.
We have several complete skeletons from our "Jurassic coast."
I claim no direct ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icthyos...of_discoveries

However we have no T. Rex.
Maybe that's why y'all are so violent.

Simple. We're not euro-sheep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# Good point. But not all of us.

#

That's right, dummy.
You're just a Euro-goat...

Get it right; Euro-sheep!

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:25:57 -0500, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
.
.. On Jun 14, 2:30 pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:01:32 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:53:41 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

I can within 100 yards experience over 1000 years of
architecture and history in many places.

Heck harry, from my keyboard I found my state has a State Fossil:

"The Ichthyosaur (NRS 235.080)

This fossil (genus Shonisaurus) was found in Berlin, east of
Gabbs. Nevada is the only state to possess a complete skeleton
(approximately 55 feet long) of this extinct marine reptile.
Ichthyosaurs (a name meaning "fish lizards") were predatory
reptiles that filled the same ecological niche as—and quite
resembled in body form—the dolphins of today, only many of them
were much larger."

What ticks me more than most other things is Nevada doesn't have
a State Gun. I mean after all we also have a state dirt.

So, Americans are descended from Icthyosaurs.

I can understand why you're so down on yourself. You're not alone.
Yes, we evolved, unlike those our ancestors left behind.

Is that what you're
saying?Hmm. Possible. There are plenty of antediluvians here I
think.

But I have to tell you we discovered them here in the UK in the
1600's.
We have several complete skeletons from our "Jurassic coast."
I claim no direct ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icthyos...of_discoveries

However we have no T. Rex.
Maybe that's why y'all are so violent.

Simple. We're not euro-sheep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# Good point. But not all of us.

#

That's right, dummy.
You're just a Euro-goat...

Get it right; Euro-sheep!


the Swiss are no sheep. they have lots of guns,machine guns too.
They back up their neutrality with GUNS,lots of them,in almost every home.
Not too much gun crime,either.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Sadly they also kill innocent bystanders, robbery victims, cops....

Well, yeah, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they kill each
other.

Of course it should, preserving the life of an innocent person should always
be ranked higher than one street punk killing another. For that reason I'd
be pleased if law enforcement took greater pains to disarm felons, such
tactics having been shown to be very effective at pushing down violent crime
rates. In other words I'd happily give up punks shooting other punks if it
also meant they weren't shooting innocent people.

I doubt that, the sheer number of firearms in American society is
bound to lead to more shootings per capita than in other developed
nations.

Again, the point is missed. I say take out the righteous shootings first,
THEN do the counting.

And I still doubt the numbers would come out the way you think they would.
Read the papers: Man shoots friend after drinking party--in many other
nations it would be: Fistfight after drinking party.

Of course that isn't a factor that can be considered in
isolation, as high rates of firearms ownership do not necessarily
lead to higher rates of violent crime.

Right. There is no cause-and-effect connection.

That's not actually what I said. The connection can exist depending on
other factors, i.e. a society with low crime rates won't become blood soaked
just because many people own firearms (e.g. Vermont). But in a society with
high crime rates due to poverty and poor schools and low employment
opportunities then the addition of lots of guns certainly will result in
more shootings. That's why I used the word "isolation"--you have to look at
the whole picture, not just one element.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Our admin also wants to make the gun deaths look extreme,

Can you document that the current administration handles statistics on gun
deaths any different than the previous administration? No? Then what are
you talking about?

"Oren" wrote in message news
I don't know the handgun laws in Mexico. A farmer can have one long
arm weapon ( not sure of the type or caliber) for shooting Puma that
kills his livestock.

As I understand it Mexicans can own less powerful handguns--.380 and
down--*on paper* but it's apparently a pain to actually make it through all
the paperwork, so the law is widely ignored even by otherwise law-abiding
citizens.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Sadly they also kill innocent bystanders, robbery victims, cops....

Well, yeah, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they
kill each other.

Of course it should, preserving the life of an innocent person should
always be ranked higher than one street punk killing another. For
that reason I'd be pleased if law enforcement took greater pains to
disarm felons, such tactics having been shown to be very effective at
pushing down violent crime rates. In other words I'd happily give up
punks shooting other punks if it also meant they weren't shooting
innocent people.

That's a tought one. One innocent life now vs zero to many innocent lives
later. A tough trade-off.


I doubt that, the sheer number of firearms in American society is
bound to lead to more shootings per capita than in other developed
nations.

Again, the point is missed. I say take out the righteous shootings
first, THEN do the counting.

And I still doubt the numbers would come out the way you think they
would. Read the papers: Man shoots friend after drinking party--in
many other nations it would be: Fistfight after drinking party.

Well, yeah, but I hold with the "Porpoise Theory."

Ever since man has gone down to the sea in ships, some have fallen
overboard. A passing porpoise, it is reckoned, recognizes that the sailor is
a LAND animal and tows the poor chap to shore! There are countless recorded
cases of such events.

Faced with only these facts, many have concluded that the porpoise is a
"friend" of man.

We don't hear, however, about all the cases where the porpoise towed the
chap farther out to sea!

So it is with guns. We rightfully hear about all the tragedies involving
guns, but we have no real way of discovering how many disasters were
prevented by their presence!




Of course that isn't a factor that can be considered in
isolation, as high rates of firearms ownership do not necessarily
lead to higher rates of violent crime.

Right. There is no cause-and-effect connection.

That's not actually what I said. The connection can exist depending
on other factors, i.e. a society with low crime rates won't become
blood soaked just because many people own firearms (e.g. Vermont). But in
a society with high crime rates due to poverty and poor
schools and low employment opportunities then the addition of lots of
guns certainly will result in more shootings. That's why I used the
word "isolation"--you have to look at the whole picture, not just one
element.

Bzzzt! I suggest there is no causal relationship between poverty, schools,
or unemployment and crime. They are, in most sociologists view, caused by
the same thing, but neither is the cause of the other. For example,
unemployment is now higher than it's been in decades, the schools are
certainly no better than twenty years ago, and more people are below the
poverty line than anytime I can remember.

Yet crime rates continue to drop.

DGDevin wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Our admin also wants to make the gun deaths look extreme,

Can you document that the current administration handles statistics
on gun deaths any different than the previous administration? No? Then
what are you talking about?

No, I think he's talking about other countries. For example, the cause
listed on a French death certificate may read "exsanguation" rather than
"gun shot."

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:28:54 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Mexico is another country with a handgun ban that has astronomical
gun-related homicides.

Mexico does not have a handgun ban (with the exception of handguns
firing certain cartridges) although to be fair slogging through the
various regulations and bureaucrats to comply with the law is
apparently a considerable pain in the ass.

I don't know the handgun laws in Mexico. A farmer can have one long
arm weapon ( not sure of the type or caliber) for shooting Puma that
kills his livestock.

A Mexican may buy ONE medium-to-small caliber handgun (.380 and below) from
the government owned store. He may buy unlimited, similar-sized, handguns
from individuals. .38 Special, .45, 9mm, etc., are prohibited from private
ownership. He may also buy up to seven long guns and shotguns, except those
that use military ammunition.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


You have a number that are killed by civilian's in defense postures? I
don't mean the gang banger shooting back.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, do you mean innocent bystanders
killed by civilians using firearms defensively? I don't recall ever seeing
such a statistic, but it would be interesting to know. Apparently the rate
at which folks licensed to carry get into trouble with their firearms is a
fraction of one percent, I would imagine that isn't radically different from
the general population. On the other hand cops getting shot by other cops
isn't all that rare, so who knows?

Somebody (probably Hey Bub) said:
We also have a significant number of gang-bangers and dopers that kill
each other with some alacrity. In the big picture, that, too, is a plus.

Then you said:
Sadly they also kill innocent bystanders, robbery victims, cops....
Then I asked you (leaving the above intact BTW) if you had any
numbers about innocent bystanders, victims, cops, etc that are allegedly
killed by civilians intervening with guns.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Oren wrote:
would appear that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime."

"would appear"? Slippery words there, when in fact guns do deter
crime.
Having dealt with medical researchers for over 25 years now, "would
appear" is really a strong statement for a statistician to make.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Not if there are no jobs. Tighter enforcement at the employer level
would
keep many more illegals at home.

Of course, there is no evidence of any desire to actually do that.

Not so long as corporate America can buy all the Congressional votes it
needs.


And the Dems are trying to get the Hispanics to vote for them...

So we should go ahead and exploit the immigrants.

The immigrants want to be exploited, it's how they feed their families. So
unless you can suggest how American agricultural will replace millions of
low-wage workers, what alternatives are there? Seriously, if we could
magically whisk every illegal alien out of the country and keep them from
coming back, the first effect you would notice is a huge jump in your
grocery bill as crops rotted in the field. Given the current state of govt.
finances it seems unlikely you would see any corresponding drop in your
taxes due to reductions in welfare or education or medical care for
illegals, so what exactly would you gain from this event?

Of course they want to be exploited. So it must be right to do so.
There would be a jump, because it is artifically low now because of the
illegal people. Apparently it is okay for them to be exploited also
because it makes our food bill cheaper. Probably wouldn't see a drop,
might avoid an increase.



Americans won't pick fruit and vegetables for minimum wage or not much more
than that. So how precisely do you plan to get those crops from the fields
to your grocery store?
Pay people a wage, automate, import, go without.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Then I asked you (leaving the above intact BTW) if you had any
numbers about innocent bystanders, victims, cops, etc that are allegedly
killed by civilians intervening with guns.


I meant gang-bangers kill bystanders, victims and cops, I wasn't referring
to civilians using firearms defensively hitting the wrong people. I don't
know how often that happens and I certainly didn't mean to represent that I
did.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

That's a tought one. One innocent life now vs zero to many innocent lives
later. A tough trade-off.

I think fewer criminals with guns is a good thing, and the possibility that
each such criminal *might* take out another criminal is a faint hope that
doesn’t justify risking the innocent victims he might shoot.

So it is with guns. We rightfully hear about all the tragedies involving
guns, but we have no real way of discovering how many disasters were
prevented by their presence!

So you think we should arm porpoises?

Bzzzt! I suggest there is no causal relationship between poverty, schools,
or unemployment and crime.

It isn't a 1-2-3 formula, it could be that poverty leads to poor schools due
to a reduced tax base and that impacts employment which leads to more crime.
Or it could be that increased crime drives away taxpayers etc. Or it could
be that low employment leads to family and social breakdown which results in
more young men without guidance and that produces the crime. But it's kind
of silly to suggest that poverty and crime don't tend to live in the same
neighborhood.

They are, in most sociologists view, caused by the same thing, but neither
is the cause of the other. For example, unemployment is now higher than
it's been in decades, the schools are certainly no better than twenty
years ago, and more people are below the poverty line than anytime I can
remember.

Yet crime rates continue to drop.

In which case there might be one or more factors we're missing. Have you
read Freakonomics? Interesting analysis there about crime rates and
abortion.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Our admin also wants to make the gun deaths look extreme,

Can you document that the current administration handles statistics
on gun deaths any different than the previous administration? No? Then
what are you talking about?

No, I think he's talking about other countries. For example, the cause
listed on a French death certificate may read "exsanguation" rather than
"gun shot."

I'm going by the plain meaning of his words. I repeat, can anyone
demonstrate that there has been any change in how gun death statistics are
handled by the Obama administration vs. previous administrations? I'm sure
there are folks here prepared to believe that is so on faith, but it's
always nice when someone can back up their claims with something like solid
evidence.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

A Mexican may buy ONE medium-to-small caliber handgun (.380 and below)
from the government owned store. He may buy unlimited, similar-sized,
handguns from individuals. .38 Special, .45, 9mm, etc., are prohibited
from private ownership. He may also buy up to seven long guns and
shotguns, except those that use military ammunition.

Leaving aside whether that is entirely accurate, it doesn't seem to line up
with your previous statement that Mexico has a handgun ban. For that to be
accurate Mexican law would have to prohibit ownership of all handguns, and
that isn't the case.

On 6/24/2011 7:58 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Sadly they also kill innocent bystanders, robbery victims, cops....

Well, yeah, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they
kill each other.

Of course it should, preserving the life of an innocent person should
always be ranked higher than one street punk killing another. For
that reason I'd be pleased if law enforcement took greater pains to
disarm felons, such tactics having been shown to be very effective at
pushing down violent crime rates. In other words I'd happily give up
punks shooting other punks if it also meant they weren't shooting
innocent people.

That's a tought one. One innocent life now vs zero to many innocent lives
later. A tough trade-off.


I doubt that, the sheer number of firearms in American society is
bound to lead to more shootings per capita than in other developed
nations.

Again, the point is missed. I say take out the righteous shootings
first, THEN do the counting.

And I still doubt the numbers would come out the way you think they
would. Read the papers: Man shoots friend after drinking party--in
many other nations it would be: Fistfight after drinking party.

Well, yeah, but I hold with the "Porpoise Theory."

Ever since man has gone down to the sea in ships, some have fallen
overboard. A passing porpoise, it is reckoned, recognizes that the sailor is
a LAND animal and tows the poor chap to shore! There are countless recorded
cases of such events.

Faced with only these facts, many have concluded that the porpoise is a
"friend" of man.

We don't hear, however, about all the cases where the porpoise towed the
chap farther out to sea!

So it is with guns. We rightfully hear about all the tragedies involving
guns, but we have no real way of discovering how many disasters were
prevented by their presence!




Of course that isn't a factor that can be considered in
isolation, as high rates of firearms ownership do not necessarily
lead to higher rates of violent crime.

Right. There is no cause-and-effect connection.

That's not actually what I said. The connection can exist depending
on other factors, i.e. a society with low crime rates won't become
blood soaked just because many people own firearms (e.g. Vermont). But in
a society with high crime rates due to poverty and poor
schools and low employment opportunities then the addition of lots of
guns certainly will result in more shootings. That's why I used the
word "isolation"--you have to look at the whole picture, not just one
element.

Bzzzt! I suggest there is no causal relationship between poverty, schools,
or unemployment and crime. They are, in most sociologists view, caused by
the same thing, but neither is the cause of the other. For example,
unemployment is now higher than it's been in decades, the schools are
certainly no better than twenty years ago, and more people are below the
poverty line than anytime I can remember.

Yet crime rates continue to drop.



Best correlation between crime rates and other factors, is the number of
16-25 or so year old males in the vicinity. Especially if they don't
have paying jobs and/or mates or quasi-mates. Bored horny guys who think
they are immortal get into mischief.

In this country it is crime, ranging from nuisance crimes to drug
dealing and burglary to spree violence. (Too hard to have a revolution
here.) In other countries, the sight of large crowds of young bored men
makes the PTB wet their pants, and they try to disperse them by any
means necessary. Of course, in many of those countries, even the
brighter of the bored young men have legitimate reasons to feel they
have nothing to lose, and the dumber ones are easy prey for people
promoting simplistic solutions.

--
aem sends...

On Jun 25, 3:54*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:10:39 -0700, "DGDevin"

Note that I did not once fire a shot. *Indeed, not one of these punks
even *saw* my weapon.
I didn't report any of the many the crimes I stopped. *Why should I?
It's enough for me to know that crime *can* be stopped if we are
prepared to do it.
And believe me, this is not an exceptional week, but about average.
I am eagerly waiting to see what new challenges Thursday will bring.

--Vic

Well you certainly live in a very nasty place. (Is it the Wid West?)
Stuff like that is virtually unheard of in Europe. When it does happen
it's a major crime event. Seems common in the USA from what you say.
You need to move elsewhere. Sooner or later one of these nasty people
will finish you off. Creep up behind you or something.

But then I think it's a complete work of fiction.You should take up
crime writing,
I think I can see a definite talent you have.
Perhaps you could submit some more to us for critical review?

Or possibly you imagine yourself in ficticious "Hollywood Situations"
as a kind of Dirty Harry and are trying to impress us/me
You must try not to let the Hollywood ********/propaganda get to you.
I suppose that less intelligent people are more susceptible to
propaganda.
But you write very well (Are they your own words?).
You are a conundrum/troll.
Or perhaps you need to see your doctor because I don't believe that
things are that bad even in America.

If you need some excitement in your life, I can recommend a few
things. You don't have to go around imagining things.
That way lies only madness.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:13:36 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote Re No comments from the GUN_Lovers:

Americans won't pick fruit and vegetables for minimum wage or not much more
than that. So how precisely do you plan to get those crops from the fields
to your grocery store?
Pay people a wage, automate, import, go without.

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Then I asked you (leaving the above intact BTW) if you had any
numbers about innocent bystanders, victims, cops, etc that are allegedly
killed by civilians intervening with guns.


I meant gang-bangers kill bystanders, victims and cops, I wasn't referring
to civilians using firearms defensively hitting the wrong people. I don't
know how often that happens and I certainly didn't mean to represent that I
did.

Thanks. I hadn't either and wanted to find the info if it was
available.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

It isn't a 1-2-3 formula, it could be that poverty leads to poor schools due
to a reduced tax base and that impacts employment which leads to more crime.
Or it could be that increased crime drives away taxpayers etc. Or it could
be that low employment leads to family and social breakdown which results in
more young men without guidance and that produces the crime. But it's kind
of silly to suggest that poverty and crime don't tend to live in the same
neighborhood.

There is ample evidence that (surprisingly anti-intuitive) tax base
has little to do with it. Some of the poorest areas toss in the most
money, get the worst results. The shining example being DC schools which
have one of the highest (if not the highest, depending on the year) per
pupil expenditure and one of the highest drop out rates, lowest college
attendance, etc. In the meantime, a couple of the western states have
low per pupil expenditures, high graduation rates, and send large
percentages of their grads on to post secondary education.


They are, in most sociologists view, caused by the same thing, but neither
is the cause of the other. For example, unemployment is now higher than
it's been in decades, the schools are certainly no better than twenty
years ago, and more people are below the poverty line than anytime I can
remember.

Yet crime rates continue to drop.

In which case there might be one or more factors we're missing. Have you
read Freakonomics? Interesting analysis there about crime rates and
abortion.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

DGDevin wrote:

In which case there might be one or more factors we're missing. Have
you read Freakonomics? Interesting analysis there about crime rates
and abortion.

Read it. And since you bring it up, there are many sincere and unassailable
reasons supporting both sides of the abortion issue. After studying the
issue in depth - and remember I don't have a dog in this fight - I've come
down on the side of abortion on demand.

The deciding argument for me was that it reduces the number of Democrats in
society. See "Roe Effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

Aside:
One off-the-wall argument I heard was: "I support a woman's right to choose,
but choices have consequences. If she chooses to have unprotected sex, one
of the consequences is a baby."

And another, more bizarre, opinion: "I'm a vegetarian but I eat eggs because
I want to support a woman's right to choose."