[Attila.Iskander]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Robert Green wrote:

The vitriolic respondents to the NYT articles seem to forget it was
posted in response to HeyBub's claim that he could find NO instances
of CHL holders committing gun crimes. Oops. The NYT found plenty of
instances after carefully researching the issue instead of simply
beating their chests. Funny how their pro-SYG people's positions
change when hit squarely in the head with facts from a detailed
study. Now they're claiming "more peaceful" instead of "no
instances." They still refuse to acknowledge that because most
states don't publish a list of CHL holders, there's very little way
to determine how much crime they commit and therefore whether there's
any truth to their wild claims. And it seems they want to KEEP it
that way. One can only guess why.


You may very well be correct.

I don't read the New York Times.

Doctor's orders. Must keep my blood pressure down.

But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101 of
these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by a
CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...Report2009.pdf


That's not good enough for him
Per him, CHL holders should have NO privacy and anyone who wants to publish
their personal info should be able to do so just for the fact that they have
a permit to carry.
The scum has a problem with the notion of a right to privacy of ONE
PARTICULAR class of people
The claim tht it somehow would show anything about them that would fit his
agenda is a lie

[Attila.Iskander]

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
news
Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../chl/Convictio
nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?


What does "properly instructed and/or licensed" mean ??
I'll point out to you that in Vermont, one of the safest states in the
nation, there has been NO training or licensing requirement EVER.
When ALaska enacted a licensing scheme, it converted to what Vermont was
doing a few years later, and only kept the licensing process to allow
ALaskans to get recognition in other States.
Last time I checked, they did NOT have an explosion of crimes because people
could carry.
But you are free to claim otherwise and provide the data to support your
claim

You should also consider the following
IN most cases people consider the police to be highly trained in the use of
firearms.
And yet civilians shoot more than twice the number of criminals that police
do, all the while shooting about 1/6th the innocent bystanders that the
police do.
That's basically a 12:1 ratio of citizens doing a far better job than the
police in shooting safety while shooting criminals.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthli nk.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ords/chl/Convi
ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among CHL
is much lower than in the general population, so either we should just
hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if
passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be able to follow
that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an exam
before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better place. You
have just proven to me that you basically agree with me - that licensing
guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously you now will also
agree with me that gun sellers should keep records of whom they are
selling weapons to.


NOPE
Just compare trained / licensed drivers to mostly unlicensed gun owners
Accidental car deaths 43000+
Accidental gun deaths 600+
And those numbers have NOT changed with the relaxing of gun laws, increases
of carry permits, and HUGE increase of gun ownership over the last couple of
decades/

[Attila.Iskander]

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earth link.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among
CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either we
should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the
test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be
able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better
place. You have just proven to me that you basically agree with me -
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously
you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records
of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly. It is
really quite simple. Only the interpretation of the NRA of the reading
of the second amendment is standing in the way. And guess, which
companies profit?

Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101
of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by
a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...hl/ConvictionR
atesReport2009.pdf



No causality in the numbers
Why don't you give us the crime rates for Vermont where there is NO
requirement for training or licensing
If the crime rates are higher, you MAY have causality
If they are not, your claim to causality is destroyed
Another good test is give us the rates for Alaska in the years before and
during that they installed carry licensing. ANd then compare them to the
years after they converted to NO LICENSING AT ALL

If there is an increase in the rates after they dropped their licensing, you
MIGHT have a claim causality
If there was NO CHANGE, then your claim to causality is demolished.

By the way the answer can be easily found.

[Robert Green]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Oren wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:55:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

J Carter wrote:
I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who
was the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged
in the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee.

You raise an interesting point. In your scenario, BOTH have a right
to stand their ground.

In such a case, we then have to fall back on an even more primitive
principle: Don't bring a fist to a gun fight.


Ya gotta be 21 (FL? ) to buy a gun. Gifts are different.


Um, most gang-bangers don't buy their guns. At least not from a licensed
dealer. Heck, some even RENT their guns (I didn't make that up).

In NYC, gangbangers often have a single "gang gun" that they loan out as
needed to gang members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/ny...re-common.html

Waka Flocka is the name of a rapper. But to these men, the phrase
described something else.
The community gun.

Hidden and shared by a small group of people who use them when needed, and
are always sure to return them, such guns appear to be rising in number in
New York, according to the police. It is unclear why. The economy? Times are
tough - not everyone can afford a gun. "The gangs are younger, and their
resources are less," said Ed Talty, an assistant district attorney in the
Bronx.

--
Bobby G.

[Attila.Iskander]

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 12:27 am, "Robert Green" wrote:

There's a concept in liability law about who has the "last clear chance
to
prevent an accident." This was not a guy on his way home accosted by
muggers, this was someone who engaged in confrontational behavior while
armed on what seems to be a fairly regular basis. Trouble was bound to
happen. I'm going to be most interested in what Z considered suspicious
about M.


There you go again, reaching conclusions not supported by any
of the available evidence. Show us evidence that Zimmerman
engaged in "confrontational behaviour while armed on a regular
basis." Show us evidence that he engaged in confrontational
behavior in the Martin case.

He has been corrected on this MULTIPLE times by different people, including
me.
Clearly, he is ignoring the evidence available to go with he prejudice and
need to spin to his agenda, one of which is the hope that SYG will be
challenged, even though it appears NOT to be applicable in this case, the
other to have names of people with carry permits be made public.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:iiv3o7l3
:





On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were
responsible for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the
latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one
was done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation
was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis..._records/chl/C
on
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people
wh
o
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this
one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions
among CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either
we should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone
take the test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie
should be able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun
owners are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding.
As usual
,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass
an exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a
better place. You have just proven to me that you basically agree
with me
-
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out.
Obviously you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should
keep records of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly.
It
is
really quite simple. Only the interpretation of the NRA of the
reading of the second amendment is standing in the way.

No, what's standing in the way is that the criminals, for the
most part, are NOT obtaining guns right now via legal channels.
They already obtain them illegally. So, I'm as bewildered as
KRW as to what point you're trying to make here and I don't
see your "logical conclusion".


And guess, which
companies profit?

How about we outlaw guns totally? We've done that with
cocaine. Yet those that want it can readily obtain it, criminals
have it, and who's profiting from that?




Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES
keep track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict.
.. atesReport2009.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like with cocaine, if youdon't do something with the suppliers, you're
not going to be able to do anything. Unlike cocaine, we're not dealing
with physical addiction (I hope), so there shouldn't be any "withdrawal",
except for NRA types, perhaps. But you are declaring yourselves as
incorrigible victims of an ultraright indoctrination that guns are good,
people are good, and all the violence is just a few criminals.

There you go making stupid and ignorantly biased generalizations
1) MOST of the crimes are committed by criminals
2) MOST of the criminal uses of guns are also committed by criminals who
are ALREADY barred from possession of guns

Interesting that he also believes that the notion that "People are good" is
from "ultraright indoctrination".
IF that is the case, the are we to believe that leftist indoctrination is
that "people are bad" ??
Mmmm
That would explain a great deal about all the arrogant notions that the left
believes.

As to the silly strawman that gun owner believe that "guns are good"
That is typical hoplophobic ANIMIST thinking that tools such as guns are
anything BUT inanimate objects that have power over their possessors to make
them good or evil.
That would explain a great deal of the reaction of the left to fictional
tales such as the Lord of the Rings.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...


Hidden and shared by a small group of people who use them when needed, and
are always sure to return them, such guns appear to be rising in number in
New York, according to the police. It is unclear why. The economy? Times
are
tough - not everyone can afford a gun. "The gangs are younger, and their
resources are less," said Ed Talty, an assistant district attorney in the
Bronx.


Too bad that hoplophobes can't seem to derive one of the lessons from such
articles,
Specifically that criminals are NOT affected by gun-control laws..

[Attila.Iskander]

"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 9:37 pm, "Attila.Iskander" wrote:

Correct
It was.
Now watch that video and explain to me WHY the police officer examines
the
back of Zimmerman's head
Now go back and watch the recently released "enhanced" video

Oops

then proceed to base your case on that video as you did in 2,3,4,5, and
your conclusion. You then state the vudeo was non-indicative,
further negating any proof you presume to present in 2-5.

I didn't present "proof', you dummy
Although I did speak from personal experience as a volunteer
firefighter/EMT
I had occasion to patch up lacerations and contusions at accidents.
Some bled, some did not

Another poster noted thatKobeBryantrecently suffered a broken nose at a
game.
Minimal bleeding or swelling
Broken nose confirmed by MRI after the game in which Bryant continued
to
play.

Why don't you just copy and paste what I wrote next time?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b5dd2fcf39525e


Why should I ?
Anyone with more than 2 ounces of grey matter, except for those who choose
to be willfully ignorant, should have no trouble Googling for "Kobe Bryant
broken nose".

And by the way, what makes you presume that I kept your post in my rolodex
or easy copy and paste ?

[The Daring Dufas[_7_]]

On 4/5/2012 9:24 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
"Robert wrote:

I dunno. His fate may rest in the hands of 12 people not smart enough to
get out of jury duty. (-: But I think you're right. He will be charged
with something, if only to placate the protestors. Not, perhaps how it
should be, but certainly how it's been throughout US history.

And when he is acquitted, large numbers of people will get brand new
plasma TVs and other trinkets for free.. Win-win for some people.


Yea, and many of them may get shot trying to obtain those new things by
their usual means. ^_^

TDD

[The Daring Dufas[_7_]]

On 4/5/2012 12:06 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:55:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Zimmerman will undoubtedly face a wrongful death civil
suit funded by some very deep pockets.

Um, Florida being a Castle Doctrine state protects from a justified
shooting. The family cannot sue for wrongful death, take your house,
land, cats, dogs or anything from all the people you ever knew.

Remember, the key word in that law is "justified." If a court finds
Zimmerman's use of force unjustified, all those protection vanish into thin
air.

My state is not called a castle doctrine state because THAT one point
in the law was not written in this past year. Had protection from
civil liabilities been added, we would be in the states called Castle
Doctrine.

The lesson of the ACA should be clear here. Just because a law is passed
doesn't mean it's going to pass constitutional muster.

I see today, "deep pockets" in Texas is or has already given $10,000
to the Zimmerman defense -- assuming he committed a crime and is
arrested, put on public trial and all that mess.

You're the one who recently said, IIRC, if they can't get someone on state
charges, they Feds can go after them without fear of double jeopardy. The
Feds can go after Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights regardless
of the state law. That was a quite popular tactic in the South where some
states had laws that made it almost impossible for a white person to be
tried for killing a black one.

This incident, as they say in the news business had "grown legs" and there's
no telling where those legs might take it. With big money on both sides of
the issue, I suspect this case will end up in the Supreme Court. I am sure
that more than one or two thugs and gangstas are saying to themselves "All I
have to do is ambush a dude where there are no witnesses, muss myself up to
look like I was attacked and I can kill anyone I want to and walk." Even
die-hard 2nd Amendment fans are going to find such cases hard to choke down.

--
Bobby G.



Why is not national news when a Negro murders a Caucasian? o_O

TDD

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

NOPE
Just compare trained / licensed drivers to mostly unlicensed gun owners
Accidental car deaths 43000+
Accidental gun deaths 600+
And those numbers have NOT changed with the relaxing of gun laws, increases
of carry permits, and HUGE increase of gun ownership over the last couple of
decades/


Largely useless car death figures. This tells us nothing of interest,
unless one is really curious about the distribution of life insurance
payouts. The only useful stat is death/per million miles of travel,
which has gone down pretty much since the mid-30s (LONG before
seatbelts, etc., came about). Although looking at accidental gun deaths
per 10,000 guns out there (the better but probably unattainable stat
would be per 10,000 exposures) would probably show an even better result
for gun owners, I would suspect.
(Sorry but using the gross number of death in auto accidents for ANY
purpose is a long-standing concern of mine-grin)

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

[Han]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

You should also consider the following
IN most cases people consider the police to be highly trained in the
use of firearms.
And yet civilians shoot more than twice the number of criminals that
police do, all the while shooting about 1/6th the innocent bystanders
that the police do.
That's basically a 12:1 ratio of citizens doing a far better job than
the police in shooting safety while shooting criminals.

OK. Now tell me how equivalent the situations were in which the police
shootings occurred vs the civilian shootings.

I admit that not all police are as well prepared as they should, but they
are often under lots of stress getting called into situations that aren't
clear. Basically those single line statistics aren't worth the
appellation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Han]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

Hidden and shared by a small group of people who use them when
needed, and are always sure to return them, such guns appear to be
rising in number in New York, according to the police. It is unclear
why. The economy? Times are
tough - not everyone can afford a gun. "The gangs are younger, and
their resources are less," said Ed Talty, an assistant district
attorney in the Bronx.


Too bad that hoplophobes can't seem to derive one of the lessons from
such articles,
Specifically that criminals are NOT affected by gun-control laws..

Probably an effect of the enhanced scrutiny of petty crimes initiated
under Giuliani (who did some really good things too). It's too dangerous
for the criminals to keep walking around with illegal guns. One
turnstyle jump and you might be caught. Having a gun on you isn't good
then. And what does that prove? Enforcement of laws is GOOD™!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 8, 8:20*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Apr 8, 5:35*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:iiv3o7l3
:

On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were
responsible for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the
latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one
was done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation
was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis..._records/chl/C
on
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people
wh
o
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this
one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions
among CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either
we should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone
take the test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie
should be able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun
owners are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding.
*As usual
,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. *If you make sure people follow a course and pass
an exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a
better place. *You have just proven to me that you basically agree
with me
*-
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out.
*Obviously you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should
keep records of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. *Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. *Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly.
*It
is
really quite simple. *Only the interpretation of the NRA of the
reading of the second amendment is standing in the way.

No, what's standing in the way is that the criminals, for the
most part, are NOT obtaining guns right now via legal channels.
They already obtain them illegally. *So, I'm as bewildered as
KRW as to what point you're trying to make here and I don't
see your "logical conclusion".

*And guess, which
companies profit?

How about we outlaw guns totally? *We've done that with
cocaine. *Yet those that want it can readily obtain it, criminals
have it, and who's profiting from that?

Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES
keep track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict.
.. atesReport2009.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like with cocaine, if youdon't do something with the suppliers, you're
not going to be able to do anything. *Unlike cocaine, we're not dealing
with physical addiction (I hope), so there shouldn't be any "withdrawal",
except for NRA types, perhaps.

You liberals are just amazing. The first and only folks you
think are addicted to guns are the NRA types. The folks
who aren't the ones committing the overwhelming portion
of violent crimes. They are the "addicted". Not the gang
bangers, drug dealers, and all the other criminals. Why
if guns were outlawed, I'm sure all those latter types
would just turn in their guns, right?


*But you are declaring yourselves as
incorrigible victims of an ultraright indoctrination that guns are good,
people are good, and all the violence is just a few criminals. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one said all the violence is just a few criminals. But most
of the crime out there is being committed by just a small
segment of the population. That is established by statistics
that are readily available. I don't have a record, I'll bet you
don't either. But there is a small segment of the population
that has arrest and conviction records for offense after offense
going back years.

And yes, I'm all in favor of law abiding citizens being able
to arm and defend themselves. I thought liberals were in
favor of women's rights? You want a 100lb woman in a dark
parking garage to defend herself against a 250lb attacker?
When she has a gun, the playing field is level.

[The Daring Dufas[_7_]]

On 4/8/2012 10:26 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
news
Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../chl/Convictio
nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?


What does "properly instructed and/or licensed" mean ??
I'll point out to you that in Vermont, one of the safest states in the
nation, there has been NO training or licensing requirement EVER.
When ALaska enacted a licensing scheme, it converted to what Vermont was
doing a few years later, and only kept the licensing process to allow
ALaskans to get recognition in other States.
Last time I checked, they did NOT have an explosion of crimes because
people could carry.
But you are free to claim otherwise and provide the data to support your
claim

You should also consider the following
IN most cases people consider the police to be highly trained in the use
of firearms.
And yet civilians shoot more than twice the number of criminals that
police do, all the while shooting about 1/6th the innocent bystanders
that the police do.
That's basically a 12:1 ratio of citizens doing a far better job than
the police in shooting safety while shooting criminals.


How often does a group of civilians fire 40 rounds into an unarmed
citizen? o_O

TDD

[Attila.Iskander]

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

You should also consider the following
IN most cases people consider the police to be highly trained in the
use of firearms.
And yet civilians shoot more than twice the number of criminals that
police do, all the while shooting about 1/6th the innocent bystanders
that the police do.
That's basically a 12:1 ratio of citizens doing a far better job than
the police in shooting safety while shooting criminals.

OK. Now tell me how equivalent the situations were in which the police
shootings occurred vs the civilian shootings.


You want equivalence
Feel free to go looking for it..
I have no need to prove your **** for you


I admit that not all police are as well prepared as they should, but they
are often under lots of stress getting called into situations that aren't
clear. Basically those single line statistics aren't worth the
appellation.


Denial is NOT a river in Africa

[Ron]

On Apr 9, 12:35*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

Why don't you just copy and paste what I wrote next time?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b5dd2fcf39525e

Why should I ?
Anyone with more than 2 ounces of grey matter, except for those who choose
to be willfully ignorant, *should have no trouble Googling for "Kobe Bryant
broken nose".

You parroted ALL THREE of the comments that I made, not just the Kobe
comment.

[J Carter]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"J Carter" wrote in message
.. .

I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his
life?

Why would he have "fear for his life" ??
Possibly explainable if he was trading dope and his supplier
was after
him



BAD ASSUMPTION
What makes you think that a drug dealer is the only one who would
fear for his life if being followed at night with no one else around?
If Sanford has as much crime as some other posters (one who lived
ther-so many posts ago, I can't recall his name) have stated, a
person does not have to be dis-obeying the law to be afraid when
being followed at night.

Situations are not always cut-and-dried as your staements would have
us believe. There are other explanations that have as much
credibility as yours.



He would then have grounds under SYG.

Nope
He would not


I think SYG does allow anyone who believes his life is being
threatened may use deadly force to defend himself.That's exactly what
Z stated he feared and did. You stated NOPE since you felt Martin
was acting unlawfully - which I don't think is covered under SYG and
theefore would not. On this you are correct.




I'll stop here
Since the first part of the fantasy is false, so is the rest.



Remember, your conclusions and expalnatiopns are not the absolute
end-all explanation for sutiations. WHat you call a false fantasy
has as much validity as any of your statements. No one can detrmine
what's in anohter person's mind under these conditions.

I do not say that is what happened, but there is no way you can say
it can't or didn't happen, unless you were theer and inside Martin or
even Zimmerman's head at the time.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 12:35 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

Why don't you just copy and paste what I wrote next time?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b5dd2fcf39525e

Why should I ?
Anyone with more than 2 ounces of grey matter, except for those who
choose
to be willfully ignorant, should have no trouble Googling for "Kobe
Bryant
broken nose".

You parroted ALL THREE of the comments that I made, not just the Kobe
comment.

yawn
Clearly you have a problem with the notion that others may have used OTHER
sources and come to the same conclusion
Apparently you're ego needs assuaging for you to believe that I parroted
you.
Whatever turns your crank, bubby.

And by the way, booby.
If you go back you will find that I actually went out and cited different
sources for both the Kobe Bryant story AND blood flow from injuries to nose
and head.
But if you need to believe that I was actually "parroting" you.
Well that no skin off my back..

[bob haller]

On Apr 10, 10:17*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...





On Apr 9, 12:35 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

Why don't you just copy and paste what I wrote next time?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b5dd2fcf39525e

Why should I ?
Anyone with more than 2 ounces of grey matter, except for those who
choose
to be willfully ignorant, *should have no trouble Googling for "Kobe
Bryant
broken nose".

You parroted ALL THREE of the comments that I made, not just the Kobe
comment.

yawn
Clearly you have a problem with the notion that others may have used OTHER
sources and come to the same conclusion
* * Apparently you're ego needs assuaging for you to believe that I parroted
you.
Whatever turns your crank, bubby.

And by the way, booby.
If you go back you will find that I actually went out and cited different
sources for both the Kobe Bryant story AND blood flow from injuries to nose
and head.
But if you need to believe that I was actually "parroting" you.
* * Well that no skin off my back..

zimmerman has started a defense fund and is looking for donations...

he refused to follow the 911 operators orders dont follow him..

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....

[Attila.Iskander]

"J Carter" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"J Carter" wrote in message
.. .

I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his
life?

Why would he have "fear for his life" ??
Possibly explainable if he was trading dope and his supplier
was after him.



BAD ASSUMPTION
What makes you think that a drug dealer is the only one who would
fear for his life if being followed at night with no one else around?


NOT an "assumption", but a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION
(Please try to read for COMPREHENSION)


But let's look more closely at the claim that he was in "fear of his life"
Trayvon being a teenager, was far more likely to believe that he was
immortal and that he could overcome anything
He was within easy distance of where he was staying
He was young and healthy, and more than likely able to outrun just about
anything that followed him
So you give me one reason why he would have cause to fear for his life if
someone were watching him or even following him AT A DISTANCE. And there is
NO DATA suggesting that he even tried.
And CLEARLY, if he turned around and confronted Zimmerman, he was NOT in
fear of his life.



If Sanford has as much crime as some other posters (one who lived
ther-so many posts ago, I can't recall his name) have stated, a
person does not have to be dis-obeying the law to be afraid when
being followed at night.


More assumptions on YOUR part


Situations are not always cut-and-dried as your staements would have
us believe. There are other explanations that have as much
credibility as yours.


So sorry that your lack of reading comprehension leads you into error..



He would then have grounds under SYG.

Nope
He would not


I think SYG does allow anyone who believes his life is being
threatened may use deadly force to defend himself.That's exactly what
Z stated he feared and did. You stated NOPE since you felt Martin
was acting unlawfully - which I don't think is covered under SYG and
theefore would not. On this you are correct.


Please inform yourself instead of "thinking"
Your thinking is more presumption than actual logical process.

SYG has NOTHING to do with the basic right to self-defense, AND THE USE OF
DEADLY FORCE,
A right which is recognized by Statute if not precedent in (to the best of
my knowledge) all 50 states.

SYG variants around the country EXTEND that basic right in a variety of ways
a) by removing the need to retreat if assaulted in a public place
b) forcing the state to show that sell-defense was not applicable
c) possibly protecting you from civil lawsuits even though your use of
deadly force was justified.

IF per the information we have available from Zimmerman and the witness
Zimmerman was confronted and assaulted by Martin
Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on him
SYG does NOT apply,
But the statute about use of deadly force does.





I'll stop here
Since the first part of the fantasy is false, so is the rest.



Remember, your conclusions and expalnatiopns are not the absolute
end-all explanation for sutiations. WHat you call a false fantasy
has as much validity as any of your statements. No one can detrmine
what's in anohter person's mind under these conditions.


Actually NOT
My conclusions are the best possible one based on the data available and in
the context of the laws that apply
You can NOT make the same claim


I do not say that is what happened, but there is no way you can say
it can't or didn't happen, unless you were theer and inside Martin or
even Zimmerman's head at the time.

As demonstrated above,
- your misinformation of the actual laws that apply or not are wrong.
- your speculations of what may have happened versus that data that is
available is also wrong
Since I based my scenarios on the information available and a correct
application of which statute is most applicable, I'm quite confident that
I'm closer to the correct conclusion


As a closing note, the special prosecutor appointed by the Governor has
chosen NOT to convene a Grand Jury.
Considering that any decent prosecutor could get a ham sandwich indicted by
a Grand Jury, that raises a serious question as to why she has decided not
to do so.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

I may have mentioned earlier. This, like most fatal conflicts. Had a long
series of decisions that led up to the fatal shooting. Either one could have
"broken off" the engagement at any of several moments.

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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

zimmerman has started a defense fund and is looking for donations...

he refused to follow the 911 operators orders dont follow him..

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....

[Ron]

On Apr 10, 11:13*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:.

YAWN

You sure do yawn a lot. You need to get more sleep and stop trolling,
sock puppet.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I may have mentioned earlier. This, like most fatal conflicts. Had a long
series of decisions that led up to the fatal shooting. Either one could
have
"broken off" the engagement at any of several moments.


Apparently Zimmerman had "broken off" and was heading back to his vehicle.
when Martin caught up to him and confronted him.
Being observed and reported is not any excuse for an assault.
Unless you're a teenage tough-guy wannabe

[Attila.Iskander]

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 10:17 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...





On Apr 9, 12:35 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

Why don't you just copy and paste what I wrote next time?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b5dd2fcf39525e

Why should I ?
Anyone with more than 2 ounces of grey matter, except for those who
choose
to be willfully ignorant, should have no trouble Googling for "Kobe
Bryant
broken nose".

You parroted ALL THREE of the comments that I made, not just the Kobe
comment.

yawn
Clearly you have a problem with the notion that others may have used
OTHER
sources and come to the same conclusion
Apparently you're ego needs assuaging for you to believe that I
parroted
you.
Whatever turns your crank, bubby.

And by the way, booby.
If you go back you will find that I actually went out and cited different
sources for both the Kobe Bryant story AND blood flow from injuries to
nose
and head.
But if you need to believe that I was actually "parroting" you.
Well that no skin off my back..

zimmerman has started a defense fund and is looking for donations...


Good for him
Considering how the media tried to lynch him with the way it portrayed him
and edited the 911 call to make him look like a racist, while glossing over
Martin's background..
I might even contribute

he refused to follow the 911 operators orders dont follow him..


BZZZT
FALSE !

I don't know about you, but I don't work for some anonymous 911 operator,
who by the way is not even a police officer. and therefore has NO LEGAL
authority to give "orders"...


1) The 911 operator made a suggestion
2) A suggestion is NOT an order
3) And that's the MOST that the 911 operator can do

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....


So you will swallow any **** that the media feeds you..

That's like the claim the media made that Zimmerman actually was "hunting"
Martin because he was black, and they ONLY played Zimmerman's response to
the 911 query about the race of the person he was reporting.

You might want to use a better source for your information
One that contains less "spin" in it...

[Oren[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:04 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....


So you will swallow any **** that the media feeds you..

If notice the first (early) photos of Z show him in a mug shot. I
noticed his "orange jump suit" from the begriming.

"...According to the documents, Zimmerman went to court in 2005 and
2006 for these incidents. "

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/zimmerman-of-sanford-has-past-arrest-charges-2266725.html

I'm not sure these arrests preclude him from having a permit under
Florida law. The state may have a reckoning period, where he can apply
after X amount of years.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:04 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....


So you will swallow any **** that the media feeds you..

If notice the first (early) photos of Z show him in a mug shot. I
noticed his "orange jump suit" from the begriming.


Yes the press INTENTIONALLY presented a photo that is
- old
- not very complementary
They did EXACTLY the opposite for Martin by showing an old photo that made
him look more like a happy problem-free child, and not the thrice suspended
High-Schooler with women's jewelry and MJ in his possession

Very much in the line of editing the 911 call to make it sound that
Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, by leaving out the fact that
he was responding to a question by the 911 operator.


"...According to the documents, Zimmerman went to court in 2005 and
2006 for these incidents. "

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/zimmerman-of-sanford-has-past-arrest-charges-2266725.html

I'm not sure these arrests preclude him from having a permit under
Florida law. The state may have a reckoning period, where he can apply
after X amount of years.

Clearly they did NOT, since Zimmerman HAD a permit.
And just being arrested and "going to court" means nothing.

Once when refereeing a soccer game, I stepped between an irate parent and a
player to protect the player. In the process, I took the parent down (hard),
and made sure he wasn't getting up, since in my opinion he clearly had the
intention of assaulting said player.
When the police showed up, I was temporarily "detained at the scene" while
the story was cleared up.
The parent was arrested, I was not.
The parent was charged, I was not.
The case went to court, and I DID have to appear.

I'm quite sure that that incident could be easily stated as
"While refereeing, he was detained by police and had to appear in court
for assaulting a parent"
All it would be true in fact.
But the way it was stated would lead to a false impression.

Incomplete stories can easily be manipulated to gull the gullible or those
who are looking for a certain point of view.
We already have had some CLEARLY intentional misrepresentation by the press,
(MSNBC actually admitted to it for the 911 call ), both by the photo, and
the partial 911 call.

[Robert Green]

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

Why is not national news when a Negro murders a Caucasian? o_O

Did you forget about OJ? That seemed to make the news in my town. (-:

--
Bobby G.

[Doug[_14_]]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:45:51 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:04 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....


So you will swallow any **** that the media feeds you..

If notice the first (early) photos of Z show him in a mug shot. I
noticed his "orange jump suit" from the begriming.


Yes the press INTENTIONALLY presented a photo that is
- old
- not very complementary
They did EXACTLY the opposite for Martin by showing an old photo that made
him look more like a happy problem-free child, and not the thrice suspended
High-Schooler with women's jewelry and MJ in his possession

Very much in the line of editing the 911 call to make it sound that
Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, by leaving out the fact that
he was responding to a question by the 911 operator.


"...According to the documents, Zimmerman went to court in 2005 and
2006 for these incidents. "

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/zimmerman-of-sanford-has-past-arrest-charges-2266725.html

I'm not sure these arrests preclude him from having a permit under
Florida law. The state may have a reckoning period, where he can apply
after X amount of years.

Clearly they did NOT, since Zimmerman HAD a permit.
And just being arrested and "going to court" means nothing.

Once when refereeing a soccer game, I stepped between an irate parent and a
player to protect the player. In the process, I took the parent down (hard),
and made sure he wasn't getting up, since in my opinion he clearly had the
intention of assaulting said player.
When the police showed up, I was temporarily "detained at the scene" while
the story was cleared up.
The parent was arrested, I was not.
The parent was charged, I was not.
The case went to court, and I DID have to appear.

I'm quite sure that that incident could be easily stated as
"While refereeing, he was detained by police and had to appear in court
for assaulting a parent"
All it would be true in fact.
But the way it was stated would lead to a false impression.

Incomplete stories can easily be manipulated to gull the gullible or those
who are looking for a certain point of view.
We already have had some CLEARLY intentional misrepresentation by the press,
(MSNBC actually admitted to it for the 911 call ), both by the photo, and
the partial 911 call.




I have to admit whoever made the decision to put the original photos
on tv had to know from experience what this was going to do (sway). I
don't believe it was accidental even if newer ones were not available
yet.

Personally, I'm not convinced this was a racial killing yet but I
still ask myself if this was simply murder? Hopefully time will
tell but regardless of the outcome, I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.

[Michael Dobony]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:17:19 -0500, Doug wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:45:51 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:04 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....


So you will swallow any **** that the media feeds you..

If notice the first (early) photos of Z show him in a mug shot. I
noticed his "orange jump suit" from the begriming.


Yes the press INTENTIONALLY presented a photo that is
- old
- not very complementary
They did EXACTLY the opposite for Martin by showing an old photo that made
him look more like a happy problem-free child, and not the thrice suspended
High-Schooler with women's jewelry and MJ in his possession

Very much in the line of editing the 911 call to make it sound that
Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, by leaving out the fact that
he was responding to a question by the 911 operator.


"...According to the documents, Zimmerman went to court in 2005 and
2006 for these incidents. "

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/zimmerman-of-sanford-has-past-arrest-charges-2266725.html

I'm not sure these arrests preclude him from having a permit under
Florida law. The state may have a reckoning period, where he can apply
after X amount of years.

Clearly they did NOT, since Zimmerman HAD a permit.
And just being arrested and "going to court" means nothing.

Once when refereeing a soccer game, I stepped between an irate parent and a
player to protect the player. In the process, I took the parent down (hard),
and made sure he wasn't getting up, since in my opinion he clearly had the
intention of assaulting said player.
When the police showed up, I was temporarily "detained at the scene" while
the story was cleared up.
The parent was arrested, I was not.
The parent was charged, I was not.
The case went to court, and I DID have to appear.

I'm quite sure that that incident could be easily stated as
"While refereeing, he was detained by police and had to appear in court
for assaulting a parent"
All it would be true in fact.
But the way it was stated would lead to a false impression.

Incomplete stories can easily be manipulated to gull the gullible or those
who are looking for a certain point of view.
We already have had some CLEARLY intentional misrepresentation by the press,
(MSNBC actually admitted to it for the 911 call ), both by the photo, and
the partial 911 call.




I have to admit whoever made the decision to put the original photos
on tv had to know from experience what this was going to do (sway). I
don't believe it was accidental even if newer ones were not available
yet.

Personally, I'm not convinced this was a racial killing yet but I
still ask myself if this was simply murder? Hopefully time will
tell but regardless of the outcome, I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.

Forget about everything that happened and was said from the press.
Witnesses saw Martin attacking Zimmerman, on top of him and pounding him,
and Zimmerman screaming for help. That makes the shooting self-defense if
done during the assault by Martin.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:13:07 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

The Neo Nazis have
promised to patrol Sanford to quell any race riots that might erupt over a
total pass for Zimmerman. We'll see how well that works out. I don't think
Martin's going to be the only dead man to result from this incident.
Another heavy shoe is waiting to drop.

I may be a few days shy, but much of Sanford has little or no Neo
Nazis population. Promises don't matter.

A Sanford cop car has been shot up this past day.

White supremacy is not a place for Sanford. You might get shot.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:46:22 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 4/5/2012 12:06 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:55:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Zimmerman will undoubtedly face a wrongful death civil
suit funded by some very deep pockets.

Um, Florida being a Castle Doctrine state protects from a justified
shooting. The family cannot sue for wrongful death, take your house,
land, cats, dogs or anything from all the people you ever knew.

Remember, the key word in that law is "justified." If a court finds
Zimmerman's use of force unjustified, all those protection vanish into thin
air.

My state is not called a castle doctrine state because THAT one point
in the law was not written in this past year. Had protection from
civil liabilities been added, we would be in the states called Castle
Doctrine.

The lesson of the ACA should be clear here. Just because a law is passed
doesn't mean it's going to pass constitutional muster.

I see today, "deep pockets" in Texas is or has already given $10,000
to the Zimmerman defense -- assuming he committed a crime and is
arrested, put on public trial and all that mess.

You're the one who recently said, IIRC, if they can't get someone on state
charges, they Feds can go after them without fear of double jeopardy. The
Feds can go after Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights regardless
of the state law. That was a quite popular tactic in the South where some
states had laws that made it almost impossible for a white person to be
tried for killing a black one.

This incident, as they say in the news business had "grown legs" and there's
no telling where those legs might take it. With big money on both sides of
the issue, I suspect this case will end up in the Supreme Court. I am sure
that more than one or two thugs and gangstas are saying to themselves "All I
have to do is ambush a dude where there are no witnesses, muss myself up to
look like I was attacked and I can kill anyone I want to and walk." Even
die-hard 2nd Amendment fans are going to find such cases hard to choke down.

--
Bobby G.



Why is not national news when a Negro murders a Caucasian? o_O

What's even more bigoted is the absolute silence about the epidemic of
black-on-black crime. It's like it's expected of "them".

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:29:41 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Han" wrote in message
.. .
" wrote in
:

On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:iiv3o7l3
:





On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were
responsible for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the
latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one
was done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation
was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis..._records/chl/C
on
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people
wh
o
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this
one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions
among CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either
we should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone
take the test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie
should be able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun
owners are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding.
As usual
,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass
an exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a
better place. You have just proven to me that you basically agree
with me
-
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out.
Obviously you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should
keep records of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly.
It
is
really quite simple. Only the interpretation of the NRA of the
reading of the second amendment is standing in the way.

No, what's standing in the way is that the criminals, for the
most part, are NOT obtaining guns right now via legal channels.
They already obtain them illegally. So, I'm as bewildered as
KRW as to what point you're trying to make here and I don't
see your "logical conclusion".


And guess, which
companies profit?

How about we outlaw guns totally? We've done that with
cocaine. Yet those that want it can readily obtain it, criminals
have it, and who's profiting from that?




Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES
keep track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict.
.. atesReport2009.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like with cocaine, if youdon't do something with the suppliers, you're
not going to be able to do anything. Unlike cocaine, we're not dealing
with physical addiction (I hope), so there shouldn't be any "withdrawal",
except for NRA types, perhaps. But you are declaring yourselves as
incorrigible victims of an ultraright indoctrination that guns are good,
people are good, and all the violence is just a few criminals.

There you go making stupid and ignorantly biased generalizations
1) MOST of the crimes are committed by criminals
2) MOST of the criminal uses of guns are also committed by criminals who
are ALREADY barred from possession of guns

Interesting that he also believes that the notion that "People are good" is
from "ultraright indoctrination".
IF that is the case, the are we to believe that leftist indoctrination is
that "people are bad" ??
Mmmm
That would explain a great deal about all the arrogant notions that the left
believes.

It really does boil down to that. Leftists don't believe people can be
trusted to take care of themselves. ...and the ones that can are to be
trusted the least. Individuals get in the way of the collective.

As to the silly strawman that gun owner believe that "guns are good"
That is typical hoplophobic ANIMIST thinking that tools such as guns are
anything BUT inanimate objects that have power over their possessors to make
them good or evil.

Right again.

That would explain a great deal of the reaction of the left to fictional
tales such as the Lord of the Rings.

Well, their world *is* fantasy.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:55:58 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:55:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

J Carter wrote:
I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who
was the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged
in the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee.

You raise an interesting point. In your scenario, BOTH have a right
to stand their ground.

In such a case, we then have to fall back on an even more primitive
principle: Don't bring a fist to a gun fight.


Ya gotta be 21 (FL? ) to buy a gun. Gifts are different.


Um, most gang-bangers don't buy their guns. At least not from a licensed
dealer. Heck, some even RENT their guns (I didn't make that up).

Why would anyone think you made it up? They rent the 22" spinners on their
cars.

[The Daring Dufas[_7_]]

On 4/10/2012 3:55 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...

Why is not national news when a Negro murders a Caucasian? o_O

Did you forget about OJ? That seemed to make the news in my town. (-:

--
Bobby G.


Did you forget OJ was acquitted? Of course you probably didn't hear
about the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a White
couple raped, tortured and murdered after being kidnapped early on the
morning of January 7, 2007 by three Black men and a Black female.
A professor of journalism said the case didn't get national attention
because it wasn't newsworthy. I never heard of it on any of the alphabet
news networks, did you? o_O

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...opher_Newso m

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7n7y2dt

Gosh, there is a possible hate crime in Oklahoma, it's all over the news
but another murder there was ignored by the national news media.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dougg...ational _news

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6o2k6u2

I don't know if it bothers or disturbs you but it does perturb me.

TDD

[Doug[_14_]]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:21:26 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:17:19 -0500, Doug wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:45:51 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:04 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

and zimmerman appears to have a history of violent behavior.....


So you will swallow any **** that the media feeds you..

If notice the first (early) photos of Z show him in a mug shot. I
noticed his "orange jump suit" from the begriming.


Yes the press INTENTIONALLY presented a photo that is
- old
- not very complementary
They did EXACTLY the opposite for Martin by showing an old photo that made
him look more like a happy problem-free child, and not the thrice suspended
High-Schooler with women's jewelry and MJ in his possession

Very much in the line of editing the 911 call to make it sound that
Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, by leaving out the fact that
he was responding to a question by the 911 operator.


"...According to the documents, Zimmerman went to court in 2005 and
2006 for these incidents. "

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/zimmerman-of-sanford-has-past-arrest-charges-2266725.html

I'm not sure these arrests preclude him from having a permit under
Florida law. The state may have a reckoning period, where he can apply
after X amount of years.

Clearly they did NOT, since Zimmerman HAD a permit.
And just being arrested and "going to court" means nothing.

Once when refereeing a soccer game, I stepped between an irate parent and a
player to protect the player. In the process, I took the parent down (hard),
and made sure he wasn't getting up, since in my opinion he clearly had the
intention of assaulting said player.
When the police showed up, I was temporarily "detained at the scene" while
the story was cleared up.
The parent was arrested, I was not.
The parent was charged, I was not.
The case went to court, and I DID have to appear.

I'm quite sure that that incident could be easily stated as
"While refereeing, he was detained by police and had to appear in court
for assaulting a parent"
All it would be true in fact.
But the way it was stated would lead to a false impression.

Incomplete stories can easily be manipulated to gull the gullible or those
who are looking for a certain point of view.
We already have had some CLEARLY intentional misrepresentation by the press,
(MSNBC actually admitted to it for the 911 call ), both by the photo, and
the partial 911 call.




I have to admit whoever made the decision to put the original photos
on tv had to know from experience what this was going to do (sway). I
don't believe it was accidental even if newer ones were not available
yet.

Personally, I'm not convinced this was a racial killing yet but I
still ask myself if this was simply murder? Hopefully time will
tell but regardless of the outcome, I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.

Forget about everything that happened and was said from the press.
Witnesses saw Martin attacking Zimmerman, on top of him and pounding him,
and Zimmerman screaming for help. That makes the shooting self-defense if
done during the assault by Martin.


Ok but when I saw the video, I didn't see any blood, grass stains or
wrinkled clothing. And when he got outa the police car, he didn't
look like a person who had a struggle / fight with another person. I
know some explain this saying the video isn't clear but it looked
clear to me. Right or wrong, due to the confusion, I'll just wait
till the dust settles on this. And you're right about the press...
best to ignor them, at least for right now.

[Robert Green]

wrote in message news:e2b9f8eb-379a-43fa-8f24-

stuff snipped

This incident, as they say in the news business had "grown legs" and
there's
no telling where those legs might take it. With big money on both sides of
the issue, I suspect this case will end up in the Supreme Court. I am sure
that more than one or two thugs and gangstas are saying to themselves "All
I
have to do is ambush a dude where there are no witnesses, muss myself up
to
look like I was attacked and I can kill anyone I want to and walk." Even
die-hard 2nd Amendment fans are going to find such cases hard to choke
down.

--
Bobby G.

Like those thugs needed this to figure that out? Where's the outrage
from the libs, media, Sharpton, Jackson and all the other race baiters
regarding all the black on black murders?

Thugs are often pretty fu&ing stupid. I watched World's Dumbest Criminals
last night that uses CCTV video of criminals in action. One guy torched a
spa by hurling an open can of gasoline through the window and then lighting
it AND himself on fire because the fuel had splashed all over him. Another
changed into his bank robbing disguise in the bank bathroom in front of CCTV
camera.

So yes, when I see video of an idiot running away from an arson scene
totally aflame I think at least some thugs may have not figured out how easy
it is to kill someone in a SYG state.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

did it again!

stuff snipped

You do see how that presents a problem for the justice system. All someone
has to do is get the drop on you in some remote location, shoot you, punch
themselves in the face with your dead fist (hopefully you're wearing a
ring
that will tear flesh and transfer DNA evidence) and they've gotten away
with
murder.

You do see how regardless of SYG one can always try to rig
a crime scene. For example, no need for a remote location.
Just get them into your house, shoot them and put a knife or
gun in their hand. A lot easier than trying to punch yourself with
a dead person's fist to create a realistic injury. Even your
strawman arguments are pathetic.

God, how I love it when you're unnecessarily rude and incontrovertibly
wrong, Trader. Tell us about the LENF and CRIM courses you've taken to make
that assertion? Hmmm. Tell us about your father. Was he a forensic
investigator? Hmmm. Is your sister a criminal court judge? Thought not.
You're punching way over your weight on this and it shows.

Just "get them into your house" you say. How do you get your mortal enemy
to your house without arousing his suspicion? Send him a muffin basket?
Invite him to tea? Where are you getting the gun to put in his hand? The
magic gun locker in the sky? Do you think cops won't check that knife for
your fingerprints or DNA embedded in the handle? Or look to see if any
knives are missing from your kitchen set? Putting a weapon in the dead
man's hands is a trick even older than the wax in your ears. The cops are
very much "onto" it.

You call my hypotheticals ridiculous but you conjure up far more unlikely
impossibilities out of thin air. "A man will accuse others of what he is
most guilty of himself." Once again you prove the Flanigan's Law. Why
can't you just make your statements without the "pathetic" personal dig?
You let your rage and anger blind you, time and time again.

FWIW, punching yourself with the dead man's hand is going to provide far
more convincing proof of an assault (although one didn't actually take
place) than your trite, dog-eared suggestion of planting a knife from your
kitchen drawer or a gun (that you've materialized out of thin air) in their
hands. Remember how people were commenting about examining the hands of
dead Martin? That's because in a real physical assault, DNA will likely
transfer. So by simulating a punching attack, a hair with a follicle or
some skin is likely to transfer, bolstering the false claim enormously. Far
more than a kitchen knife that was lying around would and no, - save your
breath - police hardly *ever* believe the guy broke in without a weapon and
used one of yours to attack you.

Read up how forensic techs deal with the very real problem of people faking
their injuries to make false assault claims. This is LENF 101 stuff. Maybe
if you spent years on a police beat as a reporter, the way I did, you'd know
better than to open your mouth and dispel all doubt about your knowledge, as
they say. You have to turn everything into a bitter personal diatribe
Trader, but it's "pathetic" to see you get so rude when you don't really
know of what you speak:

http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sc...licted-injury/

Here are a few excerpts:

**emphasis mine**

Introduction
The physical examination of persons with injuries that have been
self-inflicted deliberately is part of the **routine work** in clinical
forensic medicine. The recognition of self-harm is of criminalistic
importance when differentiating between assaults, accidents, suicidal acts
and other kinds of self-destructive behavior; the main categories are listed
in Table 1. In cases of

Table 1 Main categories of self-induced bodily harm
1. Simulation of a criminal offense:
(a) False rape allegation
(b) Feigned robbery or alleged attack for other fabricated reasons
2. Self-mutilation for the purpose of insurance fraud
3. Voluntary self-mutilation and/or malingering among soldiers and prisoners
4. Dermal artifacts, self-mutilation and malingering in patients with
personality disorders
5. Suicidal gestures, (attempted) suicide


Simulation of Criminal Offenses

This group comprises self-inflicted injuries of individuals who claim to
have been the victim of an assault. The bodily damage, therefore, is used as
alleged proof of a fictitious offense. The dramatic story told by the
informant is often in obvious contrast to a uniform wound pattern (Fig. 1)
and a poor severity of the injuries so that the whole picture does not
suggest a real struggle with the dynamics of a fight.
According to the literature, up to **20% of the sexual offenses reported to
the police are fictitious.** In false rape allegations the **informants
frequently injure themselves in order to give support to their story** (Fig.
2).

The rest of the article is similarly illuminating. Twenty percent of the
sex offenses reported are fictitious.

Usually the self-inflicted injuries are caused with the help of pointed
and/or cutting tools such as knives, razor blades, nail-scissors, and broken
glass. The resulting wounds are of a trivial nature, mostly consisting of
superficial cuts or linear abrasions. The characteristics of a 'classical'
injury pattern are listed in Table 2. In typical cases there is a multitude
of equally shallow lesions which are strikingly uniform in shape, often
orientated in the same direction or in a criss-cross manner. The cuts avoid
especially sensitive areas like the eyes, lips, nipples, and genitals. They
are mainly located on the frontal aspect of the trunk, on the face, the
neck, the arms and hands, and sometimes on the lower limbs. Nevertheless,
self-inflicted injuries may also be found on the back of the body, as far as
it is accessible for the alleged victim's hand, or if the injuries have been
caused with the assistance of another person. Often the relevant garments
are either undamaged or the damage does not correspond to the skin lesions.

Table 2 Typical features of self-inflicted injuries fabricated to simulate a
criminal offence
1. Infliction either by sharp/pointed instruments or by fingernails
2. Equally shallow, non penetrating cuts or fingernail abrasions (sometimes
each of considerable length)
3. Multitude of individual lesions
4. Uniform shape, linear or slightly curved course of the lesions
5. Grouped and/or parallel and/or criss-cross arrangement
6. Symmetry or preference of the non-dominant side of the body (usually the
left)
7. Location in easily reachable body regions
8. Omission of especially sensitive body regions
9. No damage of the clothes or inconsistent damage
10. Lack of defense injuries
11. Additional presence of scars from former self-injurious behavior

This is a pretty well-known issue in forensic investigations and I'm kind of
surprised you appear to have no knowledge of how often people fake injuries
to the police, insurance companies and even their own families for a variety
of reasons.

BTW, military investigators have a whole chapter in their training manuals
devoted to SIW's, something that happened in AfRaq a number of times that I
know of and that happens in every war:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/siw.htm

If found guilty of a self-inflicted wound in the British Army the ultimate
penalty was capital, i.e. death by firing squad. In the British Army some
3,894 men were found guilty of SIW; in practice none were executed but
instead sent to prison for lengthy periods.

People injure themselves for all sorts of reasons. But not many get away
with it because they're as unimaginative as you seem to be at figuring out
how to make their fake injuries look real. Or perhaps they can't conjure a
gun out of thin air, as you seem to be suggesting, to "flake" their victim
with.

--

Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2012 3:55 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...

Why is not national news when a Negro murders a Caucasian? o_O

Did you forget about OJ? That seemed to make the news in my town. (-:

--
Bobby G.


Did you forget OJ was acquitted?

Hey, you said, precisely: "Why is it not national news . . ." The OJ case
WAS national news, no matter how ridiculous the outcome. The following
civil suit DID find him guilty. Maybe he WAS innocent:

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...e-brown-201214

In his argument, he states that O.J. went through the long trial and
investigations to cover for his son, now 41, who is living in Miami where he
works as a cook, according to the New York Post. Dear's evidentiary support
includes items found in Jason's locker and trashcan including a hunting
knife that forensic experts believe is the actual murder weapon and Jason's
habit of wearing knit caps similar to the one left at the crime scene that
was actually never linked to O.J. Dear also looks into Jason's personality
and brings his drug abuse and domestic violence history along with his anger
management issues to the surface.

I do know prosecutors and cops *repeatedly* stepped on their dicks big time
in the OJ case and weren't prepared to go up against the likes of the legal
team OJ assembled. The got outlawyered as the attorneys like to say, and
they got outlawyered big time.

Of course you probably didn't hear
about the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a White
couple raped, tortured and murdered after being kidnapped early on the
morning of January 7, 2007 by three Black men and a Black female.
A professor of journalism said the case didn't get national attention
because it wasn't newsworthy. I never heard of it on any of the alphabet
news networks, did you? o_O

Jeez, dude, do you know how many people are horribly murdered every year?
Kids by adults, whites by blacks, black by Asians, Asians by Hispanics, etc,
etc, etc. Not hearing of a particular murder doesn't surprise me in the
least. Maybe they lacked a mouthpiece like Al Sharpton to rally people to
their cause. You're actually making a case that blacks are smarter than
whites because they can get the media to focus on the issues of their
choosing. That's not really what your trying to prove, is it? (-:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...opher_Newso m

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7n7y2dt

Gosh, there is a possible hate crime in Oklahoma, it's all over the news
but another murder there was ignored by the national news media.


http://townhall.com/columnists/dougg...ational _news

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6o2k6u2

I don't know if it bothers or disturbs you but it does perturb me.

You're asking why some stories "grow legs" and other don't. The greatest
publishers and journalists of our time haven't been able to figure out what
makes people interested in one story over another. Having a loudmouth
speechifier like Sharpton is a big help, but even he can't make every case
he's involved in a national news item.

I know that in the history of race relations, there have been atrocities on
all sides. I've seen photos of blacks that had been lynched hanging from a
tree while white folks were have a garden party beneath the hanging tree.
I'm old enough to remember blacks being burned to death during the Civil
Rights era.

What grows into a story that has "traction" is something I've never been
able to figure out, even as a former journalist. There are so damn many
(too many) murders of all sorts each year for me to consider classifying
them as black on white, white on black, etc. You mentioned being mugged
once. When I got mugged on the NYC subway, it was a "salt and pepper" team
(one black, one white) that attacked me. Maybe that's why I'm convinced
that either race can do horrific things. Or should I say any race?

The Martin case captured public attention because of the circumstances of
the killing, IMHO, not because of the "race issue" which was added later by
Al Sharpton and others as a way to "expand" the case. It's clear from the
polls that blacks think Zimmerman would have been arrested and jailed if he
had killed a rich white kid. I don't know if that's true, but I do know
study after study shows blacks are treated more harshly at nearly every
point in the criminal justice system.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc...rutchfield.pdf

NYC studies show that black kids are far more likely to be arrested for
marijuana that white kids even though white kids actually smoke more pot.
It's things like this that anger blacks and make them think they're still
not getting a fair shake. White kids who are arrested are far more likely
to engage paid attorneys and not public defenders, etc. Ironically, the
disparities often appear race-related, but the overriding factors usually
tend to be economic ones. Poor people commit more crimes than middle-class
ones and blacks tend to be the poorest people in most socio-economic
studies.

What seems to torque most blacks about the Martin case is Zimmerman's
apparent assumption that Martin walking home late at night from a
convenience store is automatically suspicious behavior. It would be
interesting to know how Z's 40+ calls to 911 broke down racially.

--
Bobby G.