BottleBob wrote

...

Actually, I was only pointing out the apparent falseness of your
accusation that Richard Lewis was making his data up out of thin air,
when he said hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence
every year.

Richard didn't say what you just wrote. He said something entirely
different.
....

He, and you, would be wrong.

How would *I* be wrong? I have made no assertions as to you "spouting"
any alleged propaganda. I'm just making an observation that you both
may be making comments driven by an emotional bias.

You're full of it. You're act of 'he might or might not' is rather
transparent. You're using it to pretend to present an 'objective'
opinion. It isn't working.

.....

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote ...

...

I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

"There seems to be a battle of the statistics going on between you and
Gunner which may, or may not, jeopardize your claim to being more
familiar with the data than anyone else."

Keep on waffling, BB.

Carl:

Care to point out the assertion in that paragraph where I stated Gunner
was more "well-informed" than you?

You're moving the goalpost.

You claimed that you made *no* assertions about it. You clearly do
make an assertion is the quote provided above.

....

I said he may or may not be more
familiar with the data. I didn't make a definitive statement that he
was.

Your 'may or may not' act is lame and you should lose it.

I'd be careful about criticizing other's evaluation skills

I do just fine. (e.g. See the 'anti-gun' issue). You, OTOH, do need to
be careful.


....

BottleBob wrote....
....
And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.

He, and you, would be wrong.

How would *I* be wrong?

When you write "Gunner" - you're writing what *you* think, not what he
thinks.

Your act of waffling and trying to put words into other poster's
mouths is pathetic and weak.

.....

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote....
...
And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.

He, and you, would be wrong.

How would *I* be wrong?

When you write "Gunner" - you're writing what *you* think, not what he
thinks.

Carl:

Oh? Does one of your developed skills happen to include mind reading?

I warned you before to read what I say, and not let your imagination
run away with you about I "might" be saying.


Your act of waffling and trying to put words into other poster's
mouths is pathetic and weak.

I was simply making a comparison between two people arguing a subject
that often has an extreme emotional component. You think you're right,
your opponent thinks he's right, with little middle ground.


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote ...

...

I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

"There seems to be a battle of the statistics going on between you and
Gunner which may, or may not, jeopardize your claim to being more
familiar with the data than anyone else."

Keep on waffling, BB.

Carl:

Care to point out the assertion in that paragraph where I stated Gunner
was more "well-informed" than you?

You're moving the goalpost.

Carl:

You said that about Richard. Is this a ploy you commonly use when you
are challenged to support on of your observations but are unable to do
so? I asked you to point out the assertion where I stated Gunner was
more "well-informed" than you. Are you able to do that, or not?


You claimed that you made *no* assertions about it.

I said I made no assertion about Gunner being more well-informed than
you. If you believe otherwise please point it out.



...

I said he may or may not be more
familiar with the data. I didn't make a definitive statement that he
was.

Your 'may or may not' act is lame and you should lose it.

That might be difficult to do. It's an affectation that I've grown to
cherish.


I'd be careful about criticizing other's evaluation skills

I do just fine.

I'm not so sure you do. You've assumed a couple of things about my
communication style that aren't true.

(e.g. See the 'anti-gun' issue). You, OTOH, do need to
be careful.

I try to be careful as I can, but sometimes impressions and
interpretations leak through.

So are you pro-gun, anti-gun, or relatively neutral?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

...

Actually, I was only pointing out the apparent falseness of your
accusation that Richard Lewis was making his data up out of thin air,
when he said hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence
every year.

Richard didn't say what you just wrote. He said something entirely
different.

Carl:

Entirely different? Well let me go back and look.....

JTMcC seems to be the one who used this phrase first:
====================================
"...is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily
harm to your loved one..."
====================================

Carl replied:
====================================
Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to
emotion fallacy?

You're just demonstrating that you are not intelligent enough to
figure out how to deal with life without a gun.
=====================================

Incidentally, where could I have EVER got the impression you were
anti-gun.
Anyway back to the progression.

Richard replied:
=====================================
It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year.
=====================================

Carl wrote:
=====================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
=====================================

Richard wrote:
=====================================
Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.

Sure looks like "hundreds of thousands of times a year" to
me..
======================================

Carl wrote:
======================================
Do you make it a habit of creating numbers out of thin air?
======================================

BottleBob wrote:
======================================
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf

For 2002
Rapes 95,136
Robberies 420,637
Assaults 894,348
======================================

Back to real time here. First: it seems that Richard didn't originally
make the "...is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking
stuff and doing bodily harm to your loved one..." comment.

Second: You claimed Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical
criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen
hundreds of
thousands of times a year.

Third: My posting of essentially the same numbers from the FBI site
showed that your original assertion of there NOT being hundreds of
thousands of victims of violence was unfounded, EVEN if we subtract 3/4
of the cases.

Fourth: You accused Richard of creating numbers out of thin air. That
accusation was also shown to be false, even if he made the boo-boo of
mislabeling the robbery data (which had no effect on the numbers
themselves).

Is this all clear now?


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this
thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun
arguments?

Since it looks like you would be an expert source on the subject, do
you think that someone could make nearly all of an AK-47 using only a
handsaw and files?

Carl:

I don't know about expert source, but it would seem to me to be quite
difficult to drill the barrel with only a handsaw and files.

Is the barrell the only item that would be a problem? What about
springs? Would the tight fit tolerances among the various parts be
difficult to achieve?

(Richard Lewis) wrote

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

You did 'make up facts' when you labeled the category 'robbery' as
'armed robbery'

Not in the least. Semantics if anything.

IOW, you falsely labeled the category and you don't have the balls to
admit it.


You 'made up facts' when you frantically moved the goalpost in your
attempt to support your emotional claim.

You still claim the crimes in question don't happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year

Keep moving those goalposts. You're the idiot who chose the moronic
emotional definition.

(Richard Lewis) wrote

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

It figures that you don't have the balls to admit that you changed the
labels.

Sorry, idiot. I still don't see your point.

You wouldn't. You don't have the balls to admit that you changed the
labels.


Are you claiming that the crimes in question *don't* happen hundreds
of thousands of times a year?

Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.

There are a few hundred thousand violent crimes every year in the US
but that's an entirely different category.

But you lack the balls to admit that you created an emotionally-based,
and unsupportable, definition.

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.

Sorry, idiot. The numbers prove you wrong.

Ball's in your court....feel free to disprove the numbers.

ral

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

You did 'make up facts' when you labeled the category 'robbery' as
'armed robbery'

Not in the least. Semantics if anything.

IOW, you falsely labeled the category and you don't have the balls to
admit it.

Admit what? That the crimes stated don't "happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year...."?

That's up to you to prove, idiot. I made my case quite well.
ral

Richard Lewis wrote:
(Carl Nisarel) wrote:


Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.


Sorry, idiot. The numbers prove you wrong.

Ball's in your court....feel free to disprove the numbers.

ral




No, you ignorant, spineless, blustering pool of offal; the
"numbers" don't prove anything of the kind. "The numbers"
count 'victims of violent crime', not "loved ones." A != B,
you misbegotten product of the misogynous mating of a goat
and a retarded chimpanzee.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl:

I don't know about expert source, but it would seem to me to be quite
difficult to drill the barrel with only a handsaw and files.

Is the barrell the only item that would be a problem? What about
springs? Would the tight fit tolerances among the various parts be
difficult to achieve?

Carl:

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at here. I'm not a gunsmith
so I'm not familiar with all the internal workings or parts of an
AK-47. Coil springs can be made by wrapping piano wire around a pin,
flat springs can be made out of sheet spring steel with hand tools.
Filing, sawing, sanding, "can" achieve some pretty close tolerance
"seeming" fits. They might not look pretty but they might function for
the application. Clock makers centuries ago did some really nice work
with mostly simple hand tools.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

They might not look pretty but they might function for
the application. Clock makers centuries ago did some really nice work
with mostly simple hand tools.

Afghan "gunsmiths" would take a gun (any gun) and "duplicate" it, piece for
piece, with hand tools. Some of them, including AK's were amazing in fit &
function given the primitive way they were made.
Greg Sefton

Is the gun more at fault than it's user? No? Then why the
constant criticism of an object? Why not argue the merits
of methods of reasoning or the lack of ethics? Lets
emphasize education and training instead.

Because that would place the blame squarely where it belongs and those people
don't want to admit their (society's) shortcomings, nor do they have a clue to
deal with it. Much easier to demonize an inanimate object and obfuscate the
real issues.
Greg Sefton

BottleBob wrote

....

Third: My posting of essentially the same numbers from the FBI site
showed that your original assertion of there NOT being hundreds of
thousands of victims of violence

That wasn't my assertion. As I noted before, don't put words into my mouth.

....

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

...

Third: My posting of essentially the same numbers from the FBI site
showed that your original assertion of there NOT being hundreds of
thousands of victims of violence

That wasn't my assertion. As I noted before, don't put words into my mouth.

Carl:

OH? Did you, or did you not, make the following statement:
============================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
============================================


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

...

Third: My posting of essentially the same numbers from the FBI site
showed that your original assertion of there NOT being hundreds of
thousands of victims of violence

That wasn't my assertion. As I noted before, don't put words into my mouth.

Carl:

OH? Did you, or did you not, make the following statement:
============================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
============================================

It appears that you're too blind to see that those are not the same
thing. It's rather pathetic that you think you're trying to be
'objective'.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl:

OH? Did you, or did you not, make the following statement:
============================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
============================================

It appears that you're too blind to see that those are not the same
thing. It's rather pathetic that you think you're trying to be
'objective'.

Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those
1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones". Just what
percentage of those victims would you estimate do NOT fit your criteria
of "loved-ones" 51%?, 60%?, 70%?, 80%?, What?


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at here.

Just curious. No worries, mate.

hamei wrote:

No

And those "victims" don't fit the previous criteria in what way,
idiot?

ral

BottleBob wrote in message ...
Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl:

OH? Did you, or did you not, make the following statement:
============================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
============================================

It appears that you're too blind to see that those are not the same
thing. It's rather pathetic that you think you're trying to be
'objective'.

Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those
1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones".

I made no such claim.

Like I said before, quit trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote in message ...


Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those
1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones".

I made no such claim.

Carl:

Well now that's interesting, in a paradoxical sort of way. On the one
hand you seemed to be very adamant that the victims in these statistics
were NOT loved ones. But now when I use the term "claim" in reference
to your supposed reluctance to consider the victims as loved ones, you
say you made no such claim.

Do you consider the victims, or any portion of them, loved ones?
Do you consider NONE of the victims loved ones?
Is there a definition problem with the word "claim"?


Like I said before, quit trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Just trying to determine what you're saying.

Are you pro-gun, anti-gun, relatively neutral, or do you vacillate back
and forth on a whim of the moment?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob


Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those
1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones".

I made no such claim.

Carl:

Well now that's interesting, in a paradoxical sort of way. On the one
hand you seemed to be very adamant that the victims in these statistics
were NOT loved ones. But now when I use the term "claim" in reference
to your supposed reluctance to consider the victims as loved ones, you
say you made no such claim.

Either produce the quote where I made claim or learn how to write
something without trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob


Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those
1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones".

I made no such claim.

Carl:

Well now that's interesting, in a paradoxical sort of way. On the one
hand you seemed to be very adamant that the victims in these statistics
were NOT loved ones. But now when I use the term "claim" in reference
to your supposed reluctance to consider the victims as loved ones, you
say you made no such claim.

Either produce the quote where I made claim or learn how to write
something without trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl:

Here is what you said:

================================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
================================================

So is it the term 'loved one' you object to?

Or is it the "hundreds of thousands of times a year" you object to?

Or is it "assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" you object to?

Or which combination of the above?


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob


Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those
1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones".
......

Either produce the quote where I made claim or learn how to write
something without trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Here is what you said:

================================================
Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.
================================================

That demonstrates that I did not make the claim. Now, learn how to
write without trying to stuff words into other people's mouths.

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:
.....

When you write "Gunner" - you're writing what *you* think, not what he
thinks.


Oh? Does one of your developed skills happen to include mind reading?

That's exactly the problem you face. You think you can read minds when
you attempt to attribute positions to other people.

I warned you before to read what I say, and not let your imagination
run away with you about I "might" be saying.

Unlike you, I do read what you write.


Your act of waffling and trying to put words into other poster's
mouths is pathetic and weak.

I was simply making a comparison between two people arguing a subject
that often has an extreme emotional component.

No, you were not. You were putting words into the mouth of "Gunner".
You seem to think you know what he thinks. You don't. You only know
what *you* think and you are revealing what *you* think when you try
and attribute it to other people.

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:02:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


As to side arms being used in drivebys..one would assume you are
unaware that the majority of such are done with handguns, with a
lesser number being done with :

Read a little slower- I'm talking about using a sidearm to fend off a
drive-by. Not start one.

Yes the obligatory distraction case of it wouldn't help you in this case.
your right, remove drivebys from the equation and you'll get better ratios
of the importance of being armed in cases where it can make a diffrence.

Now the crux of the matter is:

The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the
other 50% armed states do" is meaningless

Is that a true statement or not. Yes or no?


If you mean "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and
walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.
However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the
country: so who is crazy?" the whole point is that the statement draws
conclusions it can't support- that open carry lowers the murder rate.

Open carry will not protect you from a drive-by or being run down by a
drunk driver or from being stabbed in the back while you sleep or
having your house torched while you're in it or any of a hundred
different ways humans kill off other human beings.
That's a true statement.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in
2002, 442,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced
an offender with a firearm.

-----

Also form a study done by...
Lawrence Southwick, Jr.
Self-defense with guns. the consequences.
Journal of Criminal Justice

------------------
found that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times
greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a
gun. In contrast, the probability of women being seriously injured was
almost 4 times greater when resisting without a gun than with resisting with
a gun. ...

Men also fare better with guns, but the differences are significantly
smaller. Behaving passively is 1.4 times more likely to result is serious
injury than resisting with a gun. Male victims, like females also run the
greatest risk when they resist without a gun, yet the difference is again
much smaller: resistance without a gun is only 1.5 times as likely to result
in serious injury than resistance with a gun. The much smaller difference
for men reflects the fact that a gun produces a smaller change in a man's
ability to defend himself than it does for a woman.

-----------

There is some question on statistical signifficance with these numbers
indicating a larger study might need to be made to tighten the margin
of error, I didn't verify the calcutations. Certainly I could find no
studies
that debunked these facts So I must conclude the anti-gun folks are happy
with the Statistically insignificant rebuttal and have no desire to proove
the numbers accurate by doing a larger survey. Just as the gun lobby is
happy to have this survey and it's results, and see no need to fund a larger
one.

In essence Gun lobby likes it's 2.5 x number. They don't want to see
that number drop. The anti-gun lobby says irrelavent, margin of error
says that a woman with a gun might be more likely to be seriously injured.
and the last thing they want is to fund a large more significant survey and
find out that the 2.5 number was too low. Range of answers for the exact
value if we polled everyone who was a victim of violent crime according
to anti gun rebuttal.

women passive vs guns 3x more injured - 17.4 x less injured
Women resist without/with 1.75x more injured - 28.1x less injured

Just a note, the rebuttal clearly showed that the probabilty of injury
could be much higher as well as lower. Also Given that such items
as drivebys are not seperated into different categories, the numbers
would be higher if the gun defences were limited to situations
where gun defence is a legitamate option.

Well except for you, everyone seems to knows that
felons aren't just anyone anymore. They have become
a specific subclass in our society, along with the
criminally insane and anyone else who has had their
legal standing reuduced through process of law because
of behavior.

That you seem to need to refute the classifications now
shows your losing the argument.

Go back to your population numbers, you at least had
something to say there. Even though your side mucked
it up.

Not really just shown that sloppy usage has pervaded the english
language and people are merging the two terms and losing the
distinction. reguardless of how far back you want to look at it. I

"yourname" wrote in message
...
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562335,00.html


Disclaimer: I am not in favor of the whole BD waco scenario.


Oh, and if David Koresh is your hero, you aint as smart as you sound



Koresh was a nutball, whom was executed along with 80 odd men women
and children for the sake of making political brownie points and
increased funding, over a tax issue. If you are not aware of that..you
aint as smart as you sound.


Again, if you think it is OK not to respond to a federal warrant, then
you are way to paranoid for polite company.

They had let people peacefully in with a warrant for suspected
child abuse the Week before IIRC, not long before anyway.

Not only is it polite to answer the door, it is considered rude to
set your kids on fire to make a point. Any [non arab] who thinks
they are going to disappear into the gov'ts black hole is in need
of a little more lithium in their diet. Did the FBI and ATF **** up?

The feds went in Invasion style and elicited an anti invasion responce.
Once there were dead Feds, the die was cast.

Ya think? The possibility that a bunch of civil servants with guns
might just make a mistake would usually be enough for me to
come out with hands up and have a conversation till we get the
misunderstanding figured out.

People charging your house with guns is more than a misunderstanding.

Had he done so, he would have himself a nice little lawsuit going right
now, and a nice pile o cash coming his way. A bunch of wacked out cult
members would be deprogrammed and living in Cleveland right now.
Expecting a bunch of guys in windbreakers making 35.3 a year to make
all the right decisions when dealing with full blown psychos in
unrealistic. The majority of americans do not view him as worthy of
defense. his decisions defined the day in the end, he wished to die, as
true messias do, and he did

While some of that is true, the actions of our gov't there and at ruby ridge
pushed things into the firefight stage. The Gov't wanted a big flashy raid
on TV. They got people killed because of it.

To the best of my knowledge the cold blooded murder of the wife at
ruby ridge has never been prosecuted. Her Crime? Standing holding a
baby where a sniper could get his crosshairs on her.

When peaceful attempt to serve a warrant are resisted is one thing,
when you use a military style invasion to initiate it is another.

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
om...
"JTMcC" wrote

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
om...
Gunner wrote

Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not
you
can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care
deeply
about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is
assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing
bodily
harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course
of
action?

Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to
emotion fallacy?

Maybe because in 1992 there were 6.5 million violent crimes?
And it is less irrealevant and idiotic than you would wish it to be.

"Dan" wrote in message
...


--

"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their
prince
that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense
of
truth, reason, and their country."

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to
emotion fallacy?

Idiotic? It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. If you
don't see that as enough of a reason to answer the question, there's
no hope for you.

ral

Some people live in fear, others live.

Been that way for thousands of years...

The fearful ones buy guns, which may or may not improve their odds,
but does nothing to reduce their fear. In fact, if this group is any
indication, guns serve to heighten the fear of their owners.

Disagree with you on these assertions. Unless you add the fear of the
Gov't taking your gun away.


As an aside:

Any one know of any statistics on the rate of gun injuries based on
gun ownership (+/-)? I would think gun owner would, just by proximity,
have more injuries than non-owners, but have no actual information to
backup that hunch. The numbers published by gun enthusiasts do not
address this question, as near as I can tell (I could be wrong).

Of course you are right here, but the % is very small.

Obviously you can't commit suicide with a gun if you do not have
one Pills, slit wrists etc..... but those aren't gun injuries.

You can't accidently shoot yourself while sharpening a knife.

your child can't accidently shoot themselves or a friend while
showing off if there are no guns.

However all these are Very small incidence, one might say trivial
compared to the level of gun ownership (except of course to the
recipient of the wound, and thier associates)

I think the total I read was 73 gun deaths a year on average for these
type of accidental shooting (not suicide)

http://www.safechild.net/for_profess...tors_guns.html
an anti gun site.

"Many children live in homes with guns that are stored in an
accessible manner. An April 2000 study in the American Journal
of Health found that more than 4.7 million homes with more than
8.3 million children store guns unlocked, including about 946,000
homes with firearms unlocked and loaded and about 425,000 homes
with firearms unlocked, unloaded and with ammunition. "


ok 4.7 million homes with guns unlocked (loaded or unloaded)

"In 1999 alone, 88 kids were shot and killed unintentionally.
An estimated 10 times that number are treated in U.S. hospital
emergency rooms each year for nonfatal unintentional gunshot
wounds."

we will round up to 1000 gunshot wounds on kids unintentionally.

Chance is 1 in 4.7 thousand of an accidental shooting of a child in a
home with a gun in a given year.

"Firearms are the weapon of choice in suicides among children
ages 10 to 14. Of all suicides among kids aged 10 to 14, more
than four out of ten involved guns (103 of 242 victims or 42
percent)."

assumptions are math based, may differ...
4.7million homes/18 years = 261,111.1 kids per year
therfore 1,305,500 homes with children 10-14 approximately

Odds of one of your kids 10-14 committing suicide with your gun...
approximately 1 in 12,675

That is from anti gun statistics, and I have no idea what thier emergency
room estimate comes from.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:54:47 -0600, "Thirsty Viking"
wrote:


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:02:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


As to side arms being used in drivebys..one would assume you are
unaware that the majority of such are done with handguns, with a
lesser number being done with :

Read a little slower- I'm talking about using a sidearm to fend off a
drive-by. Not start one.

Yes the obligatory distraction case of it wouldn't help you in this case.
your right, remove drivebys from the equation and you'll get better ratios
of the importance of being armed in cases where it can make a diffrence.

Now the crux of the matter is:

The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the
other 50% armed states do" is meaningless

Is that a true statement or not. Yes or no?


If you mean "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and
walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.
However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the
country: so who is crazy?" the whole point is that the statement draws
conclusions it can't support- that open carry lowers the murder rate.

Open carry will not protect you from a drive-by or being run down by a
drunk driver or from being stabbed in the back while you sleep or
having your house torched while you're in it or any of a hundred
different ways humans kill off other human beings.
That's a true statement.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in
2002, 442,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced
an offender with a firearm.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

-----

Also form a study done by...
Lawrence Southwick, Jr.
Self-defense with guns. the consequences.
Journal of Criminal Justice

------------------
found that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times
greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a
gun. In contrast, the probability of women being seriously injured was
almost 4 times greater when resisting without a gun than with resisting with
a gun. ...

Men also fare better with guns, but the differences are significantly
smaller. Behaving passively is 1.4 times more likely to result is serious
injury than resisting with a gun. Male victims, like females also run the
greatest risk when they resist without a gun, yet the difference is again
much smaller: resistance without a gun is only 1.5 times as likely to result
in serious injury than resistance with a gun. The much smaller difference
for men reflects the fact that a gun produces a smaller change in a man's
ability to defend himself than it does for a woman.

-----------

There is some question on statistical signifficance with these numbers
indicating a larger study might need to be made to tighten the margin
of error, I didn't verify the calcutations. Certainly I could find no
studies
that debunked these facts So I must conclude the anti-gun folks are happy
with the Statistically insignificant rebuttal and have no desire to proove
the numbers accurate by doing a larger survey. Just as the gun lobby is
happy to have this survey and it's results, and see no need to fund a larger
one.

In essence Gun lobby likes it's 2.5 x number. They don't want to see
that number drop. The anti-gun lobby says irrelavent, margin of error
says that a woman with a gun might be more likely to be seriously injured.
and the last thing they want is to fund a large more significant survey and
find out that the 2.5 number was too low. Range of answers for the exact
value if we polled everyone who was a victim of violent crime according
to anti gun rebuttal.

women passive vs guns 3x more injured - 17.4 x less injured
Women resist without/with 1.75x more injured - 28.1x less injured

Just a note, the rebuttal clearly showed that the probabilty of injury
could be much higher as well as lower. Also Given that such items
as drivebys are not seperated into different categories, the numbers
would be higher if the gun defences were limited to situations
where gun defence is a legitamate option.








'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:54:47 -0600, "Thirsty Viking"
wrote:


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:02:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


As to side arms being used in drivebys..one would assume you are
unaware that the majority of such are done with handguns, with a
lesser number being done with :

Read a little slower- I'm talking about using a sidearm to fend off a
drive-by. Not start one.

Yes the obligatory distraction case of it wouldn't help you in this case.
your right, remove drivebys from the equation and you'll get better
ratios
of the importance of being armed in cases where it can make a diffrence.

Now the crux of the matter is:

The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the
other 50% armed states do" is meaningless

Is that a true statement or not. Yes or no?


If you mean "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and
walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.
However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the
country: so who is crazy?" the whole point is that the statement draws
conclusions it can't support- that open carry lowers the murder rate.

Open carry will not protect you from a drive-by or being run down by a
drunk driver or from being stabbed in the back while you sleep or
having your house torched while you're in it or any of a hundred
different ways humans kill off other human beings.
That's a true statement.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in
2002, 442,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced
an offender with a firearm.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

I wasn't disputing your numbers there, my quote was
specificly aimed at Violent crimes. Murder, Rape,
Assult. It is from Gov't numbers so if anything it is
probably considerably on the low side. Also it is only
from a survey of victims of reported crimes, Missing
anyone who was happier to leave the Gov't out of it.

For instance, a rancher scaring off cattle rustlers wouldn't be
included unless they had shot at him. Or the famous shotgun
loaded with rocksalt to give trespassers something to remeber.

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

And that number is large enough to be sure that numerous
lives were spared Violent termination or injury.


'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:54:47 -0600, "Thirsty Viking"
wrote:


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:02:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


As to side arms being used in drivebys..one would assume you are
unaware that the majority of such are done with handguns, with a
lesser number being done with :

Read a little slower- I'm talking about using a sidearm to fend off a
drive-by. Not start one.

Yes the obligatory distraction case of it wouldn't help you in this case.
your right, remove drivebys from the equation and you'll get better ratios
of the importance of being armed in cases where it can make a diffrence.


Wow. It took you 20 days to come up with that?

Since you don't seem to know how the whole thread started, here's a
brief recap:

Ed Huntress took Gunner to task concerning the numbers Gunner had
posted in his sig file. I jumped in with an observation of mine own
that when Gunner posts something that he can't prove or defend, he
usually makes no reply.
To his credit, Gunner did try to defend his sig files numbers.

Some other RCM (and other newsgroup) posters took this criticism to
mean Ed Huntress and I are anti-gun, which just ain't the case.

This is my own opinion: sometimes gun owners are their own worst
enemy.


-Carl

This is my own opinion: sometimes gun owners are their own worst
enemy.


-Carl

As are their opponents )
Greg Sefton

"Ed Huntress" wrote
"Gunner" wrote

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a
list of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a
gun of any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of
possessing pot as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.


Ah..every state has a Prohibited persons list..at the least related to
federal law where a felon whom has not has his/her rights restored may
not posess or own a firearm.

And many of them quite a bit more extensive. 'Want to see the list?

Including Vermont which defaults to Federal standards.

It was assumed that the In 25 states comment, that only those not
prohibited from owning (GCA 68 IRRC) were the ones in discussion.

"Assumed"? By whom? Isn't that what Richard and you were getting on my case
about in the first place?

Ed, as much as I hate to say it, Gunner is right. The _unqualified_
statement "Anyone can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public,"
has only two possible meanings. 1) Those who can do so legally, or 2)
_anyone_ at all (legally or not). Which one the original comment had
in mind, I don't know. Your own argument falls, if you _do not_ except
illegal carriers. In the last week, Indiana, which has relatively
"good" laws, has seen a couple of "carrying without a permit" arrests.
Even you must admit that the criminally inclined, will carry a pistol,
regardless of the laws.

Therefore, we must be discussing those *legally* permitted to own
guns, desiring to "buy and carry." Which means that while you all are
wrong, you all are also right. For example, in the Carolinas(?), you
can "carry openly," but any idiot can say that he/she feels threatened
by that, and have you arrested for "brandishing." Which is akin to
feeling threatened because Grocery stores sell liquor.

This is a situation you have pointed out in relation to other areas
before. What you can _legally_ do, and what you _ought_ to do, are
often two different things.:-E) Indiana, AFAIK, doesn't discriminate
between concealed and open carry, with a permit. However, LE *prefers*
that it be concealed. Meaning, if some idiot accuses you of
"Brandishing," you _will_ be arrested, probably convicted, and likely
lose the permit. All because someone is "afraid" of an inanimate
object.

Believe it or not, on a news show (I believe), someone was actually
unhappy that *police* carry guns. The "lunatic fringe" of whatever
stripe, is now a significant number of people. And they are finding
lawmakers, news media, and others, willing to pander to them. Assuming
that they have not achieved actual positions of power, themselves.

As for you, Gunner, and Richard, you are coming from two different
positions. Similar to approaching zero from the plus or minus
direction. You all say much the same things, but very different
starting points. Which is why oyu are all correct, and all of you are
wrong.

In every state/province, and the UK, you can "buy a gun, 'put it on'
and walk around in public." Criminals do it every day, and do not
desire or need any permit. It is impossible to prevent, without a
total police state. Now, is it possible to do this _legally_? Yes, in
some states. IIRC, New Mexico allows open carry, but not "concealed."
Some, allow "concealed," but not open. Others, either one, but you get
hassled if the gun is not concealed. AT the other end, is NY state.
You can carry, *if* you can get a permit. Just try to get one if your
name is not Rockefeller/Clinton/etc. IOW, depending on how you define
your terms, gun laws can be described in any manner.

And as I said, want to see the list?

Of
course in all 50 states and assorted territories, those prohibited
persons will obtain a firearm from less than legal sources and carry
any which way they chose, no matter how unlawful their status makes
the practice.

Wait a minute. I thought the discussion was about those states that ALLOW
"anyone" to buy a gun, etc. Now you want to switch it to criminals?

You just argued the reverse of that, a few paras back.

If your argument has any meaning here, it's that the laws don't matter
anyway, and that everybody can buy a gun anywhere, etc. In which case,
"Ford's" point about those states that ALLOW you to buy a gun, etc., is
completely meaningless. Is that where you really want to go? I didn't think
so.

Laws do not matter, *unless* you are inclined to obey them. This has
been true throughout history. There always have been, and always will
be those who obey only because they want to (unafraid of punishment).
I am, at least AFAIK, a "law abiding person," but I can obtain a gun,
without going through any legal process. And, I do not mean "buying at
a gun show."

Symantic word games are where you are going as some form of disproof?
Or simply changing the rules in mid game?

No, symantic word games is where YOU and RICHARD are going as some form of
proof. Richard seems to want to follow exactly what the words mean,
including his strict definition of "permit." So, you can stick to what
"anyone" means. Fair enough?

Ed Huntress

Walter Daniels

"Walter Daniels" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote
"Gunner" wrote

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a
list of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a
gun of any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have
a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of
possessing pot as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on
the
state.


Ah..every state has a Prohibited persons list..at the least related to
federal law where a felon whom has not has his/her rights restored may
not posess or own a firearm.

And many of them quite a bit more extensive. 'Want to see the list?

Including Vermont which defaults to Federal standards.

It was assumed that the In 25 states comment, that only those not
prohibited from owning (GCA 68 IRRC) were the ones in discussion.

"Assumed"? By whom? Isn't that what Richard and you were getting on my
case
about in the first place?

Ed, as much as I hate to say it, Gunner is right. The _unqualified_
statement "Anyone can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public,"
has only two possible meanings. 1) Those who can do so legally, or 2)
_anyone_ at all (legally or not). Which one the original comment had
in mind, I don't know. Your own argument falls, if you _do not_ except
illegal carriers.

You'd do well to check out the entire thread, Walter. The alleged point was
that there is a connection between being able to legally carry openly and
relative freedom from murders. Illegally carrying would invert the idea; it
makes the assertion meaningless.

And there is no state, save Vermont, if you want to stretch a point, that
allows "anyone" to carry openly.

So the original statement was a crock of baloney, and remains so.

Ed Huntress

Carl Byrns wrote:

Since you don't seem to know how the whole thread started, here's a
brief recap:

Ed Huntress took Gunner to task concerning the numbers Gunner had
posted in his sig file. I jumped in with an observation of mine own
that when Gunner posts something that he can't prove or defend, he
usually makes no reply.
To his credit, Gunner did try to defend his sig files numbers.

You conveniently neglected to mention that part where I posted the
numbers that proved you and Ed to be idiots by proving Gunner's
numbers. Also the part where, after being proven to be lying idiots
by the numbers that you couldn't refute, you pathetically changed the
topic a few times and went off arguing semantics.

ral