 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#441
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Excitable
Boy wrote: We don't have many guns and we don't have much armed robbery, either. Girls walk around here with plenty of cash in their purses in the middle of the night without particular fears of rape or robbery. Where do you live? Every city in America which has more than a small fraction of negroes and Mexicans, and Viet Cong gang members in a few cities, has big problems with rape, robbery, and murder. Tell us where you live, which area is so free of negroes and Mexicans, and perhaps I will move there and lock up my guns. But in all of the places I have lived, I'll keep my guns handy. --Tim May |
|
#442
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote:
I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage, even when they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their intentions by producing their weapons (according to the news reports), and pointing them at the shop owners. After that, the only choices the store owners REALLY had were whether to hand over the money or to die. Imagining, as you do, that other choices were available, didn't help the shop owners a bit. A bullet beats a wild fantasy any day of the week. No ****..ya think? So why did the one guy become a Darwin Event? The Gun made him do it? He did the equivilant of when finding himself driving towards a cliff..flooring the gas peddle. Poorly trained, no use of tactics at all from your report..such as it was. You didnt give enough information in either case to really make a good analysis of either case. Did the bad guys say to each other..ok..take him into the back and kill him? At what point would the good guy have been justified in trying to defend himself? Never? Oh, c'mon, Gunner. I KNOW you're smarter than that. You've slipped up and made it obvious, in spite of yourself, on more than one occasion. The good guy is ALWAYS justified in trying to defend himself. But in the cases I cited, the shop owners DIDN'T defend themselves. They died. In my book, that's a pretty good definition of not defending oneself, no matter how valiant or how sincere the effort might have been. And no, these people didn't give their lives to protect anyone else. The news reports I mentioned (and which I freely admit are less than complete) gave no indication that others were threatened, or that the bad guys displayed any intentions besides taking the money and running. As you say, the shop owners made mistakes. But when someone makes a mistake, and gets killed, you seem extremely quick to blame the victim; but only in carefully selected ways. (The guy I mentioned wasn't a "Darwin event", btw. He was a murder victim. Callousness and brutal insensitivity aren't exactly the traits I like to see in someone who claims to care about protecting folks and making the world safe.) You think the dead shop owners were "poorly trained?" That'd be my guess, too; though I have no way of knowing how skilled or experienced they were with regard to their guns. "No use of tactics?" You're only assuming that; but I don't know enough about the specific situations to say that you're wrong. But here's my problem: If we accept that the people in question made bad decisions, failed to respond properly to the situations they faced, etc., then why, and how, can we automatically, necessarily, ALWAYS, find fault with every decision they made EXCEPT the decision to have a gun? Why wasn't that a bad decision, too, if it helped in ANY way to precipitate a deadly shootout? How can we question the sanity and judgement of these individuals in every OTHER way; but magically find them pure and innocent of any foolishness or poor judgement at all, with regard to that one little decision that YOU like to defend? A couple posts back, you asked something about whether I'd let an untrained, inexperienced 16 year old drive my car in the snow, or in some other dangerous situation. I found that question interesting because it was EXACTLY the same thing I'd asked you just a few weeks ago. I asked about inexperienced drivers, if I recall correctly, and also about whether untrained people should fly airplanes, or whether that activity should be reserved only for skilled pilots. And I offered other, similar forms of the same question, even though I don't remember the exact details right now. And I asked why, in light of the obvious answers to these questions, you'd advocate letting anybody and everybody own and carry a gun, without apparent concern for their training, their skill, their temperment, or any of the other factors that seem to matter with cars, airplanes, or whatever. I also asked, clearly and carefully, if your own experiences in the military, and as a police officer, martial artist, etc., might not offer some clues about how hard it is, and how long it takes, to develop the skills YOU rely on when you consider yourself qualified to carry a gun. And I asked how likely you thought it was that the average guy on the street would have your training, or your skills, or your experience. You didn't answer my question at the time; but since you've repeated a part of it almost verbatim, I gather that your answer - at least in regard to non-gun devices - is the same as my own. ANY DEVICE which can be dangerous to others should be owned and operated ONLY by people who know how to use it safely. That doesn't mean that dangerous things should be outlawed. It doesn't mean that limits or regulations should be more stringent than necessary. But they SHOULD be stringent enough, in all cases, to ensure everyone's safety as much as possible. So, to attempt to get this discussion back onto something like sane and logical grounds. Let me ask another question: If pilots need licenses, before they're allowed to fly; and if drivers can have their driving privileges revoked for doing things that are stupid or dangerous (or even just for failing to pass an eye exam or a simple written test), and if electricians need to be trained and licensed before they're allowed to touch the wires in someone's home or business, etc., etc., etc... Then what limits, what restrictions, and what controls, exactly, do logic, experience, and a genuine concern for safety, require for those who want to own and operate those other potentially dangerous things that we call firearms? Stories about someone who used a gun to protect herself (or any of the other stories you've quoted) aren't of interest, as far as I'm concerned. **** happens every day. Good ****, bad ****, and all the other kinds in between. Somebody recently swam over Niagara Falls and survived; but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. And for every story about a gun that was used saved someone's life, there's another story about a gun used as a murder weapon. And in BOTH stories, the details are probably more convoluted than either of us will ever know, and maybe too complex to make much of a case in either direction. Few things are as simple in real life as they seem when printed in a newspaper. Statistics can't be resolved or made convincing either. The collection and interpretation of them is selective, and never includes ALL the right questions. And they're often too subjective, and too easily made to show anything we want to see. And the second ammendment isn't an issue here either. Just because we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean we need to exercise that right every day, all the time, without considering some clear and compelling reasons. I have a right to drink liquor, since I'm over 21 years old, and not planning on driving tonight. But that doesn't mean that I NEED to get drunk. So how do we decide what limits to put on ownership and carrying of guns? How would YOU do it, if we made you king for a minute and half? Think carefully. I AM going to respond to your answer, if it's even slightly coherent. And think about this, too: The comparisons between guns and cars, or airplanes, or whatever else, are imperfect in one critical way; and the logic derived from those other things has one critical flaw. Cars ARE extremely dangerous when owned by idiots, or when operated carelessly. But a car has other features - fundamental features - which exist despite the danger. I could kill somebody with my car just as easily as with a gun; but I can't drive a gun to work, no matter how hard I try. Same thing with airplanes. And electricity is dangerous; but at least it'll light my home. A gun won't. In fact, except for shooting sports (which I don't object to; but which are optional, and not nearly in the same category as transportation and electricity), guns aren't, can't be, and aren't SUPPOSED to be, anything EXCEPT dangerous. Even when they have value as protection or deterence in the face of crime, they accomplish their purpose merely by being dangerous to the right kinds of people. But danger is still the ONLY thing a gun can do. And that, I think, requires some special consideration, and places some special burdens on those who promote widespread gun ownership. So, how do we do it, Gunner? How do we justify, or not, the idea of people carrying guns as commonly as they carry cell-phones or cigarette lighters? How do we identify those who SHOULDN'T carry guns, and prevent those people (the people, not the guns) from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations? I have some ideas of my own; but YOU'RE the one who insists on making firearms a part of every thread you visit - if only with your signature lines. So the ball is in your court. The burden for telling us how and why we should do something that appears to be a very dangerous idea, belongs in your holster. And it's time to test your aim. KG -- I'm sick of spam. The 2 in my address doesn't belong there. |
|
#443
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Tim May" wrote in message
... In article , Excitable Boy wrote: We don't have many guns and we don't have much armed robbery, either. Girls walk around here with plenty of cash in their purses in the middle of the night without particular fears of rape or robbery. Where do you live? Every city in America which has more than a small fraction of negroes and Mexicans, and Viet Cong gang members in a few cities, has big problems with rape, robbery, and murder. Tell us where you live, which area is so free of negroes and Mexicans, and perhaps I will move there and lock up my guns. But in all of the places I have lived, I'll keep my guns handy. --Tim May Haha! I can't wait until Tim hears the answer to this one. Not many Mexicans there, Tim. Not many Africans, either. g -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#444
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:38:57 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Gunner wrote: I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage, even when they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their intentions by producing their weapons (according to the news reports), and pointing them at the shop owners. After that, the only choices the store owners REALLY had were whether to hand over the money or to die. Imagining, as you do, that other choices were available, didn't help the shop owners a bit. A bullet beats a wild fantasy any day of the week. No ****..ya think? So why did the one guy become a Darwin Event? The Gun made him do it? He did the equivilant of when finding himself driving towards a cliff..flooring the gas peddle. Poorly trained, no use of tactics at all from your report..such as it was. You didnt give enough information in either case to really make a good analysis of either case. Did the bad guys say to each other..ok..take him into the back and kill him? At what point would the good guy have been justified in trying to defend himself? Never? Oh, c'mon, Gunner. I KNOW you're smarter than that. You've slipped up and made it obvious, in spite of yourself, on more than one occasion. The good guy is ALWAYS justified in trying to defend himself. But in the cases I cited, the shop owners DIDN'T defend themselves. They died. In my book, that's a pretty good definition of not defending oneself, no matter how valiant or how sincere the effort might have been. And no, these people didn't give their lives to protect anyone else. The news reports I mentioned (and which I freely admit are less than complete) gave no indication that others were threatened, or that the bad guys displayed any intentions besides taking the money and running. They tried to defend themselves. In these two cases, unsucessfully. Why? Not enough data. But at least, they tried. If they had been herded into the cold box and put on their knees, and then shot in the back of the head..they would have been no less dead. And without that firearm..they would have had no chance whatsoever in either case. Did the guns they owned kill them? No. The bad guys did. Did they perhaps **** up? Only way to tell is to be able to mind read the bad guys and watch the video tapes. As you say, the shop owners made mistakes. But when someone makes a mistake, and gets killed, you seem extremely quick to blame the victim; but only in carefully selected ways. (The guy I mentioned wasn't a "Darwin event", btw. He was a murder victim. Callousness and brutal insensitivity aren't exactly the traits I like to see in someone who claims to care about protecting folks and making the world safe.) Callousness and brutal insensitivity...hummmm...perhaps. I neither knew either victim, nor trained them. Perhaps Ive seen more than my fair share of people dying and dead. Shrug.. Ive held them in my arms and stared into their eyes as the life went away. After a while, one tends to distance himself. Shrug .. You think the dead shop owners were "poorly trained?" That'd be my guess, too; though I have no way of knowing how skilled or experienced they were with regard to their guns. "No use of tactics?" You're only assuming that; but I don't know enough about the specific situations to say that you're wrong. Good. At least you are admitting your ignorance of something for a change. But here's my problem: If we accept that the people in question made bad decisions, failed to respond properly to the situations they faced, etc., then why, and how, can we automatically, necessarily, ALWAYS, find fault with every decision they made EXCEPT the decision to have a gun? Why wasn't that a bad decision, too, if it helped in ANY way to precipitate a deadly shootout? How can we question the sanity and judgement of these individuals in every OTHER way; but magically find them pure and innocent of any foolishness or poor judgement at all, with regard to that one little decision that YOU like to defend? Because Kirk..it was their decision to own that gun. To use it or not to use it. It was not removed from them like life choices removed from a slave, and frankly Kirk..they died on their feet, not on their knees. And Kirk..that speaks volumes for me. Perhaps not to you..hell..I suspect you would prefer to be a slave, rather than try to do whats right and proper, no matter if it may kill you or not. Were they foolish? Who knows. The thing is..they tried. A couple posts back, you asked something about whether I'd let an untrained, inexperienced 16 year old drive my car in the snow, or in some other dangerous situation. I found that question interesting because it was EXACTLY the same thing I'd asked you just a few weeks ago. I asked about inexperienced drivers, if I recall correctly, and also about whether untrained people should fly airplanes, or whether that activity should be reserved only for skilled pilots. And I offered other, similar forms of the same question, even though I don't remember the exact details right now. And I asked why, in light of the obvious answers to these questions, you'd advocate letting anybody and everybody own and carry a gun, without apparent concern for their training, their skill, their temperment, or any of the other factors that seem to matter with cars, airplanes, or whatever. I also asked, clearly and carefully, if your own experiences in the military, and as a police officer, martial artist, etc., might not offer some clues about how hard it is, and how long it takes, to develop the skills YOU rely on when you consider yourself qualified to carry a gun. And I asked how likely you thought it was that the average guy on the street would have your training, or your skills, or your experience. Kirk..it takes a very short time to learn to handle a firearm, both safely and effectivly. My skills and techniques may someday not prevail either. Some doped up 13 yr old with a Lorcin 25 may kill me. Shrug..and with luck, Ill take him with me. I strongly believe in Viking Funerals. On the other hand..while I drive a car daily, Ive never been to the Daytona Driving schools etc etc. Most folks havent..and they still drive. My training in the various arts, is simply to give me an Extra edge, to hone the skills I already have. Quite frankly Kirk..there are damned few..damned few people anywhere on the planet with my skills in various arts. On the other hand..the 2.5 million people that use a firearm every year defensivly dont have my skills either. And they seem to muddle along just fine. You didn't answer my question at the time; but since you've repeated a part of it almost verbatim, I gather that your answer - at least in regard to non-gun devices - is the same as my own. ANY DEVICE which can be dangerous to others should be owned and operated ONLY by people who know how to use it safely. That doesn't mean that dangerous things should be outlawed. It doesn't mean that limits or regulations should be more stringent than necessary. But they SHOULD be stringent enough, in all cases, to ensure everyone's safety as much as possible. Hummm Evidently you missed the post where I gave my recommendations about training, how it should be taught in schools from kindergarten onwards. Or do you simply wish to ignore that post. Im sure Ed will verify what I wrote, as he commented on it. So, to attempt to get this discussion back onto something like sane and logical grounds. Let me ask another question: If pilots need licenses, before they're allowed to fly; and if drivers can have their driving privileges revoked for doing things that are stupid or dangerous (or even just for failing to pass an eye exam or a simple written test), and if electricians need to be trained and licensed before they're allowed to touch the wires in someone's home or business, etc., etc., etc... They only need those licenses because of the Rules of the State. Licenses mean nothing. I know way too many incompetent electricians, drivers and so forth. Incompetent pilots tend to sort themselves out early on. Like motorcycle riders. They live or die. Then what limits, what restrictions, and what controls, exactly, do logic, experience, and a genuine concern for safety, require for those who want to own and operate those other potentially dangerous things that we call firearms? My logic, or yours? My logic says a good basic safety and handling course taught every year in school. Hands on, live ammo on the range, the whole works. Pass/fail. And a certification that allows you to carry what you want, when you want, no registration, no restrictions in public. No certs needed for what/when/why on your own property. Full auto or sawed off shotgun. The whole encilada. Stories about someone who used a gun to protect herself (or any of the other stories you've quoted) aren't of interest, as far as I'm concerned. **** happens every day. Good ****, bad ****, and all the other kinds in between. Somebody recently swam over Niagara Falls and survived; but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. And for every story about a gun that was used saved someone's life, there's another story about a gun used as a murder weapon. And in BOTH stories, the details are probably more convoluted than either of us will ever know, and maybe too complex to make much of a case in either direction. Few things are as simple in real life as they seem when printed in a newspaper. Actually no...for every story of a murder, is about 150,000 stories of those who suceeded in defending themselves. If they are not as simple in real life..why attempt to use two stories neither of us know nothing about, as some shining example of why you should never have a gun for self defense? You did make that statement..its implicit in your tirade. Statistics can't be resolved or made convincing either. The collection and interpretation of them is selective, and never includes ALL the right questions. And they're often too subjective, and too easily made to show anything we want to see. Yawn..get to your point, ok? And the second ammendment isn't an issue here either. Just because we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean we need to exercise that right every day, all the time, without considering some clear and compelling reasons. I have a right to drink liquor, since I'm over 21 years old, and not planning on driving tonight. But that doesn't mean that I NEED to get drunk. So when you drink, you get drunk? Odd. Id seek help for that lil problem. Seems most everyone else manages to consume acohol in a far more responsible manner. I dont even drink. However you are attempting to make the case that only a very select few should be allowed access to booze, or to ban it entirely. Correct? Its implicit in your tirade. So how do we decide what limits to put on ownership and carrying of guns? How would YOU do it, if we made you king for a minute and half? See above. Think carefully. I AM going to respond to your answer, if it's even slightly coherent. And think about this, too: The comparisons between guns and cars, or airplanes, or whatever else, are imperfect in one critical way; and the logic derived from those other things has one critical flaw. Cars ARE extremely dangerous when owned by idiots, or when operated carelessly. But a car has other features - fundamental features - which exist despite the danger. I could kill somebody with my car just as easily as with a gun; but I can't drive a gun to work, no matter how hard I try. Same thing with airplanes. And electricity is dangerous; but at least it'll light my home. A gun won't. In fact, except for shooting sports (which I don't object to; but which are optional, and not nearly in the same category as transportation and electricity), guns aren't, can't be, and aren't SUPPOSED to be, anything EXCEPT dangerous. Even when they have value as protection or deterence in the face of crime, they accomplish their purpose merely by being dangerous to the right kinds of people. But danger is still the ONLY thing a gun can do. And that, I think, requires some special consideration, and places some special burdens on those who promote widespread gun ownership. Danger is the only thing a firearm can do? Odd..Id have said the same about cars. Yes, cars and firearms can be dangerous to some. Far more people die in cars every year than are killed with guns by several orders. And yes, firearms may be used to put another in danger..by those whom wish to protect themselves from harm. You said simply that firearms have NO utility value except as dangerous tools. Shooting sports..then blew it away. Well Ill tell you something bub...a firearm is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe. I take it you forgot the Massad quote already? If it takes putting the bad guy in danger, to help keep me and mine safe..so be it. Gary babbles on occasionally..but he does mention Life Certificates...and frankly Kirk..using them to keep people alive is a damned good reason to me, and about 2,500,000 people each year. So, how do we do it, Gunner? How do we justify, or not, the idea of people carrying guns as commonly as they carry cell-phones or cigarette lighters? How do we identify those who SHOULDN'T carry guns, and prevent those people (the people, not the guns) from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations? We cant. We can only train each and every person whom is not a felon, or a nut case, and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it. We cannot keep the nutz or the felons from carrying, never could never will, but at least we can level the playing field. I have some ideas of my own; but YOU'RE the one who insists on making firearms a part of every thread you visit - if only with your signature lines. So the ball is in your court. The burden for telling us how and why we should do something that appears to be a very dangerous idea, belongs in your holster. And it's time to test your aim. See above. As to my sigs, etc etc..feel free to kill file me if you are offended. Yawn. I notice you somehow missed that long list of cites I gave you about storekeepers. Is there some reason you decided not to give mention to those people? Or did you save it for another post? I hope you simply didnt blow them off as they dont fit your world view. Ill read the rest of your posts with interest. KG Gunner '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. |
|
#446
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Tim May wrote in message t...
In article , Excitable Boy wrote: We don't have many guns and we don't have much armed robbery, either. Girls walk around here with plenty of cash in their purses in the middle of the night without particular fears of rape or robbery. Where do you live? Every city in America ... has big problems with rape, robbery, and murder. Tell us where you live, which area is so free of negroes and Mexicans, and perhaps I will move there and lock up my guns. China. |
|
#447
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote:
Oh, c'mon, Gunner. I KNOW you're smarter than that. You've slipped up and made it obvious, in spite of yourself, on more than one occasion. They tried to defend themselves. In these two cases, unsucessfully. Because Kirk..it was their decision to own that gun. To use it or not to use it. It was not removed from them like life choices removed from a slave, and frankly Kirk..they died on their feet, not on their knees. And Kirk..that speaks volumes for me. Perhaps not to you..hell..I suspect you would prefer to be a slave, rather than try to do whats right and proper, no matter if it may kill you or not. Were they foolish? Who knows. The thing is..they tried. Kirk..it takes a very short time to learn to handle a firearm, both safely and effectivly. My skills and techniques may someday not prevail either. Some doped up 13 yr old with a Lorcin 25 may kill me. Shrug..and with luck, Ill take him with me. I strongly believe in Viking Funerals. My logic, or yours? My logic says a good basic safety and handling course taught every year in school. Hands on, live ammo on the range, the whole works. Pass/fail. And a certification that allows you to carry what you want, when you want, no registration, no restrictions in public. No certs needed for what/when/why on your own property. Full auto or sawed off shotgun. The whole encilada. Actually no...for every story of a murder, is about 150,000 stories of those who suceeded in defending themselves. Danger is the only thing a firearm can do? Odd..Id have said the same about cars. Yes, cars and firearms can be dangerous to some. Far more people die in cars every year than are killed with guns by several orders. And yes, firearms may be used to put another in danger..by those whom wish to protect themselves from harm. You said simply that firearms have NO utility value except as dangerous tools. Shooting sports..then blew it away. Well Ill tell you something bub...a firearm is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe. I take it you forgot the Massad quote already? If it takes putting the bad guy in danger, to help keep me and mine safe..so be it. So, how do we do it, Gunner? How do we justify, or not, the idea of people carrying guns as commonly as they carry cell-phones or cigarette lighters? How do we identify those who SHOULDN'T carry guns, and prevent those people (the people, not the guns) from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations? We cant. We can only train each and every person whom is not a felon, or a nut case, and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it. We cannot keep the nutz or the felons from carrying, never could never will, but at least we can level the playing field. I have some ideas of my own; but YOU'RE the one who insists on making firearms a part of every thread you visit - if only with your signature lines. So the ball is in your court. The burden for telling us how and why we should do something that appears to be a very dangerous idea, belongs in your holster. And it's time to test your aim. I notice you somehow missed that long list of cites I gave you about storekeepers. Is there some reason you decided not to give mention to those people? Or did you save it for another post? I hope you simply didnt blow them off as they dont fit your world view. Ill read the rest of your posts with interest. Ok. Lemme see if I've got all this straight. You believe that... 1. Those shop owners I mentioned, who died while trying to defend themselves with their guns, were smarter, better, more heroic, or something, than people who give up their money and stay alive. 2. What's important is that they tried. Not that they're dead. 3. Someone who gives up his money, calls the cops, gives a description of the bad guys, testifies at a trial, etc., is a slave; but someone lying in a coffin has all the rights and freedoms in the world. 4. You like Viking funerals. (I presume you're aware that the vikings are all dead, and that other cultures, with different ideas about death and funerals, have outlived them by a thousand years - and counting.) 5. You consider yourself NOT to be a slave because you live in fear of doped up thirteen year olds; but you think I AM a slave because I walk around unarmed, and unafraid to face the world without a gun. 6. You think logic is something that depends on who's attempting to use it. "Your" logic and "my" logic can be different. 7. You think school kids should be taught about guns, "from kindergarden onward". "Hands on, live ammo on the range, the whole works. Pass/fail." 8. You believe that successful uses of firearms for self-defense outnumber murders by a factor of 150,000 to 1. Here in Philadelphia, there have been roughly 250 murders this year. That would translate, if you're correct, into 37.5 MILLION instances where guns have been used to save or protect lives, just in this one city, in a single year, and with a total population of around 1.5 million people. That would also mean, of course, that there were 37.5 million cases where people had reason to protect themselves, and where the danger was of a sort that made a gun the appropriate tool for self-defense. If we add in all the other kinds of danger and violence, and allow for all those times when a gun wasn't used, or wasn't used successfully, then... Well, I guess I can understand why you're so afraid. 9. You believe that danger is not the only thing that a firearm can do. But you could say, apparently, that danger IS the only thing a car can do. And to illustrate this, you say that a firearm "is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe"... by "putting the bad guy in danger." 10. You believe that "We can't"... "identify those who shouldn't carry guns, and prevent those people from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations" You propose that "we can only train each and every person whom is not a felon (yet), or a nut case (that we know of), and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it"... without apparent regard for the hazzards involved. Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG -- I'm sick of spam. The 2 in my address doesn't belong there. |
|
#448
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#449
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Haha! I can't wait until Tim hears the answer to this one.
Not many Mexicans there, Tim. Not many Africans, either. g -- Ed Huntress But.. there are lots of other "cans" and we gotta have something to shoot at  ).Greg Sefton |
|
#450
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Gunner wrote: Oh, c'mon, Gunner. I KNOW you're smarter than that. You've slipped up and made it obvious, in spite of yourself, on more than one occasion. They tried to defend themselves. In these two cases, unsucessfully. Because Kirk..it was their decision to own that gun. To use it or not to use it. It was not removed from them like life choices removed from a slave, and frankly Kirk..they died on their feet, not on their knees. And Kirk..that speaks volumes for me. Perhaps not to you..hell..I suspect you would prefer to be a slave, rather than try to do whats right and proper, no matter if it may kill you or not. Were they foolish? Who knows. The thing is..they tried. Kirk..it takes a very short time to learn to handle a firearm, both safely and effectivly. My skills and techniques may someday not prevail either. Some doped up 13 yr old with a Lorcin 25 may kill me. Shrug..and with luck, Ill take him with me. I strongly believe in Viking Funerals. My logic, or yours? My logic says a good basic safety and handling course taught every year in school. Hands on, live ammo on the range, the whole works. Pass/fail. And a certification that allows you to carry what you want, when you want, no registration, no restrictions in public. No certs needed for what/when/why on your own property. Full auto or sawed off shotgun. The whole encilada. Actually no...for every story of a murder, is about 150,000 stories of those who suceeded in defending themselves. Danger is the only thing a firearm can do? Odd..Id have said the same about cars. Yes, cars and firearms can be dangerous to some. Far more people die in cars every year than are killed with guns by several orders. And yes, firearms may be used to put another in danger..by those whom wish to protect themselves from harm. You said simply that firearms have NO utility value except as dangerous tools. Shooting sports..then blew it away. Well Ill tell you something bub...a firearm is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe. I take it you forgot the Massad quote already? If it takes putting the bad guy in danger, to help keep me and mine safe..so be it. So, how do we do it, Gunner? How do we justify, or not, the idea of people carrying guns as commonly as they carry cell-phones or cigarette lighters? How do we identify those who SHOULDN'T carry guns, and prevent those people (the people, not the guns) from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations? We cant. We can only train each and every person whom is not a felon, or a nut case, and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it. We cannot keep the nutz or the felons from carrying, never could never will, but at least we can level the playing field. I have some ideas of my own; but YOU'RE the one who insists on making firearms a part of every thread you visit - if only with your signature lines. So the ball is in your court. The burden for telling us how and why we should do something that appears to be a very dangerous idea, belongs in your holster. And it's time to test your aim. I notice you somehow missed that long list of cites I gave you about storekeepers. Is there some reason you decided not to give mention to those people? Or did you save it for another post? I hope you simply didnt blow them off as they dont fit your world view. Ill read the rest of your posts with interest. Ok. Lemme see if I've got all this straight. You believe that... 1. Those shop owners I mentioned, who died while trying to defend themselves with their guns, were smarter, better, more heroic, or something, than people who give up their money and stay alive. Smarter? No. They are dead. Better? No, they are dead. But they could have been dead either way. Least they made their choice and took their chances. The long list of other storekeepers I provided went the other way. Life has no guarentees. You make your choices. Unfortunately..you and your ilk want to remove that choice. 2. What's important is that they tried. Not that they're dead. Both are important. They could have been dead either way. The long list of other store keepers made the same choices. The bad guys lost. 3. Someone who gives up his money, calls the cops, gives a description of the bad guys, testifies at a trial, etc., is a slave; but someone lying in a coffin has all the rights and freedoms in the world. Assuming the bad guys left them alive to call the cops etc etc. If they had no choice..they would be slaves. 4. You like Viking funerals. (I presume you're aware that the vikings are all dead, and that other cultures, with different ideas about death and funerals, have outlived them by a thousand years - and counting.) Yup. When I go, if by violence, I will go with my enemies at my feet as an escort to hell. 5. You consider yourself NOT to be a slave because you live in fear of doped up thirteen year olds; but you think I AM a slave because I walk around unarmed, and unafraid to face the world without a gun. Kirk..what makes you think Im afraid of 13yr olds? Im afraid of no man, but there are a whole bunch of folks out there Ill damned sure watch. Tell you what..lets you and me take a walk through Compton or Watts or East LA at 2am on a Friday night, and lets see what your pucker factor is. Ok? Lets see just how unafraid you are. Deal? 6. You think logic is something that depends on who's attempting to use it. "Your" logic and "my" logic can be different. Yup. 7. You think school kids should be taught about guns, "from kindergarden onward". "Hands on, live ammo on the range, the whole works. Pass/fail." Yup .. 8. You believe that successful uses of firearms for self-defense outnumber murders by a factor of 150,000 to 1. Here in Philadelphia, there have been roughly 250 murders this year. That would translate, if you're correct, into 37.5 MILLION instances where guns have been used to save or protect lives, just in this one city, in a single year, and with a total population of around 1.5 million people. That would also mean, of course, that there were 37.5 million cases where people had reason to protect themselves, and where the danger was of a sort that made a gun the appropriate tool for self-defense. If we add in all the other kinds of danger and violence, and allow for all those times when a gun wasn't used, or wasn't used successfully, then... Well, I guess I can understand why you're so afraid. Ok..type on my part..that should be 1,500 per, based on the 2.5 million DGUs that occur in the US every year, compared to the murder (not homicide) numbers. 9. You believe that danger is not the only thing that a firearm can do. But you could say, apparently, that danger IS the only thing a car can do. And to illustrate this, you say that a firearm "is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe"... by "putting the bad guy in danger." Both can be used as tools, both can be used as weapons indeed. And yes besides its other uses where no danger is involved, a weapon can and does keep me safe by putting the bad guy in danger. And Im always alert and aware whenever driving..as someone sooner or later will try to kill me, intentionally or not. Dont ride a motorcycle much do you? Gives Paranoia a whole new meaning. 10. You believe that "We can't"... "identify those who shouldn't carry guns, and prevent those people from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations" You propose that "we can only train each and every person whom is not a felon (yet), or a nut case (that we know of), and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it"... without apparent regard for the hazzards involved. Yup. Interesting spin, but you always were a good wordsmith. Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. I dont have a swimming pool in my back yard either. Too damned dangerous. KG Gunner "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal" |
|
#451
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank.. Robin Baker White is a nice decent law abidding chap, he also used to be the High Sheriff of Kent. In March 1999 this chaps home was burgled, the Police were sympathetic but failed to find the criminals( this is the norm for the british police whose detection rates run at less than 20 % unless you are a motorist). Anyway Mr White spent over £3000 on improving the security of his home, but it did not stop the burglars who called again in July 2002. Six men forced their way into the Whites home, YES Six men forced open a window and entered the victims home. So not being a fool he reached for his trusty shotgun and fire two warning shots into the air causing the six pieces of scum to flee. Then he dialled 999 and asked for Police help.............. Yup you guessed it............... Loads of armed cops decendedon the victims home lead by a superintendant, and demanded to know where the gun was. Mr White admitted firing the gun upwards into some cedar trees well above the heads of the six criminals. The Police were not happy they immeadiately went out to search the grounds of Mr Whites home, not as you would believe to try and capture the 6 criminals but to see if anyone had been wounded. Then the cops being typical british cops they took Mr Whites gun away returning a short while later to take away his licence as well. Of course word soon spread that Mr White had been robbed again and had his gun taken of him cos he was silly enough to think his life and the life of his wife was worth protecting from repeat criminals. Guess what?....................... Yup not long after Mr White was watching TV when two men ran into his house and attacked him , smashing him about the face and body before leaving him as a bloody mess on the floor of what should be a safe secure family home. All thanks to the panic striken , knee jerk , hysteria driven rabid idiots of the anti gun lobby who believe the more vulnerable british citizens the safer they are from crime. And of the Police who took his gun away.............Oh they said We are disapointed Mr White is unhappy with the way we have dealt with the burglaries and assaults , but we can assure him the offences have been fully investigated. ROTFLMBO The British police are a politicised useless waste of space led by politically motived fools. The British Police simply can not grasp the fact that the decent law abidding people do not want thorough investigations with a success rate of less than twenty % , British people need the right to choose how they can defend themselves and their homes from criminals. The Police are given guns to protect themselves against violent criminals ( who as far as I am Aware do not go looking for policemen) so why can not the home owner, shop keeper, district nurse, bus driver, etc be given the same right of choice as to how they can protect themselves. For every victim of a crime who is denied the right to choose if they wish to own a gun for self defence the blame lies firmly not at the feet of the criminals who are simply taking advantage of a situation, but firmly in the hands of the anti gun lobby. --------------------------------------------- Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. And hey..not all that many back yard swimming pools either. "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal" |
|
#452
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom |
|
#453
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Cliff Huprich wrote:
In article , Gunner writes: Robin Baker White is a nice decent law abidding chap, he also used to be the High Sheriff of Kent. I'm guessing that some actual fact checking might be in order ..... again. I'm guessing that if a former High Sheriff of Kent had lost his shotgun license after firing it at burglars it would have been reported somewhere too. |
|
#454
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#455
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote:
Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal" |
|
#456
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Tom" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... The pilgims would have been "safer" had they stayed , huh? And the many who have risked life and limb reaching these shores since that time. But, you need to understand that there is a group of people that don't place "safety" at the top of their list. Quite a few of them place "freedom" ot the top. And endure or even enjoy the lower level of safety that just might come with that freedom. JTMcC, who's priorities place freedom well above any form of state supplied security. \ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom |
|
#457
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner I thought safer from firearms was the question? Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom |
|
#458
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:48:24 +1300, Tom wrote:
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner I thought safer from firearms was the question? Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! .. . . [The US] murder rate is high largely due to the multicultural nature of our society. Inner city blacks, members of a distinct subculture, have a vastly higher criminal and victim homicide rate than our society as an average: Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000): 3.4 - White 25.8 - Black 3.2 - Other It is often hypothesized that blacks are overrepresented in murder statistics due to racism on the part of police and the justice system. If this were true, one would expect that the race of victims would have significantly different distribution than the race of the perpetrators, but this is not the case: Homicide Victim Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000): 3.3 - White 20.5 - Black 2.7 - Other Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91). http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175111_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-UK-VIOLENT-CRIME-RATE-SOARING-name_page.html http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Crime.html http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/WSJ.html It appears that I was partially incorrect on the rape stats(which continue to rise in the UK, fall in the US) all else in my statments appear to be true from the looks of it. Now then..you were driveling on about what again? Hummmm? Gunner "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal" |
|
#459
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Tom" wrote in message
... Gunner wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner I thought safer from firearms was the question? Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom Tom, it isn't that simple, and there's always some argument over crime-rate comparisons. It's very difficult to compare them across countries. For example, the US violent crime rate you quote above, 23/1000, breaks down into 7.6/1000 "completed" violence and 15.6/1000 "attempted or threatened violence." That's in the actual "Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey August 2003, NCJ 199994, Criminal Victimization, 2002," which is the source from which that 23/1000 rate is extracted. Do you know how the UK records attempted/threatened violence in each category? It appears to be a complicated thing to extract from the data, because attempts are classed as individual types of crimes in some cases and not in others. Whether that means that attempts are lumped together with completions in those other cases, I don't know. You also want to take a careful look at which data are reporting crimes actually reported to the police, and which are estimates of total crime, reported and unreported. Anyway, be cautious in making those claims. Oh, BTW, among all crimes of violence in the US, only about 7% of the victims faced an assailant armed with a gun. No guns were involved in 93% of violent crimes committed in the US, in other words. Ed Huntress |
|
#460
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:13 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Not even worth an answer, Gunner. I take it that you choose not to try to make your argument then? Your mind is made up, and I should not confuse you with the facts, correct? Interesting, particularly coming from you, whom I consider one of the Great Minds of this newsgroup. Looks like even the Gods have blind spots. Shrug To make an argement requires that both parties accept the same rules of logic, and the same standards of argument. You and I have tried this before, and I've been disappointed. You haven't offered any facts, confusing or otherwise, which promise even a hint of sound argument, that I can see. That you consider me a "great mind" is flattering; but becomes somewhat hollow when you offer me propositions that any child could shred without effort, if he had reason to spend the time. I don't know about gods, Gunner. But humans certainly have blind spots aplenty. Maybe we should ALL adjust our mirrors once in a while. You offered two ANECDOTES of supposed shopkeepers who went for a gun, (three if you count the father). 2 out of what was the number according to the Gov't in 2002? Almost 450,000 DGU a year, out of 6.5 million violent crimes reported. You offered no evidence of training by the shopkeepers in question. Nor specifics on who they were facing in the robbery. To counter your Anecdotes others were offered to you. I never claim that DGU is 100%, only that the study that has been done shows that DGU increases likelyhood of not being seriously injured. People can argue the sample size was to small for statistical signifigance, but the Gov't has not done a larger study to tighten the range. Nor has anyone else done so that I am aware of. Certainly DGU is less effective for men than for women In the study I cited. Never did I claim that DGU was without risk or a panacea. So lets not get all high and mighty about rules of logic and proof in this discussion when you yourself offered no proof and didn't produce anything more than anecdotes that may or may not be time compressed in your mind. |
|
#461
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... [Tom said]: Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom [Gunner said]: Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! Ah, Gunner, no. You need a better class of blogs. g Here's where those figures came from: http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp If you compare a few countries, you'll see that entire categories are missing from some, and there are big differences in how they report the rest. Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis mine) Tom's figures stink. Your figures stink. Both of you guys need a course in research methodology if you're going to toss statistics around. Meet here on Tuesdays at 7:00 PM. g Oh, I notice that the blogger whose site you grabbed those figures from said he didn't know what the original source was, and that the guy who gave the figures to him couldn't remember or something. It took me all of 15 seconds to find Interpol's statistics page. Those guys you're quoting are incompetent buffoons. Ed Huntress |
|
#462
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:48:24 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner I thought safer from firearms was the question? Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! . . . [The US] murder rate is high largely due to the multicultural nature of our society. Inner city blacks, members of a distinct subculture, have a vastly higher criminal and victim homicide rate than our society as an average: Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000): 3.4 - White 25.8 - Black 3.2 - Other It is often hypothesized that blacks are overrepresented in murder statistics due to racism on the part of police and the justice system. If this were true, one would expect that the race of victims would have significantly different distribution than the race of the perpetrators, but this is not the case: Homicide Victim Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000): 3.3 - White 20.5 - Black 2.7 - Other Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91). http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175111_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-UK-VIOLENT-CRIME-RATE-SOARING-name_page.html http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Crime.html http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/WSJ.html It appears that I was partially incorrect on the rape stats(which continue to rise in the UK, fall in the US) all else in my statments appear to be true from the looks of it. Now then..you were driveling on about what again? Hummmm? Gunner What a load of crap! Especially your interpretation of some dubious stats from hardly credible sites! Interpol? Yeah right! Tom |
|
#463
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner I thought safer from firearms was the question? Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom Tom, it isn't that simple, and there's always some argument over crime-rate comparisons. It's very difficult to compare them across countries. For example, the US violent crime rate you quote above, 23/1000, breaks down into 7.6/1000 "completed" violence and 15.6/1000 "attempted or threatened violence." That's in the actual "Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey August 2003, NCJ 199994, Criminal Victimization, 2002," which is the source from which that 23/1000 rate is extracted. Do you know how the UK records attempted/threatened violence in each category? It appears to be a complicated thing to extract from the data, because attempts are classed as individual types of crimes in some cases and not in others. Whether that means that attempts are lumped together with completions in those other cases, I don't know. You also want to take a careful look at which data are reporting crimes actually reported to the police, and which are estimates of total crime, reported and unreported. Anyway, be cautious in making those claims. Oh, BTW, among all crimes of violence in the US, only about 7% of the victims faced an assailant armed with a gun. No guns were involved in 93% of violent crimes committed in the US, in other words. Ed Huntress It's never that simple, it's bad enough putting up with Gunner posting crap without some pedant posting some mealy-mouthed quibble. Guns? Who was talking about guns? Gunner quoted "rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US." Apart from burglary they constitute violent crime. If you really want to bring guns into it compare the firearm deaths in the UK with the US and remember dead is dead! Tom |
|
#464
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message ... [Tom said]: Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom [Gunner said]: Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! Ah, Gunner, no. You need a better class of blogs. g Here's where those figures came from: http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp If you compare a few countries, you'll see that entire categories are missing from some, and there are big differences in how they report the rest. Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis mine) Tom's figures stink. Your figures stink. Both of you guys need a course in research methodology if you're going to toss statistics around. Meet here on Tuesdays at 7:00 PM. g Oh, I notice that the blogger whose site you grabbed those figures from said he didn't know what the original source was, and that the guy who gave the figures to him couldn't remember or something. It took me all of 15 seconds to find Interpol's statistics page. Those guys you're quoting are incompetent buffoons. Ed Huntress You're as bad as Gunner, Ed, just full of it! I'm quite happy for you to provide stats that hold water. Just don't discriminate between attempted crimes and those that reached a satisfactory conclusion for the criminal. Tom |
|
#465
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:03:20 +1300, Tom wrote:
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:48:24 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:05:46 +1300, Tom wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:23 -0500, Kirk Gordon wrote: Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard. KG This is the kind of world Kirk wants. From one of my English mates, a retired British trooper of some rank...... The usual irrelevant copy & paste followed........ Sigh...makes one wonder if Kirk might not be happier in the UK. With a population of about 5th the US, and firearms deaths at 80 for last year, Kirk may not be happier, but he certainly would be safer... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm Tom Perhaps safer from firearms..but rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US. Odd how that happens when one takes away the means to defend ones self, no? Gunner I thought safer from firearms was the question? Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! . . . [The US] murder rate is high largely due to the multicultural nature of our society. Inner city blacks, members of a distinct subculture, have a vastly higher criminal and victim homicide rate than our society as an average: Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000): 3.4 - White 25.8 - Black 3.2 - Other It is often hypothesized that blacks are overrepresented in murder statistics due to racism on the part of police and the justice system. If this were true, one would expect that the race of victims would have significantly different distribution than the race of the perpetrators, but this is not the case: Homicide Victim Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000): 3.3 - White 20.5 - Black 2.7 - Other Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91). http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175111_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-UK-VIOLENT-CRIME-RATE-SOARING-name_page.html http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Crime.html http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/WSJ.html It appears that I was partially incorrect on the rape stats(which continue to rise in the UK, fall in the US) all else in my statments appear to be true from the looks of it. Now then..you were driveling on about what again? Hummmm? Gunner What a load of crap! Especially your interpretation of some dubious stats from hardly credible sites! Interpol? Yeah right! Tom You and Ed seemed to have missed commenting on the other sites..including that report from the Washington Journal. Thats a Hardly Credible site? Snicker.... Hint Tommy boy..I made NO interpretation, but provided them as I found them. You do have a reading comprehension problem I take it? Bummer..must suck to be you. Must be that Hate thing you have going on...... Now..hummmm....Ill try another Hardly Credible site.. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 Compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England. 9/98. NCJ 169284 Ah..Ed..does this site meet with your approval? Feel free to browse.....its paid for by the taxpayers.... EG Now Tommy boy..ah...ahum...you were saying something again? Snicker........ Gunner "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal" |
|
#466
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:17:12 +1300, Tom wrote:
Guns? Who was talking about guns? Gunner quoted "rape, robbery, assault and burglary are higher in the UK than in the US." Apart from burglary they constitute violent crime. Actually Tommy boy...in the UK, Hot Burglaries..where the home is invaded by the bad guys, with the tenents home..is up also. And Id consider that a violent crime. And of course, with the cites I provided...robbery, assaults and burglary are up in the UK, considerably greater than in the US. Do check out the United States Department of Justice stats..unless you consider those to be suspect also?? Snicker...... If you really want to bring guns into it compare the firearm deaths in the UK with the US and remember dead is dead! Tom Yup..dead is dead. Going over some figures..I notice that New Zealand has a much higher suicide rate than does the US. Something down there makeing life unbearable? Might want to check in with your mental health professional once in a while..just for a sanity check. Id miss our banter.... http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html I also notice all those nasty guns causing a REALLY high suicide rate in Japan. And Gosh..look at the homicide rate in Mexico! Much higher than most other countries with the exception of Estonia. Hummmmm Im pretty sure most guns are illegal in Mexico. Now on the other hand...Switzerland..now there is a hot bed of crime...where virtually every home has a firearm, public shooting ranges are everwhere, many homes have machine guns... Hey..its got a lower homicide rate by any means, firearms or not..less then the UK and NZ... gosh arooony Tommy...I wonder whats going on? Norway..hummmm even more guns than New Zealand..and a hell of a lot less homicides of any sort, including firearms...whats up with this Tommy? I wonder..hummm maybe..maybe its the Culture, stupid? Na... though..I think I did provide something about the number of blacks killing and being killed by blacks..and the other population of the US having a homicide rate about equal to that of the UK, or not much higher....about like NZ actually. Interesting..what with a quarter billion firearms in the US in private hands....seems we should be stepping over bodies right and left. No? Gunner "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal" |
|
#467
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Robert Sturgeon wrote in message . ..
From your earlier post - "We don't have many guns and we don't have much armed robbery, either." Your country is run by a mob - the military and the Communist Party. THEY are armed to the teeth and they live by robbing your country on a daily basis, milking it like a cow. But you subjects, you objects of state ownership? No, you don't have guns. Your overlords would never be THAT stupid. And you have been indoctrinated from early on to not only accept your condition but to revel in it. Stay in China. It suits you. yet another chimpanzee joins the crowd, pounding the ground before the sacred obelisk with his favorite thighbone ... why don't y'all run on over to gunner's house ? you guys could stroke each other's holsters or something ... |
|
#469
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"JTMcC" wrote in message ...
place "safety" at the top of their list. Quite a few of them place "freedom" ot the top. And endure or even enjoy the lower level of safety that just might come with that freedom. JTMcC, who's priorities place freedom well above any form of state supplied security. Oddly enough, it's taking me quite a while to overcome my "freedom- loving" fascist indoctrination. I'm working on it, tho. Real freedom isn't something you'd know much about, living in the US the way you do. |
|
#471
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! snip You and Ed seemed to have missed commenting on the other sites..including that report from the Washington Journal. Thats a Hardly Credible site? Snicker.... Hint Tommy boy..I made NO interpretation, but provided them as I found them. You do have a reading comprehension problem I take it? Bummer..must suck to be you. Must be that Hate thing you have going on...... Now..hummmm....Ill try another Hardly Credible site.. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 Ah..Ed..does this site meet with your approval? Yeah, that's better. You should have put that up first, instead of those fouled-up Interpol numbers. As I said to Tom, there was nothing in either your data sources nor his that addressed reporting percentages, which are well known to vary widely between countries. If you compare the numbers in this DoJ study with the Interpol numbers, you see that there is a huge disparity in the totals they report. Lead with the best stuff, Gunner. When you lead with something like that Interpol data, which is full of holes (did you actually go look at it?), your argument goes to hell in a handbasket. This report is much better. I'd still like to know more about how the Brits define simple assault versus that in the US (and they are BIG contributors to the numbers), but, overall, the DoJ study looks very convincing. Ed Huntress |
|
#472
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Carl saysYou have yet to present any statistics which show that
hundreds of thousands 'loved ones' are assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" every year. Should be no problem, just get out there and interview the surviving victims and ask if anyone loves them. Might check next of kin of the others to see if their departed were loved or just tolerated. How many mother-in-laws are crime victims?? Doesn't take a Phi Beta Kappa to do that. Get back to us Carl ).Greg Sefton |
|
#473
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Tom" wrote in message
... Ed Huntress wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message ... [Tom said]: Of course throwing in an unsubstantiated statement, could be construed as a failure to defend an earlier unsustainable post... Certainly, as usual it's BS: US violent crime: 2002, 23 victims per 1000 persons http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...566383,00.html UK violent crime: 2000-1, 13.92 victims per 1000 persons http://www.sustainable-development.g...l/2001/03a.htm Still what's new? Tom [Gunner said]: Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! Ah, Gunner, no. You need a better class of blogs. g Here's where those figures came from: http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp If you compare a few countries, you'll see that entire categories are missing from some, and there are big differences in how they report the rest. Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis mine) Tom's figures stink. Your figures stink. Both of you guys need a course in research methodology if you're going to toss statistics around. Meet here on Tuesdays at 7:00 PM. g Oh, I notice that the blogger whose site you grabbed those figures from said he didn't know what the original source was, and that the guy who gave the figures to him couldn't remember or something. It took me all of 15 seconds to find Interpol's statistics page. Those guys you're quoting are incompetent buffoons. Ed Huntress You're as bad as Gunner, Ed, just full of it! Uh, I guess that means that you don't like it when someone goes to the original source and quotes actual numbers, eh? You'd much rather wallow in whatever crap you can find that supports your arguments. I'm quite happy for you to provide stats that hold water. Just don't discriminate between attempted crimes and those that reached a satisfactory conclusion for the criminal. Let's see your "stats that hold water." The DoJ report that Gunner referred to looks quite good. Do you have something that refutes it? Ed Huntress |
|
#474
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Tom" wrote in message
... [Ed said]: Tom, it isn't that simple, and there's always some argument over crime-rate comparisons. It's very difficult to compare them across countries. For example, the US violent crime rate you quote above, 23/1000, breaks down into 7.6/1000 "completed" violence and 15.6/1000 "attempted or threatened violence." That's in the actual "Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey August 2003, NCJ 199994, Criminal Victimization, 2002," which is the source from which that 23/1000 rate is extracted. Do you know how the UK records attempted/threatened violence in each category? It appears to be a complicated thing to extract from the data, because attempts are classed as individual types of crimes in some cases and not in others. Whether that means that attempts are lumped together with completions in those other cases, I don't know. You also want to take a careful look at which data are reporting crimes actually reported to the police, and which are estimates of total crime, reported and unreported. Anyway, be cautious in making those claims. Oh, BTW, among all crimes of violence in the US, only about 7% of the victims faced an assailant armed with a gun. No guns were involved in 93% of violent crimes committed in the US, in other words. Ed Huntress It's never that simple, it's bad enough putting up with Gunner posting crap without some pedant posting some mealy-mouthed quibble. Listen up then, Tom, I'll keep it simple: You have no idea what you're comparing. It's well known that comparing international crime stats is a loser, because there are a lot of differences in the way they're reported, in the percentage of crimes actually reported to police, and even in the definitions of some crimes. If that's "quibble" to you, then we can only assume you don't care what the facts are, only whether you can dredge up some data that appears to support your position. That isn't enough, particularly in this department. Ed Huntress |
|
#475
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[Gunner said]: Interesting..not what Interpol claims: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000): 4161 - US 7736 - Germany 6941 - France 9927 - England and Wales Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries! Ah, Gunner, no. You need a better class of blogs. g Here's where those figures came from: http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp If you compare a few countries, you'll see that entire categories are missing from some, and there are big differences in how they report the rest. Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis mine) In other words, Gunner, just as before....the idiot makes some bull**** claim, gets proven wrong by the cited numbers and goes off on some fantasy bull**** argument about what the numbers "really" say. More semantic bull**** from the bull**** master. "Interpol doesn't say these are crime comparisons. They say "Total number of offences *contained in national crime statistics*." (emphasis mine)" Can anyone that's not an idiot interpret that sentence above as the idiot has? I doubt it. ral |
|
#476
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Uh, I guess that means that you don't like it when someone goes to the original source and quotes actual numbers, eh? You'd much rather wallow in whatever crap you can find that supports your arguments. Except that your "actual numbers" give no different conclusion than the first ones....just that you seem to see some satisfaction in arguing minutia. Pathetic idiot. ral |
|
#477
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#478
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Carl Nisarel wrote:
That's a different issue. The question is why those 500,000 incidents of DGUs still resulted in a violent crime. The gunners like to claim that all they have to do is 'brandish' their gun and the 'criminal' runs away, And it's still a "violent crime". You don't like the name? Call your congressman and demand that they make a new listing for "attempted violent crime", idiot. Jeeezus Christ what has happened to the quality of argument in this place? Have the idiots completely taken over? ral |
|
#479
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Robert Sturgeon wrote in message . ..
And you can stay in China, groveling to the authorities and hoping they let you live. No guns? For you - no guns. For them - plenty of guns. And you don't even understand your true situation - property of the state. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. I suggest you abbreviate that to "****ing drooling ignorant spastic moron." It takes a lot less typing but has the exact same meaning. |
|
#480
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Ed Huntress wrote:
I'd still like to know more about how the Brits define simple assault versus that in the US (and they are BIG contributors to the numbers), but, overall, the DoJ study looks very convincing. In the UK violent offences consist of: violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery. Page 26 of link. Common assault is defined as one of the crimes of violence against a person. Page 161 of link. http://www.official-documents.co.uk/.../5696/5696.pdf |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? | UK diy | |||
| Deep drawing of aluminum bottle | Metalworking | |||
| Deep hole drill profile question | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
