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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Noah Simoneaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:02:08 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Bing" wrote in message

(snip)

I'm not worried about guns much at all. My own collection is of a size that
the news reports call a "private arsenal" when they talk about some gun
owner who goes berserk.


Since an arsenal can be defined as a "stock of weapons" that wouldn't be a lie.
Sometimes telling the truth selectively can be better than an outright lie.


Lots of things to fix that are at the crux of the biscuit. But, bring up
guns in any context and alluva sudden everybody's a statistician of sorts.
Gun crimes are easy to cite. The problems I stated are not so easy to

track
down.


Ah, but when Gunner et al. quote a statistic, you're supposed to BELIEVE it,
because it's a pro-gun statistic. People like Ford, in general (and I don't
know him so I can't say whether he's one of these or not) count on you not
checking out what they say. That's one of the methods Joseph Goebbels used
for the Nazis, if you've ever studied his work. That's how you perpetuate a
lie to serve your own ideological purposes.

What's wrong with the truth? Is it just too equivocal and boring these days?


Which truth? There are lots of truths to pick from. There are often SEVERAL
different truths to pick from in almost any situation.


I know you were arguing with Gunner not me. Sowee to step on yer post but
thought I might nudge it in another direction. Hope ya dont mind.


Not at all. I have my own ideology, which some people don't like. It's based
on the idea that the facts are more important and more valuable than
comfortable and unsupportable beliefs -- "I know what I believe," they say,
"and that's all that matters."

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one, while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.


Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
  #42   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Noah Simoneaux" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:02:08 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"Bing" wrote in message

(snip)

I'm not worried about guns much at all. My own collection is of a size

that
the news reports call a "private arsenal" when they talk about some gun
owner who goes berserk.


Since an arsenal can be defined as a "stock of weapons" that wouldn't be a

lie.
Sometimes telling the truth selectively can be better than an outright

lie.

Yes, something like "Andrew Ford" did in this case, right?


Ah, but when Gunner et al. quote a statistic, you're supposed to BELIEVE

it,
because it's a pro-gun statistic. People like Ford, in general (and I

don't
know him so I can't say whether he's one of these or not) count on you

not
checking out what they say. That's one of the methods Joseph Goebbels

used
for the Nazis, if you've ever studied his work. That's how you perpetuate

a
lie to serve your own ideological purposes.

What's wrong with the truth? Is it just too equivocal and boring these

days?

Which truth? There are lots of truths to pick from. There are often

SEVERAL
different truths to pick from in almost any situation.


And how you pick among them determines if you have a critical mind that you
employ in a search for the meaningful truths, or if you have a manipulative
mind that you employ in a search for ways to twist a story to your
advantage.


And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one,

while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.


Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie

if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.


That's a good question, Noah. Let's see which kind of mind you have here.
What do you think the purpose of "Andrew Ford's" assertion was? Was it to
reveal something about the relationship between open carry and murder rates,
or was it to employ a mixed kind of statistic to delude the reader with an
anomaly, in the sense that Mark Twain talked about statistics when he
described "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? (Actually, I don't think it
really was Clemens, but I won't quibble.)

What do you say? Can you distinguish between statistics employed to tell
lies, the way Goebbels did and the way that many politicians do today, or do
you recognize the truth that's being implied, and are you willing to judge
an assertion on the basis of whether its rhetorical use is honest or
dishonest? Are you one of the people who isn't afraid to make a judgment of
that type, or not?

That's really the question here, because, as several people have pointed out
in this thread, there isn't much question about what "Ford" intended by his
statistic. To assume otherwise is to assume that he was talking about
something else when he called those people "crazy" who didn't have his
penetrating insight -- aided by his bogus statistic, of course. g That's
always a possibility but then we'd want to know how people understand the
meaning of the assertion.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


  #43   Report Post  
RKurtz
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

As for the original post, it does seem that the lawmakers are ruining the
ranchers.
Here's one such article (this guy has had his herd confiscated and sold at
auction, and AFAIK, nobody bid at auction. IIRC, at the second auction, some
kid from CA bid and won with a small bid, a fraction of the true cost of the
herd, but backed out under pressure from peers.) Anyway, here's a small article
about the fight...
Interesting to read, since this had been going on since '94
Ron

http://www.restoringamerica.org/arch...f_gardner.html
  #44   Report Post  
RKurtz
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

I'm sorry, I should have googled more thoroughly before posting. The rancher
I originally was thinking of was Ben Colvin, who had his herd confiscated for
grazing Bureau of Land Management land, not Cliff Gardner, who is in trouble
for grazing National Forest land that was created after his family had lived
(and grazed their cattle) there for generations.
Sorry for confusing everyone....LOL
Anyone see a common denominator?
Ron
  #45   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Carl Byrns wrote:

Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing
with anything he can't refute.


-Carl


That's fine, Carl. I'll be glad to refute you and Ed both.

**Alabama requires a permit to carry concealed but has no open carry
restrictions or permit to buy laws. 329 murders in 2000.

**Alaska same. 27 murders.

**Arizona same. 359 murders.

Arkansas requires a permit to carry.

California....what needs to be said?

**Colorado concealed carry permit only....open is ok. 134 murders

Connecticut requires a permit to purchase and to carry.

**Delaware....concealed carry permit only....open is fine. 25.

Florida....no open carry allowed.

Georgia....permit to carry open or concealed.

Hawaii requires permits to purchase, carry, and registration.

**Idaho appears to have no open carry restrictions. 16 murders.

Illinois has laws that require permits to purchase and carry and
registration etc etc etc.

Indiana requires a permit to carry open or concealed.

Iowa requires a permit to purchase and carry....

**Kansas....no laws applicable. 169.

**Kentucky has no restrictions to open carry. 193.

**Louisiana has a permit to carry concealed only with no restrictions
on open carry. 560.

**Maine.... 15.

Maryland....permit to carry openly yadda yadda yadda.

Massachusetts....permit to do just about everything.

Michigan....permit to purchase etc....

Minnesota....same

**Mississippi....no restrictions to open carry. 255.

Missouri....permit to purchase etc etc etc.

**Montana....open carry is not restricted. 16.

Nebraska....permit to purchase.

**Nevada has no apparent restrictions to open carry. 129.

**New Hampshire....none at all. 22.

New Jersey....permit to buy/carry/registration etc.

**New Mexico has no restrictions to open carry. 135.

New York....too obvious.

North Carolina....permits to buy etc.

North Dakota has no legal open carry allowed except when hunting etc.

**Ohio has no state laws prohibiting open carry but most of the state
is restricted due to local laws. 418.

Oklahoma allows no carrying unless it's unloaded and then only under
strict regs.

**Oregon has no restrictions to open carry. 70

Pennsylvania, no open carry is allowed.

Rhode Island....permits to buy and license to carry etc.

South Carolina....permit to carry openly or concealed.

**South Dakota has no apparent restrictions to open carry. 7 murders
in 2000.

Tennessee....no open carry allowed except hunting etc.

Texas requires a permit to carry open or concealed.

**Utah, open carry is allowed with some strict restrictions. 43.

**Vermont has no open carry laws that apply. 9.

**Virginia allows open carry with no permits. 401.

**Washington allows open carry. 196.

**West Virginia allows open carry. 46.

**Wisconsin has no open carry restrictions that I could find. 169.

**Wyoming allows open carry without permits. 12.

District of Columbia....y'all forgot this one, right? Common thing
among antigunners is to skip DC when figuring the numbers to make
things look better. Y'all wouldn't do that, would ya?

By my count that is 25 states (those marked **) that allow open
carrying without any sort of permit to buy/carry etc etc etc as per
Gunner's quote.

Let's all look at the murder numbers now, shall we? What is that,
3,755 total murders in all those 25 open carry states? That's in
2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US
that year had 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that
restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand
total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry
states etc etc etc.

How's that foot tasting there, dude?

Ed?

ral




  #46   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Not at all. Sometimes they can be looked up an measured to see if they're
true or not.


As Gunner's quote is easily done if you would open a browser and close
your mouth long enough.

ral



  #47   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:44:23 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

FWIW,
The CDC, in what was called an "unusual moment of candor" recently

reported
that gun legislation does not have a statistically significant influence

on
gun crime in the US. If I can find the article I will post a link to it.


Well, that would be refreshing to see, John. If you happen upon it, I would
like to see it. But don't go out of your way for it.


Wasn't that recent post (this year) about the CDC releasing
a report saying that they couldn't decide on anything, that
the stats from 40 odd reports were incomplete? I wondered
why the Center for DISEASE Control had a gun stat committee.
Here it is: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
The posts were here back in October:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&th=ea1978117eebd65f&rnum=1

John, was this the report you referred to?


================================================== ============
Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord.
http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
================================================== ============
  #48   Report Post  
Dan
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



--
"In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the
sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law & order."

- Idi Dada Amin

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of
Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in
midstream. .and would have incurred incalculable human and political
costs. .We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule
Iraq. .There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see. .Going in and
occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate,
would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression
that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United
States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile
land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren --
outcome."

- Elected President Bush

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

Gunner wrote: (clip) 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half
of the country (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can divide the country in "half" by area, by number of states, or by
population. Unless you know the murder rate per capita under the two sets
of laws, you can be misled by statistics like this.


And what does this interesting non-fact have to do with "Environmentalists?"

Dan


  #49   Report Post  
Dan
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:23:56 -0800, "Gary Bosin"
wrote:



" its pretty clear to me.

Gunner
"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?" --

Andrew Ford


Maybe only 1/5 of the population live in the 25 states not requiring
permits?


Which invalidated the quote how?


I think he is serious with that question!

Dan



  #50   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:51:36 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


I'd like to see those workbooks, please, Ed.
(Deslash my email address and insert a 'v'.)


They're on their way. I make them for my own use, so you'll have to supply
neatness and organization as you see fit. g


And just WHERE do you suppose I'll find those around HERE?
I thought they might have a bit more info, but thanks
anyway.


Both. He was a senator in the CONgress.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=andrew+ford+handgun


Which country? It wasn't the US Congress. g


Shame on me. I allowed a Google header to lead me astray. blush


================================================== ============
Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord.
http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
================================================== ============


  #51   Report Post  
Noah Simoneaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:31:10 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

(snip)
And how you pick among them determines if you have a critical mind that you
employ in a search for the meaningful truths, or if you have a manipulative
mind that you employ in a search for ways to twist a story to your
advantage.


Ah, but "meaningful" is pretty subjective, too. I went around a while back here
on the MS newsgroup with a guy who was selective with his truths like that. He
was discussing the comparative sizes of the continents and wanted to make the
continent he chose look larger, so he threw in the statistic that it was the 5th
largest continent. Yes, that's a true statement. That statement would also mean
it's the 3rd smallest one, but since he wanted to emphasize how BIG the
continent was he chose that direction. When I called him on it he thought I was
disputing his claim about the size of the continent. I wasn't. I was just
disputing his slant.

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one,

while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.


Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie

if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.


That's a good question, Noah. Let's see which kind of mind you have here.
What do you think the purpose of "Andrew Ford's" assertion was? Was it to
reveal something about the relationship between open carry and murder rates,
or was it to employ a mixed kind of statistic to delude the reader with an
anomaly, in the sense that Mark Twain talked about statistics when he
described "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? (Actually, I don't think it
really was Clemens, but I won't quibble.)

What do you say? Can you distinguish between statistics employed to tell
lies, the way Goebbels did and the way that many politicians do today, or do
you recognize the truth that's being implied, and are you willing to judge
an assertion on the basis of whether its rhetorical use is honest or
dishonest? Are you one of the people who isn't afraid to make a judgment of
that type, or not?

When I first saw that statement the first thing that occurred to me was that it
wasn't quite true. There is NO state in the US where just ANYBODY can go buy a
gun. Minors can't(legally), people who have been disqualified for several
reasons (felons, those adjudged as dangers to society because of mental illness,
people with restraining orders against them) can't do it legally either.

That's really the question here, because, as several people have pointed out
in this thread, there isn't much question about what "Ford" intended by his
statistic. To assume otherwise is to assume that he was talking about
something else when he called those people "crazy" who didn't have his
penetrating insight -- aided by his bogus statistic, of course. g That's
always a possibility but then we'd want to know how people understand the
meaning of the assertion.


That's always a problem, because people don't "always" say what they mean or
mean what they say. Added to that is the "Inferring what others imply" problem,
too. Seeing through all those filters is difficult, if not impossible.
One thing I always try to keep in mind is the list of logical fallacies people
often employ. Once you spot them, it's pretty easy to figure out what's being
attempted.


It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
  #52   Report Post  
Noah Simoneaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:40:12 GMT, yourname wrote:

(snip)

Sorry my numbers are a few years old. I need a new Almanac
People who fear reasonable gun control are mis informed.


Maybe, but that word "reasonable" seems to have very different meanings to some
people.

I will be the first in line to stop anyone from taking YOUR right to
carry away.
I just want to know who you are


That's nice, but I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it requires me
to satisfy YOUR desire to know who I am in order for me to enjoy my rights.
Would you also like to know who I am before I exercise any of the other rights I
have(or am supposed to have)?

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
  #53   Report Post  
Noah Simoneaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:22:11 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
(snip)

FWIW,
The CDC, in what was called an "unusual moment of candor" recently reported
that gun legislation does not have a statistically significant influence on
gun crime in the US. If I can find the article I will post a link to it.


When Clinton was president he had the(his) Justice Department(how's THAT for a
misnomer) do a study to back up his argument in favor of a national waiting
period. He wanted them to find out the average amount of time a gun was owned
before being used in a crime. If the results turned out to be two weeks or less
it would support a two-week waiting period. Unfortunately(for him), the study
resulted in a finding that the average time a gun was owned before it was used
in a crime was 6 YEARS. Since nobody was asking for a 6-year waiting period they
quietly announced the results of their study with little fanfare. If the results
had come out like they wanted them to, there would have been a MAJOR press
conference. Imagine that.

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
  #54   Report Post  
Noah Simoneaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:15:10 -0800, "Dan" wrote:

(snip)
Maybe only 1/5 of the population live in the 25 states not requiring
permits?


Which invalidated the quote how?


I think he is serious with that question!


Shouldn't be too hard to find the answer, since we had a census fairly recently.

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
  #55   Report Post  
mikee
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Below is a cross listing between the "type of carry" allowed in a particular state
and their 2001 Firearms Murder rate. 2001 population weighted average was 4.2
firearm murders per 100,000 population. While the original claim was with "open
carry", I don't see any obvious correlation between the murder rate and the type of
CCW issue allowed.

Murder rate data from: http://www.morganquitno.com/CR03samp1.pdf

Type of Issue data from: http://www.atr.org/maps/05.html

Open Carry States?: http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/3143 (there are far more
listed here than the 25 referred to in the quote)

Anyone know who this Andrew Ford guy is/was? Couldn't find any reference to him
other than this one on a HK website:
http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-b...pl?andrew_ford

While I agree politically with Gunner on this issue, quoting bad statistics doesn't
further the cause any, just gives the opponents some extra ammunition to "shoot
back." If someone knows the actual "open carry states", let me know. Right now the
claim certainly looks like it doesn't hold water.

Mike Eberlein (damn, another urban legend I wanted to believe in that isn't true)


State Type of 2001 Firearms
Issue Murder Rate(*)
Alabama Shall Issue 6.8
Alaska Shall Issue 3.4
Arizona Shall Issue 5.6
Arkansas Shall Issue 4.4
California May Issue 4.7
Colorado May Issue 2.2
Connecticut Shall Issue 2.4
Delaware May Issue 1.8
Dist of C No Issue Not Available
Florida Shall Issue Not Available
Georgia Shall Issue 6.1
Hawaii May Issue 0.6
Idaho Shall Issue 1.4
Illinois (**) No Issue 7.1
Indiana Shall Issue 5.8
Iowa May Issue 0.7
Kansas Shall Issue 8.4
Kentucky Shall Issue 4.0
Louisiana Shall Issue 9.5
Maine Shall Issue 0.5
Maryland May Issue 7.6
Massachusetts May Issue 1.5
Michigan Shall Issue 6.5
Minnesota May Issue 1.4
Mississippi Shall Issue 8.8
Missouri Shall Issue 5.0
Montana Shall Issue 2.5
Nebraska No Issue 0.7
Nevada Shall Issue 5.1
New Hampshire Shall Issue 1.0
New Jersey May Issue 2.1
New Mexico Shall Issue 3.4
New York May Issue 7.9
N. Carolina Shall Issue 4.1
North Dakota Shall Issue 0.9
Ohio No Issue 3.3
Oklahoma Shall Issue 3.0
Oregon Shall Issue 1.1
Pennsylvania Shall Issue 4.4
Rhode Island May Issue 1.8
South Carolina Shall Issue 8.1
South Dakota Shall Issue 1.0
Tennessee Shall Issue 4.9
Texas Shall Issue 3.9
Utah Shall Issue 1.9
Vermont Shall Issue 1.2
Virginia Shall Issue 3.7
Washington Shall Issue 1.7
West Virginia Shall Issue 2.1
Wisconsin No Issue 2.4
Wyoming Shall Issue 1.0
(*) - Murder Rate per 100,000 population
(**) - City of Chicago rate shown for Illinois

Gunner wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35862
"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?" -- Andrew Ford




  #56   Report Post  
Charles Gallo
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:00:54 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
If California should go open-carry, for example, the stats
would look so horrible for open-carry that no state would ever allow it
again. g

snip

That's what they said about Florida, when it became a shall issue
state - of course the murder rate went DOWN, and they was an
interesting unintended consequence - You saw massive robberies of
people who's cars had "Z" license plates - "Z" plates were rentals,
and they knew that the drivers would NOT have a gun. Florida actually
had to pass a law revoking the "Z" plates, and banning rental car
companies from putting visible ID on the outside of the cars!

In general, murder rates have gone done in every states that have
inacted shall issue laws - Now THAT was significant

--
73
KC2IXE

For the Children - RKBA!

If the opposite of "pro" is "con", then what's the opposite of
"progress"?
  #57   Report Post  
BottleBob
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



Ed Huntress wrote:

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...


Ed:

So would the Andrew Ford quote be acceptable if it were changed to:

============================================
"27 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, **2 out of 3** US murders
^^^^^^^^^^^
are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" --


It depends on whether you like propaganda or not. If you find that kind of
argument acceptable (and you know why it is or isn't), you, too, may be
accepted for a Joseph Goebbels Scholarship at the university of your choice.
g


Ed:

OK, I can see where the quote was misleading.

Richard Lewis seems to have gathered some gun murder statistics from
the year 2000 that tend to challenge your own data.
Being the curious sort, I went to the following CDC site myself and
checked the gun homicide data for the year 2001 for every state. I used
Richard Lewis' data on which states were "open carry" and which weren't.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_fy.html

I'm not going to list each state (too much typing), but the total gun
homicides for ALL states was listed as 11,348. And that I calculate
there were 2,710 gun homicides in the "open carry" states. 2,710 /
11,348 = .23
But it seems the "open carry" states are some of the most sparsely
populated ones, which would seem to severely skew these statistics. And
the death rate per 100k people figures for each state are all over the
map with little correlation to "open carry" states or "non open carry"
states.

Oh, one other comment. I can certainly see why people don't bother to
check this sort of data... ITS TOO MUCH WORK! g

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  #58   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Noah Simoneaux" wrote in message
...

When I first saw that statement the first thing that occurred to me was

that it
wasn't quite true. There is NO state in the US where just ANYBODY can go

buy a
gun. Minors can't(legally), people who have been disqualified for several
reasons (felons, those adjudged as dangers to society because of mental

illness,
people with restraining orders against them) can't do it legally either.


Good point. I mention that in another message in this thread which requires
an especially tedious response, which I haven't posted yet.


That's really the question here, because, as several people have pointed

out
in this thread, there isn't much question about what "Ford" intended by

his
statistic. To assume otherwise is to assume that he was talking about
something else when he called those people "crazy" who didn't have his
penetrating insight -- aided by his bogus statistic, of course. g

That's
always a possibility but then we'd want to know how people understand the
meaning of the assertion.


That's always a problem, because people don't "always" say what they mean

or
mean what they say. Added to that is the "Inferring what others imply"

problem,
too. Seeing through all those filters is difficult, if not impossible.


Sometimes it's obvious by the tone of voice, the argumentative structure of
it (calling anyone who doesn't see the "obvious" conclusion, crazy), or
sometimes just knowing it's part of a continuing, one-sided argument and
inferring the intention by context...like Gunner's arguments. g

I would never guess that Gunner hoisted this quotation for the purpose of
showing that "Ford" really is a fool. Nor do I think that "Ford" meant to
say that counting states, which can have varying populations, and relating
them to absolute numbers of murders, which vary among states, is an obvious
syllogistic error (Illicit Minor) and that the reader is supposed to take it
all as a joke.

One thing I always try to keep in mind is the list of logical fallacies

people
often employ. Once you spot them, it's pretty easy to figure out what's

being
attempted.


I hope then that you spotted Illicit Minor. It takes a pretty slick
propagandist to plug one of those into an argument without catching catcalls
and a few Bronx cheers, but stupid people tend to do it without even trying.
I kind of doubt that "Ford" is stupid, but you never know. On the other
hand, True Believers tend to not notice them if they appear to favor their
side of an issue.

And that's what we have he a lot of otherwise smart people who are
willing to suspend critical judgment in order to defend a point that favors
their side. Notice, too, that a couple of them have defended "Ford's" point
even while acknowledging that the substance of it -- his specific claim --
is not correct. In that kind of environment it's not easy to stick to the
facts and avoid distractions and side arguments, like the ones Gunner and a
couple of others have presented here in the last few hours.

But none of that noise obstructs the basic truth here -- the important and
relevant one in regard to "Ford's" original claim -- that the logic of his
statement falls into a class of logical fallacies that is used as a tool of
propaganda. Beyond that, I'll argue his number, too, but that's really a
minor point to the argument itself.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


  #59   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...

I'm not going to list each state (too much typing), but the total gun
homicides for ALL states was listed as 11,348. And that I calculate
there were 2,710 gun homicides in the "open carry" states. 2,710 /
11,348 = .23
But it seems the "open carry" states are some of the most sparsely
populated ones, which would seem to severely skew these statistics. And
the death rate per 100k people figures for each state are all over the
map with little correlation to "open carry" states or "non open carry"
states.


The problem with Richard's argument is the states he chose, not the numbers.
I used 2001 data and that's somewhat different, but, again, I didn't even
bother to check his *data*.

Maybe I'll finish it tonight. It's a pain in the ass to go through it, but
hey, that's the reason I don't get into gunfights. I did my time on those
from 1988 to around 1994. After this one, I'm hanging up my Ruger again.


Oh, one other comment. I can certainly see why people don't bother to
check this sort of data... ITS TOO MUCH WORK! g


No kidding. That's why I usually expect to be paid to do this stuff. g

Ed Huntress

"No one but a fool (today, that includes Huntress) writes, but for
money." -- Samuel Johnson


  #60   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:44:23 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

FWIW,
The CDC, in what was called an "unusual moment of candor" recently

reported
that gun legislation does not have a statistically significant influence

on
gun crime in the US. If I can find the article I will post a link to it.


Well, that would be refreshing to see, John. If you happen upon it, I would
like to see it. But don't go out of your way for it.


Good lord Ed..I thought everyone had seen that one...

http://www.rense.com/general42/laws.htm

US Report Fails To Link
Gun Laws To Violent Crime
By Paul Simao
10-3-3


ATLANTA (Reuters) - A report published by the Centers for Disease
Control on Thursday found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws
help to prevent violent crime, suicides and accidental injuries in the
United States.

Critics of U.S. firearms laws, which are considered lax in comparison
with most other Western nations, have long contended that easy access
to guns helped to fuel comparatively high U.S. rates of murder and
other violent crimes.

Gun control is a perennial hot political issue in the United States,
which reported 28,663 gun-related deaths in 2000, the latest year for
which complete data are available. Firearms were the second leading
cause of injury-related death that year.

But a national task force of health-care and community experts found
"insufficient evidence" that bans on specific guns, waiting periods
for gun buyers and other such laws changed the incidence of murder,
rape, suicide and other types of violence.

The findings were based on 51 studies, some partly funded by the CDC,
of gun laws enacted in the mid-1970s and later.

Dr. Jonathan Fielding, director of the Los Angeles County Health
Department and head of the Task Force on Community Preventive
Services, said the studies were marked by unreliable data,
inappropriate analysis and inconsistent findings, making it impossible
to determine the true effectiveness of gun laws.

"WE DON'T KNOW"

"This means that we don't know what effects, if any, a law has on the
outcome," Fielding said in a conference call. "We don't mean it has no
effect, and that's why it's important to do more studies."

One study found that the 1994 Brady Bill, which required a five-day
waiting period for handgun purchases until 1998 when a computerized
checking system was introduced, significantly cut the rate of
gun-related suicides in those under the age of 55.

Several other studies, however, suggested that such declines were
accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means.

Officials with the National Rifle Association, a gun rights group that
has accused the Atlanta-based CDC in the past of having an anti-gun
slant, were not immediately available for comment on the report.

The CDC, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human
Services, is prohibited from using funds to promote gun control. HHS,
however, is determined to reduce the rate of firearms-related deaths
by about two-thirds by 2010.

There are an estimated 200 million privately held rifles, handguns and
other firearms in the United States, which guarantees the right to
bear arms in its constitution.

Approximately 4.5 million new firearms, including two million
handguns, are sold each year in the nation. Secondhand firearms
account for an additional 2 million to 4.5 million transactions
annually.

"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas
because those people were religious nuts with guns.
Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\
Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked
because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue,
why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
-- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993


  #61   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:39:20 GMT, (Noah Simoneaux)
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:02:08 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Bing" wrote in message

(snip)

I'm not worried about guns much at all. My own collection is of a size that
the news reports call a "private arsenal" when they talk about some gun
owner who goes berserk.


Since an arsenal can be defined as a "stock of weapons" that wouldn't be a lie.
Sometimes telling the truth selectively can be better than an outright lie.

Actually..an arsenal is a place where weapons are manufactured. An
armory is where they are stored.


Lots of things to fix that are at the crux of the biscuit. But, bring up
guns in any context and alluva sudden everybody's a statistician of sorts.
Gun crimes are easy to cite. The problems I stated are not so easy to

track
down.


Ah, but when Gunner et al. quote a statistic, you're supposed to BELIEVE it,
because it's a pro-gun statistic. People like Ford, in general (and I don't
know him so I can't say whether he's one of these or not) count on you not
checking out what they say. That's one of the methods Joseph Goebbels used
for the Nazis, if you've ever studied his work. That's how you perpetuate a
lie to serve your own ideological purposes.

What's wrong with the truth? Is it just too equivocal and boring these days?


Which truth? There are lots of truths to pick from. There are often SEVERAL
different truths to pick from in almost any situation.


I know you were arguing with Gunner not me. Sowee to step on yer post but
thought I might nudge it in another direction. Hope ya dont mind.


Not at all. I have my own ideology, which some people don't like. It's based
on the idea that the facts are more important and more valuable than
comfortable and unsupportable beliefs -- "I know what I believe," they say,
"and that's all that matters."

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one, while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.


Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.


Buddabing! (rimshot)

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler


Gunner
"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas
because those people were religious nuts with guns.
Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\
Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked
because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue,
why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
-- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993
  #62   Report Post  
Lennie the Lurker
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..

OT post. Ultra right wing from the wrong coast. = gunner. Don't
even have to look.
  #63   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:42:58 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Jim Dauven" wrote in message
...
Yea but you forgot that California has an open carry law and
leads the nation in murders as a state.


I didn't forget. California isn't an open-carry state. It's a "may-issue"
state that requires a CCW, just like New Jersey


Perhaps you're confusing "open carry" with "concealed carry."
California is not a "shall issue" state re concealed carry permits.
(In many counties the sheriffs are extremely willing to issue
permits.) It is, however, legal to carry pistols openly, barring
local ordinances and the propensity for the police to arrest people
for disturbing the peace or some other such trumped up charge.


The laws and local variables apparently are what preclude the several
sources I've checked from calling California "open carry."

Ed Huntress


  #64   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one,

while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.


Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie

if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.


Buddabing! (rimshot)


I think you've just put your finger on it, Gunner. So, if you can get away
with a plausible denial about the meaning of something that can be parsed
into a valid syllogism but which is presented to give a false impression,
you'll accept it as "truth," eh?

If you like that, you'll *love* reading Goebbels. You're just the kind of
student he would have appreciated. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


  #65   Report Post  
Carl Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:48:14 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

Carl Byrns wrote:

Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing
with anything he can't refute.


-Carl


That's fine, Carl. I'll be glad to refute you and Ed both.

No, you won't. All I said is Gunner won't reply to anything HE can't
refute. So far, I'm three for three.

By my count that is 25 states (those marked **) that allow open
carrying without any sort of permit to buy/carry etc etc etc as per
Gunner's quote.

Let's all look at the murder numbers now, shall we? What is that,
3,755 total murders in all those 25 open carry states? That's in
2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US
that year had 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that
restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand
total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry
states etc etc etc.


You're skewing your data to fit your argument: you don't provide a
body count for 26 states (OK, 25 and D.C.) that limit handgun
ownership.
None of the open carry states has anything resembling a major metro-
you just don't see that many turf wars in Maine.
I live near a city that has a lively gang scene that generates a lot
of drive-by and walk-up deaths. That kind of criminal activity spikes
the state murder rate but if you go 20 miles in any direction away
from downtown, and the murder rate drops off to less than one a year
(usually a crime of passion).
In short, your data isn't worth smoke off ****, because criminal
activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very
localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high
crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not.

BTW- I'm all for responsible firearm ownership. It's just that I don't
see that many responsible gun owners.

How's that foot tasting there, dude?


Sorry, I don't eat foot. How's the crow?

-Carl



  #66   Report Post  
Gary
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Carl Byrns wrote:

None of the open carry states has anything resembling a major metro-


Really Carl? So only the five largest cities resemble "a major
metro"?

Phx AZ is the sixth largest city in the nation. It is only one of
seven large cities in the "major metro", with about a dozen smaller
cities... The "major metro" Phx area is larger than several
states... That's just your error concerning Arizona... Look closer
at the other "open carry states"...
  #67   Report Post  
DoN. Nichols
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

[ ... ]

And don't discount the strength of the pro-gun cultural battle. The
strongest case for it, IMO, is an article written by a Washington lawyer
named Jeffrey Snyder. The article is titled "A Nation of Cowards." It's all
over the web and it's very worth reading, IMO.

Then read an intelligent response to it by George Will, titled "A Nation of
Cowards?" It, too, is on the web. I'd give you the URLs but I think Gunner
has them set up as keyboard macros, and he'll beat me to it. g


Please *do* post the URLs. Gunner would post the whole web
page from each side, not just the URLs. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  #68   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:39:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one,

while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.

Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie

if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.


Buddabing! (rimshot)


I think you've just put your finger on it, Gunner. So, if you can get away
with a plausible denial about the meaning of something that can be parsed
into a valid syllogism but which is presented to give a false impression,
you'll accept it as "truth," eh?

If you like that, you'll *love* reading Goebbels. You're just the kind of
student he would have appreciated. g


Geeze Ed , I dont even have to leave the US to read that sort of
thing. I simply have to read "Earth In the Balance", any Clinton
Speech (either him or her), Any commentary from the DNC, all works
from the environmentalists, anything from Handgun Control Inc, Sarah
Brady's stuff etc etc ad neaseum ad infinitum.

Shrug..It wasnt Goebbels whom perfected this..but the 1990s Liberals
in the US.

One of the big differences though..my Ford sig was true. While the
others above use Big Lie theory in much of their work.

Its only propaganda when a Conservative uses the same tactics the Left
brags about.

Gunner

"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas
because those people were religious nuts with guns.
Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\
Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked
because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue,
why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
-- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993
  #69   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:48:42 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:48:14 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

Carl Byrns wrote:

Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing
with anything he can't refute.


-Carl


That's fine, Carl. I'll be glad to refute you and Ed both.

No, you won't. All I said is Gunner won't reply to anything HE can't
refute. So far, I'm three for three.

By my count that is 25 states (those marked **) that allow open
carrying without any sort of permit to buy/carry etc etc etc as per
Gunner's quote.

Let's all look at the murder numbers now, shall we? What is that,
3,755 total murders in all those 25 open carry states? That's in
2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US
that year had 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that
restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand
total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry
states etc etc etc.


You're skewing your data to fit your argument: you don't provide a
body count for 26 states (OK, 25 and D.C.) that limit handgun
ownership.
None of the open carry states has anything resembling a major metro-
you just don't see that many turf wars in Maine.
I live near a city that has a lively gang scene that generates a lot
of drive-by and walk-up deaths. That kind of criminal activity spikes
the state murder rate but if you go 20 miles in any direction away
from downtown, and the murder rate drops off to less than one a year
(usually a crime of passion).
In short, your data isn't worth smoke off ****, because criminal
activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very
localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high
crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not.

BTW- I'm all for responsible firearm ownership. It's just that I don't
see that many responsible gun owners.

How's that foot tasting there, dude?


Sorry, I don't eat foot. How's the crow?

-Carl



I see much ado, about per hundred thousand deaths, etc etc..but the
statement was largely true on the face of it. Shrug..cherry picking
is not something unique to the Right...lol..far from it.

If 50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50%
armed states do..thats pretty darned good, dont you think?

At the least, it gives the lie to the legend that a legally armed and
carrying citizenry will produce a blood bath.

Gunner

"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas
because those people were religious nuts with guns.
Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\
Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked
because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue,
why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
-- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993
  #71   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Carl Byrns wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:48:14 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:


Carl Byrns wrote:

Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing
with anything he can't refute.


-Carl


That's fine, Carl. I'll be glad to refute you and Ed both.

No, you won't. All I said is Gunner won't reply to anything HE can't
refute. So far, I'm three for three.


Oh, now that's original. Talk about intelligent comebacks there. You
and Ed don't really surprise me.

Fact is, Gunner's quote was proven true as it is written and you and
Ed both said it wasn't.

Be a real man and simply admit that you were wrong and stop the Peewee
Herman arguments, bro.

By my count that is 25 states (those marked **) that allow open
carrying without any sort of permit to buy/carry etc etc etc as per
Gunner's quote.

Let's all look at the murder numbers now, shall we? What is that,
3,755 total murders in all those 25 open carry states? That's in
2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US
that year had 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that
restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand
total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry
states etc etc etc.


You're skewing your data to fit your argument: you don't provide a
body count for 26 states (OK, 25 and D.C.) that limit handgun
ownership.


I'm not skewing anything to prove anything. I have no stake in the
argument so I don't have to do anything beyond look at it at face
value.

The quote was "able to purchase, strap on a gun, walk down a street
with it with no permit of any kind required"....and I provided nothing
but the laws pertaining to "purchasing/open carrying" the firearm in
question.

I don't need to provide the numbers of murders in the other states
because providing one or the other allows *you* to simply subtract.

The numbers quoted were from
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ and
yes, they are accurate because they are identical to at least two
others....I chose that site because they are simply formatted in an
easy to use manner.

None of the open carry states has anything resembling a major metro-
you just don't see that many turf wars in Maine.


So? Was that quoted in the original quote?

I live near a city that has a lively gang scene that generates a lot
of drive-by and walk-up deaths. That kind of criminal activity spikes
the state murder rate but if you go 20 miles in any direction away
from downtown, and the murder rate drops off to less than one a year
(usually a crime of passion).
In short, your data isn't worth smoke off ****, because criminal
activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very
localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high
crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not.


My data proves Gunner's quote and proves that you and Ed were/are
simply wasting my bandwidth with bull****.

BTW- I'm all for responsible firearm ownership. It's just that I don't
see that many responsible gun owners.


Really? I see millions of them a year. They're the ones who own the
firearms that don't end up in statistics and bull**** arguments with
idiots.

How's that foot tasting there, dude?


Sorry, I don't eat foot. How's the crow?


You tell me.

ral

-Carl




  #73   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Old Nick wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:48:14 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote something
......and in reply I say!:



errr. I think Ed talked of looking at _populations_ and murders. It's
people that do the murders, not states...more people more murders.


No, Ed, Carl, and Jim accused Gunner of using a lying quote and tried
to prove it by re-interpreting it however they wished. The quote was,
in fact, true and it was Ed, Carl, and Jim who were "lying or fools
and probably a bit of both".

ral

It is interesting though that the murder rate appears not to be higher
per capita in the freer states.


By my count that is 25 states (those marked **) that allow open
carrying without any sort of permit to buy/carry etc etc etc as per
Gunner's quote.

Let's all look at the murder numbers now, shall we? What is that,
3,755 total murders in all those 25 open carry states? That's in
2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US
that year had 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that
restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand
total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry
states etc etc etc.

How's that foot tasting there, dude?

Ed?

ral


************************************************* *** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.



  #74   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article , DoN. Nichols says...

... The article is titled "A Nation of Cowards."


...George Will, titled "A Nation of
Cowards?"


Please *do* post the URLs. Gunner would post the whole web
page from each side, not just the URLs. :-)


I found the first easily, but the second is a bit obscure.

I would appreciate the links, also.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

  #75   Report Post  
yourname
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in
Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy
exactly why?

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:23:56 -0800, "Gary Bosin"
wrote:



" its pretty clear to me.


Gunner
"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?" --


Andrew Ford


Maybe only 1/5 of the population live in the 25 states not requiring
permits?



Which invalidated the quote how?
G






  #76   Report Post  
yourname
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:40:12 GMT, yourname wrote:



Sorry my numbers are a few years old. I need a new Almanac
People who fear reasonable gun control are mis informed.



Define Reasonable gun control.


More or less what we have here. I think you have a point on must versus
may. In Mass the local cheif is the authority, some won't give out a
carry permit. I think that is wrong.



I will be the first in line to stop anyone from taking YOUR right to
carry away.
I just want to know who you are



Its really none of your business.


I disagree. Without the rules we have here, we would not know if you
are a felon or not, are taking anti psychotics etc. With no permit
requirements, we just don't know.
If a cop pulls over a guywith a car full of guns, how is he supposed to
know he's a felon or not. Gun permit would come in pretty handy about then.
I live in a safer state than most non permitting states,. and if you
lived here, you would be safer, and could have all the guns you want. I
think that is a pretty good deal.

When I sit in my best friends living room drinking a beer, my feet rest
on a metal locker full of guns and ammo, locked and way too heavy to
drag anywhere. I think he keeps too much ammo for safety, but that is
just my opinion. Just the fire issue, not the having of it.

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


Gunner

"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas
because those people were religious nuts with guns.
Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\
Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked
because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue,
why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
-- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993



  #77   Report Post  
John R. Carroll
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:44:23 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

FWIW,
The CDC, in what was called an "unusual moment of candor" recently

reported
that gun legislation does not have a statistically significant

influence
on
gun crime in the US. If I can find the article I will post a link to

it.

Well, that would be refreshing to see, John. If you happen upon it, I

would
like to see it. But don't go out of your way for it.


Good lord Ed..I thought everyone had seen that one...

http://www.rense.com/general42/laws.htm

US Report Fails To Link
Gun Laws To Violent Crime
By Paul Simao
10-3-3




Gunner,
Looks familiar but I am not certain this is the exact article. The story,
however, is identical and that was the issue.
The thing that originally caught my attention was the "unusual moment of
candor comment" in what I read. Why should it be "unusual" for the CDC to be
candid with the public? WTF is THAT all about!



"People who want to share their religious or
political views with you almost never want you to
share yours with them." - unknown

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
Portland
www.machiningsolution.com


  #79   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:31:29 GMT, yourname wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:40:12 GMT, yourname wrote:



Sorry my numbers are a few years old. I need a new Almanac
People who fear reasonable gun control are mis informed.



Define Reasonable gun control.


More or less what we have here. I think you have a point on must versus
may. In Mass the local cheif is the authority, some won't give out a
carry permit. I think that is wrong.



I will be the first in line to stop anyone from taking YOUR right to
carry away.
I just want to know who you are



Its really none of your business.


I disagree. Without the rules we have here, we would not know if you
are a felon or not, are taking anti psychotics etc. With no permit
requirements, we just don't know.


Sure you would know. If you attempted to purchase a firearm via any
legal source, you would not pass the InstaCheck or any other of the
mandated checks, so would not be able to purchase one legaly. As to
the other sources..you will never be able to stop that. See the War on
Drugs.

If a cop pulls over a guywith a car full of guns, how is he supposed to
know he's a felon or not.

All felons are in the NCIC data base. Simply running the guys DL# will
show if he is a felon or not. If he is a felon any posession of a
firearm is unlawrful.

Gun permit would come in pretty handy about then.


Which gun permit are you refering to? CCW or permit to own? In most
states, you dont need a permit to own or even perchase. You walk into
a gun store, pay the money, they run your id through a computer, in 5
min or less the FBI gives a go or no go. You pay your money, and leave
with it. Other states have up to a 10 day waiting period before you
take it home. Few states have a permit to purchase.

I live in a safer state than most non permitting states,. and if you
lived here, you would be safer, and could have all the guns you want. I
think that is a pretty good deal.


And there are others whom live in much safer states, with open carry,
shall issue ccw, no permits etc. Looks like its largely dependant on
the make up of the population, no?

When I sit in my best friends living room drinking a beer, my feet rest
on a metal locker full of guns and ammo, locked and way too heavy to
drag anywhere. I think he keeps too much ammo for safety, but that is
just my opinion. Just the fire issue, not the having of it.

Ammo is pretty safe in a fire
..
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.

Gunner


"No man shall be debarred the use of arms.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.
They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes,
produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by
thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
- Thomas Jefferson
  #80   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Exactly. Not at all what "Andrew Ford," whoever he may be, stated and
implied, which is that open-carry laws are somehow connected to much lower
rates of murder.


How about the concealed carry laws that have been passed & the murder rares
went down in those states )? Florida is one. Of course both sides will put
their spin on it but it's a "fact".
Greg Sefton
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? Simon Hawthorne UK diy 88 January 28th 04 11:50 PM
Deep drawing of aluminum bottle john Metalworking 2 November 8th 03 06:57 AM
Deep hole drill profile question Koz Metalworking 3 October 22nd 03 08:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"