On 1 Dec 2003 17:12:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Id have to say..that the Libs are largely responsible for much of the
crime rate.

Of *course* you would. That's your *job*.

And of course..care to do a survy of which political party
the violent criminals in prison belong to?

Where did they bury the survivors then? Convicted
felons cannot vote. So their political preferences
don't seem that important.

Jim

Are you not aware of the efforts of the Democratic party restoring
voting rights to felons upon completion of sentences?

Or the attempts of the Democrats prior to the 2000 election to
register as many prisoners as possible?

I notice a deafening and sudden quiet when I ask a Dem about restoring
a felons right to own a gun upon completion of sentence however...

odd huh?

Btw..the right of a felon to vote, varies from state to state.

Gunner


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

"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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:02:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


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

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

Now the crux of the matter is:

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

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


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

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

-Carl

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:37:04 -0800, "\"PrecisionMachinisT\""
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:28:25 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


JTMcC, who feels much safer when there are multiple firearms in the room,
manned by law abiding good guys that know how to shoot.


Hear Hear!!

Gunner


Long as that room aint your local doughnut shop, and I aint armed g

Otherwise, Im gonna go have lunch someplace else.

Actually CCW holders have a lower crime rate than police officers and
police shoot the wrong person 300% more than do CCW holders.

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

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...


Well, Ed, I've read a lot of your posts and the conclusion I came to
was that you were in favor of ever more restrictive gun laws. If not,
great. I can't help but notice that you are always on the "anti"
side. If you have been sneaking pro-gun arguments into usenet, I
haven't seen them.

Whether you see me as advocating something about guns or not, Robert,
depends on whether you see the world through an ideological filter that
screens out half of the things that make up the whole picture.

I don't sneak gun arguments of either kind into usenet. Guns aren't
something that I would bother to debate about. This discussion could as well
be about safety belts on cars, as far as I'm concerned.

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

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:21:20 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

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.

Nope. I never mentioned the veracity of the quote.
Check the time stamps or get a real newsreader.

My post was:

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

-Carl"

-Carl

I thought DFW was a major one and Houston and the Austin-San Antonio
metro area.

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Gunner wrote:

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

arsenal 1. A governmental establishment for the storing,
manufacturing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war
materiel. 2. A source of supply for arms and other munitions. 3. A
stock of weapons.

armory 1. A storehouse for arms; an arsenal. 2. A building for
storing arms and military equipment, especially one serving as
headquarters for military reserve personnel. 3. An arms factory.

- American Heritage Dictionary, New College Edition, 1976

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:05:40 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:02:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


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

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

Now the crux of the matter is:

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

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


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

Id didnt ask you for interpretations, I asked a simple question. Is
the statement true or not?


-Carl

"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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:08:16 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

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

arsenal 1. A governmental establishment for the storing,
manufacturing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war
materiel. 2. A source of supply for arms and other munitions. 3. A
stock of weapons.

armory 1. A storehouse for arms; an arsenal. 2. A building for
storing arms and military equipment, especially one serving as
headquarters for military reserve personnel. 3. An arms factory.

- American Heritage Dictionary, New College Edition, 1976

Main Entry: ar·mory
Pronunciation: 'ärm-rE, 'är-m&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ar·mor·ies
Date: 14th century
1 a : a supply of arms for defense or attack b : a collection of
available resources
2 : a place where arms and military equipment are stored; especially :
one used for training reserve military personnel
3 : a place where arms are manufactured

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Common usage today and historically has been as I claimed. You do not
find arms being manufactured in a National Guard Armory.

Springfield rifles were manufactured in Springfield Arsenal.

I agree that the term is used by the ill informed, but they are the
same people calling a detachable magazine for a weapon, a "clip"

Search the dictionaries for Clip..and you will likely find it to
indicate a magazine, where in fact it is a device to load a magazine.

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

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.

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

In article , Robert Sturgeon says...

Well, Ed, I've read a lot of your posts and the conclusion I came to
was that you were in favor of ever more restrictive gun laws. If not,
great. I can't help but notice that you are always on the "anti"
side. If you have been sneaking pro-gun arguments into usenet, I
haven't seen them.

The point is, if Ed cannot be convinced by phony trumped-up
statistics and flawed logic, and he's on *your* side, then
what good is this stuff going to do when applied where it
really matters?

Jim

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

In article , Gunner says...

Are you not aware of the efforts of the Democratic party restoring
voting rights to felons upon completion of sentences?

*Efforts*.

Btw..the right of a felon to vote, varies from state to state.

Hmm. Now that would make sense - not really a federal
matter.

Jim

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

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?


"Would it make ya feel any better, little goil, if they was pushed outa
windas"", Archie Bunker. )
Greg Sefton

I don't sneak gun arguments of either kind into usenet. Guns aren't
something that I would bother to debate about.

I can't imagine anything you wouldn't bother to debate about, Ed ).
Greg Sefton

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.

Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.

Bert

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"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.

You ought to take your own advice first, Richard, or learn to use your
browser a little better. You did make a tedious mess of it with your
arbitrary selections of which states you'd count and not, but they can be
untangled.

First, a reminder of what we're talking about:

"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

The list of states you included as "open carry," seems to be one somebody
cooked up to make a point. The list I used was one posted on the Packing.org
site, which was footnoted, and I threw out the questionable ones with a lot
of exceptions indicated in the footnotes, to give the benefit of the doubt.
Then I checked them against "Survey of State Procedures Related to Firearm
Sales, Midyear 2001" (since I was using 2001 FBI figures), published by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, to see what the purchase restrictions were. I
wound up with 27 states that sounded reasonable. Finally, I checked the
open-carry policy of footnoted states against Packing.org's report to see if
the list accurately reflected the states they consider "open carry." They
did. THEN I looked up the FBI numbers of murders per state and attached
them -- after I had selected the states. I sent the list to Larry Jaques who
can confirm that it's just the list of states without the ones that had all
the footnote qualifiers. (You can see the footnotes at the bottom, Larry,
but I stripped those questionable ones out before adding up the numbers, and
that's the list I sent to you.) Since I worked from a list of open-carry
states, and NOT from a list of restricted states, the District of Columbia
was included in my "not-open-carry" list by default.

It looks like you did just the opposite -- stretched your criteria when it
worked to the numerical advantage of your assertion. For example, you
included Utah as an "open-carry" state, noting that you did so even though
it has "some strict restrictions." *I'LL* say they're strict. For example,
the gun can't be loaded...

========================

Utah penal code 76-10-505: Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded
firearm:
(a) in or on a vehicle;
(b) on any public street; or
(c) in a posted prohibited area.

========================

The "otherwise authorized" means one who possesses a CCW, or an officer of
the law.

It's funny you would include that one, which so obviously fails Ford's
criteria, until you note that Utah had only 43 murders in the year you
counted. Hmm. 'Sure helps the overall numbers, eh? And that number really is
low. Maybe it was because it's hard to murder someone with an unloaded
gun...unless you club him to death with it.

Of course, Ford's statement is nonsense from the get-go, because there is
nowhere in the US where "anyone can buy a gun, strap it on," etc., because
of the required federal background check and excluded categories of
purchasers. And many states, including some of the "open-carry" states, have
added further restrictions to who can buy a handgun.

But you've made more arbitrary distinctions here, and they're no more
consistent than the case of Utah. You throw out Missouri as an "open-carry"
state because of "permit to purchase etc. etc. etc.," but the "permit" is
only a piece of paper that carries the same data, and that requires only the
same check, as those of the dealer-check states. There's no safety training,
no fingerprints; it's just a piece of paper one gets because Mo. has
decided, like some other states, to do the background check at a police
station and to issue a "permit" that the buyer hands in at the gun store to
show he's gone through the federally mandated check.

If that's supposed to be some kind of unacceptable restriction, then what is
it? Or is there something in the "etc.'s"? Missouri has a new preemption
that cleans up most of the "etc's" except for local laws on open carry; but
then, so does Virginia, which you put in the "open-carry" column. Virginia
has grandfathered-in, no-open-carry municipalities, those which passed laws
prior to 1987, which make it about as "unpure" as Missouri is (not to
mention that Virginia has a one-handgun-purchase/month restriction, which
Missouri doesn't have). Why is one in each column, then?

Remember that ALL states are more restricted than "Ford" said.
Distinguishing the open-carry restrictions of Missouri as substantially
different from those of Virginia, or disqualifying Missouri's paperwork
that's used for certifying the passing of a background check because it's a
"permit" system, as if it was like the one NJ has (that's a REAL permit
system), is ludicrous. Until, of course, you note that Missouri had 372
murders. Then perhaps we get a better idea of why you made the arbitrary
distinction. Virginia has a very high number, too. Maybe you didn't want to
make it obvious by throwing both of them over to the other side.

And while we're on that, you said "Wisconsin has no open carry restrictions
that I could find," (though you didn't have trouble finding that relatively
low murder figure of 169) but you said nothing about the 48-hour waiting
period to purchase a handgun. So, carrying a piece of paper from police
station to dealer, as in Missouri or North Carolina, disqualifies those
states as purified "open carry" states, but a 48-hour waiting period is Ok?
That's not a purchase restriction in your mind? If you're going to get fussy
about states that do a background check at a sheriff's office or police
station and then issue a piece of paper on the spot, versus those that do
their background checks electronically at the dealer but that then make you
wait two days to buy a gun, then what is the meaning of making the "permit"
distinction in the first place? If you'd left it at NJ and NY, you'd have a
case. As you've done it, not...except that it gets more of those nasty
murders out of the "open-carry" column, eh?

There are more examples of silly distinctions you've made, and I wouldn't
bother except that the overall effect was to get a LOT of murders into the
not-open-carry column, and that in some cases that appears to be the only
reason you put them there. Michigan (672 murders in 2001) is interesting:
it's open-carry, but they have this little gun-safety quiz they give you, on
which you have to get 70% right, or you don't get your handgun. Another
nasty permit. If all of those people who are too dumb to know which end of a
gun the bullet comes out of were only allowed to buy handguns and carry them
around on their hips, unfettered by this anti-gunner nonsense, Michigan,
too, would have vastly lower murder rates. It isn't the marginally
intelligent people who passed the test who are going to save Michiganders
from violence; it's all of the truly stupid ones who couldn't buy a gun!
They're our real saviors, and we've hog-tied them from fulfilling their
heroic destiny with a safety quiz that any semi-sentient moron could pass,
but which they couldn't...

The logic of "Andrew Ford's" assertion is an abortion. You're trying to
defend it on hair-splitting grounds, and not very well at that, so I'll say
again, on equally hair-splitting grounds, what I said befo he's either a
liar or a moron. Even with your cherry-picked states as examples, as you
said yourself, you only came up with a 1/4 fraction. I said it was 1/3. Ford
said 1/5. By your measure or mine, even on that literalist basis by which
you've defended him, he's still full of it.

But that's not the real deception in his quote, which first counts his
fractions of the country by counting states, and then counts his fractions
of the murders by counting people, suggesting that his "half" and his "4/5"
are measured on comparable terms.

Who's crazy? Maybe Ford. Maybe the people who believe his point has any
merit. Maybe people who never thought seriously about logic. Maybe the
people who defend his obvious deception by splitting hairs in a grammatical
exegesis, and who think that's an honest way to settle an argument.

The significance of the issue really is a sorry one to begin with. To
suggest there's any relationship between a state's open-carry laws and crime
rates is an incredible stretch, first, because so few people strap guns on
and walk around "the streets," anyway. A note on the Packing.org site from a
guy in Kansas, says it all: involved enough with guns to have written to his
local sheriff for an explanation of open-carry, and to have posted the
Sheriff's reply on the Packing.org site, he notes at the bottom that, in his
20+ years he's lived in the state, he's never seen anyone open-carry a
handgun.

So much for "crazy."

Ed Huntress

I can understand why you might feel that way, given Massachusetts'
combination of high population density, very restrictive gun control
and relatively low murder rates. Consideration of other geographic
areas with higher population densities, more restrictive gun control
and higher murder rates would seem to conflict with your feelings,
though.

Given that VT, NH, and MA murder rates are very similar, with
radically different gun control legislation, perhaps the answer is to
let VT, NH, and MA make their own rules, rather than impose one
State's will upon the other 49. I'm not sure about that, I'm just
engaging in a little brainstorming.

R,
Tom Q.



I would tend to agree, but I think I would like a little bit of a floor
if you will. I tend to drift to the states rights side at this point,
not seriously, but in the 'tie goes to the runner' way. Many of the guns
involved in crime come from looser states in the south. I dunno, If you
buy more than x guns a year then you are really a dealer and maybe
someone ought to be paying attention. Without some form of permitting
etc, I don't see how that is possible. When I say x I am not thinking 5,
but maybe 20, but then a collector might on occasion buy 100 guns in a
year, but if he does, maybe he deserves a little scrutiny, especially if
he is collecting 25 caliber pistols....
..I tend to think guns involved in crime are not coming from our
immediate neighbors, because while their laws may be loose, I think
their enforcement is stricter. IE no one I know is going to NH to buy guns.

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...

Who holds the rights to a magazine article? I'd assume that the
magazine controls the copyright.

Very complicated, unfortunately. If you're employed by the magazine to
write, and if you have no other deal written into your contract, the
magazine owns all rights. (I suspect that George Will had some kind of
contractual deal that shared copyright, but I don't know.)

If you aren't an employee of the magazine, or if you are but you aren't one
who is *employed* to write, and if nothing else is said between you and the
publisher or his designated agent (the Editor, usually), then, when you
submit an article, you're offering First Time North American Serial Rights.
That means the magazine gets to publish it once (and you can't sell it to
someone else who's going to publish it before the first magazine publishes
it), and then the rights revert to you. The magazine usually will grab more
rights for themselves by making your cashing their check contingent upon
granting them the rest of the rights. g Or, they used to. I haven't
followed the courts on this. I haven't freelanced for most of the last
decade.

BTW, if the rights should revert to you, that doesn't mean you can reprint
the magazine article as a facsimile (a photocopy or offset copies). The
magazine retains the rights to the format and the size, placement, and
modification of any illustrations, so they effectively own their own pages.
But they can't reprint them, either, if they don't have the rights to your
copy.

Aren't you glad you asked? g

Is it subject to negotiation (I'm thinking the author may want to
have an anthology published down the road)?

Yup. You can negotiate anything. Watch out for electronic rights because
cases are still being fought in the courts over it. For now, electronic
rights appear to revert to the author, by case law, unless otherwise stated
in the contract.

Are magazine or newspaper
article copyrights the same as those for books?

They're different in default, because the book publisher has the right to
reprint. But book contracts, unlike magazine contracts, are almost always
explicit in the contract itself. And, once again, that's negotiable.

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

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
I don't sneak gun arguments of either kind into usenet. Guns aren't
something that I would bother to debate about.

I can't imagine anything you wouldn't bother to debate about, Ed ).
Greg Sefton

You may notice I don't argue religious beliefs (although I sometimes debate
religious history, because it's history), that I don't advocate political
candidates or parties (I'm a Republican, but I don't always vote that way
and I don't care much which way anyone else votes, anyway), and that I'll
usually stay out of a reasonable and balanced discussion on controversial
subjects. The thing that draws me like a moth to a flame is propaganda or
unanswered, misrepresented "facts" in a controversial discussion. When I see
them, I light up like a fuse. g

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"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.

You ought to take your own advice first, Richard, or learn to use your
browser a little better. You did make a tedious mess of it with your
arbitrary selections of which states you'd count and not, but they can be
untangled.

Snipped a bunch of useless excuses and bull**** explaining.....

The quote says "buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind". It does NOT say "only wear a gun openly with
no permit needed", idiot. It also does NOT say "buy a gun; strap it
on; and walk down the street with no permit" etc.

Your pussified re-interpreting of the quote to fit your own bull****
argument is worse than what you accused Gunner of. His, at least, was
a simple quote that left it up to you to interpret....yours is nothing
but the bull**** re-interpretation of it by a whining baby.

If you care to check the NRA-ILA site, they list the laws that apply
by state and you can simply open your ****ing eyes and READ which
states require a permit to buy/carry etc. I listed only the ones that
require a permit of any kind to buy or a permit to open carry a
handgun both as the quote said....and I'll invite you to find one on
the list that was wrong.

Come on, idiot. You say I selectively edited and applied my own
choices....prove it. Show ONE that is wrong.

Come on, idiot. You can do it, can't you?

Pathetic idiot.

And here I thought I was in for a good 2nd Amend conversation devoid
of any bull****. You idiots disappoint me sorely.

ral

Bert wrote:

more useless bull****....

Sure thing Mabu.

What was that definition of "pistol" you used to quote in here?

ral

Bert wrote:

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Because a murder is a murder whether it's done with a firearm or
not....eliminating firearms will never eliminate murders. The same
demographics will apply and those "3.2 per hundredK murders with
firearms" will simply translate into "6.4 murders per hundredK without
firearms".

The key point being that eliminating firearms can never and will never
eliminate "crime". Criminals will simply switch to the next best
weapon. Machetes seem to be quite popular in the rest of the
world....they might catch on in the US some day.

ral

Bert wrote:

Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.

It's only inconsistent if you're one of the idiots that think
eliminating all firearms will eliminate all crime. The rest of us
know better.

ral

Bert

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:24:20 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.

Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.

Bert

I already did. And frankly Berty...if I was you..Id not kvetch too
much about inconsistancy...your posts are all on google and someone
might bring to light some of your highlights.

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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:24:20 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.

Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.

Bert

Bert-

3 x 1.1 = ~3.2 looks like a consistent statement to me at 2 digit precision.

Bob S

Hummm...then you are claiming that the per 100,000 figure means
nothing? The folks in North Dakota manage to find each other well
enough to ****, else the population would be plummeting. Please
advise what population density has to do with the murder rate? Japan
has a far higher population density, than does Mass.
One also should mention that its a given that the inhabitants of North
Dakota have far more firearms than those living in Mass. So it it was
the guns, of course, they would all be dead.


I don't know why, but most people with a few neurons to rub together
realize that higher density usually means higher crime. SInce you ask, I
looked it up; WARNING dangerously extrapolated data to follow. In 1999
Mass had~6 mil people. it had~122 murders. ~43 of those occured in
cities with a total of ~1 million people, Thus making the murder rate
in any place that isn't a city something like 1.6, or about the same as
N Dakota in the same year.




Either gun laws matter or they don't. If they do, then I haven't seen
any evidence that there is higher crime in gun law states, quite the
opposite. Perhaps there is less need for permitting with instant
background checks, but I'll bet you weren't crazy about those either.




Of course I wasnt happy with those. What part of "Shall not be
infringed" do you not understand?



The part that does not include "a well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free state"
Read the constitution and you will see no mention of private militias,
only gov't ones. No mention of defense against crime. either. If the
White house wants to go to the supreme ct with their bs, let 'em,
probably get laughed out. strict constructionists have their bad points too




So the Second amendment only applies to the National Guard?

Read the document you love so much. Section 8 of article 1, Stating
with "to provide for calling forth...." everything else is bull****.
Everywhere the word militia is used in the constitution it is a gov't
run body, not a bunch of malcontents shooting at trees. Try actually
reading things not written by members of the militia movement.

Lets toss this into the mix

Most dangerous states by ranking
http://www.morganquitno.com/dang9403.htm

Most dangerous cities by population

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit01pop.htm



"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

On 2 Dec 2003 04:50:17 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Are you not aware of the efforts of the Democratic party restoring
voting rights to felons upon completion of sentences?

*Efforts*.

Correct, why would they attempt to restore the voting rights of people
whom would vote Republican, if the felons tended to vote that way?
We both know its not altruism ....snicker

Btw..the right of a felon to vote, varies from state to state.

Hmm. Now that would make sense - not really a federal
matter.

Jim

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

"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

Ed Huntress wrote:

The significance of the issue really is a sorry one to begin with. To
suggest there's any relationship between a state's open-carry laws and crime
rates is an incredible stretch, first, because so few people strap guns on
and walk around "the streets," anyway. A note on the Packing.org site from a
guy in Kansas, says it all: involved enough with guns to have written to his
local sheriff for an explanation of open-carry, and to have posted the
Sheriff's reply on the Packing.org site, he notes at the bottom that, in his
20+ years he's lived in the state, he's never seen anyone open-carry a
handgun.

I am NOT going to get involved in this debate! However...

I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they
should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be
allowed to conceal them. If we can all tell that someone is armed, just
by looking at him/her, then each of us can make better, more fully
informed decisions about our own behavior. (If Jehova's Witnesses knock
on my door at 7:30 in the morning, and they're all wearing gunbelts and
357's, then I'm a lot more likely just to pretend I'm not home than to
open the door and chase them away. If the weapons are concealed,
however, and if I open the door and let the dog out, and THEN learn that
the JW's are packing, things could get ugly.)

It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more of a problem, and
should be more of a concern than, say, a rifle or shotgun clearly
visible in the back window of a pickup truck. I never think twice about
that, when I happen to see it. The gun-owner is probably a farmer, or a
rancher, or someone else who benefits from being able to prang a
groundhog or a coyote when the need arises. Same with the handguns worn
by cops. I know they're there. I know there's a reason for them that
has nothing to do with threatening me. And I don't mind a bit.

Someone who wants to protect himself could probably, in most cases
be better protected by announcing himself as armed, rather than by
concealing his gun and looking like unarmed prey to a prospective
criminal. Surprising the criminal might be fun or satisfying for
someone who doesn't get killed while trying it; but it can't possibly be
the best way to be safe.

When someone conceals a weapon, then it makes perfect sense for
others to question the reason for the concealment, and the real purpose
for which the weapon is intended. If I have to make the choice, I'd
rather see "Open Carry Mandatory" laws, with VERY stiff penalties for
concealment, than wasted attempts to outlaw guns that we don't even
know are there.

And, if guns were as visible as, say, cigarrettes, then I suspect
we'd do a much better job of policing ourselves through the time honored
practice of "social pressure". My sister-in-law's house is an absolute
no smoking zone. It's her house, and she has a right to make the rules,
and everybody in the family knows it. And, SHE'LL know immediately if I
decide to unwrap a cheap cigar and light up in her living room. If I
did the same kind of thing, and decided that my home was a gun-free
place, then anyone who wanted to visit, or some young man who came to
pick up my stepdaughter for a date, or the delivery people bringing my
new sofa, would have to make the same kinds of choices that smokers do,
since their weapons would be as easy to detect as a plume of smoke.
Better yet, I could do this WITHOUT having to limit the rights of any
person to be as armed as he/she cares to be. I'd only be exercising my
own right to detrimine what goes on in my own house.

The results of peer pressure and widespread social disapproval of
smoking have been pretty astonishing, and have developed pretty quickly,
as large scale social trends go. I wonder if the public wearing of
visible guns, even if completely legal, couldn't be moderated in the
same way, and for very similar reasons.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...

I am NOT going to get involved in this debate! However...

I think you just did.


I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they
should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be
allowed to conceal them.

I hear the cavalry coming over the hill as we speak...

If we can all tell that someone is armed, just
by looking at him/her, then each of us can make better, more fully
informed decisions about our own behavior.

I'm going to go see if the path back to the fort is clear. You hold them
off.

Ed Huntress

Kirk Gordon wrote:

I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they
should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be
allowed to conceal them.

I have, too. We can agree on something.

Discussion over.

ral

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Gunner" wrote

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

But an "arsenal" can be more than that...

1. A place for making or storing weapons and other munitions
2. a store or collection

Connotatively, an arsenal is often envisioned as a large store of
weapons, but that is not its formal meaning.

Dan

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bert wrote:

more useless bull****....

Sure thing Mabu.

What was that definition of "pistol" you used to quote in here?

Gunner truly believes words mean what, and only what, he personally thinks
they should mean. Makes it hard to communicate with him.

Dan

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Gunner" wrote

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.

See, Gunner defines "cherrypicking" as "pointing out the misuse of
statistics
for political purposes."

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

But, were that the point, the statistics could have been presented
in such a fashion as to support that point, and that point could have been
mentioned in the process. No such actions were taken...

As it was presented, it was meaningless tripe masquerading as
information. Many posts of useful information later, Gunner
claims it said what he meant all along...

Amazing!

Dan

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


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

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

As true, and as meaningful, as "Bush won almost 60% of the states in 2000"
being used
to support the claim that Bush won in a landslide (DC is considered a
"state" for
electoral college purposes, Bush won 30 states, Gore 21).

Or as interesting as the red/blue maps so popular among Bush-backers after
the election.

Granularity and uniformity mean far more than raw numbers to people who
want to know about a subject, less for people who are arguing from a weak
position.

Dan

. The thing that draws me like a moth to a flame is propaganda or
unanswered, misrepresented "facts" in a controversial discussion. When I see
them, I light up like a fuse. g

Ed Huntress

Well it's something everyone does. That is present the facts that support or
embellish their position. Just as the facts that Gunner posted to start this
thread were actual facts (depending on the years etc). The "fact" that they
didn't necessarily represent the total picture is obvious. Journalists do it,
lawyers get paid to do it, politicians do it, and everyone, who ever discusses
just about anything, does it. To call these selective facts "lies" is an even
worse distortion of the truth than the original selective "reporting" of facts.
Greg Sefton

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Gunner" wrote

Why would they be higher? An armed society is a polite society.
At least in the US. Historically.

Show us. Actual information, not just your favorite history book.


Dan

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Bert" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Perhaps you could read the text as written and deal with that, instead of
ignoring what was written and arguing about something that was not
even there?

Dan

--

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

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Noah Simoneaux" wrote in message
...
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.

What has census data to do with his statement? He states categorically that
census data will have no effect on his position... You err because you
assume
Gunner is in any way restricted by a need to use reason or logic or
information
in arguing his position. He never has, and he apparently never will.

- "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

The point was, thee was no logical connection between the true part of the
statement and the conclusion drawn, which is standard technique for Gunner
and
Rush Limbaugh, to name but two practitioners or the art.

First, there is the difference between the granularity of the two sets of
numbers - they are not related at all. Second, the statement about states
"allow"ing actions is designed to confer the notion that these states have
no regulations, ignoring Federal regulations which supersede State laws.
In fact, "anyone" cannot ..."buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the
street with no permit of any kind..." any more than clinics in San Francisco
can dispense medical marijuana...

For instance, I could say:

"The sky is blue, therefore grass is unpleasant."

Is it true? Certainly the first part can be shown, and the second part
cannot be proved wrong, it being an opinion, so the statement is
true.

Is it interesting or meaningful? I'll leave that to the reader...

Gunner argues that there need not be a connection between the true
statement and the conclusion drawn from it, nor even that there necessarily
needs to be a true statement. He does this by attempting
(and failing, as always) to ridicule the person who points out the
fallacy.Were he a clever sort, he might think he could hide behind a "I
never
SAID that" because he was "just asking a question," but I do not give
him that much credit; thus my statement.

I think, based on his record of posts, that he
actually believes that there need be no connection between a premise
and a conclusion. That is the way he responds to posts, that is
the way he "argues" his positions, and that is the way he attempts
to insult people (usually by calling them names based on his own
fears and dislikes).

He doesn't read my stuff any more - he has conceded that he is
a jerk - but that doesn't mean I let his lack of knowledge go
unchallenged. If people choose to be taken in by his antics,
so be it. Not all of us are quite so ignorant.

Dan