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

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun


In other words, Gunner, he's backpeddling and spouting bull****
excuses now. His argument went from "your quote's wrong because...."
to "it's wrong because it doesn't include aliens etc...."

I'm stunned that he didn't try to argue your quote wrong on the excuse
that some folks are missing their hands and so can't strap on their
own gun".

Pathetic, isn't it?

ral

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

Gunner wrote:

Give it up, Gunner. The idiot went beyond pathetic now. He's arguing
with himself.

ral

  #243   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee


Damn, "Buster" is gonna be a fine looking mule.

Any of the family work cattle worth a crap?


Thanks, I have one that I'm working now that should be great on cattle. Her
Momma is a grandaughter of Dash For Cash & maternal grampa was Dakota Bar Leo,
World Ch working cowhorse. Outruns the local quarter horses. Fun way to make
a buck at the local shows ), but they're onto me now, drat!
Greg Sefton
  #244   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

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


"Assumed"? By whom? Isn't that what Richard and you were getting on my

case
about in the first place?


No, it wasnt.


Yeah, it was. Richard didn't like my evaluation of "permit."


And as I said, want to see the list?


No, its a given, including Vermont law.


What Vermont law? There is no state law in Vermont prohibiting any adult
from buying a handgun. Not even felons. And there is no state law in Vermont
that defaults to, or that even copies, the federal law. The default
restrictions, for anyone wanting to buy a gun in Vermont, are the federal
restrictions. But that isn't state law. That's federal law that *supercedes*
state law.

That's why I excluded it, because I'm sticking to what your quote said, and
it said state, not federal. Are you now arguing this point?


Not me. I simply used the sig, which is true,....


No it's not. There aren't "25 states that allow anyone to buy a gun." There
is one such state. "Andrew Ford's" statement is a crock of crap from the
very first phrase.

with the exception of
criminals or those judged to be a danger to another or society as
stated by various state and Federal rules


In some states it includes people who were in mental institutions three
years ago; in others, people who renounced their US citizenship; in still
others, former pot smokers, and soldiers who were given a dishonorable
discharge. There's more to it than being a "danger." Some of it is flatly
punitive. You really should take the time to look at the list.


The part the argument want off on..was about the 4/5 murders being
done in the other 25 states, or do you not recall that? Recent head
injury?
G


Yeah, I think there's a head injury here somewhere, but it isn't mine. I
made some judgments about which states "Ford" probably intended, and Richard
produced a list that was somewhat different. His included Virginia, for
example, even though it has grandfathered-in local laws requiring permits or
excluding open carry, or both.

We could have had a reasonable discussion about this but, like many of the
cranks you drag in here with your cross-postings, Richard turned out to be
more interested in personal insults than in discussing a potentially
interesting issue.

So, if you guys want to stick to the letter of "permit," then we'll also
stick to the letter of "anyone." Any chance this discussion could have
illuminated anything interesting or useful evaporated a long time ago.

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


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

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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


Sorry, idiot. I only give idiots so many chances...


Same here, dickhead. You never did come up with the "4/5 of the murders"
that "Ford" claimed in the statement you were defending. The closest you
came was 3/4, so he must have used a different list of states than you
did -- dickhead. So there was your first strike.

Then you included states that have no preemption and lots of local permit
and/or no-carry laws, but you glossed them over because you're sticking to
the letter of *state* laws. In Kansas and Ohio, there are a lot of "streets"
you can't walk down with a gun on your hip. There's strike two.

Show us the 25 states that allow "anyone" to buy a gun, dickhead. Can't do
it? Of course not. Blustering idiots like you just keep changing your story
trying to get off the hook. What part of "anyone" don't you understand? You
can't come up with 2 states, let alone 25. That's strike three. You're out.

You started off defending "Ford" and you couldn't do it, even when you came
up with a different number than he did, and then you defined the terms to
suit yourself, and then you edited his statement because you know it's
something you can't defend. It's time for you to get lost, Richard, and go
home to misc.paranoids. You've proven yourself to be dishonest, a phony, and
a fool.

Ed Huntress




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


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

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

Lott's research amounts to
the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study

of
crime, let alone for the study of gun control.

The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality.
Garbage in=garbage out.

Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent
to the dump where it belongs.

See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others,
which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid.


Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not

you
can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care

deeply
about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is
assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing

bodily
harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course

of
action?


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

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

Your moronic, and unoriginal, retort does not have anything to do with
Lott's invalidated research.


OK, I guess you don't have a lovely wife then.

JTMcC.



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



Carl Nisarel wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote



Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.


Do you make it a habit of creating numbers out of thin air? Since
you're an idiot, it's not surprising.


Carl:

From the FBI crime index:
=================================================
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf

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

I wouldn't let a personal negative bias against a person, or group,
interfere with an impartial evaluation of relevant statistics.


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

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:44:55 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

snip

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


You forgot 2-year-olds, Ed. Cain't sell no guns to them, neither.
Ford was WAY off.


You can get the whole list compiled in one place from the DoJ's "Survey of
State Procedures to Firearm Sales," which is compiled for several recent
years. If you can't find it, I'll send you a PDF file of it.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#ssprfs
Looks like an excellent site for cites. Gotta check it out.


-----------------------------------------------------------
--This post conscientiously crafted from 100% Recycled Pixels--
http://diversify.com Websites: PHP Programming, MySQL databases
================================================== ===============


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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:26:06 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



Carl Nisarel wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote



Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.


Do you make it a habit of creating numbers out of thin air? Since
you're an idiot, it's not surprising.


Carl:

From the FBI crime index:
=============================================== ==
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf

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

I wouldn't let a personal negative bias against a person, or group,
interfere with an impartial evaluation of relevant statistics.


ROFLMAO

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith
  #252   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article , Ed Huntress says...

No it's not. There aren't "25 states that allow anyone to buy a gun." There
is one such state. "Andrew Ford's" statement is a crock of crap from the
very first phrase.


Now c'mon Ed. Gunner gave you that great list of
states that fit - with nearly each one footnoted,
with all the various restrictions that actually
apply. g

Jim

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

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

On 6 Dec 2003 17:31:06 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote ....

Having a car full of guns isn't illegal in most states except under
certain circumstances. Since it's assumed that it's not illegal (if
it were, the issue of the "felon or not" is pointless), why should
your cop even care?


You just demonstrated why most sane people consider gunnuts like you to be idiots.


So..you are once again unable to answer a simple question?

Typical of the emotionally driven useful idiots.

Btw..did you see where your buddy Sarah Brady just got nailed by the
Government for illegal campaign contributions? particularly
interesting since they put out this statement....
http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0712-12.htm
"Brady Campaign Denounces NRA Rhetoric that Campaign Finance Reform
Bill Jeopardizes Free Speech"

but hey..they always did lie...

http://www.tsra.com/brady_report_misleading.htm
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3481
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2885
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2828
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=1707
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2402

More is available..lots more...chuckle..you Lefty nutters keep droning
on and on, spewing your lies hoping desperately that someone,
somewhere will believe you...laugh laugh laugh


Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith
  #255   Report Post  
Sunworshiper
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:47:08 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


Like I said. you are the best argument for gun control......


Fine , I capitulate to your superior conversational abilities.


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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress

says...

No it's not. There aren't "25 states that allow anyone to buy a gun."

There
is one such state. "Andrew Ford's" statement is a crock of crap from the
very first phrase.


Now c'mon Ed. Gunner gave you that great list of
states that fit - with nearly each one footnoted,
with all the various restrictions that actually
apply. g


I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. g

Notice, connoisseurs of ideological bull****, how one is supposed to
"assume" that one word in the original quote was figurative ("anyone"),
while another is supposed to be taken in a particular, literal way
("permit").

Maybe if they passed out rules of gun-nut grammar. No, that won't work.
Tomorrow, in another context, it could all be reversed...

Ed Huntress


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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:44:55 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

snip

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list

of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a gun of

any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of possessing pot

as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.


You forgot 2-year-olds, Ed. Cain't sell no guns to them, neither.
Ford was WAY off.


You can get the whole list compiled in one place from the DoJ's "Survey

of
State Procedures to Firearm Sales," which is compiled for several recent
years. If you can't find it, I'll send you a PDF file of it.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#ssprfs
Looks like an excellent site for cites. Gotta check it out.


Oh, yeah, that's a good one. I hope Gunner finds it. It could entertain him
for days. Maybe weeks!

Ed Huntress


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

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Same here, dickhead. You never did come up with the "4/5 of the murders"
that "Ford" claimed in the statement you were defending.


I cited 2000 numbers if you recall, idiot. You claim to have cites
that disprove them....feel free to do so.

Then you included states that have no preemption and lots of local permit
and/or no-carry laws,


Bull****, idiot. Nothing but state laws as cited on the NRA-ILA site
that you claim to know so well.

Rest of the bull**** deleted unread. Ask anyone, idiot....you get a
max of five lines when you're an idiot.

ral

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 04:58:46 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress

says...

No it's not. There aren't "25 states that allow anyone to buy a gun."

There
is one such state. "Andrew Ford's" statement is a crock of crap from the
very first phrase.


Now c'mon Ed. Gunner gave you that great list of
states that fit - with nearly each one footnoted,
with all the various restrictions that actually
apply. g


I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. g

Notice, connoisseurs of ideological bull****, how one is supposed to
"assume" that one word in the original quote was figurative ("anyone"),
while another is supposed to be taken in a particular, literal way
("permit").

Maybe if they passed out rules of gun-nut grammar. No, that won't work.
Tomorrow, in another context, it could all be reversed...

Ed Huntress

If you count the states with unpermited open carry..I believe you will
get 25 or over. If you will note..the foot notes indicated if they
have ccw, if a ccw permit is required to carry openly (some do) but
the ones which have true open carry, no restrictions, no permits are
there.

I posted them with the footnotes so as not to be accused of
dishonesty.

Gunner


No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith


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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:00:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:44:55 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths:

snip

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list

of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a gun of

any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of possessing pot

as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.


You forgot 2-year-olds, Ed. Cain't sell no guns to them, neither.
Ford was WAY off.


You can get the whole list compiled in one place from the DoJ's "Survey

of
State Procedures to Firearm Sales," which is compiled for several recent
years. If you can't find it, I'll send you a PDF file of it.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#ssprfs
Looks like an excellent site for cites. Gotta check it out.


Oh, yeah, that's a good one. I hope Gunner finds it. It could entertain him
for days. Maybe weeks!

Ed Huntress

Ive used a lot of data from the DOJ. One of the major problems with
them..is the data tends to be 5-9 yrs old and while ok for showing
trends when compared to data from other sources..it aint fresh.

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith
  #262   Report Post  
Gary Coffman
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On 5 Dec 2003 05:03:58 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...
I wasn't stupid enough to accost him about it,


He was stupid enough to wear the damn thing out in
the open, to be seen by all. Does not speak well
of the IQ standards for that force.


Well, he's a detective, so he had it under his jacket. But
his jacket was open. And, he is a detective, so he's a bit
smarter than the average cop. I'd guess an IQ of about
85.

but I've lived here a long
time and know some people. I made a phone call, and the next day I got
a call from the detective telling me that the Browning had mysteriously
turned up.


Heh. It's nice to have friends.


Yes. In this case it was the Sheriff's father.

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


"Dan" wrote in message
...
Bingo! Another bulls-eye!

Huh?
What I do now?

Oh.

Would y'all please try to stop using Bingo. Messes up my searches. g
Use like, Zingo or Dingo or JBo instead.

Thank u

*This has been a Public Service Announcement. Paid for by the Bazil For
President cookie drive, The National Truckers Institute, and private
donations from un-wed mothers.*


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

In article . net, Richard Lewis
says...

.... a max of five lines ...


Words. Five *words*.

Jim

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

  #265   Report Post  
jon banquer
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"By all means, I would be interested in reading some "Pent-head
Propaganda".grin"


Info on pent head design:

http://www.speedoptions.com/articles/2327/

"The modern, now almost universal low pent roof, narrow valve angle style
four valves per cylinder combustion chamber, was designed, or re-invented
etc., by Keith Duckworth of Cosworth engineering in 1966 for the incredibly
successful Cosworth DFV Formula One engine. This engine dominated world
Formula One racing from 1967 to 1983 and produced one hundred and fifty-five
world championship victories. The advantages to this type of combustion
chamber are focusing the compressed charge to the spark plug, raising an
engine's knock threshold and the ability to run higher compression ratios.
Additionally, higher port runner angles and of course more valve curtain and
port area are also major advantages."

http://hometown.aol.com/dvandrews/timing.htm

"Note how little advance a four valve, pent roofed combustion chamber needs,
this is because of the very short and equal length flame paths from the
centrally placed plug promoting a very fast burn. Engines with a faster burn
time have a much higher RPM potential, the faster the burn, the less advance
requirement, and therefore the fewer problems at high RPM. This is why Grand
Prix engines have many small cylinders; these have small combustion chambers
that have very fast burn times, allowing much higher RPM than engines with
fewer large cylinders. "

http://www.shotimes.com/SHO3gas.html

"...Yamaha's 4-valve pent-roof combustion chamber with its centrally located
spark plug is about near-perfect, which means it can extract more power out
of the burn than a poorly designed combustion chamber. Some of the venerable
small and big block high compression V8's of yore had absolutely rotten
combustion chamber designs, making their octane requirements higher than the
more efficient designs of today. Additionally, modern engine management
systems are able to detect trace knock and manage spark timing much more
effectivey than older systems with fixed mechanical and vacuum advance
curves."

http://www.schubeckracing.com/Anewge...aceengine.html

"The chamber of choice of the Japanese "super" bikes (the Kawasaki Ninja,
the Honda Hurricane, the Yamaha FZR, etc.) and Indy and Formula 1 engines,
the pent-roof permits a flat (or even concave) piston, a cylinder head that
is only slightly domed, and a centrally placed spark plug. The effect is
that the fuel and air mix are ignited rapidly because the mix is
concentrated tightly around the plug. That allows higher compression ratios
to be used with less fear of dreaded detonation-the charge quickly burns
before the detonation. There's another benefit of the pent-roof design.
Because the mixture is inflamed quickly, heat loss to cooler parts of the
head is cut down so more energy is available to push the piston down. And
the flatter combustion chamber offers less material (124cc to the Hemi's
167cc of combustion chamber) to further impede heat-energy loss.
Additionally, a pent-roof design allows for generous squish areas-flat
sections of the chamber roof where the near contact of the piston to the
head creates turbulence."

jon




















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

(Richard Lewis) whined

.....

Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.


Do you make it a habit of creating numbers out of thin air? Since
you're an idiot, it's not surprising.


http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

That's nice.

Do you understand the difference between 'robbery' and 'armed
robbery'?

If those don't satisfy you, idiot, try the FBI site that Bob cited
below.


We know you're an idiot. You should look at the FBI site and find out
how robbery is defined.



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


Yes, you are an idiot. You had to move the goalpost and then you had
to make up the stats.


Which stats did I make up


You have yet to present any statistics which show that hundreds of
thousands 'loved ones' are assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent
on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" every year.

You also dishonestly changed 'robbery' to "armed robbery"

Now, most rapes are committed by people known to the victim. Most
assaults are committed by people known to the victim. As I've noted,
and as you dishonestly snip out, the odds are higher that your wife
and children will be assaulted and raped by you than by some unknown
'criminal'.
  #269   Report Post  
Carl Nisarel
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"JTMcC" wrote ....

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

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

Your moronic, and unoriginal, retort does not have anything to do with
Lott's invalidated research.


OK, I guess you don't have a lovely wife then.


When did you stop beating your wife?
  #270   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article , Carl Nisarel
says...

When are you going to admit that John Lott has lied about his research?


Hey, I thought he lied about being Mary Roush.
Oh. That too. Never mind. LOL. Truly
amazing that after a long morning of moving
snow around, small things can make one smile.

Jim

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



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



Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote



Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.

....

Robberies 420,637


Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery?


Carl:

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

The main heading for robberies at the above side doesn't distinguish
between armed and unarmed robberies. But further down it does list the
percentage (42.1%) of robberies where a firearm is used.
Why is this "armed" distinction of robbery important to you?


Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one'
assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing
bodily harm" and those statistics?


I would venture to guess that most of those robbery and assault victims
had someone to care about them and were therefore the "loved one" of
someone else.


If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does
not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel
unsupported by actual data.


You seem pretty free with calling other people idiots on marginal
data. My involvement was initiated by seeing your comments to the
effect that Richard Lewis was making up his data out of thin air, so I
looked to see if that were true. I then posted the data I found.
Whether it completely matches Richard Lewis' data or not is not my
concern. Just as whether it matches your beliefs on what the data
should be, or not, isn't a concern of mine either.


I wouldn't let a personal negative bias against a person, or group,
interfere with an impartial evaluation of relevant statistics.


Dude, those are not the relevant statistics. Richard created the
definition and then moved the goalpost.

Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed
by someone known to the victim?


I saw where you said that before. I have no information on which to
judge whether it's actually a "fact" or not. Do you have a credible
site that DOES have this information?

BTW, thinking about it right now, as soon as an "acquaintance" or
"family member" engages in the act of robbery, rape, or assault of
another... then they BECOME "an unethical criminal, intent on taking
stuff and doing bodily harm", do they not? One minute a friend, next
minute a felon.

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

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Ive used a lot of data from the DOJ. One of the major problems with
them..is the data tends to be 5-9 yrs old and while ok for showing
trends when compared to data from other sources..it aint fresh.

Gunner


Well, the one that Larry found comes from a mid-year 2002 survey. I'm using
the mid-year 2001 survey here because I used 2001 figures.

Ed Huntress


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

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

If you count the states with unpermited open carry..I believe you will
get 25 or over.


Depending on how you define "permit," the number is well over 25...except
that you can't carry openly on many of the "streets" of many of them. See
below.

If you will note..the foot notes indicated if they
have ccw, if a ccw permit is required to carry openly (some do) but
the ones which have true open carry, no restrictions, no permits are
there.


Not correct. Several that allow open carry without CCW also require permits
to purchase.

The DoJ list is just a guideline, a place to start. Then you have to read
the relevant laws for each of the 50 states. I did. In some cases, the DoJ
summaries are misleading.

But there is no way that you can come up with 25 states in which open carry
isn't either restricted by local laws, or in which permits aren't required,
if you use a literal definition of "permits." That's why I allowed some
latitude in trying to come close to "Andrew Ford's" number. Richard did,
too. He had to include states that have varying amounts of local restriction
on open carry, or which have local requirements for permits.

For example, Kansas. Most cities and large towns in Kansas either require a
permit to purchase, or disallow open carry, or both. It makes "Ford's"
number a little silly at best. It would be interesting to know what states
he had in mind...especially the ones that allow "anyone" to buy a gun.


I posted them with the footnotes so as not to be accused of
dishonesty.


I didn't say you were dishonest, Gunner. It's just that the footnotes don't
tell the whole story.

Ed Huntress


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

On 7 Dec 2003 08:58:08 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 6 Dec 2003 17:31:06 -0800,
(Carl
Nisarel) wrote:

(Richard Lewis) wrote ....

Having a car full of guns isn't illegal in most states except under
certain circumstances. Since it's assumed that it's not illegal (if
it were, the issue of the "felon or not" is pointless), why should
your cop even care?

You just demonstrated why most sane people consider gunnuts like
you to be idiots.


So..you are once again unable to answer a simple question?


And, of course, you come along to add another data point to the idiot list.

The 'emotional idiots' are people who think that they need a gun to be safe.

When are you going to admit that John Lott has lied about his research?

Why can't you answer that simple question?


Did he lie IN his research,(which has been backed up by Kleck,
Mustard, and the DOJ) or about his research?

And of course Cites for either one if you dare.

Gunner


No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith
  #276   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:08:06 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:


Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed
by someone known to the victim?


I saw where you said that before. I have no information on which to
judge whether it's actually a "fact" or not. Do you have a credible
site that DOES have this information?

BTW, thinking about it right now, as soon as an "acquaintance" or
"family member" engages in the act of robbery, rape, or assault of
another... then they BECOME "an unethical criminal, intent on taking
stuff and doing bodily harm", do they not? One minute a friend, next
minute a felon.

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


One should further note..that in those cases where the victim was
known to the assailant, simply knowing them, means what? When one
gangbanger from one gang, kills another from a different gang, its
likely they knew each other socially. Carl is well known for being a
slippery weasel, so Id like to see where he is trying to go with this.
If some gal walks out of a bar, and is assaulted and raped by another
patron she may have talked to before..this means what? That they are
good friends or family members?

Hardly, but it does match the "someone known to the victim" and is it
any less a rape or assault than if they were complete strangers?

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith
  #277   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article , Gunner says...

I notice you keep bringing this up.


Umm, gunner - as far as 'keeps bringing a subject
up' I would suggest you install a lightning rod
soonest on your dwelling.

Jim

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

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

In article , Gunner says...

Hardly, but it does match the "someone known to the victim" and is it
any less a rape or assault than if they were complete strangers?


I think the other stat is that one is most likely to be
killed or assaulted by a co-worker, at your place
of employement.

This does not mean that work is dangerous, rather, it simply
means that most folks spend more time at work than at home.

Jim

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

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

In article , Gunner says...

Did he lie IN his research,....
or about his research?


The first being, he fabricated the data, and
then told the truth about the bogus information;
the second being that he did impeccable
research and published it accurately, but then
lied about the contents when publicizing it?

I guess I'm in a quandry here. I'm not
sure I really see the difference (is there
one?) between the two.

Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Jim

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

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 10:14 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"