"tillius" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hawke wrote:
"tillius" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hawke wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 5 May 2006 14:29:46 GMT, D Murphy
wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:nt2m52pqp4q0jhjnq42ot4cl7cksmsujsd@
4ax.com:

"Invasion"? Castro invaded Cuba?

Yup.

The boat was named Granma or something like that. You should do a
little
reading about him if you're interested. Batista had let Castro
out of
prison early, on his earlier conviction of attempting to
overthrow
the
government. Castro lived in various places afterward including
the
U.S.
and
Mexico, all the while trying to get money and buy arms to fund
his
revolution. His bunch also had professional military training and
had
a
plan. Unlike the Cuban military, which was largely youngsters
with
little
formal training or equipment. Most fled at the first sounds of
gun
fire.

Sounds just like the CIA & the Bay of Pigs ....


What makes me laugh is the revisionist history that makes life in
Cuba
under
Batista sound like a paradise for the Cuban people. Who is he
kidding.
Cuba
was always one of the poorest places in this part of the world. Any
success
and wealth was strictly limited to the upper class that was
associated
with
Batista. Everybody else was dirt poor and got nothing from the
government.
It was a lot like Mexico, which has over 40% in poverty and a large

number
of billionaires, only worse. Castro is no angel, that's for sure.
But
the
lives of average Cubans are far better under his dictatorship than
Batistas.
Unfortunately, a dictatorship is still a dictatorship, and things
could
be a
lot better there. Especially if the US wasn't continuing to wage an
economic
war against it.

Hawke

And now we have the classic lib-tard flip-flop. Get used to it folks,
it's all you'll be seeing from the Demoncrap hopefulls as the
congressional elections draw closer.

Till


And from the republicans will come the line that they really have done a
very good job running things. We're all just not too bright for not
knowing
it. They'll do even better next time if we keep giving them one more
chance.
I don't know about anyone else but I've had enough of this level of
incompetence.

If it wasn't for 9/11 Bush's record would be 0 for everything. Add his
latest goof up to the list, putting Porter Goss in charge of the CIA. He
didn't even last 2 years. Bush and the republicans have done absolutely
everything wrong since taking over. I'd vote for Alfred E. Neuman over
any
republican. At least I would know I voted for the smarter candidate, the
more honest one too.

Hawke

Notice no denial of the leftist agenda?

The agenda of the, as you call it, leftists, is nothing anywhere close to
what you make it out to be. But all in all their agenda would be a hell of
an improvement for most Americans over what they are putting up with now, by
a long shot.


Notice no real solutions being offered?

No point offering solutions when there is no chance of any of them being
tried, is there? Your side is calling all the shots. Offering solutions to
them is like spitting into the wind. They are not going to listen to
anything a Democrat has to say let alone do it. So the only solution is to
say bye, bye to the republicans, which we will in November. Then we can get
on to fixing what they broke.

Hawke

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:21:17 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Right, and that should tell you that there is something wrong in your
initial statement. However, you can have a valid premise and conclusion
and
still be wrong. All that means is the logic is correct. It doesn't mean
the
argument or statement is true. In this case that is what is going on. The
logic is okay but the statement is still wrong.

IOW Guns don't make you safer at all.
QED.
--
Cliff


I take it you have never been in a bad neighborhood after dark, have you? Or
you wouldn't make a statement like that.

Hawke

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:21:17 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

At least 8 to 1 odds against.

Which just goes to show that a reasonable argument or true statement is
not
always supported by statistics. Sometimes the statistics say things that
are
not supported by facts. In this case your statistics say one thing but
the
truth lies somewhere else.

It's in the dead bodies.

You might find statistics that back up your
argument but history shows that when no one has a gun violence is just as
frequent, sometime more so. Because violence isn't determined by what
tool
is available to harm someone with.

Then get a club or something similar in "violence" if you want to be
violent.
BTW, Define "harm". And "want".

It is determined by the intent of the
perpetrator. That hasn't changed in 10,000 years either.

Consider today's intent in getting those guns vs. tomorrow's dead
bodies. Or yesterday's vs. today's.
Probably all guns were aquired by people making the same sort
of claims as you.

Also recall that they live on, long after you do, probably.
And make great bait for thieves.
--
Cliff

It's unfortunate that there are people that use firearms to the detriment of
others. However, you have to remember that of all the guns in this country
only a very small fraction of them are used improperly. Half of all the
households in America have a gun in it. In the vast majority of cases they
are used properly and no one is ever harmed with it. Given the ubiquity of
guns they are always going to be around, which makes the idea of eliminating
them an inane idea. Might as well talk about eliminating the house fly.

Since they are always going to be around and that only a tiny percentage of
them are used wrongly. It's not rational to remove them from everyone who
uses them safely. Your problem is with the small group of people who use
guns to commit crimes. I would suspect that even you would not support
banning all guns if people didn't use them in crimes. If everyone used them
properly why shouldn't people have them? So the real question is not one of
banning all guns it's really about doing something about the people who
commit violent crimes and use guns to do it. Find a way to do something
about them and there is no gun problem. Unless of course you are one of
those people who is inherently afraid of weapons and thus wants to see them
all eliminated. If so, there is nothing to discuss except meaningless
statistics.

Hawke

On 7 May 2006 12:00:31 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

Notice no denial of the leftist agenda?
Notice no real solutions being offered?

Found those "WMDs" yet? ANY what was claimed in the endless lies?
It's the party line ......
--
Cliff

On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:30:05 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:21:17 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Right, and that should tell you that there is something wrong in your
initial statement. However, you can have a valid premise and conclusion
and
still be wrong. All that means is the logic is correct. It doesn't mean
the
argument or statement is true. In this case that is what is going on. The
logic is okay but the statement is still wrong.

IOW Guns don't make you safer at all.
QED.

I take it you have never been in a bad neighborhood after dark, have you? Or
you wouldn't make a statement like that.

Neighborhoods are full of unarmed live people. They've
been there for many decades .....
Wingers with guns firing at shadows give some places a bad
name ....

If they wanted to shoot you for your gun though you'd never
see where the shots came from in advance .... or who else
had guns.

IOW Guns don't make you safer at all. You my *feel*
safer but .... drunken drivers are good ones too, right?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:46:10 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

It's unfortunate that there are people that use firearms to the detriment of
others. However, you have to remember that of all the guns in this country
only a very small fraction of them are used improperly. Half of all the
households in America have a gun in it. In the vast majority of cases they
are used properly and no one is ever harmed with it. Given the ubiquity of
guns they are always going to be around, which makes the idea of eliminating
them an inane idea. Might as well talk about eliminating the house fly.

Since they are always going to be around and that only a tiny percentage of
them are used wrongly. It's not rational to remove them from everyone who
uses them safely. Your problem is with the small group of people who use
guns to commit crimes. I would suspect that even you would not support
banning all guns if people didn't use them in crimes. If everyone used them
properly why shouldn't people have them? So the real question is not one of
banning all guns it's really about doing something about the people who
commit violent crimes and use guns to do it. Find a way to do something
about them and there is no gun problem. Unless of course you are one of
those people who is inherently afraid of weapons and thus wants to see them
all eliminated. If so, there is nothing to discuss except meaningless
statistics.

The odds are still at least 8 to 1 against you.
Now YOU want to restrict their ownership .... as long as
you keep yours. That's what they all said I think.
The odds are still at least 8 to 1 against you.
--
Cliff

Hawke wrote:


No point offering solutions when there is no chance of any of them being
tried, is there? Your side is calling all the shots. Offering solutions to
them is like spitting into the wind. They are not going to listen to
anything a Democrat has to say let alone do it. So the only solution is to
say bye, bye to the republicans, which we will in November. Then we can get
on to fixing what they broke.


What do you mean they won't listen to what a Democrat has to say? They
listened to Bill and Hillary, Gore and Kerry about Saddam having
dangerous WMD. Little did they know the Dems were "lying". g
GW

On 7 May 2006 21:57:36 -0700, "Gus" wrote:

Hawke wrote:


No point offering solutions when there is no chance of any of them being
tried, is there? Your side is calling all the shots. Offering solutions to
them is like spitting into the wind. They are not going to listen to
anything a Democrat has to say let alone do it. So the only solution is to
say bye, bye to the republicans, which we will in November. Then we can get
on to fixing what they broke.


What do you mean they won't listen to what a Democrat has to say? They
listened to Bill and Hillary, Gore and Kerry about Saddam having
dangerous WMD. Little did they know the Dems were "lying". g

Oops .... you forgot about when.
Nor was it about kicking out the UN's inspectors before they finished
& filed their final report .... or tapping the UN's phones ...
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:30:05 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:21:17 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Right, and that should tell you that there is something wrong in your
initial statement. However, you can have a valid premise and
conclusion
and
still be wrong. All that means is the logic is correct. It doesn't
mean
the
argument or statement is true. In this case that is what is going on.
The
logic is okay but the statement is still wrong.

IOW Guns don't make you safer at all.
QED.

I take it you have never been in a bad neighborhood after dark, have you?
Or
you wouldn't make a statement like that.

Neighborhoods are full of unarmed live people. They've
been there for many decades .....
Wingers with guns firing at shadows give some places a bad
name ....

If they wanted to shoot you for your gun though you'd never
see where the shots came from in advance .... or who else
had guns.

IOW Guns don't make you safer at all. You my *feel*
safer but .... drunken drivers are good ones too, right?
--
Cliff


Believe me, when you are in a dangerous neighborhood a gun does indeed make
you "feel" safer. While it's possible that is only a feeling there is also a
good argument that having it does make you safer, literally.

Hawke

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:46:10 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

It's unfortunate that there are people that use firearms to the detriment
of
others. However, you have to remember that of all the guns in this
country
only a very small fraction of them are used improperly. Half of all the
households in America have a gun in it. In the vast majority of cases
they
are used properly and no one is ever harmed with it. Given the ubiquity
of
guns they are always going to be around, which makes the idea of
eliminating
them an inane idea. Might as well talk about eliminating the house fly.

Since they are always going to be around and that only a tiny percentage
of
them are used wrongly. It's not rational to remove them from everyone who
uses them safely. Your problem is with the small group of people who use
guns to commit crimes. I would suspect that even you would not support
banning all guns if people didn't use them in crimes. If everyone used
them
properly why shouldn't people have them? So the real question is not one
of
banning all guns it's really about doing something about the people who
commit violent crimes and use guns to do it. Find a way to do something
about them and there is no gun problem. Unless of course you are one of
those people who is inherently afraid of weapons and thus wants to see
them
all eliminated. If so, there is nothing to discuss except meaningless
statistics.

The odds are still at least 8 to 1 against you.
Now YOU want to restrict their ownership .... as long as
you keep yours. That's what they all said I think.
The odds are still at least 8 to 1 against you.
--
Cliff


I never said everyone should be able to have a gun. People that are a danger
to themselves and to others shouldn't have them. But the same goes for all
kinds of other things that are inherently dangerous. You are probably right
that most gun owners think they are responsible enough to use them safely.
Statistically they're right, because the vast majority of gun owners never
have any negative consequences of owning one. But owning a gun is a lot like
driving a car. You can say what the statistics are of being killed or
injured when you drive one but the way you operate a car and the number of
miles you drive can change the statistics a lot.

It's the same with guns. For someone like me the probability of an accident
or injury are virtually nil. But then I am single, don't drink, and am very
experienced at gun handling. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of other
people that I don't like to see within a block of a gun, and not because
they are criminal but because they are incompetent. For them, the chances of
injury are high. But the point is gun ownership isn't a privilege in this
country, it's a right, a fundamental right at that. So, guns are here to
stay. My view is learn to live with them and minimize the harm they can
cause. They can also come in quite handy too because in life there are some
situations where the only thing that will save your life is a gun. If you
don't have one in that case you're dead. I don't want that to happen to me.
You can chance it if you want. Statistics be damned. I've been in too many
situations where something happens that is way against the odds of happening
but it still happens. I like to keep all my options open. If you want to
rely on statistics instead of a firearm that's fine, I just don't want to
take that risk. Maybe you're just braver than me...or more foolhardyg.

Hawke

On Tue, 9 May 2006 00:04:34 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Believe me, when you are in a dangerous neighborhood a gun does indeed make
you "feel" safer. While it's possible that is only a feeling there is also a
good argument that having it does make you safer, literally.

Get a can of mace then.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 9 May 2006 00:22:52 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:46:10 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

It's unfortunate that there are people that use firearms to the detriment
of
others. However, you have to remember that of all the guns in this
country
only a very small fraction of them are used improperly. Half of all the
households in America have a gun in it. In the vast majority of cases
they
are used properly and no one is ever harmed with it. Given the ubiquity
of
guns they are always going to be around, which makes the idea of
eliminating
them an inane idea. Might as well talk about eliminating the house fly.

Since they are always going to be around and that only a tiny percentage
of
them are used wrongly. It's not rational to remove them from everyone who
uses them safely. Your problem is with the small group of people who use
guns to commit crimes. I would suspect that even you would not support
banning all guns if people didn't use them in crimes. If everyone used
them
properly why shouldn't people have them? So the real question is not one
of
banning all guns it's really about doing something about the people who
commit violent crimes and use guns to do it. Find a way to do something
about them and there is no gun problem. Unless of course you are one of
those people who is inherently afraid of weapons and thus wants to see
them
all eliminated. If so, there is nothing to discuss except meaningless
statistics.

The odds are still at least 8 to 1 against you.
Now YOU want to restrict their ownership .... as long as
you keep yours. That's what they all said I think.
The odds are still at least 8 to 1 against you.


I never said everyone should be able to have a gun. People that are a danger
to themselves and to others shouldn't have them. But the same goes for all
kinds of other things that are inherently dangerous. You are probably right
that most gun owners think they are responsible enough to use them safely.
Statistically they're right, because the vast majority of gun owners never
have any negative consequences of owning one. But owning a gun is a lot like
driving a car. You can say what the statistics are of being killed or
injured when you drive one but the way you operate a car and the number of
miles you drive can change the statistics a lot.

Ole buddy, I fear you missed the entire point.
The odds are at least 8 to 1 against you with those guns.

Driving a car rarely makes you safer either.
There were 42,636 car accident deaths in 2005 in the US:
http://www.car-accidents.com/

It's the same with guns. For someone like me the probability of an accident
or injury are virtually nil.

That's about what they all said ..... 8 to 1 .... all you need do
is look at the actual results.
Your argument that you are special & to be trusted & everyone
else is nutz & should be disarmed ...

But then I am single, don't drink, and am very
experienced at gun handling. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of other
people that I don't like to see within a block of a gun, and not because
they are criminal but because they are incompetent. For them, the chances of
injury are high. But the point is gun ownership isn't a privilege in this
country, it's a right, a fundamental right at that. So, guns are here to
stay. My view is learn to live with them and minimize the harm they can
cause. They can also come in quite handy too because in life there are some
situations where the only thing that will save your life is a gun. If you
don't have one in that case you're dead. I don't want that to happen to me.
You can chance it if you want. Statistics be damned. I've been in too many
situations where something happens that is way against the odds of happening
but it still happens.

Now you are sounding like a crazed fundie. And you now know a bit
more about the odds ...

I like to keep all my options open. If you want to
rely on statistics instead of a firearm that's fine, I just don't want to
take that risk. Maybe you're just braver than me...or more foolhardyg.

I may be safer G.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 09 May 2006 05:15:06 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 9 May 2006 00:04:34 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Believe me, when you are in a dangerous neighborhood a gun does indeed make
you "feel" safer. While it's possible that is only a feeling there is also a
good argument that having it does make you safer, literally.

Get a can of mace then.

Incidentally, years ago there was a fellow (or perhaps more than one)
who had a standing bet... You put $100 bill in your shirt pocket, and
get a can of mace. If your mace can stop him, you get to keep the
$100. If your mace doesn't stop him, he gets the $100 and you get
whatever damage he inflicts while taking the bill from you (think of
it as a cheap education on the viability of using mace for
protection). So, are you up for it Cliff? Why don't you go post your
nonsense over in talk.politics.guns and see if the fellow is still
around there... Put your money where your mouth is!

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas -- this is generally
because of the very same gun grabbers, like Cliff. Thus some
recommend carrying oven cleaner instead -- it's legal to possess and
leaves a more permanent impression on the perp...

Retief

On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:25:53 -0500, Retief wrote:

On Tue, 09 May 2006 05:15:06 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 9 May 2006 00:04:34 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Believe me, when you are in a dangerous neighborhood a gun does indeed make
you "feel" safer. While it's possible that is only a feeling there is also a
good argument that having it does make you safer, literally.

Get a can of mace then.

Incidentally, years ago there was a fellow (or perhaps more than one)
who had a standing bet... You put $100 bill in your shirt pocket, and
get a can of mace. If your mace can stop him, you get to keep the
$100. If your mace doesn't stop him, he gets the $100 and you get
whatever damage he inflicts while taking the bill from you (think of
it as a cheap education on the viability of using mace for
protection). So, are you up for it Cliff? Why don't you go post your
nonsense over in talk.politics.guns and see if the fellow is still
around there... Put your money where your mouth is!

Follow the odds. An 8+ to 1 house advantage on the game ....

None of this sinks in with brain-dead wingers & gunlogic koooks.
Too complex for the smallest minds I guess ... or they fear that they
might explode if they could learn or think.

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

this is generally
because of the very same gun grabbers, like Cliff. Thus some
recommend carrying oven cleaner instead -- it's legal to possess and
leaves a more permanent impression on the perp...

Retief

You buy lots of State lottey tickets, eh?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 10 May 2006 02:02:56 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Get a can of mace then.

Incidentally, years ago there was a fellow (or perhaps more than one)
who had a standing bet... You put $100 bill in your shirt pocket, and
get a can of mace. If your mace can stop him, you get to keep the
$100. If your mace doesn't stop him, he gets the $100 and you get
whatever damage he inflicts while taking the bill from you (think of
it as a cheap education on the viability of using mace for
protection). So, are you up for it Cliff? Why don't you go post your
nonsense over in talk.politics.guns and see if the fellow is still
around there... Put your money where your mouth is!

Follow the odds. An 8+ to 1 house advantage on the game ....

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Retief

On Wed, 10 May 2006 22:33:08 -0500, Retief wrote:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 02:02:56 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Get a can of mace then.

Incidentally, years ago there was a fellow (or perhaps more than one)
who had a standing bet... You put $100 bill in your shirt pocket, and
get a can of mace. If your mace can stop him, you get to keep the
$100. If your mace doesn't stop him, he gets the $100 and you get
whatever damage he inflicts while taking the bill from you (think of
it as a cheap education on the viability of using mace for
protection). So, are you up for it Cliff? Why don't you go post your
nonsense over in talk.politics.guns and see if the fellow is still
around there... Put your money where your mouth is!

Follow the odds. An 8+ to 1 house advantage on the game ....

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.


Mace you first then pick up the money ... ?

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

Hard to kill anyone ...

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Too many guns?
LOL ...

Retief

A bufoon ...
--
Cliff

On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:47:56 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

Mace you first then pick up the money ... ?

You're really having trouble understanding this, aren't you Cliff? Go
over to talk.politics.guns and post a claim that you've got $100 in
your pocket that says your mace will stop any and all comers from
taking that money from you.

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

Hard to kill anyone ...

Again Cliff assumes that criminals (those who break the law) will lay
down their firearms and use mace, just because Cliff said so.

Cliff suggested that another reader use mace, instead of a firearm.
Let's see Cliff put his money where his mouth is, and show the world
that mace will stop an attacker.

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Too many guns?
LOL ...

Really Cliff? Here are the DC gun laws:

http://www.packing.org/state/washington_dc/

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=DC

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/DC.pdf

And these law certainly have stopped criminals from carrying firearms
in Washington DC...

A bufoon ...
--
Cliff

Yes, Cliff is indeed a buffoon.

Retief

On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:24:20 -0500, Retief wrote:

On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:47:56 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

Mace you first then pick up the money ... ?

You're really having trouble understanding this, aren't you Cliff?

You clearly don't grasp any of it.

Go
over to talk.politics.guns and post a claim that you've got $100 in
your pocket that says your mace will stop any and all comers from
taking that money from you.

I doubt that being dead on the floor will help you any.
Face it: the Old West is long over & nobody really acted like in
those Italian westerns anyway.
Not the ones that lived ....

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

Hard to kill anyone ...

Again Cliff assumes that criminals (those who break the law) will lay
down their firearms and use mace, just because Cliff said so.

You missed the odds again? Let me help you: 8 to 1 (at best)
against you.

Cliff suggested that another reader use mace, instead of a firearm.

Much safer for all, if you insist on being armed.

Let's see Cliff put his money where his mouth is, and show the world
that mace will stop an attacker.

Can you count your toes (feel free to use all fingers)?

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Too many guns?
LOL ...

Really Cliff? Here are the DC gun laws:

http://www.packing.org/state/washington_dc/

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=DC

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/DC.pdf

And these law certainly have stopped criminals from carrying firearms
in Washington DC...

And the morgue stats are what?
Perhaps the republicans & the NRA should consider enforcing the laws ...

A bufoon ...
--
Cliff

Yes, Cliff is indeed a buffoon.

Retief

"snicker" -- Gummer
--
Cliff

Retief wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 02:02:56 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Get a can of mace then.

Incidentally, years ago there was a fellow (or perhaps more than one)
who had a standing bet... You put $100 bill in your shirt pocket, and
get a can of mace. If your mace can stop him, you get to keep the
$100. If your mace doesn't stop him, he gets the $100 and you get
whatever damage he inflicts while taking the bill from you (think of
it as a cheap education on the viability of using mace for
protection). So, are you up for it Cliff? Why don't you go post your
nonsense over in talk.politics.guns and see if the fellow is still
around there... Put your money where your mouth is!

Follow the odds. An 8+ to 1 house advantage on the game ....

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Retief

Oh I get it now! Cliff is actually an idiotbot placed here by the GOP
to spoof the Demoncraps. It must be, because, although it's evident
that most of the lib-tards have trouble grasping even the simplest of
logical concepts, surely none of them are as brain-dead as our favorite
comrad cliff demonstrates on a daily basis.

Now, if everyone would just stop replying to him, or at the very least,
stop quoting him, my kill file on the old commie would be effective.

Till

On 12 May 2006 05:51:06 -0700, "tillius" wrote:


Retief wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 02:02:56 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Get a can of mace then.

Incidentally, years ago there was a fellow (or perhaps more than one)
who had a standing bet... You put $100 bill in your shirt pocket, and
get a can of mace. If your mace can stop him, you get to keep the
$100. If your mace doesn't stop him, he gets the $100 and you get
whatever damage he inflicts while taking the bill from you (think of
it as a cheap education on the viability of using mace for
protection). So, are you up for it Cliff? Why don't you go post your
nonsense over in talk.politics.guns and see if the fellow is still
around there... Put your money where your mouth is!

Follow the odds. An 8+ to 1 house advantage on the game ....

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Retief

Oh I get it now! Cliff is actually an idiotbot placed here by the GOP
to spoof the Demoncraps. It must be, because, although it's evident
that most of the lib-tards have trouble grasping even the simplest of
logical concepts,

Such as 1 8.

surely none of them are as brain-dead as our favorite
comrad cliff demonstrates on a daily basis.

8 1 if that helps any.
Also 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=8

Now, if everyone would just stop replying to him, or at the very least,
stop quoting him, my kill file on the old commie would be effective.

He so hates facts ...
--
Cliff

On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:37:28 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

Mace you first then pick up the money ... ?

You're really having trouble understanding this, aren't you Cliff?

You clearly don't grasp any of it.

Really Cliff? Maybe someone in Talk.Politics.Guns will address your
claim that one is safer carying mace, than carrying a firearm.

In fact, maybe someone from Talk.Politics.Guns will offer to EDUCATE
you on the inability of mace to stop an attacker (we should note that
the education will probably cost you some money, as well as some
bruises).

Go
over to talk.politics.guns and post a claim that you've got $100 in
your pocket that says your mace will stop any and all comers from
taking that money from you.

I doubt that being dead on the floor will help you any.
Face it: the Old West is long over & nobody really acted like in
those Italian westerns anyway.
Not the ones that lived ....

What a clever troll you are, Cliff. Why are we not surprised that you
won't post your nonsense over to Talk.Politics.Guns. Your fallacies
would be shredded, as you well know. Perhaps you think you can
convince the readers of alt.machines.cnc, misc.survivalism and
rec.crafts.metalworking with your lies.

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

Hard to kill anyone ...

Again Cliff assumes that criminals (those who break the law) will lay
down their firearms and use mace, just because Cliff said so.

You missed the odds again? Let me help you: 8 to 1 (at best)
against you.

Cliff clearly pulls these odds out of his ass. He's obviously using a
flawed Brady-like claim, comparing the ratio of accidental firearm
deaths to the number of perps KILLED in defense of ones person or
home. Of course, a defense does not necessarily require that the perp
be killed.

Even the antigun Kellerman gives the number of defensive firearm uses
in the range of 80,000. So Cliff, 800 accidental deaths/80,000 yearly
defensive uses is 1:100, not 8:1.

Most studies give the number of defensive uses as 500,000 to 800,000.
So Cliff, 800 accidental deaths/500,000 defensive uses is 1:625, not
8:1. 800,000 is 1:1000.

But some studies indicate the number may be more like 2,000,000
defensive uses per year. That's 1:2500.

Or we could run your statistics using the estimated Billion rounds of
ammunition that is fired in the US every year, against the 800
accidental deaths. That makes your ratio 1:1,250,000.

But those statistics won't support your LIES, will they Cliff?

Cliff suggested that another reader use mace, instead of a firearm.

Much safer for all, if you insist on being armed.

Still trying to perpetuate this LIE, huh Cliff?

Let's see Cliff put his money where his mouth is, and show the world
that mace will stop an attacker.

Can you count your toes (feel free to use all fingers)?

Put your money where your mouth is, coward. If you really believe
that mace will stop an attacker, ask if anyone in talk.politics.guns
is willing to demonstrate otherwise to you.

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Too many guns?
LOL ...

Really Cliff? Here are the DC gun laws:

http://www.packing.org/state/washington_dc/

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=DC

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/DC.pdf

And these law certainly have stopped criminals from carrying firearms
in Washington DC...

And the morgue stats are what?
Perhaps the republicans & the NRA should consider enforcing the laws ...

Let us pursue your false allusion that the crime rate is due to the
Republicans, Cliff. The Democrats controlled Congress until 1995,
after which the Republicans controlled Congress (with an 50-50 split
in the Senate during the 107th Congress).

The Washington DC numbers are raw number of homicides (the DC
government didn't bother to normalize their numbers - feel free to do
the math, if you think the trend is not indicative) -- however, DC's
population shows very little change throughout this period (IIRC, the
population is about 500,000). The US homicide rate is per 100K
population.

Here are the sources for these data:

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1...v_GID,1556.asp
DC Citywide Crime Statistics - Annual Totals, 1993-2004

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid.../totalstab.htm
Homicide trends in the U.S. - Long term trends - Homicide
victimization, 1950-2002

Year DC US
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 454 9.5
1994 399 9.0
1995 360 8.2 == Republicans take office
1996 397 7.4
1997 301 6.8
1998 260 6.3
1999 241 5.7
2000 242 5.5
2001 233 5.6
2002 262 5.6
2003 248
2004 198

Oops Cliff! It appears that the homicide rates, for both Washington
DC and National averages, _dropped_ after the Republicans took control
of the Congress. So much for your hypothesis that the high homicide
rate was due to Republicans.

But we've come to expect such nonsense from you.

Retief

Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:07:06 -0500, Retief wrote:

On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:37:28 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Thus Cliff publicly admits that he is not willing to even stake a few
bruises and $100 against his claim that the reader should carry mace.

Mace you first then pick up the money ... ?

You're really having trouble understanding this, aren't you Cliff?

You clearly don't grasp any of it.

Really Cliff? Maybe someone in Talk.Politics.Guns will address your
claim that one is safer carying mace, than carrying a firearm.

So you cannot discuss the matter rationally yourself but
must defer to the NRA & the gunnutz?

All you have to do is to look at the odds & be able to count .... not
even all the way up to 10 (unless you want to use worse numbers
than mine G).

What part of that is so hard for you? The counting bits?

In fact, maybe someone from Talk.Politics.Guns will offer to EDUCATE
you on the inability of mace to stop an attacker (we should note that
the education will probably cost you some money, as well as some
bruises).

8 to 1 or worse against .... How much did you lose this year on
State lottery tickets?

Go
over to talk.politics.guns and post a claim that you've got $100 in
your pocket that says your mace will stop any and all comers from
taking that money from you.

I doubt that being dead on the floor will help you any.
Face it: the Old West is long over & nobody really acted like in
those Italian westerns anyway.
Not the ones that lived ....

What a clever troll you are, Cliff. Why are we not surprised that you
won't post your nonsense over to Talk.Politics.Guns.

So I'll leave you added Xpost in the list G.
Should I be looking for more idjiots?

Your fallacies
would be shredded, as you well know.

BTW, 4+4=8
Everybody new will need to backtrack the thread I expect.
HTH

Perhaps you think you can
convince the readers of alt.machines.cnc, misc.survivalism and
rec.crafts.metalworking with your lies.

Last I know dead was dead. Do you have a Zombie problem in
your bunker?

But Cliff is certainly willing to bet YOUR life on a can of mace...
How typical of a hoplophobe.

Hard to kill anyone ...

Again Cliff assumes that criminals (those who break the law) will lay
down their firearms and use mace, just because Cliff said so.

You missed the odds again? Let me help you: 8 to 1 (at best)
against you.

Cliff clearly pulls these odds out of his ass.

Never tried any reserch yourself, eh?

He's obviously using a
flawed Brady

Republican?

-like claim, comparing the ratio of accidental firearm
deaths to the number of perps KILLED in defense of ones person or
home. Of course, a defense does not necessarily require that the perp
be killed.

DANG !!
You mean you could use Mace or something? Or just stay out of the fights
you started?

Even the antigun Kellerman gives the number of defensive firearm uses
in the range of 80,000.

Lots of kids stealing candy .... and folks thinking it's a cigar ....
Tried Purple Pills & suchlike instead?

So Cliff, 800 accidental deaths/80,000 yearly
defensive uses is 1:100, not 8:1.

See? He CANNOT count !!! LMAO !!!!

Most studies give the number of defensive uses as 500,000 to 800,000.
So Cliff, 800 accidental deaths/500,000 defensive uses is 1:625, not
8:1. 800,000 is 1:1000.

But some studies indicate the number may be more like 2,000,000
defensive uses per year. That's 1:2500.

Lots of people lie too.
The death stats don't. Dead remains dead AFAIK.

Or we could run your statistics using the estimated Billion rounds of
ammunition that is fired in the US every year, against the 800
accidental deaths. That makes your ratio 1:1,250,000.

Good going, Sherlock.
Justify the deaths by sales of bullets.

This is "Build a Better Loon week".
Full moon too?

But those statistics won't support your LIES, will they Cliff?

BTW, 5+3=8 as does 3+5.

Cliff suggested that another reader use mace, instead of a firearm.

Much safer for all, if you insist on being armed.

Still trying to perpetuate this LIE, huh Cliff?

Watch him spin G.

Let's see Cliff put his money where his mouth is, and show the world
that mace will stop an attacker.

Can you count your toes (feel free to use all fingers)?

Put your money where your mouth is, coward. If you really believe
that mace will stop an attacker, ask if anyone in talk.politics.guns
is willing to demonstrate otherwise to you.

Are you offering to mace them all? Selling tickets?

BTW, mace is illegal to carry in many areas --

So are guns for very good reasons.

Yes, we've seen how effective your gun-grabber's wet dream has been --
we need only look at Washington DC to see the "proof" of your claims.

Too many guns?
LOL ...

Really Cliff? Here are the DC gun laws:

http://www.packing.org/state/washington_dc/

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=DC

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/DC.pdf

And these law certainly have stopped criminals from carrying firearms
in Washington DC...

And the morgue stats are what?
Perhaps the republicans & the NRA should consider enforcing the laws ...

Let us pursue your false allusion that the crime rate is due to the
Republicans, Cliff.

Lots of them seem headed to the jails.
And those in the jails seem to usually be rather conservative
(not too bright).

The Democrats controlled Congress until 1995,
after which the Republicans controlled Congress (with an 50-50 split
in the Senate during the 107th Congress).

The Washington DC numbers are raw number of homicides (the DC
government didn't bother to normalize their numbers - feel free to do
the math, if you think the trend is not indicative) -- however, DC's
population shows very little change throughout this period (IIRC, the
population is about 500,000). The US homicide rate is per 100K
population.

Sort of like those CDC death stats you object to?

Here are the sources for these data:

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1...v_GID,1556.asp
DC Citywide Crime Statistics - Annual Totals, 1993-2004

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid.../totalstab.htm
Homicide trends in the U.S. - Long term trends - Homicide
victimization, 1950-2002

Year DC US
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 454 9.5
1994 399 9.0
1995 360 8.2 == Republicans take office
1996 397 7.4
1997 301 6.8
1998 260 6.3
1999 241 5.7
2000 242 5.5
2001 233 5.6
2002 262 5.6
2003 248
2004 198

Oops Cliff! It appears that the homicide rates, for both Washington
DC and National averages, _dropped_ after the Republicans took control
of the Congress. So much for your hypothesis that the high homicide
rate was due to Republicans.

So more guns don't make people safer? LOL ...

But we've come to expect such nonsense from you.

Check your claims at the door, folks.

Retief

LOL
--
Cliff

On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, " wrote:

Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.

What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?
LOL ....
--
Cliff

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.


Sometimes stun guns and mace only **** the bad guy off. And you have to fire
them to stop the BG. Simp[ly pointing a gun at a BG tends to makre him/her
stop in their tracks and reconsider their actions. Where possible, the BG
will usually just turn real fast and run like hell in the opposite
direction.

On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:35:38 GMT, "Morton Davis" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.


Sometimes stun guns and mace only **** the bad guy off. And you have to fire
them to stop the BG. Simp[ly pointing a gun at a BG tends to makre him/her
stop in their tracks and reconsider their actions. Where possible, the BG
will usually just turn real fast and run like hell in the opposite
direction.

You could just Nuke everyone in advance. Just in case. Or get Viagra,
which might be cheaper .....

Sometimes a cigar is not a gun.

BTW, 1+7 = 8, as does 9-1.
--
Cliff

On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
" quickly quoth:

Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

Since you don't sell guns OR ammo, why the misleading URL to an eBay
store, where you admit you sell "Everything except guns and ammo!"?

--
"Simplicity of life, even the barest, is not misery but
the very foundation of refinement." --William Morris
-----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Cliff wrote:
On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, " wrote:


Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.


What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?

Didn't you hear? Since they outlawed guns, pointy knives, etc. there is
no crime in those countries. The police have been disbanded.

On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:39:23 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, " wrote:


Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.


What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?

Didn't you hear? Since they outlawed guns, pointy knives, etc. there is
no crime in those countries. The police have been disbanded.

So?
--
Cliff

Kip Winger is a decent guitar player - although he rarely gets credit for
that due to his fame at bubblegum type rock in the 80's.

I have no objection to him owning a gun.

On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:50:36 -0500, "John P." Admiral
wrote:

Kip Winger is a decent guitar player - although he rarely gets credit for
that due to his fame at bubblegum type rock in the 80's.

I have no objection to him owning a gun.

The first post to this thread was:

[
Subject: Darwin Awards



Yes, it's that magical time of the year again when the Darwin Awards are
bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us. Here then, are the
glorious winners:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended
victim during a hold-up in Long Beach, California, would-be robber
James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered
down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it
worked..... And now, the honorable mentions:

2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a
meat-cutting machine and, after a little shopping around, submitted
a claim to his insurance company. The company expecting negligence
sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the
machine and he also lost a finger. The chef's claim was approved.

3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car
during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a
woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.

4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus
driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be
transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to
admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and
offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the
passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the
patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies The
deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.

5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious
head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he
received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply
trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train
before he was hit.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash
drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the
register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash
from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The
total amount of cash he got from the drawer...$15. (If someone
points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?)

7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided
that he'd just throw a cinderblock through a liquor store window,
grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinderblock and heaved
it over his head at the window. The cinderblock bounced back and
hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The
liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was
caught on videotape.

8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man
grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and
the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the
snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They
put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then
taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To
which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's the lady I
stole the purse from."

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into
a Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun, and
demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he
couldn't open the cash register without a food order. When the man
ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren't available for
breakfast. The man, frustrated, walked away.

******A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER*****

10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home
parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for.
Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next
to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that
the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline and plugged his siphon
hose into the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of
the vehicle declined to press charges, saying that it was the best
laugh he'd ever had.



In the interest of bettering human kind please share these with
your friends and family ... unless of course one of these 10
individuals by chance is a distant relative or long lost friend. In
that case be glad they are distant and hope they remain lost.
]

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:50:36 -0500, "John P." Admiral
wrote:

Kip Winger is a decent guitar player - although he rarely gets credit for
that due to his fame at bubblegum type rock in the 80's.

I have no objection to him owning a gun.

The first post to this thread was:

[
Subject: Darwin Awards



Yes, it's that magical time of the year again when the Darwin Awards are
bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us. Here then, are the
glorious winners:

snip plagiarized material from:
http://www.moreware.se/jokes/C1496491037/E20060114101050/index.html

Which may have been plagiarized from

http://www.phydeux.com/humor/2003%20Darwin%20Awards.htm

You will note the information is only like 3 years or more out of date.

Further a check of the Long Beach newspapers finds NO mention of the event
and the only results from a web search are a 2 or 3 variations of the exact
same story repeated over and over without source or conformation
information.

In short, great urban myth, but that's about it.

"Cliff" wrote in a message

Kip Winger is a decent guitar player - although he rarely gets credit for
that due to his fame at bubblegum type rock in the 80's.
I have no objection to him owning a gun.

The first post to this thread was:
Subject: Darwin Awards

In light of all that, I still have no problem with Kip Winger owning a gun.
;-)

On Tue, 16 May 2006 20:45:39 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

snip plagiarized material

BS. I may be one of the few with Wendy's written permission
to post such G.

Further a check of the Long Beach newspapers finds NO mention of the event
and the only results from a web search are a 2 or 3 variations of the exact
same story repeated over and over without source or conformation
information.

In short, great urban myth, but that's about it.

I guess you never checked the sources .... LOL ...
Have guns & gunlogic? Or just cigars & Viagra?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, "
wrote:

Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.

What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?
LOL ....
--

And in the UK and Canada, there are far more victims of violent crime
And we'll not even get into the comparisons of population density and
cultural differences in those countries relative to the US

So bottom line, what is your point ?
Do you even have one, other than being a raving-mad hoplophobe ?

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:39:23 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, "
wrote:


Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.


What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?

Didn't you hear? Since they outlawed guns, pointy knives, etc. there is
no crime in those countries. The police have been disbanded.

So?
--
Cliff

That was the sound of irony going right through cliff's head, from ear to
ear, without even slowing down...

On Mon, 29 May 2006 08:49:58 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:39:23 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, "
wrote:


Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.


What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?

Didn't you hear? Since they outlawed guns, pointy knives, etc. there is
no crime in those countries. The police have been disbanded.

So?

That was the sound of irony going right through cliff's head, from ear to
ear, without even slowing down...

Was it the "So?" that gave it away?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 May 2006 08:48:46 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On 14 May 2006 22:05:07 -0700, "
wrote:

Mace DOESN'T WORK - at least not reliably. Neither do "stun guns."
That's why every police officer in America who carries Mace or a "stun
gun" carries a real gun.

What do they carry in Japan, Canada, the UK, etc?
LOL ....

And in the UK and Canada, there are far more victims of violent crime
And we'll not even get into the comparisons of population density and
cultural differences in those countries relative to the US

Or what's reported, right?

So bottom line, what is your point ?

Tried the data from Interpol? It may be a bit better at comparing
similar events and what's actually reported where & why.

Do you even have one, other than being a raving-mad hoplophobe ?

Guns don't make you safer G.
--
Cliff