On 28 Apr 2006 16:30:44 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Don Foreman says...

It's also not clear that a handgun is the tool of choice to keep
around the house.

Right. Situations differ a lot.

It takes a *lot* of practice to hit anything. To put this in pespective,
at the range where I shoot, the cops have their targets at 25 feet.

The closest targets after that are 25 yards, then 50 yards. The
general public typically shoots at the 50 yard targets. I would
much rather have on of the regulars there on my side, than one of
the local constabulary, seeing how they shoot, and the errors they
make.

The cops just don't shoot enough to be halfway proficient, at best
they can avoid being a danger to themselves IMO.

Oooh. I could tell ya *blood*curdling stories....

Jim

I don't doubt it -- but I'd note that close combat self defense
fire is rather different from target shooting. The choice to be
armed for defense rather than or in addition to sport should be an
informed choice with understanding of what it means to fire in such
a sit.

Light will probably be lousy, you may prefer to fire one-handed
from a low position behind cover rather than presenting a lovely
Weaver stance target of yourself, you may not be able to see the
front sight well if at all, you will probably have tunnel vision
due to adrenaline, it *will* be a considerably more rapid-fire sit
than NRA pistol competition at 25 and 50 yards, and your score
depends only on how quickly and decisively you STOP the assailant
regardless of how nicely you group your five or ten or full load of
rounds. Shooting a drug-high assailant in the leg or the foot
won't stop him, he may not even notice right away.

An assailant with a blade can flick it open in well under a second,
and he can cover 20 feet in 2 seconds or less. Even if shot thru
the heart when you first see the blade, his brain will have about
15 seconds of oxygen remaining. That's more than ample time to
reach you and cut you fatally after you've punched a very
respectable group in him. A counter to that, other than blowing him
off his feet with a 12 gage which is not easy to manage in close
quarters if it is of legal length, is to deliver fire to his pelvic
region after a couple or three center-of-mass rounds to start his
15-second final clock. Head shots stop and drop instantly, OK
for sniper fire when still, but a moving head is a small target
for even close-range seni-auto fire. The pelvic region has lots
of bullet stopping bone so a reasonably energetic JHP round as
..45ACP, .45GAP, .40 S&W or .357 sig can impede his charge and/or
deflect his direction and mobility and can produce pain that can
disable even of one high on drugs -- but you'll have bad dreams for a
while after hearing the screams of a man you gut-shot if you even
resemble a peaceful civil person.

Folks who would choose to be armed for self and home defense should
understand stuff like this to make an informed decision that is right
for them.

I don't advocate a choice or disclose how I choose. Pick yer pony,
take yer ride.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:07:49 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.


All true. Now about the criminals that put the citizen into a gun
fight....

Knowledge of fire fighting techniques are wasted on civilians as they
should never need them. Best they should have..is the knowlege to
safely operate a garden hose.

Gunnr

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:41:57 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:



Don Foreman wrote:

On 28 Apr 2006 08:49:44 -0700, "rigger" wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 10:00:29 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.



some snippage


I may be fortunate to live in a blue-collar community where the cops
do seem to want to do the job and are obviously competent, YMMV.
Triage always applies.

Sorry Don, I guess I didn't make my statement clear enough. Please
allow me to restate:

It's been legally affirmed (not just in nca but around the country)
that if you, or a family member, is injured by a criminal in an
assault, you have no legal recourse against the police for not
protecting you. The cites are there if you need to look them up.

This means, since the police can not be at your elbow 24 hours a day,
that the responsibility for your personal protection belongs to you.
If you wish to be unarmed and trust in a criminal to do "the right
thing" and only rob and not further harm you or yours that is your
right. On the other hand a crime was just described on TV where, after
being robbed, the victims were killed to provide a "kick" for the
killer. Maybe you would be the lucky one? Maybe you don't believe
there are actually people out there who would do such a thing (and
similar ugly acts) to you or your family? If so please shake the sand
out of your ears and look around.

dennis
in nca

That does clarify things. It is certainly true that the cops can't be
everywhere at once, and I agree that bad things don't just happen on
TV. There have been a couple of incidents in Minneapolis in the
past few weeks where the victims were innocents -- not gangstas.

My original point was not to either encourage or discourage folks from
being armed. That's a personal choice, pick yer pony and take yer
ride. My point is that I feel strongly that those who do choose to
be armed should have and maintain enough training and proficiency to
have and use arms legally, safely, responsibly, and effectively if
necessary. The likelihood of a prolonged "shootout" (and collateral
casualties) is greatly reduced when at least one participant has some
degree of proficiency.

I am a military veteran. My assigned weapon 40 years ago was the
M1911 .45 pistol -- but that was 40 years ago. Were I to choose to
be armed now, I would get some good training and I would figure on
500 to 1000 rounds of practice for openers. Good training is
probably easier to find in some areas than others. It is very easy to
find in Minnesota, just ask at any gunshop including the bigbox
sportinggoods stores. In MN, taking and passing a certified
training course including a proficiency test (50 rounds) is required
for issue of a carry permit. Most of us don't need a carry permit,
but I think anyone who would keep a handgun needs the training and
the proficiency.

You don't need a carry permit to keep a gun at home.(Texas)
You do need one to have a piece on your person in public.

In the car is a gray area.
Locked up in a case in the trunk and can't find the key is one thing.
Loaded, stuffed under the seat is a whole nother
(better have the permit).

The premit itself insures a certain level of compitence, since it has
to be renewed perodically.

As a side, IMHO, the M1911 is a fine combat piece, but would not
be on my short list for personal carry. To big, too bulky, loo loud(!).

That one would stay at home.

An effective hand gun is unlikely to be comfortable. Just comforting.

Jeff Cooper

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist

In article , Don Foreman says...

Oooh. I could tell ya *blood*curdling stories....

I don't doubt it -- but I'd note that close combat self defense
fire is rather different from target shooting. The choice to be
armed for defense rather than or in addition to sport should be an
informed choice with understanding of what it means to fire in such
a sit.

Most of the stories are not along those lines though.

Like the cop who decided to wander out on the range to inspect
his target. While everyone else was still shooting on the civilian
side (no cease fire had been called).

Like the cop who forgot one of his handguns, just left it sitting
on the bench when he drove home.

Etc.

All the more reason that I agree 100% with, and live my life in
accordance with all the principles you have set forth in this
thread.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you think the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:38:16 -0500, Retief wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you think the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:31:56 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:07:49 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.


All true. Now about the criminals that put the citizen into a gun
fight....

Knowledge of fire fighting techniques are wasted on civilians as they
should never need them. Best they should have..is the knowlege to
safely operate a garden hose.

Gunnr

Cute, Gunner.

I did not say or imply that civilians should not be knowledgable or
proficient. Quite the contrary. Look above to the paragraph that
starts with "I support....."

A respected person very well-versed in the matter of armed defense
once told me he spent 3 days training his parents from ground zero
with firearms. That's 3 days per parent, this after their jewelry
store was robbed at gunpoint. Not 6 hours, 3 days. Each. That
respected person must have seen some value in training.

If I recall the story correctly, these parents became proficient and
frequent shooters, and later stopped another robbery attempt -- with
no shots fired.

Most folks don't have access to anything like that kind of excellent
free coaching -- but training is available and, while not legally
mandated for ownership I assert that it is irresponsible to own a
firearm (or an automobile) without enough training to become safely
proficient in its use.

Retief wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you think the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

You're really wasting your breath explaining these facts to the
lib-tard Cliff and his commie cohorts. They know full well the truth,
it just doesn't fit their agenda, so they make up crap, spin the truth,
and dribble nonsense in a feeble attempt to advance their agenda.

This is why I finally just dropped Cliff and those like him into my
long term commie-kill-file with a resounding pinko.

Till

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:39:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Knowledge of fire fighting techniques are wasted on civilians as they
should never need them. Best they should have..is the knowlege to
safely operate a garden hose.

Gunnr

Cute, Gunner.

I did not say or imply that civilians should not be knowledgable or
proficient. Quite the contrary. Look above to the paragraph that
starts with "I support....."

A respected person very well-versed in the matter of armed defense
once told me he spent 3 days training his parents from ground zero
with firearms. That's 3 days per parent, this after their jewelry
store was robbed at gunpoint. Not 6 hours, 3 days. Each. That
respected person must have seen some value in training.

If I recall the story correctly, these parents became proficient and
frequent shooters, and later stopped another robbery attempt -- with
no shots fired.

Most folks don't have access to anything like that kind of excellent
free coaching -- but training is available and, while not legally
mandated for ownership I assert that it is irresponsible to own a
firearm (or an automobile) without enough training to become safely
proficient in its use.

In some states..safety training and range proficiency is mandated for
CCW applicants.

I dont believe in owning a hammer, keeping it in a drawer until the
one day you need to put in a picture hanger. But its better to have
that hammer than try to pound in the nail with the ass end of a heavy
butter knife.

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:49:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:39:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Knowledge of fire fighting techniques are wasted on civilians as they
should never need them. Best they should have..is the knowlege to
safely operate a garden hose.

Gunnr

Cute, Gunner.

I did not say or imply that civilians should not be knowledgable or
proficient. Quite the contrary. Look above to the paragraph that
starts with "I support....."

A respected person very well-versed in the matter of armed defense
once told me he spent 3 days training his parents from ground zero
with firearms. That's 3 days per parent, this after their jewelry
store was robbed at gunpoint. Not 6 hours, 3 days. Each. That
respected person must have seen some value in training.

If I recall the story correctly, these parents became proficient and
frequent shooters, and later stopped another robbery attempt -- with
no shots fired.

Most folks don't have access to anything like that kind of excellent
free coaching -- but training is available and, while not legally
mandated for ownership I assert that it is irresponsible to own a
firearm (or an automobile) without enough training to become safely
proficient in its use.

In some states..safety training and range proficiency is mandated for
CCW applicants.

I dont believe in owning a hammer, keeping it in a drawer until the
one day you need to put in a picture hanger. But its better to have
that hammer than try to pound in the nail with the ass end of a heavy
butter knife.

OK with hammers, but he or she who might drive the nail with the
butt of a handgun (while S.O. is stirring paint with the
butterknife) would probably be better off without one.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertain...52&p=y8x94z858

28/04/2006 - 11:01:28

Movie icon Charlton Heston is lost in a world of Alzheimer's Disease,
according to close family friends.

The Ten Commandments star, 81, is reportedly in the final stages of
the insidious disease, which robs sufferers of their memories -
and friends fear he'll be dead by the end of the year.

One pal tells American tabloid the Globe: "He's way beyond the point
of slight memory loss and forgetfulness. He can hardly comprehend
a thing anymore.

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

Retief wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you think
the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of
business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

You're really wasting your breath explaining these facts to the
lib-tard Cliff and his commie cohorts. They know full well the truth,
it just doesn't fit their agenda, so they make up crap, spin the truth,
and dribble nonsense in a feeble attempt to advance their agenda.

This is why I finally just dropped Cliff and those like him into my
long term commie-kill-file with a resounding pinko.


Anyone that still goes around calling people "Commie" or "Pinko" in the 21st
century is a certified fossil. Somebody needs to tell them that Communism
went out in the last century. But as a conservative you have to expect those
people can't or won't change with the times. Which is why they call them
conservatives. They're always living in the past.


Hawke

On 1 May 2006 06:09:21 -0700, "tillius"
wrote:


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

Retief wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you think
the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of
business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

You're really wasting your breath explaining these facts to the
lib-tard Cliff and his commie cohorts. They know full well the truth,
it just doesn't fit their agenda, so they make up crap, spin the truth,
and dribble nonsense in a feeble attempt to advance their agenda.

This is why I finally just dropped Cliff and those like him into my
long term commie-kill-file with a resounding pinko.


Anyone that still goes around calling people "Commie" or "Pinko" in the 21st
century is a certified fossil. Somebody needs to tell them that Communism
went out in the last century. But as a conservative you have to expect those
people can't or won't change with the times. Which is why they call them
conservatives. They're always living in the past.


Hawke

Applying a new label to an old evil doesn't change that evil. There are
many names for what you, Cliff-tard and the rest of the brain-dead
leftwingers a Liberal, Socialist, Commie, Pinko, Slave-master,
Demoncrap, lib-tard, etc.

Pick one, they all fit.

Till

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist

On 1 May 2006 06:09:21 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

Applying a new label to an old evil doesn't change that evil. There are
many names for what you, Cliff-tard and the rest of the brain-dead
leftwingers a Liberal, Socialist, Commie, Pinko, Slave-master,
Demoncrap, lib-tard, etc.

Pick one, they all fit.

Starting "preemptive" wars based on known (or even suspected)
lies is called mass murder & treason.
Guess what supporting same is called.

That free money via deficits is called theft. And rather grand
ones.

Can you spell stupidity, gullible or moron? How about "brain dead winger"?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 01 May 2006 15:44:43 GMT, Gunner wrote:

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

He tossed out the US mob & a very corrupt dictator
& the republicans were annoyed ....
Lose much money?
--
Cliff

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

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

Retief wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you
think
the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of
business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products
at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

You're really wasting your breath explaining these facts to the
lib-tard Cliff and his commie cohorts. They know full well the truth,
it just doesn't fit their agenda, so they make up crap, spin the
truth,
and dribble nonsense in a feeble attempt to advance their agenda.

This is why I finally just dropped Cliff and those like him into my
long term commie-kill-file with a resounding pinko.


Anyone that still goes around calling people "Commie" or "Pinko" in the
21st
century is a certified fossil. Somebody needs to tell them that
Communism
went out in the last century. But as a conservative you have to expect
those
people can't or won't change with the times. Which is why they call them
conservatives. They're always living in the past.


Hawke

Applying a new label to an old evil doesn't change that evil. There are
many names for what you, Cliff-tard and the rest of the brain-dead
leftwingers a Liberal, Socialist, Commie, Pinko, Slave-master,
Demoncrap, lib-tard, etc.

Pick one, they all fit.

Till

I'd tell you what people like you are called but you should already know by
now what you are, and the names are not pretty. The problem you have is that
you are mired in really old ways of thinking and an old fashioned view of
how the world is today, it's not like when the world was divided between the
US and the USSR anymore. Times have changed. Obviously, you have not. Hold
on to the old ways for the rest of your life but they won't have any meaning
to anyone but you. Buggy whip anyone?

Hawke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 1 May 2006 06:09:21 -0700, "tillius"
wrote:


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

Retief wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you
think
the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of
business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes
(which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products
at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people
also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

You're really wasting your breath explaining these facts to the
lib-tard Cliff and his commie cohorts. They know full well the truth,
it just doesn't fit their agenda, so they make up crap, spin the
truth,
and dribble nonsense in a feeble attempt to advance their agenda.

This is why I finally just dropped Cliff and those like him into my
long term commie-kill-file with a resounding pinko.


Anyone that still goes around calling people "Commie" or "Pinko" in the
21st
century is a certified fossil. Somebody needs to tell them that
Communism
went out in the last century. But as a conservative you have to expect
those
people can't or won't change with the times. Which is why they call
them
conservatives. They're always living in the past.


Hawke

Applying a new label to an old evil doesn't change that evil. There are
many names for what you, Cliff-tard and the rest of the brain-dead
leftwingers a Liberal, Socialist, Commie, Pinko, Slave-master,
Demoncrap, lib-tard, etc.

Pick one, they all fit.

Till

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

No, he's a dictator. Since most of Latin America has been led by dictators
for centuries I would think you would know what one looks like and wouldn't
have to ask what he is. Batista was the dictator before him. I don't know
what he called himself but Castro is no different even though he likes to
think he is. The label of "Communist" for Castro is silly. He's just a run
of the mill dictator.

Hawke

On Mon, 1 May 2006 23:37:29 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

No, he's a dictator. Since most of Latin America has been led by dictators
for centuries I would think you would know what one looks like and wouldn't
have to ask what he is. Batista was the dictator before him. I don't know
what he called himself but Castro is no different even though he likes to
think he is. The label of "Communist" for Castro is silly. He's just a run
of the mill dictator.

IIRC He does not live the lifestyle. The people of Cuba seem to be a
lot better off than under the US mob & Batista too.
Their healthcare may be better than that in the US as well. So a few
CIA agents may be in jail .... and the US is harboring wanted terrorists ..
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 May 2006 23:37:29 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

No, he's a dictator. Since most of Latin America has been led by dictators
for centuries I would think you would know what one looks like and
wouldn't
have to ask what he is. Batista was the dictator before him. I don't know
what he called himself but Castro is no different even though he likes to
think he is. The label of "Communist" for Castro is silly. He's just a run
of the mill dictator.

IIRC He does not live the lifestyle. The people of Cuba seem to be a
lot better off than under the US mob & Batista too.
Their healthcare may be better than that in the US as well. So a few
CIA agents may be in jail .... and the US is harboring wanted terrorists
..
--
Cliff

%%%% You failed to mention that people are dieing every day to leave this
utopia.

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

David Moffitt wrote:

%%%% You failed to mention that people are dieing every day to leave this
utopia.


Of course they did. That's what the lib-tards do:

Distort the truth
twist the facts
omit pertinent facts
make up outright lies
and enslave the masses by breeding depenancy on 'assistance programs'

End racism and slavery today! Just say NO to demoncraps.

Tillman

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

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

Retief wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:37 -0700, "Jim E"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message news:

Their solution of course is to tax the oil companies.

Compared to giving them billions of dollars in corporate
neocon government welfare & no-bid contracts ....
--
Cliff

Gee, If you tax the **** out of the oil companies, what do you
think
the
chances are that the oil companies will pass the increased cost of
business
on to the consumer?

They live under the mistaken idea that corporations pay taxes (which
fits in nicely with their idea that corporations will sell products
at
a net loss). The fact is, the consumer pays all of a corporation's
taxes, salaries, benefits and bonuses... But then these people also
think that the government has and/or generates its own money (and
doesn't acquire that money by taking it from the citizens).

Retief

You're really wasting your breath explaining these facts to the
lib-tard Cliff and his commie cohorts. They know full well the truth,
it just doesn't fit their agenda, so they make up crap, spin the
truth,
and dribble nonsense in a feeble attempt to advance their agenda.

This is why I finally just dropped Cliff and those like him into my
long term commie-kill-file with a resounding pinko.


Anyone that still goes around calling people "Commie" or "Pinko" in the
21st
century is a certified fossil. Somebody needs to tell them that
Communism
went out in the last century. But as a conservative you have to expect
those
people can't or won't change with the times. Which is why they call them
conservatives. They're always living in the past.


Hawke

Applying a new label to an old evil doesn't change that evil. There are
many names for what you, Cliff-tard and the rest of the brain-dead
leftwingers a Liberal, Socialist, Commie, Pinko, Slave-master,
Demoncrap, lib-tard, etc.

Pick one, they all fit.

Till

I'd tell you what people like you are called but you should already know by
now what you are, and the names are not pretty. The problem you have is that
you are mired in really old ways of thinking and an old fashioned view of
how the world is today, it's not like when the world was divided between the
US and the USSR anymore. Times have changed. Obviously, you have not. Hold
on to the old ways for the rest of your life but they won't have any meaning
to anyone but you. Buggy whip anyone?

Hawke

Or course the world has changed.
The evil ones now call themselves Democrats.

Ignore history. You'll get to repeat it that way.

Till
Apathy is the hand that opens the door to tyranny.

In article .com, tillius
says...

Distort the truth
twist the facts
omit pertinent facts
make up outright lies
and enslave the masses by breeding depenancy on 'assistance programs'

Thus we have conclusive proof that:

Kenny Boy Lay
Jeff Skilling
Abramoff
Delay
Rove
Cunninghamn
Libby
Ney

Are all libtards. They walk the walk, they might as well
get tarred with the brush. Next in line: Cheney to depart?


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com,
tillius says...

Distort the truth
twist the facts
omit pertinent facts
make up outright lies
and enslave the masses by breeding depenancy on 'assistance programs'

Thus we have conclusive proof that:

Kenny Boy Lay
Jeff Skilling
Abramoff
Delay
Rove
Cunninghamn
Libby
Ney

Are all libtards. They walk the walk, they might as well
get tarred with the brush. Next in line: Cheney to depart?

Jim,
Think goober will tap McCain to replace Cheney and then resign in disgrace
as Nixon did?

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

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just more
violent people.

On 2 May 2006 05:39:06 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

End racism and slavery today! Just say NO to demoncraps.

So much for good old conservative values.
--
Cliff

On 2 May 2006 05:42:55 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

Or course the world has changed.

http://tinyurl.com/owr9e
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...pad/1143pe.jpg

http://imageserver4.textamerica.com/...0908004216.jpg
http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/shock-awe.jpg
http://willserver.com/freewill/news/iraq/01.jpg

The evil ones now call themselves Democrats.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm
http://www.yuricareport.com/Iraq/Sen...edyonIraq.html

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:26:07 -0700, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just more
violent people.

I checked some of the available data sometime back.
Take out the US gun deaths & the rates are very similar
for all else, Canada, Japan, UK .... the US gun deaths seem to
just be extra freebies.
Most are also family members & people known well by the
gun's holder.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 02 May 2006 12:06:38 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

Real friends help you move bodies.

http://iraq-kill-maim.org/kid-kill/kid-kill-01.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...buse117_ap.jpg

HTH
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:26:07 -0700, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on
the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just more
violent people.

I checked some of the available data sometime back.
Take out the US gun deaths & the rates are very similar
for all else, Canada, Japan, UK .... the US gun deaths seem to
just be extra freebies.
Most are also family members & people known well by the
gun's holder.
--
Cliff

%%%% Cite and it need to be better than Kellermann. ")

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

Kenny Boy Lay
Jeff Skilling
Abramoff
Delay
Rove
Cunninghamn
Libby
Ney

Are all libtards. They walk the walk, they might as well
get tarred with the brush. Next in line: Cheney to depart?

Jim,
Think goober will tap McCain to replace Cheney and then resign in disgrace
as Nixon did?

Nixon's looking better and better. All I can say is they better
be stocking up on pardon stamp ink in the oval office. I don't think
he's gonna resign, they'll have to drag him out kicking and screaming.
Cheney's there to stay I suspect. McCain's not a bad choice, but
I sort of think that he might go back on the pardon promise given what
bush did to him in the past. Revenge would be sweet....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 02 May 2006 20:50:46 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:26:07 -0700, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on
the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just more
violent people.

I checked some of the available data sometime back.
Take out the US gun deaths & the rates are very similar
for all else, Canada, Japan, UK .... the US gun deaths seem to
just be extra freebies.
Most are also family members & people known well by the
gun's holder.
--
Cliff

%%%% Cite and it need to be better than Kellermann. ")

Who is "Kellermann"?
Try the numbers at places like Interpol or perhaps the UN.
Many nations keep track of deaths & causes.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 May 2006 20:50:46 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:26:07 -0700, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey
on
the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live
as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would
also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and
here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just
more
violent people.

I checked some of the available data sometime back.
Take out the US gun deaths & the rates are very similar
for all else, Canada, Japan, UK .... the US gun deaths seem to
just be extra freebies.
Most are also family members & people known well by the
gun's holder.
--
Cliff

%%%% Cite and it need to be better than Kellermann. ")

Who is "Kellermann"?
Try the numbers at places like Interpol or perhaps the UN.
Many nations keep track of deaths & causes.
--
Cliff

%%%% I live in America. Do try again.

"I wouldn't mind having a 50 caliber sniper rifle. Just to shoot the
**** out of things, like the neighbor's dog ****ting in my yard, for
example." --Cheeks in talk.politics.guns 3/29/2006 3:20 PM

Symptoms of hoplophobia:
Your fear of firearms can result in the following symptoms: breathlessness,
dizziness, excessive sweating, nausea, dry mouth, feeling sick, heart
palpitations, inability to speak or think clearly, a fear of dying, becoming
mad or losing control, a sensation of detachment from reality or a full
blown anxiety attack.

You are not the only one to suffer from hoplophobia.
Most sufferers are surprised to learn that they are far from alone in this
surprisingly common, although often unspoken, phobia.

Hoplophobia is an intense fear of something that poses little or no actual
danger. While adults with hoplophobia realize that these fears are
irrational, they often find that facing, or even thinking about facing, the
feared situation brings on a panic attack or severe anxiety.






There is a Way Out
Imagine what your life will be like when you know that you are not
"defective". When you can be confident and at ease in situations where you
used to feel your hoplophobia. And when you can talk about your former
hoplophobia symptoms as though you are describing a movie where the
character is someone else, not you.






An Amazing Discovery

Several years ago, a psychologist specializing in phobias like hoplophobia,
made an amazing discovery.

He kept up-to-date with all the leading therapies. And he tried them all.
And no matter what therapy modality he tried, the cure rate of phobias like
hoplophobia was less than 5%. Oh sure, patients made progress. But it was
only incremental. And therapy took years, not months.

Then he made an amazing discovery and his ability to eliminate hoplophobia
soared to over 80%. He was so successful it nearly put him out of business.

Well, it didn't put him out of business, but it did--at least for
awhile--create a financial strain for the first time in his career. You see,
he was able to "cure" hoplophobia clients often in one session, rarely more
than five or six.

This was a radical change from years of therapy. And quite a hit to his
income. Now he has raised his rates. And you might be able to get an
appointment with him...if you have about $1,000 handy.

That's the "price" of success.

What was the discovery? It was so simple, but nobody thought of looking
there before.

Here it is, and it is called The Discovery Statement:

"The cause of all negative emotions
is a disruption in the body's energy system."

Note what he didn't say. He didn't say that it was in your thoughts, habits,
beliefs, strategies or any other thing (although they do play a factor).
Those are "the branches".

The energy system is "the root". And from this root the field of Energy
Psychology was born.

Since this discovery, other innovators have emerged in Energy Psychology.
And they offer solutions to emotional issues such as hoplophobia.

A really nice feature of Energy Psychology is that in many cases self-help
is sufficient. In cases where a therapist is desired or needed, Hoplophobia
Live Help can be provided over the phone. And since not much talking is
involved, the sessions are quick and affordable.
http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/live-help.html






Does It Work for Everyone?

In a word, no it doesn't. It's not perfect. It only works about 85% of the
time. But that is a radical shift from about 5% rate for some methods.

A reason it may not work is that frankly some people are afraid to give up
their hoplophobia. Their identity is wrapped up in it. They have had their
hoplophobia so long that they don't know who they would be without it.
Fortunately, the same methods can be used to eliminate this fear first,
should it arise.

Finally, some people just love to talk about their hoplophobia. That's one
reason why some people may spend years in talk therapy. They love to have
someone who cares about them listen to their hoplophobia problems.

Energy Psychology isn't about talk. It's about results. Fast, effective,
lasting results.

A lot of talking about problems keeps people in the "stuck" state and is
counterproductive. So people who really want to talk about their hoplophobia
because they are not really ready to let them go may not achieve optimal
results. People like this may be better satisfied with talk therapy, even if
it means extensive sessions, much higher expense and a lower success rate.
But it is what some people want and seem to need.

Don't get me wrong. Effective Energy Therapists listen really well. And with
compassion. It's just that their focus is on the "root", not the "branches".
You may feel like you have truly been heard for the first time in your life.

So Energy Psychology is not perfect. And it's not for everyone, perhaps only
80% or so of the population. Is it for you? Only you can decide. But it is
worth a try. With the guarantees offered, the only thing you have to lose is
your hoplophobia.

Of course, success rates for elimination of hoplophobia will be higher with
a therapist, But self-help is amazingly effective.



Hoplophobia does respond really well to energy psychology.


Energy psychology is an emerging method that is rapidly gaining favor
because in studies it is shown to be rapid, safe, effective and
long-lasting. For more information on a safe and effective way
http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/p...solutions.html

Hoplophobia can severely disrupt normal life, interfering with school, work,
or social relationships.
Don't suffer needlessly. Don't wait any longer to eliminate this unnecessary
suffering from your life.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 May 2006 23:37:29 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

No, he's a dictator. Since most of Latin America has been led by
dictators
for centuries I would think you would know what one looks like and
wouldn't
have to ask what he is. Batista was the dictator before him. I don't know
what he called himself but Castro is no different even though he likes to
think he is. The label of "Communist" for Castro is silly. He's just a
run
of the mill dictator.

IIRC He does not live the lifestyle. The people of Cuba seem to be a
lot better off than under the US mob & Batista too.
Their healthcare may be better than that in the US as well. So a few
CIA agents may be in jail .... and the US is harboring wanted terrorists
...


That all may well be true but Castro is still a dictator even if he has done
a lot to improve the lives of the Cuban people compared to his predecessor.

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com...
jim rozen wrote:
In article .com,
tillius says...

Distort the truth
twist the facts
omit pertinent facts
make up outright lies
and enslave the masses by breeding depenancy on 'assistance programs'

Thus we have conclusive proof that:

Kenny Boy Lay
Jeff Skilling
Abramoff
Delay
Rove
Cunninghamn
Libby
Ney

Are all libtards. They walk the walk, they might as well
get tarred with the brush. Next in line: Cheney to depart?

Jim,
Think goober will tap McCain to replace Cheney and then resign in disgrace
as Nixon did?

Why would they do something like that? They still think they are doing a
heck of a job. And from what you hear the right wing robots around here say
they agree with them. Don't you know we're winning in Iraq? No need to
change anything everything is going just fine. Just ask them. They'll keep
up the good work right up until the end. They just see reality a little
differently than everyone else does is all.

Hawke

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on
the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just more
violent people.

There have been numerous studies about American violence. They show it's not
really about guns themselves. If you look at gun deaths in this country you
have to break them down into categories to understand what is going on.
First off, accidental shootings have declined considerably over the years
and as I recall there are somewhere around 5,000 accidental deaths by guns
per year. That is not a lot in a country this big. More people die in home
swimming pool accidents, which should give some perspective on the problem.

The second category is suicide by guns, which for some reason is calculated
in gun violence statistics. Most cases are old white men who kill
themselves. Then you have the killings by people under 25 years old, who are
mainly young males. Most of these killings are gang related. I've heard
there are 50,000 gang members in L.A. alone so fights over turf will make
for a lot of violence. So you can see that if you break it down gun violence
isn't all that prevalent except in a couple of specific areas.

Cliff is right in that aside from the examples I just mentioned it is rare
for a stranger to kill someone. At least 85% of the time when someone is
killed it is by a friend or relative. In those cases, many of which are
domestic violence, the absence of a gun isn't going to prevent a man from
killing his wife or girlfriend. When all is said and done there are a number
of sociological reasons why America is a violent place. Some say it's
because of the level of socioeconomic inequality. The point is different
societies are more or less violent and the weapons they use don't really
matter. Take away American's guns and they won't turn peaceful, they'll just
pick up something else to do the job.

The most violent people on record are primitive tribal people in New Guinea,
or Borneo, or some place like that. The kill each other at the highest rate
per 100,000 of any people in the world and they have no firearms. I think
it's just that Americans act more like those people than they do Europeans.
In other words, we have a long way to go before we shed our violent
tendencies. As someone said; it's not a perfect country...that's why we have
guns.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 May 2006 23:37:29 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

I wonder..is Castro a " Progressive "?

No, he's a dictator. Since most of Latin America has been led by
dictators
for centuries I would think you would know what one looks like and
wouldn't
have to ask what he is. Batista was the dictator before him. I don't know
what he called himself but Castro is no different even though he likes to
think he is. The label of "Communist" for Castro is silly. He's just a
run
of the mill dictator.

IIRC He does not live the lifestyle. The people of Cuba seem to be a
lot better off than under the US mob & Batista too.
Their healthcare may be better than that in the US as well. So a few
CIA agents may be in jail .... and the US is harboring wanted terrorists
..


That all may well be true but Castro is still a dictator even if he has done
a lot to improve the lives of the Cuban people compared to his predecessor.

Hawke

Unbelievable! Now the lib-tards are praising Castro's work in improving
the lives of the Cuban people?

That's it. All you Cuban refugee's, GO HOME NOW! The demoncraps said
it's better there now.

On second thought, it's not so unbelievable. What more can you really
expect from a bunch of left-wingers?

Till

On Tue, 2 May 2006 23:22:15 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

First off, accidental shootings have declined considerably over the years
and as I recall there are somewhere around 5,000 accidental deaths by guns
per year.

"In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the
United States."
IOW The gun was actually used in self defense to kill someone....
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/f...page=firefacts

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you. But police
shootings need to be counted too if they were "justifiable".
Sort of in line with one of Gunner's cites.
But I'll still only claim ~ 8 to 1 against you, based on the research
I did g.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 2 May 2006 23:22:15 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on
the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just more
violent people.

There have been numerous studies about American violence. They show it's not
really about guns themselves.

The gun deaths are extra. On easy, handy shot ...
--
Cliff

On Wed, 03 May 2006 00:23:35 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 May 2006 20:50:46 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:26:07 -0700, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey
on
the
weak.

Thats an interesting point that ive brought up to my Euro friends in the
past. They are constantly comparing gun related deaths where they live
as
to where I live. (An example was the Seattle rave shooting). I would
also
like to see a general comparison of violent crimes between there and
here
to show if its guns that are the problem or is it that there are just
more
violent people.

I checked some of the available data sometime back.
Take out the US gun deaths & the rates are very similar
for all else, Canada, Japan, UK .... the US gun deaths seem to
just be extra freebies.
Most are also family members & people known well by the
gun's holder.
--
Cliff

%%%% Cite and it need to be better than Kellermann. ")

Who is "Kellermann"?
Try the numbers at places like Interpol or perhaps the UN.
Many nations keep track of deaths & causes.
--
Cliff

%%%% I live in America. Do try again.

And you think that being a winger gives you a right
to lie &/or ignore the actual data?
BTW, For US data see the CDC .... they count the dead too.
--
Cliff