On Tue, 2 May 2006 22:51:03 -0700, "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.

Cuba:
[
Legal system:
based on Spanish and American law
]
[
Suffrage:
16 years of age; universal
]
[
elections: president and vice presidents elected by the National Assembly for a
term of five years; election last held 6 March 2003 (next to be held in 2008)
]

Sort of like the US Electoral College with it's unanimous vote forGeroge
Washington ..

[
Legislative branch:
unicameral National Assembly of People's Power or Asemblea Nacional del Poder
Popular (609 seats, elected directly from slates approved by special candidacy
commissions; members serve five-year terms)
]

"Special candidacy commissions" sort of like republicans & democrats ..

[
Judicial branch:
People's Supreme Court or Tribunal Supremo Popular (president, vice president,
and other judges are elected by the National Assembly)
]

[
GDP - real growth rate:
5.5% (2005 est.)
]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...s/cu.html#Govt
Probably not unbiased ..

Castro seems quite popular with the people of Cuba. Their call ....
it was not good for the people there before.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote in news:mjrh525e3uintiqkfk8di80b8lcoop6mtr@
4ax.com:

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you.

You really suck at math. 5,000/number of firearms = the odds against you
being shot by accident.

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it. How many
"events" ended without a shot fired? IOW, the criminal gives up when the
legally owned gun is drawn.


--

Dan

Quid Aere Perennius

D Murphy wrote:
Cliff wrote in news:mjrh525e3uintiqkfk8di80b8lcoop6mtr@
4ax.com:

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you.

You really suck at math. 5,000/number of firearms = the odds against you
being shot by accident.

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it. How many
"events" ended without a shot fired? IOW, the criminal gives up when the
legally owned gun is drawn.


--

Dan

Quid Aere Perennius

You're wasting your time. Cliff's a lib-tard. The facts mean nothing to
them.

Till

On 3 May 2006 19:17:06 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:mjrh525e3uintiqkfk8di80b8lcoop6mtr@
4ax.com:

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you.

You really suck at math. 5,000/number of firearms = the odds against you
being shot by accident.

That was not the number of firearms, sorry.
Nor was it entirely about accidents ... it was
about outcomes & safety.

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it.

You &/or you guns that make you "safer" on average have really,
really bad odds of being legally "safer" it seems.

How many "events" ended without a shot fired?

How many involved no guns?

IOW, the criminal

The guy that has the drop on you while trying to steal those
attractive guns you are running to find & load?

gives up when the legally owned gun is drawn.

Hence there should be few, if any, gun deaths, right? And
those few are all "justifiable homicides" ....

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

HTH
--
Cliff

On 3 May 2006 05:17:41 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

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

He even offered to help out bush (on vacation), the neocons & FEMA in
New Orleans ..... Halliburton & Blackwater seemed opposed ..

http://www.eadshome.com/images/found...ght%20suit.jpg

"FEMA closes office in New Orleans"
"FEMA to close last NO office"
"With city far from whole, FEMA closes long-term recovery office "

Have your plastic flim & duct tape ready?
"Bush puts "duct tape" idiot in charge of FEMA .."

http://www.rappincowboy.com/uploaded...ing-709346.jpg

"Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house --
there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the
porch."

"And I'm not looking forward to this trip" ... He was on yet another endless
paid vacation ... but all too soon someone saw the news on someTV I guess ...

HTH
--
Cliff

"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

If you weren't so ignorant you would know, like we do, that Castro has done
a lot for the Cuban people, COMPARED TO THE GUY BEFORE HIM. By the way, a
guy our government had no trouble with even though he treated Cubans like
****. I don't expect you to be able to tell the difference between them
though. That takes some brains and education.

Hawke

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
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.


When I said 5,000 accidental shootings I wasn't talking about justifiable
uses of a firearm. I meant accidental shootings like children finding guns
and shooting someone or hunting accidents or accidentally shooting oneself
cleaning a gun, that sort of thing. Accidents, not intentional uses. So, I
think you have to adjust the odds in my favor G.

Hawke

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On 3 May 2006 19:17:06 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:mjrh525e3uintiqkfk8di80b8lcoop6mtr@
4ax.com:

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you.

You really suck at math. 5,000/number of firearms = the odds against you
being shot by accident.

That was not the number of firearms, sorry.
Nor was it entirely about accidents ... it was
about outcomes & safety.

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it.

You &/or you guns that make you "safer" on average have really,
really bad odds of being legally "safer" it seems.

How many "events" ended without a shot fired?

How many involved no guns?

IOW, the criminal

The guy that has the drop on you while trying to steal those
attractive guns you are running to find & load?

gives up when the legally owned gun is drawn.

Hence there should be few, if any, gun deaths, right? And
those few are all "justifiable homicides" ....

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur. Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one. If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety that is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody has any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to achieve.
According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed. It doesn't get better than that. Right?

Hawke

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
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.

%%%% Bull****. There have been over 154 already this year.

Miami, Florida

From Miami's CBS4.comPublication of May 4, 2006
Home Invasion Suspect Shot Dead By Neighbor

Second Suspect Captured
Third Suspect Remains On The Loose
Neighbor's Daughter Also Accidentally Hurt By Her Brother During The
Commotion

A home invasion robbery has turned deadly for one of the bad guys, while a
second suspect was captured and a third remains loose.

It all started around 10:45 p.m. Wednesday night the trio of armed home
invaders knocked on the door of 15980 SW 76th Street in the community of
Lago Mar. When the victim opened the door, the three armed men forced their
way in with a gun to the victim's head.

The victim's girlfriend was in another room. When she realized what was
going on, she quickly ran out of the back of the house with her cell phone
and called police. Then she ran to her neighbor's home for help.

That neighbor then grabbed a gun and ran next door to help. At some point
however, he was confronted by the 3 armed suspects and there was an exchange
of gunfire.

One suspect was hit and he died on the scene.

Another suspect was quickly captured by a MDPD K9 officer, but a third
however, managed to elude police and is still at large.

Officers have also recovered at least one knife and several guns from the
scene. It's evidence, police say, that was dropped by the suspects when they
tried to getaway.

Tragically, when the neighbor ran out of his home with his gun, his son
also ran out of the house to help while holding a butcher knife. The boy's
12 year old sister also ran out of the house and was accidentally cut by the
brother holding the knife. She sliced an artery and was rushed to the
hospital to undergo surgery.

Miami-Dade Homicide detectives are presently investigating this case.


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

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.

%%%% Yes the CDC stated ther were over 1,500, justifiable uses of handguns a
year.

Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

From TheMilwaukeeChannel.com of May 3, 2006
Police: Wauwatosa Business Owner Shoots Would-Be Robber

Two men tried to rob a tropical fish store on North Avenue in Wauwatosa
Tuesday afternoon, but the store owner decided to fight back and fired a gun
at the robbers.

An Aqua-Terra Aquarium employee told 12 News reporter Kai Reed that her
boss was just opening up the store at noon when two men ran in and tried to
rob the place.

Jessica Fohl wasn't there, but she heard the details during a phone call
to her boss.

"He said, 'Somebody just came in the store and tried to rob me at
gunpoint.' He said, 'Right now,' he said, 'Some guy ran, and I shot after
him,' and he said. 'I have another person on the floor right now that I'm
standing on and holding at gunpoint,'" Fohl said.

Fohl said the owner has kept a gun under the counter since he opened up
the store 32 years ago.

Two stores across the street were held up last week. Several others have
been targeted in the last year, 12 News reported.

Fohl said there would have only been $100 or less in drawer.

An 18-year-old was shot in the chest. He ran to a home nearby, where
police captured him. He is in critical condition in an area hospital. The
other teenager, 17, is in police custody.

--
Cliff

On Thu, 4 May 2006 00:28:41 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
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.


When I said 5,000 accidental shootings I wasn't talking about justifiable
uses of a firearm. I meant accidental shootings like children finding guns
and shooting someone or hunting accidents or accidentally shooting oneself
cleaning a gun, that sort of thing. Accidents, not intentional uses. So, I
think you have to adjust the odds in my favor G.

Hawke

In my calculations I used total gun deaths vs. justified ones.
The results are almost the same: very, very bad odds and
it put the lie to the statement "guns make you safer" (and any
similar gunlogic nutcase claims) quite clearly.
Consider the usual lack of deaths by gunfire were few have any
guns handy ... ane even criminals & police feel safer ...

Alcohol is involved in nearly 40% of highway fatalities, of which there have
been ~ 5,645 (per http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html) thus
far this year.
Would you & others be safer if everyone drove while drunk? After all,
so many get home safely .... and being drunk may have saved a few lives
now & then ...
--
Cliff

On Thu, 4 May 2006 00:42:09 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On 3 May 2006 19:17:06 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:mjrh525e3uintiqkfk8di80b8lcoop6mtr@
4ax.com:

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you.

You really suck at math. 5,000/number of firearms = the odds against you
being shot by accident.

That was not the number of firearms, sorry.
Nor was it entirely about accidents ... it was
about outcomes & safety.

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it.

You &/or you guns that make you "safer" on average have really,
really bad odds of being legally "safer" it seems.

How many "events" ended without a shot fired?

How many involved no guns?

IOW, the criminal

The guy that has the drop on you while trying to steal those
attractive guns you are running to find & load?

gives up when the legally owned gun is drawn.

Hence there should be few, if any, gun deaths, right? And
those few are all "justifiable homicides" ....

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur.

??

Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not

Oops .. then the premise/assumption/claim on which the logic operated
must be a false one.

and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one.

Reducto ad absurdium...

If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety that is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody has any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to achieve.

It would be good to have the most gun deaths?

According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed.

Simple gunlogic 101. Probably NRA certified true.

It doesn't get better than that. Right?

So the gunnutz tell us.

Hawke
--
Cliff

On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:04:22 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
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.

%%%% Bull****. There have been over 154 already this year.

A lot more guns since 1999. The advertising works, just like neocon lies
about "WMDs".


Miami, Florida

"There were 123 pediatric firearm deaths in Miami-Dade County from 1994 to
1998"
In Miami in 2001 there were 10.1 gun deaths per 100,000 people ... compared to
Queens, NY with 3.4 or Santa Clara, CA with 3.8.
You get free guns in Florida, right?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:07:42 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

BTW, For US data see the CDC .... they count the dead too.

%%%% Yes the CDC stated ther were over 1,500, justifiable uses of handguns a
year.

Cites? Compared to how many unjustified? To total
gun deaths?
Which way to bet .. ?
Justified does not mean required, BTW. Just locking
the doors ... cheaper too.
--
Cliff

Jared Diamond, in his latest, "Collapse" cites two examples where
societies were saved by dictators- Tokugawa in Japan, and Trujillo in
the Dominican Republic, by doing what no democratic government will do.

In both cases, they were clearcutting, and this was devastating the
lowlands with floods. Both dictators had the same simple solution: they
sent out goon squads to murder the loggers.

Diamond notes that today, if you fly over the island, you can see how
brown and devastated Haiti is, and how green and lush the Dominican end
of the island is.

Likewise, we have the example of Dion in Syracuse. Franco kept Spain out
of WWII; a democracy would have been morally bound to fight the Nazis,
and seen the country devastated as so many others were.

Machiavelli prefers monarchy because after its been going a while, a
nation becomes like a family business, and the leadership considers what
will be handed down to the granchildren. Republics give this lip
service, but as we see, increase entitlements to unsustainable levels.

Everone bitches about the tyranny of Augustus, but what he replaced was
a corrupt republic that kept on resorting to goon squads and civil war.

Were Machiavelli to look at the Untied States of Denial, he'd say it was
ready for tyranny or anarchy. Pick one. If the leader is rational, as
they sometimes are, the results are vastly better. Yes, absolute power
corrupts, but only if the leader is corruptable; which they usually are.
But Tokugawa set a standard for himself and the Samurai that lasted for
hundreds of years that is still widely admired.

Only when the gun eliminated the need for bravery with the sword in hand
did it start to come apart. Japan banned guns successfully for a long
time, an example of integrity that is hard to match.

Day Brown wrote:
snip
Only when the gun eliminated the need for bravery with the sword in hand
did it start to come apart. Japan banned guns successfully for a long
time, an example of integrity that is hard to match.

Integrity? Is maintaining tyranny by making the force of arms and the
knowledge to effectively use them only available to a select minority
what you consider integrity? I'd be more inclined to consider it the
final desperate throws of a dictator struggling to hold power in the
face of progress and freedom for the people.

For that matter, how does a firearm eliminate the need for bravery?
Reading the medical history of the U.S. Civil War, in particular, will
disabuse you of that delusion in short order.

But what do I know?

TK

--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence.

Cliff wrote in
:

Alcohol is involved in nearly 40% of highway fatalities, of which
there have
been ~ 5,645 (per http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html) thus
far this year.
Would you & others be safer if everyone drove while drunk? After
all,
so many get home safely .... and being drunk may have saved a few
lives now & then ...

But your logic would dictate that we ban the automobile.

Speaking of booze... How many gun accidents and/or homicides involve
alcohol?

I'm betting it's as high or higher than the 40% highway statistic.

--

Dan

Quid Aere Perennius

On 5 May 2006 02:21:02 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, D Murphy
quickly quoth:

Cliff wrote in
:

Alcohol is involved in nearly 40% of highway fatalities, of which
there have
been ~ 5,645 (per http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html) thus
far this year.
Would you & others be safer if everyone drove while drunk? After
all,
so many get home safely .... and being drunk may have saved a few
lives now & then ...

But your logic would dictate that we ban the automobile.

Speaking of booze... How many gun accidents and/or homicides involve
alcohol?

I'm betting it's as high or higher than the 40% highway statistic.

For those of you participating in this thread (and/or responding to
any post of Cliff's) DO go view this video. It will explain much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQxnHstoBis



--
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient
while nature cures the disease. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
--
www.diversify.com - Medicine-free Website Development

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 May 2006 00:28:41 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
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.


When I said 5,000 accidental shootings I wasn't talking about justifiable
uses of a firearm. I meant accidental shootings like children finding
guns
and shooting someone or hunting accidents or accidentally shooting
oneself
cleaning a gun, that sort of thing. Accidents, not intentional uses. So,
I
think you have to adjust the odds in my favor G.

Hawke

In my calculations I used total gun deaths vs. justified ones.
The results are almost the same: very, very bad odds and
it put the lie to the statement "guns make you safer" (and any
similar gunlogic nutcase claims) quite clearly.
Consider the usual lack of deaths by gunfire were few have any
guns handy ... ane even criminals & police feel safer ...

Alcohol is involved in nearly 40% of highway fatalities, of which there
have
been ~ 5,645 (per http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html) thus
far this year.
Would you & others be safer if everyone drove while drunk? After all,
so many get home safely .... and being drunk may have saved a few lives
now & then ...
--
Cliff


The only problem with your assertion about being safer if there were no guns
is that it isn't true. If all guns were gone (a fantasy that can never
happen) violence in America wouldn't be appreciably less. As has been shown
in many studies, it's not the availability of a gun that is the causal
factor in violence. At it's core, it's the will of the individual that is
responsible. Taking one kind of weapon from a violent and twisted individual
won't make anyone safe. All depriving you of the right to a gun does is to
ensure that in the case of an assault you will have no way to defend
yourself. If you think you are safer from single or multiple assailants by
being unarmed, be my guest, although that idea is absurd on it's face. Me, I
would prefer to rely on having a weapon and knowing how to use it than
relying on the mercy of an attacker, or hoping a cop will be around to
protect me. I wouldn't think for a second of preventing you from going
through life unarmed, it's a free country. But I would ask that you would
afford me the same courtesy by allowing me to choose to be armed.

Hawke

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it.

You &/or you guns that make you "safer" on average have really,
really bad odds of being legally "safer" it seems.

How many "events" ended without a shot fired?

How many involved no guns?

IOW, the criminal

The guy that has the drop on you while trying to steal those
attractive guns you are running to find & load?

gives up when the legally owned gun is drawn.

Hence there should be few, if any, gun deaths, right? And
those few are all "justifiable homicides" ....

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur.

??

Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not

Oops .. then the premise/assumption/claim on which the logic operated
must be a false one.


Either that or your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.


and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one.

Reducto ad absurdium...

If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety that
is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody has
any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to
achieve


If the least gun deaths occur when everyone is armed then by logic any other
condition would result in more gun deaths. According to the premise any
other situation would result in more gun deaths not fewer. You can't improve
on the least.



It would be good to have the most gun deaths?

No, but your logic is flawed. The conclusion does not follow the premise. As
you said, you have the least gun deaths when everyone is armed. Least means
least.


According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed.


At least according to your argument. It can be logical but still not make
sense.


Simple gunlogic 101. Probably NRA certified true.

Don't know about the NRA, not a member.


It doesn't get better than that. Right?

So the gunnutz tell us.

Maybe, but what do the gunrationalists say about it? It's not better for
everyone to be armed. There are too many idiots out there. But for a
reasonable man it's a lot better to have a gun and not need one than need
one and not have it.

Hawke

On 5 May 2006 02:21:02 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

Alcohol is involved in nearly 40% of highway fatalities, of which
there have
been ~ 5,645 (per http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html) thus
far this year.
Would you & others be safer if everyone drove while drunk? After
all,
so many get home safely .... and being drunk may have saved a few
lives now & then ...

But your logic would dictate that we ban the automobile.

Nobody claimed that they made you safer.

Speaking of booze... How many gun accidents and/or homicides involve
alcohol?

Neighbor a few blocks away on chemo for cancer had a bad reaction
last year. Gun collector.
His neighbors called the police over all the gunshots.

They talked him down & confiscated all of his guns -- most
of the funny things on the basement/ rec-room walls were
probably dead by then .. good thing he was not on the ground
floor or above, his wife was out & he did not look in a mirror.

I'm betting it's as high or higher than the 40% highway statistic.

Check the stats for a few dry states/countires/cities?
--
Cliff

On 5 May 2006 04:22:13 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in
:

If you weren't so ignorant you would know, like we do, that Castro has
done a lot for the Cuban people, COMPARED TO THE GUY BEFORE HIM. By
the way, a guy our government had no trouble with even though he
treated Cubans like ****. I don't expect you to be able to tell the
difference between them though. That takes some brains and education.

Not really. Castro has always been about Castro.

He does not seem to lead the Imperial bush lifestyle.

His revolution had
little to do with the people. The image of Batista as a ruthless wealthy
dictator holding all of the Cuban people in poverty is not accurate.

Oddly, that's not what all those that joined him thought.

Batista started as a dictator, but by the time of Castro's revolution,
he was a freely elected president nearing his final (mandatory) term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista
[
In October, 1938, Batista, who formed a coalition with the Cuban Communist Party
[4] was elected President of Cuba.
.....
In 1944, Batista was forbidden by law to seek re-election by term limits and
was succeeded by Grau.
]
[
Batista staged an almost bloodless coup d'état on March 10, 1952
]
[
Advocates of liberal democracy also viewed Batista's presidency as
unconstitutional and unacceptable because he was not elected (He later held an
election and won unopposed; this was to legitimize his status with the
Americans).
]
[
Against this backdrop of growing civil war, Batista, constitutionally prohibited
from continuing as president, organized an election in which his preferred
candidate Carlos Rivero Aguero defeated Grau. That was not enough, however, as
his regime began to collapse.
]
[
On January 1, 1959, Batista and Rivero fled Cuba ...
]

That's ~14 years after he was not allowed to be "president" due to term
limits ...

Castro's personal wealth on the other hand, is estimated to be around
$900 million, making him one of the wealthiest persons on the planet.
Yet the average Cuban lives in poverty. The image of Castro as a humble
poor servant of the people is just that; an image.

So you think he's a republican?
http://198.62.75.1/www2/fcf/fideldenies1.html

Where's the claimed money?

The notion that Cubans were suffering before Castro took over is just
plain wrong. Havana was the third most expensive city in the world.

The US mob was making a bundle.

It
was in the midst of a boom when Castro took over. Corporations were
opening plants and offices there. Cuba had become a tourist mecca,
providing opportunity and wealth that the Cuban people had not seen
before nor since.

Not many of the people of Cuba.

The real mistake was one which we are about to repeat in Iraq. The U.S.
was forcing democracy down Batista's throat.

Rubbish.

Cuba was not stable enough
to hold both free elections and the peace.

But you just said ....

Cuba had struggled to free
itself from Spain for years, fighting several wars, only to find itself
under the control of the U.S. More struggle and Cuba finally won its'
independence, but not its stability.

If nothing else, Batista brought economic growth

The mob.

and improved standards
of living to the Cuban people. Castro's revolution took place as
Batista's final term was nearing its mandatory end. The newly reformed
Cuban government didn't have the means nor inclination to defend the
country from Castro's invasion.

"Invasion"? Castro invaded Cuba?

Today Cuba remains very poor.

Trade with the US would help both.
Did the last major US candy maker close US operations & move to
Canada with it's cheaper Cuban sugar?

Castro's Cuba was heavily subsidised by the Soviet Union.

That was later.

Since the
collapse of the USSR, oil, food, medicine, and money have been scarce.
Food rationing is a daily reality for the average Cuban.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE482
[
The reasons for the introduction of a system of food rationing in revolutionary
Cuba just three years after the revolution can be found in a combination of two
factors. The first factor was the increasing demand for food as a result of more
purchasing power for the public (increasing incomes and decreasing expenses such
as rent and electricity).
]

Non-subsidized non-rationed food can also be purchased.

The upside to the downside so to speak is that Cuba has a culture that
is unique in today's throw-away world. They conserve, repair, and help
each other out. Robbery and theft are nearly unheard of. No one person
is any better off than any other. In the U.S. everyone is equally free.
In Cuba everyone is equally poor.

Since medicine and health care supplies are scarce, Cubans concentrate
on preventative health care. They make an effort to eat a healthy diet
and get plenty of exercise. As a people they have one of the highest, if
not the highest expected life expectancy for a poor country. When
something breaks, they fix it. If a commodity is scarce, everyone does
their part to conserve it. Like I said, a very unique culture nowadays.

The Cuban people are for the most part a cheerful, close-knit,
resourceful bunch. In a way it will be a shame when modernity eventually
replaces Castro as the Cuban culture will likely be changed forever.

In the end does it really matter what form of government rules Cuba? Why
should we care anymore? Hasn't Cuba paid enough for throwing the
Kennedy's mobster buddies and their casinos out of the country?

If the U.S. really wants to change Cuba all we need do is open trade and
relations with them. Our culture and wealth would infect the place like
a virus, just like China.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 5 May 2006 00:23:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 May 2006 00:28:41 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
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.


When I said 5,000 accidental shootings I wasn't talking about justifiable
uses of a firearm. I meant accidental shootings like children finding
guns
and shooting someone or hunting accidents or accidentally shooting
oneself
cleaning a gun, that sort of thing. Accidents, not intentional uses. So,
I
think you have to adjust the odds in my favor G.

Hawke

In my calculations I used total gun deaths vs. justified ones.
The results are almost the same: very, very bad odds and
it put the lie to the statement "guns make you safer" (and any
similar gunlogic nutcase claims) quite clearly.
Consider the usual lack of deaths by gunfire were few have any
guns handy ... ane even criminals & police feel safer ...

Alcohol is involved in nearly 40% of highway fatalities, of which there
have
been ~ 5,645 (per http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html) thus
far this year.
Would you & others be safer if everyone drove while drunk? After all,
so many get home safely .... and being drunk may have saved a few lives
now & then ...
--
Cliff


The only problem with your assertion about being safer if there were no guns
is that it isn't true.

So you would indeed have the most gun deaths if nobody had any
guns and the least when all were waving them about?

If all guns were gone (a fantasy that can never
happen) violence in America wouldn't be appreciably less.

Per the numbers for similar nations the US gun deaths are extra ones.
You'd still have the same *other* deaths but not the ones with guns
involved.

As has been shown
in many studies, it's not the availability of a gun that is the causal
factor in violence.

So that explains all the dead kids with shiney toys.
Guns are not the root cause anymore than rocks are but if you
don't have them so handy ....
Causes are not at issue. Outcomes are.

Take away a winger's guns .. he may have to think & calm down
while running out to buy a bow & arrow. Probably not as "accident"
prone either.

At it's core, it's the will of the individual that is
responsible.

So giving them nito or nukes would be fine?

Taking one kind of weapon from a violent and twisted individual
won't make anyone safe.

Almost all of the dead probably thought that THEY would be safer
and made the exact same claims.

All depriving you of the right to a gun does is to
ensure that in the case of an assault you will have no way to defend
yourself.

Get a gun. If used, 8 to 1 nobody will much like the result.
You are LESS safe before the fact, not safer.
Somebody spent $1 on a lottery ticket & won a lot of money.
Does that make lottery tickets good investments?

Buy ALL of them & be a sure winner ... while losing 8 dollars in 9.
Same thing.

If you think you are safer from single or multiple assailants by
being unarmed, be my guest, although that idea is absurd on it's face.

You have the cart not only before the horse but have lost both.
And sound like a gun owner in denial G.

Me, I
would prefer to rely on having a weapon and knowing how to use it than
relying on the mercy of an attacker, or hoping a cop will be around to
protect me.

Your probability of being unexpectedly dead just went way up.

I wouldn't think for a second of preventing you from going
through life unarmed, it's a free country. But I would ask that you would
afford me the same courtesy by allowing me to choose to be armed.

8 to 1 odds .... you & yours & your neighbors & friends are NOT safer.
--
Cliff

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

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

If you weren't so ignorant you would know, like we do, that Castro has done
a lot for the Cuban people, COMPARED TO THE GUY BEFORE HIM. By the way, a
guy our government had no trouble with even though he treated Cubans like
****. I don't expect you to be able to tell the difference between them
though. That takes some brains and education.

Hawke

There you have it folks!

If you can't see now, by thier own words, what the lib-tards like Cliff
and Hawke hold up a 'GOOD' for a people (the likes of Castro,
communism, government contol of EVERY aspect of your life,etc), then
you'll never get it.

If you go out and you vote for Demoncraps in the next or ANY election,
this is what you're asking for. And you can bet your last dollar that,
if you give them the power to do so, they'll be more than obliged to
subject you to the same treatment the Russian people were and the Cuban
people are subject to.

Keep a close eye on Venezuela. Take a close look at the 'planned
economy and democratic workers' control and management' that is being
touted by these leftists as 'an inspiration to workers and poor
people'.

Watch what happens to those 'workers and poor people' as any freedoms
they currently enjoy are slowly and systematicly stripped away as the
true tyranny of socialism reveals itself.

You've already seen it in the former USSR, East Germany and in Cuba. If
you're too young to remember the USSR, get a history book that hasn't
whitewashed the truth with a bunch of left-wing dribble.

This IS your WAKE UP CALL, America!
In 180 days, you can go out and start giving these left wing kooks the
power they so desperately seek, or you can say NO to a socialist slave
state in America.

The choice is yours. I know how I will vote.

Till

Cliff wrote:

They talked him down & confiscated all of his guns -- most
of the funny things on the basement/ rec-room walls were probably dead by
then .. good thing he was not on the ground floor or above, his wife was
out & he did not look in a mirror.

Indeed! Shooting your own reflection is even worse than having your soul
captured by a guy with a camera.

*shudder*

In article .com, tillius
says...

If you go out and you vote for Demoncraps in the next or ANY election,
this is what you're asking for.

Heck, I'm a winger and this is what *I* want:

More of my govenment officials indicted or in jail!

More taxes!

More deficit spending!

More $7B per month wars that we don't need!

More handouts to oil companies!

More lies and spin!

More pandering to special interests!

Higher fuel costs!

More destruction of the Bill of Rights!

More leaks and finger-pointing to **** off the CIA!

More unemployment in Ohio, Michigan, etc!

More rules that let greedy corporations make more money!

Yep, Vote WINGER, you'll get more of the same.


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

On 5 May 2006 05:57:38 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

This IS your WAKE UP CALL, America!

Poke fun at a brain-dead winger G.
They never notice, not being all that sharp ...
--
Cliff

On 5 May 2006 05:57:38 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

The choice is yours. I know how I will vote.

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/abu-torture2.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:www.awitness.org+iraq+dead+(kid s+OR+children)
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/f/flags...coffins.04.jpg
http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/shock-awe.jpg
http://gummy-stuff.org/us-deficit.gif
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/co...ad060205/1.gif

http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/...ch_wealthy.gif

Found those"WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

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 ....
--
Cliff

"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

On Fri, 5 May 2006 00:38:15 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it.

You &/or you guns that make you "safer" on average have really,
really bad odds of being legally "safer" it seems.

How many "events" ended without a shot fired?

How many involved no guns?

IOW, the criminal

The guy that has the drop on you while trying to steal those
attractive guns you are running to find & load?

gives up when the legally owned gun is drawn.

Hence there should be few, if any, gun deaths, right? And
those few are all "justifiable homicides" ....

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur.

??

Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not

Oops .. then the premise/assumption/claim on which the logic operated
must be a false one.


Either that or your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

If the logic was good but the conclusion silly ....

and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one.

Reducto ad absurdium...

If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety that
is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody has
any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to
achieve


If the least gun deaths occur when everyone is armed then by logic any other
condition would result in more gun deaths. According to the premise any
other situation would result in more gun deaths not fewer. You can't improve
on the least.

How odd to have all those dead folks when nobody was armed ...

It would be good to have the most gun deaths?

No, but your logic is flawed. The conclusion does not follow the premise. As
you said, you have the least gun deaths when everyone is armed. Least means
least.

Reread all of this subthread G.

According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed.


At least according to your argument. It can be logical but still not make
sense.


Simple gunlogic 101. Probably NRA certified true.

Don't know about the NRA, not a member.


It doesn't get better than that. Right?

So the gunnutz tell us.

Maybe, but what do the gunrationalists say about it? It's not better for
everyone to be armed. There are too many idiots out there. But for a
reasonable man it's a lot better to have a gun and not need one than need
one and not have it.

At least 8 to 1 odds against.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 5 May 2006 22:53:51 -0700, "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.

The later is an important bit.
--
Cliff

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

On 6 May 2006 05:43:38 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

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.

What's the matter?
Out of more rubbish & bigoted hatred to post?
All done in by a few facts?
--
Cliff

On 6 May 2006 05:43:38 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

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.

What's the matter?
Out of more rubbish & bigoted hatred to post?
All done in by a few facts?
--
Cliff

"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

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur.

??

Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not

Oops .. then the premise/assumption/claim on which the logic operated
must be a false one.


Either that or your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

If the logic was good but the conclusion silly ....

Then something ain't right!


and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one.

Reducto ad absurdium...

If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety
that
is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody
has
any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to
achieve


If the least gun deaths occur when everyone is armed then by logic any
other
condition would result in more gun deaths. According to the premise any
other situation would result in more gun deaths not fewer. You can't
improve
on the least.

How odd to have all those dead folks when nobody was armed ...

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.



It would be good to have the most gun deaths?


I know it doesn't make sense but that is what follows from your premise. See
what you get when you start off on the wrong foot g.



No, but your logic is flawed. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
As
you said, you have the least gun deaths when everyone is armed. Least
means
least.

Reread all of this subthread G.


I did, and it still comes out nonsense.


According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed.

According to the logic.



At least according to your argument. It can be logical but still not make
sense.


Simple gunlogic 101. Probably NRA certified true.

Don't know about the NRA, not a member.


It doesn't get better than that. Right?

So the gunnutz tell us.

Maybe, but what do the gunrationalists say about it? It's not better for
everyone to be armed. There are too many idiots out there. But for a
reasonable man it's a lot better to have a gun and not need one than need
one and not have it.

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

Hawke

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

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

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?
Notice no real solutions being offered?
....
Till