On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --


Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his own
errors, try to point the finger in a different direction.


Your evasion is noted. Im still waiting for your answer.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:33:32 -0700, Winston §mith
wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:47:41 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:39:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Larry Jaques
wrote --

I finished Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" a couple
weeks ago and found it interesting. He compiled and
crossreferenced a helluva lot more data than any previous
study.


Gunner

I know you to be a craftman, so I'm sure there is some connection
between this political thread and my original post about LED lighting.

Would you mind telling me what it is?

Ah...if you will examine the thread..I had no hand in hijacking it. It
was already adrift in uncharted waters before I boarded and raised the
jolly roger. IRRC..I crossposted the link to the LEDs. Period. I dont
know who kicked the anchor loose in the outgoing tide.

Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:08:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:37:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel
...

Yet another biased opinion piece.

Prove the methodology is flawed

There is no "methodology" - it's an opinion piece.

Incorrect. It makes statements, provides data sets and conclusions.


Gunner








That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:33:43 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

Klecks findings
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

No, those are guncite's versions of Klecks' research and not
Kleck's actual research.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses
(DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens.

That number is based on faulty methodology that fails the
test of predictive validity.

Cites?


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:33:32 -0700, Winston §mith
wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:47:41 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:39:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Larry Jaques
wrote --

I finished Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" a couple
weeks ago and found it interesting. He compiled and
crossreferenced a helluva lot more data than any previous
study.


Gunner

I know you to be a craftman, so I'm sure there is some connection
between this political thread and my original post about LED lighting.

Would you mind telling me what it is?


See previous post. And I dont have a clue who dragged that humbug
Cattle Nausea into the fray. He doesnt hang out on either of these
groups. I believe his home group is one of the pederast ones.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Wed, 19 May 2004 04:16:21 GMT in misc.survivalism , viz:


Gunner

I know you to be a craftman, so I'm sure there is some connection
between this political thread and my original post about LED lighting.

Would you mind telling me what it is?

Ah...if you will examine the thread..I had no hand in hijacking it. It
was already adrift in uncharted waters before I boarded and raised the
jolly roger. IRRC..I crossposted the link to the LEDs. Period. I dont
know who kicked the anchor loose in the outgoing tide.

LOL.

"We don't know nothing about no Viking raiders. Nope, the village was on
fire when we got here and everybody was already dead. We're just taking the
livestock away for safe keeping, yeah, that's thee ticket. We're just simple
farmers. That's our story and we're sticking to it."

Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

==
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel wrote:
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--


Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his own
errors, try to point the finger in a different direction.


Your evasion is noted.

Your post contained a fact. I'm an ass.

Your post has been corrected.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:49:35 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:33:43 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

Klecks findings
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

No, those are guncite's versions of Klecks' research and
not Kleck's actual research.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses
(DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens.

That number is based on faulty methodology that fails the
test of predictive validity.

Cites?

You're a parrot.

Your evading.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:48:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--


Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his own
errors, try to point the finger in a different direction.


My evasion is noted.

Your post contained an error. It's been fixed.


Forging posts, and still not willing to state whether or not the Right
to Keep and bear arms is an individual Right or not....

Typical Cattle..typical.. I figured you would start evading right at
the point you did. You do it every time when the hard questions come
up.

Chortle

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:34:10 +0000 (UTC), Todd Rich
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel wrote:
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--


Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his own
errors, try to point the finger in a different direction.


Your evasion is noted.

Your post contained a fact. I'm an ass.

Your post has been corrected.

ROFLMAO!!!!

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel wrote:
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Todd Rich wrote
--

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his
own errors, try to point the finger in a different
direction.


Your evasion is noted.

Your post contained a fact. I'm an ass.

Your post has been corrected.

I think it's interesting to show people me licking my ass in public.

Hey, you were the one who started changing the text to change the meaning.
You can't fight fair, so I'm just holding up a mirror. Don't like the
view? Stop making the faces then.

Me, I'm bored and can keep this up all day, or until you get boring,
whichever comes first.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:49:08 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:08:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:37:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel
...

Yet another biased opinion piece.

Prove the methodology is flawed

There is no "methodology" - it's an opinion piece.

Incorrect.

Nope. It's an biased opinion piece.

Your opinion is noted, examined, found to be similar to a booger, and
discarded..flicked away.

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:46:49 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

My evasion is noted.
It's interesting to watch people like you come along and lick
Gunner's ass.


Checking the time..yup, right on schedule. Carl is rather
predictable. He blusters, puffs up, then self destructs. Much like a
stumbling drunk letting off a series of wet farts just before he
passes out. We have had this go round about 50 or 60 times before on
other newsgroups, and it always goes the same predictable way. As I
said initially, I think Carl is one of those that gets his sexual
jollies being humiliated in public. I rather imagine his Dom puts
him on a leash and takes him for walks, if he has been a good boy.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:00:59 +0000 (UTC), Todd Rich
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel wrote:
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Todd Rich wrote
--

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his
own errors, try to point the finger in a different
direction.


Your evasion is noted.

Your post contained a fact. I'm an ass.

Your post has been corrected.

I think it's interesting to show people me licking my ass in public.

Hey, you were the one who started changing the text to change the meaning.
You can't fight fair, so I'm just holding up a mirror. Don't like the
view? Stop making the faces then.

Me, I'm bored and can keep this up all day, or until you get boring,
whichever comes first.



Cattle is good for about another 10 or 12 exchanges, then he will
disappear as he usually does. When folks start asking the hard
questions, he packs up his yurt and slips away.

He is quite predictable unfortunately. I keep hoping he will get a
better schtick..but sigh..he never does.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In rec.crafts.metalworking Gunner wrote:
(snip)
Cattle is good for about another 10 or 12 exchanges, then he will
disappear as he usually does. When folks start asking the hard
questions, he packs up his yurt and slips away.

Hey, I camp in a yurt (ger) about 2 weeks a year. They are actually very
nice to camp in.

He is quite predictable unfortunately. I keep hoping he will get a
better schtick..but sigh..he never does.

Gunner

Oh well...Like I said, I'm bored today.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:21:25 GMT, Carl Nisarel
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

u no. eye reed 2 of ure 95 posts and c nuthing but ficking trubble.

**** off.
************************************************** *****

Sometimes in a workplace you find snot on the wall of
the toilet cubicles. You feel "What sort of twisted
child would do this?"....the internet seems full of
them. It's very sad

I would really appreciate it if you guys would at least start a separate
thread for your political/guns discussion. This thread is about LEDs
and it is a real PITA to separate the subjects.

Ted

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel wrote:
Kicking ass yet again, Todd Rich wrote
--

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Todd Rich
wrote --

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner
wrote --

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:44 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner
wrote --

Still waiting for your answer.

The classic response of someone who can't deal with his
own errors, try to point the finger in a different
direction.


Your evasion is noted.

Your post contained a fact. I'm an ass.

Your post has been corrected.

It's interesting for people to watch me lick my ass in public.
....

Me, I'm bored and can keep this up all day, or until you
get boring, whichever comes first.

You'll run squealing like a little pig soon.

Not very likely. Been around a long time, and if even the dreaded
Rykkertroll couldn't get me, you don't have a chance. And as soon as you
stop editing other people posts, I'll stop holding up the mirror to you.
And you know how much looking into a mirror bothers you.

Hell, John, I don't even hunt or target shoot, aren't even interested in
guns, and I have FIVE firearms and SIX swords. It's the RIGHT to have them,
just like all my other workshop tools, that counts. Have you ever tried to
kill a real, live, snarling, rabid raccoon on your rear porch with
reasoning?

RJ

--
"Have no one say it, and say it to your shame, that all was well here, until
YOU came."




"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:07:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

6 million firearms in your country John....Ill bet the dead bodies are
laying every where.

Never mind the gross total Gunner. Quote me the firearms per capita,
broken down into sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols. Then show the
numbers for the US in comparison. In fact just handgund per capita
would be interesting. Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure and
I suspect the NRA of creative bookeeping.

In rec.crafts.metalworking Carl Nisarel wrote:
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Todd Rich wrote --

You'll run squealing like a little pig soon.

Not very likely.

Very likely. You just don't have it.

Be interesting to see your criteria. Nice to see you've stopped editing
other people's words.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:00:52 -0700, Winston §mith
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:16:21 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:33:32 -0700, Winston §mith
wrote:

I know you to be a craftman, so I'm sure there is some connection
between this political thread and my original post about LED lighting.

Would you mind telling me what it is?

Ah...if you will examine the thread..I had no hand in hijacking it. It
was already adrift in uncharted waters before I boarded and raised the
jolly roger. IRRC..I crossposted the link to the LEDs. Period. I dont
know who kicked the anchor loose in the outgoing tide.

See. I knew you had an explanation that would pass muster.

I stop into r.c.m from time to time to improve my shabby education and
they seem right down normal. Who is this Carl Nisarel maroon? He can
talk about what pleases him (and a group will put up with) but, I'll
ask him, what on the green earth connects LEDs and politics?

LEDs shed some light on an unrepentant dim bulb from the UK.
Join me: Just PLONK 'em and forget 'em.

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Wed, 19 May 2004 14:59:04 GMT in misc.survivalism , viz:


Forging posts, and still not willing to state whether or not the Right
to Keep and bear arms is an individual Right or not....

Remember Gunner, it isn't that Catl doesn't want to answer the question, it
is just that he can't. For some reason, he is just incapable of answering that
question. Whether it is because of too much LSD in the sixties, a forgotten
procto-proble left behind after his abduction by aliens, or sinister mind
control rays emanating from the gunz carried by police officers, Catl is simply
prevented from answering any direct question with anything of substance.
I realize, there may be the possibility that "he" really isn't the one
posting, but that his computer is doing so over his name, but the end result is
the same: no substantial answers, just vigorous hand waving in hopes that
people will not notice that the smoke is coming from his pants being on fire.

Typical Cattle..typical.. I figured you would start evading right at
the point you did. You do it every time when the hard questions come
up.

Catl still can't decide if he is in favor of letting the Klan murder civil
rights leaders or not. He hasn't opposed the idea in any meaningful way.



--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter

On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
term "true colors". Please amplify.

The guy who declared that his neighbors had no reason to feel nervous
if he owned machine guns, claymore mines, grenade launchers and any
other sort of man killing weapon short of tactical nukes.

The pubic doesn't trust people like that, your bland reassurances
notwithstanding.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:25:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.

Never mind the legally, what about the competently?

You're far too emotional on this issue, John. Take a deep breath,
relax, and think. Feel better yet? Good.

So if you're competent and defense is illegal, you still can't
protect yourself. What kind of fool wants that for themself or
their family?

So, because some guy in another town isn't as skilled as you are
handling a gun, he's not entitled to self-protection?

I don't want to live in a community full of incompetent
self-protectors. I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?

I would rather not be in that situation. Remember what the situation
is... the US is country where there are all kinds of handguns already
in the posession of people who damn well shouldn't have them.
I don't want to see my county become that way, Most times when i read
in the local papers of an armed robbery, the criminal was armed with a
sporting rifle. You want him to have a nice concealable handgun
instead?

To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.

Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what,

So why facilitate their violence?

so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes?

Because their defence is incompetent and dangerous, and their
defensive weapon loot to arm the criminal.

Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?

When your bullets fired in self defence start coming through my walls.
When your defensive weapon is the gun a criminal is threatening me
with. When you go berserk and start shooting up the MacDonalds I'm
buying a happy meal for my grandchildren at.

But when you seed your environment
liberally with cheap handguns just because arms manufacturers want to

Guns aren't cheap. The cheap Saturday Night Specials are imported and
can often be more dangerous to the shooter.

When you seed your environment liberally with cheap handguns just
because arms manufacturers want to make a buck. I don't care if the
manufacturer is in Italy.

and then sell even more guns for people to use to defend
themselves against the millions of weapons already out there, what
have you really done? You've added to the efficiency of the
homicidally bent, that's all you've done.

Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.

Not on the spur of the moment they won't.

Every individual you sell a
gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?

Hell no, but I'd rather have a crazy drunk stand up for me with a
gun during an attack on me by thugs.

Even if he's as likely to shoot you as them, and the thugs turn out to
be plainclothes cops?

Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

To say nothing of the kind of person who can't see why he shouldn't be
able to own things like fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,
anti-tank rocket launchers, flamethrowers and suchlike toys.

You sure took us off the course of my statement about freedom and the
right to defend ourselves, didn't you?

Why do you need to defend yourself against a man with a gun?
Becuse there are too many men with guns! Every defensive gun you add
is potentialy a criminal's gun, from misuse, theft or incompetent
defence.

Read any or all of the cites Gunner posted today. (I -dare- you.)
Your scenario just doesn't happen in the real world.

As I said, there's a lot of lying going on on both sides of that
statistical debate.

The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on.

Whose "truth"? Do you know of any sources of UNBIASED truth?

If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.

That statement sounds curiously like similar ones I've heard from
Creationists.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:11:22 GMT, John Ings wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
term "true colors". Please amplify.

The guy who declared that his neighbors had no reason to feel nervous
if he owned machine guns, claymore mines, grenade launchers and any
other sort of man killing weapon short of tactical nukes.

The pubic doesn't trust people like that, your bland reassurances
notwithstanding.


That still doesnt explain the "true colors" comment. Were you
indicating that the fellow is one of those nasty gun owners who believes
in personal liberty rather than a sheeple? Or were you making some
implication that he is a deranged weapons owner that that simply hasnt
massacred a bus load of kids yet?

Ill give you a heads up John... it really depends on who and where that
"public" is, regarding "trust". In many parts of the US..ownership of
such weapons involves envy, not fear. And indeed, ownership of machine
guns, and grenade launchers are quite legal for private citizens as long
as the tax has been paid, in most states.
Can you tell me John, how many crimes (in the US) have been committed
with legally owned machine guns since 1934?

Ill give you a hint...its a number less than 2.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:28:31 GMT, John Ings wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:25:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.

Never mind the legally, what about the competently?

You're far too emotional on this issue, John. Take a deep breath,
relax, and think. Feel better yet? Good.

So if you're competent and defense is illegal, you still can't
protect yourself. What kind of fool wants that for themself or
their family?

So, because some guy in another town isn't as skilled as you are
handling a gun, he's not entitled to self-protection?

I don't want to live in a community full of incompetent
self-protectors. I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

And I wish I had a gazillion dollars, immortality, my own matter
transmitter and a 12" dick. I wish all peope were competent to operate
a motor vehicle, power tools, and home cleaning supplies.

I can think of all manner of impossible things Id wish. But I live in
the real world. Shrug.

I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?

I would rather not be in that situation. Remember what the situation
is... the US is country where there are all kinds of handguns already
in the posession of people who damn well shouldn't have them.
I don't want to see my county become that way, Most times when i read
in the local papers of an armed robbery, the criminal was armed with a
sporting rifle. You want him to have a nice concealable handgun
instead?

That concealable handgun is a hell of a lot less lethal than that rifle.

To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.

Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what,

So why facilitate their violence?

John..you are missing the point..they will always be violent. You just
wish to make sure that the victims are helpless. Hummm belong to the
Thieves Guild? Disarmimg the victims sure makes for much safer working
conditions for the guys down at the Guild Hall.

so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes?

Because their defence is incompetent and dangerous, and their
defensive weapon loot to arm the criminal.

Blink blink...where the hell do you get that Idea from? Seems that
somewhere more than 1 million times a year, their defence is competent.
Dangerous? Id sure hope so. When the bad guys understand they can
die..they tend to find other lines of work.

Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?

When your bullets fired in self defence start coming through my walls.
When your defensive weapon is the gun a criminal is threatening me
with. When you go berserk and start shooting up the MacDonalds I'm
buying a happy meal for my grandchildren at.

So John, when has that happened? Please elucidate. Details!
I still think you should be castrated, as you are gonna rape someone in
the near future, or impregnate my daughter, or spred HIV. I live in fear
knowing you have a penis. Or a kitchen knife, or power tools, or
cleaning supplies. Brrrrrrrr.. and its obvious that you should NOT be
allowed acess to any of those items because of my fear.

But when you seed your environment
liberally with cheap handguns just because arms manufacturers want to

Guns aren't cheap. The cheap Saturday Night Specials are imported and
can often be more dangerous to the shooter.

When you seed your environment liberally with cheap handguns just
because arms manufacturers want to make a buck. I don't care if the
manufacturer is in Italy.

Seeding the environment..air dropping them by job lots with little
parachutes? Prizes in ceral boxes? Free samples down at the grocery
store?

Please elucidate..details John..tell me all about the seeding process.
and then sell even more guns for people to use to defend
themselves against the millions of weapons already out there, what
have you really done? You've added to the efficiency of the
homicidally bent, that's all you've done.

Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.

Not on the spur of the moment they won't.

Chuckle...sure they will, or they will simply use a sash weight, kitchen
knife, motor vehicle etc. A rather classic study found that when
suicides were prevented acess to firearms..the suicide rate didnt go
down. It remained the same. They just killed themselves by other means.


Every individual you sell a
gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?

Hell no, but I'd rather have a crazy drunk stand up for me with a
gun during an attack on me by thugs.

Even if he's as likely to shoot you as them, and the thugs turn out to
be plainclothes cops?

Its just as likely that you will be attacked by clones of Richard Nixon.
You apparently live a rich fantasy life.

Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

Im safer here in my little gun rich town, than in Ottawa. Im a hell of a
lot safer in Idaho, where all manner of firearms abound, than in Gun
Free Washington DC, where all firearms are banned.

To say nothing of the kind of person who can't see why he shouldn't be
able to own things like fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,
anti-tank rocket launchers, flamethrowers and suchlike toys.

You sure took us off the course of my statement about freedom and the
right to defend ourselves, didn't you?

Why do you need to defend yourself against a man with a gun?
Becuse there are too many men with guns! Every defensive gun you add
is potentialy a criminal's gun, from misuse, theft or incompetent
defence.

John..In the 5 defensive gun uses that Ive been involved in in the past
25 yrs as a civilian...only one of them involved the bad guy with a gun.
Large kitchen knives, clubs and groups hell bent on my harm or demise
tend to make the use of defensive firearms a very good thing. In none of
those cases was a single shot fired. I still had posession of my firearm
at the end, no one was harmed..no children at Micky Ds was maimed, and
my life and that of my family was saved.
So the use of your fantasy filled "what ifs" is not only moot, but
either disnegenious or the sign of some phobia issues.

Read any or all of the cites Gunner posted today. (I -dare- you.)
Your scenario just doesn't happen in the real world.

As I said, there's a lot of lying going on on both sides of that
statistical debate.

That means your mind is already made up, and no amount of data that may
indicate you are wrong will be considered. I sure hope you dont machine
using that mind set.

The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on.

Whose "truth"? Do you know of any sources of UNBIASED truth?

Of course not. Nothing is unbiased. But bias makes no difference if you
view the details and make up your own mind. Which you refuse to do.
Emphaticly. Based on your fantastic string of what ifs..Id say common
sense was not your strong suite. Shrug.

If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.

That statement sounds curiously like similar ones I've heard from
Creationists.

Yes? So?

John..lets face it..you appear to have some mental health issues on the
subject that prevent you from taking an honest look at the subject. You
base your entire world view on the subject using unrealistic fantastic
What Ifs, emotion, fear, and self admitted ignorance of the subject.
Your refusal to look at the subject in detail, and making up your mind
after reviewing the data, but rather use emotion strictly as the sole
criteria, is rather disturbing, particularly in an individual who
appears to be detail oriented in other subjects such as machining. On
this subject John..you exhibit a curious lack of reason, common sense
and rational. Or the ability to apply such. Hopefuly its simply an
emotional blind spot, rather than signs of deeper issues.

Respects and concern

Gunner



"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:33:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that
the truth will knock you off that gun control pedestal
you're on.

You're a joke, Larry. You are afraid to read "the stats" from
papers such as Ayers and Donohue and the research by Rubin &
Dezhbakhsh.

Here's "the stats" from Michael Maltz, an academic who used
to support John Lott's work.

"Anyone who has looked closely at the data used by John Lott
in coming up with his “findings” in More Guns, Less Crime
(MGLC) would come to the same conclusion, MGLC = GIGO. First,
the data are so full of holes as to be unusable for the
analyses he conducted. Second, Lott badly miscalculated the
crime rates. Third, he ignored a major discontinuity in the
data." - Michael Maltz

[GOUtah! note: It is unfortunate that Mr. Chambers has not bothered to
read either Lott and Mustard's work or, for that matter, the article
published by Ayers and Donahue in the Stanford Law Review that he
referenced. If he had read the Ayers and Donahue article, Shooting Down
the "More Guns, Less Crime" Hypothesis, he might have discovered that
Ayers and Donahue neither impugned Lott's "integrity and objectivity"
nor did they criticise his data. To the contrary, they praised his work
for bringing to focus the issue of concealed carry on crime, and used
his entire data base, with permission, plus additional data from more
recent years, for their article. The thrust of the 120-page article
itself was the use of a different statistical modeling method from that
used by Lott so that a different conclusion could be derived from the
same data. It is also more than little disingenuous that Chambers chose
to ignore the succeeding 60-page article in the same issue and volume of
the Stanford Law Review by Plassmann and Whitley, Confirming "More Guns,
Less Crime", that delineates errors in the statistical modeling method
used by Ayers and Donahue. So much for "cherry-picking".]

A link to articles and papers both pro and con on the subject. An
objective reader can make up his own mind on the subject

http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.html
"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

John..you exhibit a curious lack of reason, common sense
and rational. Or the ability to apply such. Hopefuly its simply an
emotional blind spot, rather than signs of deeper issues.

Respects and concern

Gunner

A friend once told me:

"I worry, more, about the fellow down the block wearing his pink tutu,
than my neighbor who has a CHL and an arsenal in his gun safe."

I understand completely.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:42:15 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

Im safer here in my little gun rich town, than in Ottawa.

That's false.

Cites?

Btw..Im still waiting for your answer on whether gun ownership is an
indvidual right or not in the US.

Your repeated failure to answer this simple question is very telling....

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:40:55 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:



On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:33:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

You can't think for yourself, can you Mark?

The thrust of the 120-page
article itself was the use of a different statistical
modeling method from that used by Lott so that a different
conclusion could be derived from the same data.

They also used the same methods as Lott and show that they
derive a different conclusion. The author of that opinion
piece is lying by omission.

It is also
more than little disingenuous that Chambers chose to ignore
the succeeding 60-page article in the same issue and volume
of the Stanford Law Review by Plassmann and Whitley,
Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime", that delineates errors
in the statistical modeling method used by Ayers and
Donahue. So much for "cherry-picking".]

It is even more disingenuous that the author fails to mention
that the P&W paper contained numerous coding errors. When
those errors are corrected, the results vanish.

The cherry-picking was done by Lott after he finally realized
that his data contained errors, he changed the model without
noting it and then back-dated his results.

.....
From the links I cited in my previous posting....

http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.html

["[W]e show that in most states shall issue laws have been associated
with more crime."]
Ayres and Donohue, Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis
(tables) Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2002) [county dataset (STATA)]
[other datasets (STATA)] [do files (STATA)] [excel files].
_________, Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws: A Case Study of
Statistics, Standards of Proof and Public Policy, 1 American Law and
Economics Review 436 (1999).


Lott, John R. Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and
Donohue, Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 247 (September 1,
1999).

["[T]he deterrence results are robust enough to make them difficult to
dismiss as unfounded, particularly those findings about the change in
violent crime trends. The substitution effects [criminals substituting
property crimes for violent crimes] are not robust with respect to
different model specifications."]
Bartley and Cohen, The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme
Bound Analysis, Economic Inquiry (April 1998). (This article comments
further on the study.)

Benson and Mast, Privately Produced General Deterrence, The Journal of
Law and Economics (October 2001).

[" Our results show that the expected effect of the law on crime varies
across the counties and states and depends on county-specific
characteristics. Such effects appear to be much smaller and more mixed
than Lott and Mustard suggest, and are not crime-reducing in most cases.
We also show that police and private guns are compliments in reducing
crime."]
Dezhbakhsh and Rubin, The Effect of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime:
Beyond the Dummy Variables, Working Paper (January 1999).

["We reconsider evidence on the deterrence hypothesis. We conclude that
these data do not support a firm statistical conclusion one way or the
other. The burden of proof remains shifted, against those who would
assert on the basis of their priors that these laws must lead to
increased crime. However, we argue that the evidence leads to no other
conclusion but that these laws are a statistical 'wash.'"]
Harrison, Kennison, and Macedon, Crime and Concealed Gun Laws: A
Reconsideration, (April 2000).

["We find that the effect of shall-issue laws on crime is much less
well-estimated than the Mustard and Lott (1997) and Lott (2000) results
suggest. We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions
implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported."]
Helland and Tabarrok, Using Placebo Laws to Test "More Guns, Less
Crime," (January 2004).

["We posit that significant differences exist within geographic areas,
and that permit holders reside in areas not prone to high levels of
violent crime."]
Hood and Neely, Packin' in the Hood?: Examining Assumptions of
Concealed-Carry Research, Social Science Quarterly, Volume 81, Number 2
(June, 2000).

["We present numerous model specifications, and find little evidence
that the law reduces or increases violent crime."]
Kovandzic and Marvell, Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent
Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?, published in July issue of
Criminology and Public Policy. (Link is to draft copy.)

["My results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything,
in an increase in adult homicide rates."]
Ludwig, Jens Otto, Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime:
Evidence from State Panel Data, Working Paper (May 5, 1998).

["County-level crime data have major gaps, and the imputation schemes
for filling in the gaps are inadequate and inconsistent. Such data were
used in a recent study of guns and crime without considering the errors
resulting from imputation. This note describes the errors and how they
may have affected this study. Until improved methods of imputing
county-level crime data are developed, tested, and implemented, they
should not be used, especially in policy studies." (GunCite: Lott
examines state-level data in the second edition of "More Guns Less
Crime.")]
Maltz and Targonsky, A note on the Use of Country-Level UCR Data, to
appear in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, September 2002.

Lott and Whitley, A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data: A
Response, (July 1, 2002).

["Overall, right-to-carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent
crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence
that these laws also reduce burglary."]
Moody, Carlisle E., Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws:
Specification Errors and Robustness, The Journal of Law and Economics,
October 2001.

["Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not
endanger the lives of officers, and may help reduce their risk of being
killed."]
Mustard, David, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, Working Paper
(December 1999).

["Although we also found that firearm homicides decreased, and to a
greater extent than did Lott and Mustard, our results indicate that
there was an increase in nonfirearm homicides. When combined, both our
assessment and the original one performed by Lott and Mustard indicate
that the law is associated with a decrease in total homicides, although
the magnitude of the effects differed."]
Olson and Maltz, Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in
Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics,
and Victim-Offender Relationships, The Journal of Law and Economics
(October 2001).

["[W]e... examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry
laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies. We find that the
effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and
time, and that such laws appear to have statistically significant
deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and
robberies."]
Plassman and Tideman, Geographical and Temporal Variations in the
Effects of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime, Journal of Economic Literature,
(November 17, 1999).

["Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to
2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3%
for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the
first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from
reduced crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3
billion per year."]
Plassman and Whitley, Confirming More Guns, Less Crime, Stanford Law
Review, (April, 2003).

I suggest Mr. Ing read, review and make up his own Informed judgment.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith
wrote --

On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:45:02 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith
wrote --

If you can't make your point with facts and logic resort
to bad language and name calling

is Gunner's style.

Oh no. Gunner and I have crossed swords more than once.
He is definitely fact based.

You're seriously deluded. Mark presents opinions, not facts,
and when he's called on his errors, he resorts to the "bad
langugage and name calling"

Here's some examples of Gunner's style:

"Or did the other lads decide that a pompus asshole such as
yourself should not be allowed to "run" even an ice cream
stand?"

"Either you are incredibly stupid..or your attempt to deflect
the backup to your own words is really really lame."

"And I though Ed Huntress was an arrogant ass at times.....
looks like you beat him to Best of Class."

"A terrible nefarious thing only child molesters and those
whom would abuse small animals would employ."

Well, from what I've read, the "pompus asshole" part was nothing more
than an accurate description. Certainly not 'name calling' IMO.

michael

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:28:31 GMT, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

I don't want to live in a community full of incompetent
self-protectors.

Anyone who purchases a weapon and doesn't get trained on it is
a fool. But he's an armed fool and he just may save your butt
some day. Y'know, when (not if) anarchy strikes your area.
So the real question becomes "Are ya worth it?"



I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

All of us would, but that very probably isn't going to happen
for any of us on this globe in this lifetime. C'est la vie.
(C'est la guerre?)


I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?

I would rather not be in that situation.

None of us would, and that's a fact. But given the choice, wouldn't
you -want- a choice?


Remember what the situation
is... the US is country where there are all kinds of handguns already
in the posession of people who damn well shouldn't have them.

Ditto for the UK. The criminals in all countries shouldn't have
weapons of any sort, but they all do. That's a fact of life which
not one of us can change.


I don't want to see my county become that way, Most times when i read
in the local papers of an armed robbery, the criminal was armed with a
sporting rifle. You want him to have a nice concealable handgun
instead?

You really should read more facts about guns, John. Your country
already outranks the US in % of victims.


To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.

Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what,

So why facilitate their violence?

Oy vay! Criminals will find sticks/bars/rocks on the ground
when they want to be violent. Are you going to outlaw them, too?


so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes?

Because their defence is incompetent and dangerous, and their
defensive weapon loot to arm the criminal.

Please, oh please, tell me how many weapons criminals took out
of defenders' hands in the past decade. (According to Kleck's
"Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control", it simply isn't
happening. A few cops have their pistols removed from their
holsters, but not out of their hands, and no homeowner has been
recorded as having their weapon taken from their hands by the
criminal. The chapter starts on page 296. From '92-98, there was
only ONE incident noted in the NCVS surveys, nationwide for 7
years. It is a myth, John, a fallacy which keeps on going.

BTW, please let your buddy Carl know about this book. He needs
to read it, too, and I have him twit filtered. He didn't respect
Lott, but maybe he'll respect Kleck. Everyone else does. It's
even more of an eye-opener than Lott's book.


Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?

When your bullets fired in self defence start coming through my walls.

Um, how many holes are there now?


When your defensive weapon is the gun a criminal is threatening me
with. When you go berserk and start shooting up the MacDonalds I'm
buying a happy meal for my grandchildren at.

I heard hundreds of rounds fired into the air in Southern California
when I lived there. And that was every 4th of July and every New
Years Eve for 26 years. I never read of any holes in houses from
it, and I recall only a few such incidents (in Los Angeles, of course)
where bullets came through walls during drive-by shootings and injured
innocents. Given the number of idiots shooting out there now, that
rate seems rather low.


Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.

Not on the spur of the moment they won't.

Homicidally bent people (your term) will find other ways to
do their damage.

Every individual you sell a
gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?

Hell no, but I'd rather have a crazy drunk stand up for me with a
gun during an attack on me by thugs.

Even if he's as likely to shoot you as them, and the thugs turn out to
be plainclothes cops?

Um, how many gun owners shot victims or plainclothesmen recently?


Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

I owed it to myself to find out the truth. If you don't want
to know it, so be it. But in case you do, read a variety of
books and sources. Talk to the local police, etc. Like they
said on the X-Files "The TRUTH is out there."


Why do you need to defend yourself against a man with a gun?

I don't, or haven't yet. But I want the choice.


Becuse there are too many men with guns! Every defensive gun you add
is potentialy a criminal's gun, from misuse, theft or incompetent
defence.

So let's put the -criminals- out of action, not defensive weapons.


The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on.

Whose "truth"? Do you know of any sources of UNBIASED truth?

Read a few and make your choice from their presentations and
reviews of their books by other sources (confirmations.)


If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.

That statement sounds curiously like similar ones I've heard from
Creationists.

I promise that I'm absolutely NOT born-again and I'll avoid religious
discussion here on the metal group. But religious folks aren't
open-minded or even slightly confirmable, are they? Wouldn't you
feel better knowing the answer to your questions?


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========

Good lord.

What a cringing little girl you are.

"39 years" in the military, or so you claim, yet you don't even trust
yourself to handle something as simple as a pistol under any stress.
No wonder your sad "Empire" is truly well sun-set-upon.

Honestly, with your obsession about people doing evil, how on earth
can you tolerate the idea of unrestricted metal-working? The very
notion that anyone, without registration, background check, proof of
moral character or even competence, could purchase tools capable of
being used to manufacture submachineguns, bomb and handgrenade
casings, swords and other deadly arms? What kind of irresponsible
monster *are* you?

Thank god you're just a hair on the tail of the American dog these
days.

Wag, wag!



John Ings wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:08:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.

Never mind the legally, what about the competently?

In the military I had to qualify with rifle, sub-machine gun and
pistol every year although I was not a ground-pounder. I have fired a
browning automatic pistol many times but I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough. But when you seed your environment
liberally with cheap handguns just because arms manufacturers want to
make a buck, and then sell even more guns for people to use to defend
themselves against the millions of weapons already out there, what
have you really done? You've added to the efficiency of the
homicidally bent, that's all you've done. Every individual you sell a
gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?

I don't!

To say nothing of the kind of person who can't see why he shouldn't be
able to own things like fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,
anti-tank rocket launchers, flamethrowers and suchlike toys.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 20:07:42 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:42:15 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

Im safer here in my little gun rich town, than in Ottawa.

That's false.

Cites?

Dude, it's your original claim, it's your job to produce the
"cites".

My bet is that you aren't smart enough to know how to find
it.

Cites Cattle..cites.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:49:55 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I don't want to live in a community full of incompetent
self-protectors.

Anyone who purchases a weapon and doesn't get trained on it is
a fool. But he's an armed fool and he just may save your butt
some day. Y'know, when (not if) anarchy strikes your area.

You're paranoid.

I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

All of us would, but that very probably isn't going to happen
for any of us on this globe in this lifetime. C'est la vie.
(C'est la guerre?)

It has been that way in England for decades.

I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?

I would rather not be in that situation.

None of us would, and that's a fact. But given the choice, wouldn't
you -want- a choice?

What advice do cops give bank clerks and convenience store owners?
Do they advise starting a shootout or just handing over the money?

Remember what the situation
is... the US is country where there are all kinds of handguns already
in the posession of people who damn well shouldn't have them.

Ditto for the UK.

No. It has only been lately that ANY UK cops have had to carry guns,
and most still don't.

The criminals in all countries shouldn't have
weapons of any sort, but they all do.

No they ALL don't.

I don't want to see my county become that way, Most times when i read
in the local papers of an armed robbery, the criminal was armed with a
sporting rifle. You want him to have a nice concealable handgun
instead?

You really should read more facts about guns, John. Your country
already outranks the US in % of victims.

According to NRA statistics?

To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.

Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what,

So why facilitate their violence?

Oy vay! Criminals will find sticks/bars/rocks on the ground
when they want to be violent. Are you going to outlaw them, too?

Escalation of the hardware is better?

so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes?

Because their defence is incompetent and dangerous, and their
defensive weapon loot to arm the criminal.

Please, oh please, tell me how many weapons criminals took out
of defenders' hands in the past decade. (According to Kleck's
"Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control",

Which may or may not be fiction. I'm all too aware that both sides in
this issue have plenty of motivation to lie.

Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?

When your bullets fired in self defence start coming through my walls.

Um, how many holes are there now?

My neighbors don't have guns.

Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.

Not on the spur of the moment they won't.

Homicidally bent people (your term) will find other ways to
do their damage.

Less efficient ways.

Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

I owed it to myself to find out the truth. If you don't want
to know it, so be it.

You know a source of the truth? An UNBIASED source?

But in case you do, read a variety of
books and sources. Talk to the local police,

They'll recommend that I shoot it out with any armed robbers
I encounter?

Becuse there are too many men with guns! Every defensive gun you add
is potentialy a criminal's gun, from misuse, theft or incompetent
defence.

So let's put the -criminals- out of action, not defensive weapons.

Not possible. Especially as long as drugs remain illegal.

The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on.

Whose "truth"? Do you know of any sources of UNBIASED truth?

Read a few and make your choice from their presentations and
reviews of their books by other sources (confirmations.)

From what I see posted in here, that hasn't resolved the issue.

If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.

That statement sounds curiously like similar ones I've heard from
Creationists.

I promise that I'm absolutely NOT born-again and I'll avoid religious
discussion here on the metal group. But religious folks aren't
open-minded or even slightly confirmable, are they? Wouldn't you
feel better knowing the answer to your questions?

OK. Name me a police agency that advocates self-defence with a handgun
against armed robbery. That advises convenience store owners to shoot
it out for instance.

On 21 May 2004 01:05:16 -0700, (Earn?n) wrote:

Did you have fun beating your chest Macho Man?

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:06:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --


Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

Im safer here in my little gun rich town, than in
Ottawa.
.....

Cites Cattle..cites.

Well, where are yours, Mark? It's your claim, it's *your* job
to produce the data to support it. It isn't my job to
disprove it.

I asked first.

So far, I'm winning the bet.

So far, you are showing your ass. Snicker.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:48:17 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:49:55 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I don't want to live in a community full of incompetent
self-protectors.

Anyone who purchases a weapon and doesn't get trained on it is
a fool. But he's an armed fool and he just may save your butt
some day. Y'know, when (not if) anarchy strikes your area.

You're paranoid.

When 1-2 million defensive gun uses occur every year in a population of
280 million people.. that hardly sounds paranoid. Unless you consider
wearing your seat belt and having smoke detectors and fire extinquishers
at hand, paranoid.

I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

All of us would, but that very probably isn't going to happen
for any of us on this globe in this lifetime. C'est la vie.
(C'est la guerre?)

It has been that way in England for decades.

ROFLMAO!!!!!! Right.

I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?

I would rather not be in that situation.

None of us would, and that's a fact. But given the choice, wouldn't
you -want- a choice?

What advice do cops give bank clerks and convenience store owners?
Do they advise starting a shootout or just handing over the money?

It really depends on which community you live in. Now about Kenasaw
Geogia...and a host of others where firearms ownership is manditory..

Now on the other hand...do cops suggest simply laying back and
submitting to rape? Indeed, some do. Is that what you tell your
wife/daughter?

Remember what the situation
is... the US is country where there are all kinds of handguns already
in the posession of people who damn well shouldn't have them.

Ditto for the UK.

No. It has only been lately that ANY UK cops have had to carry guns,
and most still don't.

Define lately. Most have a car standing by with machine guns in it and
the vast majority want bullet proof vests.

The criminals in all countries shouldn't have
weapons of any sort, but they all do.

No they ALL don't.

Only the ones who want them. Even in the UK. Scotland yard estimates
something like 3 million illegal firearms are floating around, with more
being imported every day. Guns and drugs are common import items.

I don't want to see my county become that way, Most times when i read
in the local papers of an armed robbery, the criminal was armed with a
sporting rifle. You want him to have a nice concealable handgun
instead?

You really should read more facts about guns, John. Your country
already outranks the US in % of victims.

According to NRA statistics?

No..according to British and US Department of Justice figures.
Shrug..they even gave a US travelers warning last year.

To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.

Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what,

So why facilitate their violence?

Oy vay! Criminals will find sticks/bars/rocks on the ground
when they want to be violent. Are you going to outlaw them, too?

Escalation of the hardware is better?

Escalation? LOL..hardly.

so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes?

Because their defence is incompetent and dangerous, and their
defensive weapon loot to arm the criminal.

Please, oh please, tell me how many weapons criminals took out
of defenders' hands in the past decade. (According to Kleck's
"Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control",

Which may or may not be fiction. I'm all too aware that both sides in
this issue have plenty of motivation to lie.

Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?

When your bullets fired in self defence start coming through my walls.

Um, how many holes are there now?

My neighbors don't have guns.

Really? How do you know?

Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.

Not on the spur of the moment they won't.

Homicidally bent people (your term) will find other ways to
do their damage.

Less efficient ways.

80% of all shooting victims survive. Few people hit in the head with a
ball peen hammer survive.

Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

I owed it to myself to find out the truth. If you don't want
to know it, so be it.

You know a source of the truth? An UNBIASED source?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

But in case you do, read a variety of
books and sources. Talk to the local police,

They'll recommend that I shoot it out with any armed robbers
I encounter?

Many will. And stats show you will win. shrug. Incompetent or not.

Becuse there are too many men with guns! Every defensive gun you add
is potentialy a criminal's gun, from misuse, theft or incompetent
defence.

So let's put the -criminals- out of action, not defensive weapons.

Not possible. Especially as long as drugs remain illegal.

Chuckle..indeed. So just lay back and enjoy the rape.

The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on.

Whose "truth"? Do you know of any sources of UNBIASED truth?

Read a few and make your choice from their presentations and
reviews of their books by other sources (confirmations.)

From what I see posted in here, that hasn't resolved the issue.

You have seen an exchange between myself and an anti gun extremist. You
have not read any of the cites from either of us.

If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.

That statement sounds curiously like similar ones I've heard from
Creationists.

I promise that I'm absolutely NOT born-again and I'll avoid religious
discussion here on the metal group. But religious folks aren't
open-minded or even slightly confirmable, are they? Wouldn't you
feel better knowing the answer to your questions?

OK. Name me a police agency that advocates self-defence with a handgun
against armed robbery. That advises convenience store owners to shoot
it out for instance.

Taft PD. And they give firearms classes and issue CCW.

Im sure I can find more. Lets ask around Arizona for example...chuckle

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:10:19 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith
wrote --

Actually Carl, I don't know you or your long term style.

You know Mark's style and I presented examples to you.

It appears that you don't have the integrity to admit that your
claim was wrong.

Im still waiting for your answer on whether or not firearms ownership is
an individual right in the US.

Whats this..about the 8th time Ive asked? Your failure to answer a
simple question is telling.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:48:17 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

You're paranoid.

I prefer the term "alert to potential threats", thanks.


I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

All of us would, but that very probably isn't going to happen
for any of us on this globe in this lifetime. C'est la vie.
(C'est la guerre?)

It has been that way in England for decades.

Your stats indicate that you have a less than 4:1 chance of being
a victim this year. With 27% of you as victims, I'd be rethinking
the way I lived if I were you. (I believe either you or Carl posted
the link to those stats, John.)


What advice do cops give bank clerks and convenience store owners?
Do they advise starting a shootout or just handing over the money?

I don't have stats on that handy, but I'd be willing to bet that
the police public relations guy says "Hand it over." and the cop
on the street says "Do what you have to do, but be careful."


The criminals in all countries shouldn't have
weapons of any sort, but they all do.

No they ALL don't.

Let me restate that: SOME criminals in ALL countries are armed.
(You literalists, I swear...)

If nothing else, criminals brandish weapons to keep people from
trying to stop their crime/getaway, even if they have no intention
of using it. If I were a criminal, I certainly would. Whatever means
gave me better odds of escape would be used, up to a point.


You really should read more facts about guns, John. Your country
already outranks the US in % of victims.

According to NRA statistics?

There ya go again. I think the stat I quoted came from your Homeoffice
UK link.


So why facilitate their violence?

Oy vay! Criminals will find sticks/bars/rocks on the ground
when they want to be violent. Are you going to outlaw them, too?

Escalation of the hardware is better?

You just don't understand. Guns aren't the source of the violent
confrontation, nor are sticks or rocks. People are. Civilization
is. And even in the heat of confrontation, many people have _some_
control over their emotions and wouldn't use a gun even if it were
present. Guns aren't the problem, violent people are.


Please, oh please, tell me how many weapons criminals took out
of defenders' hands in the past decade. (According to Kleck's
"Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control",

Which may or may not be fiction. I'm all too aware that both sides in
this issue have plenty of motivation to lie.

So you disregard -every- source and remain in your emotional cocoon?
I couldn't be comfortable doing that. Here's a quote from a very angry
gun-control advocate (the doyen of American criminologists, University
of Pennsylvania Professor Marvin Wolfgang) about another Kleck
defensive gun use study:

"I am as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among the
criminologists in this country. If I [had the power]...I would
eliminate ALL guns from the civilian population and maybe even from
the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill
people....
Nonetheless the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and
Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it....

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors
exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do
not like their conclusions that havina a gun can be useful, but I
cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all
objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

[Marvin E. Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Long Opposed,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (1995): 188.]


Homicidally bent people (your term) will find other ways to
do their damage.

Less efficient ways.

Homicide is homicide. Do you have a choice whether you are killed
by a gun or a rock? Mayhem/violence is different. Would you rather
have a bullet hole in your arm/leg or have the same guy come after
your appendage with a sharpened axe?


Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

I owed it to myself to find out the truth. If you don't want
to know it, so be it.

You know a source of the truth? An UNBIASED source?

I read everything I can get my hands on, weigh their truths and
biases, review how the questions were asked to determine their
validity, then make my own choice. I live alone and am very
self-sufficient, doing my own gardening, plumbing, carpentry,
auto/appliance/house/furniture repair, etc.


But in case you do, read a variety of
books and sources. Talk to the local police,

They'll recommend that I shoot it out with any armed robbers
I encounter?

Learn to acknowledge gray areas in life. You don't have to either
shoot to the death or give up entirely. There are many options in
between.

Let me ask you this: Do you have any insurance? Car, house, life,
health, appliance extended warranty, any kind? I'm betting that you
do. To me, guns are like that. I hope that I'll never have to use
one but will be very much relieved when I find that I have it when
I need it.


So let's put the -criminals- out of action, not defensive weapons.

Not possible. Especially as long as drugs remain illegal.

I'm with you there. End the war on drugs and renew the war on crime
with the many billions spent propping up drug prices. The current
mess is insane.


Read a few and make your choice from their presentations and
reviews of their books by other sources (confirmations.)

From what I see posted in here, that hasn't resolved the issue.

It has for me. My views reversed immediately once I saw what I
determined to be the truth, and I'm embarrassed for you, seeing
you the same way I was last year, with not a single (cited) fact
to back you up (views apparently based entirely upon emotion.)


OK. Name me a police agency that advocates self-defence with a handgun
against armed robbery. That advises convenience store owners to shoot
it out for instance.

I can't (see above.) That's not politically wise for them, sir. The
blankety-blank media jump on stories where the store owners get killed
or wounded while ignoring the tame (read "bloodless") stories of those
who successfully stop the criminal or end the crime, though the latter
might air on local TV news that night (but never go national/int'l.)
In any case, it's up to the person who is being robbed to determine if
they can get away with trying to pull a gun on an angry person who
already has a gun trained on their body. Most people would probably
just do as the robber said, but most people probably don't own the
store being robbed. That's a personal call.

In any case, the media run the people's emotions who, in turn, run the
politicians' emotions who, in turn, run the police administrations,
etc. But ask a cop how he really feels. He wants HELP out there.

Then again, why did you choose the worst possible scenario? The armed
robber instead of the hot-prowl burglar? In the first case, the
victim is out in the open in broad daylight/store-lights and is known
to have cash on him. Advantage: robber. In the latter, the burglar is
facing a person in their own home in the dark. Advantage: homeowner.

Amassed within the first 25 pages of "Armed" are stats which further
stunned me. I've always read that most murders were committed by
people who knew the victims. I now find out that 71% of them were
committed by people who knew the victims from drug use connections.

Myth: ordinary people commit murder
Local and national studies dating back to the 1890s showthat in almost
every case murderers are aberrants exhibiting life histories of
violence and crime, psychopathology, substance abuse,, and other
dangerous behaviors. [Kates & Polsby, "LongTerm Non-Relationship";
Kennedy & Braga, "Homicide"; and Elliot, "Life Threatening"]

Looking only to crime records, roughly 90% of adult murderers had
adult records, with an average adult criminal career of 6 or more
years, including 4 major adult felony arrests.

50% of Americans own firearms. Less than 2% of handguns and well under
1% of other guns will ever be involved in even a single violent crime.
Gun owners are a very small subset of that. [Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns
and Violence in America" (New York: Aldine, 1991), pp. 22, 47-48]
--That says it right the gun and their owners aren't the problem--

A study of citizens who rescued crime victims or arrested violent
criminals found these Good Samaritans were two-and-a-half times more
likely to be gun owners than non-owners. [Kates, "Civilian Arms"]

-
Now, instead of further discussion with you here, I'll put that time
into finishing this book. It's fascinating. I'll probably end up
buying a copy for my growing library and reading most of the cites
he shows at the end of each and every chapter.

Ciao! And good luck on your final decision to seek or not seek the
truth about an issue which will, undoubtedly, affect your future.


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========