|
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:28:11 GMT, Gunner
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. Sounds like fiction. And lawlessness isn't anarchy. 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. Fact. I've been there. Have you? 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.. You actually have places where people MUST carry guns? 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? Do they advise armed resistance? 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. Past 20 years, since a large influx of immegrants from counries where violence is a way of life. 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. Betcha there's that many in New York City alone. 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. That sounds like a fraudulent statistic to me. I can't think of anywhere in the cities of Toronto and Montreal I would feel unsafe. There are areas in Boston, Washington and Chicago I definitely would not go, and East L.A. is a war zone. 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/ Let's be a mite more specific. 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. Find me one. If that's a common attitude there should be a website stating so. And stats show you will win. I will? I'll always see the criminal coming in time to find my gun and use it? And he's going to let me? Or do I carry it all the time like a cop? Do you go about armed with a six shooter like Wyatt Earp? You have seen an exchange between myself and an anti gun extremist. You have not read any of the cites from either of us. Since I suspect both, and yours so far are only vague pointers. 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 The Wild West... ## To err is human. To purr feline. |
Nice write up about LEDs
John Ings wrote in message . ..
On 21 May 2004 01:05:16 -0700, (Earn?n) wrote: Did you have fun beating your chest Macho Man? Did you come up with a reason you should be allowed to own or use dangerous metal working tools? |
Nice write up about LEDs
Carl Nisarel wrote:
Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:04:39 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. My opinion is biased solely on your posts in this thread. I saw a lot of name calling and bad language from you. And that's about it. Nothing I could go away and verify or prove wrong. I get the impression that you could "go away and verify or prove wrong" any of the material I posted since you haven't actually read the multitude of posts where I cite actual published research. I don't give a damn about your research or "multitude of posts". Then you lied when you claimed to have read the posts I wrote in this thread. I'm NOT referring to the entire body of your posts in the history of usenet. I am referring to this one thread. So am I. You're seriously deluded or have very poor reading comprehension if you think that quotes from Gary Kleck or Michael Maltz, among other items, fits your claim. That's the one you highjacked, Nope. changed the subject, and turned the off topic subject into another group. Talk to Larry Jacques. I did not change the subject. All you're doing is engaging in a lame ad hominem attack. I am engaging in an attempt to keep this thread on topic - the topic of LED lighting. No, you're going off on a lame ad hom attack. **** off petty minded jerk! it's enough having to put with mark let alone a jerk pom! |
Nice write up about LEDs
Carl wrote:
You're a pine cone head! Gunner wrote: No, *you're* a pine cone head! ....and so forth. See the Dave Barry article "Seeing the forest through the eyes of our children" at the following URL: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/ -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:10:35 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths: On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:28:11 GMT, Gunner wrote: When 1-2 million defensive gun uses occur every year in a population of 280 million people.. that hardly sounds paranoid. Sounds like fiction. And lawlessness isn't anarchy. I didn't say we were engulfed in anarchy over here -yet-. Reread my sentence there, big guy. Another book for you to read is "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/037570759X 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. That sounds like a fraudulent statistic to me. I can't think of anywhere in the cities of Toronto and Montreal I would feel unsafe. There are areas in Boston, Washington and Chicago I definitely would not go, and East L.A. is a war zone. What do Canadian and US cities have to do with the %age of victims in Britain or the warning from the USDOJ about Britain?!? Why are you constantly changing the subject in response to a direct question, John? 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/ Let's be a mite more specific. 3 direct links to unbiased sources are not specific enough? What do you WANT? (Did you even peruse any of them?) Im sure I can find more. Lets ask around Arizona for example...chuckle The Wild West... I'll now leave you to your daydreaming. (Gunner, no use trying to save these two with suicidal tendencies and illogical, self-doubting "reason".) ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:44:21 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: When 1-2 million defensive gun uses occur every year in a population of 280 million people.. that hardly sounds paranoid. Sounds like fiction. And lawlessness isn't anarchy. I didn't say we were engulfed in anarchy over here -yet-. And if we are, a personal weapon isn't going to help me if my civilization is destroyed. I'm too old to be a survivalist. Reread my sentence there, big guy. Another book for you to read is "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/037570759X Read some of the 63 reader reviews at that link. Not the ones with 5 stars, the ones with 1 and 2 stars. e.g. "Kaplan's Coming Anarchy is one of the weakest books I've read, and now in my 3rd year of a Pol Sci Phd program, that's a lot of books. He is the Jenny Jones of literature, spotlighting all that is shocking yet meaningless. This book is a collection of problems, yet he offers no theory of how all of these events are related, no theory behind this anarchy, and no explanation for where it is leading, except for a possibly racist suggestion that it is leading to a society like that in current-era West Africa. Interested readers should consider Robet Wright's Nonzero, in which he argues there is a progressive and equilibrium path in human development. Even in if you share Kaplan's argument that there is or going to be anarchy, he offers nothing in the way of a coherent argument." or this "So who's responsible for the economic and social doom or the "coming anarchy"? Well that's where it gets even more interesting. The author points out to us the guilty ones by actually telling us who is not guilty. That would be for example Henry Kissinger for whom Kaplan dedicates more than a whole chapter praising his efforts to maintain a balance in this mad, mad world we're living in.. But then again, Kaplan admits that Kissinger was one of the pivotal decision makers for the brutal bombings in Cambodia with 1000s of innocent civilians dead. The reason according to the book? It was nothing more than an expression of power to China (!!!)..And the Vietnam war? Oh that was also "needed" because the region had to be "stabilised".. 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. That sounds like a fraudulent statistic to me. I can't think of anywhere in the cities of Toronto and Montreal I would feel unsafe. There are areas in Boston, Washington and Chicago I definitely would not go, and East L.A. is a war zone. What do Canadian and US cities have to do with the %age of victims in Britain or the warning from the USDOJ about Britain?!? I don't live in Britain. Why are you constantly changing the subject in response to a direct question, John? What was the question? 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/ Let's be a mite more specific. 3 direct links to unbiased sources are not specific enough? No, those were indirect links to main pages. Now if you've got a stat that you want me to see, post a link to the page with the stat. ## Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. ## Cats have never forgotten this. |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:22:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:04:39 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. My opinion is biased solely on your posts in this thread. I saw a lot of name calling and bad language from you. And that's about it. Nothing I could go away and verify or prove wrong. I get the impression that you could "go away and verify or prove wrong" any of the material I posted since you haven't actually read the multitude of posts where I cite actual published research. I don't give a damn about your research or "multitude of posts". Then you lied when you claimed to have read the posts I wrote in this thread. I'm NOT referring to the entire body of your posts in the history of usenet. I am referring to this one thread. So am I. You're seriously deluded or have very poor reading comprehension if you think that quotes from Gary Kleck or Michael Maltz, among other items, fits your claim. That's the one you highjacked, Nope. changed the subject, and turned the off topic subject into another group. Talk to Larry Jacques. I did not change the subject. Yes, you did. You changed the topic of the thread when you took umbrage with Gunner's sig. *That* is when the subject changed. Sue |
Nice write up about LEDs
Gunner wrote in message . ..
Maybe those guns do protect a few citizens from thugs, but they kill more family members than thugs, and that's a fact. Not one handgun owner in a thousand has the training necessary to use their weapon in a shootout with something other than a paper target. And while there are a few states in the US that have the necessary terrain for successful guerilla warfare, most don't. So if trained regular infantry come looking for your militia, they aren't going to last long. More family members than thugs? Been reading Kellerman again. Well, yeah. Hasve you got any figures that prove otherwise? Snicker...I should mention he admitted lying..er..making an error in his calculations.. Well, to use your favorite phrase, CITE? Where and/or when did he 'admit lying..er..making an error in his calculations'? Hard to see how, considering that was just public records of homicides. something about 43 times more likely, was it not? Yes, I see you are familiar with the work. Perhaps this would be a good time to tell us what the 'lying..er..making an error in his calculations' was. Did he say it was 43 X then change it to something else? What? Or was it something else and he changed it to 43X? What was it first? Even in Canada..this is bogus.. "The best available Canadian research indicates that firearms used in self-defence by law-abiding Canadians exceeds the total number of gun-related deaths by a ratio of forty to one, Of course, the incidence of gun-related deaths in Canada is 1/10 that of the US, so the DGU/shooting death ratio would be 10X as large. saving more lives each year than are lost through the misuse of guns. Assuming that every one of those DGUS would have been a fatality, had it not been for the DGU. Do you really believe that 40/41 of all homicidal shooting assaults, approximately 97.5%, are stymied by the victim being armed? Just what proportion of the population do you think normally carries a weapon, anyway? Do you think that the average armed homicidal criminal gets chased off by a gun 97.5% of the time? In Canada, a civilian uses a firearm in defence of self, family or property (excluding police, military and security guard duties) an average of once every nine minutes, and half of these incidents involve defence against human threats. Firearms are used over twice as often in self-defence as they are in criminal violence, and save at least 3,300 lives every year. The self-defence use of firearms saves the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually by protecting property against theft and vandalism, and reduces medical costs by preventing injury from criminal assault and wild animal attacks." Once again, CITE? You seem to be pretty big on asking people for CITEs to prove things that are matters of their opinion, yet you spring quotes from nowhere as though they were written on the sky in letters of flame. Lets look at some facts shall we? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html OK... 'According to the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report (p. 24), from 1993 to 1997, non-gun justifiable homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides. 30% was used instead of 13%.' Why was 30% used instead of 13%? The author doesn't seem to explain that anywhere. I assume you must understand it, since you rely on it to prove your case. No matter, if you use 13% instead of 30%, then instead of 'So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1' you have a risk factor of 20. So, what has the author and/or you proved? That objects other than guns are used to kill the self or a family member more often than an attacker, similarly to the way guns are used to kill the self or a family member more often than an attacker? That in general fewer people kill an attacker than the self or a family member, gun or no gun? Doesn't that sort of confirm Kellermann's finding, rather than deny it, i.e. that on the average, the risk of a weapon to a family member of the self overwhelms the risk to an attacker, guns included? Or are we supposed to fixate on 'the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1' as some sort of debunking? Is this where you get Kellermann 'admitting lying..er..making an error in his calculations'? You do realize that it wasn't Kellermann who calculated this. And as I mention above, your author there pulls 30% out of a hat after telling us the real number is 13%, getting 99:1; if he uses 13% we get 20:1; perhaps he could follow Kellermann's example and actually get the numbers from the publicly available death data and tell us what the ratio is, rather than what it would be, given various numbers he pulls out of his hat. Or not, since the logic of how that counters Kellermann's argument is entirely lacking. Let me be gracious here, and give you the answer. After all, it's not that complicated that the progun folks haven't seen it and published it elsewhere. It's, of course, that the opposite of killing a family member or self is not killing the attacker; just stopping the attacker will do just fine. Of course that's true and a valid criticism. And that's why Kellermann did the next study, comparing the homicide rates for houses where guns are kept vs ones where they are not. Very simply, if guns save lives by stopping attackers in any way, even by causing the attacker never to attack in the first place, and that's a greater frequency that they are actually used in domestic homicides, then homes with guns in them will be the sites of fewer homicdes. Conversely, if guns are used to kill a family member more often than they save somebody by a DGU of any kind, then there will be more homicides in gun owning homes. (Notice that we have even dropped suicides out of the equation here, which pushes the ratio further towards the benefit of the progun side.) And a simple count of homicides shows quite clearly that there are more homicides in homes where there are guns. Well, there are lots of factors involved, of course, homicidal people tend to keep guns around, so the next step is a factor analysis, correcting for criminality and stuff like that; you find that having a gun in the house is still correlated with a HIGHER frequency of homicide. And further, that the increase in homicide is entirely due to getting shot by a friend or family member with that gun; and that there is no difference in the percentages getting killed in any other way. And why should that be surprising? It's immediately apparent on the first glance at any statistics that domestic homicides are much more frequent than homicides from home invasions. So even if having a gun in the house was completely perfect protection against home invasions, you'd still have a higher risk of family homicide. Or, to put it another way, it's hard to get shot in your house when there isn't a gun in the house. That ought to be fairly obvious. How about a systematic rebuttal of Kellerman? http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html OK... "Before examining the weaknesses of Kellermann's study, for argument's sake, let's assume the 2.7 odds ratio is a reasonable estimate of the risk associated with a gun and homicide in the home. But, what is the absolute risk of this association? (For a basic primer on absolute and relative risk, and why critical readers should be alert to the distinction, see http://www.acponline.org/journals/ec...b00/primer.htm.)" Easily done; there were roughly 400 homicides in a total of about 6 million person years (3 cities with about half a million each, 2 for 5 years and one for 2.5 years). That's .007% overall per year. Let's see what's your guy get? "Even if (and that's a big if), Kellermann's estimate is in the ballpark [it's from actual count of all homicides in the population, it's got to be 'in the ballpark', it's the actual measurement not an estimate], a very conservative estimate of the actual homicide risk to each household member being killed per year, where no family member has a criminal record, is in the range of three-eighths of one-thousandth of 1 percent to three-quarters of one-thousandth of 1 percent (.000375 - .00075 percent). Over a forty year period that risk translates to between one-and-one-half hundredths to three one-hundredths of 1 percent of homicide risk for each family member (.015 - .03 percent)." Then how do you get 400+ actual homicides in a population of 1 million for 5 years and another .5 million for 2.5 years? Your author is in the position of telling us that although .007% per year actually get killed, he rejects that number in favor of his theory. I suggest Bruce Catton's Civil War trilogy as a good reference to consult with respect to what happens when state militias start taking their guns off the wall to resist federal armies. Since when are we discussing State Militias and the War of Northern Agression? Is that really where you want to go? EG John....peruse this link a bit.. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:38:38 GMT, Sue wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:22:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:04:39 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. My opinion is biased solely on your posts in this thread. I saw a lot of name calling and bad language from you. And that's about it. Nothing I could go away and verify or prove wrong. I get the impression that you could "go away and verify or prove wrong" any of the material I posted since you haven't actually read the multitude of posts where I cite actual published research. I don't give a damn about your research or "multitude of posts". Then you lied when you claimed to have read the posts I wrote in this thread. I'm NOT referring to the entire body of your posts in the history of usenet. I am referring to this one thread. So am I. You're seriously deluded or have very poor reading comprehension if you think that quotes from Gary Kleck or Michael Maltz, among other items, fits your claim. That's the one you highjacked, Nope. changed the subject, and turned the off topic subject into another group. Talk to Larry Jacques. I did not change the subject. Yes, you did. You changed the topic of the thread when you took umbrage with Gunner's sig. *That* is when the subject changed. Sue My apologies. It appears that it was John Ings who did the hijacking. Not you, but not Larry Jacques either. Sue |
Nice write up about LEDs
In your last post you made a point of noting a spelling error: -- AND, the main point, I don't give a damn about your style or the style of others. I do care when you highjack a thread in another group I didn't "Highjack" (sic) a thread or change the subject. If you are going to whine about that, go talk to Larry Jacques. -- And yet in this post you write: In article m, Carl Nisarel wrote: I am engaging in an attempt to keep this thread on topic - the topic of LED lighting. No, you're going off on a lame ad hom attack. Ad hominem. Those who use spelling flames in arguments had best not make any errors other than trivial typos. --Tim May |
Nice write up about LEDs
In article m, Carl
Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Tom Martin wrote: No, you're going off on a lame ad hom attack. **** off petty minded jerk! There's another idiotic ad hom attack. Cf. my last post, where I quoted you noting someone's spelling error. Physician, heal thyself. --Tim May |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:46:23 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths: I didn't say we were engulfed in anarchy over here -yet-. And if we are, a personal weapon isn't going to help me if my civilization is destroyed. I'm too old to be a survivalist. Goodnight. Reread my sentence there, big guy. Another book for you to read is "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/037570759X Read some of the 63 reader reviews at that link. Not the ones with 5 stars, the ones with 1 and 2 stars. e.g. Only about 70% of the readers gave him 5 stars. I liked the book. YMMV. I don't live in Britain. Ah, the way you defended her I thought you were from there. My mistake. BUT, the topic was as stated. You never were able to follow those, were you? sigh Why are you constantly changing the subject in response to a direct question, John? What was the question? See what I mean? 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/ Let's be a mite more specific. 3 direct links to unbiased sources are not specific enough? No, those were indirect links to main pages. Now if you've got a stat that you want me to see, post a link to the page with the stat. Sorry, no time to spoon feed you any more. Those were direct links to unbiased sources. Pick your subject and find your own stats, sir. Over and out. ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:46:44 -0700, Winston §mith
brought forth from the murky depths: On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:17:52 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: I didn't "Highjack" (sic) a thread or change the subject. If you are going to whine about that, go talk to Larry Jacques. Read the subject line. Then tell me how your posts apply. Carl can stick that whine up with his sunshineless head. I merely replied to content. ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:45:47 GMT, Sue brought
forth from the murky depths: My apologies. It appears that it was John Ings who did the hijacking. Not you, but not Larry Jacques either. Sue Thanks, Sue. sign me: C-less Jaques. ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:24:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:45:47 GMT, Sue brought forth from the murky depths: My apologies. It appears that it was John Ings who did the hijacking. Not you, but not Larry Jacques either. Sue Thanks, Sue. sign me: C-less Jaques. Sorry. I realized my error after I made the post. I have a friend whose last name is Jacques so that's why I spelled it that way. Sue ================================================= ========= Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================= ========= |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:19:46 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: Sorry, no time to spoon feed you any more. Those were direct links to unbiased sources. Pick your subject and find your own stats, sir. That's a fold. |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:29:45 GMT, Gunner
wrote: 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? Why else would you want machine guns and claymores? Just for the macho image? Or the fun of shooting them? Or because you belong to one of those militias? 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. Only in the minds of the suposedly envied. 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. The public still doesn't trust you. They have an uneasy suspicion that maybe you are nuts, no matter how sane you are. Add to that this paranoia about the federal government needing to be threatened with weaponry before it will let you alone... |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:23:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: Im still waiting for your answer on whether or not firearms ownership is an individual right in the US. I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate cite. You're just waving an irrelevant red herring. Go smack yourself in the face with it, Mark. Simple question, or a really really tough one for you to answer? You are marginally smart enough to understand that no matter which way you answer..you get hammered. If you answer no..then I supply the cites that it is. Cites that you cannot dodge. If you answer yes..then your entire anti-gun argument goes down the while porcelain receptacle with a swirl. Must really suck to be you right about now. Posting nit pics while you go up in flames. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:10:35 -0700, John Ings
wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:28:11 GMT, Gunner 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. Sounds like fiction. And lawlessness isn't anarchy. Denial is not a river in Egypt. "There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. " http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html Who mentioned anarchy? Without privately owned firearms...anarchy or its totalitarian cousin rules. http://www.universalway.org/guncontroltable.html http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html 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. Fact. I've been there. Have you? Indeed I have. In fact it was the first place anyone ever tried to rob me. Manchester at night is not a nice place. There are places even the cops refuse to go. 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.. You actually have places where people MUST carry guns? Sure. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/kennesaw.html There are several others. I should note that the laws say you must OWN, but leave it up to the owner if they want to carry or not. Unlike the bleeding ******s on the gun control side who dont want anyone to even own one. No end user discretion. 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? Do they advise armed resistance? Indeed. Resistance by any means possible. Including knives, chainsaws, icepicks, rat tailed combs, belly guns, etc. An interesting bit for you.... http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html "In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.[6] During a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods and shop owners publicly armed themselves; felonies dropped significantly.[7] In March 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring householders to keep a gun at home; house burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year.[8] Similar publicized training programs for gun-toting merchants sharply reduced robberies in stores in Highland Park, Michigan, and in New Orleans; a grocers organization's gun clinics produced the same result in Detroit.[9] " 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. Past 20 years, since a large influx of immegrants from counries where violence is a way of life. But..but..but John..its all the guns fault. Right? The poor immigrants are simply victims of cheap handguns being parachuted to them or being found in their couscous. 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. Betcha there's that many in New York City alone. Very likely. And New York City has a very very strict ban on handguns. Funny how that works, no? 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. That sounds like a fraudulent statistic to me. I can't think of anywhere in the cities of Toronto and Montreal I would feel unsafe. There are areas in Boston, Washington and Chicago I definitely would not go, and East L.A. is a war zone. Oddly enough Im in East LA all the time. Though I do go armed. Shrug.. http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/.../toronto2.html Parkdale, according to many, is the next Cabbagetown. It is rather grungy and run-down; in 5 to 10 years, it is predicted to become shiny, yuppie, and new. This does not help the renter, of course, who will be living there now, but it does help keep the rents low. It can get quite dangerous at night, by the way. http://www.montreal.com/tourism/general.html Montreal has a low crime rate. Nonetheless it is a large city and you should remain normally vigilant about your possessions and your person. No particular area of the city is marked off as dangerous, but it is not recommended to wander around Mount Royal or other large parks alone at night. The Metro is safe at all times. http://www.jimpankiw.com/News/MP_Rep...p_reports.html CRIME Several recent reports show a disturbing increase in the amount of crime committed in our province, and much closer to home, in the city of Saskatoon. In fact last year, Statistics Canada found that on a per capita basis, Regina and Saskatoon ranked first and second as the crime capitals of Canada. Now if you want to talk about safe places in the US...most of it is safe. http://www.bestplaces.net/stress/stress_study1.asp 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/ Let's be a mite more specific. You asked. I supplied. What part of those citations didnt you understand? Official US government sources direct to you. 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. Find me one. If that's a common attitude there should be a website stating so. Its hardly PC..talk to the average cop on the street, not the politically astute muckamuck at the top. I should mention I was a police officer for a number of years. On a number of occasions I suggested an individual get a gun and training for self protection. Often in the case of a spousal abuse situation. Like this one: GREENVILLE, South Carolina, 6:50 a.m. EDT June 11, 2001 -- A man is dead after being shot in Northern Greenville County early Monday morning. Deputies tell News 4 that the man's estranged wife killed him after he kicked in the door at her home on Jordan Road and threatened her with a rifle. Deputies say that she shot her husband in the chest with a pistol. He died on the scene. *********** You really need to read a book called Armed and Female by Paxton Quigley http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...927474-9301630 And stats show you will win. I will? I'll always see the criminal coming in time to find my gun and use it? And he's going to let me? Or do I carry it all the time like a cop? Do you go about armed with a six shooter like Wyatt Earp? Find your gun? Why would it not be with you? As to your other questions..yes indeed. I do go armed all the time. Though I dont carry a six shooter for the most part. I carry a very small, heavily customized .45 self loading pistol tucked away on my person. Its not for the recoil shy. I may carry (during cold weather or while wearing a suit) a larger full sized .45..one made in Canada btw..the ParaOrd P14, also heavily customized. On horse back, or while hiking, I generally carry a S&W Mod 57 in .41Magnum in a crossdraw holster. This is very comfortable while driving, riding or while wearing a back pack. I should mention that Ive had a California Concealed Weapons Permit for about 27 yrs now, and have to attend classes and exhibit safety and skill on the range, every 2 years when renewing my permit. As a side note, I generally am picked to be the assistant rangemaster, as I am certified in a number of firearms training and shooting catagories. You have seen an exchange between myself and an anti gun extremist. You have not read any of the cites from either of us. Since I suspect both, and yours so far are only vague pointers. Your obfuscation is noted as is your failure to have read any of the cites Ive given, based on that statement. 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 The Wild West... The "wild west" is and was a hell of a lot safer place to live than the "civilized east". Need the cites? Chuckle. You do know that both concealed and open carry is legal in Arizona? Its hardly uncommon to go to the market, etc and the man or woman in front of you has a handgun holstered on their hip. Those are the ones you can see. EG. Tends to put off those Quebeckers when they come in in mass in their RVs during the winter time. At least at first. ## To err is human. To purr feline. Indeed. Gunner, with two cats in his lap. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:45:47 GMT, Sue wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:38:38 GMT, Sue wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:22:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Winston §mith wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:04:39 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. My opinion is biased solely on your posts in this thread. I saw a lot of name calling and bad language from you. And that's about it. Nothing I could go away and verify or prove wrong. I get the impression that you could "go away and verify or prove wrong" any of the material I posted since you haven't actually read the multitude of posts where I cite actual published research. I don't give a damn about your research or "multitude of posts". Then you lied when you claimed to have read the posts I wrote in this thread. I'm NOT referring to the entire body of your posts in the history of usenet. I am referring to this one thread. So am I. You're seriously deluded or have very poor reading comprehension if you think that quotes from Gary Kleck or Michael Maltz, among other items, fits your claim. That's the one you highjacked, Nope. changed the subject, and turned the off topic subject into another group. Talk to Larry Jacques. I did not change the subject. Yes, you did. You changed the topic of the thread when you took umbrage with Gunner's sig. *That* is when the subject changed. Sue My apologies. It appears that it was John Ings who did the hijacking. Not you, but not Larry Jacques either. Sue Im rather fascinated on how Cattle Neusia got involved. He seldom sticks his pointed little head into misc.survivalism, let alone rec.crafts.metalworking I wonder if Mr. Ing decided to call on the "big guns" (snicker) Cattle has been conspicious by his absence since the last time he got his ass handed to him on misc.survivalism. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:00 +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
wrote: Carl wrote: You're a pine cone head! Gunner wrote: No, *you're* a pine cone head! ...and so forth. See the Dave Barry article "Seeing the forest through the eyes of our children" at the following URL: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/ -tih Where the hell did the pine cone head stuff come from????? I dont recall every calling Cattle such. A ******, antigun nutcase, troll, and I think even once commented on his incestious anc carnal relationship with his brother and Mum..but Pine Cone head??????? 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On 21 May 2004 17:39:34 -0700, (z) wrote:
Gunner wrote in message . .. Maybe those guns do protect a few citizens from thugs, but they kill more family members than thugs, and that's a fact. Not one handgun owner in a thousand has the training necessary to use their weapon in a shootout with something other than a paper target. And while there are a few states in the US that have the necessary terrain for successful guerilla warfare, most don't. So if trained regular infantry come looking for your militia, they aren't going to last long. More family members than thugs? Been reading Kellerman again. Well, yeah. Hasve you got any figures that prove otherwise? http://www.freecolorado.com/2001/03/tiemann.html http://www.totse.com/en/politics/rig...ms/fe_cdc.html http://www.gunsandcrime.org/43times.html http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it was first published in JAMA. Now..something to consider...G http://www.crpa.org/jan04wheeler.html January 2004 Centers for Disease Control Finally Admits Conventional Wisdom is A Crock In a marvelous moment of candor, a federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence that gun-control laws reduce violent crime. American gun owners spent most of the 1990s telling the CDC that gun control is ineffective at best and harmful at worst. So it's gratifying that the lesson is finally sinking in. A task force convened by the CDC issued its report after two years of reviewing 51 scientific studies of gun laws. The group considered only research papers that met strict criteria for scientific soundness. The CDC distances itself with a disclaimer, but it's pretty clear that it supports the task force's conclusions. The report contains no dissenting position or minority view from CDC managers. Covered in the review were gun-ban laws, restrictions on acquiring a gun, waiting periods for buying a gun, firearm-registration laws, firearm-owner licensing laws, concealed-carry permit laws, zero-tolerance laws, and various combinations of firearms laws. Most Americans who haven't tried to buy a gun lately are blissfully unaware of just how many laws there are. In Washington, D.C., for example, it's impossible for a regular citizen to legally own a firearm (although criminals seem to have no problem getting one). In other cities, the legal hoops a gun buyer must jump through are almost as much a barrier to ownership as an outright ban. One would think that at least some good would come from all these laws. Researchers should be able to prove that the laws prevent at least a few murders, rapes and robberies. Amazingly, they can't. And even more amazingly, they have admitted that they can't. snip Snicker...I should mention he admitted lying..er..making an error in his calculations.. Well, to use your favorite phrase, CITE? Where and/or when did he 'admit lying..er..making an error in his calculations'? Hard to see how, considering that was just public records of homicides. See above cites. something about 43 times more likely, was it not? Yes, I see you are familiar with the work. Perhaps this would be a good time to tell us what the 'lying..er..making an error in his calculations' was. Did he say it was 43 X then change it to something else? What? Or was it something else and he changed it to 43X? What was it first? Chuckle...Arthur has since refused to reveal his data sets and has backed away from his original claims. IRRC..his data set involved one Town. See the above cites for further information. Its quite infamous. Nearly as Infamous as Cattle's buddy Michael Bellesiles "work" http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html Even in Canada..this is bogus.. "The best available Canadian research indicates that firearms used in self-defence by law-abiding Canadians exceeds the total number of gun-related deaths by a ratio of forty to one, Of course, the incidence of gun-related deaths in Canada is 1/10 that of the US, so the DGU/shooting death ratio would be 10X as large. And? saving more lives each year than are lost through the misuse of guns. Assuming that every one of those DGUS would have been a fatality, had it not been for the DGU. Serious flaw in your assumption. Few DGUS involve firing a shot. Fewer yet involve anyone being harmed. Only 20% of gun shot victims sucumb to their wounds. In the 5 civilian DGUS that Ive personally been involved in, no rounds were discharged. No one was injured by gunfire. (Ill leave the other possiblities to your imagination) Do you really believe that 40/41 of all homicidal shooting assaults, approximately 97.5%, are stymied by the victim being armed? See above. Your basic premise is deeply and fatally flawed. Just what proportion of the population do you think normally carries a weapon, anyway? Legally or illegally in areas that have no CCW? One should also note that DGUS are most often not on public property, but in or about ones home. So you will have to define or reconcile "carry a weapon, anyway" To answer as best as I can..its estimated that about 3% of the total population of the US is carrying a weapon at any one time, or has done so in the past several months. You might want to take a look at this map( which is at least two years and two states out of date) On the other hand..49% of all homes in the US have at least one firearm. There are an estimated 280,000,000 firearms in the US, with a population of 270,000,000, so its a safe bet that most of those homes have more than one firearm G Do you think that the average armed homicidal criminal gets chased off by a gun 97.5% of the time? http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html In Canada, a civilian uses a firearm in defence of self, family or property (excluding police, military and security guard duties) an average of once every nine minutes, and half of these incidents involve defence against human threats. Firearms are used over twice as often in self-defence as they are in criminal violence, and save at least 3,300 lives every year. The self-defence use of firearms saves the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually by protecting property against theft and vandalism, and reduces medical costs by preventing injury from criminal assault and wild animal attacks." Once again, CITE? You seem to be pretty big on asking people for CITEs to prove things that are matters of their opinion, yet you spring quotes from nowhere as though they were written on the sky in letters of flame. http://www.outdoors.net/site/feature...+Search Term+ And http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/...pters/3/2.html It is frequently assumed that Canadians do not use their firearms for self defense. This misconception was shattered by survey research undertaken by Simon Fraser University Professor Gary Mauser who discovered that firearms are used approximately 62,000 times per year in Canada for self defense (excluding police, military, and security guard incidents) [11]. During the period 1985-1990, an estimated 312,000 households had at least one person who used a firearm (whether it was fired or not) to protect themselves or their family [12]. Half of these incidents involved defense against human threats. These numbers suggest that firearms may save as many as 40 lives for every life lost to a gun and that, on average, every 9 minutes in Canada a civilian uses a firearm in defense of themself, their family, and their property [13]. On a per capita basis Canadian gun owners report using a firearm in self defense almost as often as gun owners in the United States; however, Canadians use firearms more frequently against dangerous animals than do Americans [14]. Professor Mauser estimated that firearms in Canada are used about three times as often in self defense as they are in criminal violence. His research also revealed that over one-half of Canadians believe they have a right to own a firearm [15]. Lets look at some facts shall we? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html OK... 'According to the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report (p. 24), from 1993 to 1997, non-gun justifiable homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides. 30% was used instead of 13%.' Why was 30% used instead of 13%? The author doesn't seem to explain that anywhere. I assume you must understand it, since you rely on it to prove your case. No matter, if you use 13% instead of 30%, then instead of 'So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1' you have a risk factor of 20. So, what has the author and/or you proved? That objects other than guns are used to kill the self or a family member more often than an attacker, similarly to the way guns are used to kill the self or a family member more often than an attacker? That in general fewer people kill an attacker than the self or a family member, gun or no gun? Doesn't that sort of confirm Kellermann's finding, rather than deny it, i.e. that on the average, the risk of a weapon to a family member of the self overwhelms the risk to an attacker, guns included? Or are we supposed to fixate on 'the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1' as some sort of debunking? Is this where you get Kellermann 'admitting lying..er..making an error in his calculations'? You do realize that it wasn't Kellermann who calculated this. And as I mention above, your author there pulls 30% out of a hat after telling us the real number is 13%, getting 99:1; if he uses 13% we get 20:1; perhaps he could follow Kellermann's example and actually get the numbers from the publicly available death data and tell us what the ratio is, rather than what it would be, given various numbers he pulls out of his hat. Or not, since the logic of how that counters Kellermann's argument is entirely lacking. Let me be gracious here, and give you the answer. After all, it's not that complicated that the progun folks haven't seen it and published it elsewhere. It's, of course, that the opposite of killing a family member or self is not killing the attacker; just stopping the attacker will do just fine. Of course that's true and a valid criticism. And that's why Kellermann did the next study, comparing the homicide rates for houses where guns are kept vs ones where they are not. Very simply, if guns save lives by stopping attackers in any way, even by causing the attacker never to attack in the first place, and that's a greater frequency that they are actually used in domestic homicides, then homes with guns in them will be the sites of fewer homicdes. Conversely, if guns are used to kill a family member more often than they save somebody by a DGU of any kind, then there will be more homicides in gun owning homes. (Notice that we have even dropped suicides out of the equation here, which pushes the ratio further towards the benefit of the progun side.) And a simple count of homicides shows quite clearly that there are more homicides in homes where there are guns. Well, there are lots of factors involved, of course, homicidal people tend to keep guns around, so the next step is a factor analysis, correcting for criminality and stuff like that; you find that having a gun in the house is still correlated with a HIGHER frequency of homicide. And further, that the increase in homicide is entirely due to getting shot by a friend or family member with that gun; and that there is no difference in the percentages getting killed in any other way. And why should that be surprising? It's immediately apparent on the first glance at any statistics that domestic homicides are much more frequent than homicides from home invasions. So even if having a gun in the house was completely perfect protection against home invasions, you'd still have a higher risk of family homicide. Or, to put it another way, it's hard to get shot in your house when there isn't a gun in the house. That ought to be fairly obvious. You are missing the crux of the matter. With 2.5 million DGUS, where NO one gets shot..you have to add that number into the mix. You, like Kellerman, only qualify those incidents where somone gets hurt. When you factor in the 30,000 justifyable and non jusfiable homicides that occure each year..figure the percentages when applied to that 250,000,000 DGUS annually. Not very big, when applied to the numbers of lives saved, eh? How about a systematic rebuttal of Kellerman? http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html OK... "Before examining the weaknesses of Kellermann's study, for argument's sake, let's assume the 2.7 odds ratio is a reasonable estimate of the risk associated with a gun and homicide in the home. But, what is the absolute risk of this association? (For a basic primer on absolute and relative risk, and why critical readers should be alert to the distinction, see http://www.acponline.org/journals/ec...b00/primer.htm.)" Easily done; there were roughly 400 homicides in a total of about 6 million person years (3 cities with about half a million each, 2 for 5 years and one for 2.5 years). That's .007% overall per year. Let's see what's your guy get? "Even if (and that's a big if), Kellermann's estimate is in the ballpark [it's from actual count of all homicides in the population, it's got to be 'in the ballpark', it's the actual measurement not an estimate], a very conservative estimate of the actual homicide risk to each household member being killed per year, where no family member has a criminal record, is in the range of three-eighths of one-thousandth of 1 percent to three-quarters of one-thousandth of 1 percent (.000375 - .00075 percent). Over a forty year period that risk translates to between one-and-one-half hundredths to three one-hundredths of 1 percent of homicide risk for each family member (.015 - .03 percent)." Then how do you get 400+ actual homicides in a population of 1 million for 5 years and another .5 million for 2.5 years? Your author is in the position of telling us that although .007% per year actually get killed, he rejects that number in favor of his theory. Only ONE of my guys..only one. Look at the rest of them as well. Thats one of the nice things about all the studies done in the last 15 yrs..if you dont like one..check the rest. They all tend to back each other up to some degree or another. Unlike the anti-guns studies. Shrug 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:18:23 -0700, John Ings
wrote: On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:29:45 GMT, Gunner wrote: 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? Why else would you want machine guns and claymores? Just for the macho image? Or the fun of shooting them? Probably for the same reason folks like cars that go 150 miles an hour. They are fun. Or because you belong to one of those militias? If you are an American citizen 17 yrs old or older..you ARE a member of the Militia. No if ands or buts. Shrug. US Code TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. 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. Only in the minds of the suposedly envied. Thats such a bogus comment John, Im surprised you would stoop that low. If there is a "in the minds" issue..its yours. Shrug. 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. The public still doesn't trust you. They have an uneasy suspicion that maybe you are nuts, no matter how sane you are. Having the Press demonize gun owners for the past 40+ years hasnt helped. When was the last time you heard a story about the good guys winning? Or about a good work by a gun club? Etc etc? I can give you tons of them, but you wont hear them in the major media. Having the NEA forcing anti-gun sentiment on kids in many schools doesnt help either. Are you aware that in much of the country, opening day of deer season is still a school holiday? When I and many here were in school, we took our rifles and put them in our lockers so we could hunt before and after school. I built my first gun in shop class. We had a fine highschool rifle team. With the range in the basement. Gun crime was rare. Shrug..hell crime was rare. Tell me..if guns were a serious problem..why do many schools forbid gun safety classes? The marvelous Eddie Eagle program is taught for Free by police and certified civilians. Its highly acclaimed. So why do many schools forbid it being given? Would you forbid the teaching of how to safely cross a street? Operate a motor vehicle? Handle power tools? One would think that the Antis want dead kids to bolster their agenda. Im sure that they really rue the fact that you are 200 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than by a fire arms accident. And there are a hell of a lot more guns than pools. ****..you are more likely to choke to death on food than die by gunfire. Lets ban food! Pablum Only! Add to that this paranoia about the federal government needing to be threatened with weaponry before it will let you alone... Paranoia? Hummmmmm "And how we burned in the camps latter, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If… if… We didn't love freedom enough. And even more -- we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ……….. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." - Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956 "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, MN, campaigning for the 1960 Democratic Presidential Nomination "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible; which is one of those disgraceful things which a prince must guard against." -- Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights." -- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) Maybe some figures? http://www.universalway.org/guncontroltable.html Perhaps some views of the Founders might help? A pinch of wisdom from the Founders with a dash of commentary. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" adopted by the Virginia legislature? Click here to learn why. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. ---Alexander Hamilton Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy. The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. Henry sneered, O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? More quotes from the Virginia convention: [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... ---George Mason Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because: [T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984. The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[i]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2. Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable. ******************* Something to consider..for all you Libs Fundie bashers. If they are as powerful and as evil as you think they are..and they want to force their version of religion down your throat..how are you going to keep a right wing religious theocracy from taking over the country? Sue them? Snicker.... 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 06:34:45 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Or because you belong to one of those militias? If you are an American citizen 17 yrs old or older..you ARE a member of the Militia. Not THE Malitia. A malitia. One of those ones with nazi armbands. 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. Only in the minds of the suposedly envied. Thats such a bogus comment John, Im surprised you would stoop that low. If there is a "in the minds" issue..its yours. Shrug. C'mon! If you had the votes you'd have your guns. The public still doesn't trust you. They have an uneasy suspicion that maybe you are nuts, no matter how sane you are. Having the Press demonize gun owners for the past 40+ years hasnt helped. They've had a lot of help from people shooting up schools, post offices, subway trains, MacDonalds etc. Add to that this paranoia about the federal government needing to be threatened with weaponry before it will let you alone... Paranoia? Hummmmmm Something to consider..for all you Libs Fundie bashers. If they are as powerful and as evil as you think they are..and they want to force their version of religion down your throat..how are you going to keep a right wing religious theocracy from taking over the country? Sue them? Snicker.... Fight the regular army? Remember what happened the last time that was tried? ## Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. ## True, and they have many other fine qualities as well. |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:40:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law. Armed force by citizens works the other way too: http://www.displaysforschools.com/rosewood.html http://www.displaysforschools.com/history.html http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/terror/groveland.html |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:07:20 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths: On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:19:46 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Sorry, no time to spoon feed you any more. Those were direct links to unbiased sources. Pick your subject and find your own stats, sir. That's a fold. Yes, an intentional BLINDfold around yourself. Enjoy! ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths: On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:10:35 -0700, John Ings wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:28:11 GMT, Gunner wrote: Past 20 years, since a large influx of immegrants from counries where violence is a way of life. But..but..but John..its all the guns fault. Right? The poor immigrants are simply victims of cheap handguns being parachuted to them or being found in their couscous. Bwahahahaha! wiping coffee off wall, monitor, and keyboard I can't wait for the white paper "Couscous as a Bullet Lube". Now if you want to talk about safe places in the US...most of it is safe. http://www.bestplaces.net/stress/stress_study1.asp That's a fun page, but Orange County, CA safe?!? Animalheim safe? SANTA ANA SAFE? I'll bet these guys have never been there, unless the place has changed since I was last there about 20 years ago. All of East L.A.'s drugs came out of Santa Ana. Let's be a mite more specific. You asked. I supplied. What part of those citations didnt you understand? Official US government sources direct to you. Maybe if you read them out loud for him... As to your other questions..yes indeed. I do go armed all the time. Though I dont carry a six shooter for the most part. I carry a very small, heavily customized .45 self loading pistol tucked away on my person. Its not for the recoil shy. I may carry (during cold weather or while wearing a suit) a larger full sized .45..one made in Canada btw..the ParaOrd P14, also heavily customized. On horse back, or while hiking, I generally carry a S&W Mod 57 in .41Magnum in a crossdraw holster. This is very comfortable while driving, riding or while wearing a back pack. I should mention that Ive had a California Concealed Weapons Permit for about 27 yrs now, and have to attend classes and exhibit safety and skill on the range, every 2 years when renewing my permit. As a side note, I generally am picked to be the assistant rangemaster, as I am certified in a number of firearms training and shooting catagories. Great, now he'll call you paranoid, too. ;) ## To err is human. To purr feline. Indeed. Gunner, with two cats in his lap. I find it hilarious that you two opposites are both cat lovers. Ciao! ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:56:27 GMT, Sue brought
forth from the murky depths: On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:24:19 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:45:47 GMT, Sue brought forth from the murky depths: My apologies. It appears that it was John Ings who did the hijacking. Not you, but not Larry Jacques either. Sue Thanks, Sue. sign me: C-less Jaques. Sorry. I realized my error after I made the post. I have a friend whose last name is Jacques so that's why I spelled it that way. Half of my mail is spelled that way, and even though I spell it for the people at catalog/phone sales outlets, over half of them still misspell it. It's all Jacques Cousteau's fault. Meanwhile, back on topic... Winston, here are source URLs for LEDs and info on LED flashlights: http://whitelightled.com/ http://members.cox.net/ledflashlight/ten.htm http://flashlightreviews.home.att.ne...iews_index.htm ================================================== ======== Save the ||| http://diversify.com Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming ================================================== ======== |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:08:26 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:23:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: Im still waiting for your answer on whether or not firearms ownership is an individual right in the US. I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate cite. You're just waving an irrelevant red herring. Go smack yourself in the face with it, Mark. Simple question, or a really really tough one for you to answer? It's your red herring, Mark. It is what you throw out when you get trapped in a corner and fail to address the serious issues/ Your attempt at deflection is noted and found amusing. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 06:00:12 -0700, John Ings
wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 06:34:45 GMT, Gunner wrote: Or because you belong to one of those militias? If you are an American citizen 17 yrs old or older..you ARE a member of the Militia. Not THE Malitia. A malitia. One of those ones with nazi armbands. Those are not militias. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Your useage of the term only proves your indoctrination by the media. Those are hate groups. They have no legitimacy of any kind. 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. Only in the minds of the suposedly envied. Thats such a bogus comment John, Im surprised you would stoop that low. If there is a "in the minds" issue..its yours. Shrug. C'mon! If you had the votes you'd have your guns. John...I have my guns. The public still doesn't trust you. They have an uneasy suspicion that maybe you are nuts, no matter how sane you are. Having the Press demonize gun owners for the past 40+ years hasnt helped. They've had a lot of help from people shooting up schools, post offices, subway trains, MacDonalds etc. Which on the grand scale of things has been moot. Far more people die in mass in traffic accidents than in gun involved incidents. Add to that this paranoia about the federal government needing to be threatened with weaponry before it will let you alone... Paranoia? Hummmmmm Something to consider..for all you Libs Fundie bashers. If they are as powerful and as evil as you think they are..and they want to force their version of religion down your throat..how are you going to keep a right wing religious theocracy from taking over the country? Sue them? Snicker.... Fight the regular army? Remember what happened the last time that was tried? Yup, we gained our Independence. As to irregulars fighting the regular army..I thought you Lefty types think we are in an unwinnable Quagmire in Iraq. Chuckle....which is it? One should also note..that the Regular Army will desert in mass to the rebels side if such an uprising occurs. Taking their arms and ammo with them. You might give some study to the actions at the beginning of the US Civil War, when not only the elements, but the leaders split over the issues of the day. ## Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. ## True, and they have many other fine qualities as well. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 06:40:55 -0700, John Ings
wrote: On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:40:00 GMT, Gunner wrote: Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law. Armed force by citizens works the other way too: http://www.displaysforschools.com/rosewood.html http://www.displaysforschools.com/history.html http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/terror/groveland.html Indeed. A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed (largely) civilians being ripe targets for the picking. Think of what the outcome would have been if the victims had all be well armed. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:04:54 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: The marvelous Eddie Eagle program is taught for Free by police and certified civilians. The Eddie the Eagle program has never been demonstrated to be an effective program and, in fact, research has demonstrated that it is not effective. Himle MB, Miltenberger RG, Gatheridge BJ, Flessner CA. 2004. "An evaluation of two procedures for training skills to prevent gun play in children," Pediatrics. Jan;113(1 Pt 1):70-7. OBJECTIVE: Unintentional firearm injuries threaten the safety of children in the United States. Despite the occurrence of these injuries, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of child-based programs designed to teach children gun-safety skills. This study compared 2 programs that were designed to reduce gun play in preschool children. METHODS: A between- groups no-treatment control design was used. Children were randomly assigned to either 1 of 2 firearm-injury prevention programs or a no-treatment control condition. Participant recruitment, training, and data collection occurred in preschools and children's homes located in a midwestern city with a population of approximately 80,000. Thirty-one 4- and 5-year-old children participated in the study. The effectiveness of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program and a behavioral skills training program using instruction, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback was evaluated. Children were issued 0 to 3 ratings on the basis of their ability to say correctly the safety message and similar ratings on the basis of observations of their ability to perform correctly the skills in the classroom and when placed in a realistic simulation. RESULTS: Both programs were effective for teaching children to reproduce verbally the gun-safety message. The behavioral skills training program but not the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program was effective for teaching children to perform gun-safety skills during a supervised role play, but the skills were not used when the children were assessed via real-life (in situ) assessments. See also: J Dev Behav Pediatr 2002 Apr;23(2):71-76 Teaching Firearm Safety to Children: Failure of a Program. Hardy MS. Ive seen that citation puked up on many occasions, by the Antigun crowd. They cherry picked a no win test and use it as their flag ship. I still wonder why they teach children how to cross a street and then fail to mention why their teaching is worthless when a child gets hit crossing the street. Lets look at whether or not its effective shall we? Keep in mind that gun ownership is at an all time high.... http://www.mcdl.org/Stats/gunaccidents98.htm Fatal Gun Accidents drop to 900 in 1998 Reflecting the value of safety efforts by industry, the National Rifle Association and many volunteer groups, a report by the National Safety Council(NSC) shows accidental firearms fatalities reached an all-time low of 900 in 1998- the fewest fatal accidents since such record keeping began in 1903. Fatal gun accidents have been declining for many years, but this was the first time the national total dropped below 1,000. The 900 figure for 1998 represents a decline of 18 %, from the previous year, a decline of 40% for the 10-year period 1989 to 1998, and a decline of 65 % since 1974 when 2,513 fatal firearms accidents occurred. The Safety Council tracks unintentional injuries and deaths due to a variety of causes. The 900 accidental fire- arms- related fatalities reported by the NSC for 1998 compares with 41,200 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents, 16,600 in falls, 4,100 in drownings, 3,700 due to fire or burns, 3,200 due to choking, and 9,400 from poisoning, in the same year. Firearms-related deaths in the home are at an historic low, as well. Of the total number of accidental fatalities attributed to firearms in 1998, 700 of these occurred in the home, a decline of 12.5% from the previous year. Eddie Eagle by Rick Fairchild Ever heard of Eddie Eagle? He's a cartoon character used by the National Rifle Association over the last 12 years to teach kids about gun safety. The program's central message teaches children who find a firearm to "Stop! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." Pretty innocuous words, right? Twenty-four governors have passed resolutions calling for the "Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program" to be implemented in their states' public schools. The program has met with near-universal approval wherever it's been used to teach kids how to handle guns safely. One of the notable exceptions is the state of New York. Last December, Governor George Pataki rejected a plan to introduce Eddie Eagle to New York elementary schoolers. State Senator Eric Schneiderman calls Eddie Eagle "Joe Camel with feathers." New York City Public Advocate Mark Green said, "I think they [the NRA] are morally and legally responsible for thousands of deaths a year, in a sense, in our city and country, and they should not be anywhere near our kids talking about guns. State and city officials were outraged after a New York City police youth officer showed the NRA's Eddie Eagle videotape to several fourth-grade classes in Brooklyn. Let's see. Joe Camel was designed to sell cigarettes to children. That's bad. Eddie Eagle tells kids not to touch any guns they may find and to tell an adult what they've found. That's good. There's absolutely no comparison here. Eddie Eagle doesn't tell kids to buy guns. He doesn't glamorize guns in any way. But then again, this silly argument is coming from a bunch of liberals who don't think straight. It's absolutely clear. Gun safety isn't a goal. Teaching children about the danger of guns isn't a goal. The ONLY goal is a total and complete disarming of the American public. Teaching children responsible attitudes toward guns would certainly save lives --- but it doesn't further the goal of citizen disarmament. "Teaches elementary school children four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules: If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult. This program, specifically designed for young children from pre-kindergarten through six grade, was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel." "The purpose of The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. Eddie Eagle neither offers nor asks for any value judgment concerning firearms. Like swimming pools, electrical uutlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense." "Entertaining, rewarding, and proven effective in communicating a memorable safety message to children." ******************* GUN SAFETY Because focus group research shows that the public reacts unfavorably to the term "gun control," the anti-gun lobby now tries to masquerade its decades-old legislative proposals as "gun safety" measures. True gun safety depends on education and personal responsibility, not government regulation. NRA`s 59,500 Certified Instructors and Law Enforcement Instructors reach 700,000 Americans each year. NRA`s award-winning Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has been used by more than 22,000 schools, law enforcement agencies and civic groups to reach more than 17 million children since 1988. Accidental deaths with guns have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, the annual number of such accidents has decreased 75%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of privately owned guns has quintupled. Among children, fatal gun accidents have decreased 91% since 1975. (National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and National Safety Council) The per capita rate of accidental deaths with guns is at an all-time low, having decreased 91% since the all-time high in 1904. Gun accidents account for less than 1% of accidental deaths in the U.S. among the whole population and among children. Most accidental deaths involve motor vehicles or are due to drowning, falls, fires, poisoning, medical mistakes, choking on ingested objects and environmental factors. (NCHS) *************' Cattle..once again your disengeniousness is notable. Shrug..but you keep demonstrating it time after time. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it was first published in JAMA. Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy. "Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, and indicates--as does his financing and publication by gun-control zealots James Mercy at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of NEJM--that the intent of these so-called studies is to produce pro-gun-control soundbites for Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc., rather than scientific knowledge. The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so flagrant and outrageous that the Congress threatened to cut off its funding entirely. The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E. Schaffner, Ph.D.; and J. Neil Schulman, in his book Stopping Power: The Humanistic Case for Civilian Arms, Centurion Press, 1994. His sampling methods, methodology, analysis of data and conclusions have all been censured as unscientific. But, perhaps most telling was the study by Professor Gary Kleck, head of the criminology department at Florida State University, which was summarized in his paper Guns and Violence: A Summary of the field prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, which was held at the Washington Hilton, August 29 through September 1, 1991. Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed" Once again..Cattle is caught with his deflection naked and raw. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:06:36 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: He seldom sticks his pointed little head into misc.survivalism, let alone rec.crafts.metalworking You need to get smacked around every so often, Mark. Bring your lunch, a designated driver and notification for your next of kin. EG 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:07:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: "There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck That same study fails predictive validity tests, Mark. Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995: "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... 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 having 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." So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing." Cattle..as the following article states...Ignorance is no longer an excuse. You might well take heed.... http://www.tysknews.com/TyskWorks/ig..._an_excuse.htm 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:08:26 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:23:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: Im still waiting for your answer on whether or not firearms ownership is an individual right in the US. I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate cite. You're just waving an irrelevant red herring. Go smack yourself in the face with it, Mark. Simple question, or a really really tough one for you to answer? It's your red herring, Mark. It is what you throw out when you get trapped in a corner and fail to address the serious issues/ Your deflection is once again noted. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:21:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: Your attempt at deflection is noted and found amusing. It's funny to watch you get smacked around so easily, Mark. Now, when are you going to actually address Kleck's comment where he notes that the Lott/Mustard study is not valid? I have. I shrugged. No ideas on the dicodamy. Ok..so answer my question. Is the right to keep and bear arms an individual right in the US? Yes or no. http://www.shotgunnews.com/knox/knox...tissue=1999111 WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 1) - When objective scholars study either the constitutionality or the effectiveness of "gun control" in controlling crime, and come down on the gunowners side of the issue--as they almost always do--they are castigated and reviled by their colleagues in academia. Prof. John Lott, now of Yale Law School, had written over 70 papers before his carefully and extensively researched study which found that "shall issue" licensed carry laws measurably reduced crime rates. Lott was shocked and appalled by the invective heaped on his head by his fellow academics. I could have warned him. In 1978, James D. Wright, then a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) and a published advocate of "gun control" laws, received a $190,000 grant from the U.S. Justice Department to determine what type of gun law was most effective in controlling crime. He found that no law or combination of gun laws could be shown to have had any effect upon the crime rate. "I thought I was going to be the hero who would point the way to effective gun control," he told me a few years later. "Instead I became the goat." Prof. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, was the next major figure to be derided by his academic colleagues. In the February 1988 issue of "Social Problems" Kleck estimated (on the basis of six surveys conducted by groups on both sides of the gun issue) "there were about 645,000 defensive uses of handguns against persons per year, excluding police or military uses." He was excoriated by his colleagues. But instead of ducking, he began conducting a series of surveys to prove or disprove whether defensive gun use (DGU) was as common as his analysis had indicated. He found that he was wrong; the real number was three or four times as high. While Profs. Lott and Wright have shown forbearance in responding to their often-nasty critics, Kleck takes off the gloves in a criticism of his critics in the Fall 1999 issue of "Journal on Firearms And Public Policy," edited by Dave Kopel and published quarterly by Second Amendment Foundation. It's unusual to see a scholarly article containing charges such as "outright dishonesty," "imaginary straw men," "creative editing," and "recklessly impugned the integrity." Kleck particularly hammers, point by point, critic David Hemenway, an alleged public health scholar with close ties to Handgun Control Inc. But he also thumps a more significant figure in the gun debate, Dr. Philip Cook. Cook for years uncritically cited the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey, which claims there are only about 80,000 instances of defensive gun use per year. But the widely quoted NCVS does not directly ask respondents whether they have used--or brandished--a gun in self defense. Kleck says that Cook quit citing NCVS after the 1994 Police Foundation survey (which Cook helped design) found that cases of defensive gun use total in the millions each year. The Police Foundation survey caused Cook to change his mind--not that defensive gun use is common, but that surveys aren't reliable. Kleck writes: "The Police Foundation survey, while based on a sample only half (as large) ... strongly confirmed the results of the Kleck-Gertz (National Defense Survey) yielding estimates, where comparable, of annual DGU frequency that were within sampling error." As Kleck points out: "It has now been confirmed by at least 16 surveys .... that defensive use of firearms by crime victims is common in the United States, probably substantially more common than criminal uses of guns by offenders. ... with the best estimate being 2.5 million, compared to about a half a million incidents in which offenders used guns to commit a crime." It is critical that the anti-gun crowd debunk research such that by Kleck and Lott, for while they do not directly impact against laws such as "background checks" (as Wright's work does), proving the usefulness of guns for defense strikes a mortal blow against the anti-gunners' obvious objective: banning private ownership of firearms. 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
In article m, Carl
Nisarel wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Tim May wrote: No, you're going off on a lame ad hom attack. Ad hominem. Those who use spelling flames in arguments had best not make any errors other than trivial typos. It's neither an error nor a typo, I simply used a commonly used shorthand version. You misspell a common expression to save 4 letters? I take it you're of the generation that says "my bad" and "lates!" Illiteracy is a terrible thing. --Tim May |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:38:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:21:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote: Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote: Your attempt at deflection is noted and found amusing. It's funny to watch you get smacked around so easily, Mark. Now, when are you going to actually address Kleck's comment where he notes that the Lott/Mustard study is not valid? I have. Not. Really? Your continued denial is indicative of mental illness or obsession at the least.. seek help. .... Prof. John Lott, now of Yale Law School, Lott is no longer with the "Yale Law School" Do you ever manage to get things up-to-date? All you do is post opinion pieces from other people? Can you think for yourself? Sure. Can you? .... As Kleck points out: "It has now been confirmed by at least 16 surveys ... that defensive use of firearms by crime victims is common in the United States, probably substantially more common than criminal uses of guns by offenders. ... with the best estimate being 2.5 million, compared to about a half a million incidents in which offenders used guns to commit a crime." That same "best estimate" of 2.5 million fails in tests of predictive validity. Kleck's participants were not telling the truth. So Cattle..what are the true numbers? Of course Id like some citations to go with 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 |
Nice write up about LEDs
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote: Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote: A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed (largely) civilians being ripe targets for the picking. "There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it, but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house fires, floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not to have insurance, or wear their seatbelts? Have smoke detectors in your hovel? Wear your seatbelts? Wassamatter..you paranoid or somethin, boy? Snicker 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter