John B. wrote in
:

The point isn't guns and cars. The point is deaths. Approximately
43,000 deaths are caused by automobiles every year

Untrue. It hasn't been that high for at least five years. The actual figure is about 34,500.

while guns
(disregarding suicides) cause some 12,000 but there is this fevered
reaction to the 12,000 and a rather jaundiced reaction to another New
Jersey Turnpike crash with 50 dead and 100 injured.

Not sure I agree with your conclusions there; the "fevered reaction" is due IMHO *mostly* to
the suicides -- precisely because the gun control groups never, ever cite the number of
firearm *homicides* to make their point, they always cite the [much larger] number of firearm
*deaths*. And most folks don't know that approximately 2/3 of those deaths are suicides;
instead, they see 32,000 firearm deaths annually and think "horrible, horrible".

In short, the fevered reaction is *not* to the 12,000 homicides. It's to the 32,000 deaths. I think
the reaction would be a lot less fevered if it were well known that:
a) most of those deaths are suicides, and
b) hardly any of them are accidents.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:20:36 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.

If we'd allow our cops to simply take out the murderers (Y'know, the
guys who still have the guns/knives in their hands at the murder
site), instead of carefully taking them into custody to stand trial,
the murders would quickly clear up. Zero Recidivism Starts Here.


Odd...we are quite well down the list. You arent bigoted against
Mexico are you? Gun bans...mega murders....

'They' always say "Oh, but Mexico has drug cartels." thinking that
explains everything. Cracks me up. If you look at our own data,
removing the suicides, the majority of the homicides are committed by
none other than the gangs, many of whom work for the cartels. There
aren't that many actual homicides by plain folks.


In fact...our homicide rates fall to within a point or two of Englands
when that is done.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Gunner on Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:54:24 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
der how long you will live if the Great Cull happens?

I hope you survive it. Really. Watching your posts after the dozers
have covered the last ditch filled with Liberals will be interesting.
Very interesting. VBG

Oh, I dunno. The idea of seeing that look of astonishment and "How
could I have been so wrong?" on his face, covered in quicklime and
lying in a ditch, is pretty appealing, too, don't you think? But he's
on the other side of the continent, so we'll likely miss it...as we
sit on our porches drinking lemonade.

Indeed.

VBG

We are entering into "interesting times"

Entering? We're in them already. Crom forfend we get to "really
interesting" times.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:46:08 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


And it doesn't seem to curtail auto deaths, does it?

Yeah, it probably does. Our rate (8.5 deaths/billion vehicle- km) is
in the same range as other developed countries with good licensing,
traffic laws, and enforcement.

So you are saying that simple ownership of a device doesnt count?

Then whats our murder rate per rounds fired?


A lot lower than the lies per editor.


Ayup!

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:46:52 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Several things. For example, the time I hit two little girls, ages 8
and 10, near Montreal. They didn't die, but one suffered a broken leg.

How much prison time did you do?

Obviously it was your fault. Your vehicle should have been stored in
a block of cement.


With him in it?


Works for me.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:48:20 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Somebody wasn't using their head when they let the NRA get away with
that one.

So you are admitting that the ATF is going into gunstores on fishing
expeditions?

Is that your admission?

I have no idea what they're looking for on those trips, and neither do
you. I suspect, though, that one purpose is that it's the way they
identify FFL holders who are supplying a disproportionate number of
guns that wind up in criminal hands. They do report that some small
percentage of FFL holders sell an extraordinarily high percentage of
guns confiscated from criminals.

Actually..Ive worked in pawn shops and gun stores..and have several
friends who USED to work for the ATF.

However, you do have a vivid, and paranoid, imagination. d8-)

Hardly paranoia.


AFAIC, I'd prefer if they didn't have to go in at all. They should
have 100% of those records in their database -- the failed ones, plus
the approved ones, with complete data on any gun(s) purchased.

Im sure you would Comrade.

Then they'd have a start on tracking down straw purchasers and they'd
have the evidence needed to prosecute a lot of gun thieves.

Straw purchasers are now gun thieves?

Mostly, it would make straw purchasing a high-risk criminal
enterprise. That's good.

Actually buying a gun remains legal in "those states" Selling a
weapon to a proscribed person still remains illegal. Instacheck
works quite nicely..yet you want registration Comrade....

Hey, I have to go now, Gunner. My assignment started coming in and I
just got another one. I'll be busy for a long time.

Finger painting or clay figurines in the rec ward?

Hasta luego.

--
Ed Huntress

Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way to the mental health
clinic.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:57:56 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner on Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:54:24 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
der how long you will live if the Great Cull happens?

I hope you survive it. Really. Watching your posts after the dozers
have covered the last ditch filled with Liberals will be interesting.
Very interesting. VBG

Oh, I dunno. The idea of seeing that look of astonishment and "How
could I have been so wrong?" on his face, covered in quicklime and
lying in a ditch, is pretty appealing, too, don't you think? But he's
on the other side of the continent, so we'll likely miss it...as we
sit on our porches drinking lemonade.

Indeed.

VBG

We are entering into "interesting times"

Entering? We're in them already. Crom forfend we get to "really
interesting" times.

It's coming. Got prep?

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

Gunner on Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:03:35 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:48:20 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Somebody wasn't using their head when they let the NRA get away with
that one.

So you are admitting that the ATF is going into gunstores on fishing
expeditions?

Is that your admission?

I have no idea what they're looking for on those trips, and neither do
you. I suspect, though, that one purpose is that it's the way they
identify FFL holders who are supplying a disproportionate number of
guns that wind up in criminal hands. They do report that some small
percentage of FFL holders sell an extraordinarily high percentage of
guns confiscated from criminals.

Actually..Ive worked in pawn shops and gun stores..and have several
friends who USED to work for the ATF.

However, you do have a vivid, and paranoid, imagination. d8-)

Hardly paranoia.

Paranoia is perfect awareness.

Those of us who are suspicious of the government are not
"paranoid" - that is the delusion some one is out to get you. We're
not deluded, the Progressive Democrats and the Progressive Republicans
are out to control the "great unwashed" - i.e. - the 99%.

And the Useless Idiots are all in favor of "Those People" being
regulated by the Government.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. Thats hardly surprising. In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.


I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

Ed must be on Romney's payroll with statements like that. g


Ed is only good at making messes, not cleaning them up. Only the DNC
pays for that ****ty work.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:49:03 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Its interesting that Eddy has all the words..but fully approves of all
those unconstitutional Executive Orders and considers the 2nd
Amendment to be simply trash talk.

I'm thinking he is going senile.

Going? He bought a home there.

Several years back.


He paid off the 30 year mortgage last millennium.

On Feb 4, 10:17*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. *Thats hardly surprising. * *In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

* I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. *The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. *it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

Ed must be on Romney's payroll with statements like that. *g

* *Ed is only good at making messes, not cleaning them up. *Only the DNC
pays for that ****ty work.

Your a expert on making a mess, Terrell. You can't even get your roofs
to stop leaking because your both physically and mentally crippled.

On Feb 4, 10:18*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:49:03 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Its interesting that Eddy has all the words..but fully approves of all
those unconstitutional Executive Orders and considers the 2nd
Amendment to be simply trash talk.

I'm thinking he is going senile.

* Going? *He bought a home there.

Several years back.

* *He paid off the 30 year mortgage last millennium.

At least his roof doesn't leak, Terrell. That's more than we can say
for the sad, pathetic shape you're in.

jon_banquer wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:55 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. Thats hardly surprising. In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

As annoying and whacked out as Huntress can be, I'll bet he doesn't
have badly leaking roofs like you do, Terrell.

I saw your stupid comments in Ed's reply. I changed computers after
he swore he'd never come back to the group, or i wouldn't have see
either of you morons. I had to find this post to reply to your drivel.

What the hell does a bad roof have to do with anything, other than
needing it replaced? Did the harlem Globetrotters use you for a
basketball when you were born? Bounce you down the court and slam you
into the basket, till what little was in your skull was scrambled beyond
hope of recovery?

That information about under employed college graduates working as
janitors came from a US Government agency, and was reported by thousands
of news sources.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-17/end-u-s-student-loans-don-t-make-them-cheaper.html

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that we now have 115,000
janitors, 83,000 bartenders, 323,000 restaurant servers, and 80,000
heavy-duty truck drivers with bachelor's degrees -- a number exceeding
that of uniformed personnel in the U.S. Army.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:28:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:


Sorry..I was going by 2010 figures.

No, you weren't. You were just making stuff up.

How do I know that? Because I know what the 2010 figures a 35,332.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...10_release.pdf

And it is odd that such figures
are all over the place, depending on which source they are gotten
from.

Really? Cite your sources, please.

"Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger
vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT study. "

"There is an estimated 325,000,000 firearms privately owned in the
US...yet in the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from
firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308;
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yet Eddy....there were far less deaths because of guns than vehicles
and it includes Suicide!

Twelve percent fewer is hardly "far less".

Indeed it is Far Less in actual numbers.

No, it is not. It's "far less" only when compared to your made-up numbers for motor vehicle
deaths, not when compared to the actual numbers.


Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)


http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm
..

Each year, more than 42,000 people die in crashes on America's roads.
That's some 117 of us every day. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading
cause of death for every age from 2 through 34. In Connecticut, 300 of
us are killed a year. Who among us does not have a friend or relative
who was seriously injured or killed in a car crash? And yet, while
these numbers remain the same year to year, we and our politicians all
remain remarkably silent about road safety.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/e...s/Section1.htm

Despite recent advances?safer highway design, new auto safety devices,
reductions in impaired driving, and improved safety belt use
rates?traffic crashes are still the leading cause of unintentional
death in the United States. In fact, motor vehicle crashes are the
leading cause of death for the age group 4 through 34 years old.3 Each
year, approximately 42,000 Americans die in traffic crashes and
another three million are injured. Sadly, many of these deaths and
injuries could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing
safety belts or were properly restrained in child safety seats. "

etc etc etc


Need me to send you a care package of peanut loaded ****? Id be more
than happy to squirt you out a pint or three. Any particular color
you like?

Maybe you can work on your math by counting the peanuts?

42,000 highway deaths - 11,000 homicide deaths (which includes
justifyable homicides) = ?

(31,000 more hiway deaths..not a small number except in the brain of
an idiot)

I could sweeten the deal by eating a half pound of raisins?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:32:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:19:08 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:55*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. *Thats hardly surprising. * *In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

And that's a recommendation?? g

What..you hate cops too?


* *I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees.

Oh, go pound sand up your ass, Terrell. You're obnoxious.

And you are apparently going senile.

I talk to the janitors in my wife's school every week or so. They're
fine, responsible guys, but they sure as hell don't have college
degrees.

What...your wife goes to retard school? How long has she been
enrolled?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Feb 4, 10:55*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
jon_banquer wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:55 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. *Thats hardly surprising. * *In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

* *I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. *The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. *it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

As annoying and whacked out as Huntress can be, I'll bet he doesn't
have badly leaking roofs like you do, Terrell.

* *I saw your stupid comments in Ed's reply. *I changed computers after
he swore he'd never come back to the group, or i wouldn't have see
either of you morons. I had to find this post to reply to your drivel.

* *What the hell does a bad roof have to do with anything, other than
needing it replaced? *Did the harlem Globetrotters use you for a
basketball when you were born? *Bounce you down the court and slam you
into the basket, till what little was in your skull was scrambled beyond
hope of recovery?

* *That information about under employed college graduates working as
janitors came from a US Government agency, and was reported by thousands
of news sources.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-17/end-u-s-student-loans-don-t-...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that we now have 115,000
janitors, 83,000 bartenders, 323,000 restaurant servers, and 80,000
heavy-duty truck drivers with bachelor's degrees -- a number exceeding
that of uniformed personnel in the U.S. Army.

You read everything I post to this newsgroup, Terrell. You just can't
help yourself so lay off the lame excuses on why you do because you're
credibility is next to zero.

On Feb 4, 10:56*pm, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:28:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller









wrote:

Sorry..I was going by 2010 figures.

No, you weren't. You were just making stuff up.

How do I know that? Because I know what the 2010 figures a 35,332.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...10_release.pdf

And it is odd that such figures
are all over the place, depending on which source they are gotten
from.

Really? Cite your sources, please.

"Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger
vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT study. "

"There is an estimated 325,000,000 firearms privately owned in the
US...yet * in the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from
firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308;
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yet Eddy....there were far less deaths because of guns than vehicles
and it includes Suicide!

Twelve percent fewer is hardly "far less".

Indeed it is Far Less in actual numbers.

No, it is not. It's "far less" only when compared to your made-up numbers for motor vehicle
deaths, not when compared to the actual numbers.

Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm
.

Each year, more than 42,000 people die in crashes on America's roads.
That's some 117 of us every day. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading
cause of death for every age from 2 through 34. In Connecticut, 300 of
us are killed a year. Who among us does not have a friend or relative
who was seriously injured or killed in a car crash? And yet, while
these numbers remain the same year to year, we and our politicians all
remain remarkably silent about road safety.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/e...cement/pages/S...

Despite recent advances?safer highway design, new auto safety devices,
reductions in impaired driving, and improved safety belt use
rates?traffic crashes are still the leading cause of unintentional
death in the United States. In fact, motor vehicle crashes are the
leading cause of death for the age group 4 through 34 years old.3 Each
year, approximately 42,000 Americans die in traffic crashes and
another three million are injured. Sadly, many of these deaths and
injuries could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing
safety belts or were properly restrained in child safety seats. "

etc etc etc

Need me to send you a care package of peanut loaded ****? Id be more
than happy to squirt you out a pint or three. *Any particular color
you like?

Maybe *you can work on *your math by counting the peanuts?

42,000 highway deaths - 11,000 *homicide deaths (which includes
justifyable homicides) = ?

(31,000 more hiway deaths..not a small number except in the brain of
an idiot)

I could sweeten the deal by eating a half pound of raisins?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Probably better for you than consuming brominated vegetable oil on a
daily basis like you do, you ****ing moron.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:20:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


That's right. I'm not evading it, I'm just expressing disbelief that
any mature adult would ask it.

Understanding the difference is essential to understanding what's
going on here.

Start with the fact that accidents are accidents. Then consider that
mass killings in schools are intentional -- and they're being done
lately with high-capacity semiautomatic firearms, which have become
the weapon of choice for getting your "Man Card Renewed."

Whoa, Ed!

Mass killings by lunatics are arguably "accidents" in that the lunacy
of the perp is itself an accident. No sane person would set out to
deliberately kill a child.

The "Man Card" crap comes from the hysteria created by fear of
politicians imposing draconian controls to impress their
constituencies, with about no regard for historical evidence
regarding how effective such controls might be.

I agree that the "Man Card" thing is pathetic -- but it should be no
surprise at all. If a government proposes to legislatively make
what was once a commodity scarce, hoarders will queue up and
profiteers will profit. Duh! These guys aren't potential criminals
or killers. They do scare easily.

Do you know what that phrase refers to? Did you see the Bushmaster
ads? If so, you should have some insight into the psychology of what's
been going on. You already know the mechanics of it. Then consider
that we're doing just about nothing about it.

Oh, no, we're doing a lot about it! We're feeding the frenzy!

Finally, put yourself in
the place of a parent who's kid was killed intentionally, with a
weapon intended to spray bullets and that appeals mostly to people
with manhood insecurities, and you'll begin to get it.


Do you really think that the parents of a kid killed in a car crash
are any less sorrowful then the parents of a kid killed at school?

They're less anguished than if those kids were killed intentioanlly.
An accidental tragedy IS less difficult to accept than an intentional
killing of a first-grade kid.

So now you're an expert on grief, Ed?

WRONG!!! As you might suspect, I've read, studied and learned a lot
about grief in the past couple of years. I have attended several
grief support groups. Some were awful. I still attend one that has
been excellent. We hear knowledgable credentialled speakers every
week. I learned a lot at The Center For Grief, Loss and Transition in
St. Paul, MN.
http://www.griefloss.org/

I'm not an expert either, but I'll claim journeyman status. I am now
often able to help others during the very difficult initial parts of
their journeys. Today I sat with a woman at a funeral for a close
friend of hers. Turns out I'd known the deceased (Lori) since 1975)
and she and Mary had been very close friends. The woman I sat next to
was a new friend from the grief group I now attend. Coincidentally,
she attended the same church as thShe is often one hell of a lot of
fun! Funerals can be difficult but we both did OK.

A loss is a loss. Spouse loss, child loss, sibling loss, parent loss
and friend loss differ in some ways but loss is loss. Grief from
loss is not ameliorated by knowing in advance that it is imminent,
nor modified by the circumstances of the loss. There may (or may
not) be anger directed at someone who may be deemed accountable for a
loss. Drunk and careless drivers, lunatics with deadly weapons and
just plain stupid people who cause fatal injuries, can certainly be
regarded as culpable. Nevermind what a criminal or civil court might
find, I'm addressing how the griever might feel.

Anger is also sometimes directed at medical providors, and at God.
Anger doesn't always attend grief but it certainly is not unusual --
nor always rational.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:48:14 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:


I talk to the janitors in my wife's school every week or so. They're
fine, responsible guys, but they sure as hell don't have college
degrees.

Do you present your wife's school as a representative sample?

How do you know they don't have degrees?

Degrees or not, how many of them are members of Mensa -- and how
would you know?

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:30:30 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:20:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


That's right. I'm not evading it, I'm just expressing disbelief that
any mature adult would ask it.

Understanding the difference is essential to understanding what's
going on here.

Start with the fact that accidents are accidents. Then consider that
mass killings in schools are intentional -- and they're being done
lately with high-capacity semiautomatic firearms, which have become
the weapon of choice for getting your "Man Card Renewed."

Whoa, Ed!

Mass killings by lunatics are arguably "accidents" in that the lunacy
of the perp is itself an accident. No sane person would set out to
deliberately kill a child.

The "Man Card" crap comes from the hysteria created by fear of
politicians imposing draconian controls to impress their
constituencies, with about no regard for historical evidence
regarding how effective such controls might be.

I agree that the "Man Card" thing is pathetic -- but it should be no
surprise at all. If a government proposes to legislatively make
what was once a commodity scarce, hoarders will queue up and
profiteers will profit. Duh! These guys aren't potential criminals
or killers. They do scare easily.

Do you know what that phrase refers to? Did you see the Bushmaster
ads? If so, you should have some insight into the psychology of what's
been going on. You already know the mechanics of it. Then consider
that we're doing just about nothing about it.

Oh, no, we're doing a lot about it! We're feeding the frenzy!

Finally, put yourself in
the place of a parent who's kid was killed intentionally, with a
weapon intended to spray bullets and that appeals mostly to people
with manhood insecurities, and you'll begin to get it.


Do you really think that the parents of a kid killed in a car crash
are any less sorrowful then the parents of a kid killed at school?

They're less anguished than if those kids were killed intentioanlly.
An accidental tragedy IS less difficult to accept than an intentional
killing of a first-grade kid.

So now you're an expert on grief, Ed?

WRONG!!! As you might suspect, I've read, studied and learned a lot
about grief in the past couple of years. I have attended several
grief support groups. Some were awful. I still attend one that has
been excellent. We hear knowledgable credentialled speakers every
week. I learned a lot at The Center For Grief, Loss and Transition in
St. Paul, MN.
http://www.griefloss.org/

I'm not an expert either, but I'll claim journeyman status. I am now
often able to help others during the very difficult initial parts of
their journeys. Today I sat with a woman at a funeral for a close
friend of hers. Turns out I'd known the deceased (Lori) since 1975)
and she and Mary had been very close friends. The woman I sat next to
was a new friend from the grief group I now attend. Coincidentally,
she attended the same church as thShe is often one hell of a lot of
fun! Funerals can be difficult but we both did OK.

A loss is a loss. Spouse loss, child loss, sibling loss, parent loss
and friend loss differ in some ways but loss is loss. Grief from
loss is not ameliorated by knowing in advance that it is imminent,
nor modified by the circumstances of the loss. There may (or may
not) be anger directed at someone who may be deemed accountable for a
loss. Drunk and careless drivers, lunatics with deadly weapons and
just plain stupid people who cause fatal injuries, can certainly be
regarded as culpable. Nevermind what a criminal or civil court might
find, I'm addressing how the griever might feel.

Anger is also sometimes directed at medical providors, and at God.
Anger doesn't always attend grief but it certainly is not unusual --
nor always rational.

PS: I forgot to close. You asserted:
An accidental tragedy IS less difficult to accept than an intentional
killing of a first-grade kid.

Not so, Ed. Have you ever lost a child?

I have.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 02:57:18 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in
:

The point isn't guns and cars. The point is deaths. Approximately
43,000 deaths are caused by automobiles every year

Untrue. It hasn't been that high for at least five years. The actual figure is about 34,500.

while guns
(disregarding suicides) cause some 12,000 but there is this fevered
reaction to the 12,000 and a rather jaundiced reaction to another New
Jersey Turnpike crash with 50 dead and 100 injured.

Not sure I agree with your conclusions there; the "fevered reaction" is due IMHO *mostly* to
the suicides -- precisely because the gun control groups never, ever cite the number of
firearm *homicides* to make their point, they always cite the [much larger] number of firearm
*deaths*. And most folks don't know that approximately 2/3 of those deaths are suicides;
instead, they see 32,000 firearm deaths annually and think "horrible, horrible".

In short, the fevered reaction is *not* to the 12,000 homicides. It's to the 32,000 deaths. I think
the reaction would be a lot less fevered if it were well known that:
a) most of those deaths are suicides, and
b) hardly any of them are accidents.

My point wasn't 43,000, or whatever it is, but that we accept a rather
large number of deaths due to automobiles and at the same time descry
a smaller number of deaths due to guns. It is hardly logical. There
were, by the way, some 29,000 deaths due to "Self Harm" in 2000.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Time to start printing out the Great Cull
list, so I can give it to someone who will
go take care of the Great Cull List for me?

I fear I've waited too long, I need to go back
to researching buying a gun. What kind do
I need, again?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
We are entering into "interesting times"

Entering? We're in them already. Crom forfend we get to "really
interesting" times.

It's coming. Got prep?

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On 1/02/2013 7:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

1) Well, if the person is a first time gun buyer,
and the check is approved. Do you think that
person can now be called a "gun owner"?

Would that mean that pretty much anyone who
calls for background check is a gun owner?
Isn't that what I just wrote?

=================================================

Not until he passes the background check. And if he doesn't, he isn't
going to be one, either.

But he may be a criminal if he's not qualified and he lies on the
application.





They could be come a criminal after the back ground check and a
succesful purchase.
Here in Australia every purchase of a firearm requires a Permit to
Purchase and a back ground check ,my last purcahse of a fire arm took
eight weeksd before I got the permit from the police .
The dealer will submit the details of the firearm and licence number to
the police and a few weeks later you get your registration paper.
We have to keep our firearms locked in safes in our homes and the police
can call anytime to do an audit .There are certain requirements
regarding gun safes , they have to meet a standard that satisfies the
inspecting police officer.
It's a time consuming process designed to **** people off so they decide
its too hard and give up the shooting sports.

Of course we have the usual antigun ****wits constantly badgering the
Govt to legislate even tighter gun laws.
Despite all the laws and hoops we have to jump through , and bans on
certain types of fire arms ( semi auto's) people still get shot.

I wanted to buy some projectiles from Brownells for realoding , guess
what ? I'm not allowed to import projectiles or brass to reload unless I
get the approval of my State police Commissioner.

So I say to you guys in the US stick to your guns ( excuse the pun ,but
you know what I mean)Once gun control laws are enacted its difficult to
get rid of them and the anti guns will keep chipping away and lobbying
until they are satisfied that there are no guns in private hands.

Gunner wrote in news:hea1h85a40ne2uumo5r9cr6n5nsm84afmi@
4ax.com:


Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm

No, *you* eat ****, dumbass -- that article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

You didn't even LOOK at the date on it, did you? Idiot.

Run along now, Gummer. Come back after you manage to find the CURRENT data.

John B. wrote in
:

My point wasn't 43,000, or whatever it is, but that we accept a
rather large number of deaths due to automobiles and at the same
time descry a smaller number of deaths due to guns. It is hardly
logical.

I agree, it's hardly logical -- but the disparity in numbers is
nowhere near as great as you think it is. The CDC hasn't published
data for 2012 yet, as far as I can see, but the figures for 2011
a

34,677 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents

31,940 deaths due to discharge of firearms:
-- accidental discharge 851
-- suicide 19,766
-- homicide 11,101
-- undetermined intent 222

It's that *total* that the gun-control groups keep citing. And
it's important for those of us on the gun-rights side to know what
the real numbers are in order to rebut the false claims of the
anti-gun groups.

There
were, by the way, some 29,000 deaths due to "Self Harm" in
2000.

And a 12+ year old statistic is relevant how?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in news:hea1h85a40ne2uumo5r9cr6n5nsm84afmi@
4ax.com:


Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm

No, *you* eat ****, dumbass -- that article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

So?

The only change from then to now..is homicides have gotten FEWER and
vehicle deaths are virtually unchanged.


You didn't even LOOK at the date on it, did you? Idiot.

VBG

Run along now, Gummer. Come back after you manage to find the CURRENT data.

No official studies have given firm data yet for 2012. So the best
anyone can give is data 2 yrs old.

Sucks to be you doesnt it?

Now about those peanuts..with or without raisins?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Gunner wrote in news:mqa2h8d23r0f5rtet5lao7f1c68dd3gno3@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:hea1h85a40ne2uumo5r9cr6n5nsm84afmi@
4ax.com:


Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm

No, *you* eat ****, dumbass -- that article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

So?

So what *was* true in 2007 is no longer true in 2013. Apparently you find that concept difficult
to grasp.

The only change from then to now..is homicides have gotten FEWER and
vehicle deaths are virtually unchanged.

Liar. Deaths in motor vehicle accidents are down from 43,945 in 2007 to 34,677 in 2011.
That's a drop of 21%, not "virtually unchanged".

Idiot.

You didn't even LOOK at the date on it, did you? Idiot.

VBG

snort I was right, obviously.

Run along now, Gummer. Come back after you manage to find the CURRENT data.

No official studies have given firm data yet for 2012. So the best
anyone can give is data 2 yrs old.

You're not even looking at the 2011 data, you idiot. You're still looking at 2007.

Now go away, Gummer, and don't come back until you've figured out how to find
CURRENT data.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in news:mqa2h8d23r0f5rtet5lao7f1c68dd3gno3@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:hea1h85a40ne2uumo5r9cr6n5nsm84afmi@
4ax.com:


Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm

No, *you* eat ****, dumbass -- that article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

So?

So what *was* true in 2007 is no longer true in 2013. Apparently you find that concept difficult
to grasp.

So you have the cites for 2013? Crystal ball or just a oji board?


The only change from then to now..is homicides have gotten FEWER and
vehicle deaths are virtually unchanged.

Liar. Deaths in motor vehicle accidents are down from 43,945 in 2007 to 34,677 in 2011.
That's a drop of 21%, not "virtually unchanged".

Liar? Provide the cites

Idiot.

you can be kill filed with 2 key strokes. And nothing less is
warranted.

You didn't even LOOK at the date on it, did you? Idiot.

VBG

snort I was right, obviously.

You are an "idiot" and one easy to amuse.

Run along now, Gummer. Come back after you manage to find the CURRENT data.

No official studies have given firm data yet for 2012. So the best
anyone can give is data 2 yrs old.

You're not even looking at the 2011 data, you idiot. You're still looking at 2007.

Now go away, Gummer, and don't come back until you've figured out how to find
CURRENT data.

So lets see your cites for 2013.

VBG

Gunner, who notices the massive snippage this dolt used.




The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Gunner wrote in
news
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:mqa2h8d23r0f5rtet5lao7f1c68dd3gno3@ 4ax.com:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:hea1h85a40ne2uumo5r9cr6n5nsm84afmi@
4ax.com:


Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm

No, *you* eat ****, dumbass -- that article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

So?

So what *was* true in 2007 is no longer true in 2013. Apparently
you find that concept difficult to grasp.

So you have the cites for 2013? Crystal ball or just a oji
board?

The only change from then to now..is homicides have gotten
FEWER and vehicle deaths are virtually unchanged.

Liar. Deaths in motor vehicle accidents are down from 43,945 in
2007 to 34,677 in 2011. That's a drop of 21%, not "virtually
unchanged".

Liar? Provide the cites

Yes, you're a liar. It's odd that you would ask for cites, since
you never provide any to back up your bull**** -- but since you
asked, here they are.

2011 data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
2007 data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf


Idiot.

you can be kill filed with 2 key strokes. And nothing less is
warranted.

I'm not surprised that you would killfile someone who keeps
calling you on your bull****. So go ahead, killfile me. Every time
you post bull****, I'm still going to call you on it -- and
everyone *else* can still see it, and everyone *else* will know
you're posting bull****.

So go ahead. I don't care.

You didn't even LOOK at the date on it, did you? Idiot.

VBG

snort I was right, obviously.

You are an "idiot" and one easy to amuse.

The only idiot here is you, Gummer -- you can't find anything but
outdated data.

Run along now, Gummer. Come back after you manage to find the
CURRENT data.

No official studies have given firm data yet for 2012. So
the best anyone can give is data 2 yrs old.

You're not even looking at the 2011 data, you idiot. You're
still looking at 2007.

Now go away, Gummer, and don't come back until you've figured
out how to find CURRENT data.

So lets see your cites for 2013.

I never claimed to have any, just for 2011. But you can't even
manage to cite *one* recent year -- you just keep dredging up data
from 2007 and claiming that it's "unchanged" from then.

And that's a lie, Gummer.

And you *know* it's a lie, Gummer.

On Feb 5, 11:22*am, Doug Miller
wrote:
Gunner wrote innews








On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:mqa2h8d23r0f5rtet5lao7f1c68dd3gno3@ 4ax.com:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:hea1h85a40ne2uumo5r9cr6n5nsm84afmi@
4ax.com:

Dougie...feel free to eat the peanuts in my ****.

Google "42,000 highway deaths"

About 34,600,000 results (0.50 seconds)

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6832.htm

No, *you* eat ****, dumbass -- that article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

So?

So what *was* true in 2007 is no longer true in 2013. Apparently
you find that concept difficult to grasp.

So you have the cites for 2013? * Crystal ball or just a oji
board?

The only change from then to now..is homicides have gotten
FEWER and vehicle deaths are virtually unchanged.

Liar. Deaths in motor vehicle accidents are down from 43,945 in
2007 to 34,677 in 2011. That's a drop of 21%, not "virtually
unchanged".

Liar? Provide the cites

Yes, you're a liar. *It's odd that you would ask for cites, since
you never provide any to back up your bull**** -- but since you
asked, here they are.

2011 data:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
2007 data:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf



Idiot.

you can be kill filed with 2 key strokes. *And nothing less is
warranted.

I'm not surprised that you would killfile someone who keeps
calling you on your bull****. So go ahead, killfile me. Every time
you post bull****, I'm still going to call you on it -- and
everyone *else* can still see it, and everyone *else* will know
you're posting bull****.

So go ahead. I don't care.

You didn't even LOOK at the date on it, did you? Idiot.

VBG

snort I was right, obviously.

You are an "idiot" and one easy to amuse.

The only idiot here is you, Gummer -- you can't find anything but
outdated data.

Run along now, Gummer. Come back after you manage to find the
CURRENT data.

No official studies have given firm data yet for 2012. * So
the best anyone can give is data 2 yrs old.

You're not even looking at the 2011 data, you idiot. You're
still looking at 2007.

Now go away, Gummer, and don't come back until you've figured
out how to find CURRENT data.

So lets see your cites for 2013.

I never claimed to have any, just for 2011. But you can't even
manage to cite *one* recent year -- you just keep dredging up data
from 2007 and claiming that it's "unchanged" from then.

And that's a lie, Gummer.

And you *know* it's a lie, Gummer.

"I'm not surprised that you would killfile someone who keeps
calling you on your bull****. So go ahead, killfile me. Every time
you post bull****, I'm still going to call you on it -- and
everyone *else* can still see it, and everyone *else* will know
you're posting bull****."

Not Mark Wieber's cult followers which easily make up the majority of
this newsgroup. They love how Wieber panders to them and they just
can't get enough of it.

Larry Jaques on Mon, 04 Feb 2013
19:03:42 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:57:56 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner on Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:54:24 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
der how long you will live if the Great Cull happens?

I hope you survive it. Really. Watching your posts after the dozers
have covered the last ditch filled with Liberals will be interesting.
Very interesting. VBG

Oh, I dunno. The idea of seeing that look of astonishment and "How
could I have been so wrong?" on his face, covered in quicklime and
lying in a ditch, is pretty appealing, too, don't you think? But he's
on the other side of the continent, so we'll likely miss it...as we
sit on our porches drinking lemonade.

Indeed.

VBG

We are entering into "interesting times"

Entering? We're in them already. Crom forfend we get to "really
interesting" times.

It's coming. Got prep?

As much as I can.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 07:45:18 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:



I fear I've waited too long,

You may be right.

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

prohibitions in the face of demand are a lost cause. Regarding gun
control, as I've shown and as the examples from other countries
demonstrate, breaking the flow of guns to criminals appears to be far
more effective, both in terms of crime and culture, than prohibiting gun
ownership. If you do it right, you can have a lot of guns in a society
with few consequential problems.

Gun control is really an issue of risk management. I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

The actuarial method would identify the risks and price the insurance
accordingly, just like the flood, health or car insurance does. Instead
of surcharges due to accident or smoking, we may encounter a 'social
misfit' premium, but we know how to fairly regulate those issues. The
role of the government would, as usual, be to set and enforce rules on
both sides.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

prohibitions in the face of demand are a lost cause. Regarding gun
control, as I've shown and as the examples from other countries
demonstrate, breaking the flow of guns to criminals appears to be far
more effective, both in terms of crime and culture, than prohibiting gun
ownership. If you do it right, you can have a lot of guns in a society
with few consequential problems.

Gun control is really an issue of risk management.

No, gun control is an issue of power and control over the populace
relating -very- obscurely to safety and risk. We'd better insure icy
sidewalks and porches, slippery floors and showers and tubs, etc.
They do a whole lot more damage than guns do in decent citizens'
hands.

If you want to see a severe reduction in gun deaths, remove ALL gang
members from the population forever. And clamp down on the crazies.

I recall there are 586 accidental deaths from guns per year and there
are an estimated 700 million (legal) guns in the USA. That'd be some
cheapass insurance, at those odds, so the insurance companies wouldn't
touch it. And they couldn't insure the hundreds of millions of
-illegal- guns at all, which is where most of the homicides come from.


I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

Would the term "stuff it" be too severe here?

For those of you who still don't seem to "get it", IT'S NOT THE GUNS
WHICH CAUSE THE PROBLEM. IT'S THE CRIMINALS/GANGS/CRAZIES WHO USE GUNS
IMPROPERLY THAT IS THE TROUBLE. GUN CONTROL DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY OF
THAT.

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
No, gun control is an issue of power and control over the populace
relating -very- obscurely to safety and risk. We'd better insure
icy
sidewalks and porches, slippery floors and showers and tubs, etc.
They do a whole lot more damage than guns do in decent citizens'
hands.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...factsheet.html
"Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of
unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes."
This group is the actual Children, distinct from the teenage juvenile
offenders who run up the homicide statistics that are deceptively
attributed to "children".

Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ata-finds-link
"Of the 1937 total case reports of violence toward others, there were
387 cases of homicide,"

"These data provide new evidence that acts of violence towards others
are a genuine and serious adverse drug event .."

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:21:33 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
No, gun control is an issue of power and control over the populace
relating -very- obscurely to safety and risk. We'd better insure
icy
sidewalks and porches, slippery floors and showers and tubs, etc.
They do a whole lot more damage than guns do in decent citizens'
hands.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...factsheet.html
"Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of
unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes."
This group is the actual Children, distinct from the teenage juvenile
offenders who run up the homicide statistics that are deceptively
attributed to "children".

So, there is no mass outcry over 500 children a year drowning, but
look what a mere 15-20 gun deaths cause. sigh Typical.


Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ata-finds-link
"Of the 1937 total case reports of violence toward others, there were
387 cases of homicide,"

"These data provide new evidence that acts of violence towards others
are a genuine and serious adverse drug event .."

It makes one wonder if the drugs simply don't work or just tend to
magnify the violent tendencies those sickos have, doesn't it?

So, what event will finally kickstart the masses into Gunner's Great
Cull or the Second American Revolution? Will it be another attempt at
gun grabs, or some more gov't-funded domestic terrorism, or simply a
little bit more of the typical give-a-**** attitude out of D.C. about
their massive overspending and waste? Doesn't the tree need pruning?
Oh, and fertilizing. (Right, Mr. Jefferson?)

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:59:56 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:21:33 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
No, gun control is an issue of power and control over the populace
relating -very- obscurely to safety and risk. We'd better insure
icy
sidewalks and porches, slippery floors and showers and tubs, etc.
They do a whole lot more damage than guns do in decent citizens'
hands.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...factsheet.html
"Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of
unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes."
This group is the actual Children, distinct from the teenage juvenile
offenders who run up the homicide statistics that are deceptively
attributed to "children".

So, there is no mass outcry over 500 children a year drowning, but
look what a mere 15-20 gun deaths cause. sigh Typical.

There WAS a mass outcry. It happened around 50 - 60 years ago, and now
every civilized community in the US requires child-proof fences around
pools, and, in many places, makes it a crime to leave children
unattended at a pool without adult supervision. See? I still remember
that from Red Cross Senior Lifesaving and YMCA Lifesaving Instructor
classes. d8-)

What's the gun equivalent to the fences? Trigger locks or locked
safes? Hmmmmm?



Gun restrictions are a convenient way to attack and punish "them"
while distracting attention away from the hazards that are important
to "us", such as the drugs (legal and otherwise) that keep your heads
together.

Poor paranoid gun nut, you're so abused. People actually threaten to
make you responsible for the things you own and what you do! The NERVE
of them!


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ata-finds-link
"Of the 1937 total case reports of violence toward others, there were
387 cases of homicide,"

"These data provide new evidence that acts of violence towards others
are a genuine and serious adverse drug event .."

It makes one wonder if the drugs simply don't work or just tend to
magnify the violent tendencies those sickos have, doesn't it?

So, what event will finally kickstart the masses into Gunner's Great
Cull or the Second American Revolution? Will it be another attempt at
gun grabs, or some more gov't-funded domestic terrorism, or simply a
little bit more of the typical give-a-**** attitude out of D.C. about
their massive overspending and waste? Doesn't the tree need pruning?
Oh, and fertilizing. (Right, Mr. Jefferson?)

The event that will kick it off is all of you falling down the rabbit
hole together, and meeting the Red Queen.

You can be the Mad Hatter.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:21:33 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ric-drugs-and-
violence-review-fda-data-finds-link
"Of the 1937 total case reports of violence toward others, there were
387 cases of homicide,"

"These data provide new evidence that acts of violence towards others
are a genuine and serious adverse drug event .."

It makes one wonder if the drugs simply don't work or just tend to
magnify the violent tendencies those sickos have, doesn't it?

Speaking from the standpoint of one who experienced having a family member with a
serious mental illness, I can say that the answer to that question is probably "Neither".

Many, perhaps most, mental illnesses can be controlled -- not "cured" -- with appropriate
pharmaceutical intervention. Often, this enables the patient to live a more-or-less normal
life. Unfortunately, once their psychiatric symptoms are under control, people often decide
that they no longer need the medication, and stop taking it.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

And those are the legal ones whose effects on humans can be
ethically investigated in controlled-dosage trials.

This gift to the world from JFK is finally public:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112

An early leak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_NIMH
"..the rats and Mr. Ages, were once part of a series of experiments at
a place known as NIMH (which stands for the National Institute of
Mental Health). The experiments had boosted their intelligence to
human level, allowing them to easily escape."

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in :

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

And those are the legal ones whose effects on humans can be
ethically investigated in controlled-dosage trials.

This gift to the world from JFK is finally public:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112

An early leak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_NIMH
"..the rats and Mr. Ages, were once part of a series of experiments at
a place known as NIMH (which stands for the National Institute of
Mental Health). The experiments had boosted their intelligence to
human level, allowing them to easily escape."

You *do* know that's a work of fiction, don't you?