Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Philadelphia man murdered by 13 and 14 year old black teens
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:19:43 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:00:50 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:54:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:30:25 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:35:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's - the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a more popular idea. Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK. Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is 40 times higher. They're just going to hell in a handbasket... The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the present? It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in the percentages. And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-) But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country. Right? There's no connection. I see... Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum" and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those terribly dangerous guns. The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of. It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not true that many people want to shoot and kill each other. Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types of guns were banned. Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers" were a figment of someone's imagination. People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill. Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the use of that thing. It just increases the cost. It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days. And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species any more. You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded. Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit? Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun nutz refuse to address. Exactly what I have been saying. Individuals who commit the majority of the gun crimes do it with what might be termed "banned guns". What guns are banned? They aren't banned. Any criminal can buy one. Our gun laws are a joke. Goodness, you mean there are no background checks and some bloke just out of jail can walk right down to the gun shop and buy one? No, I mean what I said -- guns aren't banned, and any criminal can buy one, because our gun laws are a joke. And in private sales, in most places, there are no background checks. And than apply to the state for his concealed carry permit? He doesn't need one. Once he has your gun, he's all set. But I agree about the gun laws. Perhaps the U.S. could get serious and emulate Singapore where possession of an illegal firearm is a mandatory death sentence. And your argument apparently is that banning guns will reduce firearm crimes No, that's not my argument. I haven't made any arguments about what should be done, or what the consequences would be. You're just making it up in your own head. Well, Ed, it doesn't seem to have. Next, I assume, you will argue that "after all, if guns are banned there won't be any here to buy", to which I will argue that "as cocoa plants don't grow in the U.S. obviously cocaine is unobtainable here." No, I wouldn't argue that. Only your strawman would argue that. We hear a lot of stupid distractions and irrational comments about guns on this NG, John, but yours are right up there with the dimwits. Is it something that happens when you decide that you're okay with gun crime, as long as it doesn't affect your guns? Does it short out something upstairs? No Ed, I don't own any guns and haven't for 40 years now that I've lived in countries where personally owned firearms are illegal. But I'm still rational enough to understand, as you apparently are not, that simply banning something doesn't preclude its being availability. I don't know where you get the idea that I "don't understand" that banning something doesn't preclude its availability. I've repeatedly pointed out that 1) some bans work, and others do not; 2) that banning guns in some countries has worked quite well; and 3) that there is no possibility that banning guns in the US would have any effect. We're awash with guns, and many are in the illegal market already. The way our laws work, we'll continue to flood the illegal market for many years to come. Right some bans worked. You mentioned Asbestos which was, if I remember not banned but outlawed. And you mentioned "endanger animals", which I am not familiar with other than I've read that people grumbled about mink coats made from farmed mink as cruelty to animals as they were killed to make coats.... and than hustled straight down to Colonel Sanders for fried chicken. I find it bizarre that you would use the UK as a comparative example, claiming that its gun bans are not effective. John, the UK has 1/40 the firearms homicide rate of the US. What would the ratio have to be for you to decide it was effective? Yes and when I asked you to evaluate crime from a earlier period showing that England Scotland and Wales has always had a low crime rate you replied that evaluating such low numbers was counter-productive. That's the kind of nuttiness that defeats rational discussions about guns and the law. As I've continually stated, drugs have been outlawed in the U.S. for a considerable period and are still available, gambling was outlawed in much of the U.S,. and was still available and innumerable other sins have been banned and are still available. The Volstead (spelling?) act outlawed alcoholic beverages in the U.S. and if anything it became more available. Uh, no, but that's an argument with which I won't get involved. You'd better equip youself with some facts before taking on anyone regarding Prohibition. That's another subject about which there are a lot of myths. Err... it is a myth that Prohibition didn't work? But in spite of the overwhelming failure of simply banning something with the thought that it will go away, somehow if guns are banned a miracle will occur and gun crime will cease. That's a pretty sophomoric argument. I don't know anyone who would make it, and if one did, they aren't worth the argument. But Ed, you have been advocating the banning or partial banning of guns as a remedy for high levels of gun crimes. -- cheers, John B. |
#122
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Philadelphia man murdered by 13 and 14 year old black teens
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:52:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote: On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:19:43 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:00:50 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:54:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:30:25 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:35:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's - the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a more popular idea. Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK. Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is 40 times higher. They're just going to hell in a handbasket... The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the present? It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in the percentages. And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-) But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country. Right? There's no connection. I see... Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum" and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those terribly dangerous guns. The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of. It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not true that many people want to shoot and kill each other. Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types of guns were banned. Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers" were a figment of someone's imagination. People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill. Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the use of that thing. It just increases the cost. It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days. And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species any more. You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded. Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit? Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun nutz refuse to address. Exactly what I have been saying. Individuals who commit the majority of the gun crimes do it with what might be termed "banned guns". What guns are banned? They aren't banned. Any criminal can buy one. Our gun laws are a joke. Goodness, you mean there are no background checks and some bloke just out of jail can walk right down to the gun shop and buy one? No, I mean what I said -- guns aren't banned, and any criminal can buy one, because our gun laws are a joke. And in private sales, in most places, there are no background checks. And than apply to the state for his concealed carry permit? He doesn't need one. Once he has your gun, he's all set. But I agree about the gun laws. Perhaps the U.S. could get serious and emulate Singapore where possession of an illegal firearm is a mandatory death sentence. And your argument apparently is that banning guns will reduce firearm crimes No, that's not my argument. I haven't made any arguments about what should be done, or what the consequences would be. You're just making it up in your own head. Well, Ed, it doesn't seem to have. Next, I assume, you will argue that "after all, if guns are banned there won't be any here to buy", to which I will argue that "as cocoa plants don't grow in the U.S. obviously cocaine is unobtainable here." No, I wouldn't argue that. Only your strawman would argue that. We hear a lot of stupid distractions and irrational comments about guns on this NG, John, but yours are right up there with the dimwits. Is it something that happens when you decide that you're okay with gun crime, as long as it doesn't affect your guns? Does it short out something upstairs? No Ed, I don't own any guns and haven't for 40 years now that I've lived in countries where personally owned firearms are illegal. But I'm still rational enough to understand, as you apparently are not, that simply banning something doesn't preclude its being availability. I don't know where you get the idea that I "don't understand" that banning something doesn't preclude its availability. I've repeatedly pointed out that 1) some bans work, and others do not; 2) that banning guns in some countries has worked quite well; and 3) that there is no possibility that banning guns in the US would have any effect. We're awash with guns, and many are in the illegal market already. The way our laws work, we'll continue to flood the illegal market for many years to come. Right some bans worked. You mentioned Asbestos which was, if I remember not banned but outlawed. It's not outlawed. It's banned for most uses: http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos And you mentioned "endanger animals", which I am not familiar with other than I've read that people grumbled about mink coats made from farmed mink as cruelty to animals as they were killed to make coats.... and than hustled straight down to Colonel Sanders for fried chicken. Minks are not endangered. We're talking here about several varieties of wild cats, certain reptiles, and other skins of wild animals that were used for clothing. I find it bizarre that you would use the UK as a comparative example, claiming that its gun bans are not effective. John, the UK has 1/40 the firearms homicide rate of the US. What would the ratio have to be for you to decide it was effective? Yes and when I asked you to evaluate crime from a earlier period showing that England Scotland and Wales has always had a low crime rate you replied that evaluating such low numbers was counter-productive. The counter-productive "evaluation" was in regard to the supposed "uptick" in UK gun homicide figures NOW. They're still 1/40th of ours, and relatively trivial. That's the kind of nuttiness that defeats rational discussions about guns and the law. As I've continually stated, drugs have been outlawed in the U.S. for a considerable period and are still available, gambling was outlawed in much of the U.S,. and was still available and innumerable other sins have been banned and are still available. The Volstead (spelling?) act outlawed alcoholic beverages in the U.S. and if anything it became more available. Uh, no, but that's an argument with which I won't get involved. You'd better equip youself with some facts before taking on anyone regarding Prohibition. That's another subject about which there are a lot of myths. Err... it is a myth that Prohibition didn't work? Yes, to a partial degree. Look up the alcohol morbidity and mortality figures before and after Prohibition. But in spite of the overwhelming failure of simply banning something with the thought that it will go away, somehow if guns are banned a miracle will occur and gun crime will cease. That's a pretty sophomoric argument. I don't know anyone who would make it, and if one did, they aren't worth the argument. But Ed, you have been advocating the banning or partial banning of guns as a remedy for high levels of gun crimes. Not at all. I've been saying that it works, not that I'd advocate it. -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
89 year-old WWII vet beaten to death by two black teens in SpokaneWashington | Home Repair | |||
OT Can teens Be Trusted To Do Anything? | UK diy | |||
Teens bust pedophile car thief | Electronics Repair | |||
Black Gunk on screen and inlet jet in 5 year old Toro Snowblower | Home Repair | |||
Cool video!!! Thiscrazy teens. | Home Repair |