One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
don't trust the new stuff.

I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
exterior paint for protection.

Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
to finish sand the stuff.

Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?

Indyrose

Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
com.

here is a link to one of the chemicals. make up your own
mind as to it's safety.

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ET/ethanolamine.html

If the pesticide industry is any indicator, NOTHING they
make is safe. First they took Chlordane off the market,
which I used freely around my property. So I bought
Dursban. Now that's banned. I also used a termite killer
that is no longer sold due to it's toxicity. At some point,
I think the industry will replace all their products as
safety concerns continue to pile up.


dave

Indyrose wrote:

One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
don't trust the new stuff.

I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
exterior paint for protection.

Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
to finish sand the stuff.

Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?

Indyrose

Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
com.

Birdhouses are one of my specialties and I now mostly work with pine.
Surprising enough, even cedar is considered by many to be too toxic for birds. I
don't know anything about AC2 but I would not use it.

Neal


"Indyrose" wrote in message
m...
One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
don't trust the new stuff.

I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
exterior paint for protection.

Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
to finish sand the stuff.

Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?

Indyrose

Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
com.

I don't like working with PT lumber, although I recently constructed a
park bench using it. You should work with it outdoors and with a
properly fitted dust mask. The splinters from PT wood are nasty and
take a long time to heal. For bird houses, I prefer pine. One pine
house is over 18 years old and still in use today--I think the tar
shingle on the roof helped preserve it. I also built a bat house,
made from pine.

I toiled for a while at a Wild Birds Unltd store. The manager/owner knew her
stuff and was vehemently against ANY finish on the wood, even those that are
"non-toxic" for humans. She felt that not only were the birds susceptible to
the treated wood itself but also to the outgassing that cannot be prevented.
Her recommendation was to use untreated, unfinished pine. Yes, it will
decay, but no, the birds won't.

Bob

"Indyrose" wrote in message
m...
One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
don't trust the new stuff.

I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
exterior paint for protection.

Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
to finish sand the stuff.

Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?

Indyrose

Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
com.

In article ,
says...
If the pesticide industry is any indicator, NOTHING they
make is safe. First they took Chlordane off the market,
which I used freely around my property. So I bought
Dursban. Now that's banned. I also used a termite killer
that is no longer sold due to it's toxicity. At some point,
I think the industry will replace all their products as
safety concerns continue to pile up.


While some of the stuff is truly scary (i.e. DDT), a lot of the
banning is to protect people who use the stuff incorrectly. And
I have to wonder if somebody isn't seeing dollar signs on
product liability lawsuits.

There's no product more dangerous than an automobile when used
incorrectly. OK, maybe a motorcycle :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Indyrose wrote:

One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
don't trust the new stuff.

I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
exterior paint for protection.

Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
to finish sand the stuff.

Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?

Indyrose

Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
com.

I think the big problem is that birds are quite sensitive to substances that
a human wouldn't even be aware of. For example, miners used to use
canaries as warning of the presence of toxic gases--the canary would die
long before the buildup was high enough to harm the miners, so they'd know
to get out or ventilate in plenty of time. That being the case, with
anything that birds are going to live in I think it is best to err on the
side of caution.

Googling "birdhouse pressure treated" got one 8 year old extension service
link that said it was OK, the many, many others said not to.

http://birds.cornell.edu/birdhouse/bhbasics/bhbasics_index.html has lots
of good information on birdhouses. Since it's part of a research project
being conducted by the Cornell Ornithology lab which is one of the top
avian research organizations in the world, I think anything they say you
can pretty much take as gospel, and one of the first things they say is
"untreated wood".

I suspect that heart cedar with an asphalt shingle top would last a good
long time.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

or an assault rifle... g

dave

Larry Blanchard wrote:
snip

There's no product more dangerous than an automobile when used
incorrectly. OK, maybe a motorcycle :-).

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:40:10 GMT, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:45:11 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

or an assault rifle... g

How do you use an assault rifle wrong?
They are designed for one purpose only. To shoot people.

Odd, I've got several rifles defined by the legislature as "assult
rifles", and I haven't shot anyone with 'em. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or your point of view is incorrect.

So if you aren't shooting people with it, you are using it wrong.

So shooting holes in paper targets from 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards
isn't legitimate in your world? That's nice, but keep out of my world.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:58:35 GMT, wrote:
On 8 Jun 2004 18:48:43 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Odd, I've got several rifles defined by the legislature as "assult
rifles", and I haven't shot anyone with 'em. Either I'm doing
something wrong,

Exactly.

So you are saying that I should be killing people with my guns. Wow.
Sorry, but I don't accept your interpretation, and find it insulting.
Personal ownership of firearms is why you _have_ the right to free
speech.

So if you aren't shooting people with it, you are using it wrong.
So shooting holes in paper targets from 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards
isn't legitimate in your world?

Why not RPGs?

Evasion noted.

That's nice, but keep out of my world.

As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
I guess they ran out of paper targets.

Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).

BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using their gun
for the purpose for which it was intended.g

And circuit boards were designed for guided missles, therefore all
computers are ballistic weapons as well. Logic isn't your strong point,
is it.

Do not use treated lumber. There are a lot if toxins that can hurt birds out there.

I've shot a variety of rifles and pistols and haven't yet
used a person as a target!

I'm hardly a gun nut though. I don't think I own enough
weapons to be considered one. Some here would label me a
"nut" but that's another issue.

Does everyone who has a steak knife in their kitchen drive
it through someone's gut?

I'd like to see the "nuts" not have access to weapons of ANY
type, but then they would just fashion one from something
else, like their cars, their hands; whatever suits their
twisted purpose. You can't legislate "normalcy". Look at
911. They used the aircraft that they were riding in. Took
everyone by total surprise. This is a crazy time we are
living in and I'm afraid things will just get worse as time
goes on. (But I hope I'm wrong!)

dave

wrote:



As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
I guess they ran out of paper targets.

BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using their gun
for the purpose for which it was intended.g

what about a Scary Sharp chisel, Larry? That can cause
grievous bodily harm!

dave

Larry Blanchard wrote:

There's no product more dangerous than an automobile when used
incorrectly. OK, maybe a motorcycle :-).

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:39:17 GMT, wrote:
On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).

Actually the number is WAY low.

Based on what specific data, exactly?

Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Conversation is over.

I see, this is the "I'm going to make a claim, refuse to back it up with
any legitimate data other than 'I said so' and bail out" tactic. Ah yes,
always an effective way to make your case.

Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

....followed by the personal insult. Yup, you're a classic. Your next
step is, I believe, to follow up even though you claimed you were done.
Maybe you could post some actual sources of your claimed data? You know,
ones that don't come from Sarah Brady and company?

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message news:szoxc.81756
Look at
911. They used the aircraft that they were riding in. Took
everyone by total surprise.

Not according to the lawyers handling the suits against Boeing and the
Airlines.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:59:47 GMT, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:36:56 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

I've shot a variety of rifles and pistols and haven't yet
used a person as a target!

There are hundreds of guns designed for target shooting.
Assault rifles and large caliber handguns are designed for one purpose. To shoot
people. If you aren't shooting people then you are using the gun for a purpose
for with it wasn't designed.

And if you're typing on a computer, you're using circuit boards for
a purpose for which they weren't designed; they were first used in
guided missiles. Initial design purpose is irrelevant to legitimate
use of a technology.

In fact the 45 was adopted by the military so officers could shoot and kill, at
close range, their own men for cowardice.

Cite, please?

But will your steak knife travel through several walls and kill the neighbors
child two doors down?
A steak knife is designed to cut a steak not kill people.
An assault weapon has a single purpose, to kill other people.

I have many devices classified by the government as "assault weapons", yet
I do not use them to kill people.

It serves no other
purpose. Shooting paper targets shaped like people is the behavior of the
mentally ill.

Oooooookay, but a round target is OK with you? I mean, shooting at a
piece of wood pulp with one shape of ink on it is baaaaaad, but it's OK
if it's round?

BTW, put a human shaped paper target up in you yard and go **** on it once a day
and see how quickly the cops are at your door.g

What does ****ing have to do with target shooting?

But shooting them is considered normal.
Only in America.

You seem to be humanizing a paper target, based on the shape of the
ink printed on it. This is irrational.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:05:10 GMT, wrote:
On 8 Jun 2004 19:59:33 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

...followed by the personal insult.

I never insulted you. I said you are sick. Mentally ill.

This isn't an insult in your mind? Wow.

I feel sorry for people like you.
But I worry sick about those unfortunate enough to be your neighbors.

The funny thing is, most of my neighbors come over to my place to
shoot. Many coworkers come out to my place to shoot. Even people who
have never touched a gun in their lives are keen on coming out, learning
how to safely handle the machinery, and learn the enjoyment that comes in
being able to use the physical and mental discipline needed to produce
a decent group of holes in a piece of paper at a distance.

I also note a complete and utter response to the substantive points
made in my post, and the evasion and apparent concession has been duly noted.

Hear ya on that one Dave. An the term arbitarirly defined as "assault "
rifle is interesting. Has to do with the styling like having a flsh
surpressor or "military" style stock. oesn't have anything to do with the
letahlity of it. Most shooting deaths in the US are by .22s. Which most
people won't call an assault rifle. Then again the M16 is a .222 Yep it's
a high powered .22.

Me I only own four guns. An old Walther 38 my Dad picked up in Germany
during WWII, a ,25 derringer five shot Webly aand two rifles I use to hunt
with a British Enfield .303 (Infantry issue) and an 1897 Marlin lever action
..38-55. Only things I'ver shot were game animals and the occassional hog
for buthcering.

D. Mo
"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
. com...
I've shot a variety of rifles and pistols and haven't yet
used a person as a target!

I'm hardly a gun nut though. I don't think I own enough
weapons to be considered one. Some here would label me a
"nut" but that's another issue.

Does everyone who has a steak knife in their kitchen drive
it through someone's gut?

I'd like to see the "nuts" not have access to weapons of ANY
type, but then they would just fashion one from something
else, like their cars, their hands; whatever suits their
twisted purpose. You can't legislate "normalcy". Look at
911. They used the aircraft that they were riding in. Took
everyone by total surprise. This is a crazy time we are
living in and I'm afraid things will just get worse as time
goes on. (But I hope I'm wrong!)

dave

wrote:



As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
I guess they ran out of paper targets.

BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using
their gun
for the purpose for which it was intended.g

Now THERE'S a special interest group!

Question: What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the
ocean?

Answer: A good start!

dave

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message news:szoxc.81756

Look at
911. They used the aircraft that they were riding in. Took
everyone by total surprise.


Not according to the lawyers handling the suits against Boeing and the
Airlines.

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573

Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
etc.

For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.

Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585

That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.

Backed up well enough for you?

you are able to diagnose over the 'net? That's pretty
amazing, but I think a bit unethical. We'll have to get
your medical license lifted...you DO have a license to
practice don't you??

dave

wrote:

On 8 Jun 2004 19:59:33 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

...followed by the personal insult.


I never insulted you. I said you are sick. Mentally ill.
I feel sorry for people like you.
But I worry sick about those unfortunate enough to be your neighbors.

In article ,
says...
I toiled for a while at a Wild Birds Unltd store. The manager/owner knew her
stuff and was vehemently against ANY finish on the wood, even those that are
"non-toxic" for humans. She felt that not only were the birds susceptible to
the treated wood itself but also to the outgassing that cannot be prevented.
Her recommendation was to use untreated, unfinished pine. Yes, it will
decay, but no, the birds won't.

You know Bob, my first inclination was that PT lumber was no good for
birds either. But then I was quickly reminded of the sparrows nesting
(and ****ting) under my deck. Maybe sparrows have a higher tolerance,
considering they have 3 nests tucked in between the PT joists.

We used to have robins too, but the damned sparrows chased them off.

Maybe it's time for a cat...
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

absolutely.

I must confess, I've even used a tee shirt to apply shellac.
That MUST be a use that Fruit of the Loom and Jockey has
never endorsed. I'll turn myself in to the nearest Macy's.

dave

Dave Hinz wrote:


And if you're typing on a computer, you're using circuit boards for
a purpose for which they weren't designed; they were first used in
guided missiles. Initial design purpose is irrelevant to legitimate
use of a technology.

I'm still posting with my learner's permit.

dave

wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:21:00 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:


you are able to diagnose over the 'net? That's pretty
amazing, but I think a bit unethical. We'll have to get
your medical license lifted...you DO have a license to
practice don't you??


Yes I do.
But it's only valid for usenet diagnoses.;-)

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573

29000 seems to be a smaller number than 50000.

Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
etc.

For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.

Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585

That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.
Backed up well enough for you?

How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
criminals?

In article
rs.com,
Paul Kierstead wrote:

That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.

Just to be clear, that is for injuries and deaths. Deaths alone should
be about 1/3 that, or about every 15 minutes or so.

Now the US is a big place with a lot of people, so the whole 15 minute
thing is really a bit bogus. However, the homicide rates tell us that
either

a) Death via accident and illness is *insanely* low
or
b) The US has a serious problem with Homicide.

You can easily verify yourself by comparison to countries of similar
culture and wealth that the US is comparable for (a) and that (b) is
true. I won't do all your research for you.

However, I will admit that quite a few countries have high gun ownership
without a coorsponding high homicide rate, so it is quite apparent that
gun ownership itself is not the cause. Whether it contributes is, of
course, open for debate and extremely difficult to measure with any
level of certainty.

All that being said, go do some woodworking. And make something nice,
not dangerous

14,454 gun related deaths in 2001

dave

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead wrote:

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:


Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573


29000 seems to be a smaller number than 50000.


Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
etc.


For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.

Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585



That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.
Backed up well enough for you?


How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
criminals?

14,454 gun related SUICIDES in 2001

dave

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead wrote:

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:


Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573


29000 seems to be a smaller number than 50000.


Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
etc.


For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.

Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585



That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.
Backed up well enough for you?


How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
criminals?

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
criminals?

Why should I run those numbers for you? Does it matter? The point was
that a lot of violence (or accidents) happens with firearms.

I didn't say anything about conclusions; in fact, I very much avoided
saying anything of the sort. However, you disputed the numbers, I gave
you the numbers. It is now up to you to go further.

Yes, I agree 29000 is much lower then 50000. Actually was still higher
then I thought it was myself.

Don't assume I am a gun control fan. I remain on the fence about the
issue (see the follow-up to my own post for some of the reason why).
However, I do not dispute that there is an awful lot of violence
associated with them. That is cause to examine the issue; I don't
believe a conclusion can be reached yet.

I suspect that no matter how I broke down the numbers you would
eventually fall back to the old adage "Guns don't kill people, people
kill people". So I say screw it, no point in arguing either way.

Dave,

Very easy to disprove the old "Every Fourteen Minutes" bit, or even worse
the 50,000+ bit with simple math.
Most people tend to believe what they believe rather than think.

Simple way to look at it is by examining with facts and make your own
assumption.

Say we believed the 14 minute bit, than the following states would have the
following gunshot deaths.

Okalahoma 449 per year or 1.23 a day
Virginia 939 per year or 2.57 a day.

Now if you live in those states watch you local news and you should expect
to hear about the same amount of deaths reported per day for the ENTIRE year
.. This is of course under the assumption that a "gunshot" death is news
worthy. LOL

Now if we use the 50,000 per year number we come up with :

Minnesota 869 per year or 2.38 per day
Florida 2,904 per year or 7.95 per day

Somebody in FL please watch the late news and report how many gunshot
victims are in the news tonight.

Since in fact nobody can come up with an accurate source for these bogus
Gunshot numbers, it is a lot easier to disprove it using simple factual
math. I can only assume that the people who believe these numbers, are bad
at math, and are the same people you see standing in line at the lottery.

Roger L

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:39:17 GMT,
wrote:
On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).

Actually the number is WAY low.

Based on what specific data, exactly?

Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Conversation is over.

I see, this is the "I'm going to make a claim, refuse to back it up with
any legitimate data other than 'I said so' and bail out" tactic. Ah yes,
always an effective way to make your case.

Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the
world who
suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

...followed by the personal insult. Yup, you're a classic. Your next
step is, I believe, to follow up even though you claimed you were done.
Maybe you could post some actual sources of your claimed data? You know,
ones that don't come from Sarah Brady and company?

that report ALSO makes me wonder if it was truly accidental.
While this particular incident was most likely an
accident, how do you PROVE conclusively that someone was
killed accidentally as opposed to "accidentally on purpose"?
Perry Mason could figure it out, but how about real life
detectives?

dave

wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead
wrote:


In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:


Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573

Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
etc.

For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.

Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585

That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.

Backed up well enough for you?


I love this one.
LAKEWOOD - A 36-year-old Lakewood man was killed Wednesday while trying to teach
his 13-year-old son about gun safety, police say.

Investigators say the man was trying to show his son how to deal with intruders
when the gun went off at their home in the 100 block of South Kendall Street
around 3:45 p.m.

A bullet struck the man in his head. He died at St. Anthony's Hospital a short
time later.

No names have been released.

Police said the teen thought the gun was unloaded when it went off. At this
time, police have not decided if they will file charges against him.

-------
What this report fails to include is that the guys two daughters aged 10 and 7
were in the room at the time as well.
The moron was teaching them how to do a quick draw from under his bed pillow.
I wonder if the shooter inherited the guns.g

In article ,
"Roger L" wrote:

Since in fact nobody can come up with an accurate source for these bogus
Gunshot numbers, it is a lot easier to disprove it using simple factual
math. I can only assume that the people who believe these numbers, are bad
at math, and are the same people you see standing in line at the lottery.

Nobody? Don't any of you have google? It takes about 2 minutes to cough
up the CDC web site and you can run numbers all day long. The system
allows you enough flexibility so that I am sure that you could support
almost any theory you wanted to, so long as you do it on line without
critical thinking.

Example stat it took me less then 1 minute to generate:

2001 Homicides, not including "legal intervention", from firearms: 11,348

All age groups, all races. Not 50,000. Does that make it good or bad?
You be the judge. But don't claim that nobody can come up with an
accurate source. If they don't, it is because they don't want to. And
that goes for all sides of the argument.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:42:10 GMT, wrote:
I love this one.
LAKEWOOD - A 36-year-old Lakewood man was killed Wednesday while trying to teach
his 13-year-old son about gun safety, police say.

Glad you find humor in a dumbass's death. Very compassionate of you.

What this report fails to include is that the guys two daughters aged 10 and 7
were in the room at the time as well.
The moron was teaching them how to do a quick draw from under his bed pillow.
I wonder if the shooter inherited the guns.g

I'd say he taught his kids about gun safety all right - as a counterexample.
Is there a point in this, or are you just sharing an amusing anecdote
with us?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:42:26 GMT, Paul Kierstead wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
criminals?

Why should I run those numbers for you? Does it matter? The point was
that a lot of violence (or accidents) happens with firearms.

Yes, that much is true.

I didn't say anything about conclusions; in fact, I very much avoided
saying anything of the sort. However, you disputed the numbers, I gave
you the numbers. It is now up to you to go further.

Fair enough, but I think I'll pass - this topic loses a bit of glitter
after the dozenth time or so.

I suspect that no matter how I broke down the numbers you would
eventually fall back to the old adage "Guns don't kill people, people
kill people". So I say screw it, no point in arguing either way.

And tell me how that's wrong. At the end of the day, no piece of hardware
operates itself, there's a human directing it. Until or unless guns
develop intelligence which allows them to be autonomous, it's still the
person who bears responsibility for their actions.

"Rick Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I toiled for a while at a Wild Birds Unltd store. The manager/owner knew
her
stuff and was vehemently against ANY finish on the wood, even those that
are
"non-toxic" for humans. She felt that not only were the birds
susceptible to
the treated wood itself but also to the outgassing that cannot be
prevented.
Her recommendation was to use untreated, unfinished pine. Yes, it will
decay, but no, the birds won't.

You know Bob, my first inclination was that PT lumber was no good for
birds either. But then I was quickly reminded of the sparrows nesting
(and ****ting) under my deck. Maybe sparrows have a higher tolerance,
considering they have 3 nests tucked in between the PT joists.

We used to have robins too, but the damned sparrows chased them off.

Maybe it's time for a cat...

....or some sparrow houses. That'll teach you use ipe.

How was the getaway weekend?

Bob

Bay Area Dave writes:

Look at 911. They used the aircraft that they
were riding in. Took everyone by total surprise.

Nope. Just some people who ignored warnings.

Anyone who read Tom Clancy's best-selling _Debt of Honor_ wasn't
totally surprised of a commercial plane being used as a weapon.

(That's the one where a 747 crashed into the Presidential inauguration.)


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

In article , wrote:
On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
I guess they ran out of paper targets.

Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).

Actually the number is WAY low.
Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.

Citation, please?

Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Let's have some facts here, shall we, instead of just repeating bull****
that you read somewhere?

Source for the following is the 2003 World Almanac and Book of Facts (World
Almanac Books, New York), pages 76- 80.

In 1999 [latest year this almanac provides statistics for], there were 28,874
total deaths involving firearms in the United States. Of these, the majority
were suicide (16,599). Approximately three out of eight were homicides
(10,828). Another 824 were accidents, and in 324 cases "the intention involved
(whether accident, suicide, or homicide) could not be determined."

One year contains 525,600 minutes. Therefore, the rate of firearm deaths from
all causes in the US in 1999 was one every eighteen minutes -- and a firearm
*homicide* occurred, on average, once every 49 minutes.

For comparison purposes, in the same year, 42,401 people died in motor vehicle
accidents, and more people died of falls (13,162) and poisoning (12,186) than
died of firearm homicides -- and one-point-five *million* people die of
cancer, heart disease, and stroke every year.

For those who are unduly concerned about firearm _accidents_, please note that
more people drowned (3,529), choked (3,885), suffocated (1,618) or died in
fires (3,348), than died in firearm accidents (824, as noted above).

Conversation is over.

Translation: you don't have any facts to back up your claims.

Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

Wrong again. That group is called "liberals". One symptom of their illness is
the delusion that laws, in and of themselves, actually have any effect on the
behavior of the criminal class, a group which _by_definition_ does not obey
laws. This most frequently manifests itself as the delusional belief that
legislation restricting the use or possession of firearms can in any way
reduce the crime rate, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article rs.com, Paul Kierstead wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.
Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573

Apparently you didn't find it worth noting that the majority of those are
_suicides_.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:42:26 GMT, Paul Kierstead

wrote:

Don't assume I am a gun control fan.

I'm a people control fan.
Simply look at the Swiss or even Canada.
Both have far more guns per capita than does the US.

Citation, please?

Switzerland, I maybe could believe -- but the claim that Canada has more guns
per capita than the United States seems ludicrous.

The out of control shootings in the US is a mental problem.

No, it's a crime-control problem.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article rs.com, Paul Kierstead wrote:

However, I will admit that quite a few countries have high gun ownership
without a coorsponding high homicide rate, so it is quite apparent that
gun ownership itself is not the cause.

Quite correct. A legal system that returns violent felons to the streets,
while incarcerating non-violent voluntary users of mind-altering chemicals,
might have something to do with that, do ya think?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.