|
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. This is because registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations and seizures by authorities, no matter how much they may promise it's not going to happen. Australia, Canada and GB prove that, and we've had several instances in the US as well, specifically New Jersey and California. Further, nothing in the Constitution prohibits gun registration, and indeed most guns are "registered" through the Form 4477 you have to fill out when you purchase a new gun from a dealer, although this system has been kept deliberately cumbersome so the BATFE would have great difficulty in using the forms as a way to confiscate firearms. However, if gun registration is imposed over the objections of gun owners, I will then, of course, obey the law...while I work extra hard to unseat those who approved it and get the law repealed. What I might do when the government attempts to *confiscate* my firearms is a different matter entirely. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser: =========== Um, because they choose to? =========== Why? Because that is their will and desire? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent. Sez The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms and Violence Panel. Notorious anti-gun polemicists. snicker You just are the stereotypical, ignorant gunhugger, aren't you? " WASHINGTON * While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control." WorldNet Daily "It should come as no surprise to most readers that "objective" government studies are often anything but. In fact, the game is an old one: If you put the right people on a panel, and ask them the right questions, you can pretty well be assured of getting the answers you want. That appears to be what is going on with a Clinton administration-inspired National Academy of Sciences study bearing the innocuous title of "Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms," which opens its formal hearings on Thursday. According to the NAS, "The goals of this study are to 1.) assess the existing research and data on firearm violence; 2.) consider how to credibly evaluate the various prevention, intervention and control strategies; 3.) describe and develop models of illegal firearms markets; and 4.) examine the complex ways in which firearms may become embedded in the community." Conspicuously absent from these goals is any research into the benefits of firearms becoming "embedded" in communities, as demonstrated by the research of scholars like John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and Gary Kleck of Florida State University. Most of the people selected for the panel have reputations as good scholars, but none of them have specialized in firearms policy. Most of them have reputations as being antigun. Steven Levitt, has been described as "rabidly antigun." The panel also includes former Jimmy Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti ‹ a long-time antigun advocate, and a strong supporter of America's leading gun-prohibition group, Handgun Control, Inc. (formerly known as "the National Council to Control Handguns," and recently renamed "The Brady Campaign"). The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is James Q. Wilson ‹ a distinguished scholar (but no specialist in gun policy), who has said that most gun control doesn't work, but who expresses almost no concern for the rights of legitimate gun owners who are harmed by ineffective laws, and who supports high-tech spy cameras to find people carrying guns. (Notwithstanding the fact that handgun carrying is legal in 33 states by statewide law, and is allowed in many of the rest, on a county by county basis.)" By Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds. You can say the NAS study wasn't biased all you want, and it will be a lie still. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick says: =============== Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it? Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation... ============== No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait times is exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc. The entire article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying. NOTE: "very long waits are the exception" ===================== That wasn't the discussion, now was it? Nice strawman. NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see additional public funds used to reduce wait times" And, central to their argument, because they preface the article with it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult to define. And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the American system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate for the market system in health care either. ================ So now we have the truth about why you are so eager to embrace this report. It neglects to find, or tell, the whole truth about the Canadian system because they, like you, are agenda building. Nice that you like to show your stripes so well. Here, let me restore a couple of sites that you don't want to see... "...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517 consecutive coronary bypass patients following the establishment of a provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31 patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal myocardial infarction..." http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf "...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now clear that queuing according to this system limits the risk of death for patients awaiting surgery. Currently about one in 200 to 250 patients will die while awaiting isolatedcoronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..." http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf Plus, you failed to reply to kmans claim that no one waits for treatment in Canada. frtzw906 ================== I notice that you dishonestly deleted all the info that says that Canadians die on wait lists. the site you keep refering to now, which I had posted before anyway, does not claim there are no deaths from waiting. The sites I provided, and you deleted, do. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/1/05 3:35 PM: TnT, your are clealy trying to make KMAN's case aren't you? Did you even READ these sources? "Interpretation: Patients awaiting CABG in Ontario are at a much greater risk of death than the general population. However, when compared with thousands of other patients living with coronary artery disease, they are at similar or decreased vital risk." from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/162/6/775 Duh! where are people dying in line-ups here? It says: "at a much greater risk of death than the general population"... well, hardly surprising, right? THEY'RE FRIGGIN' ILL!!!!! OF course they're at greater risk! BUT, "at similar or decreased vital risk." when compared to others who are also ill. KMAN must be loving these! frtzw906 LOL. I'm loving your analysis, anyway. ====================== Which is just agenda building, and strawmen... Why not respond to the sites I posted that prove you are a liar? Oh, yeah, you're too afraid, eh? |
|
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:12 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:49 PM: snip Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? ===================== Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not released. There are stories about health care issues in the media all the time. Something as serious as someone dying while waiting for care would definitely make the front page. ================== It has before fool. Never. Prove it. ======================= Yes, fool. Try some researchof you own. You made the claim. I've done it. It hasn't happened, save for your weasel imagination. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message snippage... Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a coward on this issue as well? ==================== Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians never waiting for treatment. I never said that. Every health care system requires that people wait. ========================== Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews, dolt. What part of your claim: "...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you undersatnd? You said it fool, 2/20/2005 Big lie there fool... Never said it. Prove that I did. ================ See above fool. You made the claim, liar. Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed how stupid you really are, and how much you lie? Post the entire quote, and reference it, weasel. ============================ "...No one is waiting for treatment..." That's is a quote by you fool. feb 20, 2005. That you are still too stupid to fully use your computer is no surprise, liar. Post the entire quote. ================== What I posted stands by itself. You lied. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Still afraid to look things up for yourself, eh liar? Only a scumbag posts the middle of a quote with no context or reference. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:20 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:52 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. ====================== No So you didn't bring up cars? ======================== Nice bit of dishonesty there fool. So you didn't bring up cars? ======================= You didn't bring up need as the basis for owning anything, liar? Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar.. "No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..." What is the need for assault weapons to the general public? It's a valid question. They are only useful for spraying bullets. Why else do you need them? In response to this YOU brought up the fact that people get killed by cars. But cars have many other valid and valuable purposes. ================ So do weapons. What are the valuable purposes of assault weapons that are comparable to the valuable purposes of cars? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com