|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for killing a lot of people quickly. Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing. And there you have it, Scott Weiser, future mass murderer. Er...that might qualify as libel. I'd be a bit more careful if I were you. You do understand that there are times when it is perfectly legitimate, legal and moral to kill lots of people quickly, don't you? Ever hear of the Chosin Reservoir? How about Stalingrad? Omaha Beach? ============== canadian health care system? -- 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 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message snip.. In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is definitely more dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug dealers sporting a Field King LOL! ================= LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why bring up bolt actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt actions very very quickly. My question was what makes the AK knockoff any more dangerous that other weapons of the type? I doubt it. ==================== You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can answer, as that would require some knowledge. Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than other. I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more dangerous. ====================== Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days, fool? Agenda? Because assault weapons are an obvious and logical starting point in getting rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose but to kill people. ==================== LOL If the death of people is the only justification for getting rid of anything, then cars should be first, cigarettes, Canadian health care system... Lots of things kill far more people that assault weapons. thanks for again proving your ideological brainwashing, fool... All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the operation is not any different that many other weapons. It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of ammunition can't be fired quickly. ================= Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are many other weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you like to spew about that fire just as fast, and just as many projectiles. I didn't say otherwise. Look again. ==================== I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that your ideology demands. I'm not ranting at all. ================== LOL Okay, lying.... Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely on ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology. No idea what you are babbling about. ==================== Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own, and your brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it? If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+ people dying every year from guns is not a good thing, you are right. But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you. ====================== LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you where to look. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ====================== LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you where to look. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? Yes, you are. I don't think so. Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist machine. How did they manage this? That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda is. LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a trick! Perhaps. More likely you're just hell for stupid. Good one (?) |
KMAN wrote: ....snip ... Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in his basement. So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for? I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not "my man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea? Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn some different dance steps to keep up with you! If he's got illegal weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up next to him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses. As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his duplicity! President Bush is still operating within the scope of his autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on. You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label, which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing aspirin. Tnt A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then the world would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some "liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to invade everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take over. Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts. Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me. I would not want everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire. The term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use it to demonize all firearms, which infact actually demonstates their underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function, limit, and value of particular weapons. Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes, confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM: KMAN wrote: ...snip ... Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in his basement. So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for? I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not "my man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea? Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn some different dance steps to keep up with you! Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or anything like that? If he's got illegal weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up next to him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses. As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his duplicity! Fine. President Bush is still operating within the scope of his autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on. And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you down anyway. LOL. You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label, which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing aspirin. Tnt A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then the world would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some "liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to invade everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take over. Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts. Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me. Good. I would not want everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire. Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind, Tinkerntom. And yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As they have for decades. The term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use it to demonize all firearms If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create the special category of assault weapons. which infact actually demonstates their underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function, limit, and value of particular weapons. Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes, confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not. |
KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM: KMAN wrote: ...snip ... Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in his basement. So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for? I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not "my man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea? Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn some different dance steps to keep up with you! Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or anything like that? Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative? If he's got illegal weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up next to him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses. As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his duplicity! Fine. President Bush is still operating within the scope of his autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on. And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you down anyway. LOL. You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label, which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing aspirin. Tnt A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then the world would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some "liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to invade everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take over. Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts. Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me. Good. I would not want everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire. Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind, Tinkerntom. And yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As they have for decades. And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban autos? The term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use it to demonize all firearms If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create the special category of assault weapons. So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types of firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with scope, 30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12 shotgun? or a Weatherby Mark IV .460? which infact actually demonstates their underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function, limit, and value of particular weapons. Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes, confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not. Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm? I have never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun team in highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even accidentally, or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I have always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have taught other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of my students. So what was your point? That because I get on this forum and present an opposing view point to what you advocate, that I should not have a firearm. Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution? That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an opposing view point to you is the main criteria for determining our exercise of our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our Constitution than any gun nut! TnT |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/26/05 2:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM: KMAN wrote: ...snip ... Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in his basement. So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for? I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not "my man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea? Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn some different dance steps to keep up with you! Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or anything like that? Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative? A nice head of cauliflower would have been preferable. If he's got illegal weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up next to him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses. As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his duplicity! Fine. President Bush is still operating within the scope of his autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on. And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you down anyway. LOL. You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label, which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing aspirin. Tnt A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then the world would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some "liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to invade everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take over. Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts. Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me. Good. I would not want everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire. Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind, Tinkerntom. And yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As they have for decades. And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban autos? On no, Tinkerntom, that's a typical gun nut argument. I'm afraid such an argument puts you firmly in the nut category, unless you can figure out why it is a silly argument that can only be promoted by the type of guy who dreams of the day he is attacked by a faceless mob and he gets to unleash his arsenal of assault weapons in defense of 'merica. The term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use it to demonize all firearms If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create the special category of assault weapons. So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types of firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with scope, 30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12 shotgun? or a Weatherby Mark IV .460? How does this question follow from what I just said? Wait, don't answer that, it's easier and more timely to move on without trying to figure out why your mind jumps around that way, or why it is you seem incapable of absorbing a point and instead prefer to leave a subject just when you are on the verge of being forced to think. So, to your question. I don't like any guns, Tinkerntom. Not one of them. Just not a fan. But I realize the total eradication of guns is not happening. To me it would be reasonable that no gun could fire more than one bullet at a time, but that's probably not happening, so I figure it's most logical to start with weapons that are most obviously of little use save for the spraying of a lot of ammunition in a short period of time. Most of those weapons fit nicely into what most people understand as the category of "assault weapons." which infact actually demonstates their underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function, limit, and value of particular weapons. Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes, confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not. Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm? Because you seem extremely unstable and a lot of your thinking is quite nutty. I have never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun team in highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even accidentally, or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I have always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have taught other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of my students. So what was your point? That I find you to be a bit of a scary person, and a scary person with a gun is always worse than a scary person without a gun. That because I get on this forum and present an opposing view point to what you advocate that I should not have a firearm. No. See above. Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution? You are sounding nutty again. That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an opposing view point to you is the main criteria for determining our exercise of our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our Constitution than any gun nut! TnT Wow, I didn't expect this wild tangent, but nuttiness can be fun, so I'll go with it. Being a danger to the constitution can be a good think Tinkerntom. I would like to think that had I been there back in the day, I would have loudly advocated that a black person not be constitutionally valued as less than a white person. The consitution is just a document slapped together by some dudes a long time ago, Tinkerntom, and it has been changed in many ways many times, because the world has changed, and attitudes have changed. Well, for some. |
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Only by force if the citizenry will not obey. And if the citizenry decides to obey, you are up the creek. I keep pointing that out and you keep ignoring it. Every citizen in the US is as "fully free" as any other. You guys couldn't pass the ERA even though equivalent rights exist in other countries' constitutions. You are restricting gay rights in most states and even your president was asking for an amendment to gaurantee the restriction of such rights. You are still living in a fantasy world. We can guarantee that. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Unless those guns are used to reduce freedom. You should get your head out of your ass, there's a real world out here. Mike |
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I think you're engaging in sophistry. You're full of ****. Learn to read. It's called "basic scientific research." You don't know anything about scientific research. You've already proved that. Mike |
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
You're wrong. I strongly suspect that the violent crime rate will exceed the US's quite soon. GB's has in just a few years. Prove it. Mike |
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Some examples: Jesus is (according to Christians) the Son of God, and is, in fact, God himself in one of his Aspects. Jesus was a man. He was not God in his own form but was the manifestation of God as a man. He was born to a human woman - Mary. Ask any Christian. Second, God contacted Moses directly when issuing the Ten Commandments. He did not reveal himself as God, he spoke to Moses thru a burning bush. Read the Bible. Third, God interacted directly with Moses and the Isralites when he parted the Red Sea. God didn't part the Red sea. If you check with rabbinical scholars, you'll find out that Moses did not even cross the Red Sea. That is a mistranslation of old texts. BTW - even in most Bible translations, Moses parted the Red Sea. God did not appear in the physical world. And then there's Lot, his wife, and Sodom and Gomorrah... What - trying to reveal just how ignorant you really are? Give up before you dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own stupidity. Mike |
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Could it be that humans were intended to evolve while sharks weren't? There is no evidence of intention. So, you agree that it could be an episodic change. I agree with you? You keep making up things and hope you get something right. You _still_ haven't posted any reference to a scientific theory of evolution that resembles the nonsense you are spewing. Indeed. But what about Homo Sapien's precursor primate species that didn't. Changing the discussion from morphology to something else? Trying to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about? Ah, yes, "observation." You mean like the scientific observation that the world is flat? How about the scientific observation that "atoms" are the smallest form of matter? Or the scientific observation that the sun revolves around the earth? So, you don't understand the scientific method at all. Those bits of information have all been superceded. And for the record, the scientific community never held much for a flat earth - that was the religious nutcase view. Any natural philosopher would have known about Eratosthenes' measurements to deduce the circumference of the earth. Ditto Aristarchus and his observations of the earth going around the sun. Is ignorance one of your specialties? Some time ago, your "scientists" believed wholesale that Galileo, Newton and even Archimedes were deluded fools. Proof? Galileo was a widely respected natural philosopher, even among the members of the Catholic Church. That's why he was treated so well during his inquisition. Newton was the Lucasian chair of Mathematics and was so well respected by his peers that he was believed to be correct even when he was not. Archimedes was also a well respected philosopher - the cartoon version of him as a crazy man running around in a towel yelling "Eureka" has nothing to do with historical reality. You have nothing to do with historical or present reality either. You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been scientifically disproven Why do you continue to lie about this? Provide a single quote where I have said that God does not exist. The fact that you can't deal with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth proves that you are an idiot. Clearly you are threatened by my arguments. Clearly you are delusional. Mike |
On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:
Again, I posted information, Try again - there was nothing in that link that said Canadians are dying in waiting lines. Put up or shut up, dickhead. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/25/05 6:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: "Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything." Sounds pretty derisory to me. That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists. It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools. But then, you can't read very well. Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God" is. How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what it is you are setting out to prove? The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist. Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult. Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a realm in which we don't exist. Mike Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as factual reality. Perhaps they are privy to knowledge you aren't.... Invisible knowledge. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's "invisible" or that it doesn't exist. Sort of like rick's proof that Canadians are dying in health care waiting lights. Truly the domain of the nut. Your ignorance is not the metric of other people's nuttiness. -- 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 Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Only by force if the citizenry will not obey. And if the citizenry decides to obey, you are up the creek. Perhaps. But, the point is that I get to fight to the death defending my rights, and I get to have the arms to make a good try at it. The worst the citizenry, or a tyrant can do to me is kill me. I keep pointing that out and you keep ignoring it. And I keep pointing out that the just power of the "willothepeeple" does not extend to the infringement of basic constitutional rights. Certainly any large group CAN use force to disarm another group, to wit: Hutus and Tutsis in Rawanda. But the way to prevent such things from happening is to give the minority groups the power to resist such attempts by force. The worst sorts of genocides and mass killings only take place where the oppressed minority has been disarmed. Every citizen in the US is as "fully free" as any other. You guys couldn't pass the ERA even though equivalent rights exist in other countries' constitutions. The ERA is unnecessary because women are exactly as free as men are in the US. Federal and state law ensures this, and EVERY state has on its books laws which make gender-based discrimination illegal. Thus, a change to the Constitution is redundant and unnecessary. We prefer not to tinker with our Constitution except when it's absolutely necessary. You are restricting gay rights in most states and even your president was asking for an amendment to gaurantee the restriction of such rights. Which "gay rights" would you be referring to? Gays have exactly the same rights as any other individual citizen under the Constitution. You are still living in a fantasy world. You still have no idea what you're talking about. We can guarantee that. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Unless those guns are used to reduce freedom. But they don't, they increase it. You should get your head out of your ass, there's a real world out here. And in the real world, people are responsible for their own safety and defense. Unlike you simpering twits in Canada, who think that the police are your protectors. When's the last time a cop was around when some girl was being raped? -- 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 Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I think you're engaging in sophistry. You're full of ****. Learn to read. It's called "basic scientific research." You don't know anything about scientific research. You've already proved that. My, how erudite. How scholarly. -- 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 Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: You're wrong. I strongly suspect that the violent crime rate will exceed the US's quite soon. GB's has in just a few years. Prove it. No problem. Here you go: "The recorded crime figures for the third quarter of last year showed a fall of 6 per cent in all crimes to 1.39 million. However, within the overall fall was a rise in violent crime, including a 7 per cent increase in violence against the person to 268,000. Nevertheless, after a series of quarterly increases in double figures in the number of offences involving more serious violence against the person, the Government was relieved that between July and September 2004 there was much smaller increase. More serious violence against the person rose by only 3 per cent to 12,000 offences. Sexual offences rose by 22 per cent, but some of this increase is a result of the creation of new offences, such as sexual grooming, administering a date-rape drug and the inclusion of exposure as a sex offence rather than a public order crime. Recorded firearms offences rose by 5 per cent to 10,670 in the year to the end of September 2004." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...456630,00.html "Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S." http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/...anningguns.htm "Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures By Jon Dougherty ©*2001*WorldNetDaily.com Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime. The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime." Highlights of the study indicated that: € The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan. € Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures; € "After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said. € England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations. € The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902 Now, what was that about recto-crainal inversions? -- 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 Michael Daly wrote:
On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Some examples: Jesus is (according to Christians) the Son of God, and is, in fact, God himself in one of his Aspects. Jesus was a man. Was he? He was not God in his own form but was the manifestation of God as a man. Therefore he was God. He was born to a human woman - Mary. Ask any Christian. And what precludes God from manifesting himself as a human born of a human woman? He is God after all, he can do pretty much anything he wants, by definition. Second, God contacted Moses directly when issuing the Ten Commandments. He did not reveal himself as God, he spoke to Moses thru a burning bush. You don't think that a burning bush that's not consumed is not God revealing himself? And what about Moses' time on the mountain, where God wrote the Ten Commandments in stone with a "finger of fire?" You don't think that's God "revealing" himself? How is that a "proxy" transaction? Read the Bible. You first. Then try to understand what is written before revealing your ignorance, Mr. History Person. Third, God interacted directly with Moses and the Isralites when he parted the Red Sea. God didn't part the Red sea. How do you know? The Bible says he did. What evidence do you have that he didn't. If you check with rabbinical scholars, you'll find out that Moses did not even cross the Red Sea. That is a mistranslation of old texts. According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible. BTW - even in most Bible translations, Moses parted the Red Sea. God did not appear in the physical world. Um, not quite. Moses asked God to part the Red Sea. And then there's that whirlwind of fire, which is another direct manifestation of God in the physical world. And then there's Lot, his wife, and Sodom and Gomorrah... What - trying to reveal just how ignorant you really are? Give up before you dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own stupidity. You first. -- 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 Michael Daly wrote:
You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been scientifically disproven Why do you continue to lie about this? What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand? Provide a single quote where I have said that God does not exist. Nor have you responded to a specific question about whether you believe God does exist, and are thus evading the question. The fact that you can't deal with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth proves that you are an idiot. In my experience, college level scholars don't generally engage in name-calling and ad hominem attack merely because they dispute the veracity of their opponent's claims. They instead argue the facts and present evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual inquiry. That being the case, I judge, once again, that you are a tenth-grade equivalent Netwit of fractional wit and less interest. Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate sans invective, I believe I'll stop wasting my time with you. -- 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 |
KMAN wrote:
in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/26/05 2:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM: KMAN wrote: ...snip ... .... snip ... Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or anything like that? Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative? A nice head of cauliflower would have been preferable. Well thar you go, thats why I thought Kerry would suit you just fine!!!! ....snip... yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As they have for decades. And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban autos? On no, Tinkerntom, that's a typical gun nut argument. I'm afraid such an argument puts you firmly in the nut category, unless you can figure out why it is a silly argument that can only be promoted by the type of guy who dreams of the day he is attacked by a faceless mob and he gets to unleash his arsenal of assault weapons in defense of 'merica. Well that is not my dream for 'merica, and I personally, gun or no gun, prefer to avoid faceless mobs as much as possible. Although I do like to drive my auto, and do so every day, whereas my gun may only be taken out once ayear to be cleaned and oiled, and it has not been fired recently for many years. Usually I have found it much easier to drive away from a faceless mob than to fight toe to toe, when I see the whites of their eyes! I believe that last was a sorta quote from General Andrew Jackson, from the battle of New Orleans, when he and a ragtag army fought and won a battle over the invading professional army of Great Britain after the war of 1812 had actually ended. The British equivalent of an "assault weapon" were volleys of fire by lines of soldiers, that would then advance a few steps. Lots of people could be killed at one time if they had their heads up, and it was a very intimidating tactic used by the professionals who had practiced it. However, the ragtag militia did not know they were suppose to be intimidated, so they just kept thir heads down, and waited until they could see the whites of the eye of the advancing troops. Then they shot their eyes out with their muzzle loading single shot squirrel guns. They had been practicing shooting squirrels for a long time, and they killed alot of those British boys, with very few losses themselves. Now I grant that was in 1812, but the right to bear arms certainly worked under those circumstances, so that the Union survived, and the British learned no to try that again. Matter of fact it seems that we have become pretty good friend since then. And have been willing to use our firearms to defend them as well. So I would say that firearms have their place, and more often are used for good, than for bad, though 30,000 a year is sad, and I would certainly hope that number could be reduced, whether they are homicide, suicide, or accidental. But even if guns are taken away from everyone, accidents will still happen, homicides and suicides the same, so I don't see the gun as the problem. The term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use it to demonize all firearms If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create the special category of assault weapons. So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types of firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with scope, 30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12 shotgun? or a Weatherby Mark IV .460? How does this question follow from what I just said? Wait, don't answer that, it's easier and more timely to move on without trying to figure out why your mind jumps around that way, or why it is you seem incapable of absorbing a point and instead prefer to leave a subject just when you are on the verge of being forced to think. So, to your question. I don't like any guns, Tinkerntom. Not one of them. Just not a fan. I knew you were smart enough to see through my question, to understand how my question followed your last statement. All the above weapons were originally used and developed for military purposes, but have come to find a very comfortable place in the private sector. The BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle, originally made in Belgium (not an American original, those Belgiums were real war mongers at one time), was used first in WW1 as a rapid fire assault weapon, and was a weapon of choice of American soldiers returning home after the war. Fired a large caliber bullet that combined with the rapid fire, caused massive wounds. However when switched to semi-auto, it was found to be a superb deer and elk hunting rifle that would provide clean kills from a reasonable distance. Winchester 30-30, was an American original, designed during the close of the Civil War, to provide rapid fire of multiple projectiles, without having to reload. Was one of the deciding factors in the turning tide against the South that led them to realize the war was lost. Returning soldiers to the north, brought the weapon home, and war has not been the same since. Was also used in the Indian wars to suppress the uprising. Now is still favorite saddle gun for ranchers and farmers (and native Americans), and many pickups have one in the rack, for the vermin and varmints that would ruin the harvest. Many more deer have been shot, and family fed, by this firearm than maybe by any other. Model 12 Winchester shotgun, not necessarily developed originally for military use, since shot guns had been around for a long time, but I have seen some in pictures of our soldiers in Iraq. Still a favorite military weapon of our soldiers for close quarter fighting. A blast from a shotgun can open a locked door, or penetrate openings in body armour, literally knocking a person down. I had a Model 12 I used for trap shooting, and with the smooth action, and consistent pattern, made a great duck or pheasant gun. Weatherby .460, originally an elephant gun, for safaris, was a great sniper rifle, that could be shot accurately over very long distance. The current 50 caliber sniper rifles are based on the caliper. Weatherby was made in Germany, very high quality, suberb fit and finish, and prized when captured by allied soldiers. Brought back to States and used as presentation weapon, and superb choice still for very large game. None of these would qualify as assault weapon by your definition, but have been used very effectively as military weapons. So your objection is not just assault weapon according to your definition, but all firearms. You acknowledge that you can not get all firearms away from the gun nuts (your defintion), but you can get assault weapons. Can we expect you to expand the definition of assault weapons now to include the above list? and then maybe you can understand why the gun nuts resist any definition by you that would limit access to any and all firearms, as you say it is just a start. But I realize the total eradication of guns is not happening. To me it would be reasonable that no gun could fire more than one bullet at a time, but that's probably not happening, so I figure it's most logical to start with weapons that are most obviously of little use save for the spraying of a lot of ammunition in a short period of time. Most of those weapons fit nicely into what most people understand as the category of "assault weapons." which infact actually demonstates their underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function, limit, and value of particular weapons. So it is your underlying ideology, and not just assault weapons. And it is totally logical that our armies be marching around like the old "red coats" with single shot muzzles loading muskets. Of course when you think of that, you have to think of the millions killed by the same muskets on the field of Waterloo, and other military expeditions prior to modern weapons. Actually, I think all armies should just be issued "noodles" that they can bash away on each other till one side gets tired and goes home. That way noone dies, and there is not all that blood to clean up. Plus think of the benefit of all those crack dealers getting assault noodles to protect their turf. It would change the whole drug culture in the world. They would just be a whole lot nicer as neighbors, and when one of their clients break into your house to steal stuff to support their habit, you could defend your house and family with a noodle. Makes total sense. I'm sure we can sell it to the military, crack dealers, and home owers of the world. Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes, confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt Of course if all we had was noodles, the FBI would be out of a job, and that might be good as well. Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not. Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm? Because you seem extremely unstable and a lot of your thinking is quite nutty. I have never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun team in highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even accidentally, or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I have always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have taught other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of my students. So what was your point? That I find you to be a bit of a scary person, and a scary person with a gun is always worse than a scary person without a gun. Well you can come out from under your bed now, or closet, where ever you hide from scary people, I will go out and buy my noodle today, and the world will be a safer place, and not so scary for people like you. Of course you are going to have to do your part and get all those scary Canadians to trade in their guns for a noodle, so I will feel safe as well. That because I get on this forum and present an opposing view point to what you advocate that I should not have a firearm. No. See above. Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution? You are sounding nutty again. That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an opposing view point to you is the main criteria for determining our exercise of our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our Constitution than any gun nut! TnT Wow, I didn't expect this wild tangent, but nuttiness can be fun, so I'll go with it. Being a danger to the constitution can be a good think Tinkerntom. I would like to think that had I been there back in the day, I would have loudly advocated that a black person not be constitutionally valued as less than a white person. Now who is getting nutty. Lucky for us you were not there, or we would probably not have the right to bear arms either, and there would still be slaves! The consitution is just a document slapped together by some dudes a long time ago, Tinkerntom, and it has been changed in many ways many times, because the world has changed, and attitudes have changed. Well, for some. By the way were their ever slaves in Canada or Great Britain? Seems to me there was a time when the colonies extended beyond the 13, to India and Africa, where there were plenty of white masters. It took us awhile to get thing right, but I don't recall slapping my slave around recently. Matter of fact, I recall that they were set free based on the principles set forth in that sublime document that went far beyond the prevailing thoughts of the day. That it took awhile for practice to catch up with the ideology, is a testament to our willingness to change. A document that was hardly slapped together by some dudes a long time ago. Your disrespect, of us and the things we cherish, only demonstrate your shallow, intemperate, churlishness. You are not a danger to the Constitution, as long as we exercise our right to bear arms, as I am sure you are aware of, and as intended by the framers! TnT |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote: Again, I posted information, Try again - there was nothing in that link that said Canadians are dying in waiting lines. Put up or shut up, dickhead. ================= Yes, there was. I see you don't lie any better than the other buffoons... \ Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 8:49 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message snip... Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. As I've offered, simply post the material and I will apologize. ============== Already have fool, and on my server they are still available, plus where I've told you to look. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps knowledge. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. And you are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 8:49 PM: snip.. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. And you are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 8:50 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . snip You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. There is nothing jingoistic about asking you to post the materials to support your claim. But you can't, because they don't exist. ================== LOL I posted support for my claims, you have not. All you've done is thump your chest and make claims that I disproved. You didn't like that, so you have ignored the posts and/or claimed the messenger was bad. Too bad for you that the facts remain available, and are there for you to see, if you'd ever open your eyes. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. Everyone knows it. Even you. You are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/25/05 6:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: "Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything." Sounds pretty derisory to me. That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists. It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools. But then, you can't read very well. Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God" is. How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what it is you are setting out to prove? The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist. Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult. Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a realm in which we don't exist. Mike Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as factual reality. Perhaps they are privy to knowledge you aren't.... Invisible knowledge. Sort of like rick's proof that Canadians are dying in health care waiting lights. Truly the domain of the nut. ================= Funny, I never did say anytrhing about them dying at l stop lights while waiting. Are those really long lines too? As for medical treatment, I posted sites that even gave you real numbers for one province. Too bad you are too willfully ignorant to see facts. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 8:53 PM: snip You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. Everyone knows it. Even you. You are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... snip... You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. Everyone knows it. Even you. You are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Like I said before fool, that you are too afraid to know the facts is no skin off my nose. I gave you the opportunity to find them yourself, because if I bring them up, you claim they are biased sources. Whay a hoot you are. thabnks again for proving your ignorant ideology... No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong. Are you a coward? ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. Everyone knows it. Even you. You are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 8:54 PM: snip... You've been tap dancing for days on end. You are a liar and a coward. ================= Wow, a mimic now too. See, I've told you you have no independent thoughts of your own. I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool. Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my posts are still there, the only thing missing is your courage to look at them. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... You are lying. Everyone knows it. Even you. You are a coward because you are too weak to be accountable. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 9:03 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snippage... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! ======================= LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot, and the 1000s of people that are shot in the US. 1) I have talked about "a lot." This does not mean 1000s. ===================== Youn are the one talking about 1000s... I'm talking about a lot of things. But not once have a talked about one person shooting 1000s of people. ================= Nice strawman fool. That's not a "strawman." ============== Yes, it is. i never said you claimed one person did. You keep talking about all these mythical crack dealers on every corner, buying guns at all these mythical corner gun stores, and then mythically killing all these people in the park. You do realize how ignorant you are, don't you? You do realize I posted an example from Detroit that pointed directly to this exact situation (unlike you, I am not a liar and a coward who makes claims and doesn't back them up). ===================== ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... And you do realize that Detroit is not the only place in the US that has drug dealers that shoot people with assault weapons, right? 2) I have also talked about the FACT that more than 30000 people die from guns in the US each year. ================ There you go. See, I knew you'd remember sooner or later. Now, put you fantasies together and make them all crack dealers shooting up parks... You are pathetic. ====================== Thanks for proving you have nothing, fool. I have everything I've claimed to have. ============== Which is nothing, thanks for the admission, fool... Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! ===================== What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught you, do you? Hm. Well, if brainwashing = fanaticism, you should hear yourself. You really sound...well...crazy. ================== from the head loony? hanks fool... What are my loony beliefs? ================== That no one is waiting for treatment in canadas health care system as a start. Liar. I never said any such thing. Someone is waiting right now. So is someone in the United States. It is impossible to have a health care system where no one is ever waiting. I've waited for US health care myself. You are claiming that people in Canada are dying in wait lines for health care. You can't prove it because you are wrong. You know you are wrong, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. then add anything else you have spewed about here all week... I'm still waiting for you to name just one of my "loony beliefs." Hint: in order to identify one of my beliefs, you will need to use something I've actually, said, and then make your argument as to why it is loony. ================== anything else you have spewed about here all week... There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ==================== So can many other weapons. Good, get rid of those too. =============== Fortunately yiou don't get to make that call. Never said I do. That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon' use in crime pretty small. Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an assault weapon and others. I know that an assault rifle and many other weapons are designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ================== Well a new tune!! Before it was only assault weapons that could do this. Tap, tap, tap... Never said that either. ============== yes, it was all you were spewing about. I never said it. =============== Yes, it's what you've been spewing... trying to pretend that you cared by spewing about a rare occurance by 'assault weapons' I care about all deaths. ============= No you don't, you've proven that with your head in the sand routine about wait lines in Canada. the proof that your caring is just ideological delusion is that you are spewing not a bit about things that cause far more death and suffering in the world. Like health care wait lines.... I am very concerned about death and suffering in the word, including problems with health care. For example, in the United States more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same care as whites, according to an analysis in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health. That's pretty sad. ============== LOL Thanks for proving yet again your jingoistic chest thumping. People in Canada die waithing for treatment, and all you can focus on is AK knockoffs in the US.. Oh yeah, tell us again how much you really care... Only selfish idiots or people who want to kill a lot of other people would be in favour of having such guns. ==================== Only fools would be in favor of curbing everyone elses rights... Rights are curbed all the time. Otherwise there would be no laws at all. It's a question of balance, and the need for some nut like you to have a weapon designed to kill a lot of people quickly does not outweight the public good...unless you are a nut. Which you are. ================== Says the head loony? No, the head loony says that only fools are in favor of curbing rights. That's you, rick. ================== ROTFLMAO ou really are that stupid, aren't you? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 9:07 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message snip.. In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is definitely more dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug dealers sporting a Field King LOL! ================= LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why bring up bolt actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt actions very very quickly. My question was what makes the AK knockoff any more dangerous that other weapons of the type? I doubt it. ==================== You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can answer, as that would require some knowledge. Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than other. I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more dangerous. ====================== Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days, fool? Agenda? Because assault weapons are an obvious and logical starting point in getting rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose but to kill people. ==================== LOL If the death of people is the only justification for getting rid of anything, then cars should be first The care has a purpose other than killing people. It gets people from one place to another. Perhaps you were not aware of that. ===================== Guns have other purposes also, and yet they kill far far fewer people than cars. cigarettes I'm all in favour of getting rid of cigarettes. In fact, where I live, you can't smoke inside in any public building or place of business. Canadian health care system... At least no one dies waiting for care. ================ Yes, they do, and I have posted the information that says so. You are too afraid to look because your ideology would take a beating. Lots of things kill far more people that assault weapons. thanks for again proving your ideological brainwashing, fool... Assault weapons are not needed in our communities. ============================= Many things aren't 'needed', fool. Usenet has no real 'need' Overall, cars have no real 'need.' Swimming pools have no real 'need.' "need" has nothing to do with it fool. Other than being used to shoot a lot of bullets at a lot of people quickly, their only other use is for selfish idiots who want to compensate for a small penis by having an assault weapon in their "collection" and so they can dream about being a hero one day by blasting away at some other idiot with an assault weapon. ======================= Nice spew, fool.... Too bad it's loony tooons time... All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the operation is not any different that many other weapons. It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of ammunition can't be fired quickly. ================= Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are many other weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you like to spew about that fire just as fast, and just as many projectiles. I didn't say otherwise. Look again. ==================== I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that your ideology demands. I'm not ranting at all. ================== LOL Okay, lying.... What have a I lied about? ===================== Anything you have spewed about this week... Please quote something I have said and explain why it is a lie. ================== That Canadians do not wait for treatment, much less die waiting Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely on ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology. No idea what you are babbling about. ==================== Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own, and your brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it? If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+ people dying every year from guns is not a good thing, you are right. But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you. ====================== LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you where to look. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ====================== LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you where to look. You haven't provided anything that proves that Canadians are dying in line waiting for health care. Everyone knows you are a liar. But you are a coward, too weak to admit that you are a liar. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... |
Weiser says:
=========== The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," ============= Whoooaaaa!! Let's not gloss over this one eh? After all, we are talking about the impact of guns -- things that KILL -- in this thread. From a 2000 New Zealand gov't study: http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...ime/index.html Murders per 100,000 population USA: 5.5 CANADA: 1.8 NZ: 1.8 AUSTRALIA: 1.8 That would be a ratio of 3:1... I'm 3 times as likely to be killed in the USA than in Canada (by NZ stats). Hmmm frtzw906 |
In case Scott doesn't like the NZ stats, here are some from
Australia... http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls Homicides per 100,000 population - average per year 1998 to 2000 USA 5.87 New Zealand 2.28 Sweden 2.06 Australia 1.87 Canada 1.79 England & Wales 1.50 Netherlands 1.40 Germany 1.19 Denmark 1.00 So, for me, these statistics beg the question: WHY? Why is the muder rate so much higher in the USA? Are there extenuating factors? Hmmm..... [in the case of Canada we know, of course, that hundreds of people are murdered every year by the state -- waiting in medical treatment lines GRIN] frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: In case Scott doesn't like the NZ stats, here are some from Australia... http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls Homicides per 100,000 population - average per year 1998 to 2000 USA 5.87 New Zealand 2.28 Sweden 2.06 Australia 1.87 Canada 1.79 England & Wales 1.50 Netherlands 1.40 Germany 1.19 Denmark 1.00 So, for me, these statistics beg the question: WHY? Why is the muder rate so much higher in the USA? Are there extenuating factors? Hmmm..... [in the case of Canada we know, of course, that hundreds of people are murdered every year by the state -- waiting in medical treatment lines GRIN] frtzw906 So frtwz, are you acknowledging on KMANs behalf that rick is correct in what he has been claiming? Now can we all move on? GRIN TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com