|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/26/05 5:35 PM: "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. What are the other purposes of assault weapons, and how do those other purposes compare in usefulness to cars? ==================== They don't need to copmare to cars, fool. hat's your little bit of whackiness, fool. 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. Liar. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... You are too afraid to look because your ideology would take a beating. I've looked. There's nothing there. Yes, there is. I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Perhaps you should look at the the United States where 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. Why are you focused on lying about Canadian health care when hundreds of thousands of people are dying unecessarily in your own country? ================= LOL I'm not focused on it, you seem to want to discuss the lies you have presented in your jingoistic spews. You asre lying, plain and simple. Butthen, your simple mind knows no difference, eh fool? 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. It has more to do with purpose than need. Good point. 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... Ah, came a little (pun intended) too close to home on that one! ======================= Nope, just laughing at your stupidity... 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... Name one thing. Please quote the alleged lie, and provide proof that it is a lie. =========================== That Canadians don't wait for treatment in your health care system. provided that proof already. Too bad for you, liar. Or are you yourself lying, and too big of a coward to admit it? Please quote something I have said and explain why it is a lie. ================== That Canadians do not wait for treatment I never said this. You are lying. ====================== Yes, you did. Exactly that fool... much less die waiting Canadians are not dying in waiting lines for health care. You are lying. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... 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... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
"rick" writes:
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than another less vicious gun (whatever that means)? ================== Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots. The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently, and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons. If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of killing, I am aware, and never said otherwise. ===================== Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK more dangerous than other weapons? Well, the fact that AK47s fire 7.62mm hypervelocity rounds might have something to do with it. They are easily capable of taking off an arm or a leg if they stike bone, and, even if they don't strike bone, they will blast out a sizable chunk of flesh. They have quite a respectable rate of fire as well, even if they aren't the most accurate assault rifles in the world. The fact that criminals aren't likely to have any qualms about modifying their ammo (hollow points etc) doesn't help either. Of cource they are really no more lethal than any other weapon that uses that size of high-velocity round, and only slightly more lethal than an assault rifle using NATO issue 5.54mm rounds, such as the armalite, L85A1 or the Steyr-Aug. Any of that class of weapon is rather more lethal than an equivalent low-velocity type weapon, though you are still just as dead if you get shot by someone carrying a .22 pistol with good aim. -- James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk "I'm with Them. Same group, different department." (Justin, B5 "Z'Ha'Dum") |
|
|
|
in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/27/05 6:21 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/26/05 9:11 PM: .. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. |
|
|
in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/27/05 6:28 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/26/05 5:30 PM: "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. No, it isn't. Straw Man is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. ================= Which is exactly what you have been doing. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. You made the claim that my reference to assault weapons being able to kill "a lot of people quickly" was "code" for saying that there are individuals using "assault weapons to kill 1000s of people." Thus one could argue that you yourself were making a Straw Man argument, since you ignored my actual position and substituted a distorred, exaggerated, and mispreprsented version of that position. But my own response - that I never claimed individuals were using assault weapons to kill 100s of people - is totally valid, and in no way constitutes a Straw Man argument. ======================= Yes, it does tha way you have presented you spews... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. 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... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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? 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... Read again. I posted information exactly as you requested. Do the same, unless you want to remain a liar and a coward. Although I suspect that's an identity your are comfortable with. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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... Name one. 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. Big lie there fool... Never said it. Prove that I did. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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... Prove it, liar. Or are you too big of a coward to admit that yet again you are wrong? ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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. I would care deeply if it were happening. But it isn't. ============== Yes, it is liar. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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. Sorry, it has nothing to do with me. Go after the American Journal of Public Health. People in Canada die waithing for treatment Actually, they don't. ================== Yes,they do liar. You are the one afraid to open your eyes. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. , and all you can focus on is AK knockoffs in the US.. Oh yeah, tell us again how much you really care... Actually, I care about the 886,000 preventable deaths in the US, but I guess you don't, all you want to talk about is AK knockoffs. ================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! YOU have made them the cornerstone of your anti-US rhetoric fool. It's all you've been able to froth about all week on the subject. You've been the most interested in that than anyone. Thanks for proving your lies mean more than reason to you. What lies? Prove that I have lied. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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? Answer the question Rick, or are you going to be a coward on this issue as well? ================== Where? I have answered your stu[idity fool. Again, you are hiding from the facts with blind ideology. Tthanks again for proving your willful ignorance on even more subjects. You choose to be a coward, as expected. Are you in favour of the elimination of all laws? Yes or no? Yes or no, coward. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/27/05 6:32 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/26/05 5:35 PM: "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. What are the other purposes of assault weapons, and how do those other purposes compare in usefulness to cars? ==================== They don't need to copmare to cars, fool. hat's your little bit of whackiness, fool. If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. 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. Liar. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. You are too afraid to look because your ideology would take a beating. I've looked. There's nothing there. Yes, there is. I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. Perhaps you should look at the the United States where 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. Why are you focused on lying about Canadian health care when hundreds of thousands of people are dying unecessarily in your own country? ================= LOL I'm not focused on it, you seem to want to discuss the lies you have presented in your jingoistic spews. I am not in any way affiliated with the American Journal of Public Health. You asre lying, plain and simple. Butthen, your simple mind knows no difference, eh fool? What am I lying about? Provde that I am lying, If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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. It has more to do with purpose than need. Good point. 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... Ah, came a little (pun intended) too close to home on that one! ======================= Nope, just laughing at your stupidity... I don't think so. You are laughing to cover the pain. 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... Name one thing. Please quote the alleged lie, and provide proof that it is a lie. =========================== That Canadians don't wait for treatment in your health care system. You did not quote me. provided that proof already. Too bad for you, liar. Quote the alleged lie and prove that it is a lie. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. Or are you yourself lying, and too big of a coward to admit it? Please quote something I have said and explain why it is a lie. ================== That Canadians do not wait for treatment I never said this. You are lying. ====================== Yes, you did. Exactly that fool... Post the reference. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. much less die waiting Canadians are not dying in waiting lines for health care. You are lying. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. |
KMAN says:
================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
============= I'm talking about the rate of violent victimization overall and the impact that banning guns has on the rate at which people are victimized. ================= I agree with you, rates of change with respect to criminality may be significant. To determine, however, the causes of these changes may be more problematic. From the same source I cited previously, here are some sample crime rate changes. [for 1990-2000] Crimes recorded by the police (percentage changes) 1990-2000 ============= EU Member States average -1% England & Wales 4% Scotland -18% Austria 22% Estonia 143% Finland -11% France 8% Hungary 32% Lithuania 122% Italy -12% Netherlands 12% Russia 85% Slovakia -1% Slovenia 76% Sweden 0% Canada -10% Japan 49% U.S.A. -20% After looking at those figures, I'm not sure what kind of conclusions one might draw. A simplisic fool might conclude that communism served many peoples much better (from a crime perspective) because, since the introduction of a free market system, things appear to have gone hell in a hand basket in Russia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia etc. Slovakia seems to be an anomaly, but perhaps, now that the politically correct commies are no longer in charge, the Slovaks can finally give their gypsy population a good hiding [apologies to all those of either Slovak or gypsy extration]. As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton. I think one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your "What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the devil's work). OK, shall we chalk that -20% in the USA up to Clinton? Japan is a surprise at +49%. But perhaps not. If we note that the decade in question was not particularly kind to Japan economically, we ought not to be surprised that crime was up in Japan. In terms of Canada; often Canada follows the USA in economic development (I'll not revisit the nature of trade between Canada and the USA), so quite likely the positive data for Canada can also be attributed to 8 years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse GRIN. What's your take on these numbers, Scott? frtzw906 |
KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 4:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 3:26 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/26/05 6:58 PM: 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 Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? I learned in my bar fighting days, that if it's not my fight, there is nothing gained by getting my nose broke! You and rick look to be having a good dance, so I don't see no cause to cut in! TnT You cut in all the time! Why be such a priss on this issue? FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. On Feb 13, at 6:21 I warned frtwz about engaging in a dialog with rick, and I have continued to do so on a number of ocassions. At that time I caught a little heat from r myself. But you have been around for awhile, and I have observed this phenomenon between the two of you before. So you should know better! Besides, on a lot of points, I probably would not necessarily disagree with the guy, I just try to be a little more civil in my conversation. Now he has been around for a lot longer than I so maybe he has learned something that I have yet to learn. However in the meantime I will just watch and learn, he's a great teacher. Of what? More of how! How not to communicate, you don't get your message through very well with all this spitball shooting. As far as cutting in all the time, I only cut in when I choose to cut in, and sometimes I choose to not cut in, specially when I stand to get my toes stepped on. The music you guys have been dancing to is really bad, and your moves are pretty ugly, but if yu are enjoying it, carry on. Don't let me interfere! TnT How so? Well I am not the one getting hit by the spitballs! Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. That makes him a liar and a coward Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." I've had my nose broke a enough times to show that I am no coward, and I am certainly not cowering in my closet. I am here in the forum ready to discuss in a reasonable fashion what so ever I feel inclined to discuss. I basically don't know that much about the Canadian Medical System, and whether people are dying waiting in line, I have no personal knowledge to make any comments. I have been watching this converstion with rick to see if any substantial info would surface, and have yet to see anything that I can really ruminate on from either side. And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT |
in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 2/27/05 2:01 PM: KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. frtzw906 I know, that's what is so damn scary. |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/27/05 2:39 PM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 4:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 3:26 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/26/05 6:58 PM: 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 Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? I learned in my bar fighting days, that if it's not my fight, there is nothing gained by getting my nose broke! You and rick look to be having a good dance, so I don't see no cause to cut in! TnT You cut in all the time! Why be such a priss on this issue? FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. On Feb 13, at 6:21 I warned frtwz about engaging in a dialog with rick, and I have continued to do so on a number of ocassions. At that time I caught a little heat from r myself. But you have been around for awhile, and I have observed this phenomenon between the two of you before. So you should know better! Besides, on a lot of points, I probably would not necessarily disagree with the guy, I just try to be a little more civil in my conversation. Now he has been around for a lot longer than I so maybe he has learned something that I have yet to learn. However in the meantime I will just watch and learn, he's a great teacher. Of what? More of how! How not to communicate, you don't get your message through very well with all this spitball shooting. Do you think rick is interested in any messages? He's not even interested in supporting any of his own statements. As far as cutting in all the time, I only cut in when I choose to cut in, and sometimes I choose to not cut in, specially when I stand to get my toes stepped on. The music you guys have been dancing to is really bad, and your moves are pretty ugly, but if yu are enjoying it, carry on. Don't let me interfere! TnT How so? Well I am not the one getting hit by the spitballs! And if you were, you probably wouldn't know! Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. That makes him a liar and a coward Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." I've had my nose broke a enough times to show that I am no coward That sounds a bit more like foolish than brave :-D and I am certainly not cowering in my closet. I am here in the forum ready to discuss in a reasonable fashion what so ever I feel inclined to discuss. I basically don't know that much about the Canadian Medical System Neither does rick. and whether people are dying waiting in line, I have no personal knowledge to make any comments. I have been watching this converstion with rick to see if any substantial info would surface, and have yet to see anything that I can really ruminate on from either side. Well Tinkerntom, it's very simple. Rick has made the claim, and he has failed to support it. Do you agree? And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? The topic at hand is really quite irrlevant to the question. Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT This is about basic integrity Tinkerntom. The topic is really a subordinate issue. It is no different than if rick were to claim that purple kayaks result in increased death rates. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================== The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned, victimization by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States, crime victimization by violent criminals is dropping. =============== I'll not dispute your sources and data.... except, as you well know, because you presented this data, the definitions of various sorts of crimes vary considerably from country to country. What may be deemed an assault in one country may not be recorded as an assault in another. Thus, the stats may not be comparable. The stats are entirely comparable. The nations involved have long ago agreed on the definition of "violent crime" and they compile the data in quite similar ways, and they share the data routinely. Thus, whether I'm trying to "bend" the debate is hardly the point. The point is, more or less, a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter where we are on the globe. Murder stats are comparable. The others aren't. This is simply a lame attempt on your part to evade the fact that you are wrong by trying to define away the facts. -- 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 says: ================= Absolute numbers are less important than the rate of change for gun-owning versus gun-banning societies, something that you deliberately choose to ignore. =================== I'm happy to revisit those statistics to examine rates of change. Like you, I agree that those are valuable and important statistics. Nonetheless, I think absolute figures do matter. Every one of those "absolute" numbers represents some mother's child. Let's not speak of these numbers too lightly. I donąt disagree in principle. Any death, whether homicide or by accident is unfortunate and something to be avoided where possible. The important part is the "where possible." When banning guns actually serves to increase victimization and injury, it seems imprudent to pursue that course as a solution to the problem. The basis of my argument is that whatever the absolute numbers, it is the RATE of CHANGE in those numbers that determines the effectiveness of gun banning schemes. The evidence is very clear that where guns are banned, the RATE of CHANGE of violent crime victimization rises, usually dramatically, resulting in increases of victimization of "some mother's child." On the other hand, in the US, the RATE of CHANGE in violent crime victimization DECREASES substantially in those places where law-abiding citizens are permitted to keep and bear arms for their personal defense. More guns = Less crime. That is a fact. It's an uncontroverted fact. You have never, even once, attempted to controvert that fact, I suspect because you know full well that you cannot do so. That being the case, you are deliberately and dishonestly avoiding admitting that your gun-banning arguments inevitably result in MORE "mother's children" being victimized. That puts paid to your entire argument, which you base on your revulsion of victimization in general, and your dislike for the costs of liberty posed by ubiquitous firearms ownership. In short, you would prefer that MORE "mother's children" be harmed by violent criminals than are harmed by firearms because, illogically, you deem an injury caused by a firearm to be somehow more socially unacceptable than an injury inflicted in some other manner by a violent criminal. (Ignoring for the moment the important fact that the vast majority of firearms injuries are caused by violent armed criminals...and the fact that where citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms, violent armed criminals are much less likely to victimize anyone.) That seems extremely narrow-minded to me. -- 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 says: ================= I would not choose to be one of the twenty five percent of Brits who are victimized and traumatized by crime every year.... ================ I concur, neither would I. Then buy a gun, get a concealed carry permit and provide for your own (and coincidentally your neighbor's) protection. That's what I do. That's what hundreds of thousands of Americans do, to very beneficial effect. But, as you well know, crime statistics are not easily compared. What may be recorded as a "crime" in Britain, may be recorded as a nuisance in Canada or the USA. Not when it comes to violent crime in particular, and most property crimes as well. Crime statistics are quite easily compared and you are grasping at straws in a vain attempt to bolster your failed argument. I don't know, and neither do you. Wrong. I do, in fact, know. If we're to talk about "violent crimes" and incidents of "violent crime", then we need to ensure that we're talking about the same thing in each country. We are. Go examine how the FBI and Interpol and other government agencies classify crimes and you will find that they long ago came to agreement about how to define such crimes in ways that permit direct comparisons between countries. This is not a new science, they've been doing it for decades. While the specific statutes and names of some of the crimes change, the definitions are quite homogenous, precisely to permit such direct comparisons and exchange of information. To date, everything that I've read indicates that people much more knowledgeable and you or I are grappling with these comparisons. No they're not. An assault upon a person is the same in GB or Canada as it is here. It consists of the unlawful use of force upon another person. The sub-sets of unarmed and armed, and the sub-sub sets describing the particular weapons used, in particular firearms, are the same in the US, GB, Canada and Australia insofar as international comparisons of violent crime rates and victimization. While the classification for the purposes of criminal prosecution and sentencing may be radically different, even within states in the US, the basic definitions of what constitutes are, with a very few exceptions, functionally identical in all jurisdictions. The international police community wasn't born yesterday. -- 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 ... in article , Michael Daly at wrote on 2/26/05 3:14 PM: 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 He's a liar. And a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:20 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... As to lying, you're the only one that has lied here, fool... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:20 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:21 AM: ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:21 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/26/05 9:11 PM: . ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:21 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:22 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. ================== You're continued lying about providing posts is hilarious fool. I did provide sites that backed up my claims. You haven't refuted my claims. You can't, so you spew your willful ignorance instead. |
KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 2:39 PM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 4:44 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 3:26 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/26/05 6:58 PM: 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 Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? I learned in my bar fighting days, that if it's not my fight, there is nothing gained by getting my nose broke! You and rick look to be having a good dance, so I don't see no cause to cut in! TnT You cut in all the time! Why be such a priss on this issue? FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. On Feb 13, at 6:21 I warned frtwz about engaging in a dialog with rick, and I have continued to do so on a number of ocassions. At that time I caught a little heat from r myself. But you have been around for awhile, and I have observed this phenomenon between the two of you before. So you should know better! Besides, on a lot of points, I probably would not necessarily disagree with the guy, I just try to be a little more civil in my conversation. Now he has been around for a lot longer than I so maybe he has learned something that I have yet to learn. However in the meantime I will just watch and learn, he's a great teacher. Of what? More of how! How not to communicate, you don't get your message through very well with all this spitball shooting. Do you think rick is interested in any messages? He's not even interested in supporting any of his own statements. I don't know, he has a nice website with nice stories and pictures, I suppose there is a message there. I don't know him personally, so I don't know what his credentials are for the current topic. I believe he lives up there in your neck of the woods somewhere on this side of the border. So he may have some personal experience or ax to grind. As I said before, last post, I have not bothered to find the contentious post by either of you, and have tried to ignore this particular part of the thread. Not my responsibility to certify the post of anyone but myself. As far as cutting in all the time, I only cut in when I choose to cut in, and sometimes I choose to not cut in, specially when I stand to get my toes stepped on. The music you guys have been dancing to is really bad, and your moves are pretty ugly, but if yu are enjoying it, carry on. Don't let me interfere! TnT How so? Well I am not the one getting hit by the spitballs! And if you were, you probably wouldn't know! No I usually know, and I have sensed some zinging around, but I've learned to duck most of the time. Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. That makes him a liar and a coward Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." I've had my nose broke a enough times to show that I am no coward That sounds a bit more like foolish than brave :-D It was not probably the smartest, but hey you don't get paid for being smart! and I am certainly not cowering in my closet. I am here in the forum ready to discuss in a reasonable fashion what so ever I feel inclined to discuss. I basically don't know that much about the Canadian Medical System Neither does rick. So you say! and whether people are dying waiting in line, I have no personal knowledge to make any comments. I have been watching this converstion with rick to see if any substantial info would surface, and have yet to see anything that I can really ruminate on from either side. Well Tinkerntom, it's very simple. Rick has made the claim, and he has failed to support it. Do you agree? I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week! And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? Ask, and answered! The topic at hand is really quite irrlevant to the question. Maybe, possibly, probably! Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? Ask, and answered! C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT This is about basic integrity Tinkerntom. The topic is really a subordinate issue. It is no different than if rick were to claim that purple kayaks result in increased death rates. But purple kayaks would be fun to paddle. I almost bought a purple Perception Overflow, but ended up with a yellow one instead. I do have a purple paddle shirt that look pretty nice with the yellow kayaK. And Paddling is what this forum is about, and anything else is OT and subject to no particular rules of dialog. If you don't like the dialog or question the integrity of the debatee, you can always withdraw when you are no longer having fun, or get scared, or freaked out, or have a headache. I don't personally want to see you leave, since I enjoy are chats so much, but you can always just ignore r if he bothers you that much. You should know by now that you are not likely going to convince him to change, or be reasonable, or stay on message, or not be reduced to name calling. And to think that you are going to achieve any sort of integrity, maybe you have gone nuts. TnT |
Weiser says:
========== Crime statistics are quite easily compared and you are grasping at straws in a vain attempt to bolster your failed argument. ====== Scott, you ought to tell the people in the NZ justice ministry about this. In their report on crime, they say: "Differences in definitions of violent crime make international comparisons problematic, and account for at least some of the apparent differences in recorded violent crime rates between countries." Hey, but since you're the expert, I'll disregard the experts in NZ. frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:28 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/26/05 5:30 PM: "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. No, it isn't. Straw Man is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. ================= Which is exactly what you have been doing. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... You made the claim that my reference to assault weapons being able to kill "a lot of people quickly" was "code" for saying that there are individuals using "assault weapons to kill 1000s of people." Thus one could argue that you yourself were making a Straw Man argument, since you ignored my actual position and substituted a distorred, exaggerated, and mispreprsented version of that position. But my own response - that I never claimed individuals were using assault weapons to kill 100s of people - is totally valid, and in no way constitutes a Straw Man argument. ======================= Yes, it does tha way you have presented you spews... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... 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... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. ================ Willful ignorance on your part, fool. 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? 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... Read again. I posted information exactly as you requested. Do the same, unless you want to remain a liar and a coward. Although I suspect that's an identity your are comfortable with. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. ==================== Willful ignorance on your part, 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... Name one. 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. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. ========================= I have provided you whith references. Several in fact. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your problem. 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... Prove it, liar. Or are you too big of a coward to admit that yet again you are wrong? ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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. I would care deeply if it were happening. But it isn't. ============== Yes, it is liar. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. ================== You're the proven liar fool. 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. Sorry, it has nothing to do with me. Go after the American Journal of Public Health. People in Canada die waithing for treatment Actually, they don't. ================== Yes,they do liar. You are the one afraid to open your eyes. Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. , and all you can focus on is AK knockoffs in the US.. Oh yeah, tell us again how much you really care... Actually, I care about the 886,000 preventable deaths in the US, but I guess you don't, all you want to talk about is AK knockoffs. ================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! YOU have made them the cornerstone of your anti-US rhetoric fool. It's all you've been able to froth about all week on the subject. You've been the most interested in that than anyone. ===================== I love watching fools self-destruct with their ignorance. Thanks for proving your lies mean more than reason to you. What lies? Prove that I have lied. ================ See above fool. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. 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? Answer the question Rick, or are you going to be a coward on this issue as well? ================== Where? I have answered your stu[idity fool. Again, you are hiding from the facts with blind ideology. Tthanks again for proving your willful ignorance on even more subjects. You choose to be a coward, as expected. ===================== Nope. Unlike YOU, I have backed up my claims. You have yet to refute anything I posted. Thanks again for proving you have nothing but your ideological ignorance. Are you in favour of the elimination of all laws? Yes or no? Yes or no, coward. ================= Laws against stupidity like yours should be kept... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:32 AM: snip... 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. What are the other purposes of assault weapons, and how do those other purposes compare in usefulness to cars? ==================== They don't need to copmare to cars, fool. hat's your little bit of whackiness, fool. 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. 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. Liar. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. =============== Willful ignorance on you part... You are too afraid to look because your ideology would take a beating. I've looked. There's nothing there. Yes, there is. I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. =============== Willful ignorance on you part... Perhaps you should look at the the United States where 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. Why are you focused on lying about Canadian health care when hundreds of thousands of people are dying unecessarily in your own country? ================= LOL I'm not focused on it, you seem to want to discuss the lies you have presented in your jingoistic spews. I am not in any way affiliated with the American Journal of Public Health. You asre lying, plain and simple. Butthen, your simple mind knows no difference, eh fool? What am I lying about? Provde that I am lying, ======================== Already did. You lied about wait lines. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. =============== Willful ignorance on you part... 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. It has more to do with purpose than need. Good point. 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... Ah, came a little (pun intended) too close to home on that one! ======================= Nope, just laughing at your stupidity... I don't think so. You are laughing to cover the pain. ====================== The pain is watching how stupid you are. 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... Name one thing. Please quote the alleged lie, and provide proof that it is a lie. =========================== That Canadians don't wait for treatment in your health care system. You did not quote me. ====================== Yes, I did. see other posts for today... Here, want to see it again? "...No one is waiting for treatment..." provided that proof already. Too bad for you, liar. Quote the alleged lie and prove that it is a lie. ======================== Already did both, fool. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. =============== Willful ignorance on your part... Or are you yourself lying, and too big of a coward to admit it? Please quote something I have said and explain why it is a lie. ================== That Canadians do not wait for treatment I never said this. You are lying. ====================== Yes, you did. Exactly that fool... Post the reference. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. much less die waiting Canadians are not dying in waiting lines for health care. You are lying. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. =============== Willfully ignorant AND stupid... What a combination. 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... You are a liar and a coward. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Prove it. If you can't you are either a liar, a coward, or both. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Your refusal to respond by providing the references proves that you are in fact a liar, coward, or both. |
"Kegs" wrote in message ... "rick" writes: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than another less vicious gun (whatever that means)? ================== Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots. The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently, and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons. If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of killing, I am aware, and never said otherwise. ===================== Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK more dangerous than other weapons? Well, the fact that AK47s fire 7.62mm hypervelocity rounds might have something to do with it. ========================== that's a 39 round. And that compares with other weapons how? Less powerful than many hunting rifles. Actually kind of a mediocre round. They are easily capable of taking off an arm or a leg if they stike bone, and, even if they don't strike bone, they will blast out a sizable chunk of flesh. ==================== Yep. Just what is was designed to do, wound. They have quite a respectable rate of fire as well, even if they aren't the most accurate assault rifles in the world. ============== So do many other weaopns.. The fact that criminals aren't likely to have any qualms about modifying their ammo (hollow points etc) doesn't help either. ======================= Yeah, sure, crack dealers are just sitting around making their own rounds... Of cource they are really no more lethal than any other weapon that uses that size of high-velocity round, and only slightly more lethal than an assault rifle using NATO issue 5.54mm rounds, such as the armalite, L85A1 or the Steyr-Aug. ====================== The point was that they are less powerful than many other rifles that are not the dreaded "assault" weapon. A disignation based on looks, not killing power or accuracy. Any of that class of weapon is rather more lethal than an equivalent low-velocity type weapon, though you are still just as dead if you get shot by someone carrying a .22 pistol with good aim. ================== The point was that they are less powerful than most hunting rifles. -- James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk "I'm with Them. Same group, different department." (Justin, B5 "Z'Ha'Dum") |
A Usenet persona calling itself Kegs wrote:
"rick" writes: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than another less vicious gun (whatever that means)? ================== Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun idiots. The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently, and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons. If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of killing, I am aware, and never said otherwise. ===================== Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK more dangerous than other weapons? Well, the fact that AK47s fire 7.62mm hypervelocity rounds might have something to do with it. Once again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 7.62 x 39 AK round is not a "hypervelocity" round by any known ballistic metric. They are easily capable of taking off an arm or a leg if they stike bone, and, even if they don't strike bone, they will blast out a sizable chunk of flesh. More ignorance. The lethality of the AK round is no greater than any other similar caliber round, and is in fact much less, because the muzzle velocity is actually less than that of the 7.62 NATO round and the bullet behavior in flesh is entirely different from even the standard 5.56 NATO round used in the M-16. The muzzle velocity of the standard military 7.62 x 39mm round is 710 m/s and muzzle energy is about 1990 joules for a standard 8 gram full metal jacket military round. "The Soviet AK-47 Kalashnikov fires a full-metal-jacketed, boat-tail bullet that has a copper-plated steel jacket, a large steel core, and some lead between the two. In tissue, this bullet typically travels for about 26cm point-forward before beginning significant yaw. This author observed, on many occasions, the damage pattern shown while treating battle casualties in Da Nang, Vietnam (1968). The typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound was about what one would expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctate entrance and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption." Source: http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/b...b.html#nato762 The standard 7.26 NATO round is a 7.62 x 51mm round carrying a 9.72 gram full metal jacket bullet at a muzzle velocity of 860 m/s with a muzzle energy of 3594 joules. "The uncomplicated thigh wound might show very minimal tissue disruption since the streamlined bullet tends to travel point forward during the first 16cm of its tissue path. The abdominal wound, with a sufficiently long path so that the bullet will yaw, causing the large temporary cavity that is seen at depths of 20 to 35cm, would be expected to be very disruptive. If the bullet path is such that this temporary cavity occurs in the liver, this amount of tissue disruption is likely to make survival improbable." Source: Ibid. The 5.56 x 45mm NATO round carries a 4.01 gram bullet at 921 m/s with a muzzle energy of only 1700 joules, but it's lethality is greater than the AK round because of bullet design and fragmentation. "This bullet is fired from the US armed forces' first-generation smaller-calibre rifle, the M16A1. The large permanent cavity it produces, shown in the wound profile, was observed by surgeons who served in Vietnam, but the tissue disruption mechanism responsible was not clear until the importance of bullet fragmentation as a cause of tissue disruption was worked out and described. As shown on the wound profile, this full-metal-jacketed bullet travels point-forward in tissue for about 12cm after which it yaws to 90°, flattens, and breaks at the cannelure (groove around bullet midsection into which the cartridge neck is crimped). The bullet point flattens but remains in one piece, retaining about 60 per cent of the original bullet weight. The rear portion breaks into many fragments that penetrate up to 7cm radially from the bullet path. The temporary cavity stretch, its effect increased by perforation and weakening of the tissue by fragments, then causes a much enlarged permanent cavity by detaching tissue pieces. The degree of bullet fragmentation decreases with increased shooting distance (as striking velocity decreases), as shown in Fig. 5. At a shooting distance over about 100m the bullet breaks at the cannelure, forming two large fragments and, at over 200m, it no longer breaks, although it continues to flatten somewhat, until 400m. This consistent change in deformation/fragmentation pattern has an important forensic application. It can be used to estimate shooting distance if the bullet is recovered in the body and has penetrated only soft tissue. The effects of this bullet in the abdomen shot will show the temporary cavity effects as described for the Yugoslav AK-47 and, in addition, there will be an increased tissue disruption from the synergistic effect of temporary cavitation acting on tissue that has been weakened by bullet fragmentation. Instead of finding a hole consistent with the size of the bullet in hollow organs such as the intestine, we typically find a hole left by missing tissue of up to 7cm in diameter. The thigh entrance wound will be small and punctate. The first part of the tissue path will show minimal disruption. The exit will vary from the small punctate hole described for the Soviet AK-47 to the stellate exit described for the Yugoslav AK-47, depending on how thick the thigh is where the bullet perforates it. In a sufficiently thick thigh, the M193 bullet fragmentation is also likely to cause a significant loss of tissue and possibly one or more small exit wounds near the large stellate one." Source: Ibid. Thus, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. They have quite a respectable rate of fire as well, even if they aren't the most accurate assault rifles in the world. The civilian variant have exactly the same rate of fire as any other semi-automatic firearm: one round per trigger pull. The fact that criminals aren't likely to have any qualms about modifying their ammo (hollow points etc) doesn't help either. Nor does it hurt, particularly, since AK variants are seldom used in crime. Of cource they are really no more lethal than any other weapon that uses that size of high-velocity round, and only slightly more lethal than an assault rifle using NATO issue 5.54mm rounds, such as the armalite, L85A1 or the Steyr-Aug. Once again, you are wrong. Any of that class of weapon is rather more lethal than an equivalent low-velocity type weapon, though you are still just as dead if you get shot by someone carrying a .22 pistol with good aim. The velocities of AK variants, M-16 variants and 7.62 variants is no different than, and usually less than the velocities of your average, ordinary hunting round. There is no such thing as a "low velocity" rifle round, nor is there any commercially available "hypervelocity" ammunition available. Your argument is specious because you haven't a clue what the term "hypervelocity" means in the firearms projectile lexicon. -- 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 ... in article , Tinkerntom snip.. Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? ================ MAybe for the simple reason that I have not lied. Of course, you cannot make the same claim. Why not at least back up one of your claims, fool? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... snip.. FYI, it's not just with me that rick is a liar and a coward. His behavior is rather universal on that note. =============== The only proven liar in the thread had been you. I'm still waiting for you to provide the proof that refutes what I have already posted. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. Indeed. The problem with this utopian ideal is that it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns. That being the case, the argument is fallacious at its core. -- 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 ... in article , Tinkerntom snip... Rick is claiming that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care, =============== No fool, I have provided sites that claim that Canadians are dying in wait lines. YIOU have yet to provide anything that refutes those sites. but he refuses to support his claim, and worse, says that he has done so, when everyone can see that he hasn't. ===================== Yes, I have. That you are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant on how to fully use you computer is your problem. Plus, I have told you where to go look for yourself on several occasions. YOU are too afraid to do so, because your ideology will be found wanting. That makes him a liar and a coward ===================== So far, the only proven liar and coward has been you, fool. Tinkerntom, and so to (cowards) are all those who cower in the closet, afraid that their "toes will get stepped on." C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! ==================== ROTFLMAO This from the loony-toon that doesn't have a logical bone is his body? Stop! The laughing is killing me! At least I won't have to wait for treatment! |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/27/05 2:39 PM: snip... Do you think rick is interested in any messages? ============== Yes, truthful ones. When you going to make one? He's not even interested in supporting any of his own statements. ================ I have fool. You, on the other hand, have never been able to. Why is that? Too busy lying? snip.. Well Tinkerntom, it's very simple. Rick has made the claim, and he has failed to support it. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Do you agree? ================= Not if he reads the entire thread, and sees that I have supported my claims. More than once. And yet the bottom line as I see it, is that it is your system, and if it works for you, that is your business. It would only become my business if someone tried to enforce the system or some variation here in the States, which Hillary tried, and at the time, the majority of the people decided that we preferred the existing system we already have. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? The topic at hand is really quite irrlevant to the question. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... Now as far as r being a liar and a coward, I don't know. I came back refreshed from vacation to find you two carrying on. I don't know when or where it started, and mostly have tried to ignore your spat. I have not seen any point in getting involved, or of even going back and trying to find the supposed and questioned post by either one of you. I have enough trouble keeping my post square as you well know from our previous experiences. I have been told back in the beginning by my good friends Wilko and riverman, not to say anything on the forum, that you would say to someone face to face. Now seeing that he is a gun nut (your definition) and possibly walks around with his "Assault weapon" armed and ready, it might not be wise to walk up to him and call him a "liar and a coward." So then I find it most profitable to refraim from doing so here on the net as well. But do you agree that rick has made a claim that he has failed to support? ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... C'mon Tinkerntom, what type of society are we to build here in rec.boats.paddle if we are not to support the basic building blocks of logical discussion? Shame on you! Now if you wanted to continue a new thread about the advantages of the Canadian Health Care system, sometime in the future, maybe there could be a logical discussion, but I doubt that could happen at this time in this thread. There appears to be to much macho image at risk between the two of you. I will look forward to that discussion, and I hope that I am back on your list of reasonable non cowards! TnT This is about basic integrity Tinkerntom. The topic is really a subordinate issue. It is no different than if rick were to claim that purple kayaks result in increased death rates. ================= LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the facts... Thanks again for proving your willful ignorance, and the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims.... |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============= I'm talking about the rate of violent victimization overall and the impact that banning guns has on the rate at which people are victimized. ================= I agree with you, rates of change with respect to criminality may be significant. To determine, however, the causes of these changes may be more problematic. True. But significant and persuasive scientific and statistical research has been done on the subject that bears out my claims. Certainly the presence in society of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is not the ONLY reason for drops in violent crime, but it has been credibly verified as a major factor in the US. From the same source I cited previously, here are some sample crime rate changes. [for 1990-2000] Crimes recorded by the police (percentage changes) 1990-2000 ============= EU Member States average -1% England & Wales 4% Scotland -18% Austria 22% Estonia 143% Finland -11% France 8% Hungary 32% Lithuania 122% Italy -12% Netherlands 12% Russia 85% Slovakia -1% Slovenia 76% Sweden 0% Canada -10% Japan 49% U.S.A. -20% After looking at those figures, I'm not sure what kind of conclusions one might draw. A simplisic fool might conclude that communism served many peoples much better (from a crime perspective) because, since the introduction of a free market system, things appear to have gone hell in a hand basket in Russia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia etc. Slovakia seems to be an anomaly, but perhaps, now that the politically correct commies are no longer in charge, the Slovaks can finally give their gypsy population a good hiding [apologies to all those of either Slovak or gypsy extration]. One must also remember that in communist governments, "crimes reported by police" donąt happen to include crimes COMMITTED by police. Viz: Stalin's 20 million murders and the genocide in Cambodia don't get factored into the "violent crime" statistics, which would significantly skew the figures for most of the communist entries above. As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton. Huh? I think one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your "What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the devil's work). Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion. OK, shall we chalk that -20% in the USA up to Clinton? Not unless you can prove a causal link. Japan is a surprise at +49%. But perhaps not. If we note that the decade in question was not particularly kind to Japan economically, we ought not to be surprised that crime was up in Japan. Which has exactly what to do with the issue? In terms of Canada; often Canada follows the USA in economic development (I'll not revisit the nature of trade between Canada and the USA), so quite likely the positive data for Canada can also be attributed to 8 years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse GRIN. What's your take on these numbers, Scott? That you're making specious arguments again. While economics may play some part in the rates of crime, and in the rates of change in crime, your argument fails because despite improvements in the economies of the US, GB, Canada and Australia, the rate of change in violent crime STILL goes up in nations where guns are banned, and STILL goes down in jurisdictions in the US where concealed carry is lawful, in ways independent of the economy, and over longer periods than short-term economic fluctuations. The reductions in violent crime in, for example, Florida, began almost immediately in the mid 80s, after the new concealed carry law was enacted, and similar reductions have been seen in every place concealed carry has been made lawful in the US in the intervening 20 years, through all the economic fluctuations. -- 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 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ...it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns... Hm..... Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and the Buddhist temple. Wolfgang ducking and covering. :( |
Wolfgang wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ...it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns... Hm..... Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and the Buddhist temple. Wolfgang ducking and covering. :( I am surprised that Scott has let you slide this long on this one. Maybe cause you let me slide on something ealier. Naw, no chance! I commend you for you charity work, however the above do not represent a community. Only a small fraction of a community, as there are households without guns in possession, all are under hopefully the protective umbrella of those police officer and military who do carry firearms. Obviously the Tibetan Buddist in their isolation from the rest of the real world, found that all military possession of firearms is not benevolent, and certainly not something that can be separated from in isolation. Same with orphanages and convents, they may not have a firearm in their possession, but there is more than likely one in th vicinity. I hate being a pragmatist sometimes, but I found that utopian ideology left me feeling very vulnerable. Sorry about bursting your bubble. TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com