A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"rick" wrote in message
news

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the
corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal
media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by
"assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI,
and
the numbers are actually very small.


If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related
offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that,
they should post them, or a link to them.

IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Only problem is, you can't.
--
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
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"rick" wrote in message
news
I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by
guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the
corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal
media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by
"assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI,
and
the numbers are actually very small.


If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related
offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or
that,
they should post them, or a link to them.

IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it.
I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who
implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed
for anything but killing a lot of people quickly.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand
your money back...





for anything but killing a lot of people quickly.

in article , rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand
your money back...

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.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should
demand
your money back...

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? Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of
what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons,
do you, fool?

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should
demand
your money back...

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.

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.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are
the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up
to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter.
They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should
demand
your money back...

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.



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. 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.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand
your money back...

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.

Of course they can, and do. The problem with your dubious logic is that it
is impossible to make firearms, including semi-automatic rifles, unavailable
to criminals. There are simply too many of them in the world They cannot all
be located, much less collected. Just as the Brits...they have a lot of
trouble doing that with the IRA, and they've been trying for about 800
years.

Given that fact of life, the only people you disarm when you ban and
confiscate guns are the law-abiding, innocent citizens who actually NEED,
and are entitled to have such arms in order to defend themselves against
criminals and tyrants.

That you cannot integrate these facts lends credence to the presumption that
you are merely trolling. Because if you aren't, you're too abysmally stupid
to live and are a Darwinian dead-end doomed to genetic obscurity.
--
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