Re: OT: Remember When Reagan Got Shot in Broad Daylight, Surrounded By Security Pros, All Packing Heat?

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote:
> No. I am not a right-wing blogger. Nor have I read any. Believe it or
> not. I suggested the possibilty (not a certainty) of an alternative
> scenario to the Left wing RMCR gospel and received the predictable
> knee-jerk ridicule and contempt. There's not a thinker among the lot of
> you.

This is what I get for being polite to you.

Three posts, and you start spewing.

It would probably gratify you if I suggested you go fuck yourself, so I
won't do it.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

Mark S wrote:
> On Jul 22, 6:23 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How about a shot that landed in the region of his gas mask, or
>>> thereabouts. Not knowing anything about such things, or whether it
>>> too could have been armored, might that have blown his head off?
>>
>> That's not possible in the official RMCR scenario. Nor is one even
>> *allowed* to speculate about the possiblity of an alternative outcome
>> without being called naive, stupid, uncaring, etc.
>
> Of course, there could always have been an alternative outcome, but in
> this case, the outcome that did happen involved assault weapons, tons
> of ammo and the ability to buy it all legally so you could go ahead
> and perform a highly illegal act, an act that we call a massacre.

Who is "we." Is there anyone who doesn't call it a massacre? What's the
point of that choice of language?


>As long as assault weapons, tons of ammo and the ability to buy it all
> legally are the rule of law, such massacres will always be one of the
> possible outcomes.

True. But you're changing the subject. But the anti-gun crowd will have to
explain how outlawing or severely restricting the sale of guns in the future
will address the fact that there may be more guns in the U.S. than there are
people. The bad guys will always be able to get guns. It makes little
sense to outlaw gun sales without figuring a way to collect the existing
weapons.

Also, a thoughtful person considers with an open mind the question of
whether gun availabilty increases crime in the first place. Logically, the
more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less likely a criminal
will act against him. If only the bad guys have guns the good guys are in
trouble. Of course, that's the point of the second amendment, in a way.

I don't suppose anyone whose already made up his mind would consider reading
this, but I'll mention it anyway. I have not read it myself.

http://tinyurl.com/cqt389a

which is essentially a cost/benefit analysis of gun ownership, not a legal
analysis. The title suggests the conclusions.

Also, the following paper is interesting. The title is self-explanatory:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

which suggests a different sort of frontier than depicted in popular media.

[Kip Williams]

by the way:

Tacoma Mall Shooting, 2005. A legally armed citizen intervenes and gets
shot. Even though he had a gun!

Readington Bank Robbery, 2007. FBI Agent apparently shot colleague. Even
though the colleague was armed!

Queens, 1994. Officer shot, probably by fellow officer. He had a gun,
yet he got shot!

2007 (apparently): "An off-duty cop, a plainclothes cop, and a uniformed
cop, in New York City:

"'On Aug. 22, a plainclothes transit officer, Desmond Robinson, was shot
four times by an off-duty New York Police Department officer, Peter
Del-Debbio, in a case of mistaken identity in a subway station on the
East Side of Manhattan. Officer Del-Debbio was also shot, by another
transit officer. Some witnesses contend that both men failed to identify
themselves as officers.'"

Writer James Macdonald, a Navy veteran and EMT, says, "Imagine how much
better it would have turned out if there had been fifty civilians
carrying concealed handguns on that subway platform, all of them
clear-eyed freedom-loving libertarians eager to be heroes."


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

You tried to ridicule my argument, thusly:

"I've never seen "more likely" used to mean "maybe but maybe not, I'm
really not sure." Most often, it means the speaker thought it was more
likely."

I don't consider that polite, sorry. I had not seen your later defense of
what I said when I posted the above. How you could ridicule what I said and
then defend it, I don't know. Perhaps you accepted my explanation. If so,
you could have said so. I'm not a mind reader.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote:
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>> No. I am not a right-wing blogger. Nor have I read any. Believe
>>> it or not. I suggested the possibilty (not a certainty) of an
>>> alternative scenario to the Left wing RMCR gospel and received the
>>> predictable knee-jerk ridicule and contempt. There's not a thinker
>>> among the lot of you.
>>
>> This is what I get for being polite to you.
>>
>> Three posts, and you start spewing.
>>
>> It would probably gratify you if I suggested you go fuck yourself, so
>> I won't do it.
>

> You tried to ridicule my argument, thusly:
>
> "I've never seen "more likely" used to mean "maybe but maybe not, I'm
> really not sure." Most often, it means the speaker thought it was more
> likely."
>
> I don't consider that polite, sorry. I had not seen your later defense
> of what I said when I posted the above. How you could ridicule what I
> said and then defend it, I don't know. Perhaps you accepted my
> explanation. If so, you could have said so. I'm not a mind reader.

That's ridicule? Good grief! What kind of sheltered life do you live?

I'm so sorry that I tend to use mildly humorous phrasing when making
points. It's so terribly offensive. I've talked this way all my life,
and up to now the only problem is that sometimes people didn't laugh.

You always escalate, you always get insulted from mild badinage that
nobody else even notices, and you always think that gives you a license
to spew. You're going in the filter, as the possibility of having an
intelligent conversation with you is perishingly small.


Kip W

[Mark S]

On Jul 22, 8:48 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
But the anti-gun crowd will have to
> explain how outlawing or severely restricting the sale of guns in the future
> will address the fact that there may be more guns in the U.S. than there are
> people.  The bad guys will always be able to get guns.  It makes little
> sense to outlaw gun sales without figuring a way to collect the existing
> weapons.

The physicist Steven Weinberg said that regardless of religion you
will have "good people doing good things and evil people doing evil
things. However, for good people to do evil things, it takes
religion."

That cogent thought can easily be adapted to the issue of guns: good
people will keep doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
However, for good people to end up shooting other good people, it
helps to have easy access to guns.

[Frank Berger]

Your intent was ridicule. I don't care if it was in the form of humor.
You've labeled the same behavior on my part passive-aggressive.

> and up to now the only problem is that sometimes people didn't laugh.
>
> You always escalate, you always get insulted from mild badinage that
> nobody else even notices, and you always think that gives you a
> license to spew. You're going in the filter, as the possibility of
> having an intelligent conversation with you is perishingly small.
>
>
> Kip W

You're the one whose whining.

[Frank Berger]

That ignores the possibility of good people shooting or deterring bad
people. It's bad science.

That good people shoot good people often enough to outweigh the deterrent
effect against bad people when good people carry guns is an empirical
question. Listing cases that went bad as Kip did is not science. I've read
about cases that went the other way. By my own argument it would be
meaningless to cite them. I cited a couple of pieces of research that
don't come out the way the Liberals here expect or want.

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 05:48:00 UTC+2, Frank Berger a écrit :


>
> Also, a thoughtful person considers with an open mind the question of
> whether gun availabilty increases crime in the first place. Logically, the
> more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less likely a criminal
> will act against him. If only the bad guys have guns the good guys are in

> trouble. Of course, that&#39;s the point of the second amendment, in a way.
>

Your check from the NRA is in the mail, with a chuckle bonus for the "thoughtful person / open mind" bit.

[Mark S]

On Jul 22, 10:21 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 8:48 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the anti-gun crowd will have to
> >> explain how outlawing or severely restricting the sale of guns in
> >> the future will address the fact that there may be more guns in the
> >> U.S. than there are people. The bad guys will always be able to get
> >> guns. It makes little
> >> sense to outlaw gun sales without figuring a way to collect the
> >> existing weapons.
>
> > The physicist Steven Weinberg said that regardless of religion you
> > will have "good people doing good things and evil people doing evil
> > things. However, for good people to do evil things, it takes
> > religion."
>
> > That cogent thought can easily be adapted to the issue of guns: good
> > people will keep doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
> > However, for good people to end up shooting other good people, it
> > helps to have easy access to guns.
>
> That ignores the possibility of good people shooting or deterring bad
> people.  It's bad science.
>

Does anyone else find it strange that one of rmcr's biggest
religionists is suddenly averring that he depends on science for his
worldview?

[Oscar]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:44:03 AM, (unknown) wrote:
>
> The fuzz would have been confronted with a dozen or more armed guys, full of adrenaline, and they would have no idea who were the good guys and who were the bad guys (just like the audience), and so more shooting would ensue, with people returning fire.
>
> It would have been a total Keystone Cops, except no one was laughing.

Yeah, a 'total' Keystone Cops. Totes. And who says the archaic 'fuzz' when referring to cops? Over 50 Merican boomers like herman. Does anyone really believe this guy isn't an expat? I should ship this guy some frozen White Castles if he'd only give me his address.

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 07:25:38 UTC+2, Mark S a écrit :


> Does anyone else find it strange that one of rmcr&#39;s biggest

> religionists is suddenly averring that he depends on science for his
> worldview?

No, not really. I don't however regard Frank as a 'religionist' but rather as someone who is stuck in a sophomoric mindset, without a scintilla of life experience, regarding everything from a rigidly logical, textbook POV.

And this includes a certain 'never mind the consequences' attitude. If people don't behave according to the textbook, too bad for them.

Mind you I'm talking about his RMCR persona; he may be quite different in actual life for all I know.

[Mark S]

> Frank Berger a écrit :

>  Logically, the
> > more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less likely a criminal
> > will act against him.

It's just as logical that a potential victim who is armed is the first
person a likely criminal will act against, isn't it?

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 10:12:56 UTC+2, Mark S a écrit :
> &gt; Frank Berger a écrit :
> &gt;  Logically, the
> &gt; &gt; more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less likely a criminal
> &gt; &gt; will act against him.
>
> It&#39;s just as logical that a potential victim who is armed is the first
> person a likely criminal will act against, isn&#39;t it?

Frank's comment flies right in the face of all the evidence that having a gun "to protect your home & family" statistically means you're more likely to get shot, either by your own gun, accidentally, or by a criminal who is better prepared than you.

[Dufus]

>On Jul 23, 3:57 am, her...@yahoo.com wrote:

We can either ban crazies, or ban guns. I'd suggest the latter would
be easier, more effective.

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 12:31:09 UTC+2, Dufus a écrit :
> &gt;On Jul 23, 3:57 am, her...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> We can either ban crazies, or ban guns. I&#39;d suggest the latter would
> be easier, more effective.

agreed

[Frank Berger]

Probably no one else does because you're the only one fixated on the
subject; who looks at every statement I make through the prism of your
understanding of my faith, which at best can be incomplete because I've
never even attempted to describe the nature of it. All you *know* is that I
believe in God, attend an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, keep kosher and the
Sabbath, and that's about it.

You *know* my training is as an economist, so you *know* I approach
real-world problems as a scientist does. I'm always talking about costs and
benefits, unintended consquences and the like. That's my shtick. If a
cost-benefit analysis showed that circumcision was on net harmful to a
child, I would have to believe that if the methodology was sound, but
circumcise my son anyway, because my religion says to do it. This stuff is
not complicated. My religion is mostly silent on the subject of whether
people should carry guns into movie theaters.

Why not provide evidence, Mr. Science, supporting the claim that gun
ownership increases crime?

[Frank Berger]

her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 05:48:00 UTC+2, Frank Berger a �crit :

>
>
>>
>> Also, a thoughtful person considers with an open mind the question of
>> whether gun availabilty increases crime in the first place.
>> Logically, the more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the
>> less likely a criminal will act against him. If only the bad guys
>> have guns the good guys are in trouble. Of course, that&#39;s the
>> point of the second amendment, in a way.
>>
>
> Your check from the NRA is in the mail, with a chuckle bonus for the
> "thoughtful person / open mind" bit.

I'm not an NRA member, don't own a gun, never have, probably never will, so
your statement is silly, besides being insubstantial.

[Frank Berger]

her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 07:25:38 UTC+2, Mark S a �crit :

A good point that or RMCR personas can differ from our real ones. Mine
doesn't. As to "never mind the consequences." I'd say that is virtually the
opposite of my mindset. And I assert my posts here over the years show
that. You blowing smoke. You disagree with what I say, can't refute it
logically or empirically, so resport to silliness and nastiness. Again.

[Dufus]

>On Jul 23, 8:18 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My religion is mostly silent on the subject of whether
> people should carry guns into movie theaters.

!!!???

Into synagogues ?

[Frank Berger]

Mark S wrote:
>> Frank Berger a �crit :

No. Consider three worlds. One in which good guys can't get guns and bad
guys can. This is the world gun controllers seem to actually want, since
I've seen no serious proposals to get the guns away from the bad guys. The
second world is one in which good people *may* armed, but weapons must be
concealed. A bad guy may still mug someone in the street, but logic
suggests an alternate line of work since the potential victim may be able to
defend himself. The third world is where you can carry unconcealed. How
many bad guys will try to rob you in the street with a gun on your hip.

This explains why the so-called wild, wild West, wasn't really as wild as
popular fiction suggests, as the research I cited earlier shows.

Now, if everyone was armed, would there me more accidental shootings of good
people by other good people? Absolutely. But that has to be weighed
against the concomitant reduction in crime by bad guys. There are
trade-offs everywhere that have to be considered. That's what good science
does.

It occurs to me the the consideration of drug legalization (which I happen
to favor even though I don't use drugs) follows the same logical path. Drug
legalization will undoubtedly lead to more drug use. That's bad, probably,
all by itself. But it will also lead, many researchers say, to a drastic
reduction in crime. (Think the end of prohibition). Is drug legalization
good or bad on net? You can't tell without studying it. But many people
hate the idea of drug use so much that they are immune to the potential
benefits. Of course, there are drug users also incapable of a rational
analysis.

[Frank Berger]

Evidence? Did you even look at the research I cited? Didn't think so.

[Frank Berger]

How are you going to get the guns away from the bad guys? Even if you could
ban or severely restrict future sales, you couldn't do it. You'd be taking
away the ability of the good guys to defend themselves against the bad guys.
It's senseless. It has been suggested here that RWers are crazy to focus on
voter ID laws because thei incidence of voter fraud is so low, that it's not
worth the risk of disenfranchising a single voter. Is the incidence of gun
accidents so high that it is a serious social policy? So high that you have
to ignore or change the Constitution to do something about it? So high that
you have to take away the public's ability to defend itself?

[Frank Berger]

her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 12:31:09 UTC+2, Dufus a �crit :

>> &gt;On Jul 23, 3:57 am, her...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> We can either ban crazies, or ban guns. I&#39;d suggest the latter
>> would be easier, more effective.
>
> agreed

Same question: How are you going to get the guns away from the bad guys?

[Frank Berger]

Not on the Sabbath, unless terrorists are expected.

[Frank Berger]

Since others are throwing around andecdotes, I will too. Some years ago, a
couple of friends of mine (brothers), who sell diamonds, were accosted and
robbed in a parking lot in Louisiana somewhere. It was apparent they had
been followed. They are licensed to carry concealed and both do. They had
every intention of allowing themselves to be robbed without putting up a
struggle. At one point one of the robbers became physically abusive and one
of my friends became convinced they were going to be executed. He pulled a
weapon from a holster under the car seat and started blasting away. He
killed one of the bad guys and injured another. This was a very traumatic
experience for my friends as you might imagine, but in the end it was better
to be alive than dead. No charges were filed against my friends, by the
way.

[Dufus]

On Jul 23, 8:45 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dufus wrote:
> >> On Jul 23, 8:18 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> My religion is mostly silent on the subject of whether
> >> people should carry guns into movie theaters.
>
> > !!!???
>
> > Into synagogues ?
>
> Since others are throwing around andecdotes, I will too.

I understand. But, perhaps were guns banned, the robbers would not
have had any , and not been so bold. The possibility your friends , as
diamond dealers, might be armed, did not deter the robbers, either.

[Kip Williams]

Dufus wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:45 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dufus wrote:
>>>> On Jul 23, 8:18 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> My religion is mostly silent on the subject of whether
>>>> people should carry guns into movie theaters.
>>
>>> !!!???
>>
>>> Into synagogues ?
>>
>> Since others are throwing around andecdotes, I will too.
>
> I understand. But, perhaps were guns banned, the robbers would not
> have had any , and not been so bold. The possibility your friends , as
> diamond dealers, might be armed, did not deter the robbers, either.

They steal guns. Never mind where they steal them from, because since
the gun owners own guns, it's unimaginable that they could have been
stolen from them.


Kip W

[Norman Schwartz]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y_OdndPZYfdnOpHN...@supernews.com...
> her...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 23:27:23 UTC+2, Norman Schwartz a �crit :
>>
>>
>>> How about a shot that landed in the region of his gas mask, or
>>> thereabouts. Not knowing anything about such things, or whether it
>>> too could have been armored, might that have blown his head off?
>>>
>> You don't seem to realize that in these panic situations (plus tear
>> gas) people don't have perfect aim.
>
> No one said anyone would have perfect aim. Please supply evidence of a
> similar incident in which the outcome was as you predict. You've clearly
> done the research, so please share it.

A couple of weekends ago, a family was having a barbecue several miles from
where I live. When the father of the family noticed a black bear very close
to his children, he went in the house, readied his rifle and they ate
barbecued black bear for dinner.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20120701/NEWS03/307010022/Black-bear-crashes-wrong-barbecue-Stony-Point?nclick_check=1

[wagnerfan]

And what does that have to do with anything being discussed here???
are you actually equating that bear with what happened in that
theatre??? really????

Wagner Fan

[Dufus]

>On Jul 23, 9:38 am, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
> A couple of weekends ago, a family was having a barbecue several miles from
> where I live. When the father of the family noticed a black bear very close
> to his children, he went in the house, readied his rifle and they ate
> barbecued black bear for dinner

From the linked story :

" Dabreau and Wheeler, 32, who live side by side with their families
on Willow Grove Road, have six children between them, ages 3 to 13.The
property lies at the edge of Harriman State Park and near Cheesecote
Mountain Town Park, an area where bears are known to make night-time
appearances."

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:

Now, that is a nice "anecdote".

[Norman Schwartz]

"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2roq081doim109jn1...@4ax.com...

An experienced hunter, although granted not one carrying a rifle could have
been in that theater, is able shoot and kill a menacing threat, even in a
"panic" and nearly instatly. Don't you think if you had seen a black bear
hovering arould your children you might have been in a "panic", (even
greater than planning to shell out for their college tuition)?



> Wagner Fan

[The Historian]

On Jul 23, 10:38 am, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> http://www.lohud.com/article/20120701/NEWS03/307010022/Black-bear-cra...

Hmm.... bear is so gristly and fatty a meat. How did he effectively
barbecue it?

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:
> her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 10:12:56 UTC+2, Mark S a �crit :
> > > &gt; Frank Berger a �crit :

> > > &gt; Logically, the
> > > &gt; &gt; more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less
> > > likely a criminal &gt; &gt; will act against him.
> > >
> > > It&#39;s just as logical that a potential victim who is armed is
> > > the first
> > > person a likely criminal will act against, isn&#39;t it?
> >
> > Frank's comment flies right in the face of all the evidence that
> > having a gun "to protect your home & family" statistically means
> > you're more likely to get shot, either by your own gun,
> > accidentally, or by a criminal who is better prepared than you.
>
> Evidence? Did you even look at the research I cited? Didn't think
> so.

Would it help?
I don't think so. You guys don't change minds because of arguments.
Don't say that you "approach real-world problems as a scientist does".

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:
> Mark S wrote:
> > > Frank Berger a �crit :

> > > Logically, the
> > > > more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less likely a
> > > > criminal will act against him.
> >
> > It's just as logical that a potential victim who is armed is the
> > first person a likely criminal will act against, isn't it?
>
> No. Consider three worlds. One in which good guys can't get guns
> and bad guys can.

Do you mean that the police can't get guns?
Or that the police are the bad guys?

> This is the world gun controllers seem to actually
> want, since I've seen no serious proposals to get the guns away from
> the bad guys. The second world is one in which good people *may*
> armed, but weapons must be concealed. A bad guy may still mug
> someone in the street, but logic suggests an alternate line of work
> since the potential victim may be able to defend himself. The third
> world is where you can carry unconcealed. How many bad guys will try
> to rob you in the street with a gun on your hip.
>
> This explains why the so-called wild, wild West, wasn't really as
> wild as popular fiction suggests, as the research I cited earlier
> shows.

It does not explain so.

>
> Now, if everyone was armed, would there me more accidental shootings
> of good people by other good people? Absolutely. But that has to be
> weighed against the concomitant reduction in crime by bad guys.

Which reduction in crime are you talking about?
Doesn't the USA have the highest crime in the world?

> There are trade-offs everywhere that have to be considered. That's
> what good science does.
>
> It occurs to me the the consideration of drug legalization (which I
> happen to favor even though I don't use drugs) follows the same
> logical path.

No that's something different. Your path here is very unlogical.

> Drug legalization will undoubtedly lead to more drug
> use. That's bad, probably, all by itself. But it will also lead,
> many researchers say, to a drastic reduction in crime. (Think the
> end of prohibition). Is drug legalization good or bad on net? You
> can't tell without studying it. But many people hate the idea of
> drug use so much that they are immune to the potential benefits. Of
> course, there are drug users also incapable of a rational analysis.

Same for gun propagandists.

[Norman Schwartz]

I'm not sure if you're implying that bears are so common in the area that
everyone is ready and prepared to shoot them. If that were so no one would
ever have left their children out in the yard, and in fact not venture out
there on one's own without an armed weapon ready to be fired. Futhermore
their appearance under consideration was during night-time. I've driven down
"Willow Grove Road" (under a mile from my home) for the last 20+ years and
have never seen a single bear.

[Norman Schwartz]

I've never eaten any, so I wouldn't know. Actually I haven't barbecued meat
of any kind for over 15 years.

[Norman Schwartz]

Not even a water gun? 60 years ago a lot of us had them.

[wagnerfan]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:07:09 -0400, "Norman Schwartz"

What the hell is wrong with you???? are you comparing kids running
away from a black bear at a picnic to the mayhem that happens in a
crowded theatre when people panic - you only have to look at the
history of such occurrences to see the mayhem that results. You don't
know that an experienced hunter would have been able to get that shot
off and stop him in themiddle of alll that mayhem. In my killfile you
go - you're an idiot. Wagner fan

[Kip Williams]

My niece was waiting for the school bus when a bear wandered near the
bus stop. There was an adult on the scene. He ran home to get his camera.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Norman Schwartz wrote:

> Frank Berger wrote:

>> I'm not an NRA member, don't own a gun, never have, probably never
>> will, so your statement is silly, besides being insubstantial.
>
> Not even a water gun? 60 years ago a lot of us had them.

I have a pellet gun, but it's fairly feeble. It's weaker now than when I
got shot with it, and it didn't break my skin then.

What I'd really like is one of those pellet guns that you pump a couple
of times for more oomph. Those can bust up old cold cream jars quite
satisfyingly, and the last time I used one it was like I'd been
practicing the whole time since the previous occasion. My aim was way
better than it had been.

I'd enjoy going out for some target shooting. I don't enjoy shooting
animals, but I always ate the meat when Dad brought home deer or elk. I
helped cast and reload ammo, too.


Kip W

[Mark S]

On Jul 23, 6:18 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why not provide evidence, Mr. Science, supporting the claim that gun
> ownership increases crime?

Really, Frank? You're not aware of the evidence?

Why not start with murder rates that involve a firearm in the USA v
the rest of the civilized world where gun ownership is restricted? Are
you going to tell us there's no relationship there? Murder is a crime,
is it not?

"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels.
Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of
households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide
rate". - Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor
of Criminology - University of Ottawa

"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
- International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of
homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.


Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

by Homicide/Suicide/Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998)0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic.
Praeger Security International. Westport.

[wagnerfan]

Anxious to see how he squirms his way out of this. I recall reading
somewhere that in the same time period Britain had 14 homicides vis
gunshot and the USA had 10,000. Wagner fan

[Frank Berger]

Dufus wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:45 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dufus wrote:
>>>> On Jul 23, 8:18 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> My religion is mostly silent on the subject of whether
>>>> people should carry guns into movie theaters.
>>
>>> !!!???
>>
>>> Into synagogues ?
>>
>> Since others are throwing around andecdotes, I will too.
>
> I understand. But, perhaps were guns banned, the robbers would not
> have had any , and not been so bold. The possibility your friends , as
> diamond dealers, might be armed, did not deter the robbers, either.

The anecdote was not intended to support any particular point of view, as
they are incapable of doing that. I repeat my question no one has
answered yet. If you make guns difficult or even impossible to buy starting
today, how will you go about removing guns that are already in the hands of
people. Good guys may turn them in if required; bad guys won't. What
then?

[Frank Berger]

Norman Schwartz wrote:
> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Y_OdndPZYfdnOpHN...@supernews.com...
>> her...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 23:27:23 UTC+2, Norman Schwartz a écrit

>>> :
>>>> How about a shot that landed in the region of his gas mask, or
>>>> thereabouts. Not knowing anything about such things, or whether it
>>>> too could have been armored, might that have blown his head off?
>>>>
>>> You don't seem to realize that in these panic situations (plus tear
>>> gas) people don't have perfect aim.
>>
>> No one said anyone would have perfect aim. Please supply evidence
>> of a similar incident in which the outcome was as you predict. You've
>> clearly done the research, so please share it.
>
> A couple of weekends ago, a family was having a barbecue several
> miles from where I live. When the father of the family noticed a
> black bear very close to his children, he went in the house, readied
> his rifle and they ate barbecued black bear for dinner.
>
> http://www.lohud.com/article/20120701/NEWS03/307010022/Black-bear-crashes-wrong-barbecue-Stony-Point?nclick_check=1

Wouldn't have happened if the bear had been armed.

[Frank Berger]

That just proves how smart they are.

[Frank Berger]

Yes, I played with guns when I was a kid. My mother didn't like it, but
didn't have the fortitude to prevent it.

[Frank Berger]

The bear ran home to get his camera?

[Frank Berger]

These results are biased. Sure if you eliminated (magically, because that
would be the only way to do it) all guns, gun crime would cease. Perhaps
even serious non-gun crime. But that's not the point. The point what
happens if you leave guns only in the hands of criminals? Is it plausible
that serious crime would decrease? No, it isn't.

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:

Of course. Your standard "scientific" clich� when data don't suit you.

>
> Sure if you eliminated (magically, because
> that would be the only way to do it) all guns, gun crime would cease.
> Perhaps even serious non-gun crime. But that's not the point. The
> point what happens if you leave guns only in the hands of criminals?
> Is it plausible that serious crime would decrease? No, it isn't.

Complete nonsense!
Nowhere in the world (where countries have police) guns are in the hands of
criminals only.

[Mark S]

On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not an NRA member,

And yet, you have so obviously been influenced by their propaganda.

[M forever]

http://now.msn.com/german-police-used-just-85-bullets-in-2011

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 15:38:44 UTC+2, Frank Berger a écrit :
> Dufus wrote:
> &gt;&gt; On Jul 23, 3:57 am, her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; We can either ban crazies, or ban guns. I&#39;d suggest the latter would
> &gt; be easier, more effective.
>
> How are you going to get the guns away from the bad guys? Even if you could
> ban or severely restrict future sales, you couldn&#39;t do it. You&#39;d be taking
> away the ability of the good guys to defend themselves against the bad guys.
> It&#39;s senseless.

the good guys with guns wear a uniform, and we call 'em the police.

[Rich]

> These results are biased.  Sure if you eliminated (magically, because that
> would be the only way to do it) all guns, gun crime would cease.  Perhaps
> even serious non-gun crime.  But that's not the point.  The point what
> happens if you leave guns only in the hands of criminals?  Is it plausible
> that serious crime would decrease?  No, it isn't.

Then you have to look at search-and-seizure laws in countries where
gun-ownership is severely restricted. What kind of powers do
theJapanese or German police have that our Police do not have? By the
way remember the Massachusetts Gun Law?

Rich

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 19:58:44 UTC+2, Rich a écrit :


>
> Then you have to look at search-and-seizure laws in countries where
> gun-ownership is severely restricted. What kind of powers do
> theJapanese or German police have that our Police do not have?
>

> Rich

One of the essential pillars of RW thinking and policy making is: There Is No Such Thing As a Civilized World Outside the US.

All other civilized, industrialized and affluent countries have a kind of health care in which the gvt plays a role; they have strictly controlled gun ownership and use; they don't have the death penalty, and last but not least, their citizens live longer, healthier and happier.

The GOP prefers to talk about freedom fries.

[Dufus]

>On Jul 23, 10:20 am, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> Futhermore

> their appearance under consideration was during night-time. I've driven down
> "Willow Grove Road" (under a mile from my home) for the last 20+ years and
> have never seen a single bear.

Well, it only takes one bear, as I'm sure your neighbors agree ! Your
experience wasn't much comfort this time .

While I obviously don't know all the facts, I suspect even an "
experienced hunter " would admit killing a black bear with one shot
from a .22 is pretty lucky ? Just wound the animal and a horrible
scenario with a crazed animal could result ? If having a gun gives a
sense of safety so one does not worry about living next to a bear
habitat, I would only note the bear here was not scared off by the
fact a gun was in the home, and thank-goodness for the kids one shot
did the trick. The NRA would have us all believe we are safer if we
have a gun ; US crime stats seem to suggest the contrary, whatever one-
ofs occur.

[Frank Berger]

her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 19:58:44 UTC+2, Rich a �crit :

>
>
>>
>> Then you have to look at search-and-seizure laws in countries where
>> gun-ownership is severely restricted. What kind of powers do
>> theJapanese or German police have that our Police do not have?
>>
>> Rich
>
> One of the essential pillars of RW thinking and policy making is:
> There Is No Such Thing As a Civilized World Outside the US.
>
> All other civilized, industrialized and affluent countries have a
> kind of health care in which the gvt plays a role; they have strictly
> controlled gun ownership and use; they don't have the death penalty,
> and last but not least, their citizens live longer, healthier and
> happier.
>

Happier than you, probably.

[John Wiser]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2radnUfmkPzcOZDN...@supernews.com...

A rejoinder more pointless, even, than your ordinary...!

JDW

[ivanmaxim]

On Jul 23, 3:36 pm, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote in message

this is an example of how an even minor altercation can escalate into
panic in a theatre - now imagine the same thing with tear gas and
shots being fired all over.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/07/23/fight-erupts-at-dark-knight-screening.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

Wagner Fan

[her...@yahoo.com]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 21:21:44 UTC+2, Frank Berger a écrit :
> her...@yahoo.com wrote:

> &gt;
> &gt; One of the essential pillars of RW thinking and policy making is:
> &gt; There Is No Such Thing As a Civilized World Outside the US.
> &gt;
> &gt; All other civilized, industrialized and affluent countries have a
> &gt; kind of health care in which the gvt plays a role; they have strictly
> &gt; controlled gun ownership and use; they don&#39;t have the death penalty,
> &gt; and last but not least, their citizens live longer, healthier and
> &gt; happier.
> &gt;
>
> Happier than you, probably.
>
>
As it happens I live in a country with no proliferation of firearms on an American scale; state controlled healthcare and no death penalty.

[Bob Harper]

Given the generally dyspeptic persona 'herstyx' displays in this forum,
you're probably right.

Bob Harper

[M forever]

Ah - the usual character defamation, here coupled with even more
childish backtalking than what you and Berger usually resort to when
you are completely out of arguments.

Somebody who says these conditions allow people to live longer, safer
and healthier - and all you can come up with is to call him
"dyspeptic"? That's a low even by your standards. What a small
character you are.

[Norman Schwartz]

"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:pnsq08llrnoq2pvki...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:07:09 -0400, "Norman Schwartz"
> <nm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2roq081doim109jn1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:38:02 -0400, "Norman Schwartz"
>>> <nm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Y_OdndPZYfdnOpHN...@supernews.com...
>>>>> her...@yahoo.com wrote:

Now how in hell will I be able to pay my mortgage?

[Frank Berger]

her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 21:21:44 UTC+2, Frank Berger a �crit :

Yes, but you seem angry about something.

[M forever]

On Jul 23, 11:54 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:07:09 -0400, "Norman Schwartz"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >"wagnerfan" <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:2roq081doim109jn1...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:38:02 -0400, "Norman Schwartz"

> >> <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>"Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:Y_OdndPZYfdnOpHN...@supernews.com...
> >>>> her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 23:27:23 UTC+2, Norman Schwartz a écrit :
>
> >>>>>> How about a shot that landed in the region of his gas mask, or
> >>>>>> thereabouts. Not knowing anything about such things, or whether it
> >>>>>> too could have been armored, might that have blown his head off?
>
> >>>>> You don't seem to realize that in these panic situations (plus tear
> >>>>> gas) people don't have perfect aim.
>
> >>>> No one said anyone would have perfect aim.  Please supply evidence of a
> >>>> similar incident in which the outcome was as you predict.  You've
> >>>> clearly
> >>>> done the research, so please share it.
>
> >>>A couple of weekends ago, a family was having a barbecue several miles
> >>>from
> >>>where I live. When the father of the family noticed a black bear very
> >>>close
> >>>to his children, he went in the house, readied his rifle and they ate
> >>>barbecued black bear for dinner.
>

> >>>http://www.lohud.com/article/20120701/NEWS03/307010022/Black-bear-cra...

>
> >> And what does that have to do with anything being discussed here???
> >> are you actually equating that bear with what happened in that
> >> theatre??? really????
>
> >An experienced hunter, although granted not one carrying a rifle could have
> >been in that theater, is able shoot and kill a menacing threat, even in a
> >"panic" and nearly instatly. Don't you think if you had seen a black bear
> >hovering arould your children you might have been in a "panic", (even
> >greater than planning to shell out for their college tuition)?
>
> >> Wagner Fan
>
>  What the hell is wrong with you???? are you comparing kids running
> away from a black bear at a picnic to the mayhem that happens in a
> crowded theatre when people panic - you only have to look at the
> history of such occurrences to see the mayhem that results. You don't
> know that an experienced hunter would have been able to get that shot
> off and stop him in themiddle of alll that mayhem. In my killfile you
> go - you're an idiot.   Wagner fan

Don't forget that we don't know if that bear really got near those
children. Maybe the heroic father shot him from the safety of a window
in his house because he always wanted to shoot a bear and just said
his children were threatened as a justification.

[M forever]

On Jul 23, 6:00 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> her...@yahoo.com wrote:

Can you get any lamer and any more childish?

[Norman Schwartz]

"Kip Williams" <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FAePr.61367$yL6....@newsfe04.iad...

> Norman Schwartz wrote:
>> Dufus wrote:
>>>> On Jul 23, 9:38 am, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>> A couple of weekends ago, a family was having a barbecue several
>>>> miles from where I live. When the father of the family noticed a
>>>> black bear very close to his children, he went in the house, readied

>>>> his rifle and they ate barbecued black bear for dinner
>>>
>>> From the linked story :
>>>
>>> " Dabreau and Wheeler, 32, who live side by side with their families
>>> on Willow Grove Road, have six children between them, ages 3 to 13.The
>>> property lies at the edge of Harriman State Park and near Cheesecote
>>> Mountain Town Park, an area where bears are known to make night-time
>>> appearances."
>>
>> I'm not sure if you're implying that bears are so common in the area that
>> everyone is ready and prepared to shoot them. If that were so no one
>> would
>> ever have left their children out in the yard, and in fact not venture
>> out

>> there on one's own without an armed weapon ready to be fired. Futhermore

>> their appearance under consideration was during night-time. I've driven
>> down
>> "Willow Grove Road" (under a mile from my home) for the last 20+ years
>> and
>> have never seen a single bear.
>

> My niece was waiting for the school bus when a bear wandered near the bus
> stop. There was an adult on the scene. He ran home to get his camera.
>

Having an interest in Wildlife Conservation, I feel the bear was shot for
the sport of it. I feel he could of just as easily called his kids into the
house, and phoned 911 to be routed to Animal Control. Then it might have
been tranquilized quickly enough to be have been taken back to where it
belongs. Populations, myself included, have infringed on their normal
environment.
>
> Kip W

[Oscar]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:37:55 AM, herman wrote:
>
> One of the essential pillars of RW thinking and policy making is: There Is No Such Thing As a Civilized World Outside the US.
>
> All other civilized, industrialized and affluent countries have a kind of health care in which the gvt plays a role; they have strictly controlled gun ownership and use; they don't have the death penalty, and last but not least, their citizens live longer, healthier and happier.
>
> The GOP prefers to talk about freedom fries.

And a motley and growing 15.5% of Henk and Ingrids prefer to talk about and vote for Gert Wilders's Freedom Party http://tinyurl.com/42o2qmt 'Their Brussels, our Netherlands.' How many quietly think like this woman? 'Sometimes I’m afraid of Islam. They’re taking over the neighborhood and they’re very strong. I don’t love Wilders. He’s a pig, but he says what many people think.' Or, like this man in his mid-30's: 'He’s saying what many people think and don’t want to say. I don’t agree with everything, but 70 percent of what he says is what I’ve thought for the last 20 years.' The economic crisis in the EU has, for the moment, forestalled any further inroads of The Freedom Party, but once it subsides, along with ever-dwindling absolute numbers of ethnic Dutch, expect more cities like Almere, the Aliso Viejo of NL (youngest city in the country, also a planned community), which voted 30 percent for Wilders in the 2010 elections.

From New York Times August 2011 article linked to above:
<<In the United States, citizenship once granted is never questioned, said Henk Overbeek, a political scientist at VU University Amsterdam. 'But in Europe it’s never quite established, no matter how long you’ve been here. Here it’s still, ‘When did you get here, and when are you going back?’">>

On the other hand, an August 2011 Pew poll of Muslim-Americans http://tinyurl.com/6mavvyn stated that 82 percent 'are happy with the way things are going in their own lives', while 56 percent of Muslims are satisfied with the way things are going in this country — more than double the number of Americans as a whole. Just 5 percent say they have a somewhat favorable opinion of Al Qaeda (with 70 percent saying they have a very negative opinion), far less support than Muslim communities in other parts of the world, including EU.

As regards you, herman, I find it curiously ironic that a man who is so annoyed at US-centric postings here — 'all things on rcmr revolve around the US' — has such a hard-on for the Land of the Free (take the bait, I know you will) to such an extent that he feels compelled to convince stupid Mericans, always beneath his contempt, that where he pursues happiness is _"better"_ than the US. How very American of you! Bigger better more badass! Reminds me of when I went for a ride in Bigfoot as a kid. Top _that_ ! http://tinyurl.com/bo3v9qp

How are any of these domestic US topics that you are obsessed with discussing back-and-forth for days — gun rights, national healthcare, death penalty — relevant to classical music, or to your security as a free man in Western EU (and thereby safeguarding your consumption of classical music)?

[John Wiser]

"M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote [muy mucho snippage]

>
>> > As it happens I live in a country with no proliferation of firearms
>> > on an American scale; state controlled healthcare and no death
>> > penalty.
>
>> Yes, but you seem angry about something.

> Can you get any lamer and any more childish?

Just try him!

JDW

[M forever]

On Jul 23, 6:39 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:37:55 AM, herman wrote:
>
> > One of the essential pillars of RW thinking and policy making is: There Is No Such Thing As a Civilized World Outside the US.
>
> > All other civilized, industrialized and affluent countries have a kind of health care in which the gvt plays a role; they have strictly controlled gun ownership and use; they don't have the death penalty, and last but not least, their citizens live longer, healthier and happier.
>
> > The GOP prefers to talk about freedom fries.
>

> And a motley and growing 15.5% of Henk and Ingrids prefer to talk about and vote for Gert Wilders's Freedom Partyhttp://tinyurl.com/42o2qmt'Their Brussels, our Netherlands.' How many quietly think like this woman? 'Sometimes I’m afraid of Islam. They’re taking over the neighborhood and they’re very strong. I don’t love Wilders. He’s a pig, but he says what many people think.' Or, like this man in his mid-30's: 'He’s saying what many people think and don’t want to say. I don’t agree with everything, but 70 percent of what he says is what I’ve thought for the last 20 years.' The economic crisis in the EU has, for the moment, forestalled any further inroads of The Freedom Party, but once it subsides, along with ever-dwindling absolute numbers of ethnic Dutch, expect more cities like Almere, the Aliso Viejo of NL (youngest city in the country, also a planned community), which voted 30 percent for Wilders in the 2010 elections.

>
> From New York Times August 2011 article linked to above:
> <<In the United States, citizenship once granted is never questioned, said Henk Overbeek, a political scientist at VU University Amsterdam. 'But in Europe it’s never quite established, no matter how long you’ve been here. Here it’s still, ‘When did you get here, and when are you going back?’">>
>

> On the other hand, an August 2011 Pew poll of Muslim-Americanshttp://tinyurl.com/6mavvynstated that 82 percent 'are happy with the way things are going in their own lives', while 56 percent of Muslims are satisfied with the way things are going in this country — more than double the number of Americans as a whole. Just 5 percent say they have a somewhat favorable opinion of Al Qaeda (with 70 percent saying they have a very negative opinion), far less support than Muslim communities in other parts of the world, including EU.
>
> As regards you, herman, I find it curiously ironic that a man who is so annoyed at US-centric postings here — 'all things on rcmr revolve around the US' — has such a hard-on for the Land of the Free (take the bait, I know you will) to such an extent that he feels compelled to convince stupid Mericans, always beneath his contempt, that where he pursues happiness is _"better"_ than the US. How very American of you! Bigger better more badass! Reminds me of when I went for a ride in Bigfoot as a kid. Top _that_ !http://tinyurl.com/bo3v9qp

>
> How are any of these domestic US topics that you are obsessed with discussing back-and-forth for days — gun rights, national healthcare, death penalty — relevant to classical music, or to your security as a free man in Western EU (and thereby safeguarding your consumption of classical music)?

Herman, like many other people, is interested in international
politics, and, obviously the US plays a big role in international
politics. I don't see what is so unusual about that interest.

I think it's better if someone is interested in international politics
and what is going on in other countries than if someone isn't - like
you - and if someone is more interested in stalking other people
online and keeping an archive of what they said about this or that -
like you - and if someone is only interested in what is going on in
other countries if it provides him with cheap and silly arguments -
like you.

Since you can't really see and understand what is going on outside
your mental garden fence, you come up with nonsensical false
comparisons - like this one.

Nobody said the Netherlands is paradise on earth. Nobody said they
don't have economic, political and social problems there. Nobody said
they don't have populist politicians there, too.

None of the stuff you quoted has *anything* to do with what Herman
said. He said that people there have a better health care system -
fact - and that they live safer lives - fact - because guns are
controlled much better - fact - and because they have fewer social
problems - fact - and therefore much less crime - fact.

That doesn't mean they don't have problems. They just have far less
than your society does, that's why they have less crime and less
people per capita in prison and less people living in dire poverty.
You could learn a thing or two from looking at how things work in
other countries.

Instead, you only look at the things that don't work in other
countries. But then again, should that surprise anyone who knows that
you "fuck other cultures"?

[Oscar]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 3:53:33 PM, M forever wrote:
>
>
> Herman, like many other people, is interested in international
> politics, and, obviously the US plays a big role in international
> politics. I don't see what is so unusual about that interest.

Nothing unusual, but as I have highlighted he has a habit of saying over and over, in his sourpuss http://tiny.cc/4haxhw manner, that 'once again rmcr revolves around the US'. Yet, when he gets the urge to slam and cajole he finds himself in the hypocritical position of being a major instigator of and contributor to this very alarming trend.

> I think it's better if someone is interested in international politics
> and what is going on in other countries than if someone isn';t - like
> you - and if someone is more interested in stalking other people
> online and keeping an archive of what they said about this or that -
> like you - and if someone is only interested in what is going on in
> other countries if it provides him with cheap and silly arguments -
> like you.

Herman is the Crazy Eddie of cheap and silly arguments http://tinyurl.com/6cs5pr

> Nobody said the Netherlands is paradise on earth. Nobody said they
> don't have economic, political and social problems there. Nobody said
> they don't have populist politicians there, too.
>
> None of the stuff you quoted has *anything* to do with what Herman
> said. He said that people there have a better health care system -
> fact - and that they live safer lives - fact - because guns are
> controlled much better - fact - and because they have fewer social
> problems - fact - and therefore much less crime - fact.

Mein Gott! Why would anyone voluntarily leave this 'better' place for a 'better' life somewhere else? Like, for instance, middle-aged ethnic Germans who are overweight and constantly unhappy? Sounds like a wonderful place to find a mate and start a family! How's that going?

> That doesn't mean they don't have problems. They just have far less
> than your society does, that's why they have less crime and less
> people per capita in prison and less people living in dire poverty.
> You could learn a thing or two from looking at how things work in
> other countries.

'Your' society?? What about YOUR society? You have been here 9.5 years, almost half of your adult life. Paid a nice chunk o' change in federal incomes taxes to support immoral wars and contribute to the delinquency of a nation of fat consumer drones and ignorant bigots. Oh no no no — it's _yours_, too, stud hoss! You are WELCOME.

As wise man once said, 'shit or get off the pot.'

On Friday, July 13, 2012 3:06:50 AM, Oscar wrote:
>
> > > Your Republicanism sticks out like a sore thumb here.
>
> > Independent. I voted in the State Primary election on June 5.
>
> Independent. I should have known. You don' t have the guts to take a
> side, to shit or get off the pot. You prefer to sit safely in the
> middle, where you can snipe at the people who have the guts to take a
> side - Ds and Rs - never having to take responsibility for what goes
> down politically.

'Never having to take responsibility for what goes down politically' — ouch, Michael, how apropos. Dang, that smarts. Are you actually happy here after 9.5 years?? Maybe?? Why not get naturalized? You can hang on to your German papers and still be as prickly as you want to be. Say it, Ira Gershwin: 'no no, they can't take that away from [you]!'

> Instead, you only look at the things that don't work in other
> countries. But then again, should that surprise anyone who knows that
> you 'fuck other cultures'?

I love Europe. Been there many times, look forward to my next visit.

[laraine]

On Jul 22, 8:34 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S wrote:

> > On Jul 22, 2:15 pm, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> her...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>> Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 20:41:13 UTC+2, Frank Berger a écrit :
>
> >>>> More likely, someone would have shot the asshole right way, ending
> >>>> the incident and saving lives. The mousetrap analogy is obviously
> >>>> inappropriate.
>
> >>> so predictable; so naive.
>
> >>> If two, or more people start shooting at each other, all
> >>> inexperienced (and who isn't?), chaos will inevitably ensue.
>
> >>> In a capacity movie theatre that would result in massive casualties.
>
> >>> Not that you would care. You about the theory and the principles;
> >>> not about human lives.
>
> >> Just because every time this happens in real life (except for the old
> >> guy in the internet lounge recently!) the heroes aren't found, or
> >> they get shot, or they shoot the wrong person, doesn't mean that the
> >> guys who write comments on blogs wouldn't be just like Bruce Willis,
> >> and take the bad guy out with a single shot while making wisecracks.
> >> IT COULD HAPPEN!
>
> >> There was a hero with a gun when Rep. Gifford was shot. He says he
> >> came this close to shooting the wrong guy.
>
> >> But somebody could have seen through the tear gas, spotted the
> >> assailant in the dark, and managed to shoot through his body armor
> >> and SAVED THE DAY!!! This is an absolute item of faith from people
> >> who've never been in that situation.
>
> >> Kip W
>
> > The idea that a totally unorganized mob of people armed with guns
> > would have made a difference is stupidity unbound.
>
> Not just wrong?
> .
> .
> .
> (speculation deleted)
> .
> .
> .
>
> Please cite an example of a similar incident that turned out like the
> disaster scenario you are so certain of.   I have no doubt it could happen.
> Nor do I have any doubt that someone who was armed *could* have stopped the
> shooter.  A markman's kill shot probably wouldn't be necessary, would it?
> Anything that disabled him momentarily would allow people to overcome him.
> And the idea that huge numbers of people would be carrying and start
> shooting is a straw man anyway.  Why assume that would happen? Probably even
> with no carry restrtictions at all,  a relatively few people would be
> carrying and not all would start shooting.
>
> The anti-gun crowd has conjured up a disaster scenario not based on any
> logic or evidence in order to make themselves more comfortable with their
> anti-gun bias.  That's all.  My bias?  None, other than my interpretaion of
> the 2nd Amendment.  I've never owned a gun and never fired a gun.  Probably
> never will.

I'm thinking to myself -- why can't people instead
just own stun guns if they live in dangerous
parts? I used to sometimes carry around pepper
spray just in case when I lived in the Wild West.

Of course that wouldn't solve the problem when
someone had bullet proofing on, but it could
help in lots of other situations.

C.

[Kip Williams]

Norman Schwartz wrote:
> Having an interest in Wildlife Conservation, I feel the bear was shot for
> the sport of it. I feel he could of just as easily called his kids into the
> house, and phoned 911 to be routed to Animal Control. Then it might have
> been tranquilized quickly enough to be have been taken back to where it
> belongs. Populations, myself included, have infringed on their normal
> environment.

Yes, I agree.

Also, as a footnote, some people are idiots. We went to Yellowstone
around 1970, and tourists seemed to think the bears must have been high
school students in fur suits, from the way they were acting. They rolled
down their windows, held out food, endangered their kids, and
everything. We passed a meadow with a beleaguered buffalo in it, and the
idiots were trying to go up to it and do all the same stupid things they
tried with the bears. It got mad and bucked and stomped around, sending
the goobers flying. Next time we went by, it was surrounded by fools again.


Kip W

[Oscar]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 4:41:19 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> Independent. I should have known. You don't have the guts to take a

> to shit or get off the pot. You prefer to sit safely in the middle, where you

> can snipe at the people who have the guts to take a side never having to

>take responsibility for what goes down politically.

Of course, the above is a Stenroos-ism — pas moi, as I seemed to indicate via improper quotation.

[Bob Harper]

A silly comment, Michael, but I notice you are becoming Gerardish in
your insistence on snapping/sniping back every time I make a statement
of any sort. There's no 'character defamation' here, just my
observation--amply supported, I believe, by the record--that 'herstyx'
seems to be out of sorts with the world in general, and the United
States in particular. To quote the great John Cleese, "I f--t in your
general direction."

Bob Harper

[Mark S]

On Jul 23, 10:13 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S wrote:

> > On Jul 23, 6:18 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why not provide evidence, Mr. Science, supporting the claim that gun
> >> ownership increases crime?
>
> > Really, Frank? You're not aware of the evidence?
>
> > Why not start with murder rates that involve a firearm in the USA v
> > the rest of the civilized world where gun ownership is restricted? Are
> > you going to tell us there's no relationship there? Murder is a crime,
> > is it not?
>
> > "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels.
> > Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of
> > households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide
> > rate". - Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor
> > of Criminology - University of Ottawa
>
> > "The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
> > and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
> > - International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of
> > homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
>
> > Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
>
> > by Homicide/Suicide/Other (inc Accident)
>
> > USA (2001)         3.98 5.92    0.36
> > Italy (1997)    0.81 1.1    0.07
> > Switzerland (1998)0.50 5.8   0.10
> > Canada (2002)    0.4         2.0   0.04
> > Finland (2003)   0.35 4.45    0.10
> > Australia (2001)   0.24 1.34   0.10
> > France (2001)   0.21 3.4    0.49
> > England (2002) 0.15         0.2 0.03
> > Scotland (2002) 0.06         0.2 0.02
> > Japan (2002) 0.02         0.04 0
>
> > Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic.
> > Praeger Security International.  Westport.
>
> These results are biased.

As the saying goes, the truth has a liberal bias.

Why do you say the results are biased, Frank? Sounds like an
ideological position offered as received wisdom. Well, that doesn't
work outside of the RW echo chamber. Please provide statistics that
disprove those I provided...and see if you can cite a study not funded
by the NRA.

[Mark S]

On Jul 23, 4:59 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 4:41:19 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> > Independent. I should have known. You don't have the guts to take a
> > to shit or get off the pot. You prefer to sit safely in the middle, where you
> > can snipe at the people who have the guts to take a side never having to
> >take responsibility for what goes down politically.
>
> Of course, the above is a Stenroos-ism

And a good one, if I do say so myself.

[Frank Berger]

"laraine" <lara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:717aeded-3651-4222...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 22, 8:34 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 2:15 pm, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> her...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>> Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 20:41:13 UTC+2, Frank Berger a �crit :

It's legal to carry and own a real gun, so people do. They're more
dangerous to one's self and one's family than mace or a stun gun, but
they're also more effective against bad guys. It occurs to me that we are
not clamoring (at least most of us) for serious reductions in speed limits,
which would probably save more lives than restricting gun ownership.

[Frank Berger]

I explained the bias in the rest of my post that you cut. Go read it.

Sounds like an
> ideological position offered as received wisdom. Well, that doesn't
> work outside of the RW echo chamber. Please provide statistics that
> disprove those I provided...and see if you can cite a study not funded
> by the NRA.

I cited two pieces of research that you have chosen not to comment on.

[Frank Berger]

No it's just the typical ad hominem attack you invariably unleash when you
have nothing of substance to say. It would be SO interesting if you would
recognize this weakness in your character and resolve to overcome it. Then I
wouldn't have to scold you for it.

[Dufus]

>On Jul 23, 9:11 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  It occurs to me that we are
> not clamoring (at least most of us) for serious reductions in speed limits,
> which would probably save more lives than restricting gun ownership.

As would reducing fats in foods.No reason not to do all.
Of course, fats and cars were not designed primarily to kill. At least
not in a theatre.

Dufus

[Frank Berger]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by
pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting
it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical
fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

The most benign reason I can think of for engaging in ad hominem attacks
would be your own frustration in being able to "win" the argument. That
would be an explanation, of course, not a justification. A better course of
action when you're out of constructive things to say is to disengage from
the discussion. It doesn't mean you've lost the argument. It means you
were unable to convince the other guy, but have remained a gentleman. This
all goes for me too, of course. Now if you truly think all your opponents
are lying, scheming, disengenuous, gutless, stupid, evil scumbags, this
scold will fall on deaf ears.

[Frank Berger]

Dufus wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 9:11 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It occurs to me that we are
>> not clamoring (at least most of us) for serious reductions in speed
>> limits, which would probably save more lives than restricting gun
>> ownership.
>
> As would reducing fats in foods.No reason not to do all.

How low to you propose to lower speed limits? 50 MPH? 25 MPH? Wait, we
could outlaw cars altogether. People walking into each other rarely
produces a fatality.

[The Historian]

This is the 40th anniversary of Yellowstone's most infamous bear
fatality, one that almost changed the way the National Park Service
ran its parks. In June 1972 a couple of young men ignored the warning
literature and advice about bears and decided to camp illegally near
the hot springs. They kept a dirty campsite, and the expected
happened. The relatives of the young man who became the bear's supper
sued, claiming the NPS didn't take enough care to prevent the attack.
The relatives were lucky to get a judge who had it in for
environmentalists, and won damages. The judge's recommendations were
that the NPS track every bear with a radio collar and erect massive
fences around campgrounds and on trails, among other impracticalities.
The judgement was thrown out on appeal, with a different judge
presiding.

BTW, I recommend the entertaining book Death in Yellowstone, which is
the source of the above story. The chapter on bears is particularly
fun. However, IIRC the author claims more people have been killed by
the buffalo and by falling into hot springs.

[Mark S]

On Jul 23, 7:40 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The most benign reason I can think of for engaging in ad hominem attacks
> would be your own frustration in being able to "win" the argument.  That
> would be an explanation, of course, not a justification.

It's a decent explanation. There's nothing wrong with trying to win a
debate. Frustration has nothing to do with it.

A better course of
> action when you're out of constructive things to say is to disengage from
> the discussion.

Constructive things to say are in the eye of the beholder.

>It doesn't mean you've lost the argument.  It means you
> were unable to convince the other guy, but have remained a gentleman.

Remaining a gentleman is overrated in some instances.

>if you truly think all your opponents
> are lying, scheming, disengenuous, gutless, stupid, evil scumbags, this
> scold will fall on deaf ears.

I'd say that's true of the good opponents, ie: those who are good at
being opponents. Typically, such people have a deep conviction about
the position they're arguing for, so it's worth the effort to engage
them. That's different from your default position, which is to act as
a kind of disengaged, dispassionate theoretician who presents what
others may think about an issue, but seldom if ever reveals his own
beliefs. It comes off as being lukewarm, at best, and is not the kind
of thing that inspires one to think of you as being lying, scheming,
evil etc.

[Dufus]

>On Jul 23, 9:46 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How low to you propose to lower speed limits?  50 MPH?  25 MPH? Wait, we
> could outlaw cars altogether.  People walking into each other rarely
> produces a fatality.

YOU were the one who raised speed limit reductions as saving more
lives than gun control. I suggested we do both.

Frankly, a society without guns and without cars is an appealing
thought.

Right now I'm more concerned with loonies using guns to kill people
rather than loonies driving speeding cars to kill people.

Dufus

[Kip Williams]

Dufus wrote:

> Right now I'm more concerned with loonies using guns to kill people
> rather than loonies driving speeding cars to kill people.

The common element seems to be loonies. It's unfortunate that society
decided it couldn't afford to do all that much about the insane.
Warehousing them produced some horrific results, but ignoring them (for
reasons probably having more to do with cheapness) hasn't been a lot better.

There's a relatively small percentage that's truly harmful. Would that
we could start with those. The ones who are really a danger probably
should be kept separated from others somehow.


Kip W

[Dufus]

>On Jul 24, 7:34 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a relatively small percentage that's truly harmful. Would that
> we could start with those. The ones who are really a danger probably
> should be kept separated from others somehow.
>

But we can't identify many ahead of time , such as the Colorado
killer.Even he seemed somewhat " normal " . But he could buy many guns
and 4000 rounds of ammo, rights we need in order to keep America
safe , says the gun lobby.

Dufus

[Frank Berger]

Mark S wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:40 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The most benign reason I can think of for engaging in ad hominem
>> attacks would be your own frustration in being able to "win" the
>> argument. That would be an explanation, of course, not a
>> justification.
>
> It's a decent explanation. There's nothing wrong with trying to win a
> debate. Frustration has nothing to do with it.
>

You can't win a debate by calling people names. It's simply impossible.

> A better course of
>> action when you're out of constructive things to say is to disengage
>> from the discussion.
>
> Constructive things to say are in the eye of the beholder.
>

Call people names is never constructive.

>> It doesn't mean you've lost the argument. It means you
>> were unable to convince the other guy, but have remained a gentleman.
>
> Remaining a gentleman is overrated in some instances.
>

Rarely.

>> if you truly think all your opponents
>> are lying, scheming, disengenuous, gutless, stupid, evil scumbags,
>> this scold will fall on deaf ears.
>
> I'd say that's true of the good opponents, ie: those who are good at
> being opponents. Typically, such people have a deep conviction about
> the position they're arguing for, so it's worth the effort to engage
> them. That's different from your default position, which is to act as
> a kind of disengaged, dispassionate theoretician who presents what
> others may think about an issue, but seldom if ever reveals his own
> beliefs.

I often reveal my own beliefs, just not often enough to suit you, and not in
all circumstances. What right do you have to demand that I do? Since when
does every discussion have to be an exchange of opinions?

>It comes off as being lukewarm, at best, and is not the kind
> of thing that inspires one to think of you as being lying, scheming,
> evil etc.

We are what we are.

[Frank Berger]

Dufus wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 9:46 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How low to you propose to lower speed limits? 50 MPH? 25 MPH? Wait,
>> we could outlaw cars altogether. People walking into each other
>> rarely produces a fatality.
>
>
> YOU were the one who raised speed limit reductions as saving more
> lives than gun control. I suggested we do both.
>

I was being sarcastic. You weren't. If you really want to lower the speed
limit to save lives you must acually choose what the lower limit is. It's a
fair question.

> Frankly, a society without guns and without cars is an appealing
> thought.
>

Is there something to stop you from moving to a deserted island?

> Right now I'm more concerned with loonies using guns to kill people
> rather than loonies driving speeding cars to kill people.
>

You concern may be misplaced.

[John Wiser]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RvudnWVK0s_5OpPN...@supernews.com...

Frank is right. The current situation may
yet develop into a useful population control device.

JDW

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote:

> Your intent was ridicule. I don't care if it was in the form of humor.
> You've labeled the same behavior on my part passive-aggressive.
> ...
> You're the one whose whining.

Says the whiner.

I happened to see this in my list of posts and clicked on it. Guess
what! You're out of the killfile! Apparently, you love to whine, so I'll
just keep responding to your posts and pointing out what you are doing
in them. You can keep calling that whining or ridicule or whatever lets
you keep blinding yourself to your own actions.


Kip W

[Oscar]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:24:54 AM, Dufus wrote:
>
> Right now I'm more concerned with loonies using guns to kill people
> rather than loonies driving speeding cars to kill people.

Fortunate. Just got off the 110 Freeway after an exceptionally treacherous and dangerous nine mile morning commute, and I was driving defensively at 65 mph/104 kph. There's enough hardened gangbangers with ill-gotten guns within a five mile radius of where I live to staff a brigade http://tinyurl.com/d4clqj2 not forgetting all of the trigger-happy crooked LAPD cops, either — the infamous Rampart Division is less than two miles away http://tinyurl.com/de4hua But it's reckless drivers in this city that put me in real fear on a nearly daily basis.

[Gerard]

Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> typed:

Leave me out re that disgusting forever type.
He's obsessed by definition, and needs someone to piss on all the time.

[Gerard]

her...@yahoo.com <her...@yahoo.com> typed:
> Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 15:38:44 UTC+2, Frank Berger a �crit :
> > Dufus wrote:
> > &gt;&gt; On Jul 23, 3:57 am, her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > &gt;
> > &gt; We can either ban crazies, or ban guns. I&#39;d suggest the
> > latter would &gt; be easier, more effective.
> >
> > How are you going to get the guns away from the bad guys? Even if
> > you could
> > ban or severely restrict future sales, you couldn&#39;t do it.
> > You&#39;d be taking away the ability of the good guys to defend
> > themselves against the bad guys. It&#39;s senseless.
>
> the good guys with guns wear a uniform, and we call 'em the police.

Someting I've said a few times.
Probably Frank does not like the police. The reason he will mention is that he
does not like a (strong) government (with guns). "The market will solve the
problem". By making proftis out of selling guns, he thinks.

[JohnGavin]

What happens to those guns owned by "responsible, licensed gun owners' when they pass away? Are those guns required to be turned in? What if a responsible gun owner has, for example, drug addicted sons, or mentally ill children who know where those guns are kept, - what is to prevent them from getting their hands on those guns? Are these weapons floating around out there?

I also wonder what happens when the economy goes south, unemployment rises and general stress on the middle class increases.

The pro-gun argument just seems insane to me.

[laraine]

On Jul 23, 9:11 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "laraine" <larai...@gmail.com> wrote in message

If that is sarcasm, it sounds very serious!

And possibly you remember in the 70's US
the speed limit on fast roads was changed to
55 in order to increase fuel efficiency, another
reason, but by the 80's or so, it was changed
back.

Wonder if anyone did any studies/stats
on that.

Did a quick search, and it looks like
Bremen, Germany, could be going in that
direction right now.

C.

[Gerard]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> typed:

Of course _you_ are the nice person, the "good guy".

[Gerard]

JohnGavin <dag...@gmail.com> typed:

> What happens to those guns owned by "responsible, licensed gun
> owners' when they pass away? Are those guns required to be turned
> in? What if a responsible gun owner has, for example, drug addicted
> sons, or mentally ill children who know where those guns are kept, -
> what is to prevent them from getting their hands on those guns? Are
> these weapons floating around out there?

I don't know. I suppose that no one cares.
(Actually the guns should be buried with the owner.)

>
> I also wonder what happens when the economy goes south, unemployment
> rises and general stress on the middle class increases.

In general violence rises when the economy goes down (and vice versa).

>
> The pro-gun argument just seems insane to me.

That's what it is.