Pro-gunners in complete tailspin over factually correct claim
Phil Smythe
more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
by guns". Most informed observers would find little startling about
this claim, it's factually correct and well known.
Predictably though a number of rabid pro-gunners took aim at that
claim with accusations such as; "Well, no" - Bert Hyman, "BZZZT!
WRONG!" - Bama Brian, " Last year it was about 14K, not 30." - Demon
Buddha and "FALSE' - SaPelsMa.
At least one pro-gunner had the balls to admit the number was correct,
"Yep.....of course the majority of those are suicides" - RD. Of course
there was never any pretense that the number excluded anything. And
Jim Yanik couldn't fully escape the truth , "The dishonest anti-gun
folks need to include suicides to inflate their data." No Jim, what
happened was that nothing was included or excluded. "By guns" means by
guns, not by guns just in certain circumstances.
Quite a roll call there. And quite a lot of rubbish. Those three
deniers above are categorically wrong, and August's number is
certifiably correct. This can be verified at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html. There is no
dispute about it, in fact the 2006 figure (latest data) was 30,896.
That's definitive and can't be argued with.
Others knew damn well the number was correct, but were still unhappy,
claiming such such things as a "typical of the dishonest behavior of
gun grabbers. " - Klaus Schadenfreude and "disingenuous" - Scout.
Klaus in particular pushed the line that people would be confused by
August's straight forward statement. If you had kindergarten level
English, perhaps.
Boy, did August really touch a raw nerve, and in the process smoked
out a number of pro-gunners willing to outright lie to defend their
position. That is a sad reflection on them. Quite a few pro-gunners
thought it disingenuous that suicides were included, but when others
claimed the true figure was 14,000 ,and did not mention that suicides
had been excluded, there was nary a peep of protest from those
formerly aggrieved. Stunning hypocrisy!
betweentheeyes
news:ed26f95e-ec72-4425...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
> more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
> by guns".
"Tailspin", cute.
I'm guessing you meant:
Spin (flight), a rapid, high-rotation descent of an airplane caused through
asymmetric wing stall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailspin
Active, Accurate, On Point, Articulate are better characterizations.
Interesting how two people, one in the Southern Hemisphere,one in the
Northern Hemisphere have a different take on the same thread.
All my characterizations have positive connotations and your single
characterization is negative.
Interesting ...Your posts continue to build your identity and from this
Northern Hemisphere perspective, it isn't good.
slate_leeper
<smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
Typical (non-) logic. If it is "factually correct" then it is a fact,
not a claim.
But anyhow, the implication of posting this stand-alone fact is that
more firearms available to the public leads to more deaths.
This is very easily disproved.
Over the past two decades the number of firearms in the United States
has increased by 10's of millions (per BATF).
Over the past two decades the number of states issuing concealed-carry
licenses to any law-abiding citizen who requests one has ballooned to
40.
And yet over the past two decades, U.S. violent crime rates such as
homicide have dropped drastically to, in many areas, the lowest levels
ever recorded. (FBI, Justice Dept).
Then there are other countries - Jamaica, an isolated island nation
which allows NO firearms, consistently is in the top two for homicides
year after year. The usual top three (add South Africa and Columbia)
also have strict gun controls. In fact, looking at the latest figures
for intentional murders, the U.S. is 24th. Most of the top 23 have gun
controls stricter than those of the U.S.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Then there are other societies, such as totally gun-free maximum
security prisons, where obviously there is never any violent crime or
homicide....
Nope, saying there are xxx "gun deaths" in any particular country is
meaningless as far as being a fact from which you can draw a
conclusion about gun control.
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
>more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
>by guns".
And as I stated, it's typical gun-grabber sleight-of-hand. Most of
those are suicides.
Thanks for playing.
Jim Alder
74850e...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> Others knew damn well the number was correct, but were still unhappy,
> claiming such such things as a "typical of the dishonest behavior of
> gun grabbers. " - Klaus Schadenfreude and "disingenuous" - Scout.
> Klaus in particular pushed the line that people would be confused by
> August's straight forward statement. If you had kindergarten level
> English, perhaps.
The 30K number is useless, since it combines so many different
circumstances and pretends they are all bad, all preventable by taking guns
away. They are not. When you include a cop shooting back at a bad guy with two
gangbangers shooting at each other and some junkie blowing his own brains out,
your purpose it not education. You're just trying to shock the uninformed with
the biggest number you can make.
--
My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
sex behind my back?"
I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
edi...@netpath.net
underage girl has the right to kill her baby (by abortion) without
parental consent, why doesn't anyone also have the right to kill
themself? Doesn't "choice" work both ways? Or is "choice" only a
problem when a gun is involved - not an abortion clinic?
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Trevor Wilson
"slate_leeper" <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:6dq9i5dt8pbsmp9j7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:58:23 -0800 (PST), Phil Smythe
> <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
>
> Typical (non-) logic. If it is "factually correct" then it is a fact,
> not a claim.
>
> But anyhow, the implication of posting this stand-alone fact is that
> more firearms available to the public leads to more deaths.
**Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly policed and
just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more deaths. The number of
guns is not the issue. It never has been. It is the people who can easily
obtain those guns and their storage that is the problem.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Klaus Schadenfreude
RD (The Sandman)
news:7ol1frF...@mid.individual.net:
No, Trevor, the real implication is that out of those 30,000 more than
half of them were suicides. An arrangement that requires a willing
participant.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Too_Many_Tools
> On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
> more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
> by guns". Most informed observers would find little startling about
> this claim, it's factually correct and well known.
>
> Predictably though a number of rabid pro-gunners took aim at that
> claim with accusations such as; "Well, no" - Bert Hyman, "BZZZT!
> WRONG!" - Bama Brian, " Last year it was about 14K, not 30." - Demon
> Buddha and "FALSE' - SaPelsMa.
>
> At least one pro-gunner had the balls to admit the number was correct,
> "Yep.....of course the majority of those are suicides" - RD. Of course
> there was never any pretense that the number excluded anything. And
> Jim Yanik couldn't fully escape the truth , "The dishonest anti-gun
> folks need to include suicides to inflate their data." No Jim, what
> happened was that nothing was included or excluded. "By guns" means by
> guns, not by guns just in certain circumstances.
>
> Quite a roll call there. And quite a lot of rubbish. Those three
> deniers above are categorically wrong, and August's number is
> dispute about it, in fact the 2006 figure (latest data) was 30,896.
> That's definitive and can't be argued with.
>
> Others knew damn well the number was correct, but were still unhappy,
> claiming such such things as a "typical of the dishonest behavior of
> gun grabbers. " - Klaus Schadenfreude and "disingenuous" - Scout.
> Klaus in particular pushed the line that people would be confused by
> August's straight forward statement. If you had kindergarten level
> English, perhaps.
>
> Boy, did August really touch a raw nerve, and in the process smoked
> out a number of pro-gunners willing to outright lie to defend their
> position. That is a sad reflection on them. Quite a few pro-gunners
> thought it disingenuous that suicides were included, but when others
> claimed the true figure was 14,000 ,and did not mention that suicides
> had been excluded, there was nary a peep of protest from those
> formerly aggrieved. Stunning hypocrisy!
What do you expect from lying cowards who have nothing but a cheap gun
and a bullet they are saving for their overdue exit from this world?
TMT
Demon Buddha
> **Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly policed and
> just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more deaths. The number of
> guns is not the issue. It never has been. It is the people who can easily
> obtain those guns and their storage that is the problem.
Why do you care? You're in Oz and we are in the USA. You have your
comfy, "safe" little haven from the scary gun-people. Why do you give
the slightest damn about what happens here?
Trevor Wilson
"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
news:1uidnfVL9pAlE7jW...@giganews.com...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly policed
>> and just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more deaths. The number
>> of guns is not the issue. It never has been. It is the people who can
>> easily obtain those guns and their storage that is the problem.
>
> Why do you care?
**I care about the truth.
You're in Oz and we are in the USA.
**SOME of you are. This is an international group. It is not a solely
US-centric group.
You have your
> comfy, "safe" little haven from the scary gun-people.
**No, we do not. Some bad people have guns here too. Fortunately, thanks to
our sane, strong, well policed and homogeneous gun control laws, the vast
majority of low level criminals do not have guns and, thanks to madatory
storage laws, fewer guns are stolen.
Why do you give
> the slightest damn about what happens here?
**I care about the truth. And, this is an INTERNATIONAL group. I realise
that many, ignorant, Americans like to think that they control everything.
That is not the case. The non-ignorant Americans realise that they share
this planet with 6 billion others.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Scout
> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
> news:1uidnfVL9pAlE7jW...@giganews.com...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly
>>> policed and just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more
>>> deaths. The number of guns is not the issue. It never has been. It
>>> is the people who can easily obtain those guns and their storage
>>> that is the problem.
>>
>> Why do you care?
>
> **I care about the truth.
Bullshit.
Care to tell us about your friend who can stop his heart at will, or maybe
about how your local library has put John Lott's books in the Fiction
section.
Sorry, Trevor, but saying you care about the truth is nothing by an outright
lie easily proven by all the examples of where you show you don't care about
the truth.
Phil Smythe
<betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
> "Phil Smythe" <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ed26f95e-ec72-4425...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...> On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
> > more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
> > by guns".
>
> <snip>
>
> "Tailspin", cute.
>
> I'm guessing you meant:
> Spin (flight), a rapid, high-rotation descent of an airplane caused through
> asymmetric wing stallhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailspin
Bad guess. I was using a definition along the lines of; "A loss of
emotional control sometimes resulting in emotional collapse" -
thefreedictionary.com or "a state of rapidly increasing depression or
confusion" - yourdictionary.com. How you thought it related to an
airplane only you could explain.
>
> Active, Accurate, On Point, Articulate are better characterizations.
Wrong. Active? Is telling lies active? I suppose it could be
classified as such. When the factual figure is 30,000 claims like
14,000 are highly inaccurate. On Point? True, but getting the facts
about that point wrong doesn't really help. Those responses may have
been articulate (dubious), but that doesn't mean they were right. As
it turns out they were wrong, which sort of defeats the purpose of
being articulate. I understand the Unabomber was quite articulate
too.
>
> Interesting how two people, one in the Southern Hemisphere,one in the
> Northern Hemisphere have a different take on the same thread.
I doubt there's a hemispherical difference, like water spiralling down
a plug hole. I judged what was written from a viewpoint of accuracy;
August was right, his detractors were wrong. I would have thought
could only be one take on things like that.
>
> All my characterizations have positive connotations and your single
> characterization is negative.
What can I say, except it's hard to put a positive spin on patently
incorrect claims. Sugar coating it doesn't turn wrong into right.
>
> Interesting ...Your posts continue to build your identity and from this
> Northern Hemisphere perspective, it isn't good.
My posts highlighting false claims don't put me in a good light? I can
only conclude that those making that judgement would prefer false
claims to be accepted. That says a lot more about them than me.
Phil Smythe
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:58:23 -0800 (PST), Phil Smythe
>
> <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
> Typical (non-) logic. If it is "factually correct" then it is a fact,
> not a claim.
Mmm, English was not your strongest subject at school, was it? The
word "claim" is variously defined as "an assertion of something as a
fact" - dictionary.com, "to state as a fact or as one's belief" -
yourdictionary.com. I was pointing out that August's "claim" was
indeed factual, as opposed to those who "claimed" it wasn't. When
we've got two conflicting "claims", both can't be right.
>
> But anyhow, the implication of posting this stand-alone fact is that
> more firearms available to the public leads to more deaths.
>
> This is very easily disproved.
Nice topic switch SL. Appears you've forgotten what the subject of
this thread was, the "tailspin" of those incorrectly labelling a
verifiable statement wrong, remember?
Not surprising that your effort in this thread centers around 2
things; 1) grammar and 2) the "implication" of what August wrote,
while studiously avoiding the actual crux of the argument, ie why did
a group of pro-gunners lie when they wrote that the statement, "Every
year, more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed by
guns was "wrong", "well , no", "not 30", and "false".
Why is it you have no comment on that, but are prepared to go off on a
tangent about the "implication" of what he wrote? Surely the accuracy
of that claim needs to be established first before you could attempt
to delve into any perceived "implications".
So before I even look at your ramble below, I'd like to know where you
stand. I've given my position; August was correct and the likes of
Bert Hyman, Bama Brian, Demon Buddha ans SaPelsMa were categorically
wrong. What's your take on it?
>
> Over the past two decades the number of firearms in the United States
> has increased by 10's of millions (per BATF).
>
> Over the past two decades the number of states issuing concealed-carry
> licenses to any law-abiding citizen who requests one has ballooned to
> 40.
>
> And yet over the past two decades, U.S. violent crime rates such as
> homicide have dropped drastically to, in many areas, the lowest levels
> ever recorded. (FBI, Justice Dept).
>
> Then there are other countries - Jamaica, an isolated island nation
> which allows NO firearms, consistently is in the top two for homicides
> year after year. The usual top three (add South Africa and Columbia)
> also have strict gun controls. In fact, looking at the latest figures
> for intentional murders, the U.S. is 24th. Most of the top 23 have gun
> controls stricter than those of the U.S.http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca...
>
> Then there are other societies, such as totally gun-free maximum
> security prisons, where obviously there is never any violent crime or
> homicide....
>
> Nope, saying there are xxx "gun deaths" in any particular country is
> meaningless as far as being a fact from which you can draw a
> conclusion about gun control.
>
> Protect your civil rights!
> Let the politicians know how you feel.
> Join or donate to the NRA today!http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
Phil Smythe
> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in news:ed26f95e-ec72-4425-a214-
>
> > Others knew damn well the number was correct, but were still unhappy,
> > claiming such such things as a "typical of the dishonest behavior of
> > gun grabbers. " - Klaus Schadenfreude and "disingenuous" - Scout.
> > Klaus in particular pushed the line that people would be confused by
> > August's straight forward statement. If you had kindergarten level
> > English, perhaps.
>
> The 30K number is useless, since it combines so many different
> circumstances and pretends they are all bad, all preventable by taking guns
> away. They are not. When you include a cop shooting back at a bad guy with two
> gangbangers shooting at each other and some junkie blowing his own brains out,
> your purpose it not education. You're just trying to shock the uninformed with
> the biggest number you can make.
The 30K number is what it is. To paraphrase many pro-gunners, " Does
that mean those 16,000 suicides didn't die?".
Phil Smythe
About 16,000, haven't you read any of the other posts?
Phil Smythe
Telling the truth is "sleight-of-hand"? Maybe in the circles you mix,
but the rest of the adult population don't see it that way.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Dec 13, 10:35�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
>> >more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
>> >by guns".
>>
>> And as I stated, it's typical gun-grabber sleight-of-hand. Most of
>> those are suicides.
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
>
>Telling the truth is "sleight-of-hand"?
No, lying and being deliberately deceptive is sleight-of-hand.
Glad I could explain that to you.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>What do you expect from lying cowards
speaking of lying cowards, how have you been? Find Sunnyside terrace
yet?
___________
"I will be bringing the local cops with me to visit you so be sure you
have enough doughnuts for all of us. ;<)"
-Too Many Tools, 5/30/09
"Try posting your real address just once and I will
guarantee you a visit."
-Too Many Tools, 6/2/09, right before
he scrambled for excuses not to show up.
"Got a valid address yet winger?
I would like to arraign[sic] a visit for you."
-Too Many Tools, 6/19/09, still hoping
someone actually believes him.
"Give us a valid address and we can arraign a playdate with some
friends."
-Too Many Tools 7-1-2009 STILL trying to get
someone to believe him
"Show a picture of your mailbox then...with you in front of it. ;<)"
-Too Many Tools 7-2-2009 changing the conditions in
another desperate attempt to weasel out of visiting
"Provide the information and you will receive a visit."
-Too Many Tools, 9-16-2009, yet again making promises
he has no intention of keeping.
"Why don't you provide us with a valid name and address ...and we will
arrange a visit for you."
-Too Many Tools, 9-20-2009, yet *again* making promises
he has no intention of keeping.
Phil Smythe
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 13, 10:35 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
> >> >more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
> >> >by guns".
>
> >> And as I stated, it's typical gun-grabber sleight-of-hand. Most of
> >> those are suicides.
>
> >> Thanks for playing.
>
> >Telling the truth is "sleight-of-hand"?
>
> No, lying and being deliberately deceptive is sleight-of-hand.
I'm glad we finally agree on something, though why you'd want expose
yourself as guilty only you can explain.
>
> Glad I could explain that to you.
Thanks, I was wondering when you'd finally come clean and own up to
being the lying troll that you are.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Dec 14, 8:30�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 13, 10:35�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
>> >> >more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
>> >> >by guns".
>>
>> >> And as I stated, it's typical gun-grabber sleight-of-hand. Most of
>> >> those are suicides.
>>
>> >> Thanks for playing.
>>
>> >Telling the truth is "sleight-of-hand"?
>>
>> No, lying and being deliberately deceptive is sleight-of-hand.
>
>I'm glad we finally agree on something,
That you're deliberately deceptive? You're probably lying about
admitting that, too.
Phil Smythe
You've got to realise Klaus that cherry picking parts of a sentence
only paints you as a pathetic loser. But you've been humiliated that
many times it's probably water off a duck's back to you.
betweentheeyes
=====
One understands your anxiety on the issue. Your anxiety blinds you to
accept other perspectives and goes an additional step into the bounds of
claiming everyone else who doesn't accept your premise as truth, a liar.
Paranoia is a thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Dec 14, 9:13�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 14, 8:30�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 13, 10:35�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> >> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
>> >> >> >more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
>> >> >> >by guns".
>>
>> >> >> And as I stated, it's typical gun-grabber sleight-of-hand. Most of
>> >> >> those are suicides.
>>
>> >> >> Thanks for playing.
>>
>> >> >Telling the truth is "sleight-of-hand"?
>>
>> >> No, lying and being deliberately deceptive is sleight-of-hand.
>>
>> >I'm glad we finally agree on something,
>>
>> That you're deliberately deceptive? You're probably lying about
>> admitting that, too.
>
>You've got to realise Klaus that cherry picking parts of a sentence
is how I deal with trolls like you, Phil. When you come to the table
prepared to deceive like you do, you don't get treated with a whole
lotta respect.
No-bammer
> On August 8 a thread was started by August, who stated "Every year,
> more than 30 thousand people a year in the U.S. are killed
> by guns". Most informed observers would find little startling about
> this claim, it's factually correct and well known.
Whatever the correct number is, it goes way down if you subtract
niggers, spicks and illegal aliens.
Demon Buddha
> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
> news:1uidnfVL9pAlE7jW...@giganews.com...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly policed
>>> and just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more deaths. The number
>>> of guns is not the issue. It never has been. It is the people who can
>>> easily obtain those guns and their storage that is the problem.
>> Why do you care?
>
> **I care about the truth.
Then I suggest you show it.
> Why do you give
>> the slightest damn about what happens here?
>
> **I care about the truth.
You seem fond of saying that.
> And, this is an INTERNATIONAL group. I realise
> that many, ignorant, Americans like to think that they control everything.
I don't, I'm an American. What was that about "truth"?
> That is not the case. The non-ignorant Americans realise that they share
> this planet with 6 billion others.
What does that have to do with gun control in the USA?
>
>
Bama Brian
> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
> news:1uidnfVL9pAlE7jW...@giganews.com...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly policed
>>> and just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more deaths. The number
>>> of guns is not the issue. It never has been. It is the people who can
>>> easily obtain those guns and their storage that is the problem.
>> Why do you care?
>
> **I care about the truth.
>
> You're in Oz and we are in the USA.
>
> **SOME of you are. This is an international group. It is not a solely
> US-centric group.
Unfortunately for that logic, when August took on the US gun issue, he
did not deal with the rest of the world.
You want to deal with the world gun issue, Trevor, maybe you should
start with this, from www.Nationmaster.com :
Homicides with firearms
Rank Countries per capita
# 1 South Africa: 74.5748
# 2 Colombia: 51.7683
# 3 Thailand: 33.0016
# 4 Guatemala: 18.5
# 5 Paraguay: 7.3508
# 6 Zimbabwe: 4.746
# 7 Mexico: 3.6622
# 8 United States: 3.6
# 9 Belarus: 3.31
# 10 Barbados: 2.9963
# 11 Uruguay: 2.5172
# 12 Lithuania: 2.2463
# 13 Slovakia: 2.1659
# 14 C�te d'Ivoire: 2.068
# 15 Estonia: 1.534
# 16 Macedonia: 1.2802
# 17 Latvia: 1.2648
# 18 Portugal: 0.8488
# 19 Bulgaria: 0.7714
# 20 Slovenia: 0.6036
# 21 Germany: 0.4672
# 22 Moldova: 0.4671
# 23 Hungary: 0.44
# 24 Poland: 0.4289
# 25 Ukraine: 0.3495
# 26 Australia: 0.3073
# 27 Czech Republic: 0.2624
# 28 Spain: 0.2456
# 29 Azerbaijan: 0.2236
# 30 New Zealand: 0.1827
# 31 Chile: 0.1776
# 32 Singapore: 0.0249
>
> You have your
>> comfy, "safe" little haven from the scary gun-people.
>
> **No, we do not. Some bad people have guns here too. Fortunately, thanks to
> our sane, strong, well policed and homogeneous gun control laws, the vast
> majority of low level criminals do not have guns and, thanks to madatory
> storage laws, fewer guns are stolen.
You also have a population that even today is somewhere around 98
percent white, anglo-saxon, and protestant. A population that at its 20
million total is only 1/15th of the size of the US's. Indeed, it is
estimated that the US has as many illegal immigrants as Australia has
people! IOW, from a population standpoint, Aus is smaller than a number
of American states - and less important than any of them.
From my perspective, Australia's population appears to be afflicted
with what I call a Bantam Rooster complex; that is, because Aus is so
weak politically-wise and has so little to offer, that Australians feel
duty-bound to get into everyone else's face so that they may feel
important. Otherwise, they'd have nothing to crow about.
Geo-politically, Aus brings nothing to the table. It's a big country,
but because of its water problems, cannot colonize 90 percent of its
territory. Therefore, even some of the more crowded countries such as
China see little point in conquering it and exporting some of their
hundreds of millions of people.
But if one of the regional powers wanted to take over Aus, the action
would be over in a day. Two, tops.
>
> Why do you give
>> the slightest damn about what happens here?
>
> **I care about the truth. And, this is an INTERNATIONAL group. I realise
> that many, ignorant, Americans like to think that they control everything.
> That is not the case. The non-ignorant Americans realise that they share
> this planet with 6 billion others.
Maybe you should learn that acting as though YOU are an American; i.e.,
loud, unmannered, and uneducated (as you lot seem to think we US
citizens are) is not likely to make you any friends among those six
billion others.
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Jim Alder
9bc0a4...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
Thank you, Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
> To paraphrase many pro-gunners, "Does
> that mean those 16,000 suicides didn't die?".
I don't know what phrase you're paraphrasing, but the answer is no, it
means they probably would have died whether there were guns involved or not.
Billy Cox
We are ahead of Belarus?
WOO HOO!
Oh wait.. is that Justifiable homicide rates?
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>> news:1uidnfVL9pAlE7jW...@giganews.com...
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Nonsense. The implication is that the banal, hahazard, poorly
>>>> policed and just plain stupid US gun control laws lead to more
>>>> deaths. The number of guns is not the issue. It never has been. It
>>>> is the people who can easily obtain those guns and their storage
>>>> that is the problem.
>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> **I care about the truth.
>
> Then I suggest you show it.
**Done.
>
>> Why do you give
>>> the slightest damn about what happens here?
>>
>> **I care about the truth.
>
> You seem fond of saying that.
**Just stating the facts.
>
>> And, this is an INTERNATIONAL group. I realise
>> that many, ignorant, Americans like to think that they control
>> everything.
>
> I don't,
**It seems you do. Here are your (ignorant) words:
"You're in Oz and we are in the USA."
You did NOT say:
"You're in Oz and _I_ am in the USA."
Your words clearly indicated that you consider the group a US only group.
> I'm an American. What was that about "truth"?
**Clearly, you would not know the truth if it hit you in the face.
>
>> That is not the case. The non-ignorant Americans realise that they
>> share this planet with 6 billion others.
>
> What does that have to do with gun control in the USA?
**I was commenting on your ignorance. Nothing else.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**Indeed. Look at where the US stands in those ratings. Right up there with
a bunch of third word shit-holes. You find that something to be admired?
>
>>
>> You have your
>>> comfy, "safe" little haven from the scary gun-people.
>>
>> **No, we do not. Some bad people have guns here too. Fortunately,
>> thanks to our sane, strong, well policed and homogeneous gun control
>> laws, the vast majority of low level criminals do not have guns and,
>> thanks to madatory storage laws, fewer guns are stolen.
>
> You also have a population that even today is somewhere around 98
> percent white, anglo-saxon, and protestant.
**Prove it. Cite your data.
Here's my data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia
24% was born outside Australia.
25.8% are Roman Catholic
2.1% are Buddhist
1.7% are Muslim
0.4% are Jews
18.7% are atheist or agnostic.
Research your data, BEFORE you make an idiot of yourself in future.
A population that at its
> 20 million total is only 1/15th of the size of the US's. Indeed, it
> is estimated that the US has as many illegal immigrants as Australia
> has people! IOW, from a population standpoint, Aus is smaller than a
> number of American states - and less important than any of them.
**So? Australia is a more urbanised nation than the US.
>
> From my perspective, Australia's population appears to be afflicted
> with what I call a Bantam Rooster complex; that is, because Aus is so
> weak politically-wise and has so little to offer, that Australians
> feel duty-bound to get into everyone else's face so that they may feel
> important. Otherwise, they'd have nothing to crow about.
**Nonsense. Australia is far from perfect. We have our own problems. I do
feel duty-bound to correct the ignorance of others however.
>
> Geo-politically, Aus brings nothing to the table. It's a big country,
> but because of its water problems, cannot colonize 90 percent of its
> territory. Therefore, even some of the more crowded countries such as
> China see little point in conquering it and exporting some of their
> hundreds of millions of people.
>
> But if one of the regional powers wanted to take over Aus, the action
> would be over in a day. Two, tops.
**LOL! Which regional power do you imagine could do that (except China, of
course)? Invading Australia, without considerable resources would not be an
easy course. An overland attack from the North would be doomed to failure.
The only method would be an air or sea attack along the Eastern seaboard.
None of our neighbours could mount such an attack. Australia enjoys
considerable military superiority over it's immediate neighbours, with the
exception of China, of course. Our forces are numerically small, but are
well equipped and superbly trained. Doubt me? Ask any American who has
served with Australian forces.
>
>>
>> Why do you give
>>> the slightest damn about what happens here?
>>
>> **I care about the truth. And, this is an INTERNATIONAL group. I
>> realise that many, ignorant, Americans like to think that they
>> control everything. That is not the case. The non-ignorant Americans
>> realise that they share this planet with 6 billion others.
>
> Maybe you should learn that acting as though YOU are an American;
> i.e., loud, unmannered, and uneducated (as you lot seem to think we US
> citizens are) is not likely to make you any friends among those six
> billion others.
**And again: I was responding to the ignorant comments of a previous poster.
Sadly, I've been forced to correct your ignorance as well.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Tristan
There are many differences between countries, making direct comparisons
meaningless in most cases. The ant-gun types seem to want to have it
both ways: Say that the U.S. has a high homicide rate because of its gun
laws but disregard those countries that don't fit the pattern.
pyotr filipivich
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on or about Sun, 13 Dec
2009 21:40:59 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:
Trevor is convinced that just by mastering a few simple martial
art hand to hand combat techniques, one will never have to carry a
firearm, ever. Because he just knows an assailant will be able to
sneak up behind a person with a gun and bash them in the head, but
that will never happen to a Master of Hand to Hand Combat.
-
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Jim Yanik
news:aqjdi5p9o0vrg59n2...@4ax.com:
Trev is an idiot that believes a 90 lb woman can go hand-hand combat with a
200 lb man(or just doesn't care that they can't),and conveniently forgets
that many people aren't physically capable of any sort of hand-hand combat.
(and doesn't care about that,either.)
It's Cognitive Dissonance. He simply refuses to acknowledge the facts.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Phil Smythe
I'm not anxious in the slightest, what gave you that impression?And
it's not any "premise" of mine I'm promoting, it's the unadulterated
and verifiable truth. August wrote that 30,000 per year were killed by
guns and that's 100% correct. Check the CDC website if you're in
doubt.
>
> Paranoia is a thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
So it's paranoia that has driven all those pro-gunners to foam at the
mouth and dispute the verifiable truth? I agree that they are highly
fearful of the truth being told. And I have to agree with you, their
behaviour smacks of extreme paranoia. Good diagnosis.
Phil Smythe
You're a one trick pony Klaus, and it's not a very good trick.
Phil Smythe
> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in news:50566e32-ae53-4df1-9fbd-
> 9bc0a49ca...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 1:56 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> >> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in news:ed26f95e-ec72-4425-a214-
> >> 74850ef73...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Others knew damn well the number was correct, but were still unhappy,
> >> > claiming such such things as a "typical of the dishonest behavior of gun
> >> > grabbers. " - Klaus Schadenfreude and "disingenuous" - Scout. Klaus in
> >> > particular pushed the line that people would be confused by August's
> >> > straight forward statement. If you had kindergarten level English,
> perhaps.
>
> >> The 30K number is useless, since it combines so many different
> >> circumstances and pretends they are all bad, all preventable by taking guns
> >> away. They are not. When you include a cop shooting back at a bad guy with
> two
> >> gangbangers shooting at each other and some junkie blowing his own brains
> out,
> >> your purpose it not education. You're just trying to shock the uninformed
> with
> >> the biggest number you can make.
>
> > The 30K number is what it is.
>
> Thank you, Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
>
> > To paraphrase many pro-gunners, "Does
> > that mean those 16,000 suicides didn't die?".
>
> I don't know what phrase you're paraphrasing, but the answer is no, it
> means they probably would have died whether there were guns involved or not.
Don't tell you've heard a pro-gunning ranting that by only looking at
deaths involving guns it's as though the other deaths never occurred?
I didn't realise you were such a novice in this newsgroup.
Klaus Schadenfreude
It works well with trolls.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
I don't have a lot of experience reading pidgin English, so I'm not sure
what you're gibberish in the first sentence is supposed to mean, so I'll just
go with the second half of it and explain that when someone wants to commit
suicide, they will find a way whether there's a gun available or not.
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9CE26E44A22D8...@216.196.97.142:
Suicides don't count because they are VOLUNTARY and self-inflicted.
It's just a dishonest way of inflating the numbers to make his argument
look better.
Just like including adults 19-21 in the numbers of "children accidentally
killed by guns". Dishonest.
Jim Alder
216.168.3.44:
I know. That's what I meant when I said "The 30K number is useless, since
it combines so many different circumstances and pretends they are all bad, all
preventable by taking guns away."
> Just like including adults 19-21 in the numbers of "children accidentally
> killed by guns". Dishonest.
One of HCI's 'children' stats went to 25, IIR.
Blinky Bill
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE2A79F55056...@216.196.97.142...
"you're gibberish" ? - oh the irony.
>>> is supposed to mean, so
>>> I'll just go with the second half of it and explain that when someone
>>> wants to commit suicide, they will find a way whether there's a gun
>>> available or not.
>>>
>>
>> Suicides don't count because they are VOLUNTARY and self-inflicted.
It seems Phil was right - you guys actually believe that the people who
suicide with a gun aren't really dead - I'm glad you cleared that up.
>>
>> It's just a dishonest way of inflating the numbers to make his argument
>> look better.
I see - it is dishonest to include somebody who shoots themselves amongst
those who die of gunshot. I can't see the logic in that but undoubtedly you
can explain it to me.
>
> I know. That's what I meant when I said "The 30K number is useless,
> since
> it combines so many different circumstances and pretends they are all bad,
> ."
Of course it combines different circumstances - why shouldn't it? It is the
total number of deaths caused by firearms. Doubtless you can point out where
somebody wrote that gun deaths are "all preventable by taking guns away".
What's that? You can't? Then what you wrote is a strawman and just a
dishonest way of deflating the number of gun deaths.
>> Just like including adults 19-21...
You can try to change the subject by arguing about the definition of
children, but the meaning of the cause of death being a gunshot wound is
quite clearcut to me, and I suspect most reasonably intelligent people. It
is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun is not
a gun death.
Jim Alder
@pit-reader.telstra.net:
Oh, the melodrama. Even I can make a mistake once in a while. Try
diagramming the sentence I refer to. Now THAT is gibberish.
>>>> is supposed to mean, so
>>>> I'll just go with the second half of it and explain that when someone
>>>> wants to commit suicide, they will find a way whether there's a gun
>>>> available or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Suicides don't count because they are VOLUNTARY and self-inflicted.
>
> It seems Phil was right - you guys actually believe that the people who
> suicide with a gun aren't really dead - I'm glad you cleared that up.
No, but I thought I made it clear that they would be dead whether they had
a gun or not.
>>> It's just a dishonest way of inflating the numbers to make his argument
>>> look better.
>
> I see -
No, you really don't. But then, you aren't trying to.
> it is dishonest to include somebody who shoots themselves amongst
> those who die of gunshot. I can't see the logic in that but undoubtedly you
> can explain it to me.
At this point it's doubtful.
>> I know. That's what I meant when I said "The 30K number is useless,
>> since it combines so many different circumstances and pretends
>> they are all bad,"
>
> Of course it combines different circumstances - why shouldn't it?
Because it's disingenuous.
> It is the total number of deaths caused by firearms.
No deaths are caused by firearms.
> Doubtless you can point out where
> somebody wrote that gun deaths are "all preventable by taking guns away".
> What's that? You can't? Then what you wrote is a strawman and just a
> dishonest way of deflating the number of gun deaths.
>
>>> Just like including adults 19-21...
>
> You can try to change the subject by arguing about the definition of
> children, but the meaning of the cause of death being a gunshot wound is
> quite clearcut to me, and I suspect most reasonably intelligent people.
Now how would you know what reasonably intelligent people think?
> It
> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun is not
> a gun death.
So is the police shooting of a violent criminal or an old woman protecting
her life from one.
Blinky Bill
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142...
???? Where?
>Even I can make a mistake once in a while.
And what a shame you pounce on others who do that and brand a sentence with
a (possible) typo as gibberish.
> Try
> diagramming the sentence I refer to.
I don't really see your problem with it - it may be clearer to have inserted
"me" after "tell". And "diagramming" ???? WTF is that?
> Now THAT is gibberish.
As was the sentence you wrote.
>
>>>>> is supposed to mean, so
>>>>> I'll just go with the second half of it and explain that when someone
>>>>> wants to commit suicide, they will find a way whether there's a gun
>>>>> available or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suicides don't count because they are VOLUNTARY and self-inflicted.
>>
>> It seems Phil was right - you guys actually believe that the people who
>> suicide with a gun aren't really dead - I'm glad you cleared that up.
>
> No, but I thought I made it clear that they would be dead whether they
> had
> a gun or not.
That is an assertion you cannot prove. And of course if it is true then one
can further reduce firearm deaths by claiming that if a gun wasn't available
to commit murders, then the killer would have used something else anyway, so
firearm murders shouldn't be counted either. Eventually one could conclude
that there were no firearm deaths. Unfortunately reality intrudes into all
such fantasies.
>
>>>> It's just a dishonest way of inflating the numbers to make his argument
>>>> look better.
>>
>> I see -
>
> No, you really don't. But then, you aren't trying to.
I'm really trying to understand why you believe people who shoot themselves
shouldn't be counted amongst those whose death was caused by a firearm. So
far your argument seems to be that they shouldn't because you say they
shouldn't.
>
>> it is dishonest to include somebody who shoots themselves amongst
>> those who die of gunshot. I can't see the logic in that but undoubtedly
>> you
>> can explain it to me.
>
> At this point it's doubtful.
Ok so you doubt you can explain it - I'll accept that you doubt you can give
a logical explanation.
>
>>> I know. That's what I meant when I said "The 30K number is useless,
>>> since it combines so many different circumstances and pretends
>>> they are all bad,"
>>
>> Of course it combines different circumstances - why shouldn't it?
>
> Because it's disingenuous.
<sigh> What is disingenuous about including self-inflicted gun-shot deaths
in a count of deaths due to gunshot?
>
>> It is the total number of deaths caused by firearms.
>
> No deaths are caused by firearms.
And none are caused by blunt objects, knives or motor vehicles. Of course
they are caused by firearms.
"cause (plural causes)
The source or reason of an event or action"
The source of a bullet in gunshot death is a firearm.
<sigh> Are you just being stupid or do you think an attempt at diversion by
arguing semantics can help your case.
>
>> Doubtless you can point out where
>> somebody wrote that gun deaths are "all preventable by taking guns
>> away".
>> What's that? You can't? Then what you wrote is a strawman and just a
>> dishonest way of deflating the number of gun deaths.
>>
>>>> Just like including adults 19-21...
>>
>> You can try to change the subject by arguing about the definition of
>> children, but the meaning of the cause of death being a gunshot wound is
>> quite clearcut to me, and I suspect most reasonably intelligent people.
>
> Now how would you know what reasonably intelligent people think?
Let me see - where is the intelligence in claiming that people who shoot
themselves shouldn't be counted among people who died from being shot?
>
>> It
>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun is
>> not
>> a gun death.
>
> So is the police shooting of a violent criminal or an old woman
> protecting
> her life from one.
???? Gibberish - what are you trying to say?
Jim Yanik
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>> It
>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
>> is not a gun death.
the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
Suicide is VOLUNTARY and SELF-inflicted,their own choice.
and psych folks agree that if suicidal people can't use one method,they
pick another way to kill themselves.
Besides,many "gun deaths" are a GOOD thing.
every criminal killed in the commission of a crime is a good thing.
(or even merely wounded! it helps apprehend them.)
every lawful DGU is a GOOD thing.Even if the gun is not fired.
trying to dismiss non-fatal and non-firing DGU's is DISHONEST;
they STILL are valid DGU's;the threat turns and flees because a GUN was
produced by the intended victim;A crime stopped BEFORE anyone got hurt.
That IS a "good thing".
>
> So is the police shooting of a violent criminal or an old woman
> protecting
> her life from one.
>
--
Blinky Bill
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>
>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
>
>>> It
>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
>>> is not a gun death.
>
> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
people who died from gunshot?
> Suicide is VOLUNTARY and SELF-inflicted,their own choice.
So? The circumstances associated with a death due to gunshot are IRRELEVANT.
The process is simple - if death caused by firearm, add one to count.
> and psych folks agree that if suicidal people can't use one method,they
> pick another way to kill themselves.
And other psych folk claim exactly the opposite - that if a convenient
method is not readily available then the impulse may pass and no attempt is
made.
But if possible method substitution is a reason for excluding firearm
suicides, then one might also apply a similar "argument" to firearm homicide
and further reduce the death by gunshot by another 10,000 or so. After all,
if they can't kill their victim using one method, they can pick another.
>
>
> Besides,many "gun deaths" are a GOOD thing.
<snip> irrelevant rant
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
>news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>
>>
>>>> It
>>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
>>>> is not a gun death.
>>
>> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>
>Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
>people who died from gunshot?
Because suicide is means independent. They'll kill themselves whether
there's guns around or not.
In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
and emotional.
All tools in the gun-grabbers toolbox.
_____
"This is not the place to give time to the self defence debate.
Zimring and Hawkins have examined the arguments on the matter in their
book, A Citizens Guide to Gun Control. We know that in the US self
defence is a justified reason to own a gun. This is not the case in
Australia. One hopes that all Australian jurisdictions keep this as a
cornerstone of their gun control policies. The idea of the citizen as
police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=88
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e2hgi55c5g323mt8q...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>>>
>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It
>>>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
>>>>> is not a gun death.
>>>
>>> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>>
>>Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
>>people who died from gunshot?
>
> Because suicide is means independent.
> They'll kill themselves whether there's guns around or not.
Piffle - an assertion without proof. and also irrelevant - what is recorded
is the method actually used, not what might have been used in a parallel
universe
>
> In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
> about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
> and emotional.
Where did any poster do that? Constructing strawman and lying about what
other people have written is dishonest, irrelevant and emotional - just some
of the tools in the gunloons toolbox.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e2hgi55c5g323mt8q...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>>>>
>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
>>>>>> is not a gun death.
>>>>
>>>> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>>>
>>>Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
>>>people who died from gunshot?
>>
>> Because suicide is means independent.
>> They'll kill themselves whether there's guns around or not.
>
>Piffle - an assertion without proof. and also irrelevant - what is recorded
>is the method actually used, not what might have been used in a parallel
>universe
If you read for comprehension- which I know isn't your strong suit- I
never claimed it wasn't the method actually used.
>> In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
>> about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
>> and emotional.
>
>Where did any poster do that?
August and Phil Smythe in the last week. You need message ID's or are
you smart enough to locate them on your own?
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dqigi5l0e2r8atden...@4ax.com...
claimed you did that.
>
>>> In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
>>> about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
>>> and emotional.
>>
>>Where did any poster do that?
>
> August and Phil Smythe in the last week. You need message ID's
Yep, try reading for comprehension - that's why I asked "Where did any
poster do that?"
> or are
> you smart enough to locate them on your own?
I'm smart to ask you for your evidence, not to let you try to bluff your way
out of providing it.
Jim Alder
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
"Don't tell [me] you've heard a pro-gunning ranting that by only looking at
deaths involving guns it's as though the other deaths never occurred?"
Nope. That didn't help.
> And "diagramming" ???? WTF is that?
That was the sound of government schools taking another hit.
>> Now THAT is gibberish.
>
> As was the sentence you wrote.
I accidentally put "you're" in the place of "your" and that threw you into
befuddlement?
>>>>>> is supposed to mean, so
>>>>>> I'll just go with the second half of it and explain that when someone
>>>>>> wants to commit suicide, they will find a way whether there's a gun
>>>>>> available or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Suicides don't count because they are VOLUNTARY and self-inflicted.
>>>
>>> It seems Phil was right - you guys actually believe that the people who
>>> suicide with a gun aren't really dead - I'm glad you cleared that up.
>>
>> No, but I thought I made it clear that they would be dead whether they
>> had a gun or not.
>
> That is an assertion you cannot prove.
Prove it absolutely? No, I suppose not.
If we could magically make all guns disappear, would the number of suicides
decrease? Probably not. Excerpted from Dr. Gary Kleck's, Targeting Guns:
Firearms and Their Control (p 285, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997):
The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability
measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm
suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.
Of thirteen studies, nine found a significant association between gun
levels and rates of gun suicide, but only one found a significant association
between gun levels and rates of total suicides. The only study to find a
measure of "gun availability" significantly associated with total
suicide...used a measure of gun availability known to be invalid.
This pattern of results supports the view that where guns are less common,
there is complete substitution of other methods of suicide, and that, while
gun levels influence the choice of suicide method, they have no effect on the
number of people who die in suicides.
As further evidence that gun ownership is not correlated with total suicide
rates see international violent death rate table. For example, Japan, where
gun ownership is extremely low (less than 1% of households), total suicide is
higher than in a high-gun ownership country like the United State
> And of course if it is true then one
> can further reduce firearm deaths by claiming that if a gun wasn't available
> to commit murders, then the killer would have used something else anyway, so
> firearm murders shouldn't be counted either.
Now you're learning.
> Eventually one could conclude
> that there were no firearm deaths. Unfortunately reality intrudes into all
> such fantasies.
Except that is NOT the 'conclusion' we are trying to force into your clam-
like closed mind. The conclusion should be that inflating the number of deaths
in order to make a case for gun control is disingenuous, as such controls
would NOT create lower numbers of deaths, and would likely increase innocent
deaths of people who you have disarmed and were hence vulnerable to attack by
larger stronger criminals who would then not NEED a gun.
>>>>> It's just a dishonest way of inflating the numbers to make his argument
>>>>> look better.
>>>
>>> I see -
>>
>> No, you really don't. But then, you aren't trying to.
>
> I'm really trying to understand why you believe people who shoot themselves
> shouldn't be counted amongst those whose death was caused by a firearm. So
> far your argument seems to be that they shouldn't because you say they
> shouldn't.
If your exercise in doing so is practice in simple addition, then fine,
have at it. Our point is that you are adding apples to oranges and the
resulting figure signifies nothing.
>>> it is dishonest to include somebody who shoots themselves amongst
>>> those who die of gunshot. I can't see the logic in that but undoubtedly
>>> you can explain it to me.
>>
>> At this point it's doubtful.
>
> Ok so you doubt you can explain it - I'll accept that you doubt you can give
> a logical explanation.
I didn't say I couldn't explain it. In fact, I've already explained it
several ways. I said I doubted I could explain it to YOU.
>>>> I know. That's what I meant when I said "The 30K number is useless,
>>>> since it combines so many different circumstances and pretends
>>>> they are all bad,"
>>>
>>> Of course it combines different circumstances - why shouldn't it?
>>
>> Because it's disingenuous.
>
> <sigh> What is disingenuous about including self-inflicted gun-shot deaths
> in a count of deaths due to gunshot?
Because the person was not exhibiting his simple math skills, he was
pretending he was making a case for gun control.
>>> It is the total number of deaths caused by firearms.
>>
>> No deaths are caused by firearms.
>
> And none are caused by blunt objects, knives or motor vehicles. Of course
> they are caused by firearms.
>
>
> "cause (plural causes)
>
> The source or reason of an event or action"
>
> The source of a bullet in gunshot death is a firearm.
>
> <sigh> Are you just being stupid or do you think an attempt at diversion by
> arguing semantics can help your case.
Nothing else is working.
>>> Doubtless you can point out where
>>> somebody wrote that gun deaths are "all preventable by taking guns
>>> away". What's that? You can't? Then what you wrote is a strawman and
>>> just a dishonest way of deflating the number of gun deaths.
>>>
>>>>> Just like including adults 19-21...
>>>
>>> You can try to change the subject by arguing about the definition of
>>> children, but the meaning of the cause of death being a gunshot wound is
>>> quite clearcut to me, and I suspect most reasonably intelligent people.
>>
>> Now how would you know what reasonably intelligent people think?
>
> Let me see - where is the intelligence in claiming that people who shoot
> themselves shouldn't be counted among people who died from being shot?
See? I've explained that several times and you keep asking it.
Are you the one being deliberately stupid?
>>> It
>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun is
>>> not a gun death.
>>
>> So is the police shooting of a violent criminal or an old woman
>> protecting her life from one.
>
> ???? Gibberish - what are you trying to say?
I'm not TRYING to say anything. I feel fairly certain that you are the
only one that is too dense to see what I am saying.
Blinky Bill
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE31EBAA706B...@216.196.97.142...
I doubt anything I can do will help, but try
"Don't tell me you've never heard a pro-gunner ranting that by only looking
at
deaths involving guns it's as though the other deaths never occurred".
That is a regular lament by some gunloons who complain that the sane people
posting here don't discuss homicides by other means.
>
>> And "diagramming" ???? WTF is that?
>
> That was the sound of government schools taking another hit.
Ah - you were educated in a government school - that explains a lot.
>
>>> Now THAT is gibberish.
>>
>> As was the sentence you wrote.
>
> I accidentally put "you're" in the place of "your" and that threw you
> into
> befuddlement?
No - but what was written was gibberish. Apparently being somewhat more
intelligent than you I could interpret what you intended to write.
>
>>>>>>> is supposed to mean, so
>>>>>>> I'll just go with the second half of it and explain that when
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> wants to commit suicide, they will find a way whether there's a gun
>>>>>>> available or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suicides don't count because they are VOLUNTARY and self-inflicted.
>>>>
>>>> It seems Phil was right - you guys actually believe that the people who
>>>> suicide with a gun aren't really dead - I'm glad you cleared that up.
>>>
>>> No, but I thought I made it clear that they would be dead whether
>>> they
>>> had a gun or not.
>>
>> That is an assertion you cannot prove.
>
> Prove it absolutely? No, I suppose not.
>
> If we could magically make all guns disappear, would the number of
> suicides
> decrease?
Probably.
> Probably not. Excerpted from Dr. Gary Kleck's, Targeting Guns:
> Firearms and Their Control (p 285, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York
> 1997):
>
> The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability
> measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm
> suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.
And other studies have reached the opposite conclusion.
"The research in Canada supports the significant effect of C-51 in reducing
suicides and firearm suicides, even if one controls for socioeconomic
factors, although not equally for all ages. The young, a high-risk group,
show the most significant decrease, without significant substitution of
other methods (displacement). Studies on gun-control laws from New Zealand,
the United States, and Australia support the Canadian findings. It is
concluded that, although not equally applicable in all countries, gun
control may well have significant applications in reducing suicide
worldwide."
>
> As further evidence that gun ownership is not correlated with total
> suicide
> rates see international violent death rate table. For example, Japan,
<snip>
Totally irrelevant to a discussion of method substitution if guns
disappeared.
>
>> And of course if it is true then one
>> can further reduce firearm deaths by claiming that if a gun wasn't
>> available
>> to commit murders, then the killer would have used something else anyway,
>> so
>> firearm murders shouldn't be counted either.
>
> Now you're learning.
Indeed - you gunloons would eventually claim that no deaths were caused by
firearms.
>
>> Eventually one could conclude
>> that there were no firearm deaths. Unfortunately reality intrudes into
>> all
>> such fantasies.
>
> Except that is NOT the 'conclusion' we are trying to force into your
> clam-
> like closed mind.
I didn't say it was - that was the logical extension of fiddling the numbers
by removing some gunshot deaths from the count of people who died from
gunshot.
> The conclusion should be that inflating the number of deaths
The number of deaths is not being inflated - everybody included in the
number was killed by a firearm.
> in order to make a case for gun control is disingenuous,
You keep repeating that mantra, but decline to explain what is disingenuous
about including all firearm deaths in a count of firearm deaths. Do you
actually know what disingenuous means?
<snip rant> try to stay focussed on why you think we should doctor the
number of people killed by firearms.
>>>>>> It's just a dishonest way of inflating the numbers to make his
>>>>>> argument
>>>>>> look better.
>>>>
>>>> I see -
>>>
>>> No, you really don't. But then, you aren't trying to.
>>
>> I'm really trying to understand why you believe people who shoot
>> themselves
>> shouldn't be counted amongst those whose death was caused by a firearm.
>> So
>> far your argument seems to be that they shouldn't because you say they
>> shouldn't.
>
> If your exercise in doing so is practice in simple addition, then
> fine,
> have at it.
It is a simple process - when a death is reported as due to firearms, add
one to count of number of people killed by firearm. It is not just me who
believes the process should be conducted in that way. Apparently the CDC
and other organisations think that is the way to do things.
Even the NRA says "In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire..."
It is only you gunloons who disingenuously want to doctor and fiddle the
numbers.
> Our point is that you are adding apples to oranges and the
> resulting figure signifies nothing.
No - I'm adding people killed by firearm to people killed by firearm. There
is nothing disingenuous about that. In fact it is so candid and
non-deceptive that it gives the actual number of people killed by firearms.
What you are proposing doesn't.
>
>>>> it is dishonest to include somebody who shoots themselves amongst
>>>> those who die of gunshot. I can't see the logic in that but undoubtedly
>>>> you can explain it to me.
>>>
>>> At this point it's doubtful.
>>
>> Ok so you doubt you can explain it - I'll accept that you doubt you can
>> give
>> a logical explanation.
>
> I didn't say I couldn't explain it. In fact, I've already explained it
> several ways. I said I doubted I could explain it to YOU.
Indeed - only gunloons seem to be able to understand why some deaths from
gunshot should not be included in the total number of deaths from gunshot.
>
>>>>> I know. That's what I meant when I said "The 30K number is useless,
>>>>> since it combines so many different circumstances and pretends
>>>>> they are all bad,"
>>>>
>>>> Of course it combines different circumstances - why shouldn't it?
>>>
>>> Because it's disingenuous.
>>
>> <sigh> What is disingenuous about including self-inflicted gun-shot
>> deaths
>> in a count of deaths due to gunshot?
>
> Because the person was not exhibiting his simple math skills, he was
> pretending he was making a case for gun control.
That is not an explanation of what was disingenuous about including all gun
deaths in the total number of gun deaths.
I cannot see anything "deceptive" or "not candid" about wanting to include
all firearm deaths in a count of firearm deaths. In fact it is you and other
gun loons who are being "disingenuous" for wanting to doctor the figures.
>
>>>> It is the total number of deaths caused by firearms.
>>>
>>> No deaths are caused by firearms.
>>
>> And none are caused by blunt objects, knives or motor vehicles. Of course
>> they are caused by firearms.
>>
>>
>> "cause (plural causes)
>>
>> The source or reason of an event or action"
>>
>> The source of a bullet in gunshot death is a firearm.
>>
>> <sigh> Are you just being stupid or do you think an attempt at diversion
>> by
>> arguing semantics can help your case.
>
> Nothing else is working.
Including your brain apparently, but I'm used to that with gunloons.
>
>>>> Doubtless you can point out where
>>>> somebody wrote that gun deaths are "all preventable by taking guns
>>>> away". What's that? You can't? Then what you wrote is a strawman and
>>>> just a dishonest way of deflating the number of gun deaths.
>>>>
>>>>>> Just like including adults 19-21...
>>>>
>>>> You can try to change the subject by arguing about the definition of
>>>> children, but the meaning of the cause of death being a gunshot wound
>>>> is
>>>> quite clearcut to me, and I suspect most reasonably intelligent people.
>>>
>>> Now how would you know what reasonably intelligent people think?
>>
>> Let me see - where is the intelligence in claiming that people who shoot
>> themselves shouldn't be counted among people who died from being shot?
>
> See? I've explained that several times and you keep asking it.
You claim it is disingenuous ie it is deceptive or not candid to include all
firearm deaths in a count of firearm deaths. What is deceptive about that?
Doctoring the numbers as you want would be disingenuous - you haven't
explained what is disingenuous (deceptive or not candid) about accurately
recording the number of firearm deaths.
>
> Are you the one being deliberately stupid?
I genuinely cannot see what is disingenuous about accurately recording all
firearm deaths - I cannot see why you think that makes me "deliberately
stupid". I guess you are used to fudging results and regard those who don't
as stupid.
>
>>>> It
>>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun is
>>>> not a gun death.
>>>
>>> So is the police shooting of a violent criminal or an old woman
>>> protecting her life from one.
>>
>> ???? Gibberish - what are you trying to say?
>
> I'm not TRYING to say anything.
You certainly are, but unsuccessfully. Why don't you try again.
> I feel fairly certain that you are the
> only one that is too dense to see what I am saying.
Then humour me and try paraphrasing it into an intelligible sentence that
has some bearing on the previous sentence.
Phil Smythe
Here's some findings from the Harvard School of Public Health written
in standard English, hopefully you can fully comprehend what they say,
because they seem to contradict you.
Some of their key findings are "The preponderance of current evidence
indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in
the United States. The evidence that gun availability increases the
suicide rates of adults is credible, but is currently less
compelling.", "people in states with many guns have elevated rates of
suicide, particularly firearm suicide", "States with higher levels of
household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and
overall suicide.", "states with more guns had higher rates of
suicide", "Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide
rates across all age groups", etc,etc.
SUICIDE
7-8. Guns and suicide (literature review).
We performed reviews of the academic literature on the effects of gun
availability on suicide rates.
Major findings: The preponderance of current evidence indicates that
gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United
States. The evidence that gun availability increases the suicide
rates of adults is credible, but is currently less compelling. Most
of the disaggregate findings of particular studies (e.g. handguns are
more of a risk factor than long guns, guns stored unlocked pose a
greater risk than guns stored locked) are suggestive but not yet well
established.
Publication: Miller, Matt; Hemenway, David. "The Relationship between
Firearms and Suicide: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and
Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 1999; 4:59-75.
Publication: Miller, Matt; Hemenway, David. "Gun Prevalence and the
Risk of Suicide: A Review." Harvard Health Policy Review. 2001;
2:29-37.
9. Gun availability and state suicide rates, 1988-1997 (cross
sectional analysis)
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership rates, we analyzed the
relationship between firearm availability and suicide across 50 states
over a ten year period.
Major findings: After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for
every age group, across the United States, people in states with many
guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David.
"Household Firearm Ownership Levels and Suicide across U.S. Regions
and States, 1988-1997." Epidemiology. 2002; 13:517-524.
10. Gun availability and state suicide rates, 1999-2001 (cross
sectional analysis)Using survey data on rates of household gun
ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and
suicide across states, 1999-2001.
Major findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership
had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This
relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained
true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.
There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm
suicide. Publication: Miller, Matthew; Lippmann, Steven; Azrael,
Deborah; Hemenway, David. "Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of
Suicide across U.S. States." Journal of Trauma. 2007; 62:1029-35.
11. Gun availability and state suicide rates, 1981-2001 (time series
analysis)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the
association between gun availability and suicide over time, 1981-2001.
Major findings: Changes in the levels of household firearm gun
ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm
suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after
controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty.
There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes
in non-firearm suicide.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hepburn, Lisa;
Hemenway, David; Lippman, Steven. "The Association between Changes in
Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide in the United States,
1981-2002." Injury Prevention. 2006; 12:178-82.
12-13. Gun availability and suicide in the Northeast
We analyzed data on suicide and suicide attempts for states in the
Northeast
Major findings: Even after controlling for rates of attempted
suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide. Case
fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug
overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted
suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm
suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah.
"Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast" Journal of Trauma. 2004;
57:626-632.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. "The
Epidemiology of Case Fatality Rates for Suicide in the Northeast."
Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30.
14-15. Gun availability and regional suicide rates (cross sectional
analysis)
We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among
differing age groups across the 9 US regions.
Major findings: Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with
suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for
lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts. After
controlling for divorce, education, unemployment, poverty and
urbanization, the statistically significant relationship holds for 15
to 24 year olds and 45 to 84 year olds, but not for 25 to 44 year
olds.
Publication: Birckmayer, Johanna; Hemenway, David. "Suicide and Gun
Prevalence: Are Youth Disproportionately Affected?" Suicide and Life
Threatening Behavior. 2001; 31:303-310.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. "The Association of
Rates of Household Handgun Ownership, Lifetime Major Depression and
Serious Suicidal Thoughts with Rates of Suicide across US Census
Regions." Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:313-16.
16. Suicide following homicide
We analyzed characteristics of homicides that were followed by suicide
and by suicide attempts using data from multiple sites.
Major finding: Fifty-nine percent of the men who killed a female
intimate partner with a firearm also took their own life.
Publication: Barber, Catherine W; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David;
Olson, Lenora M.; Nie, C; Schaechter, Judy; Walsh, Sabrina. Suicides
and suicide attempts following homicide: Victim-suspect relationship,
weapon type, and presence of antidepressants. Homicide Studies. 2008;
12:285-97.
17. Summary of the literature on guns and suicide.
This commentary summarized the literature that shows that firearms in
the home increase the likelihood of completed suicide, and argued for
increased involvement of physicians in recognizing and helping to
reduce the problem.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. Guns and suicide in
the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;
359:989-991.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Phil Smythe
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
> >> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
> >>> "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote...
The missing word was "not", as in "Don't tell me you've not heard a
pro-gunning ranting that by only looking at deaths involving guns it's
as though the other deaths never occurred?" Pro-gunners regularly
accuse anyone looking at gun involvement in murder of essentially
pretending anyone killed by any other means didn't actually die.
Examples available on request.
Phil Smythe
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
> >>news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>
> >>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> >>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
> >>>> It
> >>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
> >>>> is not a gun death.
>
> >> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>
> >Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
> >people who died from gunshot?
>
> Because suicide is means independent. They'll kill themselves whether
> there's guns around or not.
Sorry Klaus, but the Harvard School of Public Health doesn't agree
with you. Should I believe them or you?
Phil Smythe
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:e2hgi55c5g323mt8q...@4ax.com...
> >> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> >>>news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
> >>>>news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>
> >>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
> >>>>>> It
> >>>>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
> >>>>>> is not a gun death.
>
> >>>> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>
> >>>Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
> >>>people who died from gunshot?
>
> >> Because suicide is means independent.
> >> They'll kill themselves whether there's guns around or not.
>
> >Piffle - an assertion without proof. and also irrelevant - what is recorded
> >is the method actually used, not what might have been used in a parallel
> >universe
>
> If you read for comprehension- which I know isn't your strong suit- I
> never claimed it wasn't the method actually used.
>
> >> In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
> >> about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
> >> and emotional.
>
> >Where did any poster do that?
>
> August and Phil Smythe in the last week. You need message ID's or are
> you smart enough to locate them on your own?
Problem with Klaus, as I've stated many, many times, is that all you
can do is accuse, you always fail to back up those accusations with
actual evidence. Your rant above is exhibit A, without evidence and a
lie.
Phil Smythe
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dqigi5l0e2r8atden...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:e2hgi55c5g323mt8q...@4ax.com...
> >>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> >>>>news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
C'mon Bill, you don't expect Klaus to actually back up his claims do
you? He's made a living out of accusations that he never backs up with
evidence. Why would he change his stripes now?
He got particularly peeved with me when I provided verifiable evidence
to support August's claim. I'm not sure what angered him most; that
August's claim was 100% correct or that somebody used verifiable
evidence to support it.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Then why did you mention it?
> If you read for comprehension- which I know isn't your strong suit- I never
>claimed you did that.
>
>>
>>>> In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
>>>> about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
>>>> and emotional.
>>>
>>>Where did any poster do that?
>>
>> August and Phil Smythe in the last week. You need message ID's
>
>Yep, try reading for comprehension - that's why I asked "Where did any
>poster do that?"
Apparently comprehension is not your strong suit.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Problem with trolls like you and Blinky, is that I don't need to.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Dec 16, 10:26�am, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
>> >> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote in
>> >>news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>> >>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>> >>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>
>> >>>> It
>> >>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
>> >>>> is not a gun death.
>>
>> >> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>>
>> >Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
>> >people who died from gunshot?
>>
>> Because suicide is means independent. They'll kill themselves whether
>> there's guns around or not.
>
>Sorry Klaus, but the Harvard School of Public Health doesn't agree
>with you. Should I believe them or you?
You should believe me.
Japan has one of the world's highest suicide rates, gun use is rare.
Phil Smythe
It probably does, but not with me.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ishhi511virv6lgjb...@4ax.com...
You wrote that so you are talking to yourself - try to keep up klueless.
Perhaps I should just let you continue your conversation with yourself
ROTFLMAO
>
>
>> If you read for comprehension- which I know isn't your strong suit- I
>> never
>>claimed you did that.
>>
>>>
>>>>> In other words, screaming about "gun deaths! We've got to do something
>>>>> about the guns!" and then including suicides is dishonest, irrelevant,
>>>>> and emotional.
>>>>
>>>>Where did any poster do that?
>>>
>>> August and Phil Smythe in the last week. You need message ID's
>>
>>Yep, try reading for comprehension - that's why I asked "Where did any
>>poster do that?"
>
> Apparently comprehension is not your strong suit.
And clearly providing evidence for your claims obviously isn't yours.
Klaus Schadenfreude
It does. Drives you guys nuts.
Klaus Schadenfreude
No, you just have the reading comprehension of a chipmunk, so its hard
for you to keep up.
Phil Smythe
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 16, 10:26 am, Klaus Schadenfreude
> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> >> >news:Xns9CE2D3EC8EC2C...@216.168.3.44...
> >> >> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:Xns9CE2C8E28BC15...@216.196.97.142:
>
> >> >>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> >> >>> news:4b28110a$0$32072$c30e37c6 @pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
> >> >>>> It
> >> >>>> is only the stupid or dishonest who try to argue that suicide by gun
> >> >>>> is not a gun death.
>
> >> >> the main beef is that it's NOT RELEVANT.
>
> >> >Why isn't a death due to self-inflicted gunshot not relevant to a count of
> >> >people who died from gunshot?
>
> >> Because suicide is means independent. They'll kill themselves whether
> >> there's guns around or not.
>
> >Sorry Klaus, but the Harvard School of Public Health doesn't agree
> >with you. Should I believe them or you?
>
> You should believe me.
No thanks, I think Harvard get the nod. I've not noticed then lying at
virtually every opportunity like you.
>
> Japan has one of the world's highest suicide rates, gun use is rare.
Luckily Japan has low levels of gun ownership which combined with
their cultural history and acceptance of suicide as something
honourable has probably kept their rate lower than it might be.
And Klaus what will your fellow pro-gunners say now that broken the
cardinal rule, attempting to compare nations? That's sin number one in
their eyes, so expect them to come down hard on you (unless of course
they are massive hypocrites).
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ufihi5du7bc73ab48...@4ax.com...
Obviously I can read and comprehend attributions that you clearly can't
read or comprehend LMAO
Klaus Schadenfreude
Of course you do. Because that's what you want so desperately to
believe.
Klaus Schadenfreude
No, it's not obvious at all.
Phil Smythe
Sorry, Klaus, but it goes over like a lead balloon. In fact it's a
source of great mirth. Sure, it's repetitive and never changes, but
that's the beauty of your fact-free rants, the mind-numbing stupidity
of thinking you're actually fooling anyone. You just can't help but
laugh!
Klaus Schadenfreude
>> >> It works well with trolls.
>>
>> >It probably does,
>>
>> It does. Drives you guys nuts.
>
>Sorry, Klaus, but it goes over like a lead balloon.
[chuckle]
Riiiiiiiiiight, Phil.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1tihi5p6b4gdhlqvk...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> No, you just have the reading comprehension of a chipmunk, so its hard
>>> for you to keep up.
From Kluless who wanted an explanation from himself of what he wrote.
ROTFLMAO
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1tihi5p6b4gdhlqvk...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, you just have the reading comprehension of a chipmunk, so its hard
>>>> for you to keep up.
>
>From
Blinky, who has enough trouble finding his nuts.
_____
"So far all I've needed is a keyboard, but if pushed I may choose
something else, like the shopkeeper did."
-Blinky Bill admits he'd choose
gun as the most effective
means of self defense, if only his government
would allow it.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ckjhi5dihskiaab7a...@4ax.com...
"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
Klaus sees the light
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ckjhi5dihskiaab7a...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1tihi5p6b4gdhlqvk...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No, you just have the reading comprehension of a chipmunk, so its hard
>>>>> for you to keep up.
>>
>>From
>
> Blinky, who has enough trouble finding his nuts.
And Klaus who hasn't got any ROTFLMAO
>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
Klueless Klaus sees the light
Klaus Schadenfreude
Klaus Schadenfreude
>>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
>
>Klueless Klaus sees the light
Blinky sees the light....
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iakhi5dvd0nl56etl...@4ax.com...
obvious truth. Here it is again.
>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous." -
>Kluless Klaus
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0dkhi554o6ls4dsc1...@4ax.com...
>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
Kluless sees the light
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:iakhi5dvd0nl56etl...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ckjhi5dihskiaab7a...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
>>>
>>>Klaus sees the light
>>
>> Blinky repeats the
>
>obvious
lies, then reveals that he really wishes he had a gun.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0dkhi554o6ls4dsc1...@4ax.com...
>
>>"
_____
"So far all I've needed is a keyboard, but if pushed I may choose
something else, like the shopkeeper did."
-Blinky Bill admits he'd choose
gun as the most effective
means of self defense, if only his government
would allow it.
>
>Kluless sees the light
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rblhi55vjlnlgdt1r...@4ax.com...
Klaus Schadenfreude
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dalhi51mfukvv49mg...@4ax.com...
>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
Kluless sees the light
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pqlhi550n4eascrab...@4ax.com...
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dalhi51mfukvv49mg...@4ax.com...
>
"So far all I've needed is a keyboard, but if pushed I may choose
something else, like the shopkeeper did."
-Blinky Bill admits he'd choose
gun as the most effective
means of self defense, if only his government
would allow it.
Blinky wants a gun.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
> Blinky wants a gun.
Blinky has several - kluless hasn't - rotflmao
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kemhi5l98q89nbr3q...@4ax.com...
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
>
>> Blinky wants a gun.
>
>Blinky has several - kluless hasn't - rotflmao
Blinky wishes his government would let him have a gun for self
defense.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:prmhi59lt39p97ian...@4ax.com...
Blinky can use any of his guns for self defence. Kluless wishes his
government would let him have a gun for any reason at all . ROTFLMAO
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ssmhi5hda7h8etiem...@4ax.com...
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:prmhi59lt39p97ian...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Blinky wants a gun.
>>>
>>>Blinky has several - kluless hasn't - rotflmao
>>
>> Blinky wishes his government would let him have a gun for self
>> defense.
>
>Blinky can use any of his guns for self defence.
LOL. Your government doesn't believe in using guns for self defense.
You'd probably go straight to jail. And you certainly can't BUY one
for self defense. You don't have that right.
_____
"This is not the place to give time to the self defence debate.
Zimring and Hawkins have examined the arguments on the matter in their
book, A Citizens Guide to Gun Control.4 We know that in the US self
defence is a justified reason to own a gun. This is not the case in
Australia. One hopes that all Australian jurisdictions keep this as a
cornerstone of their gun control policies. The idea of the citizen as
police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ssmhi5hda7h8etiem...@4ax.com...
_____
"This is not the place to give time to the self defence debate.
Zimring and Hawkins have examined the arguments on the matter in their
book, A Citizens Guide to Gun Control.4 We know that in the US self
defence is a justified reason to own a gun. This is not the case in
Australia. One hopes that all Australian jurisdictions keep this as a
cornerstone of their gun control policies. The idea of the citizen as
police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=88
> Kluless sees the light
Australians need to call the police if they're in trouble. You're not
trusted to defend yourself.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fhnhi5psd4cfgtkhh...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:prmhi59lt39p97ian...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Blinky wants a gun.
>>>>
>>>>Blinky has several - kluless hasn't - rotflmao
>>>
>>> Blinky wishes his government would let him have a gun for self
>>> defense.
>>
>>Blinky can use any of his guns for self defence.
>
> LOL. Your government doesn't believe in using guns for self defense.
???? That's news to me.
> You'd probably go straight to jail.
That hasn't happened to anybody yet - or can you provide some examples? I
thought not - you aren't well acquainted with facts and evidence, are you
kluless.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjnhi59p1b1k109gf...@4ax.com...
>"The idea of the citizen as police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
Kluless sees the light
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fhnhi5psd4cfgtkhh...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:prmhi59lt39p97ian...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blinky wants a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>Blinky has several - kluless hasn't - rotflmao
>>>>
>>>> Blinky wishes his government would let him have a gun for self
>>>> defense.
>>>
>>>Blinky can use any of his guns for self defence.
>>
>> LOL. Your government doesn't believe in using guns for self defense.
>
>???? That's news to me.
I can't help it you're illiterate and stupid. I've only shown you the
quote about fifty times now. Here it is again.
"This is not the place to give time to the self defence debate.
Zimring and Hawkins have examined the arguments on the matter in their
book, A Citizens Guide to Gun Control.4 We know that in the US self
defence is a justified reason to own a gun. This is not the case in
Australia. One hopes that all Australian jurisdictions keep this as a
cornerstone of their gun control policies. The idea of the citizen as
police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=88
>> You'd probably go straight to jail.
>
>That hasn't happened to anybody yet
[chuckle] Right.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u1ohi51urcqcnhaos...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:fhnhi5psd4cfgtkhh...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:prmhi59lt39p97ian...@4ax.com...
>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:2dmhi59eotvqtr93q...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blinky wants a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Blinky has several - kluless hasn't - rotflmao
>>>>>
>>>>> Blinky wishes his government would let him have a gun for self
>>>>> defense.
>>>>
>>>>Blinky can use any of his guns for self defence.
>>>
>>> LOL. Your government doesn't believe in using guns for self defense.
>>
>>???? That's news to me.
>
> I can't help it you're illiterate and stupid. I've only shown you the
> quote about fifty times now. Here it is again.
You need to read for comprehension - that still says nothing about using
guns for self-defence. You manage keep intact your record of never providing
evidence for what you claim.
>
> "This is not the place to give time to the self defence debate.
> Zimring and Hawkins have examined the arguments on the matter in their
> book, A Citizens Guide to Gun Control.4 We know that in the US self
> defence is a justified reason to own a gun. This is not the case in
> Australia. One hopes that all Australian jurisdictions keep this as a
> cornerstone of their gun control policies. The idea of the citizen as
> police is as unwise as it is dangerous."
> http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=88
>
>>> You'd probably go straight to jail.
>>
>>That hasn't happened to anybody yet
>
> [chuckle] Right.
Of course - as I always am - I am glad you finally acknowledge it.