Logic doesn't work with these people.

[!Jones]

The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
violence in the developed world. If you take the 25 countries with
the highest HDI scores, you have to remove the US from the population
to get a normal curve; we are over seven standard deviations above the
mean... the US rate of gun violence is *not* going down. It is simply
absurd to say that guns are used in self defense; if they were, we
wouldn't be completely out of the park.

[max headroom]

In news:pssskgtd95p0t9bpd...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:

Your rant is illogical.

[Just Wondering]

Does your colon get jealous of your fingers for all the crap
they create?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:05:15 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>violence in the developed world.

You're just a racist and a bigot.

[slate_leeper]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:05:15 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>violence in the developed world

Credible source?




--
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
(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:05:15 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

> It is simply absurd to say that guns are used in self defense

OK, we admit it!

Of COURSE guns are never used in self defense! This is what we pay the
NRA to tell you. The FACT is that EVERY time you READ about a gun used
in self defense, it's a drug deal gone sour.

Every. Single. Time.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:07:01 -0400, slate_leeper
<lcgh...@xemaps.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:05:15 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>>violence in the developed world
>
>Credible source?

In the "developed world" (countries which are both the northern
hemisphere and western hemisphere, and that have flags with the colors
blue, white, and red, and that have landed men on the moon.)

[!Jones]

Put your calculator to it, sir. You do know what a "standard
deviation" is, right? When you take all countries, you find the US is
doing better that Guatemala... but the US is most comparable with
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan; however, we're not even in
the same order of magnitude. I could go into the numbers, but you
wouldn't even read them.

This is why I say that logic doesn't work with gun loons. (You *do*
know why you're called a "gun loon", right?)

[!Jones]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:07:01 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
<lcgh...@xemaps.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:05:15 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>>violence in the developed world
>
>Credible source?
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)

As the reader surveys the various "sources", one finds that they
divide neatly into two disjoint sets: on one side, there are "credible
sources"; on the other side reside the lies of Satan.

People who align themselves with the gun lobby draw that line of
demarcation very tightly to define "credible sources" as restricted to
those sanctioned by the NRA. For example: I can think of a researcher
who has written over 200 peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals
with over 50 to the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of
the American Medical Association... yet, these are not "credible
sources".

OTOH, I can think of another author who was on the payroll of a gun
manufacturer, has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, and never
will because, using a pseudonym, he ran around gushing about how great
his book was; who has a reputation for shoddy research and lack of
documentation... but, the NRA loves him because he says what they want
to hear.

So, to answer your question, I try to discern that body of literature
you might call a "credible source": I see the NRA bumper sticker in
your sig line and note that you write in sentence fragments.

Thus, to answer the implicit question: "No. There are no NRA
sanctioned sources." Citing anything else would be a waste of time.

[Scout]

> In news:pssskgtd95p0t9bpd...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com>
> typed:
>
>> The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>> violence in the developed world.

By "developed world" I'm assuming that applies to any nation that doesn't
match your assertion regardless of it's industrial, social, political, or
economic development?

[slate_leeper]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 19:03:54 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:07:01 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
><lcgh...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:05:15 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>>>violence in the developed world
>>
>>Credible source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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
>>(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)
>
>

So his answer is NO:

>As the reader surveys the various "sources", one finds that they
>divide neatly into two disjoint sets: on one side, there are "credible
>sources"; on the other side reside the lies of Satan.
>
>People who align themselves with the gun lobby draw that line of
>demarcation very tightly to define "credible sources" as restricted to
>those sanctioned by the NRA.

Did I say that? Haven't I referenced Department of Justice, FBI, CDC,
Wikipedia and many other sources in the past? So why can't you do the
same for your claim? Redefining "credible" simply shows that you
can't.


-dan z-

--
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
(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)

[max headroom]

In news:fjv1lgp9n87mr2ffe...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:

Your numbers are irrelevant. There's more gun violence in America because we have more guns, just as
we have more car accidents than Monaco because we have more cars, or we have more backyard drownings
in Belair and Brentwood than we do in South LA or Watts because there are more pools in Brentwood.

The true measure is violent crime rates regardless of tools used.

> This is why I say that logic doesn't work with gun loons. (You *do*
> know why you're called a "gun loon", right?)

Yes, it's projection on the part of illogical fairies who blame guns for crimes.

[Dechucka]

On 27/09/2021 11:28 pm, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fjv1lgp9n87mr2ffe...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:10:08 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In news:pssskgtd95p0t9bpd...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:
>
>>>> The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
>>>> violence in the developed world. If you take the 25 countries with
>>>> the highest HDI scores, you have to remove the US from the population
>>>> to get a normal curve; we are over seven standard deviations above the
>>>> mean... the US rate of gun violence is *not* going down. It is simply
>>>> absurd to say that guns are used in self defense; if they were, we
>>>> wouldn't be completely out of the park.
>
>>> Your rant is illogical.
>
>> Put your calculator to it, sir. You do know what a "standard
>> deviation" is, right? When you take all countries, you find the US is
>> doing better that Guatemala... but the US is most comparable with
>> Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan; however, we're not even in
>> the same order of magnitude. I could go into the numbers, but you
>> wouldn't even read them.
>
> Your numbers are irrelevant. There's more gun violence in America because we have more guns,

causation?

[!Jones]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 06:28:56 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>> Put your calculator to it, sir. You do know what a "standard
>> deviation" is, right? When you take all countries, you find the US is
>> doing better that Guatemala... but the US is most comparable with
>> Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan; however, we're not even in
>> the same order of magnitude. I could go into the numbers, but you
>> wouldn't even read them.
>
>Your numbers are irrelevant. There's more gun violence in America because we have more guns, just as
>we have more car accidents than Monaco because we have more cars, or we have more backyard drownings
>in Belair and Brentwood than we do in South LA or Watts because there are more pools in Brentwood.
>
>The true measure is violent crime rates regardless of tools used.

I would listen to the point you raise; however, there are many
inconsistencies across political boundaries on the definition of a
"violent crime". This fact makes them difficult to compare. In the
US, we tend to take a lenient view, i.e.: it's not a violent crime
unless more than four people are hauled away by ambulances. In the UK
and Western Europe, using harsh language is counted as a violent
crime.

Whether or not my observation holds, *gun* violence is when someone
dies by gunfire. That's easy to define, to count, and may or may not
be a "crime" per se. (If a toddler finds a gun in mom's purse and
blows her away, is the toddler a felon?)

I tend to accept that "there is more gun violence in America because
we have more guns"... in fact, that is the very point I'm trying to
make. The mantra of the gun lobby was always: "More Guns:Less Crime";
that has been shown to be false; a well-armed society is obviously
*not* a polite society.

I always try to avoid the "car" and the "swimming pool" metaphors. We
also have way too many cars (and way too big); however, there is scant
comparison. That's an important, albeit completely different,
discussion. Our gun proliferation is doing nothing for us as a
society.

[!Jones]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:14:51 +1000, in talk.politics.guns Dechucka
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Your numbers are irrelevant. There's more gun violence in America because we have more guns,
>
>causation?

I was thinking the same.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:sitjf1$dm3$2...@dont-email.me...

Further if it were the guns as he asserts, then shouldn't the gun violence
occur where the guns are?

Rather than in areas with the strictest gun control?

Is he aware that 2% of US counties account for a majority of people murdered
by a gun?

According to his implication, that means that around 50% of all guns in the
US must be within those 2% of US counties, with their strict gun control, in
order to account for that.

Further if we look at the other 98%... the rate is generally BELOW that of
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc...

If it were guns, and just guns, then this condition would not exist, but it
does. Clearly there is something else that is causing this to occur.

But that requires you to look at the actual causes, and then having accepted
those causes meaningfully work towards a solution.... not just a simple knee
jerk reaction such as blaming guns for what people do with them.

The guns have no will of their own, they don't make anyone do anything. The
person decides that. PEOPLE are the cause of ALL violent crime. Violent
criminals, particularly repeat violent criminals are the problem.

You address that problem as was done in Project Exile and it's spin offs and
you get quick and significant reductions in violent crime of all types....

Imagine that, doing something about violent criminals actually reduces
violent crime... Seems utterly unexpected if you're a liberal looking to
push gun control and you need some sort of justification...

[!Jones]

No. Please quit "assuming" and read the post before you start typing,
Scout. I stated very clearly what I meant. My statement was based on
the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI... see:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi)

"The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities
should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a
country, not economic growth alone."

When I ran the numbers for an article a couple of years ago, I used an
HDI score>=0.9 as the criterion for including a country. There's
nothing magical about that value save that it returns 25 countries and
the US falls dead center at #13. (BTW, the rates of gun violence are
in a PostgresSQL table on the site.)

I'm over simplifying to try to fit it all on a bumper sticker for you:
take these rates per 100K for the 24 countries, excluding the US. You
will see a nice normal distribution with a mean of 2.1 and a standard
deviation of 0.73 (or did when I ran them)... now, plot in the US and
see how far out of range we are. The US is over 7 SDs above the
population mean. It's like comparing goldfish to elephants... we're
not in the same population.

[!Jones]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:00:33 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Further if it were the guns as he asserts, then shouldn't the gun violence
>occur where the guns are?
>
>Rather than in areas with the strictest gun control?
>
>Is he aware that 2% of US counties account for a majority of people murdered
>by a gun?

I would agree with the assertion implied by question #1. I think the
data are in: the gun violence *does* occur where the guns are. In
fact, that's my whole point in a nutshell.

As to #2: "gun control" in the US is practically non-existant. In the
few locations where we have any at all, one may simply drive across a
state line and buy a gun NQA. Every time we try to pass simple,
meaningful laws (such as background checks), the gun lobby loads it
with loopholes, exceptions, and special cases that render it
unenforceable... then they say: "See? We *told* you it wouldn't work!"

#3: No. I'm not aware of that. "Murdered by a gun"? Wait a minute!
Haven't you always said that guns don't commit murder? Instead, let's
say: "shot with a gun". "Murdered" calls for a qualitative judgement;
"shot with" is strictly a quantitative analysis. I'd be interested in
a source for your data tables.

[Molly Bolt]

Because inappropriate gun use is caused by trumptardation, not skin color.

Banning ALL trumptards (as opposed to just klaus-type pedophiles) from owning guns would therefore solve the problem.

[Molly Bolt]

In the US, the "developed world" is the Blue states.

[Molly Bolt]

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 6:17:56 PM UTC-5, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fjv1lgp9n87mr2ffe...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:10:08 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com>
> > wrote:
> >> In news:pssskgtd95p0t9bpd...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:
>
> >>> The United States has, by far and away, the highest level of gun
> >>> violence in the developed world. If you take the 25 countries with
> >>> the highest HDI scores, you have to remove the US from the population
> >>> to get a normal curve; we are over seven standard deviations above the
> >>> mean... the US rate of gun violence is *not* going down. It is simply
> >>> absurd to say that guns are used in self defense; if they were, we
> >>> wouldn't be completely out of the park.
>
> >> Your rant is illogical.
>
> > Put your calculator to it, sir. You do know what a "standard
> > deviation" is, right? When you take all countries, you find the US is
> > doing better that Guatemala... but the US is most comparable with
> > Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan; however, we're not even in
> > the same order of magnitude. I could go into the numbers, but you
> > wouldn't even read them.
> Your numbers are irrelevant. There's more gun violence in America because we have more guns

Words like "per-capita" cause an overload trumptard neuronal activity.

[Just Wondering]

On 9/28/2021 7:29 AM, !Jones wrote:

> gun violence is when someone dies by gunfire.

No. Gun violence is violence using a gun.

[max headroom]

In news:95d2850f-f3b3-4ad9...@googlegroups.com, Molly Bolt
<mollyth...@gmail.com> typed:

Trump's still living rent-free in your head, huh?

[max headroom]

In news:ir36lgp0133o3e920...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 06:28:56 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com>
> wrote:

>>> Put your calculator to it, sir. You do know what a "standard
>>> deviation" is, right? When you take all countries, you find the US is
>>> doing better that Guatemala... but the US is most comparable with
>>> Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan; however, we're not even in
>>> the same order of magnitude. I could go into the numbers, but you
>>> wouldn't even read them.

>> Your numbers are irrelevant. There's more gun violence in America because we have more guns,
>> just as we have more car accidents than Monaco because we have more cars, or we have more
>> backyard drownings in Belair and Brentwood than we do in South LA or Watts because there are
>> more pools in Brentwood.

>> The true measure is violent crime rates regardless of tools used.

> I would listen to the point you raise; however, there are many
> inconsistencies across political boundaries on the definition of a
> "violent crime". This fact makes them difficult to compare. In the
> US, we tend to take a lenient view, i.e.: it's not a violent crime

> unless more than four people are hauled away by ambulances....

Bullshit.

> ... In the UK and Western Europe, using harsh language is counted as a violent

> crime.

> Whether or not my observation holds, *gun* violence is when someone

> dies by gunfire....

Bullshit.

> ... That's easy to define, to count, and may or may not

> be a "crime" per se. (If a toddler finds a gun in mom's purse and
> blows her away, is the toddler a felon?)

> I tend to accept that "there is more gun violence in America because
> we have more guns"... in fact, that is the very point I'm trying to
> make. The mantra of the gun lobby was always: "More Guns:Less Crime";
> that has been shown to be false; a well-armed society is obviously
> *not* a polite society.

In my part of the world, it is.

> I always try to avoid the "car" and the "swimming pool" metaphors....

Obviously, because you can't dispute it..

> ... We also have way too many cars (and way too big); however, there is scant
> comparison.

Bullshit.

> ... That's an important, albeit completely different, discussion. Our gun proliferation is doing

> nothing for us as a society.

It keeps me safe. YMMV.

[slate_leeper]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:58:52 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

> "gun control" in the US is practically non-existant. In the
>few locations where we have any at all, one may simply drive across a
>state line and buy a gun NQA.

False. All dealers are required to do the NICS background check on all
buyers, regardless of the buyer's state of residence.

[Scout]

"slate_leeper" <lcgh...@xemaps.com> wrote in message
news:sdm8lgt3jnf1gb4m3...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:58:52 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>> "gun control" in the US is practically non-existant. In the
>>few locations where we have any at all, one may simply drive across a
>>state line and buy a gun NQA.
>
> False. All dealers are required to do the NICS background check on all
> buyers, regardless of the buyer's state of residence.

Further I would note that crossing state lines to avoid local or state gun
control laws is a federal crime punishable with a MANDATORY FIVE YEAR
MINIMUM SENTENCE.

Further any handguns sales MUST go through an FFL in your state of
residence. That's federal law.

See that's what I find amusing about gun control advocates like Jones.. they
call for more gun control... but don't even know/care what the current gun
control control laws actually are.

[!Jones]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:21:06 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
<lcgh...@xemaps.com> wrote:

>> "gun control" in the US is practically non-existant. In the
>>few locations where we have any at all, one may simply drive across a
>>state line and buy a gun NQA.
>
>False. All dealers are required to do the NICS background check on all
>buyers, regardless of the buyer's state of residence.

Yeah, and that works... except only about 10% of gun sales are through
dealers. What about the other 90%?

[!Jones]

You are free to have your definitions; I will use mine.

[Just Wondering]

On 10/22/2021 11:02 AM, !Jones wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 slate_leeper wrote:
>>
>> All dealers are required to do the NICS background check
>> on all buyers, regardless of the buyer's state of residence.
>
> Yeah, and that works... except only about 10% of gun sales
> are through dealers. What about the other 90%?

Show us where you get that 10% number. From November 1998
to September 2021, there were over 400 million NICS firearm
background checks.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view
If your numbers
are right, they say that during that time period there were
over four billion non-dealer gun sales, with 300 million
private gun sales in the first nine months of 2021 alone.

[!Jones]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:46:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>Show us where you get that 10% number.

Well, I don't get it from the NRA, that's for sure, Cuz.

The simple fact is that there aren't any good data on what happens to
guns after they're sold by the dealers... and, herein, lies the
problem. We can show that about four million guns entered the
system... then we immediately lose them. We have no idea where they
go then. Domestic demand *might* account for 400,000 (and *that* is
an unrealistically inflated estimate.) You do know that the 400
million number you bandy about well exceeds the population of the
United States, right? You're saying that every man, woman, and child
in the US bought 1.25 guns?

They're sold straight into the secondary markets. Your government
knows that, but it's big business. That's the loophole we must close,
though.

[Just Wondering]

On 10/23/2021 4:12 PM, !Jones wrote:

> Well, I don't get it from the NRA, that's for sure, Cuz.

You didn't get your precious "only about 10% of gun sales
are through dealers" from any reliable source, because as
I proved above it's 100% bona fide grade A bat guano.

> The simple fact is that there aren't any good data on what
> happens to guns after they're sold by the dealers.

Good. We don't need the sort of intrusive government that would
be needed to keep a public record of such data.

> and, herein, lies the problem.

It's not a problem. It's a source of mild amusement to see that
you think it is a problem.

> We can show that about four million guns entered the system...
> then we immediately lose them.

FBI data shows that easily over four hundred million guns entered the
system in the last 40 years alone. That does not include the hundreds
of millions of guns that entered the system between 1860 and 1980.
I can assure you that I have never lost four million guns.
(I used to own a gun but I lost it in one of those unfortunate
boating accidents.)

> Domestic demand *might* account for 400,000 (and *that* is
> an unrealistically inflated estimate.)

Nonsense. Even 400,000,000 is not an unrealistically inflated estimate.

> You do know that the 400 million number you bandy about well
> exceeds the population of the United States, right?

Indeed I do know that 400 million exceeds the U.S. population.

> You're saying that every man, woman, and child
> in the US bought 1.25 guns?

No, I'm saying that somewhere between 35% and 45% of the U.S.
adult population owns at least one gun, and that most gun
owners own several guns. I'm saying it's completely reasonable
that the average gun owner owns five or more guns, which
completely accounts for the 400 million estimate.

>
> They're sold straight into the secondary markets.

You have exactly zero pieces of reliable evidence for that load of crap.

[!Jones]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:34:25 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>Good. We don't need the sort of intrusive government that would
>be needed to keep a public record of such data.

There is where we disagree. But, until we do have an accurate record,
please don't spout crap about gun numbers, because nobody knows...
including present company.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:12:01 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:46:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
>Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>>Show us where you get that 10% number.
>
>Well, I don't get it from the NRA, that's for sure, Cuz.
>
>The simple fact is that there aren't any good data on what happens to
>guns after they're sold by the dealers... and, herein, lies the
>problem.

"So, I made it up." - Jones.

[bigdog]

You can pass all the gun laws you want, you aren't going to get the bad guys to comply. Do
you think if a gang banger sells a gun to another gang banger either one is going to report
the sale to the government? There's about as much chance of that happening as there is of
them reporting the proceeds of their drug sales to the IRS. Your hairbrained scheme will
accomplish NOTHING.

[Just Wondering]

On 10/23/2021 8:55 PM, !Jones wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Good. We don't need the sort of intrusive government that would
>> be needed to keep a public record of such data.
>
> There is where we disagree.

Please explain how to gather "good data on what happens to
guns after they're sold by the dealers" without a massively
intrusive big government nose poking its way into everybody's lives.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:rir5ng5cusq1qlk20...@4ax.com...

What about them?

You can't drive across a state line and legally buy a gun from anyone other
than a dealer.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <x...@y.com> wrote in message

news:2a19ng9thjdpmmaus...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:46:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>>Show us where you get that 10% number.
>
> Well, I don't get it from the NRA, that's for sure, Cuz.
>
> The simple fact is that there aren't any good data on what happens to
> guns after they're sold by the dealers... and, herein, lies the
> problem.

In what way?

> We can show that about four million guns entered the
> system... then we immediately lose them.

Sounds like a personal problem.

> We have no idea where they
> go then.

Good. You don't need to know.

> Domestic demand *might* account for 400,000 (and *that* is
> an unrealistically inflated estimate.)

Do you have any statistics to back up this number you pulled out of thin
air?

> You do know that the 400
> million number you bandy about well exceeds the population of the
> United States, right?

So?

I bet the number of forks also exceeds to the population of the United
States as well.

> You're saying that every man, woman, and child
> in the US bought 1.25 guns?

Nope, but on average they own that many. Some people own none, others own
more.

> They're sold straight into the secondary markets.

Cite

> Your government
> knows that, but it's big business. That's the loophole we must close,
> though.

Show me in the law where that is a loophole.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <x...@y.com> wrote in message

news:cli9ngdk682gbg3se...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:34:25 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>>Good. We don't need the sort of intrusive government that would
>>be needed to keep a public record of such data.
>
> There is where we disagree.

Fine, now ask us if we care that you disagree.

But, until we do have an accurate record,
> please don't spout crap about gun numbers, because nobody knows...
> including present company.

True, but we have a pretty good idea of the approximate totals.

[Farm animal report]

On 28 Sep 2021, Molly Bolt <mollyth...@gmail.com> posted some
news:f62dbb7c-f96b-4cc3...@googlegroups.com:

> Let them keep him! He's black and a troublemaker.

Seoul, South Korea
CNN
—
A “conversation has commenced” with North Korea over US Army Pvt. Travis
King, who crossed the border between North and South Korea last week in
the demilitarized zone separating the two nations, the deputy commander of
the United Nations Command (UNC) said Monday.

King, believed to be the first US soldier to cross into North Korea since
1982, had a history of assault, was facing disciplinary action over his
conduct and was meant to go back to the US the day before the incident.

Gen. Andrew Harrison said the case of King is still under investigation
and he could not provide further detail on the private, who the US
military said “willfully and without authorization” crossed into North
Korea while taking a civilian tour of the Joint Security Area, a small
collection of ?buildings inside the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that has
separated North and South Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

“There is a mechanism that exists under the armistice agreement, whereby
lines of communication are open between the UNC and the Korean People’s
Army, and that takes place in the JSA. That process has started,” Harrison
told journalists at the Seoul Foreign Correspondents Club.

He acknowledged that the answers he could provide were “disappointing,”
but “I’m constrained by what I can say.”

“You may not get the answers for what you’re desperate for,” Harrison told
the journalists.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/asia/unc-conversation-begins-north-korea-
travis-king-intl-hnk/index.html