# A Startling Statistic

1 view

### Wayne

Jan 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/23/00
to
Some Startling Statistics...

Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
Number of gun owners in the U.S..........................80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups).....1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner...................................0.0000188
(one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners!

### Joe Chandler

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00
to
Hey wayne,
Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than 10!
How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/ year

Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

### The Lab Rat

Jan 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/24/00
to

Wayne wrote in message <86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

>Some Startling Statistics...
>
>Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>Number of gun owners in the U.S..........................80,000,000
>Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups).....1,500
>Accidental deaths per gun owner...................................0.0000188
> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>
>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
>owners!

Wayne,

How many people are saved by guns every year???

Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...

Jeff Fairman

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
Clingenix, Inc.
San Carlos, CA 94070
(650) 598-7645 (office)
(650) 598-7641 (fax)
jfai...@clingenix.com

VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.

### Мария

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00
to
Well, I think the point is that gun owners are more careful:)
And if seriously, doctors try to save human's life with any method, and
sometimes they use the wrong one. And, by the way, every person who is going
to die gets into the doctors' hands, but no gun owners':)
Mary

### Wayne

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00
to

Joe Chandler wrote in message ...

>Hey wayne,
>Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than
10!

Let's see, 1,500,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Why that's 150,000
apiece. Busy devils arn't they!! Oops, I left out all the "pull the plug"
and "brain dead" cases. Why we can't let the common peasants decide when
they are really dead. Only a physician, from a pedestal, can decree such
lofty matters.

>How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/ year

Close. I heard approximately 9,000. I am all for executing all of them and
the other 10,000 murders each year, with them.

My point is "accidental" deaths. Have you been reading the papers lately?

Wayne

>
>Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

### Wayne

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00
to
Mary, Mary, you're quite contrary!

Мария wrote in message <94880118...@ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua>...

Not true. The ones who die while not under a doctor's care the government
gets to butcher.

### Wayne

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00
to

The Lab Rat wrote in message ...

>
>Wayne wrote in message <86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>>Some Startling Statistics...
>>
>>Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>>Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>>Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>>(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>>Number of gun owners in the U.S..........................80,000,000
>>Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups).....1,500
>>Accidental deaths per gun
owner...................................0.0000188
>> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>>
>>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
>>owners!
>
>
>Wayne,
>
>How many people are saved by guns every year???

Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and 2
million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a shot
is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
criminal leave.

>
>Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...

Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you? I
know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000) of
the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure known
as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
and/or the will of the family. I know that, (unbeknownest to most
families) what they got back was not the person the government confiscated,
but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;
their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their abdomen;
about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I continue?
After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
this:

http://www.crimelife.com/content/morgue/morg08.jpg

Wayne

### Chris McCormack

Jan 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/27/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

>
>Joe Chandler wrote in message ...
>>Hey wayne,
>>Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than
>10!
>
>Let's see, 1,500,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Why that's 150,000
>apiece. Busy devils arn't they!! Oops, I left out all the "pull the plug"
>and "brain dead" cases. Why we can't let the common peasants decide when
>they are really dead. Only a physician, from a pedestal, can decree such
>lofty matters.

You think it's that simple? A guy is still 'alive' in intensive care
with no brain function at all. Is he alive? There are some very gray
areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
ever be able to hold a conversation again. What does your average guy
on the street know about EEG readouts or PET scans? Should we just
keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
stage?

>
>>How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/ year
>
>Close. I heard approximately 9,000. I am all for executing all of them and
>the other 10,000 murders each year, with them.
>
>
>My point is "accidental" deaths. Have you been reading the papers lately?
>
> Wayne
>
>>
>>Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>news:86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

>>> Some Startling Statistics...
>>>
>>> Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>>> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>>> Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>>> (one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>>> Number of gun owners in the U.S..........................80,000,000
>>> Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups).....1,500
>>> Accidental deaths per gun
>>owner...................................0.0000188
>>> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>>>
>>> Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
>>> owners!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Chris McCormack
Whose life can be seen at www.systron.xs3.com/

Haiku Error Message: Errors have occurred. We won't tell you where or why.
Lazy programmers.

### Chris McCormack

Jan 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/27/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

<snip>

>>How many people are saved by guns every year???
>
>Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and 2
>million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
>themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a shot
>is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
>criminal leave.

So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
American gun laws at all. Virtually no one dies of gun shot wounds in
UK.

>>
>>Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>
>
>Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you?

Well, we all go sooner or later. Are you saying that the word 'saved'
is meaningless? You could die age 13 of appendicitis, with a bit of
crude surgery you could live to be 98. This is putting off death, but
still a worth while venture don't you think?

> I
>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.

I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.

>I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
>about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
>physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
>most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
>withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
>make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000) of
>the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure known
>as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
>dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
>and/or the will of the family.

Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations? Why? Why do
you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
concerns malice, which as you well know is not the case. You think
people do it for fun?

> I know that, (unbeknownest to most
>families) what they got back was not the person the government confiscated,
>but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;

What would you do with *waste* fluids then?

>their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their abdomen;

This is standard practice is it? Or just an in joke?

>about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
>somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I continue?
>After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
>this:

They are dead though. Give it a few weeks & they'll look a lot worse.

>>
>>Jeff Fairman
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
>>Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
>>Clingenix, Inc.
>>San Carlos, CA 94070
>>(650) 598-7645 (office)
>>(650) 598-7641 (fax)
>>jfai...@clingenix.com
>>
>>
>>VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
>>
>>
>

--

### Chris McCormack

Jan 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/27/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

Yeah, that's what they're there for.

>
> but no gun owners':)
>>Mary
>>
>>
>

--

### Wayne

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
Some (revised) Startling Statistics...

Number of physicians in the U.S.........................…....……..700,000
Accidental heath-care industry deaths per year…………..….98,000
Accidental health-care industry deaths per physician per year...0.14
(one for every 7.14 physicians, per year)

Number of gun owners in the U.S....................……..…...80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) ..900
Accidental deaths per gun owner..............................
.0.0000113
(one for every 88,889 gun owners, per year)

__________________

Revised the 120,000 down to 98,000 and attributed it to the health care
industry, not just physicians, although one could argue that they are
supposed to be in charge of most of the technical / clinical stuff.

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran the story "Medical errors debated in a fiery
hearing" on page A1 (above the fold) on 14 Dec 99. The story was about a
debate between Arlen Spector (R, Pa) chairman of the Senate appropriations
subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and education, and Nancy
W. Dickey, former president of the AMA. The article stated that an
estimated 98,000 lives in the United States were lost each year due to
medical errors and that the health care industry is a decade behind other
high hazard industries in addressing errors. The report was done by a panel
of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine, and was issued 29 Nov 99.

___________________

Revised the accidental gun deaths down to 900, based on a post I got on a
news group, where the poster cited a governmental source. I think my new
version is more accurate than the original.

In 1997 there were only 32k gun deaths in the US compared to four
times that in accidental deaths at the hands of physicians. Approx 13k
were intentional killings(the cdc lumps self defense and police
shootings in with murders) and 17k suicides. There were actually only

Wayne

___________________

Wayne wrote in message <86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

### Wayne

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...

>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
><snip>
>
>>>How many people are saved by guns every year???
>>
>>Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and
2
>>million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
>>themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a
shot
>>is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
>>criminal leave.
>
>So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
>shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
>American gun laws at all.

You have the luxury of a more homogenous society, and the burden of far
fewer rights than God gave us.
I don't envy British citizenship at all. When are you guys going to give
the Scottish, Irish and Welsh their sovereign nations back?

Virtually no one dies of gun shot wounds in
>UK.

You must have much better physicians!!

BTW:

In 1997 there were only 32k gun deaths in the US. Approx 13k

were intentional killings(the cdc lumps self defense and police
shootings in with murders) and 17k suicides. There were actually only

>
>>>

>>>Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>>
>>
>>Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you?
>
>Well, we all go sooner or later. Are you saying that the word 'saved'
>is meaningless? You could die age 13 of appendicitis, with a bit of
>crude surgery you could live to be 98. This is putting off death, but
>still a worth while venture don't you think?
>

Of course, I agree.

>> I
>>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
>
>I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.

Don't they blend into each other? Was not the witch doctor and medicine
woman the forerunners of "modern" medicine?

>
>>I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
>>about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
>>physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
>>most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
>>withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
>>make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000)
of
>>the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure
known
>>as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
>>dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
>>and/or the will of the family.
>
>Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations?

Fuckin A I'm against it, like you could never imagine.

Why? Why do
>you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
>concerns malice,

I don't care if there is malice or not. What kind of a "person" would do
this to another innocent helpless human being, especially one that has never
harmed anyone??????????????????

which as you well know is not the case. You think
>people do it for fun?

I DON'T CARE WHY THEY DO IT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO IT!!!!!!!!

>
>> I know that, (unbeknownest to most
>>families) what they got back was not the person the government
confiscated,
>>but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;
>
>What would you do with *waste* fluids then?

It's not waste to them, it's part of them. Where in the hell do you and
your kind get off forcing this barbarity on people against their
will???????????? What would I do with it? I'd respect them and leave it
where is was.

>
>>their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their
abdomen;
>
>This is standard practice is it? Or just an in joke?

It's no joke. It may be standard practice to the histopaths. IMHO it's not
standard practice for common folks.

>
>>about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
>>somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I
continue?
>>After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
>>this:
>
>They are dead though. Give it a few weeks & they'll look a lot worse.

Why is it any of your friggin business what they look like in a few weeks.
I saw a version of this quote from one of your swiss predecessors 400 years
ago; to paraphrase "I might as well cut him up, the worms are going to get
him anyway". For you information, which proper preservation, like some of
the elite and powerful get, we will look relatively the same for centuries
(i.e. immersion in formalin, and an air tignt stainless steel or glass
coffin.

BTW, how many people have you dissected in your life time; consent, and
forced?

Wayne

>>>
>>>Jeff Fairman
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
>>>Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
>>>Clingenix, Inc.
>>>San Carlos, CA 94070
>>>(650) 598-7645 (office)
>>>(650) 598-7641 (fax)
>>>jfai...@clingenix.com
>>>
>>>
>>>VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

### Wayne

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...
>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
>>
>>Joe Chandler wrote in message ...
>>>Hey wayne,
>>>Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than
>>10!
>>
>>Let's see, 1,500,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Why that's 150,000
>>apiece. Busy devils arn't they!! Oops, I left out all the "pull the
plug"
>>and "brain dead" cases. Why we can't let the common peasants decide when
>>they are really dead. Only a physician, from a pedestal, can decree such
>>lofty matters.
>
>You think it's that simple? A guy is still 'alive' in intensive care
>with no brain function at all. Is he alive?

In my opinion, absolutely!

There are some very gray
>areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
>ever be able to hold a conversation again.

So should we execute all the mutes?

I know a little. But we don't have to know. We just hire you guys when
needed. Like what do you guys know about a combat radar system, or fixing
an automobile, or farming. It's called division of labor.

Should we just
>keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
>stage?

Yes. In my opinion it is infinitely better than being dead. And at least
10 times infinitely better than being dissected. Do you believe in any
kind of a Supreme Being? Do you go to any special building once a week or
so owned by a corporation formed to organize worship of this Supreme Being.
Do you believe in any kind of a heaven and hell. Consider the theory that
every minute we are alive is a minute we are not in hell. According to the
rules of church, it is almost impossible to stay out of hell.

Along a different vein, you can't keep people alive indefinitely, but you
can keep them alive for a long time. Consider people like me, who pay a lot
of taxes (not as much as MDs of course), get almost nothing from the
government for it, pay several thousands of dollars a year for health
insurance, and see a physician an average of about 3 minutes a year.
Sooner or later, if I am lucky enough, I may be comatose and near death in a
hospital bed. I want the government to keep me alive "indefinitely". They
spent tons of my money on drug addicts, criminals, and people who absolutely
refuse to work for their daily bread. Then it will be pay back time for me.

>
>
>>
>>>How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/
year
>>
>>Close. I heard approximately 9,000. I am all for executing all of them
and
>>the other 10,000 murders each year, with them.
>>
>>
>>My point is "accidental" deaths. Have you been reading the papers lately?
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>>
>>>Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>>news:86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

>>>> Some Startling Statistics...
>>>>
>>>> Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>>>> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>>>> Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>>>> (one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>>>> Number of gun owners in the U.S..........................80,000,000
>>>> Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups).....1,500
>>>> Accidental deaths per gun
>>>owner...................................0.0000188
>>>> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun
>>>> owners!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

### Wayne

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...
>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
>>Mary, Mary, you're quite contrary!
>>
>>Мария wrote in message <94880118...@ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua>...
>>>Well, I think the point is that gun owners are more careful:)
>>>And if seriously, doctors try to save human's life with any method, and
>>>sometimes they use the wrong one.
>>
>> And, by the way, every person who is going
>>>to die gets into the doctors' hands,
>>
>>Not true. The ones who die while not under a doctor's care the government
>>gets to butcher.
>>
>Yeah, that's what they're there for.

Try telling one no and see how far you get. I've been there. Seen their
tools and dissectorium and save jars too. Seen what's left of my daughter.

>>
>> but no gun owners':)
>>>Mary
>>>
>>>
>>
>

### Wayne

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
Hey Chris:

I checked out your web page. Very nice.

Grades are good; almost an over achiever. I see you got an "A" in French.
So tell me, how many Frenchmen can't be wrong?

4 different jobs in about 40 months? Having problems being a team player?

What actually are you aiming for, educationally and career wise? And to
what level? After seeing your website I'm more confused than ever why you
are defending the barbaric practice of human dissection. How about if the
people got to vote on whether they wanted to continue with the present
system of forced government dissection, or outlaw it? You believe in
democracy?

Cheers
Wayne

P.S. - Are you and the Lab Rat one and the same?

### B. Rhodes

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
While lurking my way through this newsgroup I saw this and decided to
post a response, something I rarely do, but in this case I feel too
strongly not to add my opinion.

Wayne wrote:
>
> The Lab Rat wrote in message ...
> >

> >Wayne wrote in message <86giqo\$p1v\$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> >>Some Startling Statistics...
> >>
> >>Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
> >>Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
> >>Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
> >>(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
> >>Number of gun owners in the U.S..........................80,000,000
> >>Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups).....1,500
> >>Accidental deaths per gun
> owner...................................0.0000188
> >> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
> >>

These statistics leave out a large amount of information, not the least
of which is the basis of the statistics. While I don't disbelieve the
numbers, it's always nice to know who did the study so one knows about
any possible biased opinions. As to the greater number of doctors
causing deaths than gun owners, I think it's safe to say that doctors
practice medicine much more frequently than gun owners practice
shooting. It would also be safe to say, that medicine is somewhat more
complicated than using a firearm safely. While I happen to be a gun
owner and thoroughly believe in the rights of an individual to own the
firearm of his choice, I think this comparison does nothing other than
to prove the stupidity of some people who think that by comparing gun
ownership to the practice of medicine they will change the minds of
those who intend to restrict or halt gun ownership in the US. These
numbers prove less than nothing and only insult the intelligence of gun
owners nationwide. I'll also comment that ANY accidental shooting death
is caused by nothing less than blatant stupidity, and the moron who
pulls the trigger (or in the case of children, the idiot parents of the
child who let them near a loaded firearm) should be put away from normal
people for the rest of their life.

> >>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
> >>owners!

Absurd.

> >
> >
> >Wayne,

> >
> >How many people are saved by guns every year???
>
> Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and 2
> million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
> themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a shot
> is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
> criminal leave.

Equally absurd. There is no possible way to know how many lives are
saved every year by firearms, since there cannot be a way to verify that
the life would've been taken otherwise. I might believe the number to be
in the thousands, possibly even over ten thousand or more, but never in
the millions.

>
> >
> >Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>

> Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you? I

> know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
> death from around maybe 35, to around 75.

> I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
> about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
> physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
> most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
> withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
> make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000) of
> the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure known
> as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
> dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee

> and/or the will of the family. I know that, (unbeknownest to most

> families) what they got back was not the person the government confiscated,
> but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;

> their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their abdomen;

> about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
> somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I continue?
> After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
> this:
>

>
> Wayne
>
> >
> >Jeff Fairman
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
> >Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
> >Clingenix, Inc.
> >871 Industrial Road, Suite J
> >San Carlos, CA 94070
> >(650) 598-7645 (office)
> >(650) 598-7641 (fax)
> >jfai...@clingenix.com
> >
> >
> >VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
> >
> >

--
B. Rhodes Sr.

### Chris McCormack

Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

<snip>

>>So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get

>>shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
>>American gun laws at all.
>
>You have the luxury of a more homogenous society, and the burden of far
>fewer rights than God gave us.

I'd rather have the Criminal Justice Act (a rather restrictive bit of
UK legislation) than a couple of relatives dead as a result of gun
law.

>I don't envy British citizenship at all. When are you guys going to give
>the Scottish, Irish and Welsh their sovereign nations back?
>

When the majority of the people ask for them.

>>>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>>>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
>>
>>I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.
>
>Don't they blend into each other? Was not the witch doctor and medicine
>woman the forerunners of "modern" medicine?
>

Probably, but they did nothing to stretch out lifespan. I don't think
hygiene and medicine overlap. Hygiene is cleanliness and medicine is
prescriptions, surgery etc, etc. Your GP is very unlikely to have any
impact on your degree of hygiene.

>>Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations?
>
>Fuckin A I'm against it, like you could never imagine.
>
> Why? Why do
>>you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
>>concerns malice,
>
>I don't care if there is malice or not. What kind of a "person" would do
>this to another innocent helpless human being, especially one that has never
>harmed anyone??????????????????
>
> which as you well know is not the case. You think
>>people do it for fun?
>
>I DON'T CARE WHY THEY DO IT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO IT!!!!!!!!
>

They do it *for a reason*. Possibly to gather evidence for a criminal
investigation. If someone poisoned me I would want a post mortem done
on my body to gather evidence. I would want one if there were any
dubious circumstances. Having said that, I have a donor card, so if I
die any time soon all my organs will be harvested for transplants
anyway.

>I saw a version of this quote from one of your swiss predecessors 400 years
>ago; to paraphrase "I might as well cut him up, the worms are going to get
>him anyway". For you information, which proper preservation, like some of
>the elite and powerful get, we will look relatively the same for centuries
>(i.e. immersion in formalin, and an air tignt stainless steel or glass
>coffin.

I'd rather be cremated than put in a glass coffin full of chemicals. I
agree with the Swiss 'predecessor'.

>
>BTW, how many people have you dissected in your life time; consent, and
>forced?

None, you may be shocked to hear.

### Chris McCormack

Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

<snip doctors 'pulling the plug'>

>There are some very gray
>>areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
>>ever be able to hold a conversation again.
>
>So should we execute all the mutes?

If it is believed by several experts that he will never recover
consciousness, yes. Don't agree with the term 'execute', but yes.

>
> What does your average guy
>
>I know a little. But we don't have to know. We just hire you guys when
>needed. Like what do you guys know about a combat radar system, or fixing
>an automobile, or farming. It's called division of labor.

So then you do agree with the doctors' decision that the guy will
never recover consciousness? Still you want his body maintained at
huge cost for no reason?

>
> Should we just
>>keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
>>stage?
>
>Yes. In my opinion it is infinitely better than being dead. And at least
>10 times infinitely better than being dissected. Do you believe in any
>kind of a Supreme Being? Do you go to any special building once a week or
>so owned by a corporation formed to organize worship of this Supreme Being.
>Do you believe in any kind of a heaven and hell. Consider the theory that
>every minute we are alive is a minute we are not in hell. According to the
>rules of church, it is almost impossible to stay out of hell.

So by living, you're just putting off your inevitable journey to hell?

>
>Along a different vein, you can't keep people alive indefinitely, but you
>can keep them alive for a long time. Consider people like me, who pay a lot
>of taxes (not as much as MDs of course), get almost nothing from the
>government for it, pay several thousands of dollars a year for health
>insurance, and see a physician an average of about 3 minutes a year.
>Sooner or later, if I am lucky enough, I may be comatose and near death in a
>hospital bed. I want the government to keep me alive "indefinitely". They
>spent tons of my money on drug addicts, criminals, and people who absolutely
>refuse to work for their daily bread. Then it will be pay back time for me.

That's the welfare state for you. You're so bitter about that you want

### B. Rhodes

Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to

Wayne wrote:

>
> >
> >> >>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
> gun
> >> >>owners!
> >
> >Absurd.
>

> Removed this sentence from the new stuff. Absurd? I think it has a core of
> truth. I think the statistics contain a stronge possibility that physician
> accidents kill more U.S. citizens per year than gun accidents. How can you
> refute this? 98,000 vs. 900. Even if 90% of those medical errors were
> caused by nurses instead of physicians (which I doubt), it's still 9800 to
> 900. I removed the sentence because it was too emotional and not concise
> enough. "Dangerous" is a very subjective word.
>

To me, yes. It's absurd. The reason I feel this way about it, is because
of the comparison itself. At the risk of being thought cliché, you'd
need to compare apples to apples, not apples to sports cars or whatever.
To further the line of thought in this statement, you'd need to compare
the number of deaths caused by the complete removal of either factor,
both doctors, and gun ownership. At that point, the comparison data
would state that doctors (or the medical establishment) are necessary to
save lives, and gun ownership is not. I think a better comparison would
be gun ownership and car ownership. Many times the yearly number of
lives lost due to all types of shooting deaths (both accidental and
intentional) are lost daily in this country due to careless or reckless
driving, or intoxicated drivers, but this doesn't seem to be a large
concern to many for some reason, though it doesn't take a great amount
of imagination to realize what that reason is. I believe that stiffer
penalties for both careless handling of firearms and careless driving
would greatly reduce the number of casualties in both cases. Do you
suppose that, if drunk driving were an automatic capital offense
(whether the accused had taken a life or not), there would be many
people who'd get behind the wheel after going on a bender? No, probably
not. Consider the same with reckless driving. Do you think that the 18
year old punk who goes flying down a residential street at 80 mph would
reconsider the wisdom of this action if he were facing an electric chair
if he were unlucky enough to run over a 6 year old child? Almost
certainly. The same would be true for the moron who's playing quick draw
in the bathroom of his trailer house, taking the risk of accidentally
pulling the trigger and ending the life of a neighbor who happened to
pick the wrong time to have a bowel movement. He'd probably double check
the cylinder for bullets if he were worried about a hangman's noose in
the event he got careless. And don't get me started on what I think
should happen to the scum who intentionally commit crimes with firearms.

> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Wayne,
> >> >
> >> >How many people are saved by guns every year???
> >>
> >> Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5
> and 2
> >> million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
> >> themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a
> shot
> >> is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes
> the
> >> criminal leave.
> >
> >Equally absurd. There is no possible way to know how many lives are
> >saved every year by firearms, since there cannot be a way to verify that
> >the life would've been taken otherwise. I might believe the number to be
> >in the thousands, possibly even over ten thousand or more, but never in
> >the millions.
>

> Well that is what I have read, from studies done by Ph.D.s. What can I say.

I don't doubt it's data that has been published by someone, but as I
mentioned, it's impossible to determine the number of lives saved by
guns or gun ownership simply because there can be no control group,
unless you take into account the societies where gun ownership is
illegal. Still, those countries aren't necessarily a good example
because of the other dissimilarities with our ways of life. These are
the reasons I dispute any data concerning this particular subject. To be
an accurate study, there would have to be two identical societies, 1
with firearms present, 1 without. Even then, I believe the only thing
that would decrease is the number of crimes committed with firearms.
When people lack one weapon, they quickly find an alternative, or the
means of manufacturing a replacement for the first. Also, because of the
lack of armed law enforcement, it's likely that some forms of violent
crimes would actually increase because a certain number of criminals
would no longer be in fear for their lives when committing particular
types of crimes.

--
B. Rhodes Sr.

### B. Rhodes

Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote:
<SNIP>

> So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
> shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy

> American gun laws at all. Virtually no one dies of gun shot wounds in
> UK.
>
Chris,
I've known many Englishmen who disagree with you, though for very
different reasons. New Zealanders also. That aside, what I wanted to ask
is, do you intend to state that, since disarming the public, the violent
crime, and murder rate in your country have signifigantly declined?
--
B. Rhodes Sr.

### Wayne

Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message <28qROODOmWR+TZYhfagjHl77WsB=@4ax.com>...

>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
><snip>
>
>>>So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
>>>shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
>>>American gun laws at all.
>>
>>You have the luxury of a more homogenous society, and the burden of far
>>fewer rights than God gave us.
>
>I'd rather have the Criminal Justice Act (a rather restrictive bit of
>UK legislation) than a couple of relatives dead as a result of gun
>law.

Our chances of being murdered with a gun are 1/3 of our chances of being
killed by a vehicle, even much lower if we stay out of high crime areas.
Our chances of being murdered with a gun are 1/10 our chances of being
killed by a medical mistake. I'm happy where I am. To each his own.

>
>>I don't envy British citizenship at all. When are you guys going to give
>>the Scottish, Irish and Welsh their sovereign nations back?
>>

>When the majority of the people ask for them.
>
>

>>>>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>>>>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
>>>
>>>I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.
>>
>>Don't they blend into each other? Was not the witch doctor and medicine
>>woman the forerunners of "modern" medicine?
>>

>Probably, but they did nothing to stretch out lifespan. I don't think
>hygiene and medicine overlap. Hygiene is cleanliness and medicine is
>prescriptions, surgery etc, etc. Your GP is very unlikely to have any
>impact on your degree of hygiene.
>
>

>>>Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations?
>>
>>Fuckin A I'm against it, like you could never imagine.
>>
>> Why? Why do
>>>you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
>>>concerns malice,
>>
>>I don't care if there is malice or not. What kind of a "person" would do
>>this to another innocent helpless human being, especially one that has
never
>>harmed anyone??????????????????
>>
>> which as you well know is not the case. You think
>>>people do it for fun?
>>
>>I DON'T CARE WHY THEY DO IT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO IT!!!!!!!!
>>

>They do it *for a reason*. Possibly to gather evidence for a criminal
>investigation. If someone poisoned me I would want a post mortem done
>on my body to gather evidence. I would want one if there were any
>dubious circumstances. Having said that, I have a donor card, so if I
>die any time soon all my organs will be harvested for transplants
>anyway.
>

>>I saw a version of this quote from one of your swiss predecessors 400
years
>>ago; to paraphrase "I might as well cut him up, the worms are going to get
>>him anyway". For you information, which proper preservation, like some of
>>the elite and powerful get, we will look relatively the same for centuries
>>(i.e. immersion in formalin, and an air tignt stainless steel or glass
>>coffin.
>

>I'd rather be cremated than put in a glass coffin full of chemicals. I
>agree with the Swiss 'predecessor'.
>>

>>BTW, how many people have you dissected in your life time; consent, and
>>forced?
>

>None, you may be shocked to hear.

### Wayne

Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to

B. Rhodes wrote in message <38926EE5...@leru.net>...

>While lurking my way through this newsgroup I saw this and decided to
>post a response, something I rarely do, but in this case I feel too
>strongly not to add my opinion.

I have a way of eliciting opinions from people. Glad to have your input.

Thanks
Wayne

I agree with all you have written. As for the source of the statistics, I
got it as an email about 3 weeks ago. After many comments from ng posters I
have revised the statistics slightly based on new information, including
changing the perpretrators of the errors from physicians to the health care
industry in general. Here's the new info:

Some Startling Statistics...

Number of physicians in the U.S.........................…....……..700,000

__________________

___________________

times that in accidental deaths at the hands of physicians. Approx 13k

were intentional killings(the cdc lumps self defense and police
shootings in with murders) and 17k suicides. There were actually only

>

>> >>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun
>> >>owners!
>
>Absurd.

Removed this sentence from the new stuff. Absurd? I think it has a core of
truth. I think the statistics contain a stronge possibility that physician
accidents kill more U.S. citizens per year than gun accidents. How can you
refute this? 98,000 vs. 900. Even if 90% of those medical errors were
caused by nurses instead of physicians (which I doubt), it's still 9800 to
900. I removed the sentence because it was too emotional and not concise
enough. "Dangerous" is a very subjective word.

>
>> >
>> >

>> >Wayne,
>> >
>> >How many people are saved by guns every year???
>>
>> Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5
and 2
>> million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
>> themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a
shot
>> is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes
the
>> criminal leave.
>
>Equally absurd. There is no possible way to know how many lives are
>saved every year by firearms, since there cannot be a way to verify that
>the life would've been taken otherwise. I might believe the number to be
>in the thousands, possibly even over ten thousand or more, but never in
>the millions.

Well that is what I have read, from studies done by Ph.D.s. What can I say.

>>
>> >

>> >Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>>
>> Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you?
I

>> know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>> death from around maybe 35, to around 75.

### Wayne

Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message <7s2ROGCMWDs=qWpKBffy...@4ax.com>...

>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
><snip doctors 'pulling the plug'>
>
>>There are some very gray
>>>areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
>>>ever be able to hold a conversation again.
>>
>>So should we execute all the mutes?
>
>If it is believed by several experts that he will never recover
>consciousness, yes. Don't agree with the term 'execute', but yes.
>>
>> What does your average guy
>>
>>I know a little. But we don't have to know. We just hire you guys when
>>needed. Like what do you guys know about a combat radar system, or fixing
>>an automobile, or farming. It's called division of labor.
>
>So then you do agree with the doctors' decision that the guy will
>never recover consciousness?

No. I agree that the doctor's "educated guess" that the guy will never
recover consciousness is probably right in most cases. I know that doctors
cannot see into the future, and I know that doctors often never prove he
will not recover consciousness because they kill the patient before the guy
dies naturally, by withholding treatment and/or life support.

Still you want his body maintained at
>huge cost for no reason?

Postponing death is not no reason. It is a huge reason. I want "him"
maintained, yes. Cost? How about if only the rich people who can lay down
the cash get kept alive by all that medicine has to offer. Would that be OK
with you?

>>
>> Should we just
>>>keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
>>>stage?
>>
>>Yes. In my opinion it is infinitely better than being dead. And at least
>>10 times infinitely better than being dissected. Do you believe in any
>>kind of a Supreme Being? Do you go to any special building once a week or
>>so owned by a corporation formed to organize worship of this Supreme
Being.
>>Do you believe in any kind of a heaven and hell. Consider the theory that
>>every minute we are alive is a minute we are not in hell. According to
the
>>rules of church, it is almost impossible to stay out of hell.
>
>So by living, you're just putting off your inevitable journey to hell?

Isn't that the main goal of life; avoiding pain and avoiding death? If
medical science knew as much about the human body as the other hard sciences
know about their subjects, we would be living forever (baring trama deaths)
by now. How come the medical "scientists" make so much more money than the
other scientists?

>>
>>Along a different vein, you can't keep people alive indefinitely, but you
>>can keep them alive for a long time. Consider people like me, who pay a
lot
>>of taxes (not as much as MDs of course), get almost nothing from the
>>government for it, pay several thousands of dollars a year for health
>>insurance, and see a physician an average of about 3 minutes a year.
>>Sooner or later, if I am lucky enough, I may be comatose and near death in
a
>>hospital bed. I want the government to keep me alive "indefinitely".
They
>>spent tons of my money on drug addicts, criminals, and people who
absolutely
>>refuse to work for their daily bread. Then it will be pay back time for
me.
>
>That's the welfare state for you. You're so bitter about that you want

Well, if the government would build me a 500 foot high gold pyramid as my
final resting place, that would be nice. If they spent nothing on welfare
after my death, my children might have the right to enjoy the standard of
living they work so hard for and are denied by the government, because of
economic discrimination and confiscatory tax rates.

### Wayne

Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to
Dear B. Rhodes:

Thanks for the reply and the input. Well reasoned.

Wayne

B. Rhodes wrote in message <3893C1CA...@leru.net>...

### B. Rhodes

Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to

Clearly in denial, Chris McCormack wrote:
(sorry, just thought it was funny at the time. No offense meant:)

No Chris, perhaps there hasn't been a great number of firearms owners
in your country, but that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a
greater amount of gun crimes if there were. I believe that in smaller
countries crime is less of a problem than in larger countries though
I've been criticized for this theory for awhile now. Another thing to
consider is that, for the most part, the people in this country are
descendants of rebels, or in other words: We can't help it. It's in the
genes. (I don't actually believe this, it's just a funny thought;)
My biggest problem with completely removing guns from the hands of law
abiding citizens is in the statement itself. The guns will be removed
from law abiding citizens, not the criminals, at least for a good number
of years. As I mentioned, if penalties were more severe for crimes
involving firearms, then it might make sense, or even if laws were
enforced as they are it might make some sense. When somebody who has
committed a felony is caught with a handgun and only receives probation
then there is a fault with the system, not the people who pay the bills.
I don't think for a second that the US government is concerned about the
lives of the people who die by shootings. If they did, they would care
just as much about automobile accident victims but his doesn't seem to
draw nearly as much attention no matter that the ratio of children to
adult deaths in auto accidents is several times greater than that of
shooting deaths, or that more people die in auto accidents every day
than in shootings in an entire year. Has the government in the UK ever
considered removing automobiles from public hands because of the much
higher death rate from accidents than shootings? I don't know what the
statistics are in the UK but I assume there are like numbers. I'm sure
they haven't, just like they haven't here. I'm not sure why, but it's
definitely something to think about isn't it? When handguns* are banned
because of a single case of a school shooting, but autos are left alone
even though thousands more die every year in them, you have to question
the reasoning behind it. My opinion is that no government feels
completely safe unless the public is disarmed. This has included nearly
every successful (and many unsuccessful) government since Rome, which
refused to let it's people arm themselves even when they were trying to
protect themselves from foreign invaders. Hitler's WWII Germany is
another good example. Any idea why he insisted on disarming the people?
UK, NZ, Australia and many others have been disarmed since and I, for
one, will refuse to give up so much as a single pellet gun while I yet
breathe. In our country, not only is it a constitutional right (though
even that is being disputed these days), I believe that owning a firearm
(or any other reasonable choice of weapon) for one's own protection is a
God given right that can be taken away by no other. Ok, I'm finished
with the soapbox. Would anyone else like to use it now? <G>

*One quick note about handguns: I believe there is no use for a handgun
except for self defense or concealing a weapon that is going to be used
to commit a crime. People who are caught carrying a sidearm (except
unloaded AND in plain sight for transport) without an appropriate
license (which should be rarely handed out) should be charged with a
felony and be sentenced to no less than 5 years in a penitentiary.

>
> Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:
>
> >Chris,
> > I've known many Englishmen who disagree with you, though for very
> >different reasons. New Zealanders also. That aside, what I wanted to ask
> >is, do you intend to state that, since disarming the public, the violent
> >crime, and murder rate in your country have signifigantly declined?
>

> Well, this doesn't really apply because there has never been a time
> when the public at large has been 'armed'. Although I can't provide
> you with any statistics, I am certain (having seen such stats in the
> past) that there are a tiny fraction the number of crimes involving
> guns in the UK compared to the US. I also believe our murder rates are
> much lower as well; it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife or
> blunt object or whatever.
>
> Until recently you could own a handgun with the appropriate license. A
> few years ago a madman took to a schoolyard with a handgun killing
> several adults & kids. In the following public outcry, all hand guns
>
> That said, a few days ago a local MP (Member of Parliament) was
> attacked in his office by a guy with a samurai sword. An aid was
> killed & the MP is in hospital with extensive cuts & gashes. Crazy!

> --
> Chris McCormack
> Whose life can be seen at www.systron.xs3.com/
>
> Haiku Error Message: Errors have occurred. We won't tell you where or why.
> Lazy programmers.

--
B. Rhodes Sr.

### B. Rhodes

Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to

Chris,
At least your being civil about it, unlike so many others who appear on
newsgroups and throw a temper tantrum if you don't agree with their
every written word. Besides, if we all agreed then there would be no
reason to read these newsgroups:) Though I believe that people should be
allowed to own what weapons they choose (within reason) I'll also admit
that probably over half the people in my country shouldn't be allowed to
handle so much as a steak knife, mostly because of the level of
stupidity they've inherited from 50 years of having the government do
their thinking for them. If everybody were responsible enough to own
firearms then there would probably be no need for them (at least for
protection purposes), but there would also be no need to ban them except
for the government's fear of being replaced by force, which is (I
believe) the larger reason for any government restricting the ownership
of weapons.

Chris McCormack says,
>
> Basically I think were're going to have to agree to disagree here!

> --
> Chris McCormack

--
B. Rhodes Sr.

### Chris McCormack

Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to

### Chris McCormack

Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:

>
>
>Clearly in denial, Chris McCormack wrote:
>(sorry, just thought it was funny at the time. No offense meant:)

:)

> My biggest problem with completely removing guns from the hands of law
>abiding citizens is in the statement itself. The guns will be removed
>from law abiding citizens, not the criminals, at least for a good number
>of years.

This is true and unavoidable, but still the long term benefits
outweigh the initial state, IMHO.

>As I mentioned, if penalties were more severe for crimes
>involving firearms, then it might make sense, or even if laws were
>enforced as they are it might make some sense. When somebody who has
>committed a felony is caught with a handgun and only receives probation
>then there is a fault with the system, not the people who pay the bills.
>I don't think for a second that the US government is concerned about the
>lives of the people who die by shootings. If they did, they would care
>just as much about automobile accident victims but his doesn't seem to
>draw nearly as much attention no matter that the ratio of children to
>adult deaths in auto accidents is several times greater than that of
>shooting deaths, or that more people die in auto accidents every day
>than in shootings in an entire year. Has the government in the UK ever
>considered removing automobiles from public hands because of the much
>higher death rate from accidents than shootings? I don't know what the
>statistics are in the UK but I assume there are like numbers. I'm sure
>they haven't, just like they haven't here. I'm not sure why, but it's
>definitely something to think about isn't it?

Road accidents are well known to be more likely to happen to the
average guy than most things that are made illegal solely on the
grounds of danger. The problem here is that the world would come to a
standstill if you outlawed all motor vehicals.High as the price is to
continue in this fashion, it is unquestionably better than the
alternative. My personal favorites statistic in that vein is that you
are considerably more likely to be run over & die on your way to buy a
lottery ticket than actually win over £1000.

>When handguns* are banned
>because of a single case of a school shooting, but autos are left alone
>even though thousands more die every year in them, you have to question
>the reasoning behind it. My opinion is that no government feels
>completely safe unless the public is disarmed. This has included nearly
>every successful (and many unsuccessful) government since Rome, which
>refused to let it's people arm themselves even when they were trying to
>protect themselves from foreign invaders. Hitler's WWII Germany is
>another good example. Any idea why he insisted on disarming the people?

It seems you are i,plying that outlawing guns is an act of public
repression? Not at all, it is the conscious decision of the majority
of the people. It reminds me of a program I saw on TV the other day
about the UK police operation to get a DNA sample from as many people
as possible. This clearly has connotations of invasion of privacy,
however the police cannot force you to give a sample. The majority of
cases where people have been most forthcoming with samples are when
there have been a string of serious crimes in the area; people are
happy with what they (mostly) consider to be a minor invasion of their
privacy if they think it will help catch the bad guy.

>UK, NZ, Australia and many others have been disarmed since and I, for
>one, will refuse to give up so much as a single pellet gun while I yet
>breathe. In our country, not only is it a constitutional right (though
>even that is being disputed these days), I believe that owning a firearm
>(or any other reasonable choice of weapon) for one's own protection is a
>God given right that can be taken away by no other. Ok, I'm finished
>with the soapbox. Would anyone else like to use it now? <G>

Basically I think were're going to have to agree to disagree here!

>*One quick note about handguns: I believe there is no use for a handgun
>except for self defense or concealing a weapon that is going to be used
>to commit a crime. People who are caught carrying a sidearm (except
>unloaded AND in plain sight for transport) without an appropriate
>license (which should be rarely handed out) should be charged with a
>felony and be sentenced to no less than 5 years in a penitentiary.

--

### Chris McCormack

Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to
Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:

>
>Chris,

> At least your being civil about it, unlike so many others who appear on
>newsgroups and throw a temper tantrum if you don't agree with their
>every written word. Besides, if we all agreed then there would be no
>reason to read these newsgroups:) Though I believe that people should be
>allowed to own what weapons they choose (within reason) I'll also admit
>that probably over half the people in my country shouldn't be allowed to
>handle so much as a steak knife,

Same situation here, though maybe steak knife licenses should be
issued to about 30% of the population IMHO :)

>mostly because of the level of
>stupidity they've inherited from 50 years of having the government do
>their thinking for them.

Government does their thinking for them? Not quite sure I understand
that.

>If everybody were responsible enough to own
>firearms then there would probably be no need for them (at least for
>protection purposes), but there would also be no need to ban them except
>for the government's fear of being replaced by force, which is (I
>believe) the larger reason for any government restricting the ownership
>of weapons.

In a democracy, it would be easier surely to vote a government out
than take over by force, unless of course the group applying the force
didn't represent a particularly large segment of the population. If
this were the case, they have no place taking power over the country.
Can you see revolution happening in the US before the simple act of
placing a strategic vote?

### Chris McCormack

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to
Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:

>> Government does their thinking for them? Not quite sure I understand
>> that.
>

>What I mean by this, (mostly at least) is that the government of my
>country has increased it's meddling in the personal affairs of the
>taxpayer to the point of telling them they are too stupid make decisions
>about their everyday life on their own, though not in those words,
>(smoking, seat belts, etc.) and most of it has happened since WWII and
>after the institution of the Welfare act. I agree that seat belts are a
>good idea, and while I do smoke, (a pipe, not those foul smelling
>cigarettes) I realize it's not exactly good for me, but these should be
>my choice, not the people I employ to run the country for me. If it's
>not literally suicide and I'm not influencing or bringing harm to

Seatbelts are a bad example, through not wearing a seatbelt you can
kill or injure someone else, ie the person in front in a crash. On
principal I agree though, 'vitimless' crime is pointless. My personal
pet hate is drug law <braces self>. Why? What's the point in making a
high proportion of the population criminals? Why are alcohol &
nicotine legal then? I could rant about it for hours.

Has anyone ever been charged with attempted suicide? I've always
considered that a redundant law. If someone is trying to end it all,
the last thing on their mind is going to be the possible legal
repercussions. The least helpful thing to do, assuming they've
survived, it to then charge them with a crime.I also believe that
euthanasia is a good thing, the fact that it continues to be illegal
in most countries is unfortunate, IMO.

<snip>

>Actual revolution, and having a government that can't rule out the
>possibility are two separate things, but they can accoplish nearly the
>same ends.
>Of course it would be much easier to vote reform, but the problem is
>that the politicians will say anything to get votes, then do as they
>please after elected. Also, it's no longer a matter of the best man for
>the job, but the man who has the most money that gets elected. This
>country has been run by rich elitists for quite some time now because,
>it seems, the average Joe will vote for the most seen face, not the most
>decent and honest man (if there is such a thing in politics).

There is, sadly, nothing anyone can do about that. You can't say
anyone's vote is less important than someone else's, although in
reality some people vote because they believe in what they're voting
for and some 'cos the candidate looks a bit like their grandfather
used to. Also I think the US & the UK have fairly similar turnouts at
elections, between 30-40%; that's poor. This also represents the
higher end of the social scale more than it does the lower end. You
can argue the merit of this, but you can't say its representational of
the public at large.

>Party politics have taken over (did you know that a good number of years
>ago, the person who got the second largest number of votes was elected
>Vice President?) and ruined the democratic process. When Kennedy and
>Nixon both ran for office in the 60's, Nixon actually won the popular
>vote, but because of the electoral process, Kennedy was elected
>president of the USA. This is clearly not a government "Of the people,
>By the people, For the people" anymore. I'm of the opinion that paying
>huge sums for TV adds when election time rolls around should be illegal,
>and that those who are running for political office should be required
>to engage in a series of televised debates during a 16 week period
>before election day and this would be the only televised appearances.
>Traveling, handshaking and baby holding, etc. would all be fine but a
>dollar limit would be necessary. Also, any politician who doesn't
>directly answer a question during the debates should be stricken from
>the race. This last would ensure a minimal number of runners. <G>

:)

How are you going to put a limit on it? That might be a tricky thing
to implement. It would still be almost impossible to shield the less
perceptive voter from political 'tricks', I fear.

>In all seriousness, I don't believe we will have an actual violent
>revolution, but I do see no small amount of troubles coming soon if
>things don't change. Too many people are on the edge of open rebellion
>and it would only take something like making cigarettes illegal to set
>them off (though I don't see this particular thing happening. Too much
>money from the tobacco industries gets directly into government
>pockets). What I think is more likely is widespread death due to some
>disease that cuts the population down to 1/2 or less what it is, after
>which I believe the government will likely worry about more important
>things than seat belt law enforcement and suing tobacco companies for no
>reason.* (that oughtta get a rise from someone:)

I don't think anyone is on the edge of rebellion. Clearly making
tobacco illegal would cause a huge backlash and would not be seriously
entertained by any policy makers. A disease wipe out half the
population? Not impossible, but I'll eat my hat if I wake up on monday
morning to find out that ebola is spreading North America like
wildfire.

>*Yes, I said no reason. It's said that smokers are a drain on the
>medicare and welfare system, but the actual numbers state differently.
>Heavy smokers die sooner than non-smokers, and actually save the
>government money. I'll find the website that had the actual numbers
>again and post them here, though it may take awhile as I've been trying
>to relocate it for the past week. Still, don't wait for me; See if you
>can find them yourself. I don't remember all the exact numbers, but
>there was a significant spread (seems like the smokers cost the taxpayer
>about 12% less than non-smokers but that number could be wrong. That's
>just the number that sticks in my mind. It may be even more.) and I have
>to wonder why the smokers are burdened with paying all those extra taxes
>when they don't reap the benefits of the money. Could it be, that Uncle
>Sam just picked the group of people least likely to bitch
>(statistically, smokers as a group are less educated and more afraid of
>the government than non-smokers) about a huge tax and price increase?

Agreed that smokers pay more than they cost governments. Here the
government provides healthcare to anyone who needs it, meaning that
lung cancer & smoking-related disease costs the government 100s of
millions. US doesn't have a public health system as I understand it,
so this doesn't apply to you? However, the government doesn't give
cigarette tax income to the NHS, so it doesn't matter how much they
make in taxes, more smokers = more disease = more cost the NHS, which
they have to find from somewhere.

>P.S.
>Don't mean to be a killjoy, but shouldn't you and I take this discussion
>to a newsgroup that applies, or offline? I can see that there aren't
>many posts here, but the other readers are probably beginning to grow
>bored with our long posts that have nothing to do with the newsgroup
>title. If you know of a newsgroup where this is welcome, just email me
>the name and I'll be there with bells on, ranting about my sodding (that
>word was thrown in just for you:) government.

No, not really. If anyone is bored or irritated with this thread, then
say so! Or if anyone knows of an applicable NG, then tell us. Until
then.....

### Wayne

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...

>Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:
>
>>
>>Chris,
>> At least your being civil about it, unlike so many others who appear on
>>newsgroups and throw a temper tantrum if you don't agree with their
>>every written word. Besides, if we all agreed then there would be no
>>reason to read these newsgroups:) Though I believe that people should be
>>allowed to own what weapons they choose (within reason) I'll also admit
>>that probably over half the people in my country shouldn't be allowed to
>>handle so much as a steak knife,
>
>Same situation here, though maybe steak knife licenses should be
>issued to about 30% of the population IMHO :)

Guys, a firearm is not a complicated machine. Do you agree that most people
who shoot themselves accidentally must be really really careless? It would
seen to me that, on average, the people in the U.S. today are vastly more
educated that those living here 200 years ago, at which time there were
probably no restrictions on firearms.

>
>>mostly because of the level of
>>stupidity they've inherited from 50 years of having the government do
>>their thinking for them.

Agreed!

>
>Government does their thinking for them? Not quite sure I understand
>that.
>

>>If everybody were responsible enough to own
>>firearms then there would probably be no need for them (at least for
>>protection purposes), but there would also be no need to ban them except
>>for the government's fear of being replaced by force, which is (I
>>believe) the larger reason for any government restricting the ownership
>>of weapons.
>
>In a democracy, it would be easier surely to vote a government out
>than take over by force, unless of course the group applying the force
>didn't represent a particularly large segment of the population. If
>this were the case, they have no place taking power over the country.
>Can you see revolution happening in the US before the simple act of
>placing a strategic vote?

The politicians get the big money from the corporations and the special
interest groups. They get the votes in ever growing numbers by doleing out
unearned benefits to the lower economic classes and the liberals they are
also making happy with the constant walk deeper into socialism towards
communism. All made possible by the liberally biased media. See any
parallels with the decline of the Roman Empire?

Wayne

### Wayne

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

B. Rhodes wrote in message <389466D6...@leru.net>...

>
>
>Chris McCormack wrote:
>>
>> Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:
>
>> >mostly because of the level of
>> >stupidity they've inherited from 50 years of having the government do
>> >their thinking for them.
>>
>> Government does their thinking for them? Not quite sure I understand
>> that.
>
>What I mean by this, (mostly at least) is that the government of my
>country has increased it's meddling in the personal affairs of the
>taxpayer to the point of telling them they are too stupid make decisions
>about their everyday life on their own, though not in those words,
>(smoking, seat belts, etc.)

Do you have the law yet where if you have your windshield wipers on and
your headlights are not on too, you get a traffic ticket? I do. Doesn't
matter if there's only a few drops a minute coming down, or if the sun is
shining. How about waiting in line 2-3 hours for the dynamoter emissions
test. And of course the no smoking commercial flights law has made me a
"never for vacation" " not for business either if I can get out of it" kind
of flyer.

and most of it has happened since WWII and
>after the institution of the Welfare act. I agree that seat belts are a
>good idea, and while I do smoke, (a pipe, not those foul smelling
>cigarettes) I realize it's not exactly good for me, but these should be
>my choice, not the people I employ to run the country for me. If it's
>not literally suicide and I'm not influencing or bringing harm to
>>

>> >If everybody were responsible enough to own
>> >firearms then there would probably be no need for them (at least for
>> >protection purposes), but there would also be no need to ban them except
>> >for the government's fear of being replaced by force, which is (I
>> >believe) the larger reason for any government restricting the ownership
>> >of weapons.
>>
>> In a democracy, it would be easier surely to vote a government out
>> than take over by force, unless of course the group applying the force
>> didn't represent a particularly large segment of the population. If
>> this were the case, they have no place taking power over the country.
>> Can you see revolution happening in the US before the simple act of
>> placing a strategic vote?
>

>Actual revolution, and having a government that can't rule out the
>possibility are two separate things, but they can accoplish nearly the
>same ends.
>Of course it would be much easier to vote reform, but the problem is
>that the politicians will say anything to get votes, then do as they
>please after elected. Also, it's no longer a matter of the best man for
>the job, but the man who has the most money that gets elected. This
>country has been run by rich elitists for quite some time now because,
>it seems, the average Joe will vote for the most seen face, not the most
>decent and honest man (if there is such a thing in politics).

>Party politics have taken over (did you know that a good number of years
>ago, the person who got the second largest number of votes was elected
>Vice President?) and ruined the democratic process. When Kennedy and
>Nixon both ran for office in the 60's, Nixon actually won the popular
>vote, but because of the electoral process, Kennedy was elected
>president of the USA. This is clearly not a government "Of the people,
>By the people, For the people" anymore. I'm of the opinion that paying
>huge sums for TV adds when election time rolls around should be illegal,
>and that those who are running for political office should be required
>to engage in a series of televised debates during a 16 week period
>before election day and this would be the only televised appearances.
>Traveling, handshaking and baby holding, etc. would all be fine but a
>dollar limit would be necessary. Also, any politician who doesn't
>directly answer a question during the debates should be stricken from
>the race. This last would ensure a minimal number of runners. <G>

When the U.S. Federal govenrment was instituted the Senate and it "2 per
state" representation, was established to protect the rich. If I were rich
I wouldn't want the peasants enacting a law that took away my wealth. On
the other hand, a pure democracy would been fun to try.

Concerning the electoral college, it served a purpose when it took people up
to two months to travel to Washington, but now, we could set up something
where the people could introduce bills directly by petition, and we could
watch congress on TV every night and vote on everything directly by phone or

>
>In all seriousness, I don't believe we will have an actual violent
>revolution, but I do see no small amount of troubles coming soon if
>things don't change. Too many people are on the edge of open rebellion

Count me in!

>and it would only take something like making cigarettes illegal to set
>them off (though I don't see this particular thing happening. Too much
>money from the tobacco industries gets directly into government
>pockets). What I think is more likely is widespread death due to some
>disease that cuts the population down to 1/2 or less what it is, after
>which I believe the government will likely worry about more important
>things than seat belt law enforcement and suing tobacco companies for no
>reason.* (that oughtta get a rise from someone:)

Gun companies too. The cesspool cities will do anything to get cash.

>
>
>
>
>*Yes, I said no reason. It's said that smokers are a drain on the
>medicare and welfare system, but the actual numbers state differently.
>Heavy smokers die sooner than non-smokers, and actually save the
>government money. I'll find the website that had the actual numbers
>again and post them here, though it may take awhile as I've been trying
>to relocate it for the past week. Still, don't wait for me; See if you
>can find them yourself. I don't remember all the exact numbers, but
>there was a significant spread (seems like the smokers cost the taxpayer
>about 12% less than non-smokers but that number could be wrong. That's
>just the number that sticks in my mind. It may be even more.) and I have
>to wonder why the smokers are burdened with paying all those extra taxes
>when they don't reap the benefits of the money. Could it be, that Uncle
>Sam just picked the group of people least likely to bitch
>(statistically, smokers as a group are less educated and more afraid of
>the government than non-smokers) about a huge tax and price increase?

I smoke and I'm educated. I heard those figure too. I'd love to see the
website, because it's been 2-3 years since talk radio was dealing with that
topic. Cigarettes make younger people more hyper, and companies love busy
workers. They don't muddle your brain, and you die younger, on average,
those saving social security benefits. The dying process doesn't linger too
long, saving medical costs. And the cigarette taxes paid over a life time
are large, probably about \$1000/yr/smoker now.

On the other hand, people who be disease from alcohol (alcoholicism) often
are lousey workers, or unemployed or unemployable, thus creating a long term
burden on society. Then there is the drunk dring issue, industrial
accidents, etc.

All in all, I heard that smokers put into the government more cash than they
take out, and just the opposite for alcohol users.

>
>
>P.S.
>Don't mean to be a killjoy, but shouldn't you and I take this discussion
>to a newsgroup that applies, or offline? I can see that there aren't
>many posts here, but the other readers are probably beginning to grow
>bored with our long posts that have nothing to do with the newsgroup
>title.

It's called "natural death of a thread". I think it had a pretty good run.
You're not calling my thread boring are you?

Wayne

If you know of a newsgroup where this is welcome, just email me
>the name and I'll be there with bells on, ranting about my sodding (that
>word was thrown in just for you:) government.
>

>--
> B. Rhodes Sr.

### Wayne

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message <6nmZOOHF8rBT3Y...@4ax.com>...

>Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:
>
>>> Government does their thinking for them? Not quite sure I understand
>>> that.
>>
>>What I mean by this, (mostly at least) is that the government of my
>>country has increased it's meddling in the personal affairs of the
>>taxpayer to the point of telling them they are too stupid make decisions
>>about their everyday life on their own, though not in those words,
>>(smoking, seat belts, etc.) and most of it has happened since WWII and
>>after the institution of the Welfare act. I agree that seat belts are a
>>good idea, and while I do smoke, (a pipe, not those foul smelling
>>cigarettes) I realize it's not exactly good for me, but these should be
>>my choice, not the people I employ to run the country for me. If it's
>>not literally suicide and I'm not influencing or bringing harm to
>
>Seatbelts are a bad example, through not wearing a seatbelt you can
>kill or injure someone else, ie the person in front in a crash. On
>principal I agree though, 'vitimless' crime is pointless.

Under the common law there always had to be an injured party before a crime
, or a civil suit, could exist. We the people let the arrogant egotisical
people who always gravitate to government take that away from us. The
"people" via the government, thought, we must not only punish the bad for
what they did, we must "prevent" these "bad" things from happpening in the
first place. Let us invent "statutes". And the liberals sent forth the
Statutes by the mutitude, and they saw that they were good, and they have
been inventing new ones in boundless numbers ever since. And there will be
no end of them until the end.

My personal
>pet hate is drug law <braces self>. Why? What's the point in making a
>high proportion of the population criminals? Why are alcohol &
>nicotine legal then? I could rant about it for hours.

This could be a whole new thread by itself. Alcohol and nicotine are legal
because they were used by a large percentage of the population for a long
time AND, by and large, people who are addicted to alcohol or nicotine don't
burgerize, rob and kill people to get money to buy alcohol and nicotine. I
would agree to make all drugs legal if two conditions are met, both of which
I believe should be my God given right to begin with, and used to be 150
years ago.
1. I can buy, own and carry any and all weapons I fell like buying, owning,
and carrying (without any government approval, license, or any other
interference).
2. Socialism is constitutionally forever outlawed. Do what you want, but
never get the government to effectively rob me of my hard earned money
(always at threat of bodily harm) and give it to you.

Do we have a deal?
Wayne

>
>Has anyone ever been charged with attempted suicide? I've always
>considered that a redundant law. If someone is trying to end it all,
>the last thing on their mind is going to be the possible legal
>repercussions. The least helpful thing to do, assuming they've
>survived, it to then charge them with a crime.I also believe that
>euthanasia is a good thing, the fact that it continues to be illegal
>in most countries is unfortunate, IMO.

In my state, attempting, or committing, suicide is not illegal. I have
always been amazed when I hear on the news about someone the police stopped
from commiting suicide. They usually add that the person was taken away for
medical evaluation or whatever. I must assume that it is with the person's
consent, because the police have no right to take that person anywhere. It
is a felony crime, however, to help someone commit suicide.

In my state I can find no law making it illegal to eat other people (LOL, I
mean cannibalism) or to screw dead people. You would think these ancient
taboos would be in there but they are not. Don't you think executing
someone who would do that would be a good thing for society? But no, they
are legal. What kind of people removed those laws, and why? More liberal
elistists, along the theory that someone who screws or eats dead people
can't be bad because they are mentally ill? nice Theory.

>
><snip>
>
>>Actual revolution, and having a government that can't rule out the
>>possibility are two separate things, but they can accoplish nearly the
>>same ends.
>>Of course it would be much easier to vote reform, but the problem is
>>that the politicians will say anything to get votes, then do as they
>>please after elected. Also, it's no longer a matter of the best man for
>>the job, but the man who has the most money that gets elected. This
>>country has been run by rich elitists for quite some time now because,
>>it seems, the average Joe will vote for the most seen face, not the most
>>decent and honest man (if there is such a thing in politics).

I, a conservative, have effectively givern up on the republicans in the
early 90s. I now vote for any guy who says he is for restoring the
Constitution, which all the politicans save maybe one I can think of, wipe
their ass with every day, and all say him, ought to be tried for Treason of
Oath of Office. Of course these little "Constitutional" guys get about 1/2%
of the vote, but rather than vote for maybe a winner who keeps us marching
down the path of socialism, at least I voted for someone who tells the truth
and says what I like to hear. I've conceded defeat, and I"m just waiting to
see who arrives first, the Visgoths or the Vandals.

>
>There is, sadly, nothing anyone can do about that. You can't say
>anyone's vote is less important than someone else's, although in
>reality some people vote because they believe in what they're voting
>for and some 'cos the candidate looks a bit like their grandfather
>used to. Also I think the US & the UK have fairly similar turnouts at
>elections, between 30-40%; that's poor. This also represents the
>higher end of the social scale more than it does the lower end. You
>can argue the merit of this, but you can't say its representational of
>the public at large.

I heard a great idea on talk radio a couple of years ago. How to reverse
socialize and kill the welfare state before they kill our soverign nation:
eveyone gets 1 vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. Sounds fair to me.
Why should the rowers who make it possible for the government and the nation
to run, only get the same say as the sea anchors?

### Chris McCormack

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

> My personal
>>pet hate is drug law <braces self>. Why? What's the point in making a
>>high proportion of the population criminals? Why are alcohol &
>>nicotine legal then? I could rant about it for hours.
>
>This could be a whole new thread by itself. Alcohol and nicotine are legal
>because they were used by a large percentage of the population for a long
>time AND, by and large, people who are addicted to alcohol or nicotine don't
>burgerize, rob and kill people to get money to buy alcohol and nicotine.

Government statistic in UK suggests that 1-2million people take drugs
every weekend. That's 2-3% of the population on a weekly basis. That's
a big chunk of people. The reason drug *addicts* steal is to pay for
heroin. It has been noted that people like doctors and pharmacists who
have a cheap clean supply of herion & morphine can hold an addiction
for over 20 years & still function normally in society. Once addicted,
a person has real problems, then making them a criminal by definition
and with just about no other option that a life of crime. While anyone
who lets them get into such a situation is weak and stupid, the way
they are treated is detrimental to society as a whole.

Alcoholics are quite prone to crime & in particular to violence. IMO,
alcohol is one of the nastiest drugs, although as american prohibition
proved, it is not something that can just be made illegal. Alcohol is
also more addictive than all the illegal stimulants, including cocaine

I
>would agree to make all drugs legal if two conditions are met, both of which
>I believe should be my God given right to begin with, and used to be 150
>years ago.
>1. I can buy, own and carry any and all weapons I fell like buying, owning,
>and carrying (without any government approval, license, or any other
>interference).

People on drugs with weapons is a good thing then?!?

>2. Socialism is constitutionally forever outlawed. Do what you want, but
>never get the government to effectively rob me of my hard earned money
>(always at threat of bodily harm) and give it to you.

Relevance?

<snip>

>In my state, attempting, or committing, suicide is not illegal. I have
>always been amazed when I hear on the news about someone the police stopped
>from commiting suicide. They usually add that the person was taken away for
>medical evaluation or whatever. I must assume that it is with the person's
>consent, because the police have no right to take that person anywhere. It
>is a felony crime, however, to help someone commit suicide.
>
>In my state I can find no law making it illegal to eat other people (LOL, I
>mean cannibalism) or to screw dead people. You would think these ancient
>taboos would be in there but they are not. Don't you think executing
>someone who would do that would be a good thing for society? But no, they
>are legal. What kind of people removed those laws, and why? More liberal
>elistists, along the theory that someone who screws or eats dead people
>can't be bad because they are mentally ill? nice Theory.

I agree, people who do these things need help, not banging up.
Cannibalism implies murder. You're a lucky cannibal if you
consistently stumble upon fresh, dead people that no one else seems to
have noticed. I was surprised a few years ago to find out that
bestiality in associated with a custodial sentence in UK. I never
really thought that it would be a realistic issue; but clearly is to
the extent to have laws passed against it.

<snip>

>I heard a great idea on talk radio a couple of years ago. How to reverse
>socialize and kill the welfare state before they kill our soverign nation:
>eveyone gets 1 vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. Sounds fair to me.
>Why should the rowers who make it possible for the government and the nation
>to run, only get the same say as the sea anchors?

That's not democracy. Not saying, unlike many might, that democracy is
necessarily the best system, but it is the one that is claimed to be
reached for by most western governments. Most people agree with this
because they are 'supposed' to, not through conscious decision. I am
say which ones? In the mean time should everyone have an equal say?
Its a tricky issue.

### Chris McCormack

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

>Do you have the law yet where if you have your windshield wipers on and
>your headlights are not on too, you get a traffic ticket? I do. Doesn't
>matter if there's only a few drops a minute coming down, or if the sun is
>shining. How about waiting in line 2-3 hours for the dynamoter emissions
>test. And of course the no smoking commercial flights law has made me a
>"never for vacation" " not for business either if I can get out of it" kind
>of flyer.

I don't drive, so even if we were to have such laws, I would probably
be oblivious to them. But to the best of my knowledge, we don't.

>
>When the U.S. Federal govenrment was instituted the Senate and it "2 per
>state" representation, was established to protect the rich. If I were rich
>I wouldn't want the peasants enacting a law that took away my wealth. On
>the other hand, a pure democracy would been fun to try.

Are you rich? You seem to have a certain contempt for the unemployed &
people who in your opinion don't pull their weight.

>
>Concerning the electoral college, it served a purpose when it took people up
>to two months to travel to Washington, but now, we could set up something
>where the people could introduce bills directly by petition, and we could
>watch congress on TV every night and vote on everything directly by phone or

Computer, yes. My university has sabbatical elections via the web. I
think referendums & local & national voting via the internet might get
a few more people to vote & gauge the public opinion better than
anything we've got now.

>I smoke and I'm educated. I heard those figure too. I'd love to see the
>website, because it's been 2-3 years since talk radio was dealing with that
>topic. Cigarettes make younger people more hyper, and companies love busy
>workers. They don't muddle your brain, and you die younger, on average,
>those saving social security benefits. The dying process doesn't linger too
>long, saving medical costs. And the cigarette taxes paid over a life time
>are large, probably about \$1000/yr/smoker now.
>
>On the other hand, people who be disease from alcohol (alcoholicism) often
>are lousey workers, or unemployed or unemployable, thus creating a long term
>burden on society. Then there is the drunk dring issue, industrial
>accidents, etc.
>
>All in all, I heard that smokers put into the government more cash than they
>take out, and just the opposite for alcohol users.

An alcohol 'user' is not the same thing as an alcoholic. Most people
just drink at the weekend & don't do any damage, hurt anyone etc, etc.
Alcoholics are usually useless wasters, so alcohol makes the
government a lot more cash than it costs them.

>It's called "natural death of a thread". I think it had a pretty good run.
>You're not calling my thread boring are you?

### Chris McCormack

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

>
>Guys, a firearm is not a complicated machine. Do you agree that most people
>who shoot themselves accidentally must be really really careless? It would
>seen to me that, on average, the people in the U.S. today are vastly more
>educated that those living here 200 years ago, at which time there were
>probably no restrictions on firearms.

The differences between America 200 years ago & today are too numerous
to contemplate, saying its due to education alone is a useless
statement. I'm sure an equal proportion of people shot themselves 200
years ago. Doesn't make the current state of affairs any better.

>The politicians get the big money from the corporations and the special
>interest groups. They get the votes in ever growing numbers by doleing out
>unearned benefits to the lower economic classes and the liberals they are
>also making happy with the constant walk deeper into socialism towards
>communism. All made possible by the liberally biased media. See any
>parallels with the decline of the Roman Empire?

Sadly know nothing of the decline of the Roman empire that apples
here.

### Wayne

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...

>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
>> My personal
>>>pet hate is drug law <braces self>. Why? What's the point in making a
>>>high proportion of the population criminals? Why are alcohol &
>>>nicotine legal then? I could rant about it for hours.
>>
>>This could be a whole new thread by itself. Alcohol and nicotine are
legal
>>because they were used by a large percentage of the population for a long
>>time AND, by and large, people who are addicted to alcohol or nicotine
don't
>>burgerize, rob and kill people to get money to buy alcohol and nicotine.
>
>Government statistic in UK suggests that 1-2million people take drugs
>every weekend. That's 2-3% of the population on a weekly basis. That's
>a big chunk of people. The reason drug *addicts* steal is to pay for
>heroin. It has been noted that people like doctors and pharmacists who
>have a cheap clean supply of herion & morphine can hold an addiction
>for over 20 years & still function normally in society. Once addicted,
>a person has real problems, then making them a criminal by definition
>and with just about no other option that a life of crime. While anyone
>who lets them get into such a situation is weak and stupid, the way
>they are treated is detrimental to society as a whole.
>
>Alcoholics are quite prone to crime & in particular to violence. IMO,
>alcohol is one of the nastiest drugs, although as american prohibition
>proved, it is not something that can just be made illegal. Alcohol is
>also more addictive than all the illegal stimulants, including cocaine
>
> I
>>would agree to make all drugs legal if two conditions are met, both of
which
>>I believe should be my God given right to begin with, and used to be 150
>>years ago.
>>1. I can buy, own and carry any and all weapons I fell like buying,
owning,
>>and carrying (without any government approval, license, or any other
>>interference).
>
>People on drugs with weapons is a good thing then?!?

Do you think they don't already have them? I want to be able to protect
myself.

>
>>2. Socialism is constitutionally forever outlawed. Do what you want, but
>>never get the government to effectively rob me of my hard earned money
>>(always at threat of bodily harm) and give it to you.
>

>Relevance?

I am sick and tired of obeying all the laws and rules of society and getting
robbed by the government as my reward; where as the dregs and miscreants
don't do the same but in fact contributed little to nothing and get all the
benefits.
>
><snip>

>
>>In my state, attempting, or committing, suicide is not illegal. I have
>>always been amazed when I hear on the news about someone the police
stopped
>>from commiting suicide. They usually add that the person was taken away
for
>>medical evaluation or whatever. I must assume that it is with the
person's
>>consent, because the police have no right to take that person anywhere.
It
>>is a felony crime, however, to help someone commit suicide.
>>
>>In my state I can find no law making it illegal to eat other people (LOL,
I
>>mean cannibalism) or to screw dead people. You would think these ancient
>>taboos would be in there but they are not. Don't you think executing
>>someone who would do that would be a good thing for society? But no, they
>>are legal. What kind of people removed those laws, and why? More liberal
>>elistists, along the theory that someone who screws or eats dead people
>>can't be bad because they are mentally ill? nice Theory.
>

>I agree, people who do these things need help, not banging up.

You would. In your opinion, what does one have to do to another person to
deserve banging up?

>Cannibalism implies murder. You're a lucky cannibal if you
>consistently stumble upon fresh, dead people that no one else seems to
>have noticed. I was surprised a few years ago to find out that
>bestiality in associated with a custodial sentence in UK. I never
>really thought that it would be a realistic issue; but clearly is to
>the extent to have laws passed against it.

Bestiality? Isn't that screwing animals? I was talking about necrophilia.
BTW, I can't find a law against bestiality here either.

>
><snip>

>
>>I heard a great idea on talk radio a couple of years ago. How to reverse
>>socialize and kill the welfare state before they kill our soverign nation:
>>eveyone gets 1 vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. Sounds fair to
me.
>>Why should the rowers who make it possible for the government and the
nation
>>to run, only get the same say as the sea anchors?
>

>That's not democracy. Not saying, unlike many might, that democracy is
>necessarily the best system, but it is the one that is claimed to be
>reached for by most western governments. Most people agree with this
>because they are 'supposed' to, not through conscious decision. I am
>say which ones? In the mean time should everyone have an equal say?
>Its a tricky issue.

I agree. By and large politicians don't do what the people want, unless it
will get them more votes; they do what the large contributors want.

### Wayne

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...
>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
>>Do you have the law yet where if you have your windshield wipers on and
>>your headlights are not on too, you get a traffic ticket? I do. Doesn't
>>matter if there's only a few drops a minute coming down, or if the sun is
>>shining. How about waiting in line 2-3 hours for the dynamoter emissions
>>test. And of course the no smoking commercial flights law has made me a
>>"never for vacation" " not for business either if I can get out of it"
kind
>>of flyer.
>
>I don't drive, so even if we were to have such laws, I would probably
>be oblivious to them. But to the best of my knowledge, we don't.
>
>>
>>When the U.S. Federal govenrment was instituted the Senate and it "2 per
>>state" representation, was established to protect the rich. If I were
rich
>>I wouldn't want the peasants enacting a law that took away my wealth. On
>>the other hand, a pure democracy would been fun to try.
>
>Are you rich? You seem to have a certain contempt for the unemployed &
>people who in your opinion don't pull their weight.

No I'm not rich, I'm middle class. I work hard and consistantly, as does my
wife. We almost never take a day off from work for sickness, have little
tax deductions, and pay, pay, pay them taxes.
I have no contempt in regards to social security or real medical disability.
I have nothing but contempt for able bodied people who refuse to work and
live their lives on the dole, at my expense. We have many millions of them.

>>
>>Concerning the electoral college, it served a purpose when it took people
up
>>to two months to travel to Washington, but now, we could set up something
>>where the people could introduce bills directly by petition, and we could
>>watch congress on TV every night and vote on everything directly by phone
or
>

>Computer, yes. My university has sabbatical elections via the web. I
>think referendums & local & national voting via the internet might get
>a few more people to vote & gauge the public opinion better than
>anything we've got now.
>
>

>>I smoke and I'm educated. I heard those figure too. I'd love to see the
>>website, because it's been 2-3 years since talk radio was dealing with
that
>>topic. Cigarettes make younger people more hyper, and companies love busy
>>workers. They don't muddle your brain, and you die younger, on average,
>>those saving social security benefits. The dying process doesn't linger
too
>>long, saving medical costs. And the cigarette taxes paid over a life time
>>are large, probably about \$1000/yr/smoker now.
>>
>>On the other hand, people who be disease from alcohol (alcoholicism) often
>>are lousey workers, or unemployed or unemployable, thus creating a long
term
>>burden on society. Then there is the drunk dring issue, industrial
>>accidents, etc.
>>
>>All in all, I heard that smokers put into the government more cash than
they
>>take out, and just the opposite for alcohol users.
>

>An alcohol 'user' is not the same thing as an alcoholic. Most people
>just drink at the weekend & don't do any damage, hurt anyone etc, etc.
>Alcoholics are usually useless wasters, so alcohol makes the
>government a lot more cash than it costs them.

Any comments on the medical establishment changing alcoholism from a
voluntary life style to a "disease"?

>
>
>>It's called "natural death of a thread". I think it had a pretty good
run.
>>You're not calling my thread boring are you?
>

### Chris McCormack

Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

<snip>

>>People on drugs with weapons is a good thing then?!?
>
>Do you think they don't already have them? I want to be able to protect
>myself.

Mostly not, certainly in UK anyway. I wouldn't personally want to make
the situation worse by just letting anyone have a gun on the pretext
of self-defence.

>I am sick and tired of obeying all the laws and rules of society and getting
>robbed by the government as my reward; where as the dregs and miscreants
>don't do the same but in fact contributed little to nothing and get all the
>benefits.

So what would your alternative be? Just let them all die?

>>I agree, people who do these things need help, not banging up.
>
>You would. In your opinion, what does one have to do to another person to
>deserve banging up?

Cause harm to another person or persons. If they are mentally ill,
then they also need help, not simple punishment. Of course they would
also need to be secured if they are dangerous.

### Chris McCormack

Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to
Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:

<snip>

>>An alcohol 'user' is not the same thing as an alcoholic. Most people

>>just drink at the weekend & don't do any damage, hurt anyone etc, etc.
>>Alcoholics are usually useless wasters, so alcohol makes the
>>government a lot more cash than it costs them.
>
>Any comments on the medical establishment changing alcoholism from a
>voluntary life style to a "disease"?

Well, it will always have started out as a lifestyle decision, or at
least a lack in personal strength to deal with some situation or
problem. However, treating alcoholics as the scum of the earth will do
no one any good. Treating them as though they are 'diseased' and
trying as best you can to coax them back to sobriety & leading a
relatively normal & socially acceptable life is clearly the best
course of action.

### Chris McCormack

Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to
Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:

>Considering that firearms were then an EVERYDAY PART of life where today
>they are rarely even seen, that's not saying much for our supposedly
>educated and enlightened society is it; that the yokels that settled
>this country appear to be able to do themselves less harm than we are in
>these days and times.

Do you actually believe that? As a proportion of the population you
think more people get shot now that 200 years ago?

>I think I was partially wrong in a previous post,
>when I said that natural selection and survival of the fittest didn't
>necessarily apply that recently in our history. I think it did apply as
>little as 200 years ago, at least where this country was being settled.
>If you were as stupid as a large portion of our population now seems to
>be, I expect you died fairly quickly in one way or another.

Yes, natural selection basically has been reduced to *almost* nothing
by modern medicine. Modern medicine was particularly crude 200 years
ago, so I imagine selection did have a place in the grand scheme of
things then.

BTW, see www.thedarwinawards.com/ (maybe www.darwinawards.com/) for a
lighter look at modern-day natural selection :)

### Wayne

Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to

Chris McCormack wrote in message ...
>Clearly in haste, "Wayne" <wlog...@erols.com> said:
>
><snip>

>
>>>People on drugs with weapons is a good thing then?!?
>>
>>Do you think they don't already have them? I want to be able to protect
>>myself.
>
>Mostly not, certainly in UK anyway. I wouldn't personally want to make
>the situation worse by just letting anyone have a gun on the pretext
>of self-defence.
>
>
>>I am sick and tired of obeying all the laws and rules of society and
getting
>>robbed by the government as my reward; where as the dregs and miscreants
>>don't do the same but in fact contributed little to nothing and get all
the
>>benefits.
>
>So what would your alternative be? Just let them all die?

If they have reached the age of majority (adulthood) they are responsible
for themselves. I have a family to take care of; I ask no quarter and I
give none.

>
>
>>>I agree, people who do these things need help, not banging up.
>>
>>You would. In your opinion, what does one have to do to another person to
>>deserve banging up?
>

>Cause harm to another person or persons. If they are mentally ill,
>then they also need help, not simple punishment. Of course they would
>also need to be secured if they are dangerous.
>