No doubt we need more guns laws.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Why should JohnRich answer your request for murder laws when you won't even answer my request for what gun control laws you would have?
Keep wiggling, Kallend. Just keep wiggling. It's so very entertaining.

I answered it already - you are just too lazy or imcompetent to find it.

On the other hand, the "more murder laws" was not brought up by me at all. I'm simply asking those who support the statement what exactly they mean by it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Why should JohnRich answer your request for murder laws when you won't even answer my request for what gun control laws you would have?
Keep wiggling, Kallend. Just keep wiggling. It's so very entertaining.

I answered it already - you are just too lazy or imcompetent to find it.

On the other hand, the "more murder laws" was not brought up by me at all. I'm simply asking those who support the statement what exactly they mean by it.

Oh really?? Please enlighten us as to where you answered my request.

Or you can wiggle some more.
This is so much fun!

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rushmc 23]

Or you can wiggle some more.
This is so much fun!

Yes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I believe I can justify my claims about my own TV channels, content of threads on DZ.COM, the desirability of experiments agreeing with theory, etc.

On the other hand, the claim made in THIS thread has not been validated at all.

I see. When YOU speak in absolutes using the word "always", it's always correct. But when other people use the word "always", figuratively or otherwise, they're wrong.

That sounds like a double standard to me, with a dash of arrogance thrown in for good measure.

Quote

Now, how about describing the "more murder laws" in that same post? You gun nuts have carefully avoided that topic despite repeated requests.

I neither made the statement, nor commented upon it. So I have nothing to explain.

You must be getting so frothy-angry at all the "gun nuts" here that you're getting us all mixed up. I guess we must all look alike, eh?

If you don't want so many people attacking your posts, then quit arguing over trivial things in a trivial manner, and conduct yourself honorably with honest debate. You reap what you sow.

You might also try ratcheting down your ego, and when you've said something once, let it go at that. As it is, your ego just won't allow you to let someone else get the last word, so all you do is keep repeating yourself over and over again. You need to learn to get over that and be content with having had your say, and then letting go.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

You might also try ratcheting down your ego, and when you've said something once, let it go at that. .

When I try, I get asked over and over to post it again (my suggestions on gun laws being the obvious example from this very thread).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why should JohnRich answer your request for murder laws when you won't even answer my request for what gun control laws you would have?
Keep wiggling, Kallend. Just keep wiggling. It's so very entertaining.

I answered it already - you are just too lazy or imcompetent to find it.

On the other hand, the "more murder laws" was not brought up by me at all. I'm simply asking those who support the statement what exactly they mean by it.

Oh really?? Please enlighten us as to where you answered my request.

Or you can wiggle some more.
This is so much fun!

See the above post from JR. Only post things once, he says

Yet when I do that, you whine and whinge and bellyache that I'm not responsive to your every wish.

So do a search and quit whining.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

I guess you're right. incediary devices and car bombs aren't threats. They kill fewer people.

Indeed, not having a criminal record is similarly something that just isn't seen in killings - especially massacres.

----------------------------------

And for another slaughter, I heard on Wednesday that there were 12 deaths blamed on snow and ice in the midwest. Sure, they were traffic deaths, and caused by people making deliberate choices, but blaming snow and ice is just one of those things that they had in common.

I tend to think that "snow and ice" are "but for" causes, i.e., "But for that person being on the sidewalk, nobody would have been killed by the Cadillac that ran up it."

Let's get to the threshhold issues here, prof. The threshhold issue is a guy killing people. You may paint the issue as one of guns. That's your right. I paint the issue as one of people killing others.

Do you have any idea how STUPID it is to compare guns with motor vehicles? It's the kind of LAME comparison the gun lobby uses all the time in a vain attempt to make itself look less bad than it really is.

Try comparing the homicide rate with guns, with that using motor vehicles.

People driving cars kill lots of people - including themselves. "Homicide.". Like "vehicular homicide." "Negligent manslaughter."

What makes killing someone with a car different from killing with a gun? I can list several things.

Just one avoidable death is too many for me. I tend to blame the person who did the killing instead of the instrumentality.

I frankly disagree that comparisons are stupid. Even comparing apples and oranges is legitimate. But when someone throws oranges at people I don't think banning oranges really gets at the issue. The issue is throwing things at people and not the evils of oranges.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why should JohnRich answer your request for murder laws when you won't even answer my request for what gun control laws you would have?
Keep wiggling, Kallend. Just keep wiggling. It's so very entertaining.

I answered it already - you are just too lazy or imcompetent to find it.

On the other hand, the "more murder laws" was not brought up by me at all. I'm simply asking those who support the statement what exactly they mean by it.

Oh really?? Please enlighten us as to where you answered my request.

Or you can wiggle some more.
This is so much fun!

See the above post from JR. Only post things once, he says

Yet when I do that, you whine and whinge and bellyache that I'm not responsive to your every wish.

So do a search and quit whining.

I may be wrong about this, but I think he was meaning in the context of the same thread, not in the entire history of this forum.
All I did was ask, in a very respectful manner, for what you would suggest laws that would have prevented a madman from killing several people on Christmas eve. Why you had to take on an extremely defensive attitude and refuse to answer is anyone's guess.
Thus far you have made 6 or 7 posts evading my question. It only takes one to answer the question.
But I guess you're to busy wiggling.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What was the factor in common with, what, 11,000+ other homicides last year. "Bruce"? No. "Usher"? No. "Santa Suit"? No. Gee, this is HARD!

What law would you propose that would have stopped this man from doing what he did?

for example, the ones that are in place in countries with 10-20 times less gun homicides (most of Europe)

There aren't any countries with 10-20 times less gun homicides among their white population with European ancestry.

White Americans get murdered with a gun at a rate of about 2.2 in 100,000 per annum with a total murder rate of 3.3 in 100,000 (Uniform Crime reports circa 2005). The EU average murder rate is about 2.4 per 100,000. The Greeks do the best at .76 per 100,000.

White Seattle residents got murdered less often than white Vancouver residents, in spite of those of us in Washington being able to get concealed carry permits while people can't really get legal handguns in Vancouver.

The 15% of our population who are black kill each other 7X more often than whites and account for 50% of the total.

I think race isn't the right metric to use, and that it's socio-economic since studies have shown murder rates increasing with economic disparity but the Justice Department doesn't break things down that way. The anti-gun people like to quote Kellerman's study showsing Seattle having a higher aggregate murder rate; although where the Vancouver minorities have a higher than median income, the median (half the people earn more, half less) black per capita income was half the white population's.

Europe probably suffers less because of income redistribution. There's less spread. You can live a relatively comfortable existance with the minimum wage and social housing, etc. Since Bill Clinton's wellfare reform that hasn't been the case in the US especially in the metropolitan areas where crime and murder rates are highest.

Given a choice between living with a few people in a room while slaving at McDonald's and getting in a street gan which would get me my own apartment, I can't say that I'd choose the former.

Fortunately, I grew up in a yuppie breeding ground where the parents cared about the schools and paid high taxes for them and over 95% of my graduating class went on the post-secondary education which got us better jobs.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Try some countries that are in size, social and economic build up
far more similar to the US -- such as Germany, France or Britain.

Cheers, T

There aren't any comparable countries.

As a young adult, after lecturing in Germany I took a detour and hung out for a few days with European drug addicts living on "social money".

In some big European cities, it's possible to have a reasonable existence (your own apartment, reasonable food, etc.) without working.

In big American cities, working full time at a menial jobs still isn't enough to pay for your own apartment to say nothing of food.

In college, I hung out with European exchange students living on a government stipend.

In America, the government doesn't even pay for the education needed to earn a living wage.

In America, the school systems reflect the local populations' desires and pocketbooks. I went to a public high school where 95% of our graduating population went to post-secondary education and lots of us finished with a year of college credit. That doesn't happen in middle class neighborhoods. In many lower class neighborhoods the schools are just a place to wharehouse your kids until they become adults and can graduate to poverty and/or prison.

So in America we have a financial underclass for whom the "right" thing to do is join street gangs, deal drugs, and perhaps get killed where in Europe it's to go on "social money" and stay in your own apartment.

The fatality rate associated with the American system is a lot higher.

In theory, the American system should be cheaper. In practice I'm not sure that's the case, since we spend $40,000 per year per inmate on criminals in California.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

If you don't want so many people attacking your posts, then quit arguing over trivial things in a trivial manner, and conduct yourself honorably with honest debate. You reap what you sow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. BBWWAAAHAHAHAHA. Thats the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If you don't want so many people attacking your posts, then quit arguing over trivial things in a trivial manner, and conduct yourself honorably with honest debate. You reap what you sow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. BBWWAAAHAHAHAHA. Thats the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me!

Spare me - if you really think JR plays the same semantics games that kallend does, you're much better off skipping the gun threads.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 892]

fucking duh.
Timeliness is important in discussions such as this.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I would think that someone from Germany would be especially sensitive to this fact, given your country's recent history.

Very funny coming from somebody in the US, which has a far more recent history of invading a country without a valid reason and killing thousands in the process.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I would think that someone from Germany would be especially sensitive to this fact, given your country's recent history.

Very funny coming from somebody in the US, which has a far more recent history of invading a country without a valid reason and killing thousands in the process.

Two lies, one sentence. Nice!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

You might also try ratcheting down your ego, and when you've said something once, let it go at that. .

When I try, I get asked over and over to post it again (my suggestions on gun laws being the obvious example from this very thread).

Once per thread, is what I meant.

Expecting people to find some gun law suggestion you made many months ago out of thousands of messages is unreasonable.

Perhaps you should write it down in a file somewhere, and then you can cut-and-paste it when it comes up again. Or you could save the link to that suggested law mesage, and post that.

But telling people over and over again to "search for it" is a waste of everyone's time, and makes you look bad.

As I said before, if you really had a good suggestion that would save lives, you shouldn't be hiding it from everyone - you should be posting it at every opportunity. But since you choose to hide your idea instead, perhaps that says something about your true beliefs about its efficacy.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

If you don't want so many people attacking your posts, then quit arguing over trivial things in a trivial manner, and conduct yourself honorably with honest debate. You reap what you sow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. BBWWAAAHAHAHAHA. Thats the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me!

Ah yes, there's always the folks for whom derisive laughter is seen as trumping an intelligent, factual and logical response. It's so easy, because no explanation, no thinking and no supporting evidence is required.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

I would think that someone from Germany would be especially sensitive to this fact, given your country's recent history.

Very funny coming from somebody in the US, which has a far more recent history of invading a country without a valid reason and killing thousands in the process.

You're still missing the point: I haven't made derogatory comments about an entire nation based upon the actions of single individuals.

Maybe you should try the derisive laughter response technique.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Two lies, one sentence. Nice!

How that? JR is no US citizen and/or is no more living in the US??

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How that? JR is no US citizen and/or is no more living in the US??

Gosh only knows how you came to that conclusion from that message.

This is the state of mental comprehension that we are up against, with the anti-gun folks.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You might also try ratcheting down your ego, and when you've said something once, let it go at that. .

When I try, I get asked over and over to post it again (my suggestions on gun laws being the obvious example from this very thread).

Once per thread, is what I meant.

Expecting people to find some gun law suggestion you made many months ago out of thousands of messages is unreasonable.

Perhaps you should write it down in a file somewhere, and then you can cut-and-paste it when it comes up again. Or you could save the link to that suggested law mesage, and post that.

But telling people over and over again to "search for it" is a waste of everyone's time, and makes you look bad.

As I said before, if you really had a good suggestion that would save lives, you shouldn't be hiding it from everyone - you should be posting it at every opportunity. But since you choose to hide your idea instead, perhaps that says something about your true beliefs about its efficacy.

It is likely he had some ideas, but has since realized they wouldn't work.
Or maybe he has no idea at all.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[The111 1]

Quote

Ah yes, there's always the folks for whom derisive laughter is seen as trumping an intelligent, factual and logical response. It's so easy, because no explanation, no thinking and no supporting evidence is required.

And then there's the folks who start a sure-to-be-inflammatory thread, ask questions of their opponents, get answers, but refuse to answer the tough questions posed in response.

CLICK

Yes, it was long ago. You berated myself and another poster for being "off-topic" by referring to your death penalty thread in a different post (although you actually started the thread drift), commanded us to post in the proper place, and answer your questions, and then you would answer ours. I answered your questions, I posted in the proper place (your thread), and then waited, and waited (even reminding you in other threads like I'm doing now) for a response to my questions and still received none. It's easy to express opinions, but it is tough to answer certain questions about why those opinions exist, I guess?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You're still missing the point: I haven't made derogatory comments about an entire nation based upon the actions of single individuals.

Maybe you should try the derisive laughter response technique.

Our friends from England on this forum might disagree with you on that John...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You're still missing the point: I haven't made derogatory comments about an entire nation based upon the actions of single individuals.

Maybe you should try the derisive laughter response technique.

Our friends from England on this forum might disagree with you on that John...

Then, they would be wrong....... ........ ........ too.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

Your one warning.