Discussion:
US Gun Statistics. Are doctors more dangerous than guns?
(too old to reply)
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-16 17:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb

What say you?

Ray
--
Obamacare:
The efficiency of the Postal Service
The sustainability of Social Security
And all the compassion of the I.R.S.

My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/49u9nun
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/4lljv2u
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Col
2011-02-16 17:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
 FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
--
The efficiency of the Postal Service
The sustainability of Social Security
And all the compassion of the I.R.S.
My political blog :http://tinyurl.com/49u9nun
My YouTube channel:http://tinyurl.com/4lljv2u
Join The Tea Party! :http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
Robert Peffers
2011-02-16 18:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
--
The efficiency of the Postal Service
The sustainability of Social Security
And all the compassion of the I.R.S.
My political blog :http://tinyurl.com/49u9nun
My YouTube channel:http://tinyurl.com/4lljv2u
Join The Tea Party! :http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?

That was why the gun laws are now a great deal more strict.
soupdragon
2011-02-16 19:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.

Viz

Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.

This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Col
2011-02-16 20:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
       [Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
d***@aol.com
2011-02-17 00:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
       [Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 01:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.

Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
d***@aol.com
2011-02-17 01:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
   Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 10:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.

Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
d***@aol.com
2011-02-17 10:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
    That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 11:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-17 12:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
I think Auld Bob's brain must be well past it's "best if used by"
date...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
d***@aol.com
2011-02-17 12:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
   No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion. Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense. Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything. You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns. Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.

Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one? Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.

I've read your arguments that if you have a gun the guy who wants
to kill you will just get a bigger one. The problem with that is that
very few of us have people who want to kill us. The overwhelming
danger from criminals are druggies looking for an easy target to get
their next score. A problem we have is that way too many of these
criminals have guns and are more than willing to use them. Unless you
are similarly armed, you have very little chance against them. Does a
gun make sure you won't be a crime victim? Of course not, but it does
give you another option to add to run like hell or hope the criminal
is feeling nice and won't hurt you.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 12:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be
accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get
real
.
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion.
Not the point but what if it is?
Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense.

It is not possible for a gun to be used in self defence.

Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything.

Of course it does not change anything because, being true, it cannot.
Facts are chiels whit willna ding.
A gun is designed to harm or kill if used. It is thus an offensive weapon.
It is the job description of all, and any, weapon.
Best that can be said of any weapon, whether it be a nuclear bomb or a club,
is that it, "MAY", also constitute a deterant to attacks.

You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.

Quite untrue. laziness may not be even be a factor. Desperation, poverty,
unemployment figures, mental illness, need for medical help for a loved one
in a society that will not provide it, could all be factors that drive
someone to armed, or unarmed, crime.

Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns.

Utter speculation, for example gangsters often go for much greater fire
power.
As do drug pushers and suppliers.

Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.

Speculation again, there are more homicides carried out in the home and more
homacides done by people known to the victims.

Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one?

A deterant is quite another matter to a defensive object.
A suit of armour is defensive and may be a deterrant.
A bulglar alarm is defensive as are castles, moats, high walls, flood
lights. et al.
Guns are only an offensive weapon and may, only may, be a used to deter.

Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.

The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
Then, if the attacker thinks they have a better/bigger gun they will chaance
their hand.
The guy concealed behind the pillar in the multi-car park hopes to take you
by surprise.
Or any of the other common ways to kill/rob or injure someone.
All the gun does is make you feel safe when you are not. It can only deter
if the other guy sees it pointed at him and you don't walk around pointing
guns at people or the police swat squad take you down.
In most cases the person being attacked is dead, or wounded, before they
know they are being attacked.

I've read your arguments that if you have a gun the guy who wants
to kill you will just get a bigger one. The problem with that is that
very few of us have people who want to kill us.

Does that matter when the motives may be nothing to do with you as a person?

The overwhelming
danger from criminals are druggies looking for an easy target to get
their next score.

Speculation again - There could be any number of things an attacker might
wish to rob you for.

A problem we have is that way too many of these
criminals have guns and are more than willing to use them. Unless you
are similarly armed, you have very little chance against them.

Unless you are walking around with a gun in your hand the attacker can kill
you before you know you are under attack.
Furthermore, even with a gun in your pocket you could be swatted on the head
from behind with a 4"X2", and your belongings, including the gun, fall into
the hands of a guy who will then use it for crime.


Does a
gun make sure you won't be a crime victim? Of course not, but it does
give you another option to add to run like hell or hope the criminal
is feeling nice and won't hurt you.

That's the illusion. The guy about to attack knows and is ready, you are
not. A gun is an offensive weapon and a bulletproof vest is a deffensive
armour.
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-17 13:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
No I don't.
Post by Robert Peffers
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
And thus does not know if you have one or not.
Post by Robert Peffers
Then, if the attacker thinks they have a better/bigger gun they will chaance
their hand.
No they won't. It ain't about size, Bob. You need to learn something
about firearms. The scariest thing in the world is someone who
doesn't shoot regularly with a little POS .25 pocket pistol.
Post by Robert Peffers
The guy concealed behind the pillar in the multi-car park hopes to take you
by surprise.
Or any of the other common ways to kill/rob or injure someone.
Ask yourself why there was a spate of attacks on TOURISTS in Florida a
while back, Bob.

Hint: Locals were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Post by Robert Peffers
All the gun does is make you feel safe when you are not. It can only deter
if the other guy sees it pointed at him and you don't walk around pointing
guns at people or the police swat squad take you down.
In most cases the person being attacked is dead, or wounded, before they
know they are being attacked.
Utter poppycock. So I guess by Bob's lights, soldiers and police
should never carry guns, either. I mean, they're going to be dead or
wounded regardless, right?

<sneer>
Post by Robert Peffers
Unless you are walking around with a gun in your hand the attacker can kill
you before you know you are under attack.
Oh, even if you are. Hell, you've just put forward a *brilliant*
argument for why it makes no sense for soldiers or police to carry
weapons.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
d***@aol.com
2011-02-17 15:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get
real
.
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
   That's your opinion.
Not the point but what if it is?
 Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense.
It is not possible for a gun to be used in self defence.
Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything.
Of course it does not change anything because, being true, it cannot.
Facts are chiels whit willna ding.
A gun is designed to harm or kill if used. It is thus an offensive weapon.
It is the job description of all, and any, weapon.
Best that can be said of any weapon, whether it be a nuclear bomb or a club,
is that it, "MAY", also constitute a deterant to attacks.
You still can use a weapon to defend against an attack. If you
shoot the attacker, you have defended yourself.
You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Quite untrue. laziness  may not be even be a factor. Desperation, poverty,
unemployment figures, mental illness, need for medical help for a loved one
in a society that will not provide it, could all be factors that drive
someone to armed, or unarmed, crime.
"Tend to be..."
Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns.
Utter speculation, for example gangsters often go for much greater fire
power.
As do drug pushers and suppliers.
And the average person is in very little danger from gangsters and
pushers. They tend to stick tot hemselves and tend to fight and kill
each other. They know that if they start attacking "regular" people,
the police get much more interested.
Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.
Speculation again, there are more homicides carried out in the home and more
homacides done by people known to the victims.
That is true.
 Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one?
A deterant is quite another matter to a defensive object.
A suit of armour is defensive and may be a deterrant.
A bulglar alarm is defensive as are castles, moats, high walls, flood
lights. et al.
Guns are only an offensive weapon and may, only may, be a used to deter.
We just have a different definition of defense.
 Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.
The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
Not so.
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
Even if true, the fact that you may well be armed is a deterrent.
Criminals tend to go after those perceived as "soft' targets.
Then, if the attacker thinks they have a better/bigger gun they will chaance
their hand.
Not if they have good reason to believe the next guy coming along
won't be armed.
The guy concealed behind the pillar in the multi-car park hopes to take you
by surprise.
Yes, and if you are armed, you have another option to defend
yourself.
Or any of the other common ways to kill/rob or injure someone.
All the gun does is make you feel safe when you are not. It can only deter
if the other guy sees it pointed at him and you don't walk around pointing
guns at people or the police swat squad take you down.
In most cases the person being attacked is dead, or wounded, before they
know they are being attacked.
But that isn't true. Many robberies, muggings, etc can be seen
coming. They're not by any means all ambushes.
   I've read your arguments that if you have a gun the guy who wants
to kill you will just get a bigger one. The problem with that is that
very few of us have people who want to kill us.
Does that matter when the motives may be nothing to do with you as a person?
Usually, someone wanting to kill a specific individual is not a
random crime.
 The overwhelming
danger from criminals are druggies looking for an easy target to get
their next score.
Speculation again - There could be any number of things an attacker might
wish to rob you for.
At least half...some studies have shown nearly 75%..of our crime
is drug related.
A problem we have is that way too many of these
criminals have guns and are more than willing to use them. Unless you
are similarly armed, you have very little chance against them.
Unless you are walking around with a gun in your hand the attacker can kill
you before you know you are under attack.
"Can"....which they can also do if you're unarmed.
Furthermore, even with a gun in your pocket you could be swatted on the head
from behind with a 4"X2", and your belongings, including the gun, fall into
the hands of a guy who will then use it for crime.
Same as above.
 Does a
gun make sure you won't be a crime victim? Of course not, but it does
give you another option to add to run like hell or hope the criminal
is feeling nice and won't hurt you.
That's the illusion. The guy about to attack knows and is ready, you are
not. A gun is an offensive weapon and a bulletproof vest is a deffensive
armour.
So, you don't think it gives you another option? You don't think
anyone, especially a woman or elderly person, with a gun has a better
chance of defending themselves than an unarmed person?
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 17:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get
real
.
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion.
Not the point but what if it is?
Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense.
It is not possible for a gun to be used in self defence.
Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything.
Of course it does not change anything because, being true, it cannot.
Facts are chiels whit willna ding.
A gun is designed to harm or kill if used. It is thus an offensive weapon.
It is the job description of all, and any, weapon.
Best that can be said of any weapon, whether it be a nuclear bomb or a club,
is that it, "MAY", also constitute a deterant to attacks.
You still can use a weapon to defend against an attack. If you
shoot the attacker, you have defended yourself.

No you haven't, what you have done is counter attacked the person who
attacked you first.
If you had defended yourself, you would have protected yourself with some
form of armour, evaded the attack or dodged and removed yourself from harms
way.
If you draw a weapon that is an offensive counter attack.

Here are the definitions of, -
weapon / n.
1 a thing designed or used or usable for inflicting bodily harm (e.g. a gun
or cosh).
2 a means employed for trying to gain the advantage in a conflict (irony is
a double-edged weapon).
weaponed adj. (also in comb.).
weaponless adj.
[Old English wæp(e)n, from Germanic]

Here are the definitions for -
defend // v.tr. (also absol.)
1 (often foll. by against, from) resist an attack made on; protect (a person
or thing) from harm or danger.
2 support or uphold by argument; speak or write in favour of.
3 conduct the case for (a defendant in a lawsuit).
4 compete to retain (a title) in a contest.
5 absol. (in various sports and games) try to prevent the opposition scoring
goals, points, etc.; resist attacks.
defendable adj.
defender n.
[Middle English via Old French defendre from Latin defendere: cf. offend]
Post by d***@aol.com
You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Quite untrue. laziness may not be even be a factor. Desperation, poverty,
unemployment figures, mental illness, need for medical help for a loved one
in a society that will not provide it, could all be factors that drive
someone to armed, or unarmed, crime.
"Tend to be..."
Then cite figures to show it is no more than opinion?
Post by d***@aol.com
Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns.
Utter speculation, for example gangsters often go for much greater fire
power.
As do drug pushers and suppliers.
And the average person is in very little danger from gangsters and
pushers. They tend to stick tot hemselves and tend to fight and kill
each other. They know that if they start attacking "regular" people,
the police get much more interested.

That point about the average person is what this thread is all about.
Going by actual figures the fact is that the average in Scotland where guns
are controlled is some way below the average for the USA where they are not.
From that there were several claims the free use of weapons goes for a less
violent criminal average that obviously do not hold water.
The point that carrying a weapon of any kind is a secondard one but, again,
the facts do not bear that contention out.

Just check out the meanings of, "weapon", "defence","deterant", and,
"counter attack".
Post by d***@aol.com
Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.
Speculation again, there are more homicides carried out in the home and more
homacides done by people known to the victims.
That is true.
Post by d***@aol.com
Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one?
A deterant is quite another matter to a defensive object.
A suit of armour is defensive and may be a deterrant.
A bulglar alarm is defensive as are castles, moats, high walls, flood
lights. et al.
Guns are only an offensive weapon and may, only may, be a used to deter.
We just have a different definition of defense.


Do you?

From Merriman-Websters -

1d·fense noun
antonym of "offense,"
Definition of DEFENSE
1a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out
in defense of justice> b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability <a player
known for good defense>
3a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or
another; also : a defensive structure b : an argument in support or
justification c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to
protect and defend against a plaintiff's action d : a sequence of moves
available in chess to the second player in the opening
4a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <the defense rests> b
: a defensive team
5: the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms
production <appropriations for defense> <defense contract>
- de·fense·less \-l?s\ adjective
- de·fense·less·ly adverb
- de·fense·less·ness noun
Post by d***@aol.com
Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.
The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
Not so.

Very much so. If you can be killed or assaulted without chance to defend
yourself then you are not able to defend yourself.
Anyone you cannot see, but who can see you, may take you by surprise.
Anyone getting a weapon ready before you may take you out.
Anyone who attacks you that you do not expec may take you our.
A gun in your pocket is thus no defense agains anything if you need to
counter attack after they attack you and can only be used to counter attack
if the attacker missed and fails to get you first.
Let me put it another way.
If you draw a weapon first then you are the attacker.
If you draw a weapon after someone attacks you you are counter attacking.
If you both draw at once then you are both attackers and none of you are
defenders.

Ddeterring is not either defence nor attack.
At its simplest it is two belligerant numpties rattling sabers and glowering
at each other and trying to frighten each other into not attacking each
other..
Post by d***@aol.com
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
Even if true, the fact that you may well be armed is a deterrent.
Criminals tend to go after those perceived as "soft' targets.
Post by d***@aol.com
Then, if the attacker thinks they have a better/bigger gun they will chaance
their hand.
Not if they have good reason to believe the next guy coming along
won't be armed.

So just how, by your way of it, is some drug befuddled person, in utter
desperation for the next fix
, supposed to decide who may, or may not, be carrying a weapon?


Then, how is the guy with the concealed weapon to know when to draw that
weapon, to counter attack a drug defuddled junkie, when the next guy along
is edgy about possible junkie attack and will probably grab his gun on
seeing the first guy draw a weapon so shoots him down?

Classic situation, Eh! So the first guy is about to shoot the suspected
junkie, but the second guy guns down the first guy and the suspected junkie
attacker turns out to be an undercover cop. Who calls in the double shooting
he has just witnessed.
Post by d***@aol.com
The guy concealed behind the pillar in the multi-car park hopes to take you
by surprise.
Yes, and if you are armed, you have another option to defend
yourself.

You cannot defend yourself by use of a weapon - you can only either attack
with it or counter attack with it.
Post by d***@aol.com
Or any of the other common ways to kill/rob or injure someone.
All the gun does is make you feel safe when you are not. It can only deter
if the other guy sees it pointed at him and you don't walk around pointing
guns at people or the police swat squad take you down.
In most cases the person being attacked is dead, or wounded, before they
know they are being attacked.
But that isn't true. Many robberies, muggings, etc can be seen
coming. They're not by any means all ambushes.

Indeed, they are not but how do you really know?
You see it coming, or think you do, draw a weapon and kill someone who turns
out to be an innocent guy looking for directions but very nervious because
he sees it coming, or thinks he does, from you?.
Post by d***@aol.com
I've read your arguments that if you have a gun the guy who wants
to kill you will just get a bigger one. The problem with that is that
very few of us have people who want to kill us.
Does that matter when the motives may be nothing to do with you as a person?
Usually, someone wanting to kill a specific individual is not a
random crime.

You mentioned random crime, not I.
In actual fact what you have described is not a random crime - it is a
premeditated crime against a random victim.
That is why you thought you could see it coming.
Post by d***@aol.com
The overwhelming
danger from criminals are druggies looking for an easy target to get
their next score.
Speculation again - There could be any number of things an attacker might
wish to rob you for.
At least half...some studies have shown nearly 75%..of our crime
is drug related.

That's not the same thing, either.
What is the relationship?
A dealer killing a pusher?
A drug deal between two dealers gone wrong?
A wife killing a junkie husband who threatens their child?
An armed citizen killing a person he suspected was a junkie going to attack
him?
Or any of the other 101 scenes that could be drug related?
Post by d***@aol.com
A problem we have is that way too many of these
criminals have guns and are more than willing to use them. Unless you
are similarly armed, you have very little chance against them.
Unless you are walking around with a gun in your hand the attacker can kill
you before you know you are under attack.
"Can"....which they can also do if you're unarmed.

R-i-g-h-t!

If they kill you with the initial attack, or before you counter attack,
then you are dead anyway.
Your only chance is if they miss with that initial attack and even then
their chances of getting off further shots are way above yours.
So, unless you walk around with a gun in your hand. the odds are with a
attacker with a pre-meditated desire to attack either you or a random
victim.
If you do walk around with a weapon in your hand then you have declared
open-season upon yourself.
Post by d***@aol.com
Furthermore, even with a gun in your pocket you could be swatted on the head
from behind with a 4"X2", and your belongings, including the gun, fall into
the hands of a guy who will then use it for crime.
Same as above.
Post by d***@aol.com
Does a
gun make sure you won't be a crime victim? Of course not, but it does
give you another option to add to run like hell or hope the criminal
is feeling nice and won't hurt you.
That's the illusion. The guy about to attack knows and is ready, you are
not. A gun is an offensive weapon and a bulletproof vest is a deffensive
armour.
So, you don't think it gives you another option? You don't think
anyone, especially a woman or elderly person, with a gun has a better
chance of defending themselves than an unarmed person?

R-i-g-h-t!
The only options you have, with any weapon, is to either attack with it or
counter attack with it, and neither are defensive.

The only real protection that you have is if the initial attacker fails with
a first attack and even with such a failure they are still one jump ahead as
they have both the benefit of surprise and a weapon alreadt in their hand.
Do you really think that a guy with a gun who misses with his first shot has
a slower reaction than the guy still to draw a weapon.
Measure just how long it takes anyone to realise they are under attack and
then reach for, draw, get the safety off and fire a hurried shot.
Then how long for a guy with a weapon in his hand to loose of a second,
third and fourth shot.

So the gun makes you feel safe but you are not.
d***@aol.com
2011-02-17 22:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age
groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is
0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get
real
.
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion.
Not the point but what if it is?
Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense.
It is not possible for a gun to be used in self defence.
Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything.
Of course it does not change anything because, being true, it cannot.
Facts are chiels whit willna ding.
A gun is designed to harm or kill if used. It is thus an offensive weapon.
It is the job description of all, and any, weapon.
Best that can be said of any weapon, whether it be a nuclear bomb or a club,
is that it, "MAY", also constitute a deterant to attacks.
    You still can use a weapon to defend against an attack. If you
shoot the attacker, you have defended yourself.
No you haven't, what you have done is counter attacked the person who
attacked you first.
If you had defended yourself, you would have protected yourself with some
form of armour, evaded the attack or dodged and removed yourself from harms
way.
If you draw a weapon that is an offensive counter attack.
Here are the definitions of, -
weapon / n.
1 a thing designed or used or usable for inflicting bodily harm (e.g. a gun
or cosh).
2 a means employed for trying to gain the advantage in a conflict (irony is
a double-edged weapon).
weaponed adj. (also in comb.).
weaponless adj.
[Old English w�p(e)n, from Germanic]
Here are the definitions for -
defend // v.tr. (also absol.)
1 (often foll. by against, from) resist an attack made on; protect (a person
or thing) from harm or danger.
2 support or uphold by argument; speak or write in favour of.
3 conduct the case for (a defendant in a lawsuit).
4 compete to retain (a title) in a contest.
5 absol. (in various sports and games) try to prevent the opposition scoring
goals, points, etc.; resist attacks.
defendable adj.
defender n.
[Middle English via Old French defendre from Latin defendere: cf. offend]
Post by d***@aol.com
You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Quite untrue. laziness may not be even be a factor. Desperation, poverty,
unemployment figures, mental illness, need for medical help for a loved one
in a society that will not provide it, could all be factors that drive
someone to armed, or unarmed, crime.
     "Tend to be..."
Then cite figures to show it is no more than opinion?
Post by d***@aol.com
Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns.
Utter speculation, for example gangsters often go for much greater fire
power.
As do drug pushers and suppliers.
    And the average person is in very little danger from gangsters and
pushers. They tend to stick tot hemselves and tend to fight and kill
each other. They know that if they start attacking "regular" people,
the police get much more interested.
That point about the average person is what this thread is all about.
Going by actual figures the fact is that the average in Scotland where guns
are controlled is some way below the average for the USA where they are not.
I've never argued differently. Of course more guns will lead to
more gun violence, gun accidents, gun injuries and gun deaths.
From that there were several claims the free use of weapons goes for a less
violent criminal average that obviously do not hold water.
The point that carrying a weapon of any kind is a secondard one but, again,
the facts do not bear that contention out.
My argument is that if the criminal is likely to be armed with a
gun, I want the option of also arming myself with a gun. That's a
totally different argument.
Just check out the meanings of, "weapon", "defence","deterant", and,
"counter attack".
Post by d***@aol.com
Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.
Speculation again, there are more homicides carried out in the home and more
homacides done by people known to the victims.
    That is true.
Post by d***@aol.com
Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one?
A deterant is quite another matter to a defensive object.
A suit of armour is defensive and may be a deterrant.
A bulglar alarm is defensive as are castles, moats, high walls, flood
lights. et al.
Guns are only an offensive weapon and may, only may, be a used to deter.
    We just have a different definition of defense.
Do you?
From Merriman-Websters -
1d�fense noun
antonym of "offense,"
Definition of DEFENSE
1a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out
in defense of justice> b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability <a player
known for good defense>
3a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or
another; also : a defensive structure b : an argument in support or
justification c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to
protect and defend against a plaintiff's action d : a sequence of moves
available in chess to the second player in the opening
4a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <the defense rests> b
: a defensive team
5: the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms
production <appropriations for defense> <defense contract>
- de�fense�less \-l?s\ adjective
- de�fense�less�ly adverb
- de�fense�less�ness noun
There's nothing in that definition which changes what I've said.
In 1940, if Germany attacked the Maginot Line, French defenders firing
at the attackers were defending themselves. If they came out of the
forts and attacked the attackers, then they were counter-attacking.

In a robbery situation, if the person being robbed draws a gun and
shoots the attacker he is defending himself. If he draws the weapon,
the attacker runs and he chases the attacker down the street firing at
him...that would be counter-attacking.
Post by d***@aol.com
Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.
The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
    Not so.
Very much so. If you can be killed or assaulted without chance to defend
yourself then you are not able to defend yourself.
"Can be" rather than "will be".
Anyone you cannot see, but who can see you, may take you by surprise.
True whether you're armed or not. The difference being, if you're
armed and they miss, you have another option available.
Anyone getting a weapon ready before you may take you out.
True whether you're armed or not.
Anyone who attacks you that you do not expec may take you our.
True whether you're armed or not.
A gun in your pocket is thus no defense agains anything if you need to
counter attack after they attack you and can only be used to counter attack
if the attacker missed and fails to get you first.
Which is a better option than if you are unarmed.
Let me put it another way.
If you draw a weapon first then you are the attacker.
Not necessarilly. If you are in fear for your life or safety, you
may draw your weapon.
If you draw a weapon after someone attacks you you are counter attacking.
No, you're defending against the attack. Defending does not just
mean you have to either stand and take it or run.
If you both draw at once then you are both attackers and none of you are
defenders.
It's according to the situation. If someone says "I'm gonna kill you
and starts to draw his weapon, you are justified in drawing your
weapon to defend yourself.
Ddeterring is not either defence nor attack.
At its simplest it is two belligerant numpties rattling sabers and glowering
at each other and trying to frighten each other into not attacking each
other..
No, deterring is making a potential attacker decide you're not
worth the effort because it just might cost more than whatever might
be gained.
Post by d***@aol.com
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
   Even if true, the fact that you may
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Cory Bhreckan
2011-02-18 01:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
No, deterring is making a potential attacker decide you're not
worth the effort because it just might cost more than whatever might
be gained.
Prison and the death penalty are also supposed to be deterrents, we all
know how well that works.
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Robert Peffers
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
Even if true, the fact that you may
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
http://www.myspace.com/corryvreckan
La N
2011-02-18 01:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by d***@aol.com
No, deterring is making a potential attacker decide you're not
worth the effort because it just might cost more than whatever might
be gained.
Prison and the death penalty are also supposed to be deterrents, we
all know how well that works.
Eeeeeyup. As a matter of fact, I once read that a hypothetical death
penalty against people who double park would be waaaaaay more effective in
scaring *them* straight than it does for people who commit acts of violence.

- nilita
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-18 03:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Prison and the death penalty are also supposed to be deterrents, we all
know how well that works.
The death penalty works quite well as a deterrent. Just look how few
crimes dead people commit.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 16:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age
groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is
0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off
when
it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get
real
.
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion.
Not the point but what if it is?
Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense.
It is not possible for a gun to be used in self defence.
Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything.
Of course it does not change anything because, being true, it cannot.
Facts are chiels whit willna ding.
A gun is designed to harm or kill if used. It is thus an offensive weapon.
It is the job description of all, and any, weapon.
Best that can be said of any weapon, whether it be a nuclear bomb or a club,
is that it, "MAY", also constitute a deterant to attacks.
You still can use a weapon to defend against an attack. If you
shoot the attacker, you have defended yourself.
No you haven't, what you have done is counter attacked the person who
attacked you first.
If you had defended yourself, you would have protected yourself with some
form of armour, evaded the attack or dodged and removed yourself from harms
way.
If you draw a weapon that is an offensive counter attack.
Here are the definitions of, -
weapon / n.
1 a thing designed or used or usable for inflicting bodily harm (e.g. a gun
or cosh).
2 a means employed for trying to gain the advantage in a conflict (irony is
a double-edged weapon).
weaponed adj. (also in comb.).
weaponless adj.
[Old English wï¿œp(e)n, from Germanic]
Here are the definitions for -
defend // v.tr. (also absol.)
1 (often foll. by against, from) resist an attack made on; protect (a person
or thing) from harm or danger.
2 support or uphold by argument; speak or write in favour of.
3 conduct the case for (a defendant in a lawsuit).
4 compete to retain (a title) in a contest.
5 absol. (in various sports and games) try to prevent the opposition scoring
goals, points, etc.; resist attacks.
defendable adj.
defender n.
[Middle English via Old French defendre from Latin defendere: cf. offend]
Post by d***@aol.com
You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Quite untrue. laziness may not be even be a factor. Desperation, poverty,
unemployment figures, mental illness, need for medical help for a loved one
in a society that will not provide it, could all be factors that drive
someone to armed, or unarmed, crime.
"Tend to be..."
Then cite figures to show it is no more than opinion?
Post by d***@aol.com
Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns.
Utter speculation, for example gangsters often go for much greater fire
power.
As do drug pushers and suppliers.
And the average person is in very little danger from gangsters and
pushers. They tend to stick tot hemselves and tend to fight and kill
each other. They know that if they start attacking "regular" people,
the police get much more interested.
That point about the average person is what this thread is all about.
Going by actual figures the fact is that the average in Scotland where guns
are controlled is some way below the average for the USA where they are not.
I've never argued differently. Of course more guns will lead to
more gun violence, gun accidents, gun injuries and gun deaths.
Post by d***@aol.com
From that there were several claims the free use of weapons goes for a less
violent criminal average that obviously do not hold water.
The point that carrying a weapon of any kind is a secondard one but, again,
the facts do not bear that contention out.
My argument is that if the criminal is likely to be armed with a
gun, I want the option of also arming myself with a gun. That's a
totally different argument.

Oh! I realised that right from the start.
The points I made were directly due to that fact.
The thing is there are two ways to use a gun to rob someone, three it you
hit them on the head with it.
You either shoot them before the know they are being attacked and help
yourself or you threaten them with the gun and tell them to give you thier
goodies.

Whatever method the guy with the gun, already in hand, has the advantage and
continues with that advantage.
The only weakness is if the attaker is not really ready to kill, or misses
the shot if he is. Even then it is much quicker to loose of several more
shots before the armed victim can get a gun out and ready to fire.
So by carrying a gun for protection leads to the most likely result, if
attacked, of yet another gun falling into the wrong hands.
Post by d***@aol.com
Just check out the meanings of, "weapon", "defence","deterant", and,
"counter attack".
Post by d***@aol.com
Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.
Speculation again, there are more homicides carried out in the home and more
homacides done by people known to the victims.
That is true.
Post by d***@aol.com
Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one?
A deterant is quite another matter to a defensive object.
A suit of armour is defensive and may be a deterrant.
A bulglar alarm is defensive as are castles, moats, high walls, flood
lights. et al.
Guns are only an offensive weapon and may, only may, be a used to deter.
We just have a different definition of defense.
Do you?
From Merriman-Websters -
1dï¿œfense noun
antonym of "offense,"
Definition of DEFENSE
1a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out
in defense of justice> b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability <a player
known for good defense>
3a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or
another; also : a defensive structure b : an argument in support or
justification c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to
protect and defend against a plaintiff's action d : a sequence of moves
available in chess to the second player in the opening
4a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <the defense rests> b
: a defensive team
5: the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms
production <appropriations for defense> <defense contract>
- deï¿œfenseï¿œless \-l?s\ adjective
- deï¿œfenseï¿œlessï¿œly adverb
- deï¿œfenseï¿œlessï¿œness noun
There's nothing in that definition which changes what I've said.
In 1940, if Germany attacked the Maginot Line, French defenders firing
at the attackers were defending themselves. If they came out of the
forts and attacked the attackers, then they were counter-attacking.

Not true. Besides the simple fact that soldiers on the, "defensive",
implacement were not the same as a civilian going about his/her business.
For a start there would be sentries stationed and, (hopefully), alert.
In the second, no matter what else, if you are attecked and retaliate you
are countering an attack, aka a counter-attack.

In a robbery situation, if the person being robbed draws a gun and
shoots the attacker he is defending himself. If he draws the weapon,
the attacker runs and he chases the attacker down the street firing at
him...that would be counter-attacking.

As already explaind the chances of any robber armed with a gun standing
still while the intended victim reaches for a gun, gets ready to shoot, and
looses of a shot are very slim. If the robber has a gun in hand all he needs
do is squeeze with a finger that is already against a trigger. Depending on
the gun, he can loose of several shots before the victim even gets near his
weapon. In any case, as the robbers is already attacking and attempt to
retaliate is a counter to the attack aka counter-attack. You cannot defend
yourself by use of a weapon. You can either attack or counter-attack or keep
it as a deterrant. Use it and you are either attacking or counter-attacking.
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.
The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
Not so.
Very much so. If you can be killed or assaulted without chance to defend
yourself then you are not able to defend yourself.
"Can be" rather than "will be".
Post by d***@aol.com
Anyone you cannot see, but who can see you, may take you by surprise.
True whether you're armed or not. The difference being, if you're
armed and they miss, you have another option available.

Only after they have had several chances to have shot you.
Try it - get someone to shout, "now", and see how long it takes you to get
the gun into your hand, pointed and ready to shoot. And remember that you
were waiting for that shout.
Now take the gun in hand and point it at a target and get someone to shout
now. see how long that takes to fire and remember you were waiting just to
gently squeeze.
Post by d***@aol.com
Anyone getting a weapon ready before you may take you out.
True whether you're armed or not.
Post by d***@aol.com
Anyone who attacks you that you do not expec may take you our.
True whether you're armed or not.
Post by d***@aol.com
A gun in your pocket is thus no defense agains anything if you need to
counter attack after they attack you and can only be used to counter attack
if the attacker missed and fails to get you first.
Which is a better option than if you are unarmed.
Post by d***@aol.com
Let me put it another way.
If you draw a weapon first then you are the attacker.
Not necessarilly. If you are in fear for your life or safety, you
may draw your weapon.

Then anyone else around you is justified to shoot you as they are in fear of
their life.
Post by d***@aol.com
If you draw a weapon after someone attacks you you are counter attacking.
No, you're defending against the attack. Defending does not just
mean you have to either stand and take it or run.

Actually it does. To defend yourself you may wear armour of any kind.
If you erect walls, moats or build castles then you are building defences.
If you put guns on the battlements then they are deterrants.
If someone attacks and you return fire you are counter-attacking.
It aint rocket science, unless you are fireing rockets.
Post by d***@aol.com
If you both draw at once then you are both attackers and none of you are
defenders.
It's according to the situation. If someone says "I'm gonna kill you
and starts to draw his weapon, you are justified in drawing your
weapon to defend yourself.

Never said you were not justfied. First up only an idiot would say I'm gonna
shoot you.
Others will shoot before they threaten.
Still, though, if he attacks first then you are counter atrtacking him.
Post by d***@aol.com
Ddeterring is not either defence nor attack.
At its simplest it is two belligerant numpties rattling sabers and glowering
at each other and trying to frighten each other into not attacking each
other..
No, deterring is making a potential attacker decide you're not
worth the effort because it just might cost more than whatever might
be gained.

Not necessary, what if the deterrant is, "if you attack me I will kill your
wife, kid or dog". (just in case you would be glad to see the back of your
wife).
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
So the intended attacker does not see a gun.
Even if true, the fact that you may
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
conwaycaine
2011-02-17 14:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion. Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense. Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything. You don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Also, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns. Third, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.

Gun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one? Let's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.

I've read your arguments that if you have a gun the guy who wants
to kill you will just get a bigger one. The problem with that is that
very few of us have people who want to kill us. The overwhelming
danger from criminals are druggies looking for an easy target to get
their next score. A problem we have is that way too many of these
criminals have guns and are more than willing to use them. Unless you
are similarly armed, you have very little chance against them. Does a
gun make sure you won't be a crime victim? Of course not, but it does
give you another option to add to run like hell or hope the criminal
is feeling nice and won't hurt you.

**There was a time in the mountains when there was a S&W .38 special in
every car and a 12 gauge shotgun in every home.
There were no car jackings and no home invasions.
And everybody was exceedingly polite (most of the time)
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-17 11:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
Then you should move back to your nice, comfy cave, Bob. I mean,
dangerous stuff, that newfangled 'fire' thing...
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
conwaycaine
2011-02-17 14:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
I remember reading that it is often a series of errors what brings on
tragedies.
We can usually get by when one component fails.
But a series of failures generally gets us in deep doo doo.
Remember the movie "A Perfect Storm:"?
conwaycaine
2011-02-17 14:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
I remember when New York City was getting it from the Unbiased Media about
gun violence.
A wise old New Yorker pointed out to me that the average New Yorker goes
his/her entire life having never heard a gun shot.
Balance, there's yer man.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-18 14:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
       [Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
d***@aol.com
2011-02-18 16:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
  Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.

That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 17:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.

That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Whoa! There!
I can just see in now - back to the days of the quick draw and the O.K,
corral but with a lot more tombstones around.
Your average joe could not hit a brick wall if they were sat on it.
Not to mention that short barreled weapons lose a lot by being so.
Hence the old gunfighters with long barreled colts and the smart lawmen with
long rifles and scatter guns.
Then we have the effects of barrel length/sight radius, trigger quality,
sight quality, weight, balance and recoil level even before we look at the
person's eyesight hand shake, nerves, dexterity and so on. Add to all that
the stress factor if attempting to counter-attack while someone is already
blasing away in your general direction and your chances of a good hit become
little more than pure chance.
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-19 00:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Add to all that
the stress factor if attempting to counter-attack while someone is already
blasing away in your general direction and your chances of a good hit become
little more than pure chance.
Utter poppycock. If that was true, very few people would die in wars.
Given that's your experience, all I can say is that you must've been a
hell of a soldier. <sarcasm>

(Or you're making shit up now - I suspect the latter).
--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-21 19:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
  Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Post by d***@aol.com
That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
d***@aol.com
2011-02-21 19:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
   Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Many people who attempt suicide are temporarilly distraught or
have treatable mental health conditions. Taking an overdose at least
gives you time to consider what you're doing. Putting a gun in your
mouth and pulling the trigger....not so much.
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
  That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!
Yeah, but if half a dozen people in the crowd are openly armed
he'll probably try somewhere else.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-21 22:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be
accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Many people who attempt suicide are temporarilly distraught or
have treatable mental health conditions. Taking an overdose at least
gives you time to consider what you're doing. Putting a gun in your
mouth and pulling the trigger....not so much.
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!
Yeah, but if half a dozen people in the crowd are openly armed
he'll probably try somewhere else.

Or go for a weapon that is bigger and better.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age
groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Many people who attempt suicide are temporarilly distraught or
have treatable mental health conditions. Taking an overdose at least
gives you time to consider what you're doing. Putting a gun in your
mouth and pulling the trigger....not so much.
Jumping off a building, jumping into traffic or a train has the same affect and
no gun needed.
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!
Yeah, but if half a dozen people in the crowd are openly armed
he'll probably try somewhere else.
Or go for a weapon that is bigger and better.
You can die from a 22 just as well as a 45. It's not the size but how you use
it... oh wait.. we're still discussing guns right? ;-)

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
   Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Many people who attempt suicide are temporarilly distraught or
have treatable mental health conditions. Taking an overdose at least
gives you time to consider what you're doing. Putting a gun in your
mouth and pulling the trigger....not so much.
Suicide is not something you make a snap decision about... years or months of
depression. If your determined to kill yourself you'll find a way, gun, knife,
drowning, jump in front of a train if you want instant, drugs, drink to death,
etc... The gun is incidental to the suicide rate IMHO.
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
  That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!
Yeah, but if half a dozen people in the crowd are openly armed
he'll probably try somewhere else.
But your still missing that in a city (for instance) where concealed carry is
allowed, the criminals won't know WHERE to go... Not knowing which/if any
patrons of any particular establishment is/are armed. Your forgetting the
"fear of the unknown" factor.

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Robert Peffers
2011-02-21 22:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Post by d***@aol.com
That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!
Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Not though it through as usual. Do it if you wish, any way you wish but if
no gun is involved then that is one less gun to fall into the wrong hands.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Col
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get real .
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Deems you are the voice of experience arguing against the theory of "no guns
make society safer"
Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't break my heart if all handguns
disappeared tomorrow. We do lose way too many people to accidents and
crimes of passion where if a gun wasn't available a death would be
much less likely. The same goes for suicides. Guns make it much
easier.
If your depressed to the point of suicide, gun or not, you'll try it... Walk
into the ocean with a pocket full of rocks... Jump off a high building... You
don't need a gun at all.
Post by d***@aol.com
That being said, since our guns aren't going anywhere, I fully
support the rights of citizens to own...and carry...them. I am much
more in favor of open carry rather than concealed...i believe that
everyone has the right to know whether the people they are around are
armed.
Open carry carries risks... Of the people carrying being targeted at bars by
pickpockets or such... Besides concealed carry is safer for everyone... Plus if
a criminal does attack a crowd, he has no idea who might be about to ruin his
day!
Not though it through as usual. Do it if you wish, any way you wish but if
no gun is involved then that is one less gun to fall into the wrong hands.
Criminals will find a way to get guns... My argument is that law abiding
citizens should be allowed concealed carry to protect themselves, family and
home from same criminals.

I haven't seen it here in MA, but when I lived in California, I would see "armed
response" signs outside houses warning housebreakers off.. Now if your a
criminal and you see 2 houses, and one has the sign and the other not, which
would you chance breaking into? Exactly!

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Robert Peffers
2011-02-16 22:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Err! Was not that 0.02/100k the murder figure?
conwaycaine
2011-02-16 23:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt on
the nose.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 00:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt on
the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
But ye micht nae get ony tea in Embra.
conwaycaine
2011-02-17 14:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt
on the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
And the blame lies with the large number of Irish immigrants flooding the
streets of Glasgow, I'm sure.
(Lord know I hate it when I type a sentence only to discover I've
inadvertently set on the Caps Lock)
Robert Peffers
2011-02-17 14:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt
on the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
And the blame lies with the large number of Irish immigrants flooding the
streets of Glasgow, I'm sure.
(Lord know I hate it when I type a sentence only to discover I've
inadvertently set on the Caps Lock)
The blame usually lies with some smart arse getting up a Weegies
nose.Actually.
conwaycaine
2011-02-18 16:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt
on the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
And the blame lies with the large number of Irish immigrants flooding the
streets of Glasgow, I'm sure.
(Lord know I hate it when I type a sentence only to discover I've
inadvertently set on the Caps Lock)
The blame usually lies with some smart arse getting up a Weegies
nose.Actually.
Not to mention Weggies getting up Weegie's noses.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 17:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head
butt on the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
And the blame lies with the large number of Irish immigrants flooding
the streets of Glasgow, I'm sure.
(Lord know I hate it when I type a sentence only to discover I've
inadvertently set on the Caps Lock)
The blame usually lies with some smart arse getting up a Weegies
nose.Actually.
Not to mention Weggies getting up Weegie's noses.
You will note that I did not designate the locality, country or even
continent of the one getting up the Weegie noses.
The Weegies are famous for being free from being racist but tom free of
being a bigot.
I kid you not. Way back in the bad old days when Celtic Rangers violent
rivalry was rife.
The Rangers signed a yound teenage lad. After which they found out he had a
Roman Catholic Grannie.
The lad was never to kick a ball again at Ibrox. Not soon after they signed
a rather dark skinned gentleman, rumoured to have been signed while playing
in a team who played in their bare feet. There was not a single protest -
any country was acceptable as long as the player was not RC. I'm not
partizan, Celtic were no better.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-18 14:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt on
the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
But ye micht nae get ony tea in Embra.
Wasn't it you that only a few days ago was telling us how a workmate of yours
spoke strange in your opinion... From what I see from time to time of the way
Scots speak, I can almost see the necessity for them to carry mobile subtitle
devices so anyone they are speaking to can understand anything they are
saying... I love watching Rab Nesbitt(1) on Telly, but if I understood half of
what he was saying I was doing well.

Ray
(1) for those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_C._Nesbitt
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 17:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:49:41 -0500, WhiteWolf!
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:42:03 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt on
the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
But ye micht nae get ony tea in Embra.
Wasn't it you that only a few days ago was telling us how a workmate of yours
spoke strange in your opinion... From what I see from time to time of the way
Scots speak, I can almost see the necessity for them to carry mobile subtitle
devices so anyone they are speaking to can understand anything they are
saying... I love watching Rab Nesbitt(1) on Telly, but if I understood half of
what he was saying I was doing well.
Ray
(1) for those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_C._Nesbitt
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but, Rab C does not speak Lowland
Scots.
He is a Weegie and speaks Weegie fluantly. Or shouls that be effluently?
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-21 19:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:49:41 -0500, WhiteWolf!
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:42:03 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head butt on
the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
But ye micht nae get ony tea in Embra.
Wasn't it you that only a few days ago was telling us how a workmate of yours
spoke strange in your opinion... From what I see from time to time of the way
Scots speak, I can almost see the necessity for them to carry mobile subtitle
devices so anyone they are speaking to can understand anything they are
saying... I love watching Rab Nesbitt(1) on Telly, but if I understood half of
what he was saying I was doing well.
Ray
(1) for those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_C._Nesbitt
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but, Rab C does not speak Lowland
Scots.
He is a Weegie and speaks Weegie fluantly. Or shouls that be effluently?
He's a what now?

Ray
Robert Peffers
2011-02-21 22:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:22:47 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:49:41 -0500, WhiteWolf!
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:42:03 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by soupdragon
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
What say you?
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
If one goes to Scotland, he is 100 times more likely to get a head
butt
on
the nose.
Only in Glasgow.
But ye micht nae get ony tea in Embra.
Wasn't it you that only a few days ago was telling us how a workmate of yours
spoke strange in your opinion... From what I see from time to time of
the
way
Scots speak, I can almost see the necessity for them to carry mobile subtitle
devices so anyone they are speaking to can understand anything they are
saying... I love watching Rab Nesbitt(1) on Telly, but if I understood half of
what he was saying I was doing well.
Ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_C._Nesbitt
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but, Rab C does not speak Lowland
Scots.
He is a Weegie and speaks Weegie fluantly. Or shouls that be effluently?
He's a what now?
Ray
Weegie = Glaswegian.
While there are both Gaelic and Lowland Scots speakers in Glasgow, the
Glasgow dialect is not actually the Lowland Scots language - although it
does contain many Scottish words. It is actually a version of Scottish
Standard English and that is a dialect of English.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:22:47 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Snip
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Robert Peffers
Only in Glasgow.
But ye micht nae get ony tea in Embra.
Wasn't it you that only a few days ago was telling us how a workmate of yours
spoke strange in your opinion... From what I see from time to time of
the
way
Scots speak, I can almost see the necessity for them to carry mobile subtitle
devices so anyone they are speaking to can understand anything they are
saying... I love watching Rab Nesbitt(1) on Telly, but if I understood half of
what he was saying I was doing well.
Ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_C._Nesbitt
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but, Rab C does not speak Lowland
Scots.
He is a Weegie and speaks Weegie fluantly. Or shouls that be effluently?
He's a what now?
Ray
Weegie = Glaswegian.
While there are both Gaelic and Lowland Scots speakers in Glasgow, the
Glasgow dialect is not actually the Lowland Scots language - although it
does contain many Scottish words. It is actually a version of Scottish
Standard English and that is a dialect of English.
Thanks for that, but Rab did seem to have one hell of a thick Scots accent when
I heard him...

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-17 02:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
Yes, come to Scotland where you can only WISH someone would shoot you!
:-)
--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."

-- Buffy the vampire
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-18 14:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
 FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.

For those curious, you can learn more about Dunblame here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 17:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Rubbish!
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-21 19:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
Rubbish!
How can you say that? I said "could" have prevented it, not WOULD... you can't
just rubbish that possibility...

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Charles Ellson
2011-02-18 23:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
 FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-21 19:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
 FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Robert Peffers
2011-02-21 22:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.

End of ...
Charles Ellson
2011-02-22 03:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:19:13 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.
End of ...
With the state that some of the little bar stewards get their teachers
into nowadays I would not see guns as helping things very much.
d***@aol.com
2011-02-22 13:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Ray
--
My political blog :http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel:http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! :http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.
You may be right....but maybe the crazy guy misses. As you said
somewhere else, many people don't shoot very well...I remember reading
a study where only 10% of police bullets hit their target. We had a
local case last summer where two cops shot at a guy 18 times and hit
him 5.....that's why standing around watching the excitement isn't
always a good idea.

What you're ignoring is that if there are any armed teachers, etc
it gives them an additional option rather than freeze, hide or run.
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Ilas
2011-02-22 14:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to carry a
gun in school. I suppose you could arm the kids in case that happens
though.
d***@aol.com
2011-02-22 15:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to carry a
gun in school. I suppose you could arm the kids in case that happens
though.
Now that would be really cool.......recess would be fun and food
fights in the cafeteria might take on a whole new meaning.
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-22 17:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to carry a
gun in school.
And you can cite even a single instance where that was the case?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ilas
2011-02-23 09:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to
carry a gun in school.
And you can cite even a single instance where that was the case?
Well, no. But teachers aren't allowed to carry guns, even in Texas. That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults who have
daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact, it seems to me
as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-23 10:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to
carry a gun in school.
And you can cite even a single instance where that was the case?
Well, no. But teachers aren't allowed to carry guns, even in Texas. That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults who have
daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact, it seems to me
as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
Here is a reallity check.

From 1999 until 2006, 23,649 USA Citizens under 19 years old died from
gunshots. That's over 4 per 100,000.
Around 50% of USA households have guns and 30 children are killed, or
injured, every day by guns. Mostly from guns owned by that child's own
family or friends.
That works out as EVERY 92 MINUTES, ANOTHER CHILD IN THE USA HAS JUST DIED
BY THE GUN..
In Scotland, with strict gun laws, the latest statistics show only 2 gun
deaths in an entire year among all ages in the entire population.
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-23 12:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Here is a reallity check.
Let me inject a little 'reality' into your claimed reality...
Post by Robert Peffers
From 1999 until 2006, 23,649 USA Citizens under 19 years old died from
gunshots. That's over 4 per 100,000.
And a lot of those are gang bangers.
Post by Robert Peffers
Around 50% of USA households have guns and 30 children are killed, or
injured, every day by guns. Mostly from guns owned by that child's own
family or friends.
Where 'child' is defined to include everyone up to the age of 19 years
old and mostly in gangs.
Post by Robert Peffers
That works out as EVERY 92 MINUTES, ANOTHER CHILD IN THE USA HAS JUST DIED
BY THE GUN..
Where 'child' is defined to include everyone up to the age of 19 years
old and mostly in gangs.
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, with strict gun laws, the latest statistics show only 2 gun
deaths in an entire year among all ages in the entire population.
And your gun death rates were low BEFORE, so please post a cite to a
regression study that shows your fine gun laws having ANY effect on
violent crime...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Ilas
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to
carry a gun in school.
And you can cite even a single instance where that was the case?
Well, no. But teachers aren't allowed to carry guns, even in Texas. That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults who have
daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact, it seems to me
as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
Here is a reallity check.
From 1999 until 2006, 23,649 USA Citizens under 19 years old died from
gunshots. That's over 4 per 100,000.
Around 50% of USA households have guns and 30 children are killed, or
injured, every day by guns. Mostly from guns owned by that child's own
family or friends.
That works out as EVERY 92 MINUTES, ANOTHER CHILD IN THE USA HAS JUST DIED
BY THE GUN..
In Scotland, with strict gun laws, the latest statistics show only 2 gun
deaths in an entire year among all ages in the entire population.
Using your logic:
===
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States
in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars.
2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die
every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million
injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents.

In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were
about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in
2002.

There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were
about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in
2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.
Source: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
===

We should be banning the ownership and use of cars!

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-23 11:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to
carry a gun in school.
And you can cite even a single instance where that was the case?
Well, no.
There you go, then.
Post by Ilas
But teachers aren't allowed to carry guns, even in Texas.
Actually, that's not precisely true. Various school districts around
the country have allowed some teachers to be armed. What's this
obsession you lot have with Texas?
Post by Ilas
That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults who have
daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact, it seems to me
as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
So you think that merely being around children a lot is enough to make
you want to shoot them? You should seek some help for that. If
that's NOT the case, I'm afraid I see absolutely no logic in your
remark above.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ilas
2011-02-23 12:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by d***@aol.com
That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults who
have daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact, it
seems to me as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
So you think that merely being around children a lot is enough to make
you want to shoot them?
Nope, and that's not what I said. You've got a serious case of passive
agressive there, by the way.

If
Post by Fred J. McCall
that's NOT the case, I'm afraid I see absolutely no logic in your
remark above.
Mmm. I see that.

To be honest, I don't really care if you want to arm teachers in your
country. I think it's utterly insane, but it's your country.
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-23 13:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by d***@aol.com
That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults who
have daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact, it
seems to me as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
So you think that merely being around children a lot is enough to make
you want to shoot them?
Nope, and that's not what I said. You've got a serious case of passive
agressive there, by the way.
That's precisely what you said. If that's not what you mean, then
perhaps you should explain the 'logic' behind your remark?

And you don't know what 'passive aggressive' means. I'm aggressive
aggressive and very anti-idiot, which explains why you're having
problems with me.
Post by Ilas
Post by Fred J. McCall
If
that's NOT the case, I'm afraid I see absolutely no logic in your
remark above.
Mmm. I see that.
To be honest, I don't really care if you want to arm teachers in your
country. I think it's utterly insane, but it's your country.
And yet here you are expressing a moronic opinion that you are unable
to even explain, much less support. It amounts to saying that
soldiers shouldn't be armed because they come in contact with all
those civilians.

Yeah, YOU probably shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon, but
Americans aren't quite so stupid as you seem to be.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ilas
2011-02-23 13:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Ilas
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by d***@aol.com
That's
the thing, I just can't see how arming tens of thousands of adults
who have daily close contact with children is a good idea. In fact,
it seems to me as insane as it gets. But hey, I'm not American.
So you think that merely being around children a lot is enough to
make you want to shoot them?
Nope, and that's not what I said. You've got a serious case of passive
agressive there, by the way.
That's precisely what you said.
No, it's not. Really, it's not. Not even close. Nowhere near. Not in the
slightest. Not even within a mile. Not..well, you get the idea. It's
right up there if you want to look ^. See? Just make a grovelling
apology and we'll say no more about it. Pretend it never happened. Is
that OK, Fred, my good man? Me old mucker.
Post by Fred J. McCall
And you don't know what 'passive aggressive' means.
Oh yes I do!

I'm aggressive
Post by Fred J. McCall
aggressive and very anti-idiot, which explains why you're having
problems with me.
Heeey! An Internet tough guy. Tell me, by any chance are you 6 foot 2
and know how to fight? I like those ones the best.
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by d***@aol.com
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
Or the teacher is the crazy guy. To whom you've given permission to carry a
gun in school. I suppose you could arm the kids in case that happens
though.
If the teacher is crazy and intent on a school shooting, things like need a
licensed firearm certificate and passing a background check isnt' going to stop
him... But if he goes to a school where there are several armed (and trained)
teachers, the likelihood of a "mass" shooting drops dramatically...

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Robert Peffers
2011-02-22 15:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
doctors
before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the
statistics
on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Ray
--
My political blog :http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel:http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! :http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.
You may be right....but maybe the crazy guy misses. As you said
somewhere else, many people don't shoot very well...I remember reading
a study where only 10% of police bullets hit their target. We had a
local case last summer where two cops shot at a guy 18 times and hit
him 5.....that's why standing around watching the excitement isn't
always a good idea.

What you're ignoring is that if there are any armed teachers, etc
it gives them an additional option rather than freeze, hide or run.
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.

How so?
It would be just two guns blasting away where there might have been only one
and twice the stray shots flying in a room full of children.

The facts about Dunblane are quite plain - the law, (at that time), allowed
a disturbed person to legally become involved in gun clubs and to own
weapons. There may have been lax checks by the police but that is not really
relevant. If the guy had not been allowed access to guns, if he had not been
able to join a gun club or to own guns he would not have been armed to the
teeth in a classroom and a gym. The gun laws are better now and we have a
lot less guns about and a any that are are much more carefully controlled
and much less accessable.

No one can say when someone will snap and become mentally unstable. Not even
you- gun or not.
I like that - As Donald Dewar said.
d***@aol.com
2011-02-22 16:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
doctors
before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the
statistics
on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Ray
--
My political blog :http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel:http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! :http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.
     You may be right....but maybe the crazy guy misses. As you said
somewhere else, many people don't shoot very well...I remember reading
a study where only 10% of police bullets hit their target. We had a
local case last summer where two cops shot at a guy 18 times and hit
him 5.....that's why standing around watching the excitement isn't
always a good idea.
    What you're ignoring is that if there are any armed teachers, etc
it gives them an additional option rather than freeze, hide or run.
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
How so?
It would be just two guns blasting away where there might have been only one
and twice the stray shots flying in a room full of children.
Is that not what my last sentence said? I'm not for guns being
carried by teachers. Hell, they'd probably end up shooting some smart-
assed 13 yo. Still, my point stands.....if you are attacked and are
armed, you have an additional option available.
The facts about Dunblane are quite plain - the law, (at that time), allowed
a disturbed person to legally become involved in gun clubs and to own
weapons. There may have been lax checks by the police but that is not really
relevant. If the guy had not been allowed access to guns, if he had not been
able to join a gun club or to own guns he would not have been armed to the
teeth in a classroom and a gym. The gun laws are better now and we have a
lot less guns about and a any that are are much more carefully controlled
and much less accessable.
I'd bet people can get guns if they really want to. Obviously, a
bit more forethought and planning is necessary which many crazies
might not be able to accomplish.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-22 17:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
doctors
before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the
statistics
on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Ray
--
My political blog :http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel:http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! :http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.
You may be right....but maybe the crazy guy misses. As you said
somewhere else, many people don't shoot very well...I remember reading
a study where only 10% of police bullets hit their target. We had a
local case last summer where two cops shot at a guy 18 times and hit
him 5.....that's why standing around watching the excitement isn't
always a good idea.
What you're ignoring is that if there are any armed teachers, etc
it gives them an additional option rather than freeze, hide or run.
The only drawback would be two people spraying bullets around the
classroom and maybe causing twice as much collateral damage.
How so?
It would be just two guns blasting away where there might have been only one
and twice the stray shots flying in a room full of children.
Is that not what my last sentence said? I'm not for guns being
carried by teachers. Hell, they'd probably end up shooting some smart-
assed 13 yo. Still, my point stands.....if you are attacked and are
armed, you have an additional option available.
Post by d***@aol.com
The facts about Dunblane are quite plain - the law, (at that time), allowed
a disturbed person to legally become involved in gun clubs and to own
weapons. There may have been lax checks by the police but that is not really
relevant. If the guy had not been allowed access to guns, if he had not been
able to join a gun club or to own guns he would not have been armed to the
teeth in a classroom and a gym. The gun laws are better now and we have a
lot less guns about and a any that are are much more carefully controlled
and much less accessable.
I'd bet people can get guns if they really want to. Obviously, a
bit more forethought and planning is necessary which many crazies
might not be able to accomplish.

Indeed they may, but don't do so very often in Scotland now.
Most victims have been by carzies.
The figures speak for themselves and are getting fewer every year..
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-22 18:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Indeed they may, but don't do so very often in Scotland now.
Most victims have been by carzies.
The figures speak for themselves and are getting fewer every year..
So are ours and we're loosening gun laws. So what do you think that
means, then?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-23 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:25:53 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:57:50 -0500, WhiteWolf!
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Col
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source:http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
Dunblane ? Dunblane ? Dunblane ?
One armed teacher at Dunblane could have prevented the massacre.
Not just armed but he/she would have needed to be omnipresent within
the school site. A general lack of armed attackers makes such a deity
unnecessary in practice.
Allow teachers to be armed, end of problem.
Your head is full of imaginations.
Just pause a moment to consider what actually happened at Dunblane. Never
mind anything else except an armed and mentally disturbed man entering a
class of infants. He bursts in with a gun in his hand and opens fire. What
the hell is a now dead teacher who packed a gun going to do about it? No
one, but no one, can draw a weapon fast enough to stop being shot by a guy
with a gun ready to fire.
End of ...
Your missing a few things. One, arm all teachers... So one going down is not
the end of the story...

But more importantly, if the criminal knows that there is a good chance he will
be killed before he can do "his damage" he, being like most criminals, a coward
at heart, won't even go there in the first place.

It's like you hear about these bars that are "cop friendly" and you never hear
of anyone causing problems in them... Criminals are looking for easy prey not a
fair fight.

Ray
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

Sophistry Made Simple
2011-02-16 23:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
What say you?
Ray
--
The efficiency of the Postal Service
The sustainability of Social Security
And all the compassion of the I.R.S.
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/49u9nun
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/4lljv2u
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
2011-02-18 14:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:07:26 -0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..

Ray
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before
this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on
lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
attention.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/4byv9lb
--
My political blog : http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu
My YouTube channel: http://tinyurl.com/wwvideo
Join The Tea Party! : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
d***@aol.com
2011-02-18 15:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
conwaycaine
2011-02-18 15:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
Fred J. McCall
2011-02-18 16:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
The statistics are as honest and correct as they can be. It's the
people using them who twist them to be dishonest and incorrect.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure...
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
conwaycaine
2011-02-19 00:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
The statistics are as honest and correct as they can be. It's the
people using them who twist them to be dishonest and incorrect.
Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure...
Sometimes the statistics themselves are slewed by evil statisticians to
support a particular viewpoint.
That's the way us humans is...................
Robert Peffers
2011-02-19 11:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun
deaths
on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats
often
quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
The statistics are as honest and correct as they can be. It's the
people using them who twist them to be dishonest and incorrect.
Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure...
Sometimes the statistics themselves are slewed by evil statisticians to
support a particular viewpoint.
That's the way us humans is...................
Well, while it is the way we humans is, we need not be influanced if we just
read the figures for ourselves.
The bias is only due to either being unable to read or figure properly.
It does not need an Einstein to read the total number of things involved and
the number of incidents of something and calculate either the average
occurance or the occurance per hundred/thousand/million/billion, (but
remembering the USA has a different idea of billion to the UK).
conwaycaine
2011-02-19 15:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Fred J. McCall
Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure...
Sometimes the statistics themselves are slewed by evil statisticians to
support a particular viewpoint.
That's the way us humans is...................
Well, while it is the way we humans is, we need not be influanced if we
just read the figures for ourselves.
Right!
"I can't be arsed" springs to mind here.
Post by Robert Peffers
The bias is only due to either being unable to read or figure properly.
It does not need an Einstein to read the total number of things involved
and the number of incidents of something and calculate either the average
occurance or the occurance per hundred/thousand/million/billion, (but
remembering the USA has a different idea of billion to the UK).
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 17:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes - 2 in number gun deaths in Scotland lasy year for all of 5 million
people plus visitors.
The main places for shooting in Scotland is on the football field.
Charles Ellson
2011-02-18 23:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:26:00 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes - 2 in number gun deaths in Scotland lasy year for all of 5 million
people plus visitors.
Both IIRC were within the criminal community. Ordinary members of the
public tend not to be the victims.
Post by Robert Peffers
The main places for shooting in Scotland is on the football field.
Peter Jason
2011-02-19 03:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:30:36 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:26:00 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes - 2 in number gun deaths in Scotland lasy year for all of 5 million
people plus visitors.
Both IIRC were within the criminal community. Ordinary members of the
public tend not to be the victims.
Post by Robert Peffers
The main places for shooting in Scotland is on the football field.
Do you know this implies the solution to the USA gun obsession? Let
all the angst-ridden gun owners drag their knuckles aroung a football
oval for a bit.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-19 11:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Jason
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:30:36 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:26:00 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun
deaths
on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats
often
quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit
using
them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes - 2 in number gun deaths in Scotland lasy year for all of 5 million
people plus visitors.
Both IIRC were within the criminal community. Ordinary members of the
public tend not to be the victims.
Post by Robert Peffers
The main places for shooting in Scotland is on the football field.
Do you know this implies the solution to the USA gun obsession? Let
all the angst-ridden gun owners drag their knuckles aroung a football
oval for a bit.
Thingiz, the footballers shoot with their feet.
Scotty
2011-02-19 12:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Jason
Do you know this implies the solution to the USA gun obsession? Let
all the angst-ridden gun owners drag their knuckles aroung a football
oval for a bit.
They do, doesn't work...
Sophistry Made Simple
2011-02-19 18:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
All stats are 100% correct, just not necessarily true.
conwaycaine
2011-02-20 21:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Post by conwaycaine
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Ray
And the pro-gun stats are always 100% accurate?
Are any stats 100% correct?
All stats are 100% correct, just not necessarily true.
Are you attempting to spring Irish logic on ME???????
Ilas
2011-02-21 11:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
conwaycaine
2011-02-21 15:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-21 18:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
No. That is the Don't know & the None of the Above votes.
Ilas
2011-02-22 14:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
No, that 48% statistic is one of the 28% that are made up. 28% of the 24%
of 100% correct statistics are made up too.
conwaycaine
2011-02-22 15:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
No, that 48% statistic is one of the 28% that are made up. 28% of the 24%
of 100% correct statistics are made up too.
I trust your chosen occupation is that of a
statistician..........................
Ilas
2011-02-22 16:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
No, that 48% statistic is one of the 28% that are made up. 28% of the
24% of 100% correct statistics are made up too.
I trust your chosen occupation is that of a
statistician..........................
Strangely, that is what I used to do (well, sort of).

Of course, being a statistician, there's a 28% chance I made that up.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-22 17:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
No, that 48% statistic is one of the 28% that are made up. 28% of the
24% of 100% correct statistics are made up too.
I trust your chosen occupation is that of a
statistician..........................
Strangely, that is what I used to do (well, sort of).
Of course, being a statistician, there's a 28% chance I made that up.
Well! If you'd been a mathematician you could have worked it out with a
pencil.
Robert Peffers
2011-02-22 17:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Post by Ilas
Post by conwaycaine
Are any stats 100% correct?
Yes. 24% of them. 28% are just made up though
Which leaves 48% subject to individual interpretation.
No, that 48% statistic is one of the 28% that are made up. 28% of the 24%
of 100% correct statistics are made up too.
I trust your chosen occupation is that of a
statistician..........................
No! Conway! Don't do it! Never trust a statistician!!!
Robert Peffers
2011-02-18 15:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:50:10 -0500, WhiteWolf!
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:07:26 -0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
Yes you have distorted them often.
Sophistry Made Simple
2011-02-19 18:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:50:10 -0500, WhiteWolf!
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:07:26 -0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
Post by Sophistry Made Simple
Post by WhiteWolf! <rayh(removespamblocker>@iol.ie
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Accidental deaths? What about all the other ones? How many gun deaths on
purpose compared to deaths caused by doctors on purpose?
I think you missed the point.... Which is that the anti-gun stats often quoted
are twisted and manipulated to present the opinion of the outfit using them..
The fact is that all gun stats are twisted, but none more so than pro-gun
groups.

So, go on then, answer the question if you're not afraid of the answer.
Ray
Loading...