OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID5862 "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind:
some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote: (clip) 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ You can divide the country in "half" by area, by number of states, or by population. Unless you know the murder rate per capita under the two sets of laws, you can be misled by statistics like this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:51:01 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"

its pretty clear to me.
Gunner "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

population. Unless you know the murder rate per capita under the two sets of laws, you can be misled by statistics like this.
Statistics are only usefull to law makers trying promote thier own agenda, which in most cases is not in the best interest of the average citizen. Unfortunatly most people will ignore truth in favor of statistics that support the illusion of saftey provided by laws.
Best Regards Tom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Andrew Ford
Mr. Ford, if there is such a person, is crazy. 'You want the numbers, or would you rather keep believing a lie and perpetuating it, in good old effective Joseph Goebbel's style? <g>
Oh, what the hell: There are 27 open carry states and they represent 32.95% of the population. They also are the states in which 31.26% of the murders are committed. Those are 2001 figures, US Census and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. I have the Excel workbooks on it if you don't believe it, and you're welcome to them.
If there is an Andrew Ford, and if you know who he is, you can tell him for me that he's either a fool or a liar, or a little bit of both.
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says...

Damn. Here you go again, confusing Gunner with facts. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

You watch. It won't faze him in the least. He'll keep using it even though he knows it's a crock of bull. He's too much of a True Believer to let the facts stand in the way of a good rant. <g>
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:34:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing with anything he can't refute.
-Carl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He might not, but I will - 32% of the population, 31% of the murders - a worst, a statistical wash, and best, a lower murder rate...
Charlie
-- 73 KC2IXE For the Children - RKBA! Any given program, when running, needs debugging. Any debugged program is obsolete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. Not at all what "Andrew Ford," whoever he may be, stated and implied, which is that open-carry laws are somehow connected to much lower rates of murder.
It's a wash. If you try to make something of that small fraction of a percent difference, don't bother. The statistics mean nothing at those close percentages. If California should go open-carry, for example, the stats would look so horrible for open-carry that no state would ever allow it again. <g>
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Apparently so.
Then why do some states go to such *extreme* lengths to outlaw firearm ownership, handgun ownership, and concealed carry?
If you talk to the law community they say that the last thing they want is more citizens carrying handguns concealed.
And yet, it seems like it really does not matter.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress

That's a very good question, Jim. Having fought the battle in Trenton, I have opinions about it, and the bottom line, IMO, is that the real battle here is cultural, with the policy and emotional battles tagging along behind.
And don't discount the strength of the pro-gun cultural battle. The strongest case for it, IMO, is an article written by a Washington lawyer named Jeffrey Snyder. The article is titled "A Nation of Cowards." It's all over the web and it's very worth reading, IMO.
Then read an intelligent response to it by George Will, titled "A Nation of Cowards?" It, too, is on the web. I'd give you the URLs but I think Gunner has them set up as keyboard macros, and he'll beat me to it. <g>
Will's argument is simply that, if Snyder is right, then our society has already failed. But he acknowledges the strength of Snyder's argument.
Keep in mind those pieces were written in the early '90s, when violent crime was a more frightening prospect. The principles and the underlying cultural/value conflict is still valid, however.
As for the opinions of cops, they vary. Plenty of cops support concealed carry. Others oppose it.
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    [ ... ]

    Please *do* post the URLs. Gunner would post the whole web page from each side, not just the URLs. :-)
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I found the first easily, but the second is a bit obscure.
I would appreciate the links, also.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

all
of
Gunner
Well, "A Nation of Cowards" will get you about a thousand hits and a thousand transcripts of it <g>, but the link to Will's column at Geocities has broken.
I don't know where to find it. Maybe Gunner does. I know it's been distributed with Time magazine's approval, because I'm the one who got their approval.
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:18:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/still_cowards.htm http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/4284
"Posted on Thursday, November 8, 2001 at 06:32 AM by spwenger
In a comment to an earlier posting of a link to George Will's editorial on the meaning of the Second Amendment someone questioned the statement that Geroge Will had not always held his current "individual right" position. Here's a more specific statement from Neal Knox's Firearms Coalition Alerts List mailing of November 6:
George Will's column this weekend, citing the Fifth Circuit's "persuasive" Emerson decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right, marks a near-complete turnaround for the usually conservative pundit.
In 1992 he had enough faith that the Second Amendment meant something that he wanted it repealed, but in 1994 Jeff Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" essay began bringing him around. Looks like the 5th Circuit finished the reversal.
He wrote this weekend that President Bush, by issuing alerts of further terrorist attacks, and calling for greater public vigilance, had in effect deputized the entire populace. "So this is an appropriate time to revisit the most fundamental -- the philosophic -- reason why both the right and the fact of widespread gun ownership reflect a healthy dimension of America's democratic culture."
Very good, George. "
From what I can gather searching the net. Mr. Wills has requested his rebuttal be removed as he has changed his mind. I can only find one reference to this however.
Gunner
"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd be very surprised if George Will has anything to say about it. The copyright was held by Newsweek (I've been saying Time; that's just age on my part, it was Newsweek). It may have reverted to him but it's still in their archives.
Here's what you can get from Newsweek archives for free. The rest will cost you $2.95. <g>
November 15, 1993 Newsweek Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?
GEORGE F. WILL
JEFFREY SNYDER's TIMING IS EITHER PERFECT OR PERFECTLY awful. Just as there seems to be a coalescing consensus that the keys to controlling violent crime are more police and fewer guns, along comes Snyder to trouble the conscience of anyone who thinks so. In his essay 'A Nation of Cowards" in The Public Interest quarterly, he argues, with a potent blend of philosophy and fact, as follows: "Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it,...
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

<SNIP>
Not to delve further off topic . . . ah, what the heck, let's. <g>
Who holds the rights to a magazine article? I'd assume that the magazine controls the copyright. Does the author retain any rights at all? Is it subject to negotiation (I'm thinking the author may want to have an anthology published down the road)? Are magazine or newspaper article copyrights the same as those for books?
R, Tom Q.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very complicated, unfortunately. If you're employed by the magazine to write, and if you have no other deal written into your contract, the magazine owns all rights. (I suspect that George Will had some kind of contractual deal that shared copyright, but I don't know.)
If you aren't an employee of the magazine, or if you are but you aren't one who is *employed* to write, and if nothing else is said between you and the publisher or his designated agent (the Editor, usually), then, when you submit an article, you're offering First Time North American Serial Rights. That means the magazine gets to publish it once (and you can't sell it to someone else who's going to publish it before the first magazine publishes it), and then the rights revert to you. The magazine usually will grab more rights for themselves by making your cashing their check contingent upon granting them the rest of the rights. <g> Or, they used to. I haven't followed the courts on this. I haven't freelanced for most of the last decade.
BTW, if the rights should revert to you, that doesn't mean you can reprint the magazine article as a facsimile (a photocopy or offset copies). The magazine retains the rights to the format and the size, placement, and modification of any illustrations, so they effectively own their own pages. But they can't reprint them, either, if they don't have the rights to your copy.
Aren't you glad you asked? <g>

Yup. You can negotiate anything. Watch out for electronic rights because cases are still being fought in the courts over it. For now, electronic rights appear to revert to the author, by case law, unless otherwise stated in the contract.

They're different in default, because the book publisher has the right to reprint. But book contracts, unlike magazine contracts, are almost always explicit in the contract itself. And, once again, that's negotiable.
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Thanks, Ed - nice explanation. I don't think we're paying you enough. <g>
R, Tom Q.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.