OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

BottleBob wrote

You're moving the goalpost.

You claimed that you made *no* assertions about it. You clearly do make an assertion is the quote provided above.

...

Your 'may or may not' act is lame and you should lose it.

I do just fine. (e.g. See the 'anti-gun' issue). You, OTOH, do need to be careful.

...

BottleBob wrote.... ...

When you write "Gunner" - you're writing what *you* think, not what he thinks.

Your act of waffling and trying to put words into other poster's mouths is pathetic and weak.

....

Carl:

Oh? Does one of your developed skills happen to include mind reading?

I warned you before to read what I say, and not let your imagination run away with you about I "might" be saying.

I was simply making a comparison between two people arguing a subject that often has an extreme emotional component. You think you're right, your opponent thinks he's right, with little middle ground.

Carl:

You said that about Richard. Is this a ploy you commonly use when you are challenged to support on of your observations but are unable to do so? I asked you to point out the assertion where I stated Gunner was more "well-informed" than you. Are you able to do that, or not?

I said I made no assertion about Gunner being more well-informed than you. If you believe otherwise please point it out.

That might be difficult to do. It's an affectation that I've grown to cherish.

I'm not so sure you do. You've assumed a couple of things about my communication style that aren't true.

I try to be careful as I can, but sometimes impressions and interpretations leak through.

So are you pro-gun, anti-gun, or relatively neutral?

Carl:

Entirely different? Well let me go back and look.....

JTMcC seems to be the one who used this phrase first: ==================================== "...is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm to your loved one..." ====================================

Carl replied: ==================================== Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to emotion fallacy?

You're just demonstrating that you are not intelligent enough to figure out how to deal with life without a gun. =====================================

Incidentally, where could I have EVER got the impression you were anti-gun. Anyway back to the progression.

Richard replied: ===================================== It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. =====================================

Carl wrote: ===================================== Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of thousands of times a year. =====================================

Richard wrote: ===================================== Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K; assault....910K etc etc etc.

Sure looks like "hundreds of thousands of times a year" to me.. ======================================

Carl wrote: ====================================== Do you make it a habit of creating numbers out of thin air? ======================================

BottleBob wrote: ======================================

For 2002 Rapes 95,136 Robberies 420,637 Assaults 894,348 ======================================

Back to real time here. First: it seems that Richard didn't originally make the "...is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm to your loved one..." comment.

Second: You claimed Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of thousands of times a year.

Third: My posting of essentially the same numbers from the FBI site showed that your original assertion of there NOT being hundreds of thousands of victims of violence was unfounded, EVEN if we subtract 3/4 of the cases.

Fourth: You accused Richard of creating numbers out of thin air. That accusation was also shown to be false, even if he made the boo-boo of mislabeling the robbery data (which had no effect on the numbers themselves).

Is this all clear now?

BottleBob wrote

Is the barrell the only item that would be a problem? What about springs? Would the tight fit tolerances among the various parts be difficult to achieve?

snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote

IOW, you falsely labeled the category and you don't have the balls to admit it.

Keep moving those goalposts. You're the idiot who chose the moronic emotional definition.

snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote

You wouldn't. You don't have the balls to admit that you changed the labels.

Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of thousands of times a year.

There are a few hundred thousand violent crimes every year in the US but that's an entirely different category.

But you lack the balls to admit that you created an emotionally-based, and unsupportable, definition.

Sorry, idiot. The numbers prove you wrong.

Ball's in your court....feel free to disprove the numbers.

ral

Admit what? That the crimes stated don't "happen hundreds of thousands of times a year...."?

That's up to you to prove, idiot. I made my case quite well. ral

No, you ignorant, spineless, blustering pool of offal; the "numbers" don't prove anything of the kind. "The numbers" count 'victims of violent crime', not "loved ones." A != B, you misbegotten product of the misogynous mating of a goat and a retarded chimpanzee.

Carl:

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at here. I'm not a gunsmith so I'm not familiar with all the internal workings or parts of an AK-47. Coil springs can be made by wrapping piano wire around a pin, flat springs can be made out of sheet spring steel with hand tools. Filing, sawing, sanding, "can" achieve some pretty close tolerance "seeming" fits. They might not look pretty but they might function for the application. Clock makers centuries ago did some really nice work with mostly simple hand tools.

Afghan "gunsmiths" would take a gun (any gun) and "duplicate" it, piece for piece, with hand tools. Some of them, including AK's were amazing in fit & function given the primitive way they were made. Greg Sefton

Because that would place the blame squarely where it belongs and those people don't want to admit their (society's) shortcomings, nor do they have a clue to deal with it. Much easier to demonize an inanimate object and obfuscate the real issues. Greg Sefton

BottleBob wrote

...

That wasn't my assertion. As I noted before, don't put words into my mouth.

...

Carl:

OH? Did you, or did you not, make the following statement: ============================================ Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of thousands of times a year. ============================================

BottleBob wrote

It appears that you're too blind to see that those are not the same thing. It's rather pathetic that you think you're trying to be 'objective'.

Carl:

Ok, let's try to simplify this. You claim that "most" of those

1,410,000 victims of violent crime are not "loved-ones". Just what percentage of those victims would you estimate do NOT fit your criteria of "loved-ones" 51%?, 60%?, 70%?, 80%?, What?

BottleBob wrote

Just curious. No worries, mate.