OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Well it's something everyone does. That is present the facts that support or embellish their position. Just as the facts that Gunner posted to start this thread were actual facts (depending on the years etc). The "fact" that they didn't necessarily represent the total picture is obvious. Journalists do it, lawyers get paid to do it, politicians do it, and everyone, who ever discusses just about anything, does it. To call these selective facts "lies" is an even worse distortion of the truth than the original selective "reporting" of facts. Greg Sefton

No, it fits right into the definition, and into the intent, Greg, in an important sense that Webster's and others define the term: "to create a false or misleading impression." That's why propaganda, which is a mixture of truths and lies intended to create a false impression, is a form of lying.

As I said at the outset, "Ford," should he actually exist, is either a fool or a liar. The whole statement is constructed to give the false impression that states where they have open carry and where there are no permits (there aren't 25 of them in any case, but it made a handy number for "Ford" to use) have vastly lower murder rates than other states. By mixing his fractions -- states in one case, people in the other -- he made the false impression. That's either a stupid mistake (the "fool" option) or an intentional lie.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:33:52 -0800, "Dan" wrote:

I wasn't talking about Gunner.....I agree with him....I was talking about the guy who didn't know what an "arsenal" is and was trying to "technical" his way through it.

ral

Gunshots are just that. Gunshots.

Likely Pegasus pawing the rooftop of the old Mobil Oil building with the towers all around it now. Once it was the skyline for 100 miles or so. But that was before the interstate system was carved through and around Dallas. Before 30, 20, 35, 635 etc.

Martin

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:25:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Richard Lewis) wrote something ......and in reply I say!:

It was probably a true quote, yes. ANd the _figure_ is correct..... ...but _means_ absolutely nothing! It's not even ambiguous. It means nothing.

As I said, States don't kill people. People do.

To illustrate with the ridiculous. You have two neighbouring states. One has an area of one million square miles, and a population of one person. The other is New York. It is quite possible for there to be 0 murders per hundred thousand in the lone-man state, for all of the guy's natural life. There may also be 100,000 per 100,000 in one year (but only if New Yorker kills him, barring suuicide ). The figures regarding the states mean nothing.

Heck! It would make sense if you even started looking at deaths per area! (Although even then, not much)

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured by man's. There would be nowhere to go. Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:22 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@there.com (Noah Simoneaux) wrote something ......and in reply I say!:

OK Smartarse. I said murders, not gun murders .

Actually on the face of the figures that Ed (who is very pro-gun but anti the stupid figures quoted by Gunner) would appear to show that it is simply people, not guns, that cause gun murders.

I feel that those figures may need more delving than is possible, before I would see them as valid.

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured by man's. There would be nowhere to go. Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

The facts are so blatant it makes you wonder how many anti-gunners are being paid to continue spinning contrived lies. Its either that or some pathology that compels them in spite of the facts.

Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot.

Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along the way?

ral

Prove a negative, eh, Dan?

You're better than that.

The onus is on you to prove that crime has ever gone up due to firearms ownership. It's been tried hundreds of times and never been proven once....I doubt you will prove it this time

ral

I'm not going to either , but this post I don't agree with. There are alot of places to get involved in this long debait over the sig. / quote.

Why should your behavior be different? You'd let the mean dog on me if you know I'm not packing? Thanks !

The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the door and the wife looking through the blinds. I usually have a gun in my truck , but didn't cause I'm working on a CCW for a different gun. More or less, "Im jumping through hoops to be legal and its taking time and thus I'm unarmed. Sure, having the old one in the truck is illegal in most areas of the valley , but at least I have a registration card for it. Anyhow, I'm thinking that this could get nasty while this guy is coming up to the truck door as I'm getting out. This guy pulls out his wallet and starts on this cry for me speech and needs $. To late , but he could have pulled out a gun. I recognized this guy that had hit me up for $ a couple of weeks ago at a gas station. I told him so and I still won't give him any $ , and he gets all pissy and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for this guy cause he got pissy with me the first time , but if I had'nt run into him before I'd be very concerned. BTW he was going to show me a virgin marry card and tell me he is a trucker ( that's when I cut him off in his game) from NB and his father inlaw had a stroke and needs $ for a plane ticket home. That didn't make since the first time cause he should drive the truck home.

This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window here in NV. it would'nt be there one or two days and I'd have a broken window. Don't think you can even hang one up like that in this state anyhow, but you can have one strapped on walking down the street. I see it once in awhile , and think nothing about it. oooh cops and guns , guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where they have it un-strapped and their hand on it. They have stole my gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into .

Announcing is the same to me as branishing it , except others will see it and call the cops. Try walking through a group of red colors , three on each of them , with a nice shiney gun and you know what they will be thinking? They will think its worth a big pile of DOPE and pull out a throw away gun and take it from you. They part way for me and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe , or shall we say better off than being unarmed.

I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't concern anyone else. Having one hidden has many advantages and that's what you want most of in a bad situation. The last part of the last sentence makes alot of sence cause the people that use them to hurt or rob others don't care what laws they have to go through to use it in their fasion , its all illegal so what's the point of a background check.

This reminds me of a customer that didn't want me smoking in her backyard cause her dogs are alergic to it and they are in the house.

Peer/sheeple pressure... Hmmm , that's basically why I'm posting this and Gunner's reason to post his pro gun threads (I guess). To hopefully get the above turned around so they don't pressure us with voting or what ever to lessen gun rights.

I know its a bad subject , but they might as well have a federal CCW. I'm sure they know who I am already and have way more info. than civil rights people could be able to handle. I wonder if you wanted to pack and traveled around the 48 states how many hoops you would have to jump through , how long it would take doing the paper work , and how much it would cost. Bet you'd need a team to do it for you and you couldn't start on your trip for months or maybe years !

Its obvious to me that the founding fathers had in mind that everyone should be able own one , hey they were up against death to even write the thing. And what a better time to set up a Gov't that should look over its own shoulder. Today , It would have to get really bad for the sheep to stand up , but that has nothing to do with what was meant. At least we should have them still even though mostly for self preservation against smaller everyday things no matter what city , county , or state your in or pass through. And should always be just in case it does get really bad and the sheep will be able to stand up.

It really should be that you go through a check of you not the gun for free and only an obligation to report a missing one. How many registered gun owners kill people vs. all the others to the X/100,000 should be the question. It shouldn't matter how many you have it should be that you have been checked to own one no matter what kind. If you get caught with a outlawed one then it will be lost.

I personally don't want to go down to the cop shop everytime I want to switch guns. Matter of fact the laws are so bad that you should have throw away guns so when they are taken away cause it should be unloaded or what ever it doesn't hurt so bad.

Hell , I'm an idealist and this is a complex subject.

Then compare the figures of Phoenix with Cincinatti, then compare those from the rest of the two states. States with "an attitude" as well as the people to back it up, are less encumbered by violent crime.

It might.

Irrelevant.

So rare as to be insignificant.

And some of those potentials could be prevented.

Too general to have meaning.

Gunner wrote

The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality. Garbage in=garbage out.

Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent to the dump where it belongs.

See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others, which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid.

Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not you can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care deeply about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course of action? This against a person that your loved one has no chance of ever matching up to or beating in a physical confrontation. Where, just by chance, a weapon, like a firearm, would mean your loved one's survival, and without said weapon, your loved one is dead. Please give us your response to said senario.

JTMcC.

In the movies, maybe. In real life, rarely if ever.

No, it's not. Ford is implying that having a sidearm protects you from murder- but he doesn't take into account that not all murders are confrontational (like a hold up) and that in many states a death caused by a DWI driver is a capital murder charge. Like wise, child abuse death victims are considered murder victims and it's pretty obvious that an infant can't handle a sidearm. Ford is trying to compare apples to oranges.

-Carl