Re: Thousands stage anti-war protest

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11jg5kofnn7jj2c@news.supernews.com...

> It would depend very greatly on how you charicterized "gun owner", the
> very first mistake European ignorance of the problem leads to.
>
> For your edification, there are lots of different groups of "gun
owners".
>
> I don't consider my collecting and personal defense carrying to be in
the
> same class as a 19 yr old inner city street corner crack dealer, who
> is -also- a gun owner, and very likely to get shot at some point.
>
> That's one of the many fine points of the argument that you miss.

One that skews the numbers, and is often misrepresented by biased
"researchers" coming to preconcived "conclusions".

Beware of such statistics, which have absolutely no
statement worth mentioning.

Assumed there is a definite percentage (greater than 50%)of
gun owners, and the complementary percentage of non-owners.

Assumed everyone has the same chance of getting killed by a
reckless driver.

Then gun-owners would run a higher chance of getting killed,
won't they?
At last that is what the statisticians would make up as
evidence.

Matthias

noo fishy comments, pls.



Lee Bell wrote:

> "BarryNL" wrote
>
>
>>>The gun nuts are clearly afraid of violence, at least that seems to be
>>>the perception of the anti gun faction. To hear people like you talk,
>>>that's the only rational reason they keep and bear arms. It's unfair to
>>>send people who are afraid into harms way.
>
>
>>Out of interest (and I don't know the answer to this though I would bet
>>money) do more gun owners or non-gun owners end up getting shot?
>
>
> I'm reasonably certain that more gun owners than non gun owners are shot by
> accident. Not everybody is always as careful as they should be. I'm also
> reasonably certain that non gun owners are shot more often than those that
> own guns, but I don't have ready evidence to prove it. I can tell you, and
> can back it up with statistics, that the highest violent crime and murder
> rates in the country are in the states that have the most stringent gun
> control laws and that in every state that instituted a right to carry a
> concealed weapon law, violent crimes declined significantly.
>
> There is simply no truth at all the claims that the right to keep and bear
> arms legally leads to increased violence.
>
> Lee
>
>

Lee Bell wrote:
> "BarryNL" wrote
>
>
>>>Out of interest (and I don't know the answer to this though I would bet
>>>money) do more gun owners or non-gun owners end up getting shot?
>>
>>Ah, here we go...
>>
>>A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by
>>3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun
>>is present.
>>
>>-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation
>>to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
>
>
> Interesting data. You quote homicide rates from an article on suicide. Had
> you asked whether more people kill themselves with guns in homes that have
> guns or homes that don't, we could have answered more accurately.
>
> What I can tell you is that there has been a gun in my home since before I
> was born. I've had a gun of my own since I was 6. That's 57 years of
> exposure to guns and 51 years of owning them myself. Nobody in my home,
> living in my home, or who has ever lived in my home, has been shot.

Ah, the anecdotal approach to statistics. Do you also, by any chance,
have an uncle who smoked 60 a day and lived to be 95?

"BarryNL" <notall@coffeeshops.nl> wrote in message
news:4338461c$0$11065$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Ah, the anecdotal approach to statistics. Do you also, by any chance,
> have an uncle who smoked 60 a day and lived to be 95?

My father smoked Camel studs and died at 53, and my "Dad" (for the easily
confused who arent lucky enough to have to great paternal influences) lost
two limbs in a motorcycle accident and still rides.

Have you, by chance, ever owned or fired a firearm?

Know anyone who has?

BarryNL wrote:
> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>>
>> The gun nuts are clearly afraid of violence, at least that seems to be
>> the perception of the anti gun faction. To hear people like you talk,
>> that's the only rational reason they keep and bear arms. It's unfair
>> to send people who are afraid into harms way.
>
>
> Out of interest (and I don't know the answer to this though I would bet
> money) do more gun owners or non-gun owners end up getting shot?

it depends, if a gun owner is committing a crime at a gunowners home the
the violating gunowner get shot

if a non gunowner commits a crime at a gunowners home then the non
gunowner gets shot. In either case the law abiding gun owner wins

OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS GREAT!
>
> > I violates their right to pursue
>
>> happiness. Instead, we should send those that are unafraid, those
>> that are so sure that they are safe from all possibility of harm, that
>> they chose to disarm themselves and their neighbors. They are the
>> ones who should go to Iraq. The impact on their lives is so much
>> less, in their rational knowledge that there is no risk worth arming
>> themselves for, there are fewer constitutional issues and think of all
>> the money the US could save by not having to arm them. Hell, we could
>> fund benefits for illegal immigrants, no sweat.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>
>

BarryNL wrote:

> BarryNL wrote:
>
>> Lee Bell wrote:
>>
>>> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>>>
>>> The gun nuts are clearly afraid of violence, at least that seems to
>>> be the perception of the anti gun faction. To hear people like you
>>> talk, that's the only rational reason they keep and bear arms. It's
>>> unfair to send people who are afraid into harms way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Out of interest (and I don't know the answer to this though I would
>> bet money) do more gun owners or non-gun owners end up getting shot?
>
>
> Ah, here we go...
>
> A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member
> by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no
> gun is present.
>
> -Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in
> Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
>

Please cite credible sources not those from HGA

And OH, Barry, Don't fuck around with the US Constituion

> I guess it's gun owners who aren't afraid of being shot, or they
> wouldn't own guns!
>
>> > I violates their right to pursue
>>
>>> happiness. Instead, we should send those that are unafraid, those
>>> that are so sure that they are safe from all possibility of harm,
>>> that they chose to disarm themselves and their neighbors. They are
>>> the ones who should go to Iraq. The impact on their lives is so much
>>> less, in their rational knowledge that there is no risk worth arming
>>> themselves for, there are fewer constitutional issues and think of
>>> all the money the US could save by not having to arm them. Hell, we
>>> could fund benefits for illegal immigrants, no sweat.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

BarryNL wrote:

> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>> "BarryNL" wrote
>>
>>
>>>> Out of interest (and I don't know the answer to this though I would
>>>> bet money) do more gun owners or non-gun owners end up getting shot?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, here we go...
>>>
>>> A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household
>>> member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to
>>> homes where no gun is present.
>>>
>>> -Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in
>>> Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting data. You quote homicide rates from an article on
>> suicide. Had you asked whether more people kill themselves with guns
>> in homes that have guns or homes that don't, we could have answered
>> more accurately.
>>
>> What I can tell you is that there has been a gun in my home since
>> before I was born. I've had a gun of my own since I was 6. That's 57
>> years of exposure to guns and 51 years of owning them myself. Nobody
>> in my home, living in my home, or who has ever lived in my home, has
>> been shot.
>
>
> Ah, the anecdotal approach to statistics. Do you also, by any chance,
> have an uncle who smoked 60 a day and lived to be 95?

So what

chilly wrote:
> "Joe English" <joeenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
> news:c35b6$433887b5$ce504822$24118@allthenewsgroup s.com...
>
>>>
>>>Ah, the anecdotal approach to statistics. Do you also, by any chance,
>>>have an uncle who smoked 60 a day and lived to be 95?
>>
>>So what
>
>
> stitches, just keeps me in stitches
>
>
hope they get infected!

Why would you be in stitches?

"Joe English" <joeenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:f267b$43389159$ce504822$24676@allthenewsgroup s.com...
> >
> > stitches, just keeps me in stitches
> >
> >
> hope they get infected!

Nice.

> Why would you be in stitches?

http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...-stitches.html

"Joe English" <joeenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:f267b$43389159$ce504822$24676@allthenewsgroup s.com...
> chilly wrote:
> > "Joe English" <joeenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
> > news:c35b6$433887b5$ce504822$24118@allthenewsgroup s.com...
> >
> >>>
> >>>Ah, the anecdotal approach to statistics. Do you also, by any chance,
> >>>have an uncle who smoked 60 a day and lived to be 95?
> >>
> >>So what
> >
> >
> > stitches, just keeps me in stitches
> >
> >
> hope they get infected!
>
> Why would you be in stitches?

'Cause she is kind of a judgemental snob?

Like's to poke and prod and take the cheap shots?

Likes to stir the shit, but not get any on her?

Because she thinks you are an idiot, but doesnt have the guts to come out
and say it?

Thinks that she and the other enlightened few share an inside joke at your
expense?

Just a guess.