"Shatto" wrote in message
newshvIb.18978$xX.69806@attbi_s02...
Alright, anyone with any level of intellect knows that history is an
interpretation of historical or archeological data. History is not a fact.
We were never there.


Actually, that is a totally ignorant CROCK of manure..
The historical events that are well-documented are FACTS.
The interpretations may on many occasions be tinged by the bias of the
interpreters. or of the ignorant.
But the events are DEFINITELY considered to be facts by those who study the
subject.

For example, are you telling us that Napoleon Bonaparte did was not an able
soldier who managed to conquer most of Europe end crown himself Emperor ?
If you are stupid enough to believe that that is not FACT and is instead
"interpretation of historical or archeological data", then I'll stop wasting
my time addressing you..

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...

That's strange, here in Los Angeles we have the minorities as the
predominant owners of guns. So, your theory doesn't work here in LA, may
be
just in Chicago.



And your sources for this claim are ?

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...



Sorry, I'm not as intelligent as you are, but I don't care to solve your
inconclusive riddle (if its one). Listen, you have your problems where
ever
you live, but keep in mind that guns are not your solution to your
predicament. You got one, he's got two. I'm only imagining a society
without
guns so that we can prevent Columbine. You can fathom that if you have any
sense.


Guns were NOT the cause of Columbine.
It was the fact that 2 boys were constantly allowed to be abused in their
school to the point where their only way of responding was violence.
And notice that all the gun laws currently in place did NOTHING to prevent
them from ILLEGALLY acquiring firearms to do what they did..
More gun laws would not prevent another Columbine. Just take Dunblane
England as an example. That occurred in a country with far less guns in the
hands of the public and even more restrictions on the accessibility to guns
by the public. Idem for the University of Montreal Massacre in Canada, and
the Port Arthur massacre in Australia.

On the other hand contrary to what the gun-controllers claimed when Florida
became a shall-issue state. Florida did NOT become the "Gunshine State".
Instead the rate of crimes agains individuals dropped much faster that in
those states that remained with gun-control..
IN the same way, compare Alexandria Viriginia, a bedroom suburb of
Washington D.C. and Washington D.C.By your premise D.C. should be a lot
safer than Alexandria, because Virginia is a concealed-carry state while
D.C. has a near-total ban of gun-ownership. And yet Washington has been the
murder capital while Alexandria is nearly crime-free.

Disarming the population does NOT disarm the criminals. It only makes the
law-abiding defenseless.
And your dreams of Utopia are just that. Dreams

"Can Altinbay" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...

If you assume the worst of a gender, that's an insult. If it's against
women,
that's misogyny. You have assumed from the beginning that a woman
hasn't
got
enough sense to act appropriately when a violent attacker attempts to
harm
and
or disarm her. There's a really simple solution to that problem, and we
both
know what it is. Why have you not admitted what it is? Because you
don't
want
to see the rapist come to harm.


WHO assumes the worst of a gender? HOW is the woman going not not let the
rapist take the gun?

Thank your for repeating the proof that indeed YOU DO assume the worst of
the female gender.


You yourself, in your .sig, which is NOT on topic for
the group, said that the gun protects the woman from the rapist. That
implies that the rapist is strong enough to wrest it from her, provided
that
she can even reach the gun in enough time. You have also advocated new
women's fashion - holsters. Have we really come to that?


You are the one who supposes that a woman would be so helpless and
incompetent that she would not be able to bring to bear a weapon in case of
attack ?
Do you ALWAYS make such an assumption about the abilities of women to
respond to assault ?
Is this based on any evidence on your part ?
Or is it based on your need to believe that women are not only the weaker
sex, but the incompetent sex as well ?

By the way, where has Chris talked about either
women's fashion ?
or holsters ?

Seems like you're projecting again..



Your reasoning sucks bigtime. No one is protecting the rapist. This is
really the kind of stuff people come up with so often because they don't
have real arguments.


Another projection about "protecting the rapist"


As for the purpose of this newsgroup, I attempted to use it for that
purpose.
You have attempted to divert it from same.


But you have a .sig that is off topic and you insist on inflicting on us
every time. Do you think that we enjoy reading it?


"Inflicting"
Are you telling us that his sig is actually causing you suffering of some
sort ?
Why don't you tell us EXACTLY how it causes you suffering ?
(This shoudl be good)

If you think it's off topic, and it really bothers you, don't respond.
Let
it die.


Practice what you preach, bub..
Then you won't inflict on yourself the need to think about why this is
causing you such "suffering"..

"Can Altinbay" wrote in message
link.net...
"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...

I'm endlessly fascinated by the contempt which gun control advocates
display for
the intellect and character of women. Apparently, you don't think that
a
woman
is smart enough to either use a holster or a purse designed for the
carrying of
firearms. You also don't appear to believe that women are smart enough
to
carry
firearms which can be fired from inside a purse or a coat pocket.

Misogyny is a consistent trait of gun control advocates....



Don't you love it. No one ever said anything about intelligence, and we
come up with THIS doozy.

For the record, I know women who could take out said rapist easily. It's
a
matter of training, and they don't have to find their gun. So don't give
me
misogynist. Straw man of the worst kind.

And your examples still mean the woman has to get to the gun. That takes
time.



Yup a few days versus a few years of time.

So tell us, how long would a 120 lb 40 year old with a full-time job have to
train in some martial art to present a more effective defense than she can
achieve with about 40 hours of training at a range ?

Any generalisation about stupidity is stupid..

Recognize yourself ?


"Shatto" wrote in message
news:kCwIb.702161$Tr4.1769864@attbi_s03...
Anymore generality about any gender is take as stupid.

"Shatto" wrote in message
news:IEwIb.19239$xX.71226@attbi_s02...
Yah, It looks like you started all. Take that .sig out before I start
quoting Saddam.


"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Wertz says...

On 29 Dec 2003 06:58:09 -0800, Chris Morton
wrote:

Thanks.

No problemo.

It is kind of funny how one word can start a flame war, though.

A flame war in usenet???

I'm shocked, shocked! : )


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.

"Shatto" wrote in message
news:7zwIb.694537$HS4.4966918@attbi_s01...
Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.


Feel free to jump in with an intelligent comment.
We're still waiting for one..

"D.A. Tsenuf" wrote in
:

Maybe you should read the works of criminologist Gary Kleck about the
number of Defensive Gun Use that occurs annually in the US. It is estimated
to beat least 100,000 incidents per year That works out to about 270 per
day. Now naturally this does not imply that shots were fired. It means
that the gun was either shown up to the gun was actually fired, but in all
cases the intended criminal activity was stopped.

Two things you should point out about the Kleck study.

1) By his research, the 100,000 incidents of crime being stopped because a
gun was on the scene is greater than the number of incidents where a gun
was used in the commission of a crime.

2) Gary Kleck went into his study with moderately strong views in favor of
more gun control laws. He no longer works toward expanded gun control.

"orwell" wrote in message
9...
"D.A. Tsenuf" wrote in
:

Maybe you should read the works of criminologist Gary Kleck about the
number of Defensive Gun Use that occurs annually in the US. It is
estimated
to beat least 100,000 incidents per year That works out to about 270 per
day. Now naturally this does not imply that shots were fired. It means
that the gun was either shown up to the gun was actually fired, but in all
cases the intended criminal activity was stopped.

Two things you should point out about the Kleck study.

1) By his research, the 100,000 incidents of crime being stopped because
a
gun was on the scene is greater than the number of incidents where a gun
was used in the commission of a crime.


In actual fact Kleck estimates DGUs to be in the 2,500,000 range annually.
(I had changed my mind on how to present that argument and did not do a good
follow-through on my text)
The 100,000 number is from another source based on DOJ data gleaned from
police reports.
In actual fact, considering that in many cases, telling the police that you
used a gun to defend yourself may cause you more problems than the actual
crime you stopped. So the 100K number is INCREDIBLY conservative.
Just look at the Dixon case In New York this last year, where he (Dixon) was
prosecuted for using a gun to shoot someone who had broken into his infant
son's bedroom. The reason for the prosecution was that his legally purchased
(in Florida) handgun was not yet registered in the Byzantine system of the
NYPD as required by the Sullivan Act.


2) Gary Kleck went into his study with moderately strong views in favor
of
more gun control laws. He no longer works toward expanded gun control.

The same can be said of John Lott who also was originally hired by the
ant-gun crowd and did a u-turn when he saw the numbers produced by his
study. It should be noted that the study was originally funded by the
anti-gun crowd.
There was also another study whose intent was to discredit Kleck with his
2.5M estimate. They were embarrassed when their methodology came up with a
4M estimate Demonstrating that Kleck may have been conservative in his
numbers.
..

"D.A. Tsenuf" wrote in
:

The same can be said of John Lott who also was originally hired by the
ant-gun crowd and did a u-turn when he saw the numbers produced by his
study. It should be noted that the study was originally funded by the anti-
gun crowd.
There was also another study whose intent was to discredit Kleck with
his 2.5M estimate. They were embarrassed when their methodology came up
with a 4M estimate Demonstrating that Kleck may have been conservative in
his numbers.

It's off topic for the group, so I won't ask for this information to be
posted here, but I would be interested in seeing it. I'm very interested
in the methods they used to collect their data. I would appreciate it if
you would email links to the reports or some additional information to help
me on a web search to me at the despammed address above. If not, I
understand your reasons.

In article , orwell says...

"D.A. Tsenuf" wrote in
:

The same can be said of John Lott who also was originally hired by the
ant-gun crowd and did a u-turn when he saw the numbers produced by his
study. It should be noted that the study was originally funded by the anti-
gun crowd.
There was also another study whose intent was to discredit Kleck with
his 2.5M estimate. They were embarrassed when their methodology came up
with a 4M estimate Demonstrating that Kleck may have been conservative in
his numbers.

It's off topic for the group, so I won't ask for this information to be

I agree that it's off topic.

The anal retentive, anti-woman trolls having seemingly departed, now would be a
good time to return to the discussion of food and restaurants.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

In article , Steve Wertz says...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:11 GMT, "Shatto"
wrote:

Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.

You should lay off those steroids, dude.

You misspelled "q u a a l u d e s".


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Wertz says...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:11 GMT, "Shatto"
wrote:

Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.

You should lay off those steroids, dude.

You misspelled "q u a a l u d e s".


More like "stupid" pills.

In article , D.A. Tsenuf says...


"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Wertz says...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:11 GMT, "Shatto"
wrote:

Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.

You should lay off those steroids, dude.

You misspelled "q u a a l u d e s".


More like "stupid" pills.

As stupid as he is, he's gulping suppositories.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.