From: Bill Graham on

"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7huri3F2vbq1hU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying
>> guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the
>> criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. When you allow
>> everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the honest people will do so,
>> and
>> this is bad news for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or.
>> at
>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere.
>
>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond
>> me,
>> but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my life.
>
> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

The evidence varies greatly from place to place, and depends on lots of
other things, such as general level of poverty, proliferation of drugs, and
population density. I notice that the liberals will frantically search
around for some town whose statistics show fewer people killed by gunshots,
and are quick to point this out. But they always fail to look at any other
factors. Like how many of those killed deserved to be killed (for one
thing).....IOW, they will be quick to lump all the deaths together and call
them all "bad". And the other factors that I mentioned above will be lost on
them, too. The only fair way is to look at someplace where the laws against
guns have changed, and few or none of the other factors have changed, and
then compare the change in statistics after that point. When you do this,
you will see that lifting a ban on guns results in a decrease in crime, but
an increase in accidental gun deaths. This is quite reasonable, to me, and
it follows logic.

From: Bill Graham on

"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7hv91gF2u63fvU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>> carrying
>>>> guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only
>>>> the
>>>> criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. When you
>>>> allow
>>>> everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the honest people will do
>>>> so, and
>>>> this is bad news for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down.
>>>> Or. at
>>>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere.
>>>
>>>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is
>>>> beyond me,
>>>> but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my life.
>>>
>>> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
>>> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
>>> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
>>> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
>>> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.
>
>> It's not a matter of stupidity, Chris. In fact, many liberals are
>> among the brightest. But rather, it's a matter of selective and
>> adaptive hearing that morph or redefine facts into conveniently
>> ignored limitations. Limitations to be blown past by the elite,
>> educated, and those privileged by their positions on core issues.
>
> I agree with your explanation about how sophisticated reasoners spin
> the presentation of selective facts to persuade the gullible of a
> desired point of view. It's now seems to have become generally
> accepted by all political parties and large corporations that instead
> of telling the public uncomfortable truths they should invent
> plausible stories which justify what they think they should do. People
> who are good at spinning plausible justifications for hidden agendas
> are now so valuable that they command very high salaries indeed.
>
> But I must correct your mistaken explanation of the hoary old
> "scientists say the bumblebee can't fly".
>
>> Now, here's the fact.
>
>> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it
>> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to
>> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee
>> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This
>> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would
>> be easier and better ways to achieve flight.
>
> Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to
> our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had
> insufficient wing area to fly. Not that it was unstable. It is in fact
> unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity
> and large effective dihedral. The problem was that theoretically the
> wings weren't large enough to do the job they clearly were doing. So
> something was wrong with a simplified analysis of bee flight based on
> fixed wing aerodynamics.
>
> In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the
> trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift loss
> in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the flight of
> many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and mechanical
> simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical detail that
> this was in fact what the bee was doing.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

I have nothing against working to find the theory that brings it all
together.....After all, I am a math major. But the important thing to
remember is that the bee does fly. Unless one is prone to believe in magic,
one has to know that there must exist a sound physical basis for that fact.

From: Bill Graham on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
news:h9dsig$1aq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4aba62df$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying
>>>guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the
>>>criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up.
>>
>> But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be
>> freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is
>> nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people
>> killed by guns.
>>
>>>Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond
>>>me,
>>
>> Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see
>> that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths.
>> It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the
>> first casualty.
>>
>> --
> Following this logic we should ban cars and put everyone on bicycles.
> You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why.
> The following is taken from
> http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/gunmythspa2.htm
> Allowing homeowners to own guns would encourage intruders to arm
> themselves.
>
> Despite having been researching gun laws for over three years, I have
> found no evidence whatsoever to support this line of thinking.
>
> A "hot" burglary is a break in where the residents are at home when the
> criminals strike.
>
> In the United Kingdom 59 percent of burglaries are classed as "hot"
> burglaries. By contrast, the United States has a hot burglary rate of just
> 13 percent.
>
> Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveal that
> during burglaries they are much more worried about encountering armed
> victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of
> potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time
> "casing" a house to ensure nobody is home.
>
> Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late night
> burglaries because "that's the way to get shot".
>
>
>
> (Source - The Bias Against Guns by John R Lott, Jr Page 140)
>
> Look at all the gun deaths in the United States, there are far too many of
> them.
>
> In 2006 the United States had around 30,000 deaths from firearms, of those
> 55 percent were suicides. Around 650 gun deaths were classed as
> "accidental" or "unintentional".
>
> The number of people killed by motor vehicles in America is more than 3
> times the number of people killed every year in accidents and murders
> involving guns.
>
> Despite the fact that they only make up between 7 and 8 percent of the
> population, almost half of all firearm homicide victims in the USA are
> young black males. Many of these are killed using illegal held weapons in
> poor, run down areas during gang or drug-related activity.
>
> If gang related violence is removed from the murder statistics, the US has
> a murder rate that is actually not far from the overall murder rate of the
> United Kingdom, and may actually be slightly lower.
>
> (Source - Center For Disease Control - Injury Mortality Reports 1999 -
> 2006 )
>
> (Source - US Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics ) (PDF
> File)
>
> And if that isn't enough we have an article in the New York Times showing
> a 50% increase in fatal stabbings. Ok every one turn in your knives... :)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html
>
As I said above, it is my own personal choice. I don't really give a damn
what the statistics tell us. I decided a long time ago that I would carry a
gun all of my life, and I have done so. I would still be carrying one were
it not for the fact that I am nearly blind, and am living in what is
probably the safest area in the country. Crime is so rare here that when I
thought something was stolen from my front porch, and called the police to
report it, the lady there didn't believe me, and suggested that I was
wrong.....She was, (it turned out) correct. It had not been stolen, but only
repossessed..

From: mikey4 on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HOSdnZJZaMIPMyfXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
> news:h9dsig$1aq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4aba62df$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying
>>>>guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only
>>>>the
>>>>criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up.
>>>
>>> But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be
>>> freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is
>>> nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people
>>> killed by guns.
>>>
>>>>Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond
>>>>me,
>>>
>>> Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see
>>> that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths.
>>> It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the
>>> first casualty.
>>>
>>> --
>> Following this logic we should ban cars and put everyone on bicycles.
>> You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why.
>> The following is taken from
>> http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/gunmythspa2.htm
>> Allowing homeowners to own guns would encourage intruders to arm
>> themselves.
>>
>> Despite having been researching gun laws for over three years, I have
>> found no evidence whatsoever to support this line of thinking.
>>
>> A "hot" burglary is a break in where the residents are at home when the
>> criminals strike.
>>
>> In the United Kingdom 59 percent of burglaries are classed as "hot"
>> burglaries. By contrast, the United States has a hot burglary rate of
>> just 13 percent.
>>
>> Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveal that
>> during burglaries they are much more worried about encountering armed
>> victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of
>> potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time
>> "casing" a house to ensure nobody is home.
>>
>> Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late night
>> burglaries because "that's the way to get shot".
>>
>>
>>
>> (Source - The Bias Against Guns by John R Lott, Jr Page 140)
>>
>> Look at all the gun deaths in the United States, there are far too many
>> of them.
>>
>> In 2006 the United States had around 30,000 deaths from firearms, of
>> those 55 percent were suicides. Around 650 gun deaths were classed as
>> "accidental" or "unintentional".
>>
>> The number of people killed by motor vehicles in America is more than 3
>> times the number of people killed every year in accidents and murders
>> involving guns.
>>
>> Despite the fact that they only make up between 7 and 8 percent of the
>> population, almost half of all firearm homicide victims in the USA are
>> young black males. Many of these are killed using illegal held weapons in
>> poor, run down areas during gang or drug-related activity.
>>
>> If gang related violence is removed from the murder statistics, the US
>> has a murder rate that is actually not far from the overall murder rate
>> of the United Kingdom, and may actually be slightly lower.
>>
>> (Source - Center For Disease Control - Injury Mortality Reports 1999 -
>> 2006 )
>>
>> (Source - US Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics )
>> (PDF File)
>>
>> And if that isn't enough we have an article in the New York Times showing
>> a 50% increase in fatal stabbings. Ok every one turn in your knives... :)
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html
>>
> As I said above, it is my own personal choice. I don't really give a damn
> what the statistics tell us. I decided a long time ago that I would carry
> a gun all of my life, and I have done so. I would still be carrying one
> were it not for the fact that I am nearly blind, and am living in what is
> probably the safest area in the country. Crime is so rare here that when I
> thought something was stolen from my front porch, and called the police to
> report it, the lady there didn't believe me, and suggested that I was
> wrong.....She was, (it turned out) correct. It had not been stolen, but
> only repossessed..
Was not directed at you Bill. I live in a state where a large number of
people have carry permits and do carry.
Where retail establishment post a sign at the door that says something like,
Entering with a concealed weapon is against the law without a carry permit.
There are approximately 200,000 Texans with carry permits and our carry
license requirements are tough.
One must be at least 21 years of age, submit a photo and fingerprints for a
background check, pay a $140 fee and take ten to fourteen hours of
coursework. In addition, applicants must pass both a written test covering
laws pertaining to deadly force and gun safety and a shooting accuracy test.











From: Bill Graham on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
news:h9ebe8$6a8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HOSdnZJZaMIPMyfXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
>> news:h9dsig$1aq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4aba62df$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>>>carrying
>>>>>guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only
>>>>>the
>>>>>criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up.
>>>>
>>>> But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be
>>>> freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is
>>>> nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people
>>>> killed by guns.
>>>>
>>>>>Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is
>>>>>beyond me,
>>>>
>>>> Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see
>>>> that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths.
>>>> It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the
>>>> first casualty.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Following this logic we should ban cars and put everyone on bicycles.
>>> You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why.
>>> The following is taken from
>>> http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/gunmythspa2.htm
>>> Allowing homeowners to own guns would encourage intruders to arm
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> Despite having been researching gun laws for over three years, I have
>>> found no evidence whatsoever to support this line of thinking.
>>>
>>> A "hot" burglary is a break in where the residents are at home when the
>>> criminals strike.
>>>
>>> In the United Kingdom 59 percent of burglaries are classed as "hot"
>>> burglaries. By contrast, the United States has a hot burglary rate of
>>> just 13 percent.
>>>
>>> Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveal that
>>> during burglaries they are much more worried about encountering armed
>>> victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of
>>> potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time
>>> "casing" a house to ensure nobody is home.
>>>
>>> Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late night
>>> burglaries because "that's the way to get shot".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (Source - The Bias Against Guns by John R Lott, Jr Page 140)
>>>
>>> Look at all the gun deaths in the United States, there are far too many
>>> of them.
>>>
>>> In 2006 the United States had around 30,000 deaths from firearms, of
>>> those 55 percent were suicides. Around 650 gun deaths were classed as
>>> "accidental" or "unintentional".
>>>
>>> The number of people killed by motor vehicles in America is more than 3
>>> times the number of people killed every year in accidents and murders
>>> involving guns.
>>>
>>> Despite the fact that they only make up between 7 and 8 percent of the
>>> population, almost half of all firearm homicide victims in the USA are
>>> young black males. Many of these are killed using illegal held weapons
>>> in poor, run down areas during gang or drug-related activity.
>>>
>>> If gang related violence is removed from the murder statistics, the US
>>> has a murder rate that is actually not far from the overall murder rate
>>> of the United Kingdom, and may actually be slightly lower.
>>>
>>> (Source - Center For Disease Control - Injury Mortality Reports 1999 -
>>> 2006 )
>>>
>>> (Source - US Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics )
>>> (PDF File)
>>>
>>> And if that isn't enough we have an article in the New York Times
>>> showing a 50% increase in fatal stabbings. Ok every one turn in your
>>> knives... :)
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html
>>>
>> As I said above, it is my own personal choice. I don't really give a damn
>> what the statistics tell us. I decided a long time ago that I would carry
>> a gun all of my life, and I have done so. I would still be carrying one
>> were it not for the fact that I am nearly blind, and am living in what is
>> probably the safest area in the country. Crime is so rare here that when
>> I thought something was stolen from my front porch, and called the police
>> to report it, the lady there didn't believe me, and suggested that I was
>> wrong.....She was, (it turned out) correct. It had not been stolen, but
>> only repossessed..
> Was not directed at you Bill. I live in a state where a large number of
> people have carry permits and do carry.
> Where retail establishment post a sign at the door that says something
> like, Entering with a concealed weapon is against the law without a carry
> permit. There are approximately 200,000 Texans with carry permits and our
> carry license requirements are tough.
> One must be at least 21 years of age, submit a photo and fingerprints for
> a background check, pay a $140 fee and take ten to fourteen hours of
> coursework. In addition, applicants must pass both a written test covering
> laws pertaining to deadly force and gun safety and a shooting accuracy
> test.
>
Yes. I could get a license here in Oregon too, but I didn't because I didn't
believe it was constitutional....I believe the second amendment gives me the
right to carry concealed without any permit. I know the supreme court has
disagreed with that in the past, but I believe them wrong, so I refused to
get a permit. And now, I seldom carry anymore, so it would be a waste of
time. I always carried a double action only shrouded hammer snubby pistol
that had little or no long distance accuracy anyway, and was just for real
close in protection. Today, my vision is too bad to carry a pistol
anyway......I can't even drive at night, much less be shooting at
anyone......