From: Chris Malcolm on
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
From: John A. on
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:32:18 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
>news:VLudnSvhb8bERiXXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:yY6dnXdZBaZEFSvXnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
>>> news:dqOdnbgjloA70CvXnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:gcadnTKTJ6igCSnXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ZdednRcmdaTX3CnXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4ab3366f$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> socialist idea. Can
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets
>>>>>>>>>>>> property? If
>>>>>>>>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> socialized? How
>>>>>>>>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> hotel's
>>>>>>>>>>>> property?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they
>>>>>>>>>>> require proof
>>>>>>>>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before
>>>>>>>>>>> they transport
>>>>>>>>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they
>>>>>>>>>>> treat you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us
>>>>>>>>>> citizens) should have a government ID card, and/or a chip
>>>>>>>>>> implanted in us that identifies us as US citizens in good
>>>>>>>>>> standing, and if we are sick, then the chip should get us the
>>>>>>>>>> treatment we need. Today's technology is more than adequate to
>>>>>>>>>> accomplish this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeez. Ever read 1984?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole
>>>>>>>> in "1984".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *whooosh!*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where's the "whooosh!," Bob?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of us, adults at least, already carry ID routinely. I can't
>>>>>> legally drive my car without it, can you? I can't legally carry a
>>>>>> pistol without it, either. Of course if you live in Australia or
>>>>>> someplace like that you can't do the latter anyway, but there you are:
>>>>>> having to carry ID doesn't take away a right that I have and you don't
>>>>>> whether you carry ID or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in
>>>>> my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a
>>>>> gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for
>>>>> it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore
>>>>> illegal.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so, Bill. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>> infringed," the Second Amendment says, but that does not mean it cannot
>>>> be regulated, and in fact such regulation is also implied in the
>>>> amendment. The requirement for a permit may be a reasonable type of
>>>> regulation. It also may NOT be reasonable, depending on the details.
>>>>
>>>> Much of this depends on where you live. The law varies from state to
>>>> state, even from city to city, and in some cases I believe the law is so
>>>> restrictive, or so restrictively enforced, that it actually is
>>>> unconstitutional. On the other hand, Vermont has no state law at all
>>>> regarding concealed carry, except to say that a gun may not be carried
>>>> for criminal purposes. That is about as liberal as you can get (here
>>>> using "liberal" in its original sense of "free," not leftist).
>>>
>>> Yes, and they should compare the crime rate in Burlington with that in
>>> New York City.....
>>
>> Or Washington D.C. But I don't know whether Burlington has any restriction
>> on carrying. There are no STATE laws in Vermont restricting carry (other
>> than "for criminal purposes") but I've read that some cities there may
>> have ordinances that restrict it.
>>
>> But in any case, it is certainly true that our three most northeastern
>> states, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, all have far, far less
>> restrictive gun control than does Canada -- and all three states have
>> lower homicide rates than the Canadian province(s) just across the border.
>>
>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. There must be
>over a thousand reasons why I am not a liberal, and this is just one of
>those reasons.

The thinking is simple, and does not take things far enough.

When more people have guns, more criminals have guns. It's easy to get
the drop on someone when you have a gun, even if they have one too.
With knives, clubs, etc., you have to sneak up a lot closer, and are
less able to harm someone running away.

As for DC, it's not much of a test being right next to VA where there
is not much to keep anyone from getting a gun.
From: Ray Fischer on
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.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Chris Malcolm on
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
From: mikey4 on

"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