From: Ray Fischer on
mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4abadfd6$0$1621$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"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.
>>
>> Since I mentioned nothing about banning anything it's obvious that
>> you're a prime example of rightard dislogic. Note also that the rate
>> of deaths with automobiles is vastly lower AND automobile ownership
>> and use is highly regulated.
>
> Did I say you mentioned banning guns?

You brought up the subject of bans. I did not.

>In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S:
>
>Now cars: 42,708 durning the same year ( from
>http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811173.PDF)

And notice that the people using cars is vastly higher than the number
of people using guns. The difference is probably 1000:1.

>Looks to me that more people were *killed* buy cars

But the RATE is much, much, lower.

>So what does this prove?

That you're badly undereducated.

>>>You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why.
>>>The following is taken from
>>>http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk
>>
>> And there's another example of rightard "thinking": If it's on a web
>> site then it must be true.
>>
>Spin spin spin

Lie, lie, lie. It's what you rightards do.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-09-23 23:52:02 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4abab752$0$12715$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:iKWdnQ9MwO97LyfXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I am amused, however by those who won't carry, based on
>>>>> statistics that show them that society would be better off without
>>>>> guns. What kind of person would allow statistics to control his/her
>>>>> individual choices?
>>>>
>>>> Somebody who understands the concept of the tragedy of the commons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Somebody who hasn't the confidence to think for himself. I call these
>>> people, "liberals." They are afraid of many things.
>>
>> Afraid of liberals.
>> Afraid of communists.
>> Afraid of Democrats.
>> Afraid of socialism.
>> Afraid of laws.
>> Afraid of Arabs.
>> Afraid of Iraqis.
>> Afraid of politicians.
>> Afraid of "criminals".
>>
>> Sound familar?
>
>All correct with the exception of "Afraid of criminals" as he is a self
>professed criminal. (That is unless he is afraid of himself.)

But he carries guns with him in order to protect himself from other
criminals. Most likely because he assumes that other people are just
like him.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-24 10:25:01 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:

> Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-23 23:52:02 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>>
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4abab752$0$12715$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:iKWdnQ9MwO97LyfXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I am amused, however by those who won't carry, based on
>>>>>> statistics that show them that society would be better off without
>>>>>> guns. What kind of person would allow statistics to control his/her
>>>>>> individual choices?
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody who understands the concept of the tragedy of the commons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Somebody who hasn't the confidence to think for himself. I call these
>>>> people, "liberals." They are afraid of many things.
>>>
>>> Afraid of liberals.
>>> Afraid of communists.
>>> Afraid of Democrats.
>>> Afraid of socialism.
>>> Afraid of laws.
>>> Afraid of Arabs.
>>> Afraid of Iraqis.
>>> Afraid of politicians.
>>> Afraid of "criminals".
>>>
>>> Sound familar?
>>
>> All correct with the exception of "Afraid of criminals" as he is a self
>> professed criminal. (That is unless he is afraid of himself.)
>
> But he carries guns with him in order to protect himself from other
> criminals. Most likely because he assumes that other people are just
> like him.

Aaah! It is fear of competing interests, and competition with fellow
criminals he is protecting himself from.

I still think we are going to read about the "angry old man" going
berserk, shooting a socialist meter maid, writing him a ticket before
he managed to change both plates on his car.

Somewhere in Bill's future is a cell, conventional or padded.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4abbaa24$0$1666$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:4abadfd6$0$1621$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>
>>> Since I mentioned nothing about banning anything it's obvious that
>>> you're a prime example of rightard dislogic. Note also that the rate
>>> of deaths with automobiles is vastly lower AND automobile ownership
>>> and use is highly regulated.
>>
>> Did I say you mentioned banning guns?
>
> You brought up the subject of bans. I did not.
Thats what I said........DUH !

>
>>In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S:
>>
>>Now cars: 42,708 durning the same year ( from
>>http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811173.PDF)
>
> And notice that the people using cars is vastly higher

And according to you " automobile ownership and use is highly regulated.

>>Looks to me that more people were *killed* buy cars
>
> But the RATE is much, much, lower.
>
>>So what does this prove?
>
> That you're badly undereducated.

Ok ray, you said earlier on that "guns will continue to be freely available
even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is
nonsense. " Which is a lie.

>>>>You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why.
>>>>The following is taken from
>>>>http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk
>>>
>>> And there's another example of rightard "thinking": If it's on a web
>>> site then it must be true.
>>>
>>Spin spin spin
>
> Lie, lie, lie. It's what you rightards do.
>
> --
Wrong ray, it is leftwingers like yourself who are into name calling, etc.


From: Bill Graham on

"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:s42ob5hufo69qaai7djq837ceh2u9dg94i(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:11:37 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:6hglb5hviho28j1rf35tptuaiko0ms0l98(a)4ax.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>Somebody who hasn't the confidence to think for himself. I call these
>>>>people, "liberals."
>>>
>>> I see, another one of your home-made definitions, just like socialism.
>>> In reality liberalism requires A LOT of thinking (and therefore
>>> information) because by the very defintion of the word "liberal" you are
>>> liberated(!) from and thus cannot just regurgitate preconceived ideas or
>>> propaganda from any political mainstream movement.
>>>
>>>>They are afraid of many things.
>>>
>>> Maybe. I don't know. But they are certainly not afraid of thinking for
>>> themself.
>>>
>>>>That's why they are so
>>>>quick to give up their freedoms for the "security" of letting their
>>>>government make all their choices for them.
>>>
>>> I'm happy that the government decreed that all all cars should drive on
>>> the right (left in some countries) side of the road and took away that
>>> choice from me. I'm also quite happy that the government took away my
>>> neighbours choice of stealing my car or companies choice of selling
>>> dangerous good like lead-based paint or deadly electrical appliances,
>>> not to mention the choice of airlines when and how to maintain their
>>> fleet.
>>> Would you really prefer those things to be left to the choice of the
>>> individuals?
>>>
>>> jue
>>
>>There is no reason why private corporations couldn't do some or all of it.
>>But those aren't in the same category as deciding many other things for
>>individuals. I would like to buy and choose my own education, in the field
>>of my choice. I would also like to decide just what percentage of my
>>income
>>should go toward housing, transportation, etc. And, what percentage of my
>>income should go toward, food, clothing and health care. There are some
>>that
>>want to live in cheap houses, but like to drive expensive cars.....So why
>>should the government decide this for them?
>
> It doesn't. At least not in this country. It does require (or is
> supposed to require) goods and services meet certain minimum safety
> standards.
>
> I the case of houses, for instance, building in compliance with fire
> codes doesn't just benefit the particular building. It also makes it
> less likely that a fire will start at your neighbor's house and spread
> to yours. Same can be said for fire departments once your neighbor's
> house does catch fire. (Can you see the similarities with universal
> healthcare, publicly funded vaccinations, etc?)

I see the same old liberal argument for padded cell-ism. A bunch of ants in
a colony, where if any ant deviates, the others will have to kill him for
the, "good of the society". And down this path is complete lack of
individual freedom, because there is no way to see where the line can't be
crossed. At some point down the road, if you dye your gray shirt yellow,
they will throw you in jail.