On 28-1-2011 23:12, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>> produce them.
>>
>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>
> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
> worry they are mostly foreigners.

feel free to insert a few  ;) 's at appropriate places.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:15:18 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 28-1-2011 23:12, andrel wrote:
>> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>>> produce them.
>>>
>>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>>
>> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
>> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
>> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
>> worry they are mostly foreigners.
> 
> feel free to insert a few  ;) 's at appropriate places.

That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US, 
but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be 
"foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?). ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2011 23:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:15:18 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 28-1-2011 23:12, andrel wrote:
>>> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>>>> produce them.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>>>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>>>
>>> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
>>> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
>>> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
>>> worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>
>> feel free to insert a few  ;) 's at appropriate places.
>
> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
> "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?). ;-)

I have fellow countrymen and -women living in the US that I prefer not 
to be shot, as well as friends among the US citizens. But other than 
those, I don't care. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2011 22:01, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed
>>>>>> accidentally by
>>>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>>>> saved
>>>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>>>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>>>> relevant statistics to include.
>>>
>>> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
>>> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>>>
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
> produce them.

BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here by 
the guns made in and for the US market...
Anyone else can think of a likely scenario, cause I can't?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:21:40 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I have fellow countrymen and -women living in the US that I prefer not
> to be shot, as well as friends among the US citizens. But other than
> those, I don't care. ;)

Ah, but doesn't their well-being depend on the well being of others in 
the country? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
> "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)

Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too, being Spics and Chicos

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
> 
> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too, 

Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.

BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is 
considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2011 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>
>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>
> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>

But you're quite liberal.

> BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
> considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
>

It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from 
reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:57:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 28/01/2011 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the
>>>> US, but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess
>>>> would be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>>
>>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>>
>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
>>
> But you're quite liberal.

Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.

>> BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
>> considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
>>
>>
> It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
> reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.

True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if 
that carried over to UK culture. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/28/2011 9:50 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> I think you need to do more controlled studies. Some places, the crime
> rate goes way up. Some places it goes down. If you take two similar
> areas next to each other and compare, the place with less gun control
> has lower crime rates, but one might argue that's because there's easy
> pickin's close by. Gun crime is very low in some countries with lots of
> guns simply because there aren't many laws against shooting other people
> that get enforced or because most of the violence is the government
> against the peasants. Gun crime is very low in some countries that
> traditionally even the police don't carry guns, simply because the
> culture isn't as violent and is much more uniform, and the crime rate
> would be equally low if everyone had guns.
>
You can't do controlled studies. Its one of them etheekal things, or 
what nots... ;) Seriously though, all you have is statistics to go off 
of. In the case of NY, the statistics say two things, based on a long 
history of issues:

1. Enforcing even the smaller crimes tends to result in fewer crimes in 
general. Based off an earlier case of them doing that, and them not 
going back up a lot later, or the like.

2. It seems that enforcing gun laws effectively drops violent crime 
(specifically with guns), more than its dropping in other places 
already. The interesting thing with that being, a large city, with lots 
of people in it, is usually *slower* at reducing such things than rural 
areas, in the general scheme.

Not proof of correlation, but either it has to do with enforcement, or 
magic, because its not too clear what else *could* be causing the 
result, or why it would be higher one place than another, sans the obvious.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message