 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>
> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>
And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, 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.
Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote.
Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well..
maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser
laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I
was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe
both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 3:04 PM, 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.
>
That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
public, b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't
justified to shoot someone, and c) you didn't have whole organizations
dedicated to BS like, "Guns don't kill people, people do!", which, imho,
makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes don't
kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy idea
that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific, and
intentional, way to kill things.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 4:52 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.
>
Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and
ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc., not drug
dealers, drug buyers, people who refuse to work low paying jobs,
thinking they should just get rich quick, and the like, the vast
majority of them, Americans. Drug dealers are a possible exception, but
most of the growers, etc., never set foot in the US, they find mules to
bring them in, and that is like, conservatively, about 50:50 US citizens
looking to make a buck, and actual illegals, trying to pay off the
person that snuck them into the country.
Shit, given some of the "legals" I deal with on a daily basis at work, I
would prefer some of the illegals. They would work harder, and probably
be significantly less stupid...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume
>> that everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun,
>
> No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how
> many times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many
> times people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times
> people who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.
>
> It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college,
> that it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were
> unharmed, 86% of the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired
> it or not) were unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So,
> basically, having a gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent
> crime that's likely to get you less hurt than just handing over your
> wallet.
>
Interestingly, this statistic doesn't *necessarily* say anything about
how many get shot *first* because the mugger also had a gun, and decided
it was worth robbing you, possibly just for the gun, anyway. This is
likely to be a bit less clear, since, well.. You obviously are not going
to have the gun on you anymore, if they shoot, then rob you, and it
might be years before someone else gets caught using it to commit
another crime. Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it
really is. Even less so when, like someplace like Arizona, the laws
pretty much allow any damn person that wants one, to have one, *any
place they want*, unless the building/business owner says flat out, "No
way in hell on my premises."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
