On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >  But you're quite liberal.
>> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>>
>>
> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
> pond.

Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political 
usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>> pond.
>
> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>

Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here 
depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:14:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>>> pond.
>>
>> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
>> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>>
>>
> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.

Interesting - so which meaning were you using?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
>> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
>
> Interesting - so which meaning were you using?
>

With a small "l", Liberal is a political party. They used to be called 
Whigs now they are just little "c"s


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.

I'm not saying it *can't* be right. I'm saying that there are too many 
variables to likely know with precision that you *are* right, especially 
given other studies that show the opposite.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

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.

I know you meant cheaply. I'm saying it doesn't matter how cheap they are, 
because even when they're expensive lots of people got killed.

> Get over it, your 
> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't 
> worry they are mostly foreigners.

Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people killed 
outside the EU. You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-)  We don't 
blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.

http://www.glock.com/english/index_contact.htm



-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in 
> public, 

I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at each 
other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.

> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't 
> justified to shoot someone, 

Of course they did.

> and c) you didn't have whole organizations 
> dedicated to BS like, "Guns don't kill people, people do!", 

Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools just 
like knives were.

> 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.

Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry guns? 
How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here by 
> the guns made in and for the US market...

Does that count stuff like weapons for soldiers? Because I think we're still 
ahead on that one, barely. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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. 

So the number of armed people who get shot and die and have their gun taken 
away counts as unarmed people who died? Alright. It also doesn't count the 
number of people who got shot and died and had their knife taken away. So 
I'm not sure how it washes out.

> Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it 
> really is. 

Unless the percentage of deadly crimes compared to overall violent crimes is 
fairly low, which I'd think it would be back in the 1980s.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.

"Gold. It makes the world go around."
"I thought it was love that makes the world go around."
"Yes, that too. Love of gold."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message