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

On 29/01/2011 8:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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."
>

:-D

All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll'd
Fare you well, your suit is cold.

I could not resist it.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 8:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> 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."
>>
> 
> :-D
> 
> All that glisters is not gold;

Mine was from a movie with Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito.

The other great line is in the shoot-out at the end, Hackman winds up with 
DeVito on the ground disarmed. Hackman walks around and points the gun at 
DeVito, who says "Wait! Don't you want to hear my last words?"  Hackman says 
"I just did."  Blam. :-)

-- 
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

On 29/01/2011 8:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Mine was from a movie with Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito.
>

I don’t need to say where mine was from. ;-)

> The other great line is in the shoot-out at the end, Hackman winds up
> with DeVito on the ground disarmed. Hackman walks around and points the
> gun at DeVito, who says "Wait! Don't you want to hear my last words?"
> Hackman says "I just did."  Blam. :-)

Good line, good line. :-)

Hackman, wasn't he in "Dream of Jeannie"?

OK it was Hagman I keep getting them mixed up.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2011 21:02, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

You might say that, but you would be wrong. At least for the people I 
was talking about.

>> 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.

Interesting counterargument. Or is it? Anyway never heard this theory 
before, care to explain?

> You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We
> don't blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.

OTOH we blame the US for locking up Dutch citizens for pot related 'crimes'.

Talking about drugs, having strict drug laws *and* freely available guns 
is a recipe for disaster. ;)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2011 21:08, Darren New wrote:
> 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?

No, that is another market

> Because I think we're
> still ahead on that one, barely. ;-)

In total killed more enemy soldiers than civilians and allies?

Post a reply to this message