[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per year.

Not true. The accurate estimates run between 275 per year and
-63,000,000. The larger number is negative because that's the number of
victims who weren't attacking the gun-toter. Did you know that fully 60%
of all gun-related deaths are caused or influenced by atmospheric carbon
monoxide?

[snip]

It's easy to claim events that may or may not have happened because
you *think* that it's possible. That's not much of a defense.

The gun nuts are really Darwinists, you know. Aiming a firearm is a true
survival skill.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:19:49 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net wrote:



dave weil said:

Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per year.

I actually didn't say this, but that's OK.

Not true. The accurate estimates run between 275 per year and
-63,000,000. The larger number is negative because that's the number of
victims who weren't attacking the gun-toter. Did you know that fully 60%
of all gun-related deaths are caused or influenced by atmospheric carbon
monoxide?

Well, then we have to also ask how many times that guns were used in
the commission of a crime but actually wasn't used (bank robberies,
enebling break-ins by giving a burglar confidence that he or she is
being protected) and by taking a page from the same book, all of those
"unreported" millions of times that a criminal used a gun to
intimidate someone or used in the commission of a crime. Of course,
we've got vice presidents shooting people in the face as well (OK, all
of you literalists, back off, it's just an ironic comment).

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:34:51 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:19:49 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net wrote:



dave weil said:

Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per year.

I actually didn't say this, but that's OK.

Not true. The accurate estimates run between 275 per year and
-63,000,000. The larger number is negative because that's the number of
victims who weren't attacking the gun-toter. Did you know that fully 60%
of all gun-related deaths are caused or influenced by atmospheric carbon
monoxide?

Well, then we have to also ask how many times that guns were used in
the commission of a crime but actually wasn't used (bank robberies,
enebling break-ins by giving a burglar confidence that he or she is
being protected) and by taking a page from the same book, all of those
"unreported" millions of times that a criminal used a gun to
intimidate someone or used in the commission of a crime. Of course,
we've got vice presidents shooting people in the face as well (OK, all
of you literalists, back off, it's just an ironic comment).

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[dave weil]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:47:55 -0400,
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Second of all, I work downtown where there is plenty of crime. I often
leave work after 11pm. Well, personally, I'm just not going to live in
fear like you apparently do, nor do I think that carrying a gun would
make me feel any safer, and yes, I've had plenty of experience with
guns of all sizes.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:12:59 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:47:55 -0400,
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Safe WELL ARMED ( the two are directly related ) suburban
home.


Second of all, I work downtown where there is plenty of crime. I often
leave work after 11pm. Well, personally, I'm just not going to live in
fear like you apparently do,

No, I live in PREPAREDNESS for some things that may occur,
although I hope they don't. I also have 25 gallons of water in jugs,
in case there's a hurricane that knocks power out for a week ( at
least I can flush the crapper ) Silly ? Not when it happened the
last time, and I was the only person in the neighborhood who was NOT
seen walking into the woods with a roll of TP :-). I also keep spare
propane, and propane heaters and camp-lamps, just in case the power
goes out for a week in the winter. Silly ? I was sure glad to hvae
them a few years ago when it happened, and it was 17 degrees outside.






nor do I think that carrying a gun would
make me feel any safer, and yes, I've had plenty of experience with
guns of all sizes.

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[dave weil]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:45 -0400,
wrote:

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Safe WELL ARMED ( the two are directly related ) suburban
home.

Figures.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:48:08 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:45 -0400,
wrote:

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Safe WELL ARMED ( the two are directly related ) suburban
home.

Figures.

What, I should feel some kind of 'white guilt' for not living
in Da Hood ? Or for being able to defend myself ?



--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[ScottW]

On Apr 20, 8:12 am, dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:47:55 -0400,
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Damn Dave...just last year you were bragging how much the value of
your property was going up....now you're back in the slums.
Funny how your situation changes to suit your agenda.


Second of all, I work downtown where there is plenty of crime.

Ooops.. what happenned to your job as waiter in a very
posh restaurant with the finest cuisine and wine?
You serving carry out to pimps and ho's now?

One day you're living above it...next day you're living in it.

Frankly, I don't see your problem. You have a right not to carry
a gun and a right not to be shot.
Hopefully, the two will never conflict for you.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article om,
ScottW wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:12 am, dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:47:55 -0400,
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Damn Dave...just last year you were bragging how much the value of
your property was going up....now you're back in the slums.

What makes you think that those situations can't coexist?

Funny how your situation changes to suit your agenda.


Second of all, I work downtown where there is plenty of crime.

Ooops.. what happenned to your job as waiter in a very
posh restaurant with the finest cuisine and wine?

What makes you think that fine restaurants can't be downtown where this
is plenty of crime? Have you never visited Los Angeles?

You serving carry out to pimps and ho's now?

One day you're living above it...next day you're living in it.

Frankly, I don't see your problem. You have a right not to carry
a gun and a right not to be shot.
Hopefully, the two will never conflict for you.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Apr 26, 12:17 pm, Jenn wrote:

Ooops.. what happenned to your job as waiter in a very
posh restaurant with the finest cuisine and wine?

What makes you think that fine restaurants can't be downtown where this
is plenty of crime? Have you never visited Los Angeles?


I avoid it if at all possible. But I'll heed your recommendation to
go
armed if I must.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 26 Apr 2007 11:55:59 -0700, ScottW wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:12 am, dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:47:55 -0400,
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then I would suggest you stay out of Da Hood, especially at
night.

First of all, I *live* in "Da Hood" (or close enough to it to hear
shots occasionally and to have the guy across the street from me shot
to death in the alley behind his house over an argument over home
repairs). I suspect that you're writing this from your safe surburban
home.

Damn Dave...just last year you were bragging how much the value of
your property was going up....now you're back in the slums.
Funny how your situation changes to suit your agenda.

Sorry that you're confused. My property *is* going up and I live about
500 yards from subsidized housing and am in a transitional
neighborhood about 3 miles from downtown (hint, there are about 3
housing projects between downtown and me as well) and those three
miles are the poorest in town where most of the violent crime in town
happens.

Second of all, I work downtown where there is plenty of crime.

Ooops.. what happenned to your job as waiter in a very
posh restaurant with the finest cuisine and wine?

Nothing. It's downtown. I don't think I ever called it "posh", but
there *is* a bottle of '97 Lafite on the list for $995. Want me to
hold one for you?

You serving carry out to pimps and ho's now?

No. People like Wayne Gretzky, Mariah Carey, Patti Labelle, Jimmy
Buffett, Jewel, Jon Bon Jovi, etc.

One day you're living above it...next day you're living in it.

Well, that's your interpretation, living out there in LaLa land with
your white picket fence and lobster-cooking deck.

Frankly, I don't see your problem. You have a right not to carry
a gun and a right not to be shot.

I also should have the right not to be around people who endanger my
life by carrying firearms. After all, I never know when I might be an
innocent bystander shot while some Rambo tries to take care of a
baddie.

Hopefully, the two will never conflict for you.

Hopefully not. Hopefully not like the guy directly across the street
who was shot and killed in the alley behind his house.

[ScottW]

On Apr 26, 2:15 pm, dave weil wrote:

Hopefully not. Hopefully not like the guy directly across the street
who was shot and killed in the alley behind his house.

I wonder if his dying wish was for a gun, or tougher gun
control?

ScottW

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 7:34 am, dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr2007 10:19:49 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net wrote:



dave weil said:

Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per year.

I actually didn't say this, but that's OK.

Not true. The accurate estimates run between 275 per year and
-63,000,000. The larger number is negative because that's the number of
victims who weren't attacking the gun-toter. Did you know that fully 60%
of all gun-related deaths are caused or influenced by atmospheric carbon
monoxide?

Well, then we have to also ask how many times that guns were used in
the commission of a crime but actually wasn't used (bank robberies,
enebling break-ins by giving a burglar confidence that he or she is
being protected) and by taking a page from the same book, all of those
"unreported" millions of times that a criminal used a gun to
intimidate someone or used in the commission of a crime. Of course,
we've got vice presidents shooting people in the face as well (OK, all
of you literalists, back off, it's just an ironic comment).

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then report back as soon as you find a place where evil does not
exist, so there would be no need for such protection.

[* US *]

On 25 Apr 2007 22:21:35 -0700, avid****er 'Jeff Gannon' wrote:

Then report back as soon as you find a place where evil does not
exist, so there would be no need for such protection.

You got a gat in the baby's crib, doncha.

[dave weil]

On 25 Apr 2007 22:21:35 -0700, avidlistener
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then report back as soon as you find a place where evil does not
exist, so there would be no need for such protection.

I guess you spent the 70s in your room, since you have obviously
survived to this day.

[Bert Hyman]

(dave weil) wrote in
:

On 25 Apr 2007 22:21:35 -0700, avidlistener
wrote:

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own
personal preference.

Then report back as soon as you find a place where evil does not
exist, so there would be no need for such protection.

I guess you spent the 70s in your room, since you have obviously
survived to this day.

Since he's not dead, he obviously never needed any protection.

And since he never needed any protection, it then follows that nobody
else needs it either.

Is that it?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |