STOP SPAM NOW! Must Read - All newsgroup users need to rebe

[R. Steve Walz]

Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
All you have to do is filter out the spam at our borders by exckuding
anything containing a known virus or identified spam-ploy, and make it
cost the source, by sending THEM our OWN destructive volume and viral
and hire software assault teams to try to break into their system and
harm it, identify specific culprits by name to foreign govts as
the reason we don't do thus and such for them, and encourage them to
terminate them with greatest prejudice and that we won't care WHAT
happens to these culprits, AND we will reward the cooperative with
our friendliest intentions.

I think your arrogance blinds you from the practicalities of such a > thing.
--------------

Name them, you coward, posturer, and asshole.

You don't hold a position of too much authority do you?

Ben
-------------------

Nor would I want one, that means nothing, except my good sense.
If I did you'd probably know me, so that's a safely disingenuous
and cowardly question.

No one needs to do so to know better than your ignorance.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F6530DF.4269@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk1tnn$o6seb$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Roger Hamlett wrote:

snipped fine exhibition of logical fallacies

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Sloman's cage.

Yep. I do dislike pseudo-logical qualitative arguments, and gun nuts
seem to have a particular enthusiasm for this form of delusive
propaganda.

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-------------------------
American gun-owning white people who otherwise resemble Europeans have
less gun violence than those same Europeans, the only huge American
gun violence problem is in black ghettos and very poor Latin barrios,
and it is only these areas that Europe DOESN'T have that cause a
statistical difference between the two. Europeans are just like white
privileged Americans, except they are needlessly deprived of guns.

Get your statistics right.We have our own gun-happy minorities. You
can't lump the local equivalents of the WASPs in with the Turkish
guest-worker population, and with the Balkan refugee community. The
Balkan community in particular is relatively well armed in consequence
of Titos broad distribution of arms across former Yugoslavia in
anticipation of a guerilla war against a Russian invasion that never
happened (perhaps because the Russians had some idea of how effective
Tito's trained guerillas might have been).
----------------

Tend to your own ethnic problems.

Many of our residual gun homicides are the consequences of business
disputes in the illegal drug trade, where the minorities are
over-represented (as they are in the U.S.A.).
------------------

Sure. In ghettos. And?

You are much less likely to get shot in a regular respectable largely
gun-free Dutch suburb than you are in the U.S. equivalent,
---------------

Nope. Stats show you're lying, desperately.

where many
of the householders have guns which they are prepared to fire in the
gneral direction of perceived burglars - a habit which has killed some
socially inept but non-criminal tourists.
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
------------------

Damned few.
So exceptional as to be national news for a bare few such per year
among 280,000,000 people.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F65342B.5F70@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I think I'll stay home. I'd have got a five times greater chance of
being murdered in the U.S. than I have in the Netherlands
-----------
But only if you insist in hanging around in deprived barrios and
black ghettos, where nobody in their right mind here would go, not
even the cops. Short of that, you have LESS danger here than Europe,
precisely BECAUSE the white people all have guns and are peaceful!

Ther was a story in the U.K. newspapers a few years ago about a U.K.
tourist whose car broke down fairly late at night in a well-lit suburb
in Florida. He decided to knock on the nearest front door and ask to
use the householder's phone to call a breakdown service - a fatal
mistake. The householder thought that he was a burglar, and shot him.

I think I'll pass on the "peaceful" white people with guns ....
----------------------------

Latin barrio: One, national news, two, he had no idea of what
neighborhood he was in.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bunch of disciplined troops, it isn't that difficult.
--------------
Delusion. This is the delusion that got the US screwed in Vietnam.

You are as bad as Fred Bloggs - the Viet cong was not an armed mob,
but a trained and organised guerilla army, a very different thing.
-----------------------------

Amateurs. Women. Children. Uh-huh.

The armed
mob tends to end up dead if they get obstreperous. The NRA has this
bizarre tendency to claim that an armed mob that has never trained
together can be identified with the US constitution's "well regulated
militia", but intelligent adults should know better.
-----------------
Your delusion, troops have a limited utility because they must remain
in ranks together to be more than a mob, as our troops are discovering
in Baghdad. Once separated, troops are useless and the same as an armed
rabble.

Infantry hasn't fought in ranks for more than a hundred years now -
that habit died out with the introduction of rapid fire weapons.
-------------

The current equivalent for the exigencies, you DO know the meaning
of what I just said, quit pretending and posturing. Soldiers alone
are a guy with a gun, together in coordinated movement, are a very
different thing indeed.

Modern infantry tactics depend on the coordination of groups of men
fighting from cover, and moving from one concealed position to the
next. This is not a skill that you can pick up overnight, but troops
that have mastered it can decimate - and wipe out - a much larger
armed mob who can't exploit cover while maintaining coordination.
--------------

Which is what I said. Ranks are simply more informal these days, and
more complexly maintained.

And using armed troops on demonstrators in a democracy is total
political suicide that condemns your cause to its death with the knell
of the next morn.

So Lyndon Johnson was taken out and hung the day after the Kent State
massacre?
----------------

The entire nation stopped, and the war became a lost cause to
rightists, on that one single day.

Those students weren't even armed. Nobody is going to give a
shit about an armed mob who are silly enough to start firing on the
police or the army - not taking resolute action against them really
would be political suicide; the armed mob is attempting a coup d'etat
(even if the "state" is just the town or village involved) and the
state is obliged to react vigorously and decisively.
--------------------

High powered rifles at a distance are extremely hard to do anything
about if they are sighted in. Unarmed demonstrators become the wrong
thing to shoot at. You presume that a soldier is magically some superior
being to other humans with a cause. You're pretending that no one thinks
but soldiers, when I thought you actually believed the reverse.

In point of fact, the "well regulated militia" meant the local village
legal requirements that each family have a long firearm and that they
maintain a supply of powder and shot and can "pass muster" in reporting
for inspection with their weapon and ammunition monthly to prove they
are at the ready, and also them showing up for target practice.

They had to drill together regularly if they were to form a useful
military force
--------------

When threat arose they did, but it wasn't marching and firing in
ranks, Americans even then thought that was ridiculous. They discussed
ambush and evasion, and deceit. They hunted their prey.

- in that period infantry had to fight in ranks to
generate enough firepower to decimate an attack by running men before
they could close hand-to-hand. Rifles might have been accurate enough
to justify target practice, but they were too slow to reload to be
much use in battle, so what you are thinking of as target practice
were in fact exercises in coordinated movement and volley fire -
"drill" in a word.
------------------------

The longrifle was one of the first to make two to three blocks away a
reasonable target range for a man-sized target. The old English Bessies
were smoothbore garbage by comparison. Bessies were so slow you could
duck them, and so inaacurate at 100 yards it would be an accident to be
hit, but longrifles were the first supersonic or near supersonic rifle
in regular use. Three men with longrifles couldn't be assailed by a
whole platoon, they reloaded quicker, and three men from concealment
and then moving each shot, would hit 50% of their targets. This was
extremely scary to the English and Hessians, who were used to 90%
misses. For the Americans so equipped, this was a turkeyshoot or a
deershoot, and they functioned quite similarly to what they actually
did in hunting. They needed no fucking practice, other than the usual
colonial sport. Combine that with the difficulty of re-supply across
the Atlantic in the days before fast sea-lift, and that was the margin.
Smoothbore troops were only used to assault a fortress, which most
rural commanders regarded as stupid, preferring to just starve or burn
them out.

In early American english parlance it has NO such OTHER meaning of ANY
kind such as anti-gun asswipes wish to pretend. The National Guard or
even a US Army proper was decades or a century away at that time in the
minds of the Founders. They distrusted ALL standing armies, and all
non-citizen armies, which only became needed later when opposing other
professional armies of other nations when more technological weaponry
was coming into use.

The Dutch, in that period, had both a professional standing army,
which garrisoned the crucial fortified border cities in peace-time,
and citizens's militias in every city and large town, composed of
citizens rich enough to provide their own arms, who served both as
local defence forces, and as an armed force to maintain order in their
town in times of social unrest.
---------------------

This was not an unusual practice by Americans, but America retained it
in their govt culture.

The Swiss had a similar system, which has metamorphosed into their
current citizen army.
---------------------

Yup. Caton militias with full auto weapons in locked chests at home.

Being a member of the militia was a way of claiming high social
status, by making it publicly obvious that you were rich enough to
afford the military equipment required, and of exploiting your wealth
to rub shoulders with the other rich and influential people in your
town - there was a lot of social drinking and dining after militia
assemblies, and there are several group portraits of such
militias."The Night Watch" is probably the most famous.
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
----------------

Petty nobility.

Yes, but for Americans, a weapon was more important than a house,
you could always walk west till you couldn't see anyone and build
a cabin, if you had an axe and a rifle and a few iron tools. Even
the poorest had a rifle before they even considered buying a horse
or mule. Contrary to most depictions, most Americans moved west only
a few tens of miles at a time, and dragged what little they had on a
travois of two saplings with their trimmed tops dragging on the ground
and the base of the 4" trunk on their shoulders, with cross-bars tied
on with stripped elm bark.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

You are claiming that because criminals get guns illegally, changing
the rules on the way ordinary citizen may legally hold guns has no
effect on the availability of legal guns. This does not follow. The
legally held gun in the hands of an ordinary citizen can become an
illegal gun in the hands of a criminal as the result of a burglary -
real or staged.
-----------------

Irrelevant, since the VAST majority of them remain in the possession
of the good guys. Criminals will find weapons, that is what they do,
that is what they are, it is only important that we be equally armed
with guns instead of being left WITHOUT guns, which is: Physically
inferior to young vigorous strong criminal psychopathic males. The
smallest old lady can take on the biggest thug with a gun.

Guns are Egalitarian and Democratic.

You merely claim that the criminals are getting the same number of
guns - without adducing any evidence - and the police are having a
harder time dealing with armed criminals because it is harder for them
to get guns, which also doesn't follow.
---------------------

Case one: No guns legally available, results in criminals making them,
importing them, and being the only ones besides police, who are many
minutes away, and only after the criminals have left, to have them,
and then again it also results in most criminals, young strong vigorous
males, not even needing more than strength and viciousness, or at most
a sharp knive to safely rob, rape, and terrorize, amd they even gain
the advantage of stealth and silence when discovered, based on how
quick they can kill with a blade.

Case two: Guns available, the richer people can afford guns, and have
the more use for them to defend what they have, the poor may as well,
but the criminals may have stolen guns, but the last thing they wish to
do is get shot by a gun-toting homewoner, so they only burgularize
carefully tested homes and buildings where no one is present, and then
they don't carry a gun for fear of using it and being killed when
discovered by police just for even having it in hand or being caught
with it and burglary tools or on probation/parole.

It might be harder for the police to deal with armed criminals if they
had fewer guns, which you haven't even claimed, let alone established,
but if the police couldn't squeeze the guns they want out of the
governement bureacracy, the problem wouldn't be the shortage of guns,
but a serious dumbing down in the police force

IIRR another aim of the legislation was to prevent pschopathic nutters
from filling their houses with legally held guns before they go out on
a Dunblain/Port Arthur style massacre.
-------------

A nut can only use/carry a certain number of guns, the rest are useless
to them and sit at home out of circulation. Anybody with even one gun
who starts shooting will be shot if possible, and grenaded anyway, and
rooted out of wherever he's shooting from. He can't fire more than
perhaps two guns at once, and not even that for reloading. A man with a
bow and arrows on a hill above a park or fair can kill as many as a gun,
and he will be able to do so longer before everyone notices people are
falling down.

In so far as criminals mostly
kill other criminals, and nutters seem to shoot blameless women and
kids, the government has a stronger interest in making life difficult
for the nutters, even though they kill fewer people.
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
----------------

That's best done by discovery of them by psych testing in high schools
and institutionalizing them, not by denying most of us protection of
firearms from the strong who would seek the advantage of strength.
The gun was invented, like the bow before it, to make a little old
lady or small woman able to successfully defend herself against anyone
else on an equal footing, it is the very ESSENCE of egalitarian
Democracy!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

richardgrise@yahoo.com (Rich Grise) wrote in message news:<3df9fd6c.0309150827.68a9efd4@posting.google.com>...
[see below for bottom-feeder-style post]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0309150232.4ad6b1cf@posting.google.com>...
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

It is a very abbreviated form of counter-argument, matched to the
rigor of your proposition. If you want the detailed exposition.

What you said was

"There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here
(UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns have
them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the net
result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant."

One of the aims of the legislation was to make it harder for the
criminals to get their illegal guns, by drying up one source of
supply.
...
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Personally, I believe that everyone should be armed to the teeth
24/7. In a few days, the idiots will have killed each other off, and
the rest of us can get on with our lives in peace. An armed society
is a polite society.

I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.
[]
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--------------------

Example: Japan. Guns and peaceable and VERY polite.

Grow up, these social things are orthogonal, unrelated to each other.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Barry Lennox]

On 15 Sep 2003 15:32:59 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.

Very strongly disagree, I lived for close to 5 years in New England,
and found most folk considerably more polite than most of (Old)
England. Another counter-counter-example. There's very few gun
restrictions in Vermont, and the folks there are exceptionally polite
and friendly.

There simply is very little linkage, other than
counter-raised-to-nth-power examples.

I suspect it goes the other way, crime is present in a big city. So,
politicians, unable to resist putting their snouts into the vote
trough, pass gun laws in those areas. Rather obviously, the crims
ignore them, so hence we need more and more gun laws. Again, the crims
ignore them. More laws are required...........

Got any more crap pro-gun propaganda to wheel out?

Oh, both sides have a lot of this. But there are a couple of facts I'd
be interested in hearing:

1. How many crims are compliant and hand in weapons after new gun laws
are passed?

2. How many armed crimes have been prevented by guns laws?


Barry Lennox

"Don't think about the good a law can do if properly enforced;
rather think of the harm that could be caused if it is improperly
enforced."

 

[Ben Pope]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
All you have to do is filter out the spam at our borders by exckuding
anything containing a known virus or identified spam-ploy, and make it
cost the source, by sending THEM our OWN destructive volume and viral
and hire software assault teams to try to break into their system and
harm it, identify specific culprits by name to foreign govts as
the reason we don't do thus and such for them, and encourage them to
terminate them with greatest prejudice and that we won't care WHAT
happens to these culprits, AND we will reward the cooperative with
our friendliest intentions.

I think your arrogance blinds you from the practicalities of such a
thing.
--------------
Name them, you coward, posturer, and asshole.

You want me to name some of the problems of cutting yourself off and
alienating yourself from the rest of the world? Really? You can't see any
problems with that?

You don't hold a position of too much authority do you?
-------------------
Nor would I want one, that means nothing, except my good sense.
If I did you'd probably know me, so that's a safely disingenuous
and cowardly question.

Why would I know you if you held a position of authority? You think I know
or should know the names of all people with authority in America? a) It's a
big place. b) I don't live anywhere near there.

No one needs to do so to know better than your ignorance.

What?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[JW]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:57:34 -0700 J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com>
wrote in Message id: <t2j6mvcgmha4ead2uamig40lptn286t6kh@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:37:18 GMT, "J-Dawg" <jjith@cox.net> found these
unused words floating about:

REDMOND, Wash, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A Redmond, Wash., man has won a record
$250,000 judgment against two Ohioans who flooded his e-mail box with 58,000
pieces of spam.

The Seattle-Post Intelligencer said Nigel Featherston spent $10,000 to hire
an attorney and a private investigator in his quest against Dayton, Ohio,
residents Linda Lightfoot and Charles Childs and their varied corporate
personas: Universal Direct, Mega Direct, Mega Success and Ultra Trim 2002.

The Washington state law, which was passed in 1998, fines spammers $500 for
each unsolicited e-mail they send. That means the Ohio couple could have
been held liable for $29 million.

But Featherston, a former Microsoft programmer, told the Post-Intelligencer
he knew collecting that amount would be too difficult.

Hint ... this is OT and SPAM, itself!
^^^^

Err... no, it's not. BI<20.

 

[Ian Molton]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:41:14 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

but the last thing they wish to
do is get shot by a gun-toting homewoner, so they only burgularize
carefully tested homes and buildings where no one is present, and then
they don't carry a gun for fear of using it and being killed when
discovered by police just for even having it in hand or being caught
with it and burglary tools or on probation/parole.

You're forgetting that burglars *normally* case the joint first anyhow. very few just walk up and smash the window.

and here in the UK they DONT carry guns, since they KNOW they wont need one to defend themselves.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

 

[Ian Molton]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:54:14 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

a habit which has killed some
socially inept but non-criminal tourists.

Damned few.

Killing innocents is ok then, as long as its only a few...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

 

[Bill Sloman]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F66879E.58D@armory.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

richardgrise@yahoo.com (Rich Grise) wrote in message news:<3df9fd6c.0309150827.68a9efd4@posting.google.com>...
[see below for bottom-feeder-style post]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0309150232.4ad6b1cf@posting.google.com>...
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...

<snip>

Personally, I believe that everyone should be armed to the teeth
24/7. In a few days, the idiots will have killed each other off, and
the rest of us can get on with our lives in peace. An armed society
is a polite society.

I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.
[]
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--------------------
Example: Japan. Guns and peaceable and VERY polite.

Grow up, these social things are orthogonal, unrelated to each other.

Don't tell *me* to grow up - it was Rich Grise who posted the rubbish
about an armed society being a polite society.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

Barry Lennox <pbarryplennoxp@operamail.com> wrote in message news:<jukdmvk7jltipobc2s9ucnoif1akkrgl7p@4ax.com>...

On 15 Sep 2003 15:32:59 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:


I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.

Very strongly disagree, I lived for close to 5 years in New England,
and found most folk considerably more polite than most of (Old)
England. Another counter-counter-example. There's very few gun
restrictions in Vermont, and the folks there are exceptionally polite
and friendly.

There simply is very little linkage, other than
counter-raised-to-nth-power examples.

I'm happy to agree that armed societies are not necessarily polite,
nor unarmed communities necessarily discourteous.

I suspect it goes the other way, crime is present in a big city. So,
politicians, unable to resist putting their snouts into the vote
trough, pass gun laws in those areas. Rather obviously, the crims
ignore them, so hence we need more and more gun laws. Again, the crims
ignore them. More laws are required...........

The crims break the gun laws in Europe, as they break every other law,
but the laws work well enough to reduce the rate of gun homcide in
most western European countries to about a tenth of the U.S. level.

Got any more crap pro-gun propaganda to wheel out?

Oh, both sides have a lot of this. But there are a couple of facts I'd
be interested in hearing:

1. How many crims are compliant and hand in weapons after new gun laws
are passed?

How would you identify a handed-in weapon as criminal, as opposed to
illegally inherited from a dead relative/friend?

2. How many armed crimes have been prevented by guns laws?

Looking at guncite

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

and comparing U.S. amd western European levels of gun homicide, it
looks as if European style gun control laws prevent some thousands of
gun homicides per year.

Prohibition doesn't seem to work for alcohol and other recreational
drugs, but it does seem to work reasonably effectively for guns.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Barry Lennox <pbarryplennoxp@operamail.com> wrote
On 15 Sep 2003 15:32:59 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.

Very strongly disagree, I lived for close to 5 years in New England,
and found most folk considerably more polite than most of (Old)
England. Another counter-counter-example. There's very few gun
restrictions in Vermont, and the folks there are exceptionally polite
and friendly.

There simply is very little linkage, other than
counter-raised-to-nth-power examples.

I'm happy to agree that armed societies are not necessarily polite,
nor unarmed communities necessarily discourteous.
------------------------------

This is intriguing, doesn't it sound contradictory to your premise?

I suspect it goes the other way, crime is present in a big city. So,
politicians, unable to resist putting their snouts into the vote
trough, pass gun laws in those areas. Rather obviously, the crims
ignore them, so hence we need more and more gun laws. Again, the crims
ignore them. More laws are required...........

The crims break the gun laws in Europe, as they break every other law,
but the laws work well enough to reduce the rate of gun homcide in
most western European countries to about a tenth of the U.S. level.
---------------

ONLY because Euro-cities don't have impoverished ethnic and racial
ghettos the magnitude and depth of ours, and that's the ONLY reason.

Our ghettos are ten times as large and impoverished, total, and that
explains it. The presence of guns elsewhere in the society doesn't
cause crime, it may cause the weapon of choice to be a gun, but knives
are more lethal, statistically, and less noisy, producing less
assistance to the victim, and more death.

Got any more crap pro-gun propaganda to wheel out?

Oh, both sides have a lot of this. But there are a couple of facts I'd
be interested in hearing:

1. How many crims are compliant and hand in weapons after new gun laws
are passed?

How would you identify a handed-in weapon as criminal, as opposed to
illegally inherited from a dead relative/friend?
-----------------------------

Ballistic analysis. All rifled guns turned-in are so examined. This is
not well publicized.

2. How many armed crimes have been prevented by guns laws?

Looking at guncite

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

and comparing U.S. amd western European levels of gun homicide, it
looks as if European style gun control laws prevent some thousands of
gun homicides per year.
-----------------------------

Nope, the absence of equivalent ethnic/racial ghettos there defeats
that fraudulent statistical implication. All you know is the low rate
of gun crime, you do not have a connection to gun laws producing this.

For all you know it could be produced by the racial uniformity of
European cities and the less segregated nature of their neighborhood
structures. The causative variable may be that it is tied directly and
only to poverty, which is also reduced in European socialisms, or any
number of other factors. Europe NEVER had high gun crime EVEN when guns
were legal!! *IF* Europe had our ghettos, there might even be MORE
murders by knives there than by guns in the USA.

Prohibition doesn't seem to work for alcohol and other recreational
drugs, but it does seem to work reasonably effectively for guns.
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--------------

Not a bit of it.

You don't get to assert what you here have been singularly unable to
reasonably prove.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
All you have to do is filter out the spam at our borders by exckuding
anything containing a known virus or identified spam-ploy, and make it
cost the source, by sending THEM our OWN destructive volume and viral
and hire software assault teams to try to break into their system and
harm it, identify specific culprits by name to foreign govts as
the reason we don't do thus and such for them, and encourage them to
terminate them with greatest prejudice and that we won't care WHAT
happens to these culprits, AND we will reward the cooperative with
our friendliest intentions.

I think your arrogance blinds you from the practicalities of such a
thing.
--------------
Name them, you coward, posturer, and asshole.

You want me to name some of the problems of cutting yourself off and
alienating yourself from the rest of the world?
------------

Actually yes, and you are systematically avoiding it by answering
with a question.

Really? You can't see any problems with that?
-----------------------

Not of any problematic size, no.

All we have to do is catch and stop the SPAM, and send it back. We
have the high moral ground to compel them to stop their own SPAMMERs
and punish them as well, because they often permit our people or
their people to SPAM us when the same act is illegal in THEIR nations.

As for its relation to trade with the rest of the world, trade itself
means that they need us as badly as we need them. If that's where we
set the bar, they will have to comply.

But we can simply do it uniliaterally, by charging them for treaty
violations regarding the use of satellite telecom channels and
international comm-cable channels, and finally by simply assembling
and examining all packets entering US space before they are resent to
their destination, bouncing them to their governments, and billing
them for the costs via the world court and the IMF.

You don't hold a position of too much authority do you?
-------------------
Nor would I want one, that means nothing, except my good sense.
If I did you'd probably know me, so that's a safely disingenuous
and cowardly question.

Why would I know you if you held a position of authority? You think I know
or should know the names of all people with authority in America? a) It's a
big place. b) I don't live anywhere near there.
------------------------

Who cares. You're being avoidant and deceptive.

No one needs to do so to know better than your ignorance.

What?
----------

Read it again, dimmy.

Ben
-----------

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:41:14 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

but the last thing they wish to
do is get shot by a gun-toting homewoner, so they only burgularize
carefully tested homes and buildings where no one is present, and then
they don't carry a gun for fear of using it and being killed when
discovered by police just for even having it in hand or being caught
with it and burglary tools or on probation/parole.

You're forgetting that burglars *normally* case the joint first anyhow. very few just walk up and smash the window.
-----------------------------

My point exactly. Guns don't play much of a role in strictly property
crimes.

and here in the UK they DONT carry guns, since they KNOW they wont need one to defend themselves.
-------------------------------

And that no one they run into will likely have one either, so they
feel free to enter occupied homes of the elderly or women, whereas
they do far less of that here.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Ian Molton wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:54:14 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

a habit which has killed some
socially inept but non-criminal tourists.

Damned few.

Killing innocents is ok then, as long as its only a few...
-------------

No one said any such thing, you lying shit.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F66879E.58D@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

richardgrise@yahoo.com (Rich Grise) wrote in message news:<3df9fd6c.0309150827.68a9efd4@posting.google.com>...
[see below for bottom-feeder-style post]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0309150232.4ad6b1cf@posting.google.com>...
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...

snip

Personally, I believe that everyone should be armed to the teeth
24/7. In a few days, the idiots will have killed each other off, and
the rest of us can get on with our lives in peace. An armed society
is a polite society.

I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.
[]
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--------------------
Example: Japan. Guns and peaceable and VERY polite.

Grow up, these social things are orthogonal, unrelated to each other.

Don't tell *me* to grow up - it was Rich Grise who posted the rubbish
about an armed society being a polite society.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-----------------

My experience is that they are.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Ben Pope]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Our ghettos are ten times as large and impoverished, total, and that
explains it. The presence of guns elsewhere in the society doesn't
cause crime, it may cause the weapon of choice to be a gun, but knives
are more lethal, statistically, and less noisy, producing less
assistance to the victim, and more death.

"Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, fuck-off shiny ones. Ones that
look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good, because they don't
make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use
them. Shit 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show,
knives for a pro."

- Soap, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Ben Pope]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:
You want me to name some of the problems of cutting yourself off and
alienating yourself from the rest of the world?
------------
Actually yes, and you are systematically avoiding it by answering
with a question.

Data taken from:
http://www.intracen.org/dbms/country/CA_CtryIndex.Asp?CT=842
I reliable source, I presume?

For a start over half of your oil is imported.

I'm no expert on these matters but in 2001 America imported nearly twice as
much as they exported.

108 Billion on cars, neary 50 billion on computing hardware, 26 billion on
ICs and microassemblies, over 12 Billion on medicine...

Really? You can't see any problems with that?
-----------------------
Not of any problematic size, no.

You don't need medicine, computers etc? You don't like your foreign cars?

If you think you can solve these issues within your own country you're
probably wrong. And costs for these things would almost certainly double
even if you could. And that would be long term, the short term implications
would not be good.

As for its relation to trade with the rest of the world, trade itself
means that they need us as badly as we need them. If that's where we
set the bar, they will have to comply.

You export half as much as you import - you need the rest of the world twice
as much as they need you.

Why would I know you if you held a position of authority? You think I
know or should know the names of all people with authority in America?
a) It's a big place. b) I don't live anywhere near there.
------------------------
Who cares. You're being avoidant and deceptive.

And you're still blinded by your arrogance.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Barry Lennox]

On 16 Sep 2003 15:18:17 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Barry Lennox <pbarryplennoxp@operamail.com> wrote in message news:<jukdmvk7jltipobc2s9ucnoif1akkrgl7p@4ax.com>...
On 15 Sep 2003 15:32:59 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:


I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.

Very strongly disagree, I lived for close to 5 years in New England,
and found most folk considerably more polite than most of (Old)
England. Another counter-counter-example. There's very few gun
restrictions in Vermont, and the folks there are exceptionally polite
and friendly.

There simply is very little linkage, other than
counter-raised-to-nth-power examples.

I'm happy to agree that armed societies are not necessarily polite,
nor unarmed communities necessarily discourteous.

Oh, very droll.

I suspect it goes the other way, crime is present in a big city. So,
politicians, unable to resist putting their snouts into the vote
trough, pass gun laws in those areas. Rather obviously, the crims
ignore them, so hence we need more and more gun laws. Again, the crims
ignore them. More laws are required...........

The crims break the gun laws in Europe, as they break every other law,
but the laws work well enough to reduce the rate of gun homcide in
most western European countries to about a tenth of the U.S. level.

Got any more crap pro-gun propaganda to wheel out?

Oh, both sides have a lot of this. But there are a couple of facts I'd
be interested in hearing:

1. How many crims are compliant and hand in weapons after new gun laws
are passed?

How would you identify a handed-in weapon as criminal, as opposed to
illegally inherited from a dead relative/friend?

You did not answer the question.

But to answer your "spurious question to not answer my question" Very
simply, by a ballistics match against scene-of-crime bullets and/or
cartridge cases.

Now to revert to the original question: "How many crims are compliant
and hand in weapons after new gun laws are passed?" I really would
like to know this.

2. How many armed crimes have been prevented by guns laws?

Looking at guncite

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

and comparing U.S. amd western European levels of gun homicide, it
looks as if European style gun control laws prevent some thousands of
gun homicides per year.

No, it's probably to do with many less weapons in Europe for decades.
I note that the above figures rather conveniently omit the thousands,
or perhaps millions, of innocent citizens murdered by the guns of Nazi
criminals, quite a number of whom will still be alive, and against
whom no action has ever been taken. If Europe had any real concern
about criminals, it would still be hunting them down and locking them
away, OK they may only survive a few months, but that's good enough.

Prohibition doesn't seem to work for alcohol and other recreational
drugs, but it does seem to work reasonably effectively for guns.

In some countries, the police's own stats show that MSSA weapons have
simply been driven "underground" perhaps literally. And it's a fair
bet that many have ended up in the hands of crims. The law of
unintended consequences at work.