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

[Ian Molton]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:46:34 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Nope, the absence of equivalent ethnic/racial ghettos there defeats
that fraudulent statistical implication.

You've never been to moss side, manchester, then?

--
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 Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:59:58 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

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.

losing a TV is (in Europe) regarded as a worthwhile sacrifice compared to losing a life.

--
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.

 

Once again an important thread has been hijacked and has descended into personal animus.

What childishness. Plonk.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:57:37 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F67F5DE.40C6@armory.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

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

<snip>

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?

No. Politeness and murder are two rather different activities.

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.

Major European cities do have impoverished ethnic and racial ghettos,
and they do have more crime. Since most murders are carried out by the
victim's nearest and dearest, in perfectly respectable suburbs, your
unsupported claims that your ghettos are deeper and darker than ours
is largely irrelevant.

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.

You've been listening to too much NRA propaganda. Murder is
predominantly a domestic crime, and you are more likely to be murdered
by your spouse than a criminal stranger. In this sense, ghettos and
criminality are irrelevant.

Guns lying loose around the house contribute to the gun murder rate in
the same way that they contribute to the suicide rate, by providing an
easy option for people in a bad mood.

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.

So it has to have been fired by a criminal, and the bullet has to be
found, before a gun can be identified as criminal?

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.

Your claim that all the excess gun murders are concentrated in ghettos
strikes me as unlikely to be correct. Can you find any statistics on
the geographical distribution of gun homicides?

All you know is the low rate
of gun crime, you do not have a connection to gun laws producing this.

You haven't established your alternative explanation.

For all you know it could be produced by the racial uniformity of
European cities and the less segregated nature of their neighborhood
structures.

How long since you visited Europe? No big city I've been to has looked
"racially uniform" to me, and most big cities are complaining about
the way some neighbourhoods are becoming more or less exclusively
Turkish or Moroccan or whatever.

They are responsible for most of the gun homicides in the Netherlands
that make it to the newspapers. It doesn't follow that U.S. gun
homicides are concentrated in the same way, though those gun homicides
- IIRR they are a minority in the U.S.A. - carried out by criminals on
strangers may be well be concetrated in your ghettos in the same way.

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.

European prosperity post-dates European gun control. When guns were
legal, only the rich could afford them, which made gun crime rare,
because there weren't very many people rich enough to afford gun
crime. The vast majority in the U.S.A. are now rich enough to buy
guns, and there aren't any legal restraints to stop them

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.

And your justification for this claim is?

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

There is a statistical association between gun-control, low percentage
of households holding hand guns (Swiss and Israeli service rifles
don't seem to count, even though they are kept at home,probably
because they are kept locked away) and low rates of gun homicide.

This can plausibly be explained on the basis that restricted
availablity of guns limits the opportunities for gun homicide

Your alternative explanation depends on a hypothetical concentration
of U.S. gun homicides in ghetto's which you have - as yet - failed to
demonstrate.

My case may be unproven, but your alternative explanation appears
implausible.
Can you find URL's pointing to the sort of evidence that would elevate
your proposition to the level of a testable hypothesis, rather than an
exercise in straw-clutching?

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

Barry Lennox <pbarryplennoxp@operamail.com> wrote in message news:<nfegmv86g9qr8rl8ds707flfkjhrk8nlsk@4ax.com>...

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:

<snip>

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.

I doubt if the question can be answered.

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.

This only identifies guns that have been fired in circumstances where
the cartridge can be found. Criminals dump such guns as soon as they
have been fired, taking care to remove finger-prints and the like.

A gun that is being held by a criminal is most unlikely to be
identifiable as "criminal" by such a test.

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.

My suspicion is that the answer is very few. The aim is to deplete the
pool from which criminals get new guns, rather than inviting criminal
to dump the guns they have got.

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.

Gun control hasn't got anything to do with political persecution - and
despite the NRA's fatuous claims about their members constituting a
"well-regulated militia" - guns in the hands of an untrained and
undisciplined mob don't constitute any sort of protection against
political persecution.

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.

It is still hunting them down. The Germans have finally got around to
prosecuting an 85-year-old Dutch SS man who escaped to Germany after
being tried and convicted of murder and condemned to death immediately
after the war.
They did get most of them immediately after the war. Search on the
Nuremberg trials. The Dutch, French, Norwegians and Danes dealt with
their own Nazis when they could get their hands on them. Quistling was
shot ...

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.

Military style semi-automatic weapons are a bit bulky for criminal
use, but there are a lot of them floating around the world.

European gun control laws don't make it impossible to get hold of such
weapons, but but they do severely discourage rational people from
keeping them around the house and they do require that any legal gun
kept at home is securely locked in a burglar-resistant cupboard, and
this does seem to be enough to keep the rate of gun homicide a lot
lower than the U.S. level.

Granting that most murder victims are killed by their nearest and
dearest when the murderer is in a bad temper, it shouldn't be
surprising that the Swiss and Israeli situation where a lot of homes
have a - securely locked up - MSSA on the premises, doesn't lead to
U.S. levels of gun homicide.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:46:34 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:


Nope, the absence of equivalent ethnic/racial ghettos there defeats
that fraudulent statistical implication.

You've never been to moss side, manchester, then?
---------------

Little old quaint Manchester? Is that the best you can do?

How bout south central LA and Chicago's west side, and Detroit,
and Atlanta and St. Louis, and Harlem, and so on for a page or two.
And they're 4 times the size of anything you've got!
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F67F5DE.40C6@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

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

snip

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?

No. Politeness and murder are two rather different activities.
--------------------

Gee, you thought so above!

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.

Major European cities do have impoverished ethnic and racial ghettos,
and they do have more crime.
---------

Than?

Since most murders are carried out by the
victim's nearest and dearest, in perfectly respectable suburbs,
----------

Nonsense.

your
unsupported claims that your ghettos are deeper and darker than ours
is largely irrelevant.
-------------------------

You're painting, not photographing.

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.

You've been listening to too much NRA propaganda.
----------------

I don't get any such thing.

Murder is
predominantly a domestic crime, and you are more likely to be murdered
by your spouse than a criminal stranger. In this sense, ghettos and
criminality are irrelevant.
---------------------

For domestic murders.
Except that they're not ALL domestic.

Guns lying loose around the house contribute to the gun murder rate in
the same way that they contribute to the suicide rate, by providing an
easy option for people in a bad mood.
------------------------

Now YOU'RE believing in propaganda!! People aren't being killed by
both partners, but by males.

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.

So it has to have been fired by a criminal, and the bullet has to be
found, before a gun can be identified as criminal?
-------------------------

Gee, I guess so...

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.

Your claim that all the excess gun murders are concentrated in ghettos
strikes me as unlikely to be correct. Can you find any statistics on
the geographical distribution of gun homicides?
-----------------------------

That's YOUR job. I just live here and know it for fact.

All you know is the low rate
of gun crime, you do not have a connection to gun laws producing this.

You haven't established your alternative explanation.
-----------------------------

You're just being evasive.

For all you know it could be produced by the racial uniformity of
European cities and the less segregated nature of their neighborhood
structures.

How long since you visited Europe?
----------------

Irrelevant, answer the implication. You're merely being deceptive
again.

No big city I've been to has looked
"racially uniform" to me, and most big cities are complaining about
the way some neighbourhoods are becoming more or less exclusively
Turkish or Moroccan or whatever.
------------------

But more TOWARD racial uniformity than the USA, where the severest
distinction exists between former black slaves of only a century or
so ago and their descendants, many of which have never been elevated
much above that state, in actual fact!!

The alternate being the Latin community, and rather than European
spaniards that Europe has been familiar with, instead, a former native
American near-slave migrant farm worker population who can barely
speak and read/write spanish let alone the predominent english.

They are responsible for most of the gun homicides in the Netherlands
that make it to the newspapers.
----------------------

But of course those are minimal, as you claim. But gun violence in the
USA in the dominant privileged Euro-caucasion society is JUST AS MINIMAL
and WITHOUT depriving them of their right to self-defense by firearms.

It doesn't follow that U.S. gun
homicides are concentrated in the same way, though those gun homicides
- IIRR they are a minority in the U.S.A. - carried out by criminals on
strangers may be well be concetrated in your ghettos in the same way.
---------------------------------

Of course, and most gun violence, just like violence generally, is
black on black, and impoverished native Mexican on Mexican.

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.

European prosperity post-dates European gun control. When guns were
legal, only the rich could afford them, which made gun crime rare,
because there weren't very many people rich enough to afford gun
crime. The vast majority in the U.S.A. are now rich enough to buy
guns, and there aren't any legal restraints to stop them
----------------------------------------

Agreed, but in times around major wars, when weapons were distributed,
and in times and areas where guns werekept because hunting was still
available, you don't find any greater problem than the current
situation where they are deprived of their right to self-defense.

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.

And your justification for this claim is?
----------------------------

The violence is endemic to the impoverished and uneducated desperate
populations, not gun possessors. In the past before these same
populations could afford guns, they were cutting each others lungs
up with knives and dying virtually as much as now.

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

There is a statistical association between gun-control, low percentage
of households holding hand guns (Swiss and Israeli service rifles
don't seem to count, even though they are kept at home,probably
because they are kept locked away) and low rates of gun homicide.
---------------------------------

Nope, not a bit of it. The person holding the key has the option to
visit immense violence on their family or society should they decide
that

This can plausibly be explained on the basis that restricted
availablity of guns limits the opportunities for gun homicide
------------------------------

Except you'd have to ignore other inferences from other societies.

Your alternative explanation depends on a hypothetical concentration
of U.S. gun homicides in ghetto's which you have - as yet - failed to
demonstrate.
---------------------------------

There is no "failed to demonstrate", other societies simply demolish
your assertion by pure counterexample!!

My case may be unproven, but your alternative explanation appears
implausible.

Can you find URL's pointing to the sort of evidence that would elevate
your proposition to the level of a testable hypothesis, rather than an
exercise in straw-clutching?

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

You're the only one grasping at straws. There are so many
counterexamples to your assertion that it falls on its face
immediately, societies with guns and little violence, and
various other permutations: The lack of cause or lack of your
asserted effect. You are NOT merely UNproven, you are DISproven!

-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

 

[Bill Sloman]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F698A12.442@armory.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F67F5DE.40C6@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

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

<huge snip of unsupported opinion>

You are NOT merely UNproven, you are DISproven!

In the absence of evidence, we are both unproven. Your claim that I am
disproven is unsupported by any evidence and is thus mere bluster.
Have a nice day.

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

 

[Hawkfyre]

Why do discussions always turn into childish rantings?



"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0309181201.560a270a@posting.google.com...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:<3F698A12.442@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:<3F67F5DE.40C6@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

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

huge snip of unsupported opinion

You are NOT merely UNproven, you are DISproven!

In the absence of evidence, we are both unproven. Your claim that I am
disproven is unsupported by any evidence and is thus mere bluster.
Have a nice day.

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

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:19:49 GMT, "Hawkfyre" <jhumphrey@ec.rr.com>
wrote:

Why do discussions always turn into childish rantings?

---
Because, in our universe, entropy is positive.

--
John Fields

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Hawkfyre wrote:

Why do discussions always turn into childish rantings?
------------------------

Because others become disingenuous when beaten.

It's reminiscent of the same disingenuity you indulge in when you
selectively quote others out of context in a childish atempt to
mischaracterize 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

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0309181201.560a270a@posting.google.com...
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:<3F698A12.442@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:<3F67F5DE.40C6@armory.com>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

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

huge snip of unsupported opinion

You are NOT merely UNproven, you are DISproven!

In the absence of evidence, we are both unproven. Your claim that I am
disproven is unsupported by any evidence and is thus mere bluster.
Have a nice day.

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

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:50:27 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

Hawkfyre wrote:

Why do discussions always turn into childish rantings?
------------------------
Because others become disingenuous when beaten.

It's reminiscent of the same disingenuity you indulge in when you
selectively quote others out of context in a childish atempt to
mischaracterize people.

---
You sly devil!^) Very nice!

--
John Fields