More Media Lies

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 12:41 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:28:20 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was put there to allow the
public to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Yep.  In my area, citizens successfully defending themselves make the
news fairly often.  Nobody seems to count those.

The greater problem is societal--fully-armed Switzerland doesn't seem
to have any problems.

NIH (Nat'l Institute of Health) explains homicides thusly:
"Sociologists feel that the increase of gangs, teenage homicide,
teenage suicide, teenage pregnancy, school drop-out, and other
problems are a reflection of a rapidly changing society and family
structure."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm

The true gun lobby in the USA is Hollywood. Today's SF Chronicle editorials
bemoaned the lack of gun control, and a few pages later, in the Datebook
section, are big-buck ads for movies and video games full of guns, and TV
listings that feature violence.

Availability of guns is part of the problem, but glorification of shooting and
killing is a bigger one.

Yep. Boys used to carry their .22's to school, for rabbit-hunting on
the way home. I don't recall any mass murders, do you?

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

James

I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

On Dec 16, 2:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:41 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:28:20 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was put there to allow the
public to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Yep.  In my area, citizens successfully defending themselves make the
news fairly often.  Nobody seems to count those.

The greater problem is societal--fully-armed Switzerland doesn't seem
to have any problems.

NIH (Nat'l Institute of Health) explains homicides thusly:
"Sociologists feel that the increase of gangs, teenage homicide,
teenage suicide, teenage pregnancy, school drop-out, and other
problems are a reflection of a rapidly changing society and family
structure."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm

The true gun lobby in the USA is Hollywood. Today's SF Chronicle editorials
bemoaned the lack of gun control, and a few pages later, in the Datebook
section, are big-buck ads for movies and video games full of guns, and TV
listings that feature violence.

Availability of guns is part of the problem, but glorification of shooting and
killing is a bigger one.

Yep.  Boys used to carry their .22's to school, for rabbit-hunting on
the way home.  I don't recall any mass murders, do you?

I almost certainly don't know what the cause is. I'd say we're all
guessing. I end up resorting to Fred On Everything style logic,
but ( I think Fred would agree ) it's rather an ... impotent ranting
... thing.

One can also argue that Dilllinger and Charles Starkweather* might have
been part of the same phenomenon, in which case it's all but hopeless.
At least Pretty Boy Floyd was known to be very interested in media
coverage.

(see the Springsteen song "Nebraska" and the movie "Badlands" inspired
by the song. ) Yeah, we're well past science and way into art.

Dunno; CNN is getting a lot of time out of it. Gad, that's
cynical... what else they 'sposed to do?

Report it, then let it lie. Or not report it at all--it's a local
thing, mostly not relevant to the country as a whole.

It's a sadness of course. But twice as many died in Sandy, and flags
weren't flying at half mast for them. Were they less worthy? Or just
less newsworthy?

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

Dunno. I don't think we can blame everything on the Great Society.

Yes We Can!

(Not everything, but it seems like this is a candidate. Inner city
gun violence too, mostly.)

James Arthur

 

[cameo]

On 12/16/2012 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:

I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Actually, I have a feeling that most of these killers were probably
addicted to shooter type video games and that made them feel like some
kind of heroes unappreciated by society. So they decide to move from
their video heroics to real life shooting. Why else would they dress up
in SWAT type gear even though they picked a target where there was very
little likelygood meeting any opposition that would shoot back? So they
are basically cowards who are heroes only in their own mind.

I wonder when the media will actually explore this angle of the killer's
background.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:18:01 -0800, cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

On 12/16/2012 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Actually, I have a feeling that most of these killers were probably
addicted to shooter type video games and that made them feel like some
kind of heroes unappreciated by society. So they decide to move from
their video heroics to real life shooting. Why else would they dress up
in SWAT type gear even though they picked a target where there was very
little likelygood meeting any opposition that would shoot back? So they
are basically cowards who are heroes only in their own mind.

I wonder when the media will actually explore this angle of the killer's
background.

I think a lot of it is disintegration of the family unit. How many
families sit down, eat dinner together and discuss the days events,
problems and solutions?

Just drive by any average high school and observe that the MAJORITY of
the males are butt-crack-exposing punks, and the majority of the
females are dressed like whores.

Besides, I have no "fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting
mayhem". Semi-automatic is quite sufficient >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 12:41 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:28:20 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was put there to allow the
public to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Yep.  In my area, citizens successfully defending themselves make the
news fairly often.  Nobody seems to count those.

The greater problem is societal--fully-armed Switzerland doesn't seem
to have any problems.

NIH (Nat'l Institute of Health) explains homicides thusly:
"Sociologists feel that the increase of gangs, teenage homicide,
teenage suicide, teenage pregnancy, school drop-out, and other
problems are a reflection of a rapidly changing society and family
structure."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm

The true gun lobby in the USA is Hollywood. Today's SF Chronicle editorials
bemoaned the lack of gun control, and a few pages later, in the Datebook
section, are big-buck ads for movies and video games full of guns, and TV
listings that feature violence.

Availability of guns is part of the problem, but glorification of shooting and
killing is a bigger one.

Yep. Boys used to carry their .22's to school, for rabbit-hunting on
the way home. I don't recall any mass murders, do you?

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

Drug 'em. That'll cure the problem.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 16 Dec, 23:09, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 16 Dec, 08:56, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:28:01 +0100, tuinkabouter

dachthetn...@net.invalid> wrote:
On 12/15/2012 8:56 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
More Media Lies

The media keeps saying "semi-automatic", but all weapons used were
pistols...

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

Is this important?

In the US on average three kids are killed every day by firearms.
What would you do about that?

So? Ninety people die every day in an automobile accident... many of
them children.

But cars are useful. Pretty much every other advanced industrial
country gets by with much tighter restrictions on gun ownership, and
benefits from much lower rates of gun homicide.
About all the US actually earns with it's silly ideas about the right
to bear arms is a lot more gun murders.

Darwin's theory works very well on idiots.

Wrong. The silly ideas endemic in the US on gun control don't actually
kill enough people for natural selection to work effectively.

The only thing that might make a difference to US attitudes in that
area would involve teaching more of them to do critical thinking,
which would be a heroic enterprise, and probably dangerously anti-
American - if a significant minority started applying critical
thinking to their political arrangements the country might never be
the same again (and not before time).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 02:37, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 12:43 am, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:









James Arthur wrote in message

news:18c1a9aa-4667-492a-8468-3fdfa33a488c@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

It doesn't help that the media's making the dead guy a big celebrity /
anti-hero.  That's why they do it.  The media encourages these things,
more than anything else.

It was revealed that the mother had the weapons for self-protection against
the feared collapse of the economy and ensuing civil war, which is
perpetrated by the radical right-wing media and dangerously delusional
nutters like Jim Thompson. People who snap and go on rampages such as this
most recent tragedy usually exhibit signs of instability, and make
pronouncements of their intentions in advance. It seems that Thompson has
been doing that a lot lately, and he freely provides his address, as if he
wants the authorities to intervene and give him the help he needs.

Paul

I just heard a parent praising the slain principal, from their
interactions with her, depositing kids at the school's before and
after school programs.

IOW, the kids are being raised by the gov't schools.

That's what schools are for. They obviously don't do the whole job,
but any environment to which kids are exposed for six hours a day,
five days a week, is going to influence how the kids grow up.
Parents obviously have more influence - they put in longer hours at
the start, and get started a lot earlier in the child's life - but you
wouldn't want them to be the only influence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 02:50, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:03:58 -0800, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:28 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:12:47 +0000, Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk
wrote:

On 15/12/2012 19:56, Jim Thompson wrote:
More Media Lies

The media keeps saying "semi-automatic", but all weapons used were
pistols...

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

Well, that's very comforting, thanks.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was put there to allow the
public to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Yep.  In my area, citizens successfully defending themselves make the
news fairly often.  Nobody seems to count those.

The greater problem is societal--fully-armed Switzerland doesn't seem
to have any problems.

NIH (Nat'l Institute of Health) explains homicides thusly:
"Sociologists feel that the increase of gangs, teenage homicide,
teenage suicide, teenage pregnancy, school drop-out, and other
problems are a reflection of a rapidly changing society and family
structure."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm

--
James Arthur

The Swiss receive training in their weapons. The ammo supplied is
inventoried, though they can always go and buy ammo themselves. Further,
they need to bring the gun to the training sessions so they can't act as
straw purchasers for criminals.

The Swiss model simply doesn't apply to US gun ownership, where any
fucking drooling moron with a clear background can buy a gun legally. If
they can't get a legal gun, then you buy one on the street via straw
purchase or guns stolen from residential burglaries from shit for brain
gun owners that don't have safes.

"Shit for brains"  Isn't that the defining "quality" of Miso ?>:-}

If that were the case, miso and Jim would have to be close relatives.
Sadly for Jim's attempt to try for a closer relationship with miso,
miso's intellectual failings aren't serious enough to put him in the
same class as Jim.

What Jim is actually saying is that miso doesn't share enough of Jim's
fondly held delusions, and this - Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-
Thompson deludes himself into thinking - would be evidence that miso
couldn't think straight. Sadly, it's just actually even more evidence
that Jim can't think straight.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 10:29, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:18:01 -0800, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid
wrote:









On 12/16/2012 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies.. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Actually, I have a feeling that most of these killers were probably
addicted to shooter type video games and that made them feel like some
kind of heroes unappreciated by society. So they decide to move from
their video heroics to real life shooting. Why else would they dress up
in SWAT type gear even though they picked a target where there was very
little likelygood meeting any opposition that would shoot back? So they
are basically cowards who are heroes only in their own mind.

I wonder when the media will actually explore this angle of the killer's
background.

I think a lot of it is disintegration of the family unit.  How many
families sit down, eat dinner together and discuss the days events,
problems and solutions?

Just drive by any average high school and observe that the MAJORITY of
the males are butt-crack-exposing punks, and the majority of the
females are dressed like whores.

James Arthur style selective vision at work here. And do whores dress
any differently from anybody else these days? When I walk down to the
local supermarket through Kings Cross - which is supposed to be the
centre of the skin trade in Sydney - I don't seem to be seeing any
group of distinctively dressed women plying for hire.

Besides, I have no "fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting
mayhem".  Semi-automatic is quite sufficient >:-}

The fanatasy element lies in the liberals not shooting back - probably
pre-emptively, granting Jim's enthusiasm for publicising his psychotic
delusions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

and still pertains today.

James Arthur practising his selective vision with more than usual
enthusiasm.

 It may be difficult to understand.  Your history is of being
ruled; ours is of self-rule.  We are not subjects.

Dream on. The founding tax evaders suckered you into their tax evasion
scheme with talk of liberty, which was never delivered, and some of
you have still haven't noticed that you were played for suckers..

I know it's not that bad as the vast majority of Americans are sensible
and like the rest of the sane world do not own guns.

Very large numbers own guns.  ISTR it's 100 million-ish.  The
offenders are in the ppm, generally outlaws beforehand.

Not in this case.

The few that do kill thousands each year.

Ordinary citizens' risks are miniscule.  Most losses are criminals &
gangbangers shooting each other in progressive, inner-city utopias.

Check out the statistics on gun suicide sometime. And note that - in
young people - the proportion of suicide attempts that succeed is
about 0.5%. Do that badly is difficult if you have access to a gun.

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics

This is the primary and overwhelming risk of having a gun in the
house. It endangers you and anybody who can get at that gun.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 04:47, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:45:31 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies

GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

No, the number is more like 30,000 with somewhat more than half being suicides.

But the US homicide rate is about 3.5x that of the UK, nothing like 9500/35.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid...

But we have fewer burglaries and muggings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-111162/Now-mugging-worse-Lond...



The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

I know it's not that bad as the vast majority of Americans are sensible
and like the rest of the sane world do not own guns. The few that do kill
thousands each year.

Gun violence is selective in the USA. Drug dealers, gangs, and some cities
dominate gun violence. People who live in quiet neighborhoods and who don't hang
out at clubs until 2AM have little to fear. Likely gun ownership, whether a
single household has a weapon or not, keeps the burglary rate down.

And the successful suicide rate up.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

Not only is
it legal to shoot a burglar, in some places it's positively encouraged.

Leading to nervous gun-owners shooting lost tourists - and members of
their own families - after mistaking them for burglars.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038785/Vincent-Cookes-plea-f...

That's insane, arresting someone for defending his family in his own home..

It's even more insane to take the Daily Mail seriously. Papers like
the Guardian tend to report what actually happens, rather than a
fantasy version which will titillate their readers.

"Burglar's family leave floral tributes at the scene"

I read about a guy in the UK who found a gun in his front yard. He immediately
took it to a police station, where he was arrested for carrying a gun.

He probably should have left it where it was, called the police and
left them to contaminate the evidence, rather than doing it for them.

Doesn't anybody in your family watch one of the CSI shows?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 04:02, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 11:03 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-

My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:42:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

I heard some breathless MSM weenies describe the .223 as a "high-
powered assault rifle."  Nope.

Depends.  .223 is available "long" for the AR15

 Wiki says the .223 is a "sporting" cartridge. You're speaking of the
NATO 5.56x45.[*]   An M1 Garrand is wayyy more powerful still.

[*] (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

It's all irrelevant bias, characterizing, media-posturing.   "Assault
rifle"?  As opposed to what, a "kindness and understanding" rifle?  An
Obamacare "Fair Share(tm)" rifle?

It's all nonsense.  Who cares?  The kids are dead.  Many of them were
apparently stabbed--shall we fixate on the type of knife?  Or use that
as an excuse to ban knives?

America has been armed since the founding--that's never been a problem
before.

It's got to be a problem since the non-property owning classes started
being rich enough to own guns. Not because they were any more
psychopathic than their richer neighbours, but because there are a
lot more of them, and lots of stuff that was too rare to be worth
commenting on got to happen several times in living memory.

 It's the society that's changed--has been changed--and
"fixing" everything else on that pretext won't fix a thing.

Trust you to miss the important change.

But perhaps I misspeak--were these common pre-Great Society, pre-gov't-
farmed kids, oh Elder One?

And most of them too poor to own a gun, which did tend to be a luxury
item.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[flipper]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:47:40 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:45:31 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool? Or Manchester?


Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

No, the number is more like 30,000 with somewhat more than half being suicides.

But the US homicide rate is about 3.5x that of the UK, nothing like 9500/35.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


But we have fewer burglaries and muggings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-111162/Now-mugging-worse-London-Harlem.html



The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

I know it's not that bad as the vast majority of Americans are sensible
and like the rest of the sane world do not own guns. The few that do kill
thousands each year.

Gun violence is selective in the USA. Drug dealers, gangs, and some cities
dominate gun violence.

This is where the 25 year old 'kids' statistic comes from. Gun control
advocates include inter-gang and drug violence in 'kids killed'.

People who live in quiet neighborhoods and who don't hang
out at clubs until 2AM have little to fear. Likely gun ownership, whether a
single household has a weapon or not, keeps the burglarly rate down. Not only is
it legal to shoot a burglar, in some places it's positively encouraged.

That my be true 'on average' but needs to be qualified because States
have their own laws and some still require the victim to 'flee', even
from their own home.

Most do, however, have the "castle law" (home) but, and you probably
know, the "stand-your-ground laws" are currently controversial.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038785/Vincent-Cookes-plea-family-flee-stabbing-burglar-Raymond-Jacob-6-times.html

That's insane, arresting someone for defending his family in his own home.

It's happened in the U.S. too but the trend seems to be swinging back
the other way.

Frankly, not being a resident of the U.K. that article confuses me. In
one place Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says: "The law is very
clear: you have every right to defend yourself, your home, your
property, your family."

Then what was he arrested for?

Later it's said "Detectives investigating the stabbing say they must
determine whether it was 'a criminal act' or 'self-defence'."

There were not only armed men in his blooming home but they were known
habitual offenders, including grievous bodily harm, so how does that
comport with the previous "you have every right to defend yourself,
your home, your property, your family"?

Maybe the 'suspicion' doesn't need to be 'reasonable' in order to get
arrested in the U.K.

And I see tons of comments from what appear to be British citizens
complaining it's about time people were allowed to defend themselves
so it seems to me that 'someone' is not being entirely honest about
'the law'.


One of the most pernicious things over here are judges who decide they
are going to, after the fact and in the luxury of a secured courtroom,
'divine' what the assailants 'intend' was.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, upholding the "no duty to retreat"
maxim in 1921, said "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the
presence of an uplifted knife" but it would appear that 'settled law',
even from the Supreme Court, is never 'settled law'.

"Burglar's family leave floral tributes at the scene"

I read about a guy in the UK who found a gun in his front yard. He immediately
took it to a police ststion, where he was arrested for carrying a gun.

That kind of thing really does make one wonder about the sanity of
officials.

 

On Dec 16, 7:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

When America was forming, lots of people feared a too-powerful federal
government. The guys promoting the Constitution reassured them in
plain words in the Federalist Papers: citizens were allowed to keep
arms as the People's final check on the federal government ever
getting too big for its britches.

The Federalist Papers specifically lay out the scenario of the
hopeless, hapless, folly of a federal force, should it ever be arrayed
against an armed citizenry--who outnumber them by 20:1 (IIRC)--as
proof the People could never be conquered by their government.

But you knew that, as always.

So, you think a 'militia' answering to the commander-in-chief of that
federal gov't satisfies that intention as an ultimate safeguard,
keeping said federal gov't in check? That's what they meant?

Good thinking.

James Arthur

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:18:38 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 7:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

When America was forming, lots of people feared a too-powerful federal
government. The guys promoting the Constitution reassured them in
plain words in the Federalist Papers: citizens were allowed to keep
arms as the People's final check on the federal government ever
getting too big for its britches.

The Federalist Papers specifically lay out the scenario of the
hopeless, hapless, folly of a federal force, should it ever be arrayed
against an armed citizenry--who outnumber them by 20:1 (IIRC)--as
proof the People could never be conquered by their government.

But you knew that, as always.

So, you think a 'militia' answering to the commander-in-chief of that
federal gov't satisfies that intention as an ultimate safeguard,
keeping said federal gov't in check? That's what they meant?

Good thinking.

James Arthur

Slowman doesn't think... he brays.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[flipper]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:56:01 -0800, RosemontCrest
<rosemontcrest@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 12/15/2012 7:48 PM, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:47:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:25:10 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:51:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

<snip>

What pistol is NOT "semi-automatic", except perhaps a single-barrel
Derringer?

Flintlock pistols, non-rotating multi-barrel pistols, pepperbox
revolvers, harmonica pistols, and cartridge equivalents.

I'm afraid you're just wrong here, Jim. A "pistol" has the chamber
integral with the barrel, which was the 'original' means of making a
handgun, and the 'revolver', where the chambers rotate behind a fixed
barrel, was the departure.

Semi-automatic means the mechanism itself, independent of human
action, cycles the next round and prepares the weapon for the next
shot (cocking) rather than it being done by manual means, such as in a
"single action" revolver where the trigger does 'one (single) thing',
drop the hammer, and manually cocking rotates the cylinder, or a
"double action" revolver where the cock and cylinder actions are
combined into the trigger. The latter takes a longer, using more
force, trigger pull.

A semi-automatic has the light trigger pull of the single action and
the auto loading makes it (allegedly) 'faster' than manual, although
I've seen experts who could fire a double action faster than a
semi-auto, AND on target. (and also speed load as fast as a clip ).

Most people, you included it would seem, probably presume a 'pistol'
is necessarily a semi-automatic (assuming they know a 'pistol' is not
a revolver and vice versa), since that's what it most likely would be
these days, but "semi-automatic pistol" is the correct term. (fully
automatic would be a "machine pistol").

On top of that, your link is a poor example of the 'hysteria' claim
because I couldn't find anything but "handgun" (and unspecified
'rifle') mentioned in it.

'Media hype' is more generally the hysterical use of semi-automatic
"assault rifle," as if 'military looking' has any consequence. The
definition of "assault rifle" requires select fire so any
semi-automatic, regardless of what it looks like, it NOT an "assault
rifle." (the 1994 ban got around this 'problem' by coining the new
term "assault weapon" as a semi-automatic with 'scary' features like a
folding stock and pistol grip. A bayonet mount was another 'scary
feature' and you see how many 'mass gorings' there've been from them.)

Almost all of these nut case crimes happened because "medical privacy"
rules prevent disclosure that would have prevented qualification to
buy a weapon.

And look at the Fort Hood case... Hasan was outwardly hostile against
"infidels", but the record was suppressed because of FEAR of
infringing the civil rights of some Islamic nutcase. Now the trial
is delayed while he appeals to keep his beard. Shoot the @#$%^& and
get it over with.

...Jim Thompson

"Flipper" (a pseudonym for pansy, wimp and/or fairy) didn't address
anything but a dictionary definition that no one knows or cares about.

In other words, Jim was wrong so he attacks the messenger for speaking
truth.

Yeah, it seems that he doesn't like being proven wrong. Oh well, it's
not like he contributes much of anything relevant to these newsgroups
anymore. Most of what he posts lately is off-topic blather.

Previously he complained about a 'BATF definition' and now he
complains about a 'dictionary definition'. I think I see the problem.
Apparently the only definition that matters is the 'Jim definition'
but I'd wager he neglected to inform the newspapers of it.

Actually, you have to be cautious about accepting 'dictionary' and
'encyclopedia' definitions for technical devices. For example,
Encyclopedia Britannica (online) defines a "pistol" as a "small
firearm designed for one-hand use" and claims that "there are two
important classes of pistol: revolvers and automatics."

Revolvers are not considered 'pistols' and a semi-automatic is
obviously not an "automatic," although people do often refer to
semi-automatic pistols as 'automatic pistols' or simply 'autos'
(including gun dealers) as shorthand. For example, there is a web site
"coltautos" that announces "Welcome to Coltautos.com, the website for
collectors of Colt Automatic Pistols."

I was giving the 'technically correct' description and it's 'less
hype' to call them "semi-automatic pistols," the very thing Jim
complains about, than "automatic pistols" as the obviously 'pro gun'
Colt collector web site does.

Now, I certainly agree there is often 'media hype' about guns but you
can't really complain if they use accurate and proper terminology...
except, as I mentioned, his 'example' article said nothing but
"handgun," also accurate albeit generic, and if you're going to
complain you should at least point to something that did it.

 

[Syd Rumpo]

On 16/12/2012 17:47, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

I read about a guy in the UK who found a gun in his front yard. He immediately
took it to a police station, where he was arrested for carrying a gun.

The guy was a known criminal, and not a very bright one. There was some
suspicion that he was merely pretending to have found it in his garden,
thus explaining his prints all over it.

There's nearly always much more to these stories than the tabloid press
reports - I'm sure it's the same in your country.

Cheers
--
Syd

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 12:18, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 7:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

When America was forming, lots of people feared a too-powerful federal
government.  The guys promoting the Constitution reassured them in
plain words in the Federalist Papers: citizens were allowed to keep
arms as the People's final check on the federal government ever
getting too big for its britches.

Didn't work too well at the time. Remember the Whisky Rebellion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The militias from the surrounding states moved in to allow the federal
government to remain too big for its britches.

The Federalist Papers specifically lay out the scenario of the
hopeless, hapless, folly of a federal force, should it ever be arrayed
against an armed citizenry--who outnumber them by 20:1 (IIRC)--as
proof the People could never be conquered by their government.

500 local rebels were intimidated by 13,000 well-regulated militia
troops when push came to shove. That particular group were decisively
conquered, happily without anybody getting shot.

But you knew that, as always.

Knew that you were going to invoke the Federalist papers, rather than
contemporary history? Only in the sense that you predictably see only
the facts that suit your version of history.

So, you think a 'militia' answering to the commander-in-chief of that
federal gov't satisfies that intention as an ultimate safeguard,
keeping said federal gov't in check?  That's what they meant?

Militias are local. They'll answer to the commands of the federal
government as long as those demands make sense to them.

The war between the states (1861-65) illustrates how that can work in
practice.

Good thinking.

Better than you can manage, which isn't exactly extravagant self-
praise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 17 Dec, 13:33, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:18:38 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:









On Dec 16, 7:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

When America was forming, lots of people feared a too-powerful federal
government.  The guys promoting the Constitution reassured them in
plain words in the Federalist Papers: citizens were allowed to keep
arms as the People's final check on the federal government ever
getting too big for its britches.

The Federalist Papers specifically lay out the scenario of the
hopeless, hapless, folly of a federal force, should it ever be arrayed
against an armed citizenry--who outnumber them by 20:1 (IIRC)--as
proof the People could never be conquered by their government.

But you knew that, as always.

So, you think a 'militia' answering to the commander-in-chief of that
federal gov't satisfies that intention as an ultimate safeguard,
keeping said federal gov't in check?  That's what they meant?

Good thinking.

Slowman doesn't think... he brays.

One can understand why Jim chose the word bray - James Arthur was
being more than usually selective in choosing the history he cited,
and had made an even bigger ass of himself than usual. Sadly, Jim's
sub-conscious perception didn't make it past his well-established
prejudices, leading him to endorse the braying, rather than the well-
reason argument that James Arthur. completely failed to address.

The fact that James Arthur's response completely ignores historical
reality should have been obvious - even to Jim. Not that many people
know about the Whisky Rebellion, but even Jim should have known about
the war between the states.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:54:40 +0000, Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/12/2012 17:47, John Larkin wrote:

snip

I read about a guy in the UK who found a gun in his front yard. He immediately
took it to a police station, where he was arrested for carrying a gun.

The guy was a known criminal, and not a very bright one. There was some
suspicion that he was merely pretending to have found it in his garden,
thus explaining his prints all over it.

There's nearly always much more to these stories than the tabloid press
reports - I'm sure it's the same in your country.

Cheers

If a "known criminal" turned in a gun here, he'd get thanks, or maybe a reward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#San_Fransisco



--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators