More Media Lies

Jim Thompson · Dec 17, 2012

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:57:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:17 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
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.

Ah. So, the proper way to know what the founders thought and intended
is not to read their extensive, clear, and plain contemporaneous
writings detailing exactly that, but to look years later to
"contemporary history" explain what they intended, as interpreted by
you.

Genius.

Dec 17, 2012

On Dec 17, 7:17 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

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.

Ah. So, the proper way to know what the founders thought and intended
is not to read their extensive, clear, and plain contemporaneous
writings detailing exactly that, but to look years later to
"contemporary history" explain what they intended, as interpreted by
you.

Genius.

Dec 17, 2012

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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

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

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.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*] If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 17, 2012

Jim Thompson wrote:

Slowman? Nope.

Village idiot, YES!

No village in the Netherlands would have him, now he's infesting
another continent.

John Larkin · Dec 17, 2012

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*] If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

[1] and the Silicon Valley gaming industry

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

John Larkin · Dec 17, 2012

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:07:14 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

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'.

For actual children, having a swimming pool is a couple of orders more
lethal than having a gun around.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

WangoTango · Dec 17, 2012

In article <kakmqb$ss5$2@dont-email.me>, GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk
says...

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?
The kind where you are a citizen and not a subject.

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.

I don't even know how to respond to such outlandish bullshit.

WangoTango · Dec 17, 2012

In article <qnopc8t93blhs5o96j4qclm92js3plq2mh@4ax.com>,
peter@arin.htlm.com says...

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:56:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

More Media Lies

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

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

...Jim Thompson

The media certainly has a responsibility for accuracy, but here the
real problem to be addressed is the unnecessary widespread
availability of guns to people who not only do not have a need, but
rely on the 'right to bear arms'. Rights also have responsibilities,
and the government should seriously get on and properly restrict
access to firearms. Semiautomatic are obviously a potential problem,
but even single shot are highly dangerous.

Peter

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

Ian Field · Dec 17, 2012

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:kclpc85a4d6t9rgj8gg0frhprfrn6319o3@4ax.com...

More Media Lies

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

Semi-automatic pistols - as opposed from fully automatic military assault
weapons.

Ian Field · Dec 17, 2012

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:cf0sc89bp60idp5f9rgnsb8chhsv0eg4ah@4ax.com...

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.

At the end of the day, what's really important is whether 20 or so school
kids massacred every few months is a price worth paying for the freedom of a
minority.

Ian Field · Dec 17, 2012

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news:cm0tc8dt2gj5a06r8krtlb8lh5mgor07lc@4ax.com...

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.

And you guys wonder why I have a problem with the nut job; JT!

Ian Field · Dec 17, 2012

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1212161001280.7193@darkstar.example.org...

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Jim Thompson wrote:

More Media Lies

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

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

Keep your trash out of the newsgroups.

Once upon a time, there was sci.electronics, full of electronic related
posts, though sometimes a bit too much traffic. So they were split into
multiple newsgroups. Then sometime later some idiot decided that
sci.electronics.design was a hangout, not so much about electronic design
but about talking about whatever to whoever was there. And after a while,
that destroyed the newsgroup, even if the illusion is that there's a lot
of traffic there and it's healthy.

And then in recent times you've compounded your initial problem by
constantly cross-posting to other newsgroups. It's bad enough that you
feel it's acceptable to post junk unrelated to electronics, but you think
the rest of us want to see the junk posts? I don't look at
sci.electronics.design because of the way you trashed it with your
off-topic posts, don't come into .basics and inflict it on us here (or in
the other newsgroups that you've cross-posted to).

If nothing else, your trash means other people think it's acceptable to
act the same way, so now we're getting other people's junk to.

Keep your junk in sci.electronics.design.

ANd in the future, before you post, think very hard about whether you have
to cross-post anything, like your continuous junk posts about needed
computer parts or whatever. At least when you kept them in
sci.electronics.design we didn't have to see them elsewhere.

Michael

JT is evil - but someday he'll die.

Dec 17, 2012

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:44:28 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*] If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society. Get used to it.

[*] Though there is evidence to suggest that they could make more if
they dropped the PC crap so profits obviously aren't Hollyweird's
driving force.

and the Silicon Valley gaming industry

Sure.

Ian Field · Dec 17, 2012

"RosemontCrest" <rosemontcrest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kaim1m$7tf$1@dont-email.me...

On 12/15/2012 11:56 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
More Media Lies

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

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

...Jim Thompson

Educate yourself. A pistol is a semi-automatic handgun, not to be confused
with a revolver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx_WMcg_GtI

This isn't exactly the Youtube clip I was looking for - that was a
demonstration of a 9mm pistol someone had home-modified for full automatic
fire.

The clip I found looks like at least one pistol that was actually
manufactured for fully automatic.

There doesn't seem to be much application for a pistol that can empty the
clip in less than a couple of seconds - other than spraying a classroom full
of closely spaced schoolkids.

langwadt@fonz.dk · Dec 17, 2012

On Dec 17, 12:29 am, 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.

you must really be getting old

I'm sure if you go back a few generation you would be considered a
jean
wearing punk for not wearing a suit, and any woman wearing pants
instead
of a dress was bad company ..

-Lasse

-Lasse

cameo · Dec 17, 2012

On 12/17/2012 1:36 PM, krw@att.bizzz wrote:

Though there is evidence to suggest that they could make more if
they dropped the PC crap so profits obviously aren't Hollyweird's
driving force.

The PC crowd is already making noises about a non-PC aspect of the
upcoming movie hit "Zero Dark Thirty" because it gives lie to the sacred
belief of the Left that enhanced interrogation of terrorists is not
productive. According to the movie (and the CIA) it was and it led to
Osama Bin Laden's currier.

I suspect the PC crap is the reason why they still didn't make a movie
out of a Vince Flynn novel; Mitch Rapp does not fit the PC mentality of
Hollywood.

T · Dec 17, 2012

In article <kclpc85a4d6t9rgj8gg0frhprfrn6319o3@4ax.com>, To-Email-Use-
The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com says...

More Media Lies

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

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

...Jim Thompson

By definition a pistol is a semi-auto weapon. The automatic involves the
chambering of the round. It's completely automatic in a pistol. Now
repeat capability is what's lacking.

T · Dec 17, 2012

In article <kakmqb$ss5$2@dont-email.me>, GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk
says...

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?

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.

Actually murder rates in the U.S. are fewer than 9,500 last year.

Just go google FBI UCR Stats by state.

Jim Thompson · Dec 17, 2012

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:00:00 -0800 (PST), "langwadt@fonz.dk"
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

On Dec 17, 12:29 am, 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.

you must really be getting old

Of course ;-) I graduated high school ~55 years ago.

I'm sure if you go back a few generation you would be considered a
jean
wearing punk for not wearing a suit,

But I stopped wearing jeans when I started working for a living.

and any woman wearing pants
instead
of a dress was bad company ..

Women haven't worn pants in my lifetime... until Hillary >:-}

-Lasse

-Lasse

John Larkin · Dec 18, 2012

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:53:09 -0500, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
wrote:

In article <kakmqb$ss5$2@dont-email.me>, GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk
says...

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?

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.

Actually murder rates in the U.S. are fewer than 9,500 last year.

Just go google FBI UCR Stats by state.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

Sounds like about 14K to me. Other sources estimate 12K to 16K. That's
about 1 in 20,000. For well-bahaved folks in a quiet town, the chance
of being murdered is low, maybe a few PPM, well below the risk of
dying in a car crash.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

More Media Lies

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

WangoTango

Guest

WangoTango

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

langwadt@fonz.dk

Guest

cameo

Guest

T

Guest

T

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor