Where guns are banned, criminals change the fashion industry

[skippythwndrdog]

<snip>They may not look cool, but knife-resistant kid's sweatshirts and coats are the latest products aimed at providing parental peace of mind in a Japan horrified by a series of gruesome attacks on children.

The sweatshirts, and coats that look like plain waterproofs, are made from the same fibers used in police and military knife-proof and bullet-proof vests, according to the maker, Madre.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&e=1&u=/nm/20040722/od_nm/odd_japan_protective_dc

It's been stated on this board so many times that I didn't bother to look up a link to Japanese gun control. Only the police and military are allowed to own firearms in Japan. So, what's the up and coming criminal to do? Get a knife! In any case, the strict control laws in Japan have contributed to a new fashion.

[rkc3]

1. A knife worked for OJ, why not other criminals.

[skippythwndrdog]

3. Too true

So long as the criminal is better armed than his/her target, violent crime will flourish.

[TX-RAT]

5. Are you saying

Guns make it easier to be a criminal.

[MrBenchley]

7. Could be he's arguing

that Japanese citizens should all wander around with Bowie knives strapped to their hips....hard to tell what sense he thinks this post makes, frankly.

[skippythwndrdog]

11. I'm saying this:

When citizens are denied the means to defend themselves, criminals have an easier path in their endeavors.

[TX-RAT]

13. Then would you agree

That guns make it easier to be a criminal?

[skippythwndrdog]

16. Not necessarily

When criminals and honest citizens are equally powerful, it tends to hold some of the criminals in check. It's much easier to call up the courage to prey on those weaker than you.

As the old saying goes,"God created men. Samuel Colt made them equal."

[MrBenchley]

20. Wow....back to the Wild West!

Yippee! Bang Bang! Cowboys!

"It's much easier to call up the courage to prey on those weaker than you."
Good thing they only sell them guns to strong folks then, isn't it? Oops.

[TX-RAT]

27. It's much easier to call up the courage to prey on those weaker than you.

Or stronger.
Used to be the bully on the block, was also the biggest kid on the block, or at least bigger than those he preyed on. Now when we add in guns, anybody can be a bully.

[MrBenchley]

28. And thanks to the gun lobby and the GOP

in most of the country, anyone can walk into a gun show and become a bully without that pesky background check...

[library_max]

65. That explains all those murders in Japan.

Oh, wait, their murder rate is a fraction of ours, even calculated per capita.

[MrBenchley]

2. Too TOO Funny....

Another one of these spasms our "enthusiasts" get...."Why, here's a story about fashion in Jap-AWKKKK!! GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!"

"Turning to sports, the Yasnkees topped the Blue Jays 10 to 3 on homer-AWKKKK!! GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!"

[skippythwndrdog]

4. Sorry you missed firsties, MrB

So tell me. Just why is it that knife proof fashion is a good thing? Is it because those evil guns are mostly gone and the common crook is resorting to the next best option; or are knives becoming the crime tool of choice in Japan for some other reason?

[MrBenchley]

6. I'm not...

The knee jerk OJ reference sure convinces ME that there are "gun totin liberals" out there.

[LoZoccolo]

8. How so?

:hi: :nuke:

[MrBenchley]

9. Guess I'll have to go back to writing

<sarcasm>

and </sarcasm>

[skippythwndrdog]

10. But!

Are you going to answer my questions?

[MrBenchley]

15. No....

I think just noting that you dredged it out of "News of the Weird" makes all the point that needs to be said.

[skippythwndrdog]

18. Reuters "Oddly Enough" is not necessarily "News of the Weird"

Aside from the often odd occurences reported there, unusual news items are also grouped there. In any case, the Reuters editoral choice of location within its structure for any story does not diminish the truth of the story.

[MrBenchley]

21. But horseshit is horseshit

[skippythwndrdog]

25. I grant you the honor of being

the consumate paragon of hoeseshit detection on DU. Tell me, how many samples of your own bluster do you maintain for comparison?

[MrBenchley]

26. It isn't hard to find...

the RKBA cause is laden with nothing but....

[iverglas]

14. and I wonder

Is it because those evil guns are mostly gone and the common crook is resorting to the next best option; or are knives becoming the crime tool of choice in Japan for some other reason?

If they are, is there some way that this would not be a GOOD thing?

Knife-proof fashion sounds a lot more feasible to adopt than bullet-proof fashion, I'd have to say.

[skippythwndrdog]

19. On the practical side,

knife proof is more difficult and more expensive to manufacture: just to clarify a possible misconception.

[MrBenchley]

23. Say, THERE's a good argument

Let's hand out guns to Japanese lowlifes because it's easier to make bulletproof garments....

[Endangered Specie]

30. But dont forget the armor piercing bullets...

I mean, what fun is it to shoot someone only to have them live????

[MrBenchley]

Yippee! Bang Bang Bang!

[Endangered Specie]

35. Do it far enough away and you wont even have to see itor hear the screams.

[iverglas]

24. Misconception? Moi?

knife proof is more difficult and more expensive to manufacture

Yeah. And so much less likely to be needed than bullet-proof.

After all, knives aren't really very wont to come flying at ya from cars driving by ...

(oops, perilously close to a lawn darts reference again)

... or to hit you when tossed from the other end of the room ...

... or to kill you if somebody does do that ...

[LibLabUK]

34. Hmm

Police in the UK have had stab and slash proof vest for more than a decade.

Interesting research:

Aortic injuries - "The overall mortality was 80.6% (87.5% for gunshot injuries, 64.7 % for knife injuries)." - J Trauma. 1996 May;40(5):761-3.

Heart wounds - "Stab wounds determined the best survival rate: 94%, whereas for gunshot wounds it was only 50%." - Int Surg. 1993 Jul-Sep;78(3):229-30.



That's quite a difference in mortality.

[library_max]

66. Remembering of course that there's no such thing as actually bulletproof.

[iverglas]

12. and I look forward

to an endless stream of news reports about drive-by knifings in Japan

... or multiple homicides (i.e. single-event, single-killer homicides) by knife in Japan

... or accidental deaths by knife in Japan.



On December 6, 1989, Marc Lépine walked into the engineering school at the University of Montreal armed with a Ruger mini-14 and several 30-bullet magazines, and a dagger-type knife with a 6-inch blade.

He killed 14 women and wounded 14 other people.

All of them were shot. None of them was knifed. He also killed himself with the firearm, not the knife.

If all things are so equal when it comes to what weapon to use for killing somebody, or intimidating somebody, how come? -- how come he didn't just use the knife? It sure would have been a whole lot cheaper.

I wonder. I wonder whether he thought that the firearm would be more efficient -- less muss and fuss for the same results -- than a knife.

Perhaps he thought it would be more effective -- more likely to actually kill the people he used it against, and more likely to make more people end up dead.

Maybe he thought there'd be a lot less risk of somebody interfering and preventing him from achieving his ends (killing as many "feminists" as possible, apparently).

And maybe he thought he'd be more likely to succeed in killing himself with a firearm than with a knife (letters he left having shown that this was his plan), and thereby of course avoid facing punishment for his acts.

If Marc Lépine had walked into the Polytechnique with a hunting knife instead of the weapon he actually chose (apparently a popular one: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awavio.htm), how many people might be alive today?

In point of fact, Lépine might well be able to acquire a firearm today if he were alive, and as unknown to the authorities as he was in 1989. And the type of firearm might not have made a lot of difference. But if he hadn't had access to those (cosmetic) high-capacity magazine thingies, he might not have been able to hold roomsful of people at bay as he did, and might have been stopped before he killed and injured quite as many.

But in any event, HE sure seemed to think he needed a firearm for the job he had in mind. And I sure tend to think he was right.


I've read the autopsy reports on all 14 of those people. I know exactly what he did; the shattered organs and bones and brains. One of the toughest bits to read was the descriptions of the clothing the women were wearing, right down to their socks. Actual people, blown apart by bullets. I just find it hard to read that sort of thing without giving a bit of a damn.

[skippythwndrdog]

17. Only 475 words to put forth a mediocre deflection?

I expected better of you.

[iverglas]

22. res sure do loquitur ipsa, don't it?

Like I said ... I just find it hard to read that sort of thing without giving a bit of a damn.

But that's just me.

Only 475 words to put forth a mediocre deflection?
I expected better of you.

Tu ferais mieux de rajuster ton tir. Set those sights a little lower, maybe.

I long ago stopped expecting better of the likes of some folks here, and I find life easier.

Of course, if you were to set yours higher, you might actually see, or admit to seeing, things worth seeing.

Meanwhile, you speak for yourself so well, there's just no need for me to comment.

[Endangered Specie]

29. You cant mow down a room full of people in 20 seconds...

with a knife. Sure criminals can get knives instead of guns, but what would you rather face? You can outrun a knife, you cant outrun a bullet.

[FeebMaster]

31. Sure you can.

"You cant mow down a room full of people in 20 seconds...with a knife."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/june01/2001-06-07-japan.htm

[Endangered Specie]

33. I believe that was 8d 15w (23) in 900 seconds

you can do better than that with a single shot or bolt action rifle. By roomfull I meant around 15-25 people.

Not to mention their is the distance factor... ever try to throw and hit a watermellon with a knife at 300 yards... how about shoot at it?

edit: Imagine if he had a 9mm handgun with say, 20 15rd magazines. Or a semi-automatic Tec-9 with several 50rd magazines?

[FeebMaster]

36. Oh, I thought you were exaggerating on the time.

"you can do better than that with a single shot or bolt action rifle. By roomfull I meant around 15-25 people."

Maybe you could find me an example of a massacre where someone has used a gun to mow down a room of people in 20 seconds.


"Not to mention their is the distance factor... ever try to throw and hit a watermellon with a knife at 300 yards... how about shoot at it?"

I thought we were talking about a room. I've never been in a room 300 yards across.

"edit: Imagine if he had a 9mm handgun with say, 20 15rd magazines. Or a semi-automatic Tec-9 with several 50rd magazines?"

Yes it would have been far worse if the people he had killed were shot instead of stabbed.

[Endangered Specie]

37. ...

when I said...
"Not to mention their is the distance factor... ever try to throw and hit a watermellon with a knife at 300 yards... how about shoot at it?"

I was pointing out another way guns are far more lethal than knives


and when I said:...
"edit: Imagine if he had a 9mm handgun with say, 20 15rd magazines. Or a semi-automatic Tec-9 with several 50rd magazines?"

I meant if he had had an USA legal gun, he could have taken out the entire school.

[FeebMaster]

38. Really?

"I meant if he had had an USA legal gun, he could have taken out the entire school."

Could you show me an instance of someone taking out an entire school with any gun, let alone one pistol?

[Endangered Specie]

39. I am trying to point out that if you limit severely (or ban) firearms...

your crime rates will go down immensely. The idea that crime will not go down because criminals will use knives instead is absurd. Its harder physically and psycholigally.


"Could you show me an instance of someone taking out an entire school with any gun, let alone one pistol?"

No, but there have been some who tried (Columbine), and notwithstanding my inability to find such an occurance, the opprotunity to do so is still present.

[FeebMaster]

40. Wishful thinking, at best.

"No, but there have been some who tried (Columbine), and notwithstanding my inability to find such an occurance, the opprotunity to do so is still present."

Tried and failed. You can't find a single instance of such a thing happening and yet you want to take steps to prevent something from happening. By that logic we should ban knives since people have tried to wipe out a whole school with one and failed. As long as knives are available the opportunity to do so is still present.

[Endangered Specie]

41. By that argument...

we should allow people to own flak 88s, AA artillery, and bazookas, no one in the civilian world has used them to kill masses, the opprotunity may exist, but there is no documented slaughter.

This is obviously not a black and white argument, you can kill people with anything, the variable is the EASE of doing so and the question (debate) centers around where the ease becomes to great a risk to allow, regardless if its happened in the past or not.

[FeebMaster]

42. We do allow people to own

flak 88s, AA artillery, and bazookas.

It's easy to kill people with lots of stuff. You don't ban things just because they make killing easy.

[Endangered Specie]

43. ...

"You don't ban things just because they make killing easy."

So what do you ban them for?

--- Ill reserve my opinion on that statement, Ill just let it stand as it is, I hope people read it ---

[FeebMaster]

44. Well to my way of thinking

"So what do you ban them for?"

You don't ban them.

[Endangered Specie]

45. I thought so.

You want a world where everyone can walk around with or own any killimg machine they want?

[FeebMaster]

46. Yup. That about sums it up.

I just want people who care about following the law to be on equal footing with the people who don't.

[skippythwndrdog]

61. Amen! n/t

[RoeBear]

51. Imagine...

...if each teacher was packing.

[MrBenchley]

60. Wow, mandatory guns for teachers....

No wonder the NEA ended up on the NRA's enemies list...they're not trigger-happy enough!

[Endangered Specie]

32. Its psychologically much easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife...

With a gun, you can be at a good safe distance, aim and twitch your index finger, repeat for good measure if necessary.

With a knife, your talking right in the person's face where you can see and here it all up close, and youll be using all your strength and muscles and get blood all over you etc.

[Columbia]

47. Sure is

With a gun, you can be at a good safe distance, aim and twitch your index finger, repeat for good measure if necessary.

With a knife, your talking right in the person's face where you can see and here it all up close, and youll be using all your strength and muscles and get blood all over you etc.

Which is exactly why I'd prefer my wife, who is all of 5 feet nothin' and 100 lbs, to be able to have a firearm to defend herself from those two-legged animals who wish harm on her.

If that isn't what you prefer, then that's fine, but please don't tell me the best way to protect MY family, thank you very much.

[iverglas]

48. it just outs itself all the time

Which is exactly why I'd prefer my wife, ...
... please don't tell me the best way to protect MY family, ...

My truck, my gun, my dog, my wife ...

A man's wife having a firearm = a man protecting his family.

Those nasty misogynist roots of rape law, on display daily in the dun gungeon.

It's mine, and nobody else is gonna get it ...

[LibLabUK]

49. Hmm...

"A man's wife having a firearm = a man protecting his family."

Could this be a reaction to women becoming empowered in the workplace, home and school?

A way for men to define a role for themselves, by insisting on "protecting their families" with guns?

Even when the risk of actually being a victim of crime is at a low in the western world?

Or is it merely them saying that women are incapable of defending themselves in any other way.. they must rely on guns or their husbands to protect them?

[iverglas]

50. well, it could be, if

Could this be a reaction to women becoming empowered in the workplace, home and school?
A way for men to define a role for themselves, by insisting on "protecting their families" with guns?

-- if the mentality in question had ever gone away or been significantly abated.

The fact is, though, that the definition of women as property has never actually left us.

Rape was, throughout human history and geography, a property offence. It was the usurpation of a man's rights and interests in his property without his consent -- the usurpation of his entitlement to his woman's sexual and reproductive services, just as stealing his horse is the usurpation of his entitlement to the use of the horse, etc.

And it's merely that old, distasteful attitude that I see on display in the dun gungeon with reliable regularity. But yes, there is obviously backlash involved too, or we would have to expect to be seeing less of it than we do, given the way the world has in fact changed.

Even when the risk of actually being a victim of crime is at a low in the western world?

Yes -- and specifically, the risk of a woman being sexually assaulted by a stranger (i.e. the sort of person she would be actually likely to use a firearm against) is really quite low.

But the stakes for the man who is (in his own mind and to a large extent society's eyes, even if not in the eyes of the law these days) master of her sexual and reproductive services are high. So in fact, the "risk" to him, when risk takes into account both probability of the event *and* seriousness of the event if it materializes, may really be higher to him than to the woman. The woman is at risk of assault, of varying degrees of seriousness. Her male master is at risk of having a cuckoo planted in his nest, and losing considerable face, and self-respect, as someone who is inept at protecting his own interests.

Or is it merely them saying that women are incapable of defending themselves in any other way.. they must rely on guns or their husbands to protect them?

I'm sure there's some of that, too, you know. If (these) men lose their ability to define all kinds of things, including the appropriate way of dealing with risks and threats to individuals' own security, even when the individuals in question do not define the risks the same way or wish to deal with them the same way, they lose quite a bit more than it might seem at first glance in a particular instance.

Hell, if women can't be persuaded that they need to walk the streets with weapons dangling from their bodies, who knows what the world might come to? If women didn't need men's protection (from men) and men's solutions to their problems, what would they need men for at all??

Women might actually demand that other things be done to enhance their security and protect them from men. And who knows where *that* might lead??

[RoeBear]

52. That was pathetic...

...suggesting a poster has bad intentions because he cares about his wife and kids being protected from harm.

[iverglas]

53. yeah, it would have been

if anybody had suggested any such thing.

And the competition heats up ... who will get the coveted scarecrow award this week?

Of course, I think that a really really big pot-meet-kettle award has to go to all those who whine incessantly about the "racist roots" of firearms control, and have so much nothing to say about the misogynist roots of rape laws, not to mention the misogynist roots of the crocodile tears so liberally shed over women's safety and security by opponents of firearms control ...

[OpSomBlood]

54. CCW classes are filled with rape victims.

Some women who are violated sexually have made a conscious decision never to let it happen again. Whether you think that it is "mysogynistic crocodile tears" to point out this simple fact is your problem and yours alone.

[iverglas]

55. here we go again

Some women who are violated sexually have made a conscious decision never to let it happen again.

And speaking as one such woman -- and of course, simply as an intelligent and reasonable human being -- I know perfectly well that a "decision never to let <whatever> happen again" is a nonsense.

We don't decide what happens. If we think we can "decide" what happens, we're basically insane. Thinking that we control events is evidence of a serious delusion.

And if we attempt to act on that "decision", we're likely to be a danger to ourselves and others.

People obsessed with "never again" are exhibiting classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder -- which consists of a conditioned response to fear-inducing events that usually involves over-reaction to those events -- and should most definitely not have ready access to the means to cause serious harm to others.

What they should have is psychological treatment, like what I'm engaged in getting now because of a rather serious post-traumatic stress condition resulting, in part, from an abduction and sexual assault.

So when you say

Whether you think that it is "mysogynistic crocodile tears" to point out this simple fact is your problem and yours alone.

you're almost right. This IS my problem. And I'm interested neither in anyone else's moronic solutions to it nor in anyone else's exploitation of it for their own interests and contrary to mine and the rest of the world's.

[Columbia]

57. You solve your problems your way, we'll solve ours our way

And I'm interested neither in anyone else's moronic solutions to it nor in anyone else's exploitation of it for their own interests and contrary to mine and the rest of the world's.

Since you are so interested in "moronic solutions"...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

[iverglas]

58. that's fine by me

You solve your problems your way, we'll solve ours our way

So since women's security and safety problems are not YOUR problems, you'll be keeping your gob closed on those matters in future, do I understand?

Well, not as long as you considered the woman herself yours, I suppose ...

You did do what that thing you quoted told you to do, by the way, right?

(Note that insufficient evidence to determine
effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence
of ineffectiveness.)

[Columbia]

70. Did you not notice OURS?

[RoeBear]

62. I fully expected you to deny it.

par

[iverglas]

63. there ya go

It doesn't actually matter how high you aim when it comes to your expectations, after all. Just redefine the rest of the world to fall within them.

Works for you every time, right? I couldn't live in your universe, I'm afraid. I'm severely allergic to dusty vegetation, and that's all there seems to be here.


Now, when you come back with some other mortal blow to some other straw mannequin, the reason *I* will be saying I'm not surprised will be because I'm not surprised, which will be because I'll have set my expectations reaaaally low -- not because I'll be pretending not to understand what you said.

But then, maybe you aren't pretending either. It can be so hard to tell.


http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
or
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html

... or, of course, something else, though I can never think of what.





No, you see. Merely asserting that the adversary is incompetent/unethical doesn't actually work. Demonstrating it does, whether there's anybody home in that forest to hear the assertion fall on its ass or not.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Columbia]

56. Well there you have it

Ensuring my wife has the most effective means of defense at her disposal = misogyny eh?

Thanks for your ever continuing compassion, Iverglas. Absolutely amazing.

[iverglas]

59. gosh

Ensuring my wife has the most effective means of defense at her disposal = misogyny eh?

And here what I thought I'd read was a statement of YOUR PREFERENCE as to what your wife should be able to have.

Damn, that was in fact exactly what I read ... and exactly what I was talking about.

I was talkin' about what I said I was talkin' about, amazingly enough, and not about whatever you'd prefer me to have been talking about.

[library_max]

67. "Two-legged animals who wish harm on her."

Charming attitude some of us have toward our fellow human beings, ain't it?

[MrBenchley]

68. Yeah, but it sure sounded tough...

[Columbia]

69. Human beings?

I don't consider a violent, predatory criminal a decent human being.

[MrBenchley]

71. Funny...

I don't consider people who call other people animals, or salivate openly about shooting others, decent human beings...

[Retired AF Dem]

72. That is your opinion

and you are welcomed to it. To bad your opinion don't mean shit in the real world.

[iverglas]

73. and we have yet someone else

... well, make that two someone elses ... who hasn't heard about things like, oh, the US Constitution. (And all those other constitutions and charters of rights and international conventions on rights and all that stuff we have in the real world.)

You know ... the ones that say that EVERYONE has certain INALIENABLE rights, simply because they are human beings.

The actual fact is, of course, that those who don't like those things are the ones whose opinions don't matter shit in the real world.

Consider other human beings to be non-human animals all you like. Act on your vile opinions, and you'll find yourself in serious trouble.

*That* is what happens in the real world.

So y'all enjoy your imaginary one. There are probably quite a few other folks living in it with you, but you won't find any liberals / progressives / democrats there.

It is indeed tempting to say that one doesn't regard people who say such things about other people as human beings ... but I'll stick with the formulation already offered: the real world and I don't regard them as decent human beings.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

76. So you're protecting your wife from a dead guy and two who are in jail.

Very rational.

[Columbia]

79. Yes, that is exactly what I meant

:eyes:

[library_max]

84. Well, it's what you said.

I'm not a mind reader, even in your case.

[iverglas]

77. let's make it reeeeeeaaaaaallllllly simple

Charles Manson, Son of Sam, Jeffrey Dahmer
I'm quite sure the world would agree w/ me
instead of you that these are not examples
of decent human beings.

I did not state that any of the named individuals were decent human beings.

You have no basis for alleging that I stated that any of the named individuals are decent human beings.

You have said that the world would agree with you that "these are not examples of decent human beings".

You have said that the world would agree with you on this instead of <with> me.

The only thing your statement can be interpreted as meaning is that I said (or believe) that these individuals are examples of decent human beings.

If you would like to point to where I said this, or to what I said that suggested to you that I believe it, I would like you to do so.

If you cannot point to where I said this, or to what I said that suggested to you that I believe it, I would like you to retract that allegation that I have said, or believe, this.

I will make it plain to you, in case, for some unknown reason, it was not formerly plain: I do not believe that any of the named individuals are decent human beings, and I have never said anything that would have suggested to a reasonable person, reading what I said in good faith, that I believe that any of the named individuals are decent human beings.

I do not know what difficulty you may have encountered that would have led you to believe that I said, or that I believe, that any of the named individuals are decent human beings.

If you did not believe that I had said, or that I believed, that any of the named individuals are decent human beings, I do not know why you would have alleged either that I had said or that I believed any such thing.

At this moment, I can see no reason for you not to retract your allegation, which is false. If you inadvertently made a false allegation about me and apologize for it, I will consider the matter closed. If you believe that the allegation is not false, and you can substantiate it in some way, I will explain whatever it is you have misunderstood.

[Columbia]

78. Fine, glad we agree

[iverglas]

82. not remotely

If you want to keep pretending you said something other than what you said, go right ahead. I won't be portrayed as agreeing with what you actually said, ta very much.

I'm not the one who said

"Human beings?"

in reference to any other human beings.

I'm not the one who -- intentionally or inadvertently, I just would never try to guess -- addressed two people as if they had said something they had never said and that no person of common sense or common decency would have been remotely likely to have said.

I'm just the one constantly wondering why anyone does do those things.

And never getting an answer ... just like this time.

[Columbia]

83. Too bad

[MrBenchley]

80. Gee, in the real world, I've been hearing that sort of crap

all my life...first from the sort of people who were trying to keep segregation propped up, and later from the sort of people flogging this bogus "gun rights" crap....

Surprisng how often they're the same damn people (Trent Lott, John AshKKKroft, Larry Pratt, etc.....)

[iverglas]

81. (ignore; posted in wrong place, deleted)