'Guns in the news' vs 'X in the news'.......

[Pert_UK]

Just a quick check.

Regardless of which "side" of the debate you're on, do we all understand the following:

Offering examples of occasions where guns have caused injury or death is (generally) lending support to the hypothesis that guns are a source of injury and death. These example may also suggest that a) guns are often misused / handled poorly b) often owned by people who don't treat them with the appropriate respect c) owned by people who aren't responsible enough to own guns and/or d) even if guns ARE treated with proper respect, they still occasionally cause injury and death.

I believe that you could use various different examples of "Guns in the news" stories to argue for each of these hypotheses.

However...........offering examples of occasions when people have been injured or killed by something OTHER THAN A GUN, e.g. a harpoon, a dog, a crossbow etc. does not IN ANY WAY effect the hypothesis that guns are a source of injury and death.

Yes, I appreciate that most people on here understand the difference. Yes, I also understand that there is a separate, valid point here i.e. pro-gunners are trying to illustrate that there are other equally/more dangerous objects available in everyday life, and that focusing on guns is therefore biased and unfair.

However, I'm genuinely beginning to wonder whether some people on here actually feel that by proving you can beat a man to death with a pool cue, it means that guns aren't a problem........

Opinions?

Violent objections?

Vitriolic abuse?

Perty.

[OpSomBlood]

1. I ignore "Guns in the News"

I own guns safely and legally, so the daily actions of criminals and irresponsible idiots with guns has very little impact on my opinion of gun ownership.

People get shot with guns. Thanks for the daily news flash.

[library_max]

15. So, wait - the criminals and irresponsible idiots don't own their guns?

What, they rent them? Lease? Find them in cereal boxes?

Here's you with a legal gun, doing no harm. Here's some idiot or some nut killing and injuring people. Can you not see that we would be better off if BOTH of you had no gun? Gun ownership leads to gun fatalities, even if every gun owner isn't involved in those fatalities. Who has the crystal ball that will tell which privately owned firearm is safe and benign and which one will eventually be used in a crime?

[OpSomBlood]

17. Should we prohibit car ownership because of DUI?

It would certainly eliminate the capacity for drunk drivers to kill or injure someone. So what if every driver isn't involved in these fatalities.

[library_max]

21. People need cars. They don't need guns. /nt

[Township75]

25. No they don't

the don't need either cars or guns.

People lived before there were cars, and they lived before there were guns.

I anticipate hearing how it is necessary to have cars in this day and age to go to work, visit family and so forth. One must realize that the distances people live from work, and from their doctor and relatives are due to advances in travel such as the automobile. If we banned cars, people would be forced to live near work, as opposed to making commutes. It would be the end of the suburbs. The environment would be happy about it.

[library_max]

32. The population is now too large for everyone to live near work, shopping,

et cetera. I anticipate hearing which part of the population you feel should be killed off so that the rest of us can live the agrarian life of the Eighteenth Century and make the environment happy again.

Guns, on the other hand, make no positive contribution to society, unless you call 30,000 deaths per year a positive contribution.

[FeebMaster]

34. 30,000 deaths again.

The majority of which kill themselves. Do you think people have the right to die?

[Township75]

36. Come back when you've got something more to contribute than a sneer.

"I anticipate hearing which part of the population you feel should be killed off so that the rest of us can live the agrarian life of the Eighteenth Century and make the environment happy again."

A sneer is not an arguement.

Check at the my other responses below to this fallacy:

Guns, on the other hand, make no positive contribution to society, unless you call 30,000 deaths per year a positive contribution.

BTW, in many countries, such as India, China and Japan, people do live close enough to work. While Japan is the 2nd largest automarket in the world, many employees work within walking distance of the company.

[library_max]

48. Not my fault you can't tell an argument from a sneer.

Saying "you're a child if you don't agree with me" is a sneer. Saying that modern population levels and the structure of modern society rely on motorized transportation, which in most places means a personal car, is an argument, not a sneer. I think pretty much everyone else on the board can see the difference.

What good does it do if "many employees" in Japan live (you probably meant "live," not "work") within walking distance of the company? What are the rest of them supposed to do? Quit their jobs and eat bugs? In the US, the overwhelming majority of people have to drive to work, to school, to shop, to do much of anything, and I suspect that you know that perfectly well. Willfully ignoring reality does not strengthen your argument.

[Township75]

68. Not my fault you can't tell an argument from a sneer.

Saying "I anticipate hearing which part of the population you feel should be killed off so that the rest of us can live the agrarian life of the Eighteenth Century and make the environment happy again." is a sneer. I guess you could call it an arguement, but I don't know to whom you would be argueing...it appears to me that you have to make up arguements, because you can't refute the ones you are handed from other posters. Now, if you take kindly to someone ascribing a lack of value of life to you, or that you want everyone to live in the 18th century, then I guess we just have a differnt value system, as I do not take kindly to that.

BTW, look at Japan and tell me if you think Tokyo is an accurate representation of 18th century life.

"In the US, the overwhelming majority of people have to drive to work, to school, to shop, to do much of anything, and I suspect that you know that perfectly well. Willfully ignoring reality does not strengthen your argument."

Yes, in the US that is the case. The automobile is likely the biggest culprit of that. It is a supply and demand system, not only here but everywhere. If they had to live near work they would, but they don't because with a huge SUV they can live far, far away. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.

[library_max]

72. Nobody in Japan has a car?

Really? I've been to Japan, and I saw a heckuva lot of cars. Everybody doesn't need one, just like lots of people in New York City don't need one (a larger proportion of Japanese live in major metropolitan areas). But lots of people do, even in Japan.

I can't help wondering why you guys stick to an argument like this that is so obviously contrary to reality. Most people get along without guns (gun ownership is about 20%), and most gun owners don't use them regularly (barring people like cops and park rangers). But most families have at least one car and use it every day.

Reality. Why is it such a hard sell? It seems like you guys are so determined to defend your guns that you'll try to make any silly argument that seems to do so.

By the way, gun controls in Japan are among the strictest in the world.

[CO Liberal]

75. I Guess They Think The Japanese Send All Their Cars Here

:shrug:

[Bowline]

39. People don't have a RIGHT to own a car...

They DO have the right to keep and bear arms for defense.

[FeebMaster]

40. The hell they don't. (nt)

[Bowline]

41. I stand corrected...

I agree that people have the right to own a car in the same way they have a right to own any property. What I meant to say was that, unlike firearms, there is no specific, Constitutionally guaranteed right to own an automobile.

[iverglas]

42. so tiresome, so tiresome

The right to liberty is obviously quite sufficient to cover the right to own anything.

Nonetheless, what of this?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If your second amendment right to keep and bear a musket entitles you to have one of those pre-ban whatsits, plainly your ninth amendment right to drive a horse and buggy entitles you to drive a Yukon.

[library_max]

50. Nor is there any specific Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun.

The Second Amendment applies only in the specific context of a citizen militia. Every Second Amendment case, starting with Miller and coming down to the present, has so ruled.

[OpSomBlood]

78. There is no guaranteed First Amendment right to send e-mail.

n/t

[library_max]

81. Really? What an interesting opinion!

So there must be myriad federal, state, and local restrictions on the right to send email, and many of those restrictions must already have been subjected to judicial review under the First Amendment and been upheld in every case.

[OpSomBlood]

82. Show me where in the Bill of Rights the "right to e-mail" is discussed.

It's in the same place that "right to semi-automatic rifles" is located.

[iverglas]

83. and if ...

"Show me where in the Bill of Rights the "right to e-mail" is discussed."


... you choose to send an email containing a death threat, or to inundate someone's mailbox with email for the purpose of causing him/her to be unable to engage in business, or to send an email in which you disclose an official secret (or whatever it's called when you disclose information to the enemy or some such thing, down there), or to send an email containing a statement of intention to do harm to the head of state of your country ... can you show me where your constitution says that you can be prosecuted?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[CO Liberal]

2. I Agree Completely, Pert!!

I believe that some pro-gunners start those "X in the News" threads in a feeble attempt to deter MrBenchley and me from posting gun-related stories. And guess what? IT AIN'T WORKING!!!!

[freetobegay]

3. You ahve got to be joking, right?

[CO Liberal]

4. I Believe He's Quite Serious

I know I am.

[Pert_UK]

8. No I ahven't......

Stories involving misuse of guns are evidence to suppor the hypothesis that guns are misused.

Stories involving anything else ADD NOTHING to the gun debate, except to highlight that there are other things that also cause problems.

Proving that more people die in car accidents than in gun-related incidents only proves that cars are a problem too - it doesn't prove that we shouldn't address the inherent problem of widespread gun-ownership with lax enforcement of the existing laws (which may also be insufficient, arguably).

[EstimatedProphet]

5. I don't follow GITN or XITN posts

I will say this though, you can beat a man to death with anything, or stab, or drown, or etc. That doesn't say guns are dangerous, or not a problem in the wrong hands, or even that it isn't easier to kill someone with a gun than with anything else. What I feel, after talking to some gun control advocates in real life, is that there are people who believe that if guns are made illegal, then crime will go away. And frankly, that's fantasy.
I won't argue that guns are safe and harmless. I know they must be treated with respect. But until we address the issues that cause people to pick up a gun and kill someone, just taking the gun away won't be doning anything other than treating a symptom.

[Pert_UK]

9. Anyone claiming that a gunban will make crime go away.....

is insane.

I can't believe that any intelligent gun-control advocate believes that in any serious way.

One of the major problems in this "debate" is each side assigning frankly ludicrous points of view to the other, and then attacking them for it.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. I agree

Which is one of the reasons I try to stay out of the debate.
No attacks on DUers. I have met people in real life who have that naieve an approach, though. It's simply not realistic.

[OpSomBlood]

6. Slight disagreement:

even if guns ARE treated with proper respect, they still occasionally cause injury and death.

I have to disagree here. If accepted gun safety rules are followed, the chance of an "accident" are statistically zero. Save the very few cases where a mechanical failure or manufacturing defect is involved, every gun-related injury or death is directly correlated with deliberate criminal misuse or careless handling.

[Township75]

7. I believe you may be offering a narrow motivation for X in the news...

First off, I stay out of Guns in the News, because to me it proves nothing, rather I leave it for people who want to make an emotional appeal for gun control.

Secondly, while some may offer X in the news as a way to show guns arent a problem, I know that I never have done it with that in mind. I may have started or commented on one of those threads with the intent of showing that there are other dangerous tools in society, yet some are not outraged by the deaths the tools have been used to cause. They are also used to show that if guns were banned, murders would still continue.

I guess to sum it up, I consider X in the news to point out an inconsistency in the anti gunner argumenent/behavior. I hear from the majority of those members that their motivation is to save lives, and a few even use the line concerning new gun laws that "if it saves even one life, it is worth it." Now, when I don't see these calls for laws on knives, vices, harpoons, cars, ect..it tells me it is not about lives, rather it is about guns.

[Pert_UK]

10. Now THAT'S a good point......

When people say, "If it just saves one life then it's worth it", it is totally valid to offer up other potentially dangerous objects/scenarios and ask why they're not so concerned about them.

Taken literally, this point would involve us all getting wrapped up in padding and never leaving our homes.

[OpSomBlood]

11. "Getting wrapped up in padding and never leaving our homes"

Fear your neighbor.

[Pert_UK]

12. I don't think you'll find.....

I've ever supported knee-jerk, uninformed or blatantly dishonest scaremongering by the anti gun lobby. It's stupid and counter-productive.

I'm in favour of a reasonable level of gun control, not scaring the pants off everyone in the world.

IMHO, it's partly due to the scare tactics of the US Media as a whole that leads people to believe they need a gun in order to defend themselves.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where a gun is a sensible precaution against violence, but I just don't think that the country as a whole is as violent as the press implies....The press build the fear levels and its hardly surprising that people get scared and think they're going to be robbed or killed in their own homes, when in reality it's very rare.

[library_max]

16. Thirty thousand lives per year. Not one. Thirty thousand.

Might as well get the figures right.

All the other objects you name have some other purpose than killing people - all except guns.

[Columbia]

18. I used to think that too

"All the other objects you name have some other purpose than killing people - all except guns."

When I was 10 years old. Then I grew up.

[library_max]

22. Come back when you've got something more to contribute than a sneer.

A sneer is not an argument.

[Columbia]

37. I'm not trying to be facetious, just telling you the truth

Sorry, if you don't like it.

[library_max]

51. You're telling me your prejudice. I'm not impressed.

Every bigot thinks his prejudice is "the truth."

[Columbia]

55. What in the world are you talking about?

I'm just telling you that I used to think like you did and I no longer do. Where do you get off talking about bigotry and prejudice? You don't know me from Adam, so you better watch your words there library_max.

[library_max]

58. You do understand, don't you, that not all prejudices involve race?

A prejudice is simply an uninformed opinion, something a person believes simply because he or she believes it and for no better reason. And a bigot is not necessarily a racist, just someone who clings to his or her prejudices (on any subject) in the face of facts and logic to the contrary. Someone, in short, who mistakes his or her prejudice for "the truth." Look up "prejudice" and "bigot" in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

And there's a difference between saying you have changed your mind on guns and saying that people who disagree with you are children and need to grow up. Please don't insult everybody's intelligence by pretending that your post just meant you had changed your mind.

[Columbia]

61. You've described yourself very well

"A prejudice is simply an uninformed opinion, something a person believes simply because he or she believes it and for no better reason. And a bigot is not necessarily a racist, just someone who clings to his or her prejudices (on any subject) in the face of facts and logic to the contrary. Someone, in short, who mistakes his or her prejudice for "the truth." Look up "prejudice" and "bigot" in a dictionary if you don't believe me."

I couldn't have described you better myself.

Hey man, take it however you want, but don't put words in my mouth. I did say that I used to think the way you did as a child and changed my views when I grew up. I'm sorry if you are somehow offended by that, but I am not making that up to hurt your feelings.

[library_max]

65. I know you are, but what am I?

Wow. The maturity level on the RKBA side of this debate always astonishes me.

[OpSomBlood]

19. "Killing people" is not always an ignoble purpose.

Should I be in a situation where my family is in mortal danger, I will be rather glad I own an object "designed to kill people."

[library_max]

23. Yes, I know, it's always "High Noon" with you guys.

That's the appeal, isn't it? The power. Knowing that you could blow other people, "the bad guys," away if you had to. And the hell with the 30,000 people who get killed every year, so long as you can keep your hands on that power.

[OpSomBlood]

24. Amateur psychoanalysis is frowned upon around here.

Just so you know.

[library_max]

33. That all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

I, for example, am smiling like the sun.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

But hey, if you really object to this sort of characterization, maybe you could talk to your buddies about saying that people they don't agree with are children, fascists, Stalinists, idiots, etc.

[Columbia]

38. Well, technically gun control IS a fascist principle

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascism

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

[iverglas]

43. well gee

So are speed limits.

Hell, if you mayn't speed, how are you supposed to get away from those black helicopters and ATF stormtroopers?

[OpSomBlood]

44. Speeding is unsafe misuse of a vehicle.

Simple ownership of a firearm is not inherently unsafe.

[iverglas]

46. okay, just one

Speeding is unsafe misuse of a vehicle.

No, it sure as hell ain't.

Speed limits are arbitrary limitations on what I may do. It would be very, very difficult to prove that I am "unsafely misusing" my vehicle at 101 but not at 99, in a 100 km/h (62.5 mph) zone. And yet I'm liable to prosecution for doing so.

I habitually drive at 140 km/h (87.5 mph) on highways. I'm really "speeding" -- driving at close to 1.5 times the limit. Never had an accident. Never even come very close to having an accident.

And however close I may have come, it was always because of something someone else did. Why on earth should my liberty be restricted because someone else may do something stupid or evil that made me unable to avoid hitting them at the speed I was going -- let alone because someone else can't drive safely at 140 km/h???

(Just in case you don't get it: why should the manner of your possession of firarms be regulated, or your access to firearms be limited, just because someone else might get hold of your firearm without authorization and cause harm with it, let alone because someone else can't use firearms safely or won't use them legally???)

[OpSomBlood]

47. Do we allow people to shoot wildly into the air?

The odds are excellent that the bullets will not hit anything or anyone. But it is a specific action that is well known to result in injury or death.

Speeding in a car eliminates milliseconds you might need to react as hazards present themselves. Driving drunk affects your judgment and motor response. Driving with a severe visual impairment is just stupid. These are all specific controls we put on driving as a result of statistical analysis.

But we don't try to eliminate accidents by banning powerful cars that can be driven safely. And as I've said before, I'm not opposed to state-issued licenses for gun ownership, so long as they focus on legal awareness, safe handling and safe storage.

[iverglas]

52. I did say just the one

But okay, one more, seeing as you asked so nicely.

Speeding in a car eliminates milliseconds you might need to react as hazards present themselves.

Yup, and leaving a firearm lying around where someone else can steal it eliminates the barrier between criminals and firearms that might be needed if said criminals break into the house.

Why should MY liberty be restricted because someone else might do something illegal, like break into MY house ... or pass on a double yellow line???


*I* can speed perfectly safely. I will NEVER hit another vehicle while I am speeding, UNLESS said other vehicle (or some intervening vehicle, also not my fault, so don't be blaming ME or trying to punish ME for what it does) does something illegal.


But we don't try to eliminate accidents by banning powerful cars that can be driven safely.

Actually, I've always had a notion that cars sold for the North American road market *are* limited in the speeds they are capable of going. Am I wrong?

[OpSomBlood]

79. See the 350-horsepower GTO for your answer.

No, there are no restrictions on how fast a car can go in the U.S.

[Columbia]

59. Straw

If one were to need to speed when you were "focibly oppressed," one still could despite the law.

However, with pervasive gun control, one would be greatly handicapped in any type of resistance to said oppression.

[iverglas]

60. nuh uh

If one were to need to speed when you were "focibly oppressed," one still could despite the law.

I'm just not allowed to even buy a car that would go fast enough for that purpose.

How the hell am I supposed to outrun the jackbooted thugs in a Mazda minivan? Or even a Vette? Those jackbooted thugs are everywhere, and they got hellycopters.

My vehicle would be the equivalent of a pool cue for the purpose, I do believe.

[Columbia]

62. Hey, not my fault you live in Canada

We can buy fast cars, helicopters, and planes here if we want.

But you make somewhat of a point, so I will take it, speed limits are a fascist principle too.

So is gun control.

[iverglas]

66. one more down

But you make somewhat of a point, so I will take it, speed limits are a fascist principle too.

Every time one of you defines yourself out of the discussion, it's just fine with me.

Sure looks like the firearms control advocates aren't the ones wanting to do away with their constitution.


We can buy fast cars, helicopters, and planes here if we want.

Noo ... you can buy them if you can afford them. The Think Method doesn't work for acquiring stuff.

Isn't it racist and classist to charge money for a firearms licence, and to price poor/minority folk out of the firearms market by outlawing those Saturday Night Special things?

Surely it's equally classist and racist to deny those poor/minority folk access to speedy vehicles for getting away from the jackbooted thugs coming to get them.

And I'm still waiting for one of my more knowledgeable peers to let me know whether those high-performance reeaally fast German cars, for instance, can be sold on the consumer market for use on the public highways in the US. I'd always thought not, but that may have been a delusion.

So is gun control. <a fascist principle>

And we have a winner.



"Proof" by blatant assertion. One of my personal faves.

[Columbia]

76. Ahem

"Noo ... you can buy them if you can afford them."

Well, can't you afford them? You are the one who said you were up in the upper percentiles of the rich in Canada.

"Isn't it racist and classist to charge money for a firearms licence, and to price poor/minority folk out of the firearms market by outlawing those Saturday Night Special things?"

Indeed it is.

"Surely it's equally classist and racist to deny those poor/minority folk access to speedy vehicles for getting away from the jackbooted thugs coming to get them."

Strawman - you're the one who always says vehicles =/= guns. Much better to shoot them than to run away anyway.

"And I'm still waiting for one of my more knowledgeable peers to let me know whether those high-performance reeaally fast German cars, for instance, can be sold on the consumer market for use on the public highways in the US. I'd always thought not, but that may have been a delusion."

Yes, we can own high performance cars here. Lamborghinis, Porsches, Ferraris, etc. so yes, it was a delusion of yours.

[library_max]

53. Who is forcibly suppressing you?

What, have I sent jack-booted thugs to beat you up for posting inane messages on DU? No? Then who the hell is forcibly suppressing you? Voicing an opinion that private gun ownership is bad for America is not "forcible suppression" of anybody.

The UK has a pretty comprehensive ban on private ownership of firearms. Want to make a case that Britain is a fascist state? Is anybody there being forcibly suppressed? How about Japan?

You get an F- for logic, with no extra credit for paranoia.

[Columbia]

57. Gun control is a necessity for forcible suppression of opposition

I never said gun control will definitely turn a country into fascism, but that fascism needs gun control. So stop throwing out strawpersons and then accusing me of illogical arguments. Look in the mirror, buddy.

What you are really doing is doing the GOP's work for you. Do you really want them to have all the guns and none for you? What you going to do if Bush & Co. do not relinquish command after Kerry wins the election? Is this paranoia? Please then, show me a decade in history where no coup or usurpation occurred in any country in the world.

Good luck.

[iverglas]

63. sorry, no can do

I never said gun control will definitely turn a country into fascism, but that fascism needs gun control. So stop throwing out strawpersons and then accusing me of illogical arguments.

When you just keep makin' em, the temptation is just irresistible.

Fascism needs electricity, too.

Outlaw electricity!


Aristotle is fat.
Aristotle is Greek.
Therefore Greeks are fat.

Fascism is bad.
Fascism needs firearms control.
Therefore firearms control is bad.

Nope, just not gonna persuade me with that one.


What you going to do if Bush & Co. do not relinquish command after Kerry wins the election?

How 'bout YOU or one of your buddies tell US, for a change, instead of just asking the question all the damned time.

What are YOU gonna do??

[library_max]

64. Private guns and authoritarianism go together just fine.

People had guns in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Most dictatorships allow some degree of private ownership of firearms. The best examples of gun-controlled states are all democracies.

What you said was "gun control is a fascist principle." That's not a strawperson, that's a quote. You then quoted a dictionary definition of fascism that said nothing whatsoever about guns or gun control but did say (and you bolded this) that it involves forcible suppression of opposition. The insane leap of logic that gun control is a forcible suppression of opposition is yours, not mine.

And yes, since you ask, your Bush argument is paranoia. "Any country in the world" doesn't make a damn bit of difference. THIS country has been a stable democracy for almost 230 years, the oldest currently functioning democracy in the world. J.Q. Adams took office, Tyler took office, Lincoln took office, Hayes took office, Nixon left office, and G.W. Bush took office the first time, all without a coup or anything like one. If they could, so can Kerry. And if not, what the blazes do you expect to do against the US military with your piddly little gun?

[Township75]

20. Well, if you have the figures right....

then you should let the individuals that use the "if it only saves one life" line, that it is insufficient and not worthy of consideration. Lord knows I have tried.

Secondly, there are many uses for guns. As you mentioned, killing people in self defense is one. Detering crime, especially in rural parts of the country where there is not a local police department is another.

Others include feeding yourself or your family, or other families like the Harvest for the Hungry campaign in many states which donates venison to poor families. There is also shooting competition, collecting, pest control, and more.

Go to your local library if you want to learn more about guns and their uses.

[library_max]

54. Detering crime, or even deterring crime, requires a willingness

to shoot and injure or kill. Many homeowners have found themselves lacking in that willingness at the crucial moment and have had their guns taken away from them by intruders. Still, a gun doesn't deter a damn thing just by existing. It is pure superstition to imagine that it does. It's like saying that a gun keeps the elephants away (in, say, North Dakota).

Hobbies are all very well. I am a hobbyist myself. But if one of my hobbies was complicit in the deaths of 30,000 Americans every year, I would drop that hobby like a hot potato. One can always find another hobby. People's lives are a tad more important.

As for feeding the poor, we do not encourage the urban poor to take guns and "hunt for subsistence" (wallets, watches, etc.). So clearly the hunger problem can be dealt with without guns.

[Township75]

67. Where is this from...

"Many homeowners have found themselves lacking in that willingness at the crucial moment and have had their guns taken away from them by intruders."

Where are you getting this from? Research indicates otherwise. Wright and Rossi write in their book: Armed and Dangerous: A survey of felons adn their firearms, that convicted felons are much more worried about armed victims than about running into the police.

Secondly, while indirect evidence, "hot burglaries" in which a resident is at home when a criminal breaks in are 13 % in the US, but ~50% in Britian (Kopel; The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy). While there is more to it than just guns, to dismiss it as pure superstition is baseless...unless you have something to add to your last post.

"But if one of my hobbies was complicit in the deaths of 30,000 Americans every year, I would drop that hobby like a hot potato. One can always find another hobby."
There is nothing wrong with the hobby. You are associating the hobby with something it is not associated with. You constantly quote the 30,000 deaths, yet the majority of those are from suicide. The lack of guns in Japan hasn't done anything to squash there very high suicide rate. Additionally, accidents and self defense account for a portion of that number. Try removing drug war related firearm deaths and see what you are left with.

"As for feeding the poor, we do not encourage the urban poor to take guns and "hunt for subsistence" (wallets, watches, etc.). So clearly the hunger problem can be dealt with without guns."

No we don't encourage the poor to take guns and hunt for wallets, watches, ect; did you add that in because you could not argue with the Harvest for the Hungry program? In some states, such as my own, they are encouraged to shoot a deer or two in hunting season so they have something to eat. In pratically every state, every hunter is encouraged to donate meat or an entire deer to the program.

The hunger problem could be dealt with without guns, but its not. Guns are just one tool which can be used lawfully to help fight hunger as is done every hunting season across the US.

Scapegoating guns doesn't feed anyone.

[iverglas]

69. snork

The lack of guns in Japan hasn't done anything to squash there very high suicide rate.

Jeez, I thought Murrika wasn't Japan.


You constantly quote the 30,000 deaths, yet the majority of those are from suicide.

It's a slim majority, and a couple of thousand of them are children. Nope, that's not something anybody should be worried about, even if they don't give a shit about the sick, depressed and/or elderly using guns to end it all.

Additionally, accidents and self defense account for a portion of that number.

Um, duh. "Accidents". You thought maybe somebody wasn't talking about accidents? And not all victims of "accidents" are the people who had the accident, let's not forget.

As for the portion accounted for by self-defence ... how many fingers ya got?

The hunger problem could be dealt with without guns, but its not. Guns are just one tool which can be used lawfully to help fight hunger as is done every hunting season across the US.

I, of course, don't propose an outright ban on the private possession of firearms, and I do recognize the economic and cultural imperatives involved in subsistance hunting.

I'm not actually persuaded that sport hunting is important enough to outweigh the risks associated with the possession of firearms, but I'm also not prepared to take away the livelihoods of the substantial number of my fellow Canadian residents who, and whose communities, rely on sport hunting to drive the local economy.

The old cost/benefit analysis. Or, in its more sophisticated form, the tests that apply in the constitutional scrutiny of legislation that limits the exercise of rights, to determine whether the limits are justified.

library_max and I come to different conclusions from that analysis. (And yes, I have to fault library_max for a faulty analogy whose flaw invalidates his argument: hunting for animals is not "like" hunting for wallets. The dangers inherent in the possession of firearms for both purposes may indeed be very like, but the activity itself is not. The reasons for prohibiting hunting for wallets have to do with the unacceptable nature of the activity itself, not with its unacceptable side effects.)

You, on the other hand, pretend that there are only benefits and no costs, or that the costs cannot be reduced even if we try, or something.

And others claim that the costs in the cost/benefit analysis done by advocates of stricter firearms control are really just delusions ...

The hunger problem could be dealt with without guns, but its not. Guns are just one tool which can be used lawfully to help fight hunger as is done every hunting season across the US.

I do agree, although I think that the "venison for the food bank" bit is a little overemphasized. People do hunt for food directly. There's some pretty miserable rural poverty in the US that city-dwellers tend not to know about or understand. Driving the back roads of Maine alone sure opened my eyes.

This factor is probably more significant in Canada, in terms of both subsistance and sport hunting. (Although we probably have less severe rural poverty, the economic and cultural importance may be greater overall.) The harm associated with unrestricted access to firearms in the US may go farther toward outweighing the benfits of access to firearms for hunting.


Scapegoating guns doesn't feed anyone.

And now if you could name anyone who had ever done it, you might have a point, and not just a piece of dried yellow vegetation.

[iverglas]

70. durn; forgot what I was snorking about

"David Kopel's Home Page": http://www.davekopel.com/

Research Director of the Independence Institute <"Colorado's Free-Market Think Tank">
Director of the Center on the Digital Economy at the Heartland Institute
Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute.
Columnist, National Review Online.
Columnist, Rocky Mountain News/Denver Post.
Contributing Editor, Liberty magazine.
Editor-in-Chief, Journal on Firearms & Public Policy.
Contributing Editor, Gun Week, Gun News Digest.
Contributing Legal Editor, The Firearms & Outdoor Trade.
Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University, 1998-99.
<One course: "Gun Control and Gun Rights", taught jointly, evidently with someone with an opposing view - the syllabus is worth looking at: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/gun.htm; inexplicably, eh, it contains the Canadian Firearms Act Regulations>
Board of Advisors, Porto Libro.
Board of Directors, Colorado Union of Taxpayers <CO Liberal??>.

My kinda guy. But sure and it's no concern of mine whose company my fellow posters want to keep.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879757566/002-8025882-4395210?v=glance

The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies by David B. Kopel

Customers who bought this book also bought:

To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm
Nation of Cowards by Jeff Snyder
A Little Handbook on the Second Amendment: What the American aristocracy Does Not Want You to Know. by Joseph L. Bass
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr.
The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm by Robert A. Waters

1 person recommended Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence instead of The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Given the breathtaking sweep of the material and the prodigious scholarship the author displays in his detailed discusson of civil liberties, police powers, law and national character with respect to guns in Japan, Great Britain, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica and the United States, it's surprising and disappointing when, in conclusion, he lamely argues that the best things Americans can do about guns here are eliminate controls and require classes in marksmanship and safety for all gun owners. Kopel, a Denver lawyer, associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute and a technical consultant to the International Wound Ballistics Association, brilliantly delineates the ways in which each nation's unique history has determined how it deals with guns. He defends vigilantism as all-American and necessary, praises the Guardian Angels, claims that many southern civil rights workers of the 1960s were armed and argues that guns are ubiquitous in the inner cities because people need them. He won't convince everyone, but he offers a lot to ponder.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Having carefully reviewed gun control policies in Japan, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Switzerland, Kopel argues, quite accurately, that none provides a useful model for reducing the American crime rate. He concludes that because guns cannot be eradicated, a policy that promotes responsible gun use is more likely to prevent gun misuse. Unfortunately, Kopel spends too much time setting up straw persons at both the anti- and pro-gun extremes and then knocking them down.

Promised much - delivered little, January 3, 2000
Reviewer: [e-mail] from Buffalo, New York

I started Mr Kopel's book with high hopes that I had finally found an objective work on this controversial topic. My hopes were dashed within a couple of chapters but I plugged on until the end anyway. The book attempts to convince and appear scholarly by the sheer quantity of information conveyed, but much of it is totally irrelevant to the real issues.(eg I do not believe that public opinion towards gun control in the UK is in any way influenced by King Henry VIII's statutes related to crossbow usage in the 16th century). In other cases, the information conveyed is misleading or just plain wrong. Mr Kopel's overriding thesis seems to be that the imposition of gun control in other countries can be directly correlated with erosion of civil liberties and loss of personal freedoms. For those of us who have lived in at least one of those other countries, this just doesn't wash. The conclusions of the author appear to be that America is so different from other countries that none of their measures to reduce gun related violence can work here. It is very apparent that Mr Kopel started this book with his mind already made up on this issue. What a pity he wasted the opportunity to deliver a truly open-minded opinion on the subject.

So, the book a reader recommended instead of that one was:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081575311X/ref=cm_custrec_gl_rec/002-8025882-4395210?v=glance&s=books

Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence by Jens Ludwig, Philip J. Cook

Customers who bought this book also bought:

Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway
Murder Is No Accident : Understanding and Preventing Youth Violence in America by Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Howard R. Spivak
The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong by John R. Lott, John R., Jr. Lott
Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore

About the Author

Jens Ludwig is associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University and formerly the Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.

Philip J. Cook is the ITT/Sanford Professor of Public Policy at Duke University.

The Great Myth, March 16, 2004
Reviewer: A reader from NYC

Gun Control is the greatest untruth in the face of determination. Something the general population has come to understand.

I found this book to be a very articulate example of a complete loss of reason and sense of reality. One that suggests that my right to bear arms is subject to how others "feel" about it. I could care less what others think, my freedom is not negotiable. The battle to end slavery continues.

Busting the Real Myths of Guns, April 7, 2003
Reviewer: mikerose5 (see more about me) from Glastonbury, CT USA

This collection of studies is, unfortunately, not light reading (especially for those lacking a solid grounding in statistical methods). Nor, like many of the pro-gun tracts, do the studies included set out clear and definitive conclusions.

What it does is present a number of studies and articles by those scholars who the NRA would label as "gun grabbers" offering evidence that challenges many of the more widely disseminated pro-gun arguments and pseudo-scientific works of authors like John Lott.

For example, while John Donohue's article presents a rather compelling case that Lott's conclusion (summed up as "More Guns, Less Crime") is deeply flawed he notes:

"If one had previously been inclined to believe the Lott and Mustard results, one might now conclude that the statistical evidence that crime will rise when a shall-issue law is passed is at least as compelling as the prior evidence that was amassed to show it would fall. However, there are still enough anomolies in the data that warrent caution."

That's quite different from Lott's certitude in "More Guns, Less Crime" and, given the evidence, it is Lott's certitude that should be called into question, even before the conclusions about which he is so certain.

One other example merits particular note. That study, by Steven Raphael and Jens Ludwig, challanges the effectiveness of one program that is the "darling" of both the NRA *and* the Brady Campaign -- Richmond's Project Exile. The study concludes that the drop is actually something more akin to "regression to the mean" -- where the implementation followed a particurly steep risee in homicides and the subsequent drop is more attributable to the return to the "normal" rates than the increased focus itself. What the study doesn't mention is that, in 1997 (the base year used in hyping the program's success), homicide rates in Richmond had risen so steeply (contrary to other Virginia metropolitan areas) that Richmond's homicide rate exceeded Washington, DC's.

It many ways, it's a shame that the book isn't written for a wider audience, because the gun debate is one where the loudest and most self-certain voices carry more weight among the public than the most reasoned ones.

(That's for you, luna -- hey, you might want to get the book.)


Anyhow ... I know which crowd I'd rather keep company with ... and whose scholarship I have more faith in.

[library_max]

71. About hunting for meat and for wallets.

My point was not that the two activities are equivalent - of course they're not - but that we don't expect the urban poor to take a gun and "fend for themselves." The consequences of doing so would obviously be highly undesireable. So we find other ways to feed them. We could just as easily find other ways to feed the rural poor as well.

Meat hunting is not socially necessary. The problem could be solved in other ways. If we let guns float around for subsistence hunting, they will float back into the big city and into the hands of gang-bangers and such.

[Township75]

77. I don't expect the urban poor to take a gun...

and fend for themselves. I offered the Hunters for the Hungry program as an example of how guns are used in ways other than killing people. The program doesn't require the urban poor to even own a gun, as many rural folk such as myself can do it for them.

The problem of hunger could be solved in ways other than hunting, but while the opportunity is there, it hasn't been siezed. So, why not use Harvest for the hungry to help satiate a problem that isn't going to be eliminated by other means?

"If we let guns float around for subsistence hunting, they will float back into the big city and into the hands of gang-bangers and such."

I believe the CDC or DOJ stats show that handguns are used the most often for murders. People rarely hunt with handguns, usually with shotguns or rifles, and even muzzleloaders more than handguns. So while they could float back to the city, I don't see evidence that they are.

I would like to respond to your other posts, but I am a little bit wasted now, and need to sleep it off. Have a good weekend.

[library_max]

80. A) Does this mean you would support a nationwide ban on handguns?

B) If there was a nationwide ban on handguns (or if handguns became significantly more difficult for criminals to obtain), do you not think that longarms would start returning to the gangbanger arsenal?

[library_max]

73. Wright, Rossi, and Kopel are paid liars.

I am not going to be impressed by any figures that come from them. You might as well quote John R. Lott and be done with it.

Regarding hunger, I not only argued with your Harvest for the Hungry program, I successfully refuted the need for it. If they don't need it to feed the urban poor, they don't need it to feed the rural poor. Something else might be less convenient and even more expensive, but it would still work. Hunting isn't a social necessity. There are other ways to feed the poor - we do in fact feed the poor in other ways.

The suicide rate in Japan is cultural. Surely you know that. The firearm suicide rate in the US includes a very high proportion of minors, and the odds of a minor suicide are five times higher in a house with a gun. You comfortable with that? I'm not.

Regarding evidence about defense against intruders, I don't have time just now for an exhaustive search, but there is this, from the Journal of the American Medical Association:

Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B. Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes. JAMA. 1995;273:1759-1762.

To assess the utility of keeping a firearm in the home for self-defense, Atlanta police department offense reports were screened to identify those that described illegal entry of an occupied, single family dwelling. A total of 198 incidents took place between June 1 and August 31, 1994. Stealth was the most common method of entry followed by force. Offenders were observed to be armed in 30 percent of cases. 42 percent of offenders either entered and left without confronting the victims or fled the moment they were observed. Victims who resisted the offender were less likely to lose property but more likely to be injured than those who avoided confrontation or offerred no resistance. Twenty percent of victims were injured, inlcluding six (three percent) who were shot. There were no deaths. Three victims(1.5 percent) reached and employed a firearm in self-defense. However, six offenders reached the victim’s gun before the victim in six cases. Although guns are often kept in the home for self-protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. Other measures (such as reinforcing doors and windows to prevent forced entry and installation of security systems) may be more effective for preventing home invasion crimes.

[iverglas]

74. uh oh, you said a bad word

"Kellerman". I don't know why it's bad, but I was told the other day that it was. I asked most sincerely for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming.

Probably I could ask google, and find that John Lott or Gary Kleck or Gary Mauser has the reason on offer ...

The Journal of the American Medical Association. I'm pretty sure that the stuff JAMA publishes is peer reviewed. I'm not so sure about some of that other stuff -- Lott and Kleck and Mauser and Kopel.

A bunch of Kopel's appear in his syllabus: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/gun.htm

Ah, Brigham Young U law school. A review of Joyce Lee Malcom's book in the Michigan Law Review (I don't think book reviews get peer reviewed, being opinion and all). Yikes, a states'-rights argument agains the US federal so-called partial birth abortion ban (yeah, women and African-Americans, let them eat states' rights). A review of state 2nd amendment jurisprudence in the Temple Law Review.

The only thing I'd call "academic" -- i.e. that has apparently been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by people who know what they're talking about -- and that isn't a historical analysis of jurisprudence or a review of someone else's work, and isn't an independently published thing, is this:

David B. Kopel, "Guns, Germs, and Science: Public Health Approaches to Gun Control," 84 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 269 (June 1995). Don't know what it says. Here it is! right at Canada's own gun-nut site:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Kopel/gunsgerm.html

Most of these researchers tell us that "Violence is a disease," that "Guns are a disease vector," and that we should start looking at gun control as a public health issue, rather than a legal or criminal issue. Indeed, we are told that the gun control debate is now ended, since the "scientific" public health approach has supplied all the answers.

I have to tell you how strange these phrases sound to many people who are trained in law or criminology. Imagine, if you would, that the direction of this inter-disciplinary crossing was reversed. What if criminologists and law professors started getting involved in medicine?

Suppose, for example, that I was here to tell you that it is time to start thinking of communicable disease as a criminal and legal issue, rather than a public health issue, and this is time to recognize that "Disease is a crime."

Jeez, he'd fit right in here, wouldn't he?


Just doesn't quite measure up, for me. I'd just have to wonder why his anti-firearms control stuff isn't getting published in somewhat better places. But that's just me.

[FeebMaster]

31. There you go again with your 30,000 lives.

Of course, most of them chose to end their own life. Does a person have the right to die?

[Columbia]

14. Biased sample

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

These hand-picked anecdotal stories are not representative of the whole, and those who attempt to draw any conclusion from them is guilty of wanton fallaciousness.

[PopeyeII]

26. Guns are inantimate objects.

They are tools, pieces of steel, stainless steel, aluminum or titanium that contain a chemically stored form of energy which when realased forms an expanding pocket of gas that accelerates a mass in a specified direction.

They're tools. Technical people are inclined to understand them, emotional people it takes a lot of patience and care and little time to get them to understand.

Any weapon is the application of one of several simple machines. Knifes are wedges, pool cues and crow bars are ba$tardized forms of the simple lever.

Tools are neither offensive or defensive, passive or agressive. They have no emotion nor ability to activate or engage themselves.

The physics, behind firearms, the ballistics etc. is what I find interesting. (I'm a tech head for a living.) Some folks like cars, some folks like boats, some folks like golf, some folks like mountain climbing. They're as much or as little dangerous as common sense allows you to make them. The kitchen knifes, garden chemicals in my garage and gasoline for the mower are more of a threat to my kids at my house than my "hobby". Kids can be taught to be safe! Kids can be taught to respect things and to have values. (Parents need to have passion in teaching their kids these things and be a part of their lives.)

We fear what we do not understand. Many news articles lack accurate technical content nor do they review or follow up on the emotional aspects of the crime.

[CO Liberal]

27. Designed to Kill People

Which they do quite often when in the wrong hands.

Which is why we need gun control.

[PopeyeII]

29. Eduaction

Perhaps the anti should invest their time/money in educational programs rather than legislation that is ill enforced or discriminates against lawful abiding people. Several years ago I was a non-gun owner non gun politics person. Back in the 80's I bought my first trap shotgun a Remmington 1100 semi-auto. Two years later the state legislature tried to ban it under a semi-auto ban.

As a society we are treating the symptoms and not the disease.


Progress in dealing with AIDs has been through a very progressive campaign of public education rather than banning sex and trying to sweep the problem under the rug.

Education, not legislation. Our politicians need to fess up and change tactics. They could act as leaders rather they act as reactionaries instead.

[library_max]

35. No amount of education is going to make people stop hating each other.

No amount of education is going to eliminate road rage, drunken macho swagger, jealous or spurned lovers, rampant paranoia, or any of the other pathologies that tend to lead to shootings. No amount of education is going to persuade criminals not to shoot up each others' neighborhoods or shoot at police officers.

I'm prepared to believe that as many as 90% of legal gun owners are no danger to anyone, but there's no crystal ball that will determine which are the other 10%.

[iverglas]

49. bizarre analogies

Progress in dealing with AIDs has been through a very progressive campaign of public education rather than banning sex and trying to sweep the problem under the rug.

STD education is designed and carried out to persuade people to engage in behaviours that will protect themselves against harm resulting from engaging in sex, by engaging in sex in a manner that is least likely to cause themselves harm.

Sure 'nuff, education programs designed and carried out to persuade people to protect themselves against harm resulting from engaging in firearms handling, by engaging in firearms handling in a manner that is least likely to cause harm to themselves, might be a fruitful endeavour.

I'm just not sure what it might do to persuade people not to kill their wives and girlfriends, or hold up banks, or murder a room full of fellow workers, students or customers. Maybe you can explain?

Education, not legislation. Our politicians need to fess up and change tactics. They could act as leaders rather they act as reactionaries instead.

Great idea. Let's do away with all regulations on behaviour, and educate people instead. No speed limits, no food safety regulations (heck, they're working on that one already) ... .

After all, food is just an inanimate object that people buy for all sorts of reasons -- pleasure, nutrition, survival -- and food vendors should just be educated about how to handle the stuff and how not to poison the public in the process. I can't imagine why there should be any rules about selling food. Let's just educate all the restaurant owners, food processors, grocery store operators ... and life should be much more pleasant.

Surely, once they are all properly educated, no food vendor will ever poison a customer again, just as no firearms owner will ever kill a spouse or colleague, or hold up a bank again.


The summary, for those of short attention span:

Education programs are excellent ways of persuading people to engage in behaviours to protect themselves.

Education programs can also sometimes persuade some people to engage in behaviours to protect other people, IF the subjects are motivated, or can be motivated, to do that.

Education programs do sweet bugger all to persuade people from whom other people need protection to engage in behaviours to protect other people.

Cripes, and some people think that *my* analogies are silly.

[EstimatedProphet]

30. Define control

We have gun control now. Guns in this country are not unregulated. There is a long list of people that cannot buy them legally. There is a long list of guns that cannot be bought by the average citizen, but need special permits, background checks, etc. I am a gun owner, and I am not opposed to this at all. I believe it is necessary and sane. So, where do you think the lines should be drawn for gun control? If what we have isn't enough, than what do you think it should be?

[OpSomBlood]

28. Outstanding post.

:toast:

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[iverglas]

45. "We fear what we do not understand."

Interesting theory, quite possibly true.

The problem is that what you are REALLY saying here is:

We do not understand what we fear.

That, you see, is false as a universal statement.

I fear George W. Bush. And I also understand him very well. And my fear of him is absolutely and entirely rational. Doncha think?

Undoubtedly many people's lack of understanding of many things leads them to fear those things. However, if you were to make this fact relevant to the present discussion, you'd have to show:

- that the people who advocate strict limits on access to firearms fear firearms;
- that their fear of firearms arises out of a lack of understanding of firearms;
- that their fear of firearms is the reason why they advocate strict limits on access to firearms.

Your problem is that you haven't actually established any of those things, isn't it now?

Your award for the week:

"This is for those med school rejects
who just can't resist explaining, in
detail on a public message board, what
they perceive to be your motivations,
secret agendas and most hidden fears."

Of course, you're also qualified for this prize:

... but it's one per customer per week. You can take a shot at it next week, but I have to warn you that there's always a lot of competition for that one.

Some folks like cars, some folks like boats, some folks like golf, some folks like mountain climbing.

And golf clubs aren't designed to hit small hard balls long distances, just like firearms aren't designed to put holes in things from a distance. No, no; golf clubs are designed for stirring soup; after all, a golf club would obviously do a fine job for that purpose, and I'm sure someone somewhere has used one for that.

Tools are neither offensive or defensive, passive or agressive. They have no emotion nor ability to activate or engage themselves.

And really, if you know of someone who thinks otherwise, shouldn't you be getting him/her to a real doctor?

Oh look! You pre-qualified for another prize, but again, sorry, you only actually get one this week:

Now what you appear to be wanting to say is that since a golf club could be used to stir soup, and undoubtedly (I will readily concede) has at some time been used to stir soup, golf clubs are designed to stir soup, and that's why people buy golf clubs. Oops, one more prize you could have got if you hadn't done such a fine job on the armchair psychology:

Whew. You're leaving all the rest of us in the dust! C'mon now, give somebody else a chance to raise his/her hand, eh?


http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics

[library_max]

56. Just by the way, mister technical guy,

a pool cue is not a lever. A crowbar is a lever, but if you try to use a pool cue as a lever you'll break the pool cue, or at least throw your billiard ball through the air instead of getting it into the pocket.