F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/4/14 11:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/4/2014 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:12:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:15:52 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



Less availability of guns in modern western societies seems to
result in
a less violent society, eh?

They are simply less violent. There were more stabbing murders in LA
last year than the total number of murders in Canada all causes.
Maybe it does have to do with our ethnic make up ... but we can't say
that.


Statistics can be very misleading unless you take all factors into
account.

You have to come away with the fact that Americans are more violent,
across the board. When you look at Australia where they did do a
massive gun roundup, the people who wanted to kill their fellow man,
simply moved to other weapons. The overall slope of murder rates
didn't really change.



John won't like this but guns, wars and violence are "ingrained" in our
culture. :-)




Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is,
say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun
culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these
varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm
mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US
rate, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the
US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less
than one-tenth the US rate. Those figures refer to all gun deaths –
homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates,
the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia.
Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the
world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation
and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and
territories were harmonised and linked, so that a person barred from
owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun
sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means
you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale.

Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day
waiting period. The licensing process considers not only the applicant's
age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other factors relevant
to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b)
highly coveted by people who should not have it. Relevant factors include
the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health,
restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired
and for what purpose, safety training, storage arrangements, and the public interest.

http://tinyurl.com/lh4gzcs



Gun death rate changed with the gun confiscations. Death rates did not
really change.

On 12/4/2014 12:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:46:51 -0500, wrote:

Why would density make any difference? Are you saying the people are
so close together that you can't swing a knife without killing
someone?

===

I believe that if you do a detailed analysis you will find that
density does make a difference. I leave it to the sociologists to
explain that phenomenon but certainly ghetto culture requires a
critical mass of sorts.


The density makes a difference because of the limited availability of
resources from shopping to jobs...

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:06:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:12:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:11:46 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:20 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Since a city is being compared to a country, the population density is
immaterial.

If that is so try comparing Detroit or Chicago or Washington DC or LA to
all of the Us.

Then Luddite and Toad would call me an ingrained racist. I'd bet that
if you took the homicides in our 8-10 largest cities there would be
more than in the entire rest of the US (and Canada combined).


Putting words in other people's mouths again, huh Clara?

You sure like to gossip.


The 'then' part was out of the question, which made the 'call me' part
not applicable, therefore no words in anyone's mouth.


Cute wiggle.

BTW ... please cite where I have accused you of being a racist?

Where did I say you've done so? Putting words in my mourth again, eh
Dep'ty?

You may be. Or maybe your're not. I don't know and have never
made any accusations.

I think the word 'ingrained' was added to one of Toad's comments.

You're hung up on the "ingrained" thing. You don't think that the way
people think, talk or express themselves isn't due to some ingrained
thought process, learning experience or conditioning?

I absolutely believe that those things 'can' be due to some ingrained
thought processes, etc.

But, that's where education and experience come into play. What may
have been ingrained at age 10 could well be enhanced or deleted by age
70. Or, do you not think that a person's attitudes and behaviors can
be changed?

--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:44:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:12:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:15:52 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



Less availability of guns in modern western societies seems to result in
a less violent society, eh?

They are simply less violent. There were more stabbing murders in LA
last year than the total number of murders in Canada all causes.
Maybe it does have to do with our ethnic make up ... but we can't say
that.


Statistics can be very misleading unless you take all factors into account.

You have to come away with the fact that Americans are more violent,
across the board. When you look at Australia where they did do a
massive gun roundup, the people who wanted to kill their fellow man,
simply moved to other weapons. The overall slope of murder rates
didn't really change.



John won't like this but guns, wars and violence are "ingrained" in our
culture. :-)

Would you say guns, wars and violence are 'ingrained' in Toad's, jps',
or your makeup?
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

On 12/4/2014 3:12 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:06:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:12:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:11:46 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:20 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Since a city is being compared to a country, the population density is
immaterial.

If that is so try comparing Detroit or Chicago or Washington DC or LA to
all of the Us.

Then Luddite and Toad would call me an ingrained racist. I'd bet that
if you took the homicides in our 8-10 largest cities there would be
more than in the entire rest of the US (and Canada combined).


Putting words in other people's mouths again, huh Clara?

You sure like to gossip.


The 'then' part was out of the question, which made the 'call me' part
not applicable, therefore no words in anyone's mouth.


Cute wiggle.

BTW ... please cite where I have accused you of being a racist?

Where did I say you've done so? Putting words in my mourth again, eh
Dep'ty?

You may be. Or maybe your're not. I don't know and have never
made any accusations.

I think the word 'ingrained' was added to one of Toad's comments.

You're hung up on the "ingrained" thing. You don't think that the way
people think, talk or express themselves isn't due to some ingrained
thought process, learning experience or conditioning?

I absolutely believe that those things 'can' be due to some ingrained
thought processes, etc.

But, that's where education and experience come into play. What may
have been ingrained at age 10 could well be enhanced or deleted by age
70. Or, do you not think that a person's attitudes and behaviors can
be changed?



So, are you are saying that you are changing?

On 12/4/2014 3:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:44:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:12:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:15:52 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



Less availability of guns in modern western societies seems to result in
a less violent society, eh?

They are simply less violent. There were more stabbing murders in LA
last year than the total number of murders in Canada all causes.
Maybe it does have to do with our ethnic make up ... but we can't say
that.


Statistics can be very misleading unless you take all factors into account.

You have to come away with the fact that Americans are more violent,
across the board. When you look at Australia where they did do a
massive gun roundup, the people who wanted to kill their fellow man,
simply moved to other weapons. The overall slope of murder rates
didn't really change.



John won't like this but guns, wars and violence are "ingrained" in our
culture. :-)

Would you say guns, wars and violence are 'ingrained' in Toad's, jps',
or your makeup?

Define "makeup" versus "culture".

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:19:22 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:46:51 -0500, wrote:

Why would density make any difference? Are you saying the people are
so close together that you can't swing a knife without killing
someone?

===

I believe that if you do a detailed analysis you will find that
density does make a difference. I leave it to the sociologists to
explain that phenomenon but certainly ghetto culture requires a
critical mass of sorts.

Now you're getting into the cause of the problem, which wasn't part of
Greg's mini-analysis.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

KC wrote:
On 12/4/2014 12:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:46:51 -0500, wrote:

Why would density make any difference? Are you saying the people are
so close together that you can't swing a knife without killing
someone?

===

I believe that if you do a detailed analysis you will find that
density does make a difference. I leave it to the sociologists to
explain that phenomenon but certainly ghetto culture requires a
critical mass of sorts.


The density makes a difference because of the limited availability of
resources from shopping to jobs...

I think the density means the social misfits have nowhere to go. No Little
House on The Prairie these days.

On 12/4/14 2:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/4/14 11:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/4/2014 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:12:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:15:52 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



Less availability of guns in modern western societies seems to
result in
a less violent society, eh?

They are simply less violent. There were more stabbing murders in LA
last year than the total number of murders in Canada all causes.
Maybe it does have to do with our ethnic make up ... but we can't say
that.


Statistics can be very misleading unless you take all factors into
account.

You have to come away with the fact that Americans are more violent,
across the board. When you look at Australia where they did do a
massive gun roundup, the people who wanted to kill their fellow man,
simply moved to other weapons. The overall slope of murder rates
didn't really change.



John won't like this but guns, wars and violence are "ingrained" in our
culture. :-)




Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is,
say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun
culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these
varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm
mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US
rate, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the
US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less
than one-tenth the US rate. Those figures refer to all gun deaths –
homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates,
the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia.
Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the
world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation
and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and
territories were harmonised and linked, so that a person barred from
owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun
sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means
you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale.

Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day
waiting period. The licensing process considers not only the applicant's
age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other factors relevant
to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b)
highly coveted by people who should not have it. Relevant factors include
the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health,
restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired
and for what purpose, safety training, storage arrangements, and the public interest.

http://tinyurl.com/lh4gzcs



Gun death rate changed with the gun confiscations. Death rates did not
really change.


Oh, you fellas are citing the pro-gun sites, the ones that play fun and
games with statistics. Good show.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/4/14 3:12 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:06:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:12:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:11:46 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:20 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Since a city is being compared to a country, the population density is
immaterial.

If that is so try comparing Detroit or Chicago or Washington DC or LA to
all of the Us.

Then Luddite and Toad would call me an ingrained racist. I'd bet that
if you took the homicides in our 8-10 largest cities there would be
more than in the entire rest of the US (and Canada combined).


Putting words in other people's mouths again, huh Clara?

You sure like to gossip.


The 'then' part was out of the question, which made the 'call me' part
not applicable, therefore no words in anyone's mouth.


Cute wiggle.

BTW ... please cite where I have accused you of being a racist?

Where did I say you've done so? Putting words in my mourth again, eh
Dep'ty?

You may be. Or maybe your're not. I don't know and have never
made any accusations.

I think the word 'ingrained' was added to one of Toad's comments.

You're hung up on the "ingrained" thing. You don't think that the way
people think, talk or express themselves isn't due to some ingrained
thought process, learning experience or conditioning?

I absolutely believe that those things 'can' be due to some ingrained
thought processes, etc.

But, that's where education and experience come into play. What may
have been ingrained at age 10 could well be enhanced or deleted by age
70. Or, do you not think that a person's attitudes and behaviors can
be changed?


So you weren't a right-wing racist piece of **** when you were 10?

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.