Games have rules! Imagine if this were tried in Aces High

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad

I knew it was you as soon as my PC went "ding-dong" - new message.

I don't have any feelings to the UK gun control laws. Hell, I don't even know what they are. Guns are of absolutely no consequence out here where I live. I've never met anyone who has one.

It's a bit like me asking you how you would feel if sales of Taylor's Yorkshire Tea from Harrogate were to be banned in Arkansas.

It's late, but I'm going to sit up and watch Boyz N the Hood - again.

If you have anything to say, put it in the anti-gun thread. This one was about Bridge!

Besides, whatever I say is only going to govern the parameters of your next wall of text. The same stuff, the same stats, the same quotes from the (left wing/Liberal) Guardian newspaper. We've done it to death, and then you went on your hunting trip.

Welcome back, and don't forget to bring your scissors next time you're in England.

[Toad]

Exactly what I thought. You won't define your position. Helps in dodging and changing the subject, eh, wot?

Like discarding the information in the Guardian because you don't care for the politics of the Guardian. No comment on the fact that the same data is available in the actual ICVS which is available on the net? I had my choice of dozens of sources.. .that one was just at the top and a fair summation. How typical; if you don't agree with the data, either attack the publisher or deny, deny, deny.

Still doesn't change the ICVS facts though.

Same with the Australian Institute of Criminology, right? You don't agree with their assessment, so you just discard the data.

Australian Institute of Criminology

The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), a Commonwealth statutory authority, was established in 1973, and operates under the Criminology Research Act 1971. The Director reports to the Minister for Justice and to a Board of Management comprising distinguished criminal justice practitioners from around Australia.

How curious, since the AIC is a governmental agency that evaluates how well the Australian policies are working. And they see no statistically significant change after the gun ban. Ah, well.. they don't agree with you and Tomato.. so they must be wrong.

Nice of you to admit that you don't have clue about firearms and their uses. Does that make you eminently qualified to decide what to do about them?

Toodle-pip, as they say Beetle. A man that won't state his position (while continually changing it), a man that deliberately trolls and then disingenuously denies it when caught with rod and reel in hand really isn't worth debating.

I'll leave you with this to ponder:

Beetle:  The trouble is with the American method of deciding who gets a gun is that you have to give everyone credit for being an honest citizen until they demonstrate otherwise.

1. It's that old "innocent until proven guilty" concept. You've heard of it, I'm sure.

2. You must have missed a lot in the Project Exile article. People like Gerald Smith are prohibited by law from having firearms. It's been that way for an amazingly long time. Yet Mr. Smith had a firearm. Ponder that one for a while, too.

AMF.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Canada has more firearms per family then the US does.

The problem isn't the guns.

Interesting.

The estimate is that their are something like 230 million firearms in the US and about 290 million people. Never seen a stat "by family".

You folks have more than that?

For you "inanimate object blamers": what's 230 million divided by say 12,000? Not a very large percentage misused is there? Well, we still better punish everyone, right?

[beet1e]

Like I said Toad, We've done all this. We discussed all this what - three weeks ago? And what I said then is exactly what I said today. But here you come again, spouting the same old, same old... We had the whole thing banged to rights, but oh - you went on your hunting trip, and that was that. Now you come in here and have the temerity to accuse me of changing the subject. Heck, this was a thread about Bridge - my thread - but you had to turn it into (yet another) gun thread. Like we don't have enough already.

Why should I "define my position" especially for you? For cripe's sake, Toad, I've been doing that this past month. If you can't be bothered to read what I said until I've "defined my position" that's your problem. I'm not about to kow-tow to your demands to "define my position" yet again. Whose thread is this anyway? Yeah, that's right, mine.  

We've done the stats till we're sick of it. You don't like it when I comment on the Guardian - so - some people don't like the "Home Office".

If you've got anything to say, say it.  Just don't sit there dictating the terms under which I shall be privileged to read another of your discourses. But before we hear from you again, don't ask me to "define my position". I've done that. Look back to Ripsnort's thread - 254 posts - and many of them were mine. I've written thousands of words on this. I don't see why I should now have to accede to reproducing my stance on this issue. We dealt with it the day you went hunting. Why should I write another post "definining my position"? You clearly haven't read what I've already written - hence your "stunning reversal" faux pas further up this thread.

Yes, Gerald Smith should not have had a gun. But he did. So why do you think that is? He must have got it from somewhere. Hmm - I wonder where that was.

Well, I haven't changed my views, and you haven't changed your views, so...

... the sig stays.  

Goodnight, Mr. Toad, and don't get your tongue caught in the bedroom door tonight.

[NUKE]

Heck, this was a thread about Bridge - my thread - but you had to turn it into (yet another) gun thread. Like we don't have enough already.

Beet1e, all of your posts state your view on guns in the US, so you are open game for response.

Your signature is part of your post by your design.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Heck, this was a thread about Bridge - my thread - but you had to turn it into (yet another) gun thread. Like we don't have enough already.

[/b]

Wrong again. Quite the habit with you. First of all, look at the thread title that YOU made. This thread is about games, rules and AH. Particularly about trying AH with more rules. Deny that too.. but it's right there for all to read.

Also, I didn't turn this into a gun thread. I believe the first mention of the gun issue in this thread would be in your signature block, would it not?

Laz was the first to point that out, not me. Further, I didn't even mention guns in this thread until after YOU did. Check your post of 11-25-2002 12:24 PM. I responded to THAT. So, check the mirror if you're looking for someone to blame for your "thread about bridge that's really about trying more rules in AH".

Why should I "define my position" especially for you?

Not for me; for everyone. Because it's totally unclear. It's hard to discuss anything with you when one moment you're telling Laz you're not against his keeping guns, you're just against the Constitutional provision for anyone keeping guns.

You think the Mr. Smiths of Philadelphia shouldn't be legally allowed to have guns and ignore that fact that legally he and his fellow felonius criminals NEVER were allowed to have guns. No wonder folks are confused about where you stand.

Couldn't care less what you think of the Guardian either. That paper is only the medium, not the message. However, you dismiss the ICVS because it's mentioned in the Guardian. It's also supported and used by the UN; check that site. The data is good but you dodge that issue with the "Guardian red herring".

So, it's pretty pointless to discuss this with you. You can't decide whether your for or against the provisions of the Second apparently. You can't accept that the ICVS finds E/W/S and Australia...... the places with the gun bans..... have the most violent crime overall and it looks like you have no clue about what gun laws are already on the books over here.

So, toodle-pip, as we say.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e

or you're too busy shooting innocent animals,  

Oh, yeah... are you a total vegan by the way?

If not, the last time you ate meat, of what crime was your animal guilty?

And what did you have to pay the abattoir assassins to kill it for you by stunning it with electric shock followed by throat slitting with a sharp instrument?

Did your animal have a chance to escape?

I know where I am in the food chain and, unlike you, I choose to do my own dirty work. I personally find that a much more honest approach than hiring assassins. At least the pheasant had an excellent chance of evading notice and if flushed, a chance to get away.

Could the chicken in  your last curry say the same?

[SaburoS]

I do believe that anyone convicted of a felony where total time served by prison AND probation time totals to at least one year loses their right to purchase and own a firearm in the US.

[tomato]

Toad - OK, I'll let you have the last word - you already know my arguments.

[beet1e]

Skuzzy - I can see where this one is going to end up, and would rather not be around when it happens, so I have already unsubscribed as I don't want to be around when you come by with your box of padlocks.

Lazs - I owe you an email, can we carry on from there. I'll get back to you today.

Toad - I thought we were finally getting somewhere, and I wrote you a polite message at 12:40pm yesterday. But soon afterwards it became clear by your demands for me to "define my position" etc. that you hadn't bothered reading a lot of what I had to say weeks earlier. Or maybe you had but had forgotten. That's OK - memory fades as we get older, especially short term memory.  

I thought we finally had some common ground, and I was all for debating an issue which allowed ther law abiding to keep guns in America but to tackle the problem where it really exists.

You were going to respond in the anti-gun thread, but we got started in here instead. Hehe, the "innocent animals" remark got you going, and I should not have used that because I am not vegetarian - so I will go back and amend that bit while you unknot your panties.

But you are getting a bit testy. Seems I've got your blood boiling - and I thought Toads were cold blooded creatures. LOL! I only have to talk about that Bridge course, and you think I'm berating AH. You never did tell me what it was in the post that made you think I was doing that Yeah, that online Bridge club has rules and my initial post was to ponder over what might happen if a draconian rule of the type I pasted in were to be implemented in AH. Then you said that were against rules, but then tripped yourself up by telling us that you belong to a squad that has a number of rules.

You think I keep changing, or are inconsistent, but I have already shown that I said to keep your guns - 27 days ago today - and it was you who failed to keep up in this debate. But that's OK, maybe you were getting ready for your hunting trip. By the same token, my last posting came at the end of the day, after some aircraft fuel, and I might not have been my usual meticulous self.

What are you like when you get really mad?

Yep, I still maintain that America's constitutional right to bear arms has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated disaster. It's a disaster for those who die by the thousands each year at the wrong end of a gun - more than 10,000 some years. Government and law enforcement are doing all they can with some new initiatives that we've talked about, but they've got their work cut out with guys like you on the electorate. All you care about is whether you can own YOUR guns for the next 37 years, and bugger the cost - the cost of lives lost as a result of a policy which ends up with Gerald Smith and thousands like him getting their hands on a gun. But you don't care about that, and oh! We cannot besmirch the sanctity of the Constitution. But what the hell? Those dying by the thousands on your streets each year are irrelevant - a price worth paying for your right to bear arms - that's the message that comes across. So let's group 'em all together, put 'em in housing projects and let 'em have their guns too. After all, it's not happening in your neighbourhood, and you sound like you're a gun crime NIMBY. I hear you crow about your reduced crime rate. I guess you think it's OK to crow, as long as the majority of the gun crime victims are poor, and black.

And to think - I got called a racist for telling the Yorkshireman joke!

An odd style, Mr. Toad. Looks like your reason for posting is so you can bask in the adulation you receive from your admirers. Your debates involve a mass of quotes and you're a good mass debater, but I wish you could have used a little more of your own material, read what's already been written, and put in some thought - assuming there was any.

And my last word in this thread will be...





...Toodle-Pip!

[Toad]

Originally posted by tomato
Toad - OK, I'll let you have the last word - you already know my arguments.

Well, I know some of them. Unfortunately they seem very strongly held opinions unsupported by fact.

Allow me a guess? Born and Raised East of the Mississippi, North of the Mason/Dixon, urban environment, family does not/did not own or uses firearms in any sporting manner, college/university in the Eastern part of the US (or California)?

Just humoring myself with a stereotype template.

Toodles as we say here in the colonies!

[Toad]

Unsubscribed! Say it ain't so, Joe! I thought you Brits had a stiff upper lip or something that helped you through tough times like these.

OTOH, it might be a good idea to "reinvent" yourself in a new persona on this BBS. You may not be able to salvage this one you've ravaged.

Don't worry, Skuzzy isn't going to lock this one (yet). No one's calling anyone any names here and no one's been truly nasty.

I've read what you said (btw, interesting that you accuse me of repeating arguments but don't notice it in yourself, eh?) and you can't seem to decide about that 2nd amendment thing. You offer it's protections to some but not all based on?  "tackle the problem where it really exists"?  Based on where you live? Based on how much you make? Based on your race? Based on what? Whether your a Lord or a Commoner? Because we already have multitudes of laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But they don't work' just like the English/Aussie bans don't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.

You also apparently fail to understand that we have an "innocent until proven guilty" culture here. It would be impossible/unAmerican to restrict firearms based on where folks live or how much they make. Additionally, we already have TONS of laws on the books that theoretically prevent felons like Smith from owning firearms. (Thanks for the crack about age and memory btw. Waaaaaah! Skuzzy! He's so mean!)

So decide if you support the 2nd and the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect that is the cornerstone of our legal system. Decide if you intend to restrict firearms based on wealth, area of residence, race, religion or sex. Decide if you do indeed support the gun bans in England and Australia and propose one for the US. Be prepared to support your positions with facts. THEN you might be able to hold up your end in a debate. (And I'm truly sorry if I provide links to documents/facts that support my positions. Must be tough on those that know nothing about firearms and just spout their personal opinons unfettered by fact.)

Again, YOU were the one the started talking about guns in here before I did. Try putting the blame where it lies. Accountability/Responsibility.

I see you're also still being disingenuous about your bridge/AH thread. I didn't respond for that reason. If you can't be honest about it, there's no point. Still isn't.

Also again, check the 13TAS website. Our few "rules" are posted there in the Charter and Mission Statement. Similarly, the few rules for AH are in the contract with HTC. There are no "how to play the game in the MA "rules" such as you continually suggest in either place. But I wager you can't see the difference.

I'm not in the least angry now, nor have I been in the last month. If I ever were to get really angry I'd probably actually use words like "moron" and "idiot" in a post and direct them at a specific person. I don't think I've ever done that on this BBS. I guess you assume anger when you get verbally slapped for making statements like "innocent animals" eh? Just reminding you of the hypocrisy of condemning one man's sporting lifestyle when your own isn't exactly free of bloodstains. And note that I did it with polite language.

Beetle:  

Yep, I still maintain that America's constitutional right to bear arms has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated disaster.....  

the cost of lives lost as a result of a policy which ends up with Gerald Smith and thousands like him getting their hands on a gun....

Those dying by the thousands on your streets each year are irrelevant - a price worth paying for your right to bear arms - .... So let's group 'em all together, put 'em in housing projects and let 'em have their guns too....

I guess you think it's OK to crow, as long as the majority of the gun crime victims are poor, and black.

Thanks for posting exactly what I'm talking about. You say you're against the 2nd but that'd you'd allow some to have guns. You have no suggestions on how this might be accomplished.

You won't, however, come out and say you favor a England/Australia type ban/confiscation here.

You ignore the fact that Smith is already prohibited from owning firearms here... much the same what that English criminals are prohibited. Yet you'll acknowledge that criminals in both countries always seem to be able to get guns. And you've got a ban/confiscation? Go figure. Can you say "doesn't work"?

Your angst at the thousands dying on our streets is tempered by your failure to support registration/licensing/bans/confiscation of English sharp instruments which are killing THREE TIMES as many of your countrymen as firearms do. Where's the sorrow there? Oh, wait... it's because sharp instruments are part of your personal lifestyle so there OK in responsible hands, right? And their part of your culture.... so . ... you know....... we've got to have them and all.

And lastly you paint me as a racist. Too good. It's those facts again, eh? The fact that our homicide rate FELL..... without bans/confiscation while yours remained statistically unchanged WITH bans/confiscation. That makes me racist? BTW, if I read you right, YOU'RE the one suggesting those black folks in the urban environments shouldn't have guns. And I'm racist?

There you are, chappie. Not a single link in there; I know how substantiating data upsets you, so I left it out.

BTW, was that the best insult you could come up with to finish? I'm so ....... wounded.

put in some thought - assuming there was any.

That's your legacy as you close the door on your persona and go off to reinvent yourself? Why even the lovely Tomato thinks I'm an "obviously an intelligent man". I'll just salve my wounds with her assessment, I guess.

Ta-ta and toodle-pip, old chap. Best of luck in your next persona, eh, wot? Perhaps you learned a bit on this spin of the wheel that will help you in the next one!

[lazs2]

I have spent time with toad and he with me.. I think it is safe to say that neither of us has gotten his 'blood boiled" ... more like chuckling into the monitor..

tomato... you claim that toad is intelegent but a spin doctor and say "can't we just leave it at that?"   I say... You are attractive,  uninformed and unable to digest information that is presented to you but that you are entitled to your opinion and maybe we can just leave it at that so that there are no hard feelings?  (i don't know if you are attractive..I'm just kissing your butt to be nice).

beetle... two things.. every one of your posts is a gun post.  you say missleading and outright stupid things about guns in every post you make and then.... act upset when people reply... what is wrong with you?   you know nothing about the subject that is dear enough for you to expound upon in every one of your posts yet... cryu fould when you are humiliated... you are leading with your face in this fight.... how can we resist?

You also seem to be saying... "you Americans need to.... do something that makes guns all disapear except for toad lazs and subaro's guns."   I have absoluitely no idea on what you stand for... I think toad has valid questions... do you agree with england and australias gun laws and is that wht you believe that we should have in America?   If not.... what do you want?   It seems extremely fair to me to ask someone who has anti gun paragraphs in every post to explain what he believes.
lazs

[lazs2]

MT... toad beat me to it on the ordinance issue.   explosives are ordinance... explosives also endanger neighbors through natural disasters.... whereas guns will not grow liitle hands and feet and run through the neighborhood killng and maiming.... a store of claymores or rocket launchers would be dangerous to neighbors and fire/rescue people during disasters.   We do have laws as to how much powder and primers a reloader may store in his home even tho smokeless powder is relatively harmless.
lazs

"England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.

The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison. "

being victimized and helpless against criminals is not freedom

[SaburoS]

I don't need the following to defend myself, friends, or family:
Nukes.
Biological weapons.
Chemical weapons.
Mines.
Anti-tank weapons.
Anti-aircraft weapons.
Anti-ship weapons.
Etc.
I don't believe my fellow Americans need them either.
I don't believe criminals should be able to buy, own, and use any weapon.
Unfortunetly, the criminals don't follow the laws.
I guess that is why I and my fellow law-abiding American should be allowed to defend ourselves from those criminals with legally purchased firearms.
Glad I live in the US and not in a country that would take my means to possibly protect myself from potential harm.
Sorry, but I do not believe the police forces can always protect me. The criminal usually strike where the police are not. Realistically the police are a reactionary force that react to crimes that have been committed.  
Does this mean that England, Japan, etc are not good places to live?
Hardly! They seem like wonderful places to live for the English, Japanese, etc.
The continued comparison between the United States and any other country is one of apples and oranges.
The United States has a very large population. The odds being that as you will find a larger number of generous, nice, and peaceful citizens, you'll also encounter a larger number of violent and/or crazy people.
Because I happen to reside in a country that has potentially more criminals (I don't give a squat what they could be armed with - firearms, knives or any sharp instrument, chains, baseball bat, etc. heck, they could just be bigger and stronger than I am.)
I will continue to exercise my right as a law-abiding American citizen to keep and bear arms. Notice that I do not care what gun laws are in any other country. That is for those citizens to decide and live and die by to decide. I will not care, comment, lose sleep, etc what England, Japan, France, Germany, etc. decide on for themselves.
Peace to you all.
Regards.

PS. May you all never be forced in an unfortunate situation of needing a firearm to protect yourself, your friends, and/or your family but not have one because your gov't 'knew' better.