Author Topic: Longest Signature Block Competition!  (Read 3013 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2002, 03:50:29 PM »
toad... just as if you remove the 13-17 year old 'ganstas' from the "children" homicide stats... remove the black homicides from the per capita rate in the U.S.  and yu will understand the difference in the various countries with firearms.
lazs

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2002, 04:13:12 PM »
Did I win?

eskimo

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2002, 04:19:49 PM »
Nah, Beetle still has the lead in sigs.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2002, 04:27:00 PM »
BOOOOOOOOOO!  The contest is fixed!  Everyone knows pizza is much better than anything in limey old Britain, including Beetle.


SOB
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2002, 04:28:56 PM »
Well thank goodness Nashwan is here. :):) He dealt with all the posts that were directed at me, which is great - means I can have the night off, which I intend to do.  We're running very late today - lunch at 4pm, dinner's going to be after 10pm! But that's OK. It is Europe. :D The Spanish (and S Americans) don't even bother going out till about midnight...

Tonight's dinner is roast beef. I have asked Tomato if we could minimise the risks by not using knives, but tender though the joint will be, I think it would be a bit messy to use a fork only, and I could utilise a sharp instrument to apply horseradish evenly over the beef as well as cutting it.

As for alcohol, yes a killer if abused to excess. It weakens one's judgement, including the judgement that must be used to know when one has had enough. But... We have a nice Chilean Errazuriz (the Cabernet Sauvignon, not the Syrah - IMO the CS is better) and we're all set for a lovely evening. :)

Still waiting to hear from Mr. Toad about why the US and Dubya are so keen to make sure that Iraq has no WMD, when nuclear warheads and nerve gases are inanimate entities and therefore can never be held responsible for homicide. Mr. Toad, I wish that you and Mrs. Toad could be here to join us - maybe another time. :)  Do give Mrs. Toad our best.

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2002, 04:45:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by beet1e
Still waiting to hear from Mr. Toad about why the US and Dubya are so keen to make sure that Iraq has no WMD, when nuclear warheads and nerve gases are inanimate entities and therefore can never be held responsible for homicide. Mr. Toad, I wish that you and Mrs. Toad could be here to join us - maybe another time. :)  Do give Mrs. Toad our best.


Use yer noodle.  It probably has something to do with the fact that he's shown a propensity to use such things, and in a negative way against other human beings.

In much the same way, it is illegal for convicted felons to posess a firearm here in the U.S.


SOB
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2002, 05:07:16 PM »
Enjoy the flesh of that innocent animal, Beetle and Tomato. Please don't argue, though, and use those sharp instruments against one another. Perhaps you should undergo a training course in sharp object use and one in anger management before you're allowed to sit down at table? Just a "nanny" thought......


Anyway, Beetle, you must have missed this in Pongo's thread:

Quote
Toad:  LOL, I edited that post immediately just for you. Right after I posted it I thought "I better add 'in a homicide situation' for Beetle. Otherwise he'll make some silly association between Jack the Ripper killing a hooker with a sharp instrument and a nation attacking another nation in an attempt to make them look like the same thing."

Tell me, if Hussein uses his chemical scuds against another sovereign nation, would it count in the "homicides per 100,000" stats for Iraq?



So, you're not seriously trying to equate war between nations with individual homicides within a single society?

As I said, how will you then compute Iraq's "homicides/100,000"?

And if you're letting Nashwan carry the load, I guess I now know who your "stat mentor" is.

Just look at those Aussie homicide/100,000  pre- and post-ban. Apparently Nashwan didn't.  ;)

Dine with gusto.

Toodle-pip.

(Nanny says be extra, extra careful with those sharp instruments now..... or we'll have to collect them!)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2002, 06:34:24 PM »
Quote
So, where's the concern over knives, which are a much larger problem than firearms in the UK?

There is a lot of concern, which is why they have banned the carrying of knives. Not even the politicians are stupid enough to think they can ban knives, however.

Quote
Nah, I'm going to use both. I enjoy both and there's no reason not to use both. Inanimate objects never caused any homicide all by themselves.

They're used for a lot of homicides, though.

Much easier to kill with inanimate objects than bare hands. That's why armies tend to give soldiers guns, not just tell them to go and kick and strangle the enemy.

Quote
Could man have invented firearms before he became modern man? You're putting this kind of stuff up as "evidence"?

No, I'm putting this up as showing how neccessary knives are. Ancient man didn't put much effort in to building, or making furniture, or clothes, or anything else. They did apply themselves to using knives, then learning how to make better ones.

Quote
No, not a necessity. As laz pointed out, prisoners and airline travelers get along quite well without them.

With food already prepared to be eaten without them. Try carving your turkey or a joint of beef with a 2 inch plastic knife. Try cutting a loaf of bread with a knife less than 6 inches long.

Quote
More to the point, guns are not a necessity TO YOU so you feel free to propose bans.

They aren't a neccesity to the vast majority of the world's population. You might like one, and you might use one, but you could live perfectly well without one. Trust me, 90%+ of the world's population does.

Quote
What's your position on liquor? 17,000+ alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in the US...... do we "need" liquor?

Yes, quite probably. It helps reduce the risk of many diseases, and greatly helps relieve stress for a lot of people. Used in moderation, it's very effective.

According to the US transport department, of those accidents, about 3000 of the killed weren't themselves drunk. That means the rest were victims of accidents of their own making.

3000 dead from alcohol, 8000 from firearms. I'd say firearms are used less than alcohol.

Quote
Tell you what...... you give up guns and use knives for a year and feel good about yourself. I'll use both and feel good about myself. Oh.. I bet that's "not acceptable".

You do what you want. I thought you wouldn't be able to go a year without using a knife.

I don't have a problem with you having guns. Believe it or not, I haven't started, or joined, a campaign against firearms ownership. I haven't written to politicians demanding they be banned, or the media. All I am doing is discussing wehter lives would be saved if they were.

Quote
How many is acceptable for your use of a knife?

Any number. Knives can't be banned for any practical purpose. If they could, I'm sure some countries would have by now.

Quote
Then why bother with a ban? That's wasting resources isn't it? You didn't get any result.... except a "feelgood" move for politicians. Seems kinda stupid, doesn't it?

It was stupid. Britain had perfectly good firearms laws before. The one thing you can rely on politicians for is to do something stupid to get votes.

Quote
Now, looking honestly at the statistics, which approach has been more effective? The US or the UK?


The US has put serious effort in to tackling crime. Britain has had some empty gestures, coupled with an effective reduction in real policing.

Like I said, you can't compare a gun ban in a country that didn't have a gun problem with gun control in a country that does.

Quote
So the solution is to remove any chance of the victim being able to defend himself at all?

No, the solution is to remove the weapons from everybody, so that if you are attacked, it isn't by guns. It's by fists, or at worst knives, both of which give you far more chance of escaping.

Quote
And what are those rates? Do they correlate with the overall rates per 100,000? Or are you just comparing "gross score" again?

I don't compare gross score, because it's meaningless.

US policemen are murdered at a rate of about 50 per year. You can't simply multiply Britains figures for a single year, because most years no British policemen are murdered.

Instead, assume there are 10 times as many US policemen as police in England and Wales. As the population is almost 6 times higher, that seems a good rough approximation.

Therefore, take 10 years of England and Wales figures, and compare them to 1 year's US figures.

In the last 10 years in the UK, the figure is 8. That makes US policemen 6 - 7 times as likely to be murdered, per head.

Quote
We're comparing firearm homicide rates. How many people were killed with a banana posing as a gun in E/W/S?


No, I was responding to your claim that "just as many guns were pulled".

Quote
Possibly. It may simply show that it is an unworkable idea in the Canadian (and by extension) US situation where firearms are far more numerous and far more a part of everyday life than they are/were in E/W/S.

It would be a fairly simple procedure to register new gun sales, and to make sure the owners didn't transfer the guns without the registration being transfered. Like already happens with cars.

Quote
Last stats by your Home Office in Beetle's old link show 1999 England/Wales at 1.45 and Canada at 1.85 with Scotland at 2.10. Tell me, why do they separate Scotland from the E/W rates?

Because Scotland has a different legal system, seperate courts, etc. The police in Scotland are responsible to a seperate authority.

Quote
Certainly doesn't look like much difference to me... certainly not "4-5 time the UK rate". Not skewing the stats are ya?


What you said was "Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail"." I took that to mean their firearm homicide rate.

However, total homicide rate:

Canada 1.78 per 100,000

England and Wales, 733 in 2000, 52,042,000 people. 1.40 per 100,000 people.

However, 25 of those were re classified victims of previous years, murdered by dr Harold Shipman. Without those, the figure drops to 1.36 (the Sept 11th victims are not counted in the US figures)

Scotland had 98 murders in 2000, for an England and Wales and Scotland total of 831. Population of Scotland just over 5,000,000, for a total rate of 1.45.

Quote
Sure we can agree. Now let's see your solution to keeping the guns out of the hands of the thugs? Because the bans haven't.

British gun control did. The number of crimes comitted with real firearms is tiny. Obviously some criminals will still get guns, but very few. They also tend to be a more proffesional class of criminal. They might use them in an armed robbery on a major bank, but you don't get many crack-heads holding up convienience stores or street robberies.

In other words, the desperate with nothing to lose don't get guns.

If a typical British junkie got a gun, he'd sell it. He can get some money, then hold up the shop with a banana in his bag. He doesn't have to worry about a shoot-out with the police, or with the shop owner. If things go bad, he just runs.

Quote
Australia: Homicide rate per 100,000 from the AIC

1989-90 / 1.9
1990-91 / 2.0
1991-92 / 1.9
1992-93 / 2.0
1993-94 / 1.9
1994-95 / 1.9
1995-96 / 2.0
1996-97 / 1.7
1997-98 / 1.7
1998-99 / 1.8
1999-00 / 1.8

And this note from the chart:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also the substancial increase in homicide victimisation in Tasmania for the year 1995/96. This is due to the Port Arthur incident where 35 persons were killed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, '95-96 had an unusual, abnormal spike due to Port Arthur. A spike "pre-ban" if you will that artificially raised the trend rate.

Now look at "post-ban" years; give '96-'97 a pass, since the laws were not fully implemented then.

Clearly, the homicide rate per 100,000 has NOT been affected by the gun ban.


Really? 1.9,2.0,1.9,2.0,1.9,1.9,2.0,gun control 1.7,1.7,1.8,1.8

The four years since have each been lower than any year before the gun control.

Take out the Port Arthur killings and 95/96 was 86 killings, the same as 89, the same 1.9/2.0 trend.

Quote
A point you and Beetle simply choose to ignore. THE BAN HAD NO NOTICEABLE EFFECT on homicide rate per 100,000, the "apples to apples" comparison that even the HOME OFFICE itself uses.

No, it's quite clearly 0.2 per 100,000 people lower. In Australia, with a population of 19,500,000, that's about 40 murders per year prevented.

Quote
Now, are Scotland and Northern Ireland under the same firearms laws as England and Wales? I admit I'm not fully versed in your jurisdictions.

If so, can one of you folks determine the actual overall homicide rate per 100,000 for all four entities? So we can compare apples to apples?


Northern Ireland has far more legaly held guns than the rest of the UK, with lots of people having them for protection. I've already given you the England and Wales and Scotland figures, but Northern Ireland has a tiny population, about 1.5 million out of the total UK figure of around 60 million, so it won't change the figures much.

Quote
Again, look at Canada. From all reports as many guns floating around per capita as the US. How can it be just the guns?

From what I've heard, handguns needed licences in Canada, and handgun ownership was fairly low. In fact, much like the laws in Britain prior to the late ninties ban.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2002, 06:35:00 PM »
Quote
I could give up knives that were thicker than 0.060" thick and longer than 3" with no problem whatsoever... so could 99% of other citizens... When was the last time you needed a knife that was outside of those measurments?

When I cut bread for toast this morning.

I've also got a pineapple in the fridge I intend to slice later.

Quote
nash.... I do not believe I have heard of the case of william mannies


Single N. http://www.appalachianfocus.org/_civil4/00000171.htm

Quote
the other cases you speak of did not result in a conviction so far as I know


Jamie Cokes -  5 to 20 years - http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021108cburbs1108p9.asp

Clay Wallace - http://www.arktimes.com/010406coverstorya.html
(which also mentions another CCW holder conicted of manslaughter)

Quote
still.... if you find even 1 or 2 cases of unlawful homicide out of 2 million concealed carry permit holders having the permits for upwards to a decade or more.... an allmost saintlike record by anyones standard

I only spent a couple of minutes looking. Just searching for Clay Wallace brought up another one.

However, the problem isn't with CCW holders, who are usually responsible people. The problem is, if there aren't strict laws on registration of guns, it's too easy for criminals to get them. If someone with no record can go and buy a gun and sell it on for a $100 markup to someone who has a record, how can you keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

In Britain, if you bought a gun, you had to have secure storage for it, and you couldn't sell it unless you transferred it to another firearm licence holder. Guns couldn't simply "go missing" ie get sold or transferred to criminals.

Quote
I believe that if you remove the black on black homicides from the American number you will get stats very much like Canada and britan.
And if you removed London and Manchester from the British figures, you would get much better rates too. Crime is comitted overwhelmingly by urban poor people. Britain has them too, although they aren't so concentrated amongst any one ethnic group.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2002, 06:37:04 PM »
Quote
Just look at those Aussie homicide/100,000 pre- and post-ban. Apparently Nashwan didn't.

Where I come from, 1.7 and 1.8 are lower than 1.9 and 2.0 ;)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2002, 07:05:31 PM »
Where I come from .2 isn't statistically significant given the extreme measures used to achieve that  tiny drop.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2002, 07:44:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
Not even the politicians are stupid enough to think they can ban knives, however.
[/b]

Well, they were stupid enough to think they could ban guns. Your knives will come in time. :)

Quote
They did apply themselves to using knives, then learning how to make better ones.


Yes, as a step on the technological ladder necessary before they could make furniture and clothing. I think it's reasonable to expect that if they could have leaped from stone knives to CAD/CAM laser cutting, they would have. But a lot of other things had to be invented first.

Quote

With food already prepared to be eaten without them.


Not to worry! Nanny will slice your bread and meat for you. In carefully supervised kitchens. :D Most bread comes pre-sliced in the US already. These objections of yours are merely old tradition and easily overcome. Nanny will handle it all. Trust Nanny.


Quote
90%+ of the world's population does.


As they could without knives. Let machines slice and package your food. You merely prefer to do it yourself. It's certainly not necessary.


Quote
Yes, quite probably. It helps reduce the risk of many diseases, and greatly helps relieve stress for a lot of people. Used in moderation, it's very effective.


You realize that the same thing could be said about firearms use. Many folks find target shooting extremely relaxing due to the focus required to do well. You just choose to ignore things that are important to other folks and not to yourself.

Quote
According to the US transport department, of those accidents, about 3000 of the killed weren't themselves drunk.


The 17,000+ number comes from the MADD website. Even subtracting 3000 that "weren't themselves drunk" that leaves 14,000+... more than the 11,000+ firearms.

Quote
I thought you wouldn't be able to go a year without using a knife.


Oh, I could. It would be as pointless as going a year without shooting. :D  Those cavemen you cite went an untold number of years without knives.

Quote
Any number. Knives can't be banned for any practical purpose. If they could, I'm sure some countries would have by now.


So any number of deaths are acceptable? Rather a cold viewpoint. Thousands can die as long as you can slice bread? Bread can be easily sliced by machine. Pretty selfish, seems like. :D

Your argument is "Simply can't do anything about it"? :D Does this sound the least bit familiar to you?

Knives can be banned.. just as guns were.

Quote
It was stupid. Britain had perfectly good firearms laws before. The one thing you can rely on politicians for is to do something stupid to get votes.


Ah, we agree. So does the US. They just aren't enforced, just as Britain's weren't enforced. Because it's easier to blame a hammer than the man swinging it. After all, you just melt down the gun or hammer and that's that... but a man....... you have to maintain him in prison. There$ probably the real rea$on.

Quote
Like I said, you can't compare a gun ban in a country that didn't have a gun problem with gun control in a country that does.


Like you and beetle are continually trying to do? The US isn't the UK and never will be.

Quote
No, the solution is to remove the weapons from everybody, so that if you are attacked, it isn't by guns. It's by fists, or at worst knives, both of which give you far more chance of escaping.


Well, one would think so.. but there's that pesky stat that more folks are killed with sharp instruments in the UK than by guns. Seems there's LESS of a chance of getting away.

Quote
I don't compare gross score, because it's meaningless.


And then you go on to assume some figures, compute a gross score and somehow extrapolate a multiplier?

How about a standardized rate per 100,000 population maybe?

Quote
No, I was responding to your claim that "just as many guns were pulled".


You're correct. I should have said that "just as many people have been killed in homicides" because the rates are essentially unchanged. At least that's the way MOST folks are going to view a .2/100,000 variance.


Quote
It would be a fairly simple procedure to register new gun sales, and to make sure the owners didn't transfer the guns without the registration being transfered. Like already happens with cars.


And it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The homicide rate would be "very stable" to  use your Home Office's description of minor variances in the rate/100,000.


Quote
Because Scotland has a different legal system, seperate courts, etc. The police in Scotland are responsible to a seperate authority.


I understand that. Are the firearms laws the same? Or essentially the same?

And, same questions for Northern Ireland, if you can tell me.

Seems like you guys get to cut the "bad stats" out of your average and make them stand alone. Think they'll let us do that for our "bad" areas? ;)

Quote
What you said was "Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail"." I took that to mean their firearm homicide rate.


Sorry again. Typing too fast. Should have said "homicide rate/100,000. After all, it's not how folks die it's how many, isn't it? Isn't the goal to reduce the total somehow, someway?

Quote
However, total homicide rate:


Lets use these, shall we? They're from your own Home Office, after all.

Homicides per 100,000 population

Average per year 1998-2000

England & Wales 1.50

Northern Ireland 3.10

Scotland 2.19

Canada 1.79

USA 5.87

Looks like to me that Canada has the four of yas in the UK or so close it doesn't matter. And they've got LOADS of guns.

Could you explain that for me?


Quote
No, it's quite clearly 0.2 per 100,000 people lower. In Australia, with a population of 19,500,000, that's about 40 murders per year prevented.


Which, the AIC, like the Home Office, describes as "relatively stable". Guess they can't see much difference either.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2002, 07:49:02 PM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2002, 07:59:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
There must be a rather large difference in people's individual attitudes/values and/or societal mores.

I'm not sure you can legislate that stuff.

to you Canucks.

Although I may not entirely agree with your final assessment there.  ;)



Canada was first settled by Crown Corporations and Federal Instituions ie.  Hudson Bay Company of Gentlemen Adventures, Canadian National Railway, and the North-West Mounted Police, then the people came.

In the US it was the people first.  Hence...

"Peace, Security and Good Government."
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Although I feel both our countries are having more difficulites attaining our ideals.



Complete guess work here...but any way.  The vast majority of our firearms are rifles and shotguns.  And there is next to no pistols in our urban environments.  Generally speaking we don't use guns for self-defence, especially in our urban environments.  They are mostly used for fun, ie. target shooting, or hunting.  As such they usually kept safely locked up in safes and burglers that rob your home while away can't simple take it out of you side table.

A huge chunck of the firearms in criminals possetion in Canada come from the US.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2002, 08:04:20 PM by Thrawn »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2002, 09:00:23 PM »
Thanks, Thrawn

I've been cogitating more along the lines of "why do a tiny percentage of Yanks seem to think pulling the trigger on another human being is a rational means of conflict resolution and a near totality of Canadians obviously DO NOT."

It's not the availability of firearms that makes that an easy decision for Yanks. That's almost  non-germane to what I've been thinking about. It's a cop-out for those who don't want to think; for those who just want to blame anything but a human for "evil".

Rather, it's the idea that committing homicide is any sort of solution at all. Where the fork does an idea like that come from in an "advanced" society? $1000 is worth another man's life? Where'd these clowns get that idea?

How do Yanks make that leap of faith so easily when obviously the Canadians view it much differently, as anathema almost.

What kind of mind thinks killing someone over "the last beer" has any validity anywhere? No doubt, the guy was drunk himself but that really isn't it either. Have the Bud Light commercials actually captured minds and souls? Is it media? Hollywood?

I'm beginning to doubt that most Canadians could even HAVE that thought; "kill for a beer"? They'd laugh out loud at the idea, drunk or not. Probably laugh louder if drunk. It would simply be beyond their scope; unthinkable so to speak.

Yanks can and DO have those thoughts, obviously. Not all of us, not a majority of us. In fact, a very tiny percentage of us actually.

Yet those thoughts seem to occur in only to an infinitesimally  small percentage of Canadians.

Why is that and what do we do about it? How do we fix that Yank mindset in the tiny group that "doesn't get it"? That's what I've been doing my deep thinking on.

This BS about tenths of a point in stats and the silly idea that it ISN'T a man with a free will of his own that causes murder is a mere diverson; a break from the true "heavy lifting" about this situation.

And it IS a serious situtation.

If we don't get it under control somehow, my sons or grandsons will never know the pleasure of hunting behind a fine Labrador.

Because the thoughtless reactionaries that have never been afield will reproduce faster and eventually pass laws that lay blame on inanimate objects.

And the homicide rates will remain "relatively stable" afterwards.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2002, 09:18:48 PM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Longest Signature Block Competition!
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2002, 09:10:24 PM »
Quote
I've been cogitating more along the lines of "why do a tiny percentage of Yanks seem to think pulling the trigger on another human being is a rational means of conflict resolution and a near totally of Canadians obviously DO NOT."


I think because overall, America is like a big city compared to a small town ( Canada)

Murder is much more common in big cities, and America has MANY large cities and a huge population compared to Canada.