shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (06/11/85)
Chicago Tribune; June 9, 1985 "Guns closing in on autos as No. 1 cause of death" by Ronald Kotulak Every day in America 38 people are murdered with guns, 45 use guns to commit suicide, and five are accidentally killed by guns. New statistics compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics show that in 1982 firearms of all kinds killed almost 33,000 Americans. The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by law enforcement agents. "Firearms are the second leading cause of death in the United States for ages 15-34, with motor vehicles in first place and cancer a distant third," said Susan P. Baker, a professor in the department of health policy at Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. For people in the 30-54 age group, the rate of firearms deaths is even worse, tying with motor vehicle accidents for first palce, she reported in the American Journal of Public Health. "As with deaths from other causes, the risk of death from firearms is not equally shared by the population
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (06/11/85)
Chicago Tribune; June 9, 1985
"Guns closing in on autos as No. 1 cause of death"
by Ronald Kotulak
Every day in America 38 people are murdered with guns, 45 use guns to
commit suicide, and five are accidentally killed by guns.
New statistics compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics
show that in 1982 firearms of all kinds killed almost 33,000 Americans.
The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders,
1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by
law enforcement agents.
"Firearms are the second leading cause of death in the United States
for ages 15-34, with motor vehicles in first place and cancer a distant
third," said Susan P. Baker, a professor in the department of health
policy at Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.
For people in the 30-54 age group, the rate of firearms deaths is even
worse, tying with motor vehicle accidents for first place, she reported
in the American Journal of Public Health.
"As with deaths from other causes, the risk of death from firearms is
not equally shared by the population," she said.
The risk of accidentally being killed by a gun is 10 times higher in
low-income areas than in high-income neighborhoods, Baker said.
Elderly white males have the highest risk of killing themselves
with a gun.
A black person's risk of being murdered with a gun is six times higher
than that of a white person, she said. Guns are used in two out of
every three murders, she added.
One black out of 40 between the ages of 20 and 44 will be murdered by
a gun, she said. Firearm homicide rates for blacks in large cities are more
than 10 times higher than the national average, she said.
"We often hear that `Guns don't kill people, people kill people,'"
said Baker.
But the wide availability of guns in this country contributes to the
high death rate, especially in deaths resulting from impromptu arguments
and fights, she said.
Two-thirds of the nearly 8,000 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and
brawls were caused by guns, said Baker.
"These deaths would largely be replaced by non-fatal injuries if a gun
were not handy," she said. "Thus, a far more appropriate generality would
be that `People without guns injure people; guns kill people.'"
Baker said that lawsuits against manufactureres, based on their having
introduced unreasonably hazardous products into the stream of commerce, may
eventually help to stem the tide of handgun production and sales.
Jeff Shallit
Department of Computer Science
University of Chicagobaba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/12/85)
> The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, > 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by > law enforcement agents. (In 1982) More than half of the firearms deaths were *suicides*? Interesting. Can anyone else out there confirm this? Baba
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/12/85)
>/* shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) / 4:25 pm Jun 11, 1985 */ It is unfortunate that so many people kill each other. What is your point? > "As with deaths from other causes, the risk of death from firearms is >not equally shared by the population So why don't we just kill some more people to make it fair? Itshould be noted, or course, that besides "natural causes," governemnt is the number one cause of death in the twentieth century, worldwide. Mike Sykora
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/13/85)
> > The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, > 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by > law enforcement agents. (In 1982) > Hmm, according to the Wall Street Journal, 3 times as many felons are killed by people defending themselves than are killed by the police. Where is that number, hidden under "murders?"
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/14/85)
> > > > The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, > > 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by > > law enforcement agents. (In 1982) > > > Hmm, according to the Wall Street Journal, 3 times as many > felons are killed by people defending themselves than are killed > by the police. Where is that number, hidden under "murders?" Tell me how eliminating guns is going to stop the 16,575 suicides from taking their lives with the other dangerous instruments that are available. Also, "murders" is presumably based on the FBI Uniform Crime Reports --- where "murder" includes all crimes charged. In fact, a lot of people charged with "murder" manage to demonstrate to a jury that they were defending themselves from attack.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/16/85)
> > The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, > 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by > law enforcement agents. (In 1982) > No no no! Except in the case of the 1,756 accidental deaths (and probably for them, but...), These deaths were caused by one of two other causes (certainly not bullets): cause #1: No armor. Clearly, the fools have neglected to wear bullet-proof armor. After all, if they had..... cause #2: (the real killer) Fingers. Yes, friends, it makes as much sense to blame fingers as it does to blame a "hail of bullets" (as in: "The hail of bullets"). After all, if trigger fingers were just safely amputated, we wouldn't have these deaths, would we? Oh sure, some stupid libertarian, or other mangey, hairy eyed academic-government type with too quick a mind might point out that people would use other fingers, but that can be dismissed out of hand, right? The article above probably be re-published with the phrase: "The press of pinkies was responsible for....." The solution to this dastardly pair of problems is clear: everyone should be required by the federal govt. to wear bulletproof armor, with steel mittens (making it impossible to fire a gun, and, should a gun somehow be fired, who cares?). Write your enslave... er, your legislator today! Vote early and vote often!
bd@peora.UUCP (Bernie Dougan) (06/17/85)
> In fact, a lot of people > charged with "murder" manage to demonstrate to a jury that they were > defending themselves from attack. Clayton, How many are "a lot"? What is your source for this claim? Thanks in advance for the information. -- Bernie Dougan Perkin-Elmer Southern Development Center 2486 Sand Lake Road Orlando, Florida 32809 (305)850-1040 {decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd}!peora!bd
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/17/85)
> > The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, > > 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by > > law enforcement agents. (In 1982) > > More than half of the firearms deaths were *suicides*? Interesting. > Can anyone else out there confirm this? > > Baba Consistently about 60% of firearms deaths are suicides, according to NRA's publications, and what little I have been able to find in supposedly objective publications. I suspect a great many of the "accidental" deaths are in fact covered up suicides; a great many "accidental" firearms deaths are while cleaning handguns, and it seems from the items I have read in the paper concerning these "accidents" that they are frequently white men over 60 --- the group that disproportionately commits suicide in our society. (Perhaps the grief of being "the oppressors" of all those blacks and women add up :-).) Incidentally, you have to be a *real* bozo to shoot yourself while cleaning a gun --- so bozo I suspect you would have to be drunk.
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (06/19/85)
>> = Me > = Don Steiny >> The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, >> 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by >> law enforcement agents. (In 1982) >> > Hmm, according to the Wall Street Journal, 3 times as many >felons are killed by people defending themselves than are killed >by the police. Where is that number, hidden under "murders?" Let's be honest here. It's not the "Wall Street Journal", that monolithic, faceless organization, is it? It's really a guest opinion article by Don B. Kates, Jr. that you're quoting, right? Don B. Kates, Jr. is a libertarian lawyer and pro-gun fanatic who frequently invents statistics out of the air to support his views. If you quote him, please identify the source of the statistics so we can verify them ourselves. Jeff Shallit
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (06/19/85)
>> me > C. Cramer >> >> The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, >> 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by >> law enforcement agents. (In 1982) >> > >Tell me how eliminating guns is going to stop the 16,575 suicides from >taking their lives with the other dangerous instruments that are available. A good question, Mr. Cramer, and one worth discussing in detail. In a report from the Public Policy department of the University of California, Berkeley entitled "Handgun Violence: Biting the Bullet on Effective Controls", the authors discuss a study of suicides in Great Britain. A significant portion of the suicides there occurred by suffocation with gas. This method was particularly effective because the particular gas supplied to most of Great Britain was very high in monoxides. However, when the source of gas ran out and Britain was forced to buy gas elsewhere, the suicide rate dropped dramatically (more than 35%) and STAYED DOWN. That's because the new gas had a much lower monoxide content; people were LESS SUCCESSFUL in their attempted suicides. The fact that the rate stayed down indicates they did not switch to more effective means of suicide. A less dramatic example is afforded by the suicide statistics in the US. Although men and women attempt suicide in roughly equal numbers, men are much more successful. Why? Because the instrument of choice for men is usually a handgun--and attempted suicide with a handgun is generally much more successful. Do you know anyone who's attempted suicide? If so, then you know that frequently suicidal impulses are temporary; counseling is often very effective in preventing suicides. You might as well ask, Mr. Cramer, why isn't everyone who ever attempted suicide dead know. By your reasoning, they would continue using more and more violent and successful methods until they succeeded. The truth is that decreased availability of handguns would cut the suicide rate, especially among males. Jeff Shallit
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/20/85)
>/* shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) / 11:06 am Jun 19, 1985 */ >>Tell me how eliminating guns is going to stop the 16,575 suicides from >>taking their lives with the other dangerous instruments that are available. Tell me why this is an important policy question?
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (csdf) (06/21/85)
In article <7800340@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >> The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, >> 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by >> law enforcement agents. (In 1982) >for them, but...), These deaths were caused by one of two other causes >(certainly not bullets): > > cause #1: No armor. Clearly, the fools have neglected to wear > bullet-proof armor. After all, if they had..... > > cause #2: (the real killer) Fingers. Yes, friends, it makes as > much sense to blame fingers as it does to blame a "hail of > bullets" (as in: "The hail of bullets"). After all, if trigger > fingers were just safely amputated, we wouldn't have these > deaths, would we? Oh sure, some stupid libertarian, or other > mangey, hairy eyed academic-government type with too quick a mind > might point out that people would use other fingers, but that > can be dismissed out of hand, right? The article above > probably be re-published with the phrase: > "The press of pinkies was responsible for....." The problem is the gun attached to the trigger finger, not the person. It is impossible for untrained people to kill with their bare pinkies. Similarly it is impossible for an idiot to post a pro-gun message without a terminal. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/21/85)
> > Let's be honest here. It's not the "Wall Street Journal", that monolithic, > faceless organization, is it? It's really a guest opinion article by > Don B. Kates, Jr. that you're quoting, right? > > Don B. Kates, Jr. is a libertarian lawyer and pro-gun fanatic who > frequently invents statistics out of the air to support his views. If > you quote him, please identify the source of the statistics so we can > verify them ourselves. > > Jeff Shallit Jeff, I and others have posted the articles many times. You are correct, they are by Kates. The only comeback you ever have to the articles is that you don't like Kates. That is called an "ad homimum fallacy" and does not contribute to your side of the argument at all. You somehow think that the number of handgun deaths is an argument against handguns, but you have never posted any material that addresses the issues he raises. For instance, what are people who live in rural areas without police protection supposed to do to defend themselves? Around here is not uncommon for a deranged person to start roaming the mountians killing people. THE POLICE advise people around here to get guns and learn how to use them. When a serious flood destroyed the roads to the mountians, cut off power, and so on, there was AN INCIDENT of looting. Once the word got out armed citizens managed to stop the looting right away. After reading Kates' articles, reading the paper, and talking to the local police, I cannot even imagine what you must be thinking with your avid, rabid, anti-gun stance. It seems to me that you hear the word "gun," your mind shuts down and you start to play tapes of irrelavent statistics. Don't forget that Kates has said that violent crime INCREASES in areas with strick gun control and he cites the statistics to back himself up. When you do the research that he has and can counter his statistics with RELEVANT statistics of your own, I would be eager to read them. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/21/85)
> > The truth is that decreased availability of handguns would cut the suicide > rate, especially among males. > > Jeff Shallit The truth is that you believe that that would be true, but that you have no way of knowing. It is increasingly clear that what you mean by "true" is that you agree with it. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (06/24/85)
>> = Jeff Shallit > = Don Steiny >> The truth is that decreased availability of handguns would cut the suicide >> rate, especially among males. > > The truth is that you believe that that would be true, but >that you have no way of knowing. It is increasingly clear that >what you mean by "true" is that you agree with it. > Nice try, Don. You have conveniently ignored the two paragraphs above my statement, which cited evidence from the suicide rate decline in England after the carbon monoxide content of natural gas decreased, and the differential in suicide rates between men and women, due primarily to the wider use of handguns by men. But we don't have to be content with such secondary pieces of evidence. A study in the American Journal of Psychiatry (1980) entitled "The Influence of Gun Control Laws on Suicidal Behavior" found that "states with stricter gun control laws in 1968 had lower suicide rates in 1969-1971 and a smaller increase in the suicide rate over a 10-year period". What say now, Don? Jeff Shallit University of Chicago
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> >> me > > C. Cramer > >> > >> The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, > >> 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by > >> law enforcement agents. (In 1982) > >> > > > >Tell me how eliminating guns is going to stop the 16,575 suicides from > >taking their lives with the other dangerous instruments that are available. > > A good question, Mr. Cramer, and one worth discussing in detail. > > In a report from the Public Policy department of the University of California, > Berkeley entitled "Handgun Violence: Biting the Bullet on Effective Controls", > the authors discuss a study of suicides in Great Britain. A significant > portion of the suicides there occurred by suffocation with gas. This method > was particularly effective because the particular gas supplied to most of > Great Britain was very high in monoxides. > > However, when the source of gas ran out and Britain was forced to buy gas > elsewhere, the suicide rate dropped dramatically (more than 35%) and > STAYED DOWN. That's because the new gas had a much lower monoxide content; > people were LESS SUCCESSFUL in their attempted suicides. The fact that the > rate stayed down indicates they did not switch to more effective means of > suicide. > > A less dramatic example is afforded by the suicide statistics in the US. > Although men and women attempt suicide in roughly equal numbers, men are > much more successful. Why? Because the instrument of choice for men is > usually a handgun--and attempted suicide with a handgun is generally much > more successful. > > Do you know anyone who's attempted suicide? If so, then you know that > frequently suicidal impulses are temporary; counseling is often very > effective in preventing suicides. You might as well ask, Mr. Cramer, why > isn't everyone who ever attempted suicide dead know. By your reasoning, > they would continue using more and more violent and successful methods > until they succeeded. > > The truth is that decreased availability of handguns would cut the suicide > rate, especially among males. > > Jeff Shallit Question 1: Did the suicide rate and attempted suicide rate drop by the same amount? Did the greater number of botched suicides result in a larger number of people who were permanently crippled or brain damaged? (A lot of failed suicides --- as most suicide attempts fail --- result in people who spend years suffering from their clumsy attempt.) Question 2: Why wouldn't men turn from suicide with one macho device --- a gun --- to another macho device --- a car? The car is far more dangerous of a device to others if you try to use it for suicide.
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (06/30/85)
In article <mit-vax.254> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP () writes: >It is impossible for untrained people to kill with their bare pinkies. As a pathologist, I can tell you that this is simply untrue. >Similarly it is impossible for an idiot to post a pro-gun message >without a terminal. This is also untrue, and gratuitously insulting. Please. Not all people who support individual ownership of weapons in the United States are idiots, and no purpose is served by such a statement other than to inflame. Bill Oliver The opinions expressed are my own and do not not necessarily reflect the North Carolina Memorial Hospital, the Office of the Medical Examiner of the State of North Carolina, or any employee or agency of the State of North Carolina.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/30/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / mit-vax!csdf / 2:40 am Jun 21, 1985 ****/ >In article <7800340@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> cause #2: (the real killer) Fingers. Yes, friends, it makes as >> much sense to blame fingers as it does to blame a "hail of >> bullets" (as in: "The hail of bullets"). After all, if trigger >> fingers were just safely amputated, we wouldn't have these >> deaths, would we? Oh sure, some stupid libertarian, or other >> mangey, hairy eyed academic-government type with too quick a mind >> might point out that people would use other fingers, but that >> can be dismissed out of hand, right? The article above >> probably be re-published with the phrase: >> "The press of pinkies was responsible for....." > >The problem is the gun attached to the trigger finger, not the person. >It is impossible for untrained people to kill with their bare pinkies. >Similarly it is impossible for an idiot to post a pro-gun message >without a terminal. > >-- >Charles Forsythe Well, Charles? Does this mean you were able to post an anti-gun message without use of a terminal? Not that I'm a "soldier of fortune" type, but I can imagine several ways to kill people using my bare pinkies ("pinkies" here refers to trigger fingers, as it did in my article). That you, who are apparently unable to duplicate this mental effort, should presume to dictate that pinkies are safe but guns are not, (given that neither is lethal short of human impulse or fantastic accident) disturbs me.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/01/85)
In article <516@unc.UUCP> oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) writes: >In article <mit-vax.254> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP () writes: >>It is impossible for untrained people to kill with their bare pinkies. > >As a pathologist, I can tell you that this is simply untrue. I stand corrected. I should have said IMPROBABLE. I suppose you have many stories of people being mugged at "pinky-point"? >>Similarly it is impossible for an idiot to post a pro-gun message >>without a terminal. > >This is also untrue, and gratuitously insulting. Please. Not all >people who support individual ownership of weapons in the United >States are idiots, Once again, I stand corrected. Replace "pro-gun" with "pro-handgun". It is also true that many people who support private ownership of firearms are not idiots, many are clever enough to block reasonable legislation. In any case, I was implying that the poster of the message I was replying to was an idiot. His argument was: there are lots of ways to kill people therefore, why try to remove one (handguns). This is a stupid argument (sorry if you're offended by my blatent value judgement). It can easily be reversed: why not legalize napalm? As a matter of fact, I have made napalm in the lab and I could do it again. If I did, however, make enough to use it as a weapon, I'd be breaking the law. "If you outlaw napalm only outlaws will have napalm." I don't envision this slogan inspiring any NRA members... >and no purpose is served by such a statement >other than to inflame. Political discussions are often filled with inflamitory value judgements. If I say a pro-handgun advocate is an idiot, by all means prove me wrong, but there's no need to dwell on my opinion of his or her intelligence. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
bill@persci.UUCP (07/02/85)
In article <254@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP () writes: >>> >>> The hail of bullets was responsible for 16,575 suicides, 13,841 murders, >>> 1,756 accidental deaths, 540 undetermined deaths and 276 killing by >>> law enforcement agents. (In 1982) >> [...] >> "The press of pinkies was responsible for....." > [...] >Similarly it is impossible for an idiot to post a pro-gun message >without a terminal. > >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX >"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." > -Rev. Wang Zeep Really clever, Mr. Forsythe. I could point out that your statement applies quite equally to the other side, as it already had with your posting. -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/03/85)
In article <7800345@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >Well, Charles? Does this mean you were able to post an anti-gun message >without use of a terminal? Uri Geller helped me doing using mind control (see current net.philosphy flame :-) >Not that I'm a "soldier of fortune" type, but I can imagine several ways >to kill people using my bare pinkies ("pinkies" here refers to trigger >fingers, as it did in my article). That you, who are apparently unable >to duplicate this mental effort, should presume to dictate that pinkies >are safe but guns are not, (given that neither is lethal short of human >impulse or fantastic accident) disturbs me. Okay! Okay! This is the SECOND response I have gotten insisting that pinkies are deadly weapons. Here is my final response: I challenge you to a fight. That's right. You will have all of your fingers taped down (except pinkies). You may use only your pinkies. I will be totally unarmed except for a small handgun. May the best man win. Sheesh. Sometimes I wonder if people can see the forest through the trees. I was making a point! I know some martial arts as well as some anatomy and lots of physics... I KNOW pinkies could be used as weapons but still... -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/05/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / mit-vax!csdf / 4:01 pm Jul 3, 1985 ****/ > >>Not that I'm a "soldier of fortune" type, but I can imagine several ways >>to kill people using my bare pinkies ("pinkies" here refers to trigger >>fingers, as it did in my article). That you, who are apparently unable >>to duplicate this mental effort, should presume to dictate that pinkies >>are safe but guns are not, (given that neither is lethal short of human >>impulse or fantastic accident) disturbs me. > >Okay! Okay! This is the SECOND response I have gotten insisting that >pinkies are deadly weapons. Here is my final response: > >I challenge you to a fight. That's right. You will have all of your >fingers taped down (except pinkies). You may use only your pinkies. I >will be totally unarmed except for a small handgun. May the best man >win. I have the feeling that this conflict would not settle the issue. :-). >Sheesh. Sometimes I wonder if people can see the forest through the >trees. I was making a point! I know some martial arts as well as some >anatomy and lots of physics... I KNOW pinkies could be used as weapons >but still... The point of MY original article was that it is not the weapons which truly cause deaths, but the deadly intentions of the people wielding those weapons. I presented this idea in satirical form, pointing out that in a specific handgun-death, one may blame pinkies, the lack of armor, or some other extraneous cause, but (and I did not explicitly state this) the real cause of the deaths is deadly human intent. Those who would outlaw handguns are attacking the symptom, not the disease, and they are attacking a "symptom" that occurs in the healthy as well (those who own handguns need not have lethal intent). Charles' later note to the effect that all who are against handgun control are idiots says more about him than the issue or about handgun control opponents.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/05/85)
> In article <516@unc.UUCP> oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) writes: > >In article <mit-vax.254> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP () writes: > >>It is impossible for untrained people to kill with their bare pinkies. > > > >As a pathologist, I can tell you that this is simply untrue. > > I stand corrected. I should have said IMPROBABLE. I suppose you have > many stories of people being mugged at "pinky-point"? > The U.S. Department of Justice did a study a year or two ago that found that only 8% of all crimes against people involved a weapon of any sort. The majority of crimes against people involved bare hands and the threat of force.
bill@persci.UUCP (07/05/85)
In article <298@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: > >Political discussions are often filled with inflamitory value >judgements. If I say a pro-handgun advocate is an idiot, by all means >prove me wrong, but there's no need to dwell on my opinion of his or her >intelligence. > >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX >"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. > No one knows about it." > -Rev. Wang Zeep I wouldn't bother attempting to to prove anything of the sort to you. You have obviously convicted them without proof. I'm sure glad *YOU* aren't running things in this country. I won't dwell anymore on your opinions.. -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/09/85)
In article <221@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (Bill Swan) writes: >In article <298@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >> >>Political discussions are often filled with inflamitory value >>judgements. If I say a pro-handgun advocate is an idiot, by all means >>prove me wrong, but there's no need to dwell on my opinion of his or her >>intelligence. >> >>Charles Forsythe > >I wouldn't bother attempting to to prove anything of the sort to you. You >have obviously convicted them without proof. I'm sure glad *YOU* aren't >running things in this country. I won't dwell anymore on your opinions.. >-- >Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill Open mouth, insert terminal, Bill. Some of us have the integrity to admit that our opinions and responses are irrational. Some of us also have to integrity to offer to change them, if properly led by a more rational person. I never claimed to know everything, I only claim to have opinions of everything. I also claimed the ability to change my mind. You are obviously the most rational person in the whole world and I am saddened that you won't set me straight to the proper way of thinking. Boo hoo. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/09/85)
In article <7800348@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >The point of MY original article was that it is not the weapons which >truly cause deaths, but the deadly intentions of the people wielding >those weapons. I presented this idea in satirical form, pointing out >that in a specific handgun-death, one may blame pinkies, the lack of >armor, or some other extraneous cause, but (and I did not explicitly >state this) the real cause of the deaths is deadly human intent. Those >who would outlaw handguns are attacking the symptom, not the disease, >and they are attacking a "symptom" that occurs in the healthy as well >(those who own handguns need not have lethal intent). May I make an analogy of the doctor who give his/her patient a pain killer while deciding how to treat chronic headaches. It is perfectly reasonable to treat a symptom while also treating the cause. To ignore a symptom, knowing that it will go away when the cause is fixed, is cruel to the patient who is, in this case, society. >Charles' later note to the effect that all who are against handgun control >are idiots says more about him than the issue or about handgun control >opponents. Will someone please drag the offending piece of text off a disk and show me how it applies to ALL pro-gun advocates? The comment was directed at an individual who was suggesting we outlaw pinkies to stop crime. It seemed like a reasonable value judgement at the time. A lot of people disagree, I guess I was wrong, by concensus. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (07/12/85)
A short while back the solons of NYC passed an ordinance outlawing the sale of felt-tipped markers and spray-can paint to those under eighteen years of age. It is expected that this new law will end the unsolicited decoration of their subway system that has made it unique in this drab, colorless world. I predict that in a few months NYC will be demanding similar legislation throughout the country in order to stop the influx of contraband markers and spray-cans into the city. I also predict that all markers and cans will be required to have a serial number and all owners required to have a license. I finally predict that all legally licensed owners will have to keep their registered markers and spray-cans in approved government paint-lockers when they are not in actual use and account for every milligram expended. Pop- ular bumper stickers will read: "When EL-MARCOS are outlawed - only graffitiologists will have markers." "You can have my RUSTOLEUM when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." - Phil
bill@persci.UUCP (07/13/85)
In article <335@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >Open mouth, insert terminal, Bill. I tried. It's not big enough.. >Some of us have the integrity to >admit that our opinions and responses are irrational. Some of us also >have to integrity to offer to change them, if properly led by a more >rational person. I never claimed to know everything, I only claim to >have opinions of everything. I also claimed the ability to change my >mind. You are obviously the most rational person in the whole world and >I am saddened that you won't set me straight to the proper way of >thinking. Boo hoo. >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX >"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. > No one knows about it." > -Rev. Wang Zeep Sorry, Charles. I'll keep trying. There's got to be a way somewhere, somehow. Or some common ground we can meet on (*not* a dueling ground, either :-). -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill