('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:22:43 -0400
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Brady Law Has Not Affected Homicide Rates
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:51:37 -0400
>> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >To: email@example.com
>> >Subject: Re: GUNS: Brady Law Has Not Affected Homicide Rates
>> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >Joe Dees wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> They DO, however, buy them at places where the Brady checks are not in force, such as gun shows. The only sensible response to this fact is to expand the checks to cover those areas also.
>> >> >
>> >> >Really Joe? I did not, in fact, see ANYTHING AT ALL in that article that
>> >> >said any such thing. I suppose I could rely on you to keep the torch of
>> >> >fabricating the 'facts' going in full force. In fact, since gun show gun
>> >> >purchases are considered legal gun purchases AND studies show that less
>> >> >than 3% of gun crimes (outside of suicides, if you call those crimes)
>> >> >are actually committed with legally purchased guns, then I would have to
>> >> >conclude that you are once again lying through your teeth. Please come
>> >> >back when you actually have something truthful to contribute...
>> >> >
>> >> But in fact, since as of the present gun show purchases are NOT under the rubric of the Brady Law, they would not be available to enter in to any statistics. The fact that there are facts that were not mentioned in a particular article does not negate their facticity; otherwise there would be only the need for one article which would contain all past, present and future truth. You very well know that some of the weapons used in the Colorado school shooting were purchased at a gun show. Do you have something against having such purchases checked to keep the purchased guns out of irresponsible, unbalanced, criminal and/or otherwise malevolent hands? Of COURSE you do, because the NRA does, and you are in mantal thrall to their closes-minded and absolutistic dogmatic doctinal line, which you zealously and fervently memetically propagate every chance you get (and some you don't). In fact, you're a fanatic about it, and perfectly fit into Sir Winston Churchill's definiti!
>> > o!
>> >Since I'm not an NRA member, I'm hardly 'in their thrall'. Frankly, I
>> >don't think they are adamant enough. Since, as I said above, of all gun
>> >crimes, less than 3% are committed by perps with legally purchased guns
>> >(which includes guns bought at gun shows, which are a small percentage
>> >of all gun purchases). Of course, the fact that so little crime is
>> >committed with guns bought at gun shows does not in any way dissuade you
>> >from ranting on and on. It seems to me that it is YOU who perfectly fit
>> >into Churchills definition.
>> >> !
>> >> ne: someone who will not change your mind and cannot change the subject. I'll bet you had a joy spasm when Zero posted that story, because it gave you an opening to indulge in a hundred gun nut posts; I'm quite sure that you'll run with that ball through the goal posts, out of the stadium and into the street.
>> >Actually, Joe, the only think that could keep me posting is if you
>> >continue posting your continuous stream of fabrication, inuendo,
>> >hominem, anecdote and lack of facts.
>> Actually, in the SAME AP article was the notation that the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence presented research that estimates that the Brady Bill restrictions saved 9368 lives between 1994 and 1998 because guns were less available to criminals. Is that a fact? And you're the one who called me a liar, Mr. Ad Hominem Man. However, no one else mentioned that part of the article. Now you'll predictably claim that that part is bullus shittus while the part you prefer is received gospel, right? But no matter; even bad gun publicity onlist is gun publicity to you; you just LUV to see that precious GUNS prefix, and like Mao, with whom you seem to agree about the source of political power (a gun barrel, not a vote), you wanna see a thousand GUN-prefix flowers bloom onlist; it is your one enduring list purpose. Harvey Newstrom was right about you.
>the CPHV has absolutely no ability to tell a fact from fiction, they've
>been telling lies for so long. Since its you who is going on and on, it
>seems you have not learned your lesson from past bouts with the wrath of
>the list. You are now, once again, in the trashbin.
Run and hide, little boy, when the facts don't cut your way; worship those you like, denigrate those you don't, and cry all the way to the trashbin, where you belong, not me.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:36 MDT