Treated lumber for bird house

Page 7 of 9  
wrote:

Reality check: look at the title of the thread, fool.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:35:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Sub thread dumbass. And you are just as guilty as I am of continuing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:35:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@wildcatpub.org

Handguns are used in olympic competition. "Assault rifles" are defined by politicians who are as twisted as you; I've got one that's worth about $3000 dollars, and is an "assault weapon" because it has a bayonet lug.

You don't seem to understand that saying this, while saying you don't like handguns or "assault rifles" is self-contradictory.

The "kids" at Columbine committed 47 felonies before the shooting started. It is insulting to have someone like you, who clearly doesn't understand reality, equate honest gun owners to homicidal maniacs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just a question for personal curiosity. Is this a full-auto rifle? No semi prebans I've seen go for half that. More like $600+ for a pre-94 (with lug and pistol grip, and imported parts).
GTO(John)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GTO69RA4 wrote:

Price a customized target rifle.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, I'm not class 3.

This is a Springfield Armory M1-A (civilian, semi-auto version of the M14) with a large degree of accurization work. Not all of the "assault weapons" encumbered by the ban are AK-47 derivatives. There's no functional difference, of course, between this gun and any other semi-auto, but it has a bayonet lug so the anti's call it an assault weapon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bjrrnar skaltu Larry Jaques rista --

You know that John Lott's research is garbage, Larry.
If people *really* want to be informed about the issue, read the following links:
http://tinyurl.com/zcs2 http://tinyurl.com/xlnr http://tinyurl.com/zcrr http://tinyurl.com/zcsh http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:12:18 GMT, Carl Nisarel

I plonked your garbage over on rec.metalheads, hostl. Although John did an extremely stupid email stunt, his research is good and the database from which he carved his papers is without reproach...except from you and your closeminded kind. Even if you disagree with his main finding that more guns = less crime, if you had actually read the book you would have seen all the rest of the good points he made. Try that, won't you?
What about Kleck? Even an outspoken anti-gun liberal said his data couldn't be assailed. I see that you have chosen not to attack him here.

Anti-gun opinion piece?

Mother Jones is "informed"?

Another anti-gun opinion piece.

Right. Since I've never heard of ANYONE having a computer crash or losing a file, I believe her.

If I were Lott, I'd be absolutely inflamed at the way people were responding (emotionally, while disregarding hard data) and can't blame him for some of his actions, though I truly wouldn't want to be in his place now for the consequences. Nonetheless, I look to his book to show dozens of good points which are now being confirmed by studies since his. RTFB, Carl.
And with that, your name goes into my Wreck twit filter as well. I can't foresee anything valid coming from you and will simply acknowledge the "Thanks" you send after reading the book and changing your evil ways. ;)
------------------------------------------------------- "i" before "e", except after "c", what a weird society. ---- http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bjrrnar skaltu Larry Jaques rista --

You just demonstrated that you are lying by omission.

Articles published by Ayers & Donohue, Rubin & Dezhbakhsh prove otherwise, among many other researchers who have published journal articles on the subject.

Heh. His database is full of holes and coding errors.
...

You think so? Here's what Kleck thinks about Lott's MGLC work:
"One can always speculate that criminals' perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is--a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Gary Kleck, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control", Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997, p. 372

See above, your opinion about Kleck is wrong.

It's a published research article, Larry. Did you actually read the article?

Chris Mooney is informed and he clearly demonstrates that Lott lied.
Did you actually read the article?

Michael Maltz is a former colleague of John Lott who published research on that dataset.
You can't rebut a single point in his statement.

Heh. His claim that he lost data in a computer crash is irrelevant. In fact, his claim that he lost it makes it worse since he is stating that he knew he didn't have the data upon which his 98% DGU claim is based. It is considered fraudulent research to make a claim without the data to back it up.

People are not disregarding the hard data. Ayers & Donohue use the hard data, Rubin and Dezhbakhsh use the hard data, Michael Maltz use the hard ata.

The only 'studies' that confirm Lott's work are studies produced by Lott and his collaborators.

I have. You should read the vast amount of research that contradicts Lott's book.

Heh. You know you can't counter with facts so, once again, you're running away like a whining little boy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bjrrnar skaltu Larry Jaques rista --

I'll bet that you are unable to identify a single confirmatory study that was not co-authored by Lott and his collaborators.
I know that you won't because:
a) you are not well-informed on this subject. b) no such studies exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tue, Jun 8, 2004, 7:39pm (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@gun.nut burbled: Actually the number is WAY low. Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US. Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US. <snip>
Yep, that's a legetimate and accurate information source alright. Could have said how many shootings are drug related too. And, how many drug pushers died from getting shot - that would be a plus in my book.
JOAT You know it's gonna be a bad day, when you turn on the news and they're showing escape routes out of the city.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've shot a variety of rifles and pistols and haven't yet used a person as a target!
I'm hardly a gun nut though. I don't think I own enough weapons to be considered one. Some here would label me a "nut" but that's another issue. :)
Does everyone who has a steak knife in their kitchen drive it through someone's gut?
I'd like to see the "nuts" not have access to weapons of ANY type, but then they would just fashion one from something else, like their cars, their hands; whatever suits their twisted purpose. You can't legislate "normalcy". Look at 911. They used the aircraft that they were riding in. Took everyone by total surprise. This is a crazy time we are living in and I'm afraid things will just get worse as time goes on. (But I hope I'm wrong!)
dave
snipped-for-privacy@wildcatpub.org wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are hundreds of guns designed for target shooting. Assault rifles and large caliber handguns are designed for one purpose. To shoot people. If you aren't shooting people then you are using the gun for a purpose for with it wasn't designed. In fact the 45 was adopted by the military so officers could shoot and kill, at close range, their own men for cowardice.

But will your steak knife travel through several walls and kill the neighbors child two doors down? A steak knife is designed to cut a steak not kill people. An assault weapon has a single purpose, to kill other people. It serves no other purpose. Shooting paper targets shaped like people is the behavior of the mentally ill.
BTW, put a human shaped paper target up in you yard and go piss on it once a day and see how quickly the cops are at your door.<g> But shooting them is considered normal. Only in America.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Complete and utter nonsense. You obviously know _nothing_ about guns, and can't even imagine that it's necessary to _practice_ in order to be able to shoot one properly.
Or are you suggesting that we should practice on human beings? Are you volunteering as a practice target?

Nonsense again. Citation, please.

No, but neither will a bullet.

Wrong again. Its _ability_ to kill other people serves a _powerful_ deterrent purpose to an aggressor, whether or not it is actually used. That is, of course, the reason that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps so, perhaps not -- but you appear unaware that targets occur in other shapes as well, the most common being concentric rings.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:26:33 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

That's the first rational thing you've posted today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
so when the police practice their shooting skills at the target range, they are mentally ill?
dave
snipped-for-privacy@wildcatpub.org wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. They use their guns to kill people. It only prudent that they practice so they kill the right ones.
It's not considered mentally ill to walk around naked in a nudest colony either. Try it in your neighborhood.<g>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:48:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@wildcatpub.org

You have a habit of ignoring inconvenient points in others' posts, and jumping in with a nonsensical comment like this one. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you do that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because I learned a long time ago that it pointless to try to reason with either a drunk or the mentally ill.
People who compare guns to nails, steak knives and cars are mentally ill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:54:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@wildcatpub.org

And then you go back to personal insults. Do you have _any_ rhetorical tactics that don't make your point completely ineffective, or are you just grasping at straws now?

Because we all know that guns think and act for themselves, where cars and knives do not, is that it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.