Re: On Topic -- failure to load page [was Re: OT: weapons
Hi Folks, L.D., On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:38:41 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > Ron, > The problem is probably linked to the fact that there are a whole bunch > of big graphics files on that page. That could totally eat up cache > space etc with Arachne. That was my guess, too much graphic while still online. > If 1.71 does lock up on the page, even using the tilde approach I more > or less outlined above, then get back here to so advise ... because that > would be a bug that needs fixing or a "fixed bug" that needs unfixing. > Nope. After I "leeched" the whole website, I was able to see it all (off-line) from my hard disk. That is, after I had also changed the background colour which was "darkgrey" and interpreted by Arachne as black. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: OT: weapons
Sorry Roger, I must have had a humour bypass, I don't find this funny at all. Make your point using fictional events, not the recent death of a man who (I hear) was not wearing body armour but went to the assistance of his colleagues under attack (who were wearing body armour). The men being questioned were not handcuffed, in obeyance of EU human rights legislation. This may seem madness, as may the majority of British police being unarmed, or British troops wearing berets instead of helmets in certain conflict zones. These approaches are used to minimize overall risk of injury and loss of life. They seem to be based on The Prisoners' Dilemma in Game Theory where the best outcome is a win:win situation: "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." >From dramatisations we're familiar with the opening gambit of a police interrogation, where the officer suggests what will make things "easier for all concerned". There was a 60s/70s police series on British TV called "Softly, Softly". Knife attacks are a growing problem in the UK, mainly confined to certain sections of the community. Self-defence experts state that a close quarters encounter with an inexperienced gunman is unlikely to be fatal, whereas a knife can easily kill, leaving the murderer to silently melt into the shadows. The recent killing in Manchester was accomplished with a kitchen knife. People can be killed using many common objects, with varying degrees of efficiency. I don't think it can be denied that the appearance or accepted function of an object can alter the frame of mind of the user, such that the possession of an over the top design of knife, an aggressively designed sports car or even a bicycle or skateboard used for stunts can lead to tragic outcomes. Best regards, Jake Young === On 2003-01-15 at 14:06:00 Roger Turk wrote: === >London, January 14, 2003. A police officer was stabbed to death during a >raid in connection with the ricin poison investigation. Scotland Yard Chief >Inspector, Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve, stated that this conclusively proves >knives are dangerous weapons and kill. Commencing January 1, 2004, >possession of knives of any kind will be banned from all of England. Anyone >who can prove that possession of a knife is a necessity will have to obtain >an annual permit from the Queen. > >When asked what happened to the wielder of the knife, Gildersleeve stated >that he was set free as it was the knife that killed, not the wielder. The >knife has been taken into custody. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Re: OT: weapons
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:51:53 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > To Europeans the US is a very violent society. But maybe Hollywood is to > blame for this... our view is formed by at least 50% of all pictures in > cinema or TV originated from the US. FWIW, In the entire 250 year history of this town 1 murder. A 17 year old boy killed his own sister. The weapon he used to kill her a hammer. -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
Re: OT: weapons
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > The statistics at the above URL could be easily misinterpreted > because many homicides are not crimes. Police shooting criminals are also "homicides." -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
Re: OT: weapons
Hi Samuel and David, the interpration of the figures is rather difficult. I did download the pages mentioned. first thing I was interested in was: death by firearms = 30,708 (1998) but since it is not possible to know from the statistics how many casualties are by suicide by a firearm... how much casualties are by shootings? Accidents by firearms just 726... far less than I expected. However the total count for 'death by firearms' is quite high compared to the motor vehicle accidents = 43,510 or drugs/medicines = 9,838. Nearly 6 times more inmates per 100,000 population in the US than in EU. In Holland abt 70% of the inmates is there for drug related crime... and if we would build more prison capacity that rate would come to 95% I suppose. Very off topic * To paraphrase L.D. this is a lot of money for a crime with relative less casualties. Not spoken of the immense $$$ for the costs of investingation and prosecution. And the bad thing of all is that detention does not help a f**k to solve this problem. I do not want to start a discussion on this... we would become very off topic. To Europeans the US is a very violent society. But maybe Hollywood is to blame for this... our view is formed by at least 50% of all pictures in cinema or TV originated from the US. Regards, Bastiaan On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:49:08 + (UTC), Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, david gunnells wrote: >> Hello Bastiaan, >>Here are the statistics for the violent crime rate in >> the U.S.: >> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm >>Remember, there are both high and low violent crime >> rates in the U.S., it just depends on which geographical >> locations you choose to focus on. ;) > The statistics at the above URL could be easily misinterpreted > because many homicides are not crimes. > A killing of a human committed in self defense or by accident is a > homicide, but under those circumstances the homicides are not crimes. > Whether such homicides would be ruled accidents or self-defense > cannot be determined until after all the hearings and trials are all > said and done. The homicide statistic is entered *before* the case > is adjudicated. After the case is adjudicated, the statistics are not > modified accordingly to reflect only those homicides which are crimes. > > Sam Heywood > -- Message sent by Unix Pine, Version 4.33
Re: OT: weapons
Hi David, On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0500, david gunnells wrote: > Hello Ron, > Maybe you'd be interested in these: > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ > specifically, this page: > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html Thanks for that David. :) I finally got it all - I had to "leech" the site with WGET, then re-write the background colours in order to see any of it, but I now have it all. As I suspected before, it is a collection of bits and pieces put together by our own version of the gun lobby - the Sporting Shooters Assoc. Some of it is actually well researched and documented, and much of what is said I can only agree with, although not actually pertinent to the issue of gun ownership and public safety. But some of it is also deliberately misleading, e.g. by stating what is true (but unreleted) and then saying "therefore . ", or by other manipulative tricks used by all flavours of propagandists. For instance, any treatment of facts and figures from before the gun control laws were even proposed have no relevence to the efficacy or otherwise of gun control, and gun "registration" was never an issue in our present gun control measures, and has no bearing on the present situation. Sadly, it is the sort of woolly and extravagant collection of claims, mostly unsupported by facts, decorated with largely irrelevant numbers and selective quotes that I would expect from the knock-on-your-door God-botherers. I am sure that even legitimate gun supporters would wince at some of this stuff. On the other hand, there is absolutely NO, repeat NO, support for Charlton Heston's claim that violent crime rates exploded immediately after the current laws were introduced. It seems that was too much even for our gun enthusiasts to claim. BTW: I have never owned a firearm, although I have owned air-guns (pistols and rifles) and may do so again. I have friends who are gun owners, and have been duck-, pig-, and deer-shooters. I don't have a problem with that. While I was growing up in East Africa, my father had a large collection of guns (mostly rifles), some of which I have used. A proportion of our diet including warthog and hippo, gazelle and guinea fowl, was hunted with those guns. Dad got his leopard in our chicken run with a 12-bore shotgun. Our family was also very grateful for that. But I also know people who own guns, who have given no obvious reason for police to refuse a licence - but who make me very, very nervous. I am glad that at least one automatic shotgun I am aware of has been removed from Australian society. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
The facts don't lie? Define "fact" [was Re: OT: weapons
Killing in self-defense is rare in this country, and I doubt the statistics are available which would separate the instances of LEO vs. civilian. As a percentage of total homicides, I doubt it would be statistically significant. As to killing "by accident," and having it classified *initially* as homicide and then "down graded" as you imply could be the case, I doubt that is a statistically significant amount either. Rather, the inverse is true: Deaths by "accident" are normally reported as accidents, and then -- after a great deal of investigation and court cases -- changed to criminal offenses; that number is likely statistically more significant. HOWEVER, what is *most* significant is the fact that you cannot rely to any degree of certainty on statistics maintained at either the national or the state level when it comes to crimes, crimes of violence, accidental deaths, or even suicides. Even ten years ago the majority of this stuff simply was not considered important enough to waste limited manhours and limited resources to keep accurate track of; the statistics maintained at the local level were generally those which constituted a "hair up his a**e" for whomever was in power at the time. Even with today's much less expensive and much faster computerized databases at the local level, there is no nationwide system or rules or "codes" for classifying crime. If there is one thing that is less reliable than Medicare statistics, it is "crime statistics." To attempt to compare this year's statistics on crime with those of ten years ago is like comparing kiwi with nectarines ... when half the people have never tasted kiwi and nearly that many don't know the difference between a nectarine and a peach. l.d. P.S. I ran into this problem with nationwide & statewide statistics when I attempted to compare the number of deaths resulting from "all aspects" of smoking to those deaths attributable to alcohol; I couldn't do it, because right now the 'bad guy' is tobacco and no one is keeping tracable figures on alcohol related deaths -- not even those on the highway! On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:49:08 + (UTC), Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm > The statistics at the above URL could be easily misinterpreted > because many homicides are not crimes. > A killing of a human committed in self defense or by accident is a > homicide, but under those circumstances the homicides are not crimes. -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: OT: weapons
Hello Sam, They can be misinterpreted until you do more research. ;) Here is a snippet on the methodology for the homicide statistics: "Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. Excluded are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation, as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body." (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/addinfo.htm for a plethora of information regarding additional information regarding the data) For the percentage of homicides that are cleared, see: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/cleared.htm cheers, david Samuel W. Heywood wrote: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm The statistics at the above URL could be easily misinterpreted because many homicides are not crimes. A killing of a human committed in self defense or by accident is a homicide, but under those circumstances the homicides are not crimes. Whether such homicides would be ruled accidents or self-defense cannot be determined until after all the hearings and trials are all said and done. The homicide statistic is entered *before* the case is adjudicated. After the case is adjudicated, the statistics are not modified accordingly to reflect only those homicides which are crimes. Sam Heywood
Re: OT: weapons
London, January 14, 2003. A police officer was stabbed to death during a raid in connection with the ricin poison investigation. Scotland Yard Chief Inspector, Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve, stated that this conclusively proves knives are dangerous weapons and kill. Commencing January 1, 2004, possession of knives of any kind will be banned from all of England. Anyone who can prove that possession of a knife is a necessity will have to obtain an annual permit from the Queen. When asked what happened to the wielder of the knife, Gildersleeve stated that he was set free as it was the knife that killed, not the wielder. The knife has been taken into custody.
Re: OT: weapons
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, david gunnells wrote: > Hello Bastiaan, > >Here are the statistics for the violent crime rate in > the U.S.: > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm > >Remember, there are both high and low violent crime > rates in the U.S., it just depends on which geographical > locations you choose to focus on. ;) The statistics at the above URL could be easily misinterpreted because many homicides are not crimes. A killing of a human committed in self defense or by accident is a homicide, but under those circumstances the homicides are not crimes. Whether such homicides would be ruled accidents or self-defense cannot be determined until after all the hearings and trials are all said and done. The homicide statistic is entered *before* the case is adjudicated. After the case is adjudicated, the statistics are not modified accordingly to reflect only those homicides which are crimes. Sam Heywood -- Message sent by Unix Pine, Version 4.33
Re: OT: weapons
Hello Bastiaan, Here are the statistics for the violent crime rate in the U.S.: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Remember, there are both high and low violent crime rates in the U.S., it just depends on which geographical locations you choose to focus on. ;) Here are the statistics for "Deaths by Firearms, 1979-2000", in the U.S.: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html A more telling statistical chart is the "Deaths and Death Rates from Accidents, by Type: 1980-1998", again, in the U.S.: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html Are these "LIES"? ;) Regarding the prisons, I agree that they are sorely overcrowded (although some lobbies would have those numbers increase), but note that over fifty (50) percent of those incarcerated (in Federal prisons at least) are there for drug offenses...and that is an entirely separate discussion. :) A quick synopsis of prison population: "The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 700 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (665), the Cayman Islands (600), Belarus (555), the US Virgin Islands (550), Kazakhstan (520), Turkmenistan (490), the Bahamas (480), Belize (460), and Bermuda (445). "However, almost two thirds of countries (63%) have rates of 150 per 100,000 or below. (The United Kingdoms rate of 125 per 100,000 of the national population places it at about the mid-point in the World List. Among European Union countries its rate is the second highest, after Portugals 130.)" Source: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (Third Edition)" (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2002), p. 1, from the web at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r166.pdf last accessed Oct. 12, 2002. cheers, david Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: Two LIES... there is NO low violent crime rate in the US. The best filled prisons on this planet can be found in the US and the casualty rate due to fire arms is very high. CU, Bastiaan
On Topic -- failure to load page [was Re: OT: weapons
Ron, The problem is probably linked to the fact that there are a whole bunch of big graphics files on that page. That could totally eat up cache space etc with Arachne. I didn't try with 1.71, but did go in with 1.70 ... AFTER I used the tilde " ~ " to turn off automatic graphics insertion on the page. I was able to right click and un-Tilde quite a few of the graphics and view them ... but I made sure I did the tilde thing again before going back to the page. If 1.71 does lock up on the page, even using the tilde approach I more or less outlined above, then get back here to so advise ... because that would be a bug that needs fixing or a "fixed bug" that needs unfixing. l.d. On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:34:32 +, Ron Clarke wrote: > Hi Folks, David, > On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0500, david gunnells wrote: >> Hello Ron, >> Maybe you'd be interested in these: >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ >> specifically, this page: >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html > Sadly, this page locked up Arachne1.71, so I didn't get to read any > of it, but what I did get seems to be from our own (Oz) gun lobby. > I will try again to get this page to load. -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: OT: weapons
Hi Folks, David, On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0500, david gunnells wrote: > Hello Ron, > Maybe you'd be interested in these: > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ > specifically, this page: > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html Sadly, this page locked up Arachne1.71, so I didn't get to read any of it, but what I did get seems to be from our own (Oz) gun lobby. I will try again to get this page to load. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: OT: weapons
Hello Ron, Maybe you'd be interested in these: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ specifically, this page: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html cheers, david -- "If a man would move the world, he must first move himself." -- Socrates Ron Clarke wrote: In the US and Switzerland there is a very high positive correlation between low violent crime rates and high gun ownership rates. Recently in Australia the firearms-related crime rate soared immediately after Australia passed some very restrictive anti-gun legislation. Sorry Sam, this is not true. This is a deliberate lie, and I really mean LIE, told by the pro-gun lobby and the Riflemen's Assoc. in America, as represented by some film actor whose name I forget. Oh yes, Charlton Heston. There was an immediate outcry here in Oz about that, and this particular actor was shown to have created his own "facts and figures", that couldn't even be traced to any real ones that had been manipulated to suit his own position. They were a total fabrication. In fact, the reverse is true. The strict gun control in Australia has actually been well supported by a majority of us, otherwise the poll-led government would not be continuing to strengthen the regulations, as they are. Regards, Ron
Re: OT: weapons
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:10:50 +, Ron Clarke wrote: > Hi Folks, Sam, > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:00:32 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> In the US and Switzerland there is a very high positive correlation >> between low violent crime rates and high gun ownership rates. Recently >> in Australia the firearms-related crime rate soared immediately after >> Australia passed some very restrictive anti-gun legislation. > Sorry Sam, this is not true. > This is a deliberate lie, and I really mean LIE, told by the pro-gun > lobby and the Riflemen's Assoc. in America, as represented by some film > actor whose name I forget. Oh yes, Charlton Heston. Two LIES... there is NO low violent crime rate in the US. The best filled prisons on this planet can be found in the US and the casualty rate due to fire arms is very high. CU, Bastiaan > There was an immediate outcry here in Oz about that, and this > particular actor was shown to have created his own "facts and figures", > that couldn't even be traced to any real ones that had been manipulated > to suit his own position. They were a total fabrication. > In fact, the reverse is true. > The strict gun control in Australia has actually been well supported > by a majority of us, otherwise the poll-led government would not be > continuing to strengthen the regulations, as they are. > Regards, >Ron > Ron Clarke > http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html > http://tadpole.aus.as > -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: OT: weapons
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:14 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi All!
> I don't understand what suicide attacks have to do with guns or the lack
> thereof.
Neither do I.
> Anyways ... I see that there is a HUGE cultural difference on how guns are
> viewed.
There is... would we all love the black bears.
> But it is clear that owning guns is no deterrent to crime, as well as the
> capital punishment is (provenly) also no deterrent.
Yes
> Anyways ... I will *very* much enjoy to see this movie "Bowling for Columbine"
Harry Potter is great.
CU, Bastiaan
> CU, Ricsi
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Sleep: fleeting moment before the alarm goes off <=-
Re: OT: weapons
Hi Folks, Sam, On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:00:32 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > In the US and Switzerland there is a very high positive correlation > between low violent crime rates and high gun ownership rates. Recently > in Australia the firearms-related crime rate soared immediately after > Australia passed some very restrictive anti-gun legislation. Sorry Sam, this is not true. This is a deliberate lie, and I really mean LIE, told by the pro-gun lobby and the Riflemen's Assoc. in America, as represented by some film actor whose name I forget. Oh yes, Charlton Heston. There was an immediate outcry here in Oz about that, and this particular actor was shown to have created his own "facts and figures", that couldn't even be traced to any real ones that had been manipulated to suit his own position. They were a total fabrication. In fact, the reverse is true. The strict gun control in Australia has actually been well supported by a majority of us, otherwise the poll-led government would not be continuing to strengthen the regulations, as they are. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: OT: weapons
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:14 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi All! > I don't understand what suicide attacks have to do with guns or the lack > thereof. > Anyways ... I see that there is a HUGE cultural difference on how guns are > viewed. > But it is clear that owning guns is no deterrent to crime, as well as the > capital punishment is (provenly) also no deterrent. > Anyways ... I will *very* much enjoy to see this movie "Bowling for Columbine" In the US and Switzerland there is a very high positive correlation between low violent crime rates and high gun ownership rates. Recently in Australia the firearms-related crime rate soared immediately after Australia passed some very restrictive anti-gun legislation. I agree that it is indeed proven that capital punishment is no deterrent for murder. I am most amazed that the truth should be as it is and so contrary to what the majority of other Americans believe, but I cannot argue with the facts. In every country there are a lot of people who do not want to look at the truth because the truth is so contrary to what they *want* to believe. In a democratic society, if the majority believes in a lie or an erroneous concept, the falsehood will become incorporated and dogmatized into the law and it will be adhered to and become the official policy of other institutions in government. The principle drawback to democracy is that it is based on the utterly false assumption that the majority is always right. This assumption leads to government by the tyranny of the masses. The best form of government is government by a highly enlightened and beneficent dictator who radiates divine bliss. This kind of government cannot be established anywhere on this planet because there are no highly enlightened and beneficent people here who radiate divine bliss and who want to become dictators. You can't influence those kinds of people to be anybody other than who they want to be and to do anything other than what they want to do. Nobody can get their way with them because they would much prefer to submit humbly to death by crucifixion and then later ascend back into heaven rather than to take any advice from anyone to do anything other than what they want to do or to be anyone other than who they want to be. There is no golden crown that is good enough for them because those kinds of crowns would weigh too heavy on their heads. They will always most graciously accept a crown of thorns, but only if the coronation ceremony is conducted by the very lowliest of government officials and attended by no honors whatsover. Also they don't want any royal raiments of the finest fabrics. Rather than to think about what they themselves should wear, they would just prefer to consider the lillies and how they grow, and remark upon how not even Solomon in all his glory was ever arrayed as fine as these. For the reasons explained above, it is very hard to find someone who would be a truly good dictator. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
