<<Thats why the Britney thing! I dont put
nothing into what she said, but it was a quote, its
straight from the horses mouth, how do you research
that?how much research does it take to get to that
point>><br><br>Why are you still hammering on about Britney? Have
you read anything I've written? I'm not doubting the
quote you posted. Research is irrelevant here and I
never brought it up with respect to Britney, so I have
no idea why you're bringing it up.

<<So you do all your research, fine for
you.Youve got spunk,but your still not getting the point
that I'm trying to get acrost! The britney think was
to prove that, and it worked!>><br><br>Now
you've really lost me. You've been hammering away at
something, saying that I've been denying and disagreeing
when I actually haven't. What I did dispute is why you
would have bothered bringing the whole thing up in the
first place. Yet you continued to hammer away, making
completely inappropriate comparisons to how I relate to my
students. At which point you brought up that the research
and statistics I've been posting were proabably
biased and from AR resources. I pointed out that they in
fact, weren't, but were from respected medical and
science journals. You then alluded to the statistics I
posted about guns probably being funded by gun control
special interests. I pointed out that I got the
statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice and the
United Nations. Then I read some strange cryptic message
that I didn't understand but had my name in it (I
think it might have been about how research can be
useless, which is ironic, since in the first of these
messages, you also posted some research you heard on the
news about milk curing malaria), so I asked what point
you were trying to make. At which point I see these
messages here about how I don't listen and no matter what
you post, it doesn't make me happy. Well, if that's
what you're looking for, then you don't know what
debating is. I don't know what your problem is, but if you
would prefer that I not debate these issues with you,
then don't post them.

" I pointed out that I got the statistics from
the U.S. Department of Justice and the United
Nations."<br> THERE!!" WHOPPY!!" *danceing around the
room*<br>You have finaly hit the nail on the head!!!!! Now
lets see if you can comprehend what I am about to
say!<br>Both of those reports are as biased as the media,
O.K.? They are both trying to do "global
dis-armament"!<br>Both of those reports, along with A.M.A's report, are
purposely leaning to controlling and eleminating firearms
from the general population!<br> Dan Rather, a
supporter of handgun control, used a shot gun to protect
his home!<br>Sen. Shumer,handgun control supporter
and spokesman,wants to elimanate handguns,but dont
touch his Clock 9 mm!<br>Rosie Odonnel,handgun control
supporter, no body should have handguns, just her
bodyguards! Our children dont need protection, just
hers!<br>The list goes on and on!<br> I can give you the names
of the people in the justice dept. and the U.N that
did those reports and show you the same
hipocracys!<br>So one, yes, celebrities can and should be used in
debates! They have the money and the publics eye on them,
they have great clout!<br>two, as I said before and
you knocked me, you need to do your research, just
dig a little deeper. Find out WHO did the report, and
WHAT do they stand for!

I did not get my information from the inter-net! I did hard studying from books!
And reports,and all the other stuff you use, I just like to find out about the
people who do the reports and studys!

Psycho- I find it particularly funny that you
bring up Dan Rather and Rosie Odonnel. The first thing
you should realise is that these people are
completely beside the point. They are the hipocrits if they
support gun control and own or promote the use of them
for their body guards. THEY did not do the research I
am sorry, Rosie runs a cheesy talk show at best, and
Dan Rather is not a U.N. minister. Jazel does not try
to debate the hipocricies' of day time television.
And these people are not an athority on anything
other than bon bons and ratings.

<<"Both of those reports are as biased as
the media, O.K.? They are both trying to do "global
dis-armament"! Both of those reports, along with A.M.A's report,
are purposely leaning to controlling and eleminating
firearms from the general population!>>"<br>WOW you
are being pretty paranoid if you think Dan Rather is
behind some huge plot to overthrow the government and
end civilization as we know it. QUICK!! BUILD A BOMB
SHELTER, ANTHRAX IS BEING SENT BY A SPECIAL FBI COUNTER
OPERATION LED BY ROSIE ODONNEL TO KILL US ALL OFF SO PINKY
AND THE BRAIN CAN TAKE OVER ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Malady, the one that bothers me is Diane
Fienstein. She is a sponser of the longstanding handgun
control legislation. She speaks out against "gun nuts"
running around with guns they don't need and , yes, she
has a handgun and a concealed carry permit. Sheer
political hypocracy. I know she isn't the only one and
handgun control isn't the only issue, but it is
apparent.<br><br>John

LOL, Funny malady, I got a good chuckle out of that one!<br> But you have totaly
missed my point too! And I'm not paranoid of Dan Rather or Rosie! They are
pincky and the-- well...dumb and dumber!

<<Both of those reports are as biased as
the media, O.K.? They are both trying to do "global
dis-armament"!<br>Both of those reports, along with A.M.A's report, are
purposely leaning to controlling and eleminating firearms
from the general population!>><br><br>Ok, please
show me how those biases are changing the numbers,
then. Those reports were from statistics compiled every
year from the FBI and from the police. Were they
biased too?<br><br><<I can give you the names of
the people in the justice dept. and the U.N that did
those reports and show you the same
hipocracys!>><br><br>By all means, please do, then.<br><br><<So
one, yes, celebrities can and should be used in
debates! They have the money and the publics eye on them,
they have great clout!>><br><br>No, celebrities
shouldn't be used. It doesn't matter to me who said what
about this or that. What matters to me are the facts.
The prevailing public opinion does not have any sway
for what opinions I form. I don't get my opinions
from the crowd. I develop them based on the knowledge
that I gather, and I really don't give a shit what Dan
Rather or Rosie O'Donnell thinks of it.<br><br><<
two, as I said before and you knocked me, you need to
do your research, just dig a little deeper. Find out
WHO did the report, and WHAT do they stand
for!>><br><br>Which only applies to things that don't agree with you
it seems. You assume too much, and you'll pull that
one out every time a fact or figure pops up that you
disagree with, huh?

ya, that is too bad...it is like a screaming
environmentalist that uses Aquanet everyday with CFC s in it, a
rap star who writes about drive bys but lives in a
gated house in Beverly Hills, or a devout Christian who
sins 6 times a week then Sunday repents and is born
again on Monday...you find these everywhere. But alas,
they generaly don't have someones' respect for long. I
have a rule that whatever or whoever you do or are, at
least be honest...I might not always agree with it, but
try and only hold myself accountable only for myself
and not worry about other people. I can find respect
in people who are completely opposite in thought
than I am, just by them being honest to themselves.
AND no God can erase Karma in a matter of minutes.

I'm sorry if that train of thought went over both
of your heads! At least you didnt have to duck!<br>
But thanks jazel, now I am on a mission! I will have
to look up those names again! But did you know Freed
was for gun control too?<br> I am none of the things
that you referred to, I dont know where you got all
that crap from!<br>And I'm also sorry if you cant
understand that the same statistics that can show that
something is good can be changed to show something entirely
different!<br>I'M the screamer??? When anybody dis agrees with
ether of you two, ya'll go into SPASMS!!!

Keep trying. I'm fully aware of how statistics
can be manipulated. Feel free to show me how those
statistics were manipulated. <br><br><<I'M the
screamer??? When anybody dis agrees with ether of you two,
ya'll go into SPASMS!!! >><br><br>Funny how
reality is in the eye of the beholder. You're the one
who's been making it a habit of using exclamation
points quite a bit. <br><br>(I do notice that you still
haven't owned up to the whole Britney fiasco here.)

An estimated 11.6 million offenses were reported
to law enforcement agencies across the Nation in
2000, an average of 4,124.0 crimes for every 100,000
inhabitants. This rate is 3.3 percent less than the 1999 rate,
18.9 percent less than the 1996 rate, and 30.1 percent
less than the crime rate recorded in 1991.<br> This
report says crime is down??? <br>The one you use says
its up?? The Britney thing was a come-on! I already
said that, getting senile,are we?

Sqeeze me!!! You still aint owed up for the
soreing feasco!Somebody else backed up my case, and you
disappeared! Must have been in spasms on the floor huh!<br> Oh
sorry the ! means I'm screaming<br>didnt mean to scream
There thats better or should we just forget about
peroids and commas and the others

Collectively, violent crime (murder, forcible
rape, robbery, and aggravated assault)decreased 0.1
percent from 1999 to 2000. Decreases in violent crime
occurred for robbery, 0.4 percent, and for aggravated
assault, 0.1 percent. Murder declined by less than
one-tenth of 1 percent. Forcible rape increased 0.9
percent, the first volume increase for that offense since
1992.<br>jeeze I cant find the report that says crime is up<br>
must be yours is correct right of coures yours is mine
wouldnt be

n 2000, 35.9 percent of aggravated assaults were
committed with blunt objects or other dangerous weapons.
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) were used in
28.0 percent of the assaults; firearms, in 18.1
percent; and knives or cutting instruments, in 18.0
percent. <br> You wanna outlaw hands and feet next

What is your point...

<<"I'm sorry if that train of thought went
over both of your heads! At least you didnt have to
duck">><br><br>Actually, the point, if you had one did not go over our
heads. It was just irrelevent. You used celebraties
hipocracies to try and argue the validity of research and
hand gun control.<br><br>Now you are rambling about
crime rates. Sounds like you are having a tantrum and
no one is listening.

>>Actually, the point, if you had one did
not go over our heads. It was just irrelevent. You
used celebraties hipocracies to try and argue the
validity of research and hand gun control.<<<br> If
you had to say that, then it all went over your
head!<br> "It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the
analysis of the obvious" Alfred North Whitehead!

i been gone for about 2 weeks happy new year and what been going on i dont feel
lie to read all of the post did i missed anything

<<did i missed anything >><br><br>Nope.<br><br>John

<<This report says crime is
down???>><br><br>Yes it does, as crime is down around the world. The
report I posted used this report in its statistics,
comparing the U.S. crime rates to countries around the
world. And crime has been steadily declining around the
globe. However, crime declined much more and remains
much lower per capita in countries with strict gun
control laws. But of course, I already said that in the
original post that posted those statistics, which I'm sure
you read.

<<Sqeeze me!!! You still aint owed up for
the soreing feasco!Somebody else backed up my case,
and you disappeared! Must have been in spasms on the
floor huh!>><br><br>Actually no. As I recall the
final postings on the subject went something like
this:<br><br>You:<br><<It was later stated from fact that aproxamatly 90%
of trainers use the soreing practice!<br>Does that
mean that those 90% horses are not
sound?>><br><br>Me:<br><<I have searched and searched and have been
unable
to corroborate any such statistic.<br><br>Please let
me know where you got those numbers, and I'd be
happy to investigate. Just trying to stick to the
facts, if you don't mind.<br><br>Plus, in my
investigations of publications, I've found about ten different
definitions and even more techniques of "soring", ranging
from simple weights and stretchers to spikes.
<br><br>Just trying to stick to the facts, if you don't
mind.>><br><br>To which there was no reply. Yet again, an example
of you reading things that aren't there. <br><br>And
I stand by my experience in this matter. Of all the
trainers I've worked with and known, I've not known
anybody to respect the practice of soring for those same
reasons I said before.

<<jeeze I cant find the report that says
crime is up<br>must be yours is correct right of coures
yours is mine wouldnt be>><br><br>See the
previous post about what I was ACTUALLY saying when I
posted the report versus what you think I was saying.

Jazel,<br> I would suggest to add to this
discussion the experiences of Australia with strict gun
control. Last I knew they were looking to repeal a law
that the ink was hardly dry on because the violent
crime had jumped so fast. I haven't seen much more than
that and haven't really taken an interest because the
effect of guns on the level of violent crime differs
even regionally in this country. Therefore I don't
know if Australia's experiences are relavant. I know
around here most every home has guns and we have a very
low crime rate and few gun accidents. I don't know if
that is relavent to where you live and
teach.<br><br>John

there is also a big decline where they alow
people to carry guns like FA has a big drop in the last
few years. i think that has more to do with the drop
in crime and the part of state like Va who put
people who commints a crim with a gun in jail not a slap
on the hand and repeats crimmals in jail for ever
the gun controll laws only take guns away from people
who dont braek the law

>>Please let me know where you got those
numbers, and I'd be happy to investigate. Just trying to
stick to the facts, if you don't mind.<<<br> So
stick to them, I didnt post the 90%, now did
I??????????

Dont waste your time John! I have already stated
that and got bashed big time!<br>Yet, I dont know what
the hell I'm talking about! There, again somebody
else says something that I have said before, yet when
I say it you get all pissy!

do you know that 70%-80% of the crim was done by
the same people. people do not go to jail the full
time the get release. we also dont have jail we summer
camps we AC, cable, soft beds, ect.. muders should b
put to death with in 2yrs not kept for 10-15yrs just
witing sme to bit lawer to get them off

You are right huntfish!<br> But I have already said that too, with nothing but
friction in return. <br>So then I post statistics, something they love, and now
I'm rambling incoharently!