shifter tightening

[S2Mumford@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/02/01 4:52:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lesnowich@... writes:

> > "Handguns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else" > > > > CA Stu > > > > I have to disagree. I once locked my keys in my car > in the middle of nowhere. It was about twenty degrees > Fahrenheit out and I did not have a coat on. I used the > butt of my Sig Sauer 45ACP to break the vent window. > > Walt > A14 "War Horse" >

I stand corrected. Thank God you had a gun! CA Stu

[Dan Oaks]

An armed society is a polite society -- Bumper Sticker -- bierdo on 10/2/01 10:00 PM, marcclarke@... at marcclarke@... wrote:

> Sadly, the Canadians, the Aussies, and the Brits have each seen their nation's > violent crime rates go up (not down) since effectively banning private > ownership of handguns. In the ideal scenario, everyone turns in their guns > and no one commits violent crimes. In the real scenario, the law-abiding > citizens turn in their guns, the criminals (oh yes, the ones who we already > knew do not follow the law) do not turn in their weapons, and then the > criminals are treated to a guaranteed defenseless victim-rich zone. The rise > in the crime rates, especially in the violent crime rates (the still-armed > criminals have no fear of would-be victims being able to effectively defend > themselves against an armed attack) follows naturally. > > -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA > > ----Original Message----- >> From: S2Mumford@... >> To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR stoppies (in the criminal sense) >> Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 15:38 >> >> That is patently ridiculous. >> How many 13 year olds bite or kick someone to death? >> I know all the gun enthusiasts on the list will love this, but I >> would rather there were no handguns in private ownership. >> I am enough of a realist to understand that in the USA, this will >> never happen, I mean you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, >> there are far too many handguns out there already in the USA. But >> I'll bet not many of the UK listers worry about their kids getting >> shot on the way to school... >> >> And Fred, quit it with the name calling, OK? Just because you don't >> agree with a country's laws, does that really make them "idiots" or >> does it make you an "Ugly American" for saying that? >> >> My whole family lives in the UK except myself, my wife and kids, and >> my Mom. >> >> >> CA Stu > >> --- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Chris Rivers" wrote: >>> My, oh my. You bring up a very good point! Feet and teeth should >> be >>> illegal as well! Far to dangerous! >>> >>> Later. >>> Renn >>> A15 (Rocinante) >>> >>> I've even heard the Brit's are talking about knife control, >>>> I think once these statist idiots realize there's no way to >> enforce a >>> blunt >>>> object ban or a rock registration scenario they'll eventually end >> up >>>> suspending you all from bungee cords to preclude kicking and >> biting each >>>> other. >>>> Fred J >>>> >>>>

[marcclarke@unforgettable.com]

Stu, No misinformation stated or intended. No fear mongering intended. No half truths. All my statements are verifiable. Crime rates and violent crime rates have indeed risen in these three countries following the banning of and confiscation of personally owned firearms. I made no statements about comparative crime rates or comparative numbers of police officers. You did. You called for a ban on firearm ownership. I illustrated what measurably happens when banning private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens actually occurs. I do have some proactive proposals which measurable do work (posted further down in this message). Inanimate objects such as firearms neither spontaneously load themselves nor aim themselves nor discharge themselves. Similarly, inanimate objects such as automobiles do not spontaneously start themselves or drive themselves or make left turns in front of oncoming motorcyclists. We are talking about humans and human behavior. Just as I object (politely and factually) whenever I hear a a concerned and well-meaning automobile driver call for banning motorcycles to protect motorcyclists from the terrible dangers they face while driving on the street that the actual issue is the behavior of the human automobile's drivers (and sometimes the training and the skills of the motorcyclists, as I see being discussed in a separate thread on licensing requirements and insurance), similarly I object (politely an factually) when I hear someone call for the banning of firearms as the (or even a) solution to human-on-human violence or crime. I made no statements about any evil empire(s). You did. I was engaged in a thread started by Dr. Pete, who mentioned considering obtaining a pistol. Thus, my discussion has primarily been directed toward the selection of an effective handgun for personal self defense. by a law-abiding and socially responsible individual. Since Dr. Pete has a license to practice medicine in Colorado, I known him to be both. Personally, I am a strong advocate of making violent criminal behavior actually be illegal. Our (US) police system does a very good job of apprehending violent criminals, but then they are either sentenced to short sentences or let out of jail on parole. According to the FBI's statistics, more than 85% of all violent crimes are committed by approximately 5% of of all criminals, and usually while these repeat violent offenders are out on bail or on parole from a jail term. I advocate addressing the human on human problem of violent crime by focusing on putting violent repeat offenders in jail and leaving them there. Assorted American cities have demonstrated that it works. Over on the motorcycle side of human on human automobile versus motorcycle collisions, I am a strong advocate of much better training and licensing for motorcyclists. The MSF has collected statistics showing that their trained students have a tremendously lower collision rate than untrained motorcyclists. Similarly, I support routine (yearly? biannually?) driver's written license and on-the-road re-testing and re-certification for all automobile drivers, especially seniors (who the statistics show are disproportionately involved in collisions with motorcyclists). I respectfully submit that banning guns to reduce violent crime and associated fatalities makes as much sense as banning motorcycles to reduce automobile on motorcycle traffic accidents and associated motorcyclist fatalities. Such firearm or motorcycle bans are proposed in good faith by well-meaning and good-hearted people. Such bans would feel good, they seems as if they makes sense (at least on the surface) and they do not actually address the underlying problems of irresponsible or negligent human behavior. -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA ----Original Message-----

>From: S2Mumford@... >To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR stoppies (in the criminal sense) >Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 17:30 > >My apologies to the list for hammering this into the ground. >If you are seeing red , please hit the delete key now! > >I re-read the below post, and it strikes me that this is full of >fearmongering half truths. >Is this misinformation designed to keep the public afraid of the evil >criminals, and in need of a police force armed to the teeth? >It is a fact that handguns kill 30 times more people per 100,000 in >the USA than the UK. >Keep your long rifles to defend against the Evil Empire (like the 2nd >amendment intended), but remember, "Handguns are made for killin', >they ain't no good for nothin' else" > >CA Stu > > >--- In DSN_klr650@y..., wrote: >> Sadly, the Canadians, the Aussies, and the Brits have each seen >their nation's violent crime rates go up (not down) since effectively >banning private ownership of handguns. In the ideal scenario, >everyone turns in their guns and no one commits violent crimes. In >the real scenario, the law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, the >criminals (oh yes, the ones who we already knew do not follow the >law) do not turn in their weapons, and then the criminals are treated >to a guaranteed defenseless victim-rich zone. The rise in the crime >rates, especially in the violent crime rates (the still-armed >criminals have no fear of would-be victims being able to effectively >defend themselves against an armed attack) follows naturally. >> >> -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA >> >SNIP > > >Checkout Dual Sport News at >http://www.dualsportnews.com >Be part of the Adventure! > >Visit the KLR650 archives at >http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 > >Post message: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com >Subscribe: DSN_klr650-subscribe@yahoogroups.com >Unsubscribe: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com >List owner: DSN_klr650-owner@yahoogroups.com > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >

[marcclarke@unforgettable.com]

Oops! Am I confused here? I was under the impression that Canada had recently banned private ownership of handguns. Am I confused? -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA ----Original Message-----

>From: "MERK" >To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR stoppies (in the criminal sense) >Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 17:03 > >Uh...Handguns aren`t banned in Canada. And, why would not having a >handgun make one "Defenseless"? ~MERK

[marcclarke@unforgettable.com]

----Original Message-----

>From: S2Mumford@... >To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR stoppies (in the criminal sense) >Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 17:09 > >Re-read my post Mark. >You have taken two statistics (the turning in of 160,000 handguns by >the British public and an increase in the crime rate) and combined >then to prove your point. That is like saying since there are fewer >handguns on the street today, people drive faster. The two items may >be factual, but one doesn't necessarily follow the other. I believe >the same year, the UK saw a horrendous increase in crime accross the >board.

Stu, this is precisely the point I was making.

>I don't think purse snatching went up because people turned in >their guns.

I do. US prisoners polled say that their primary parameter for selecting a crime victim is being confident that the selected victim will not be able to defend themselves. I believe them.

> Either one of us can take any statistics we want to prove our >respective points, but having lived in the UK, in a relatively >handgun-free society, and in Southern California, where you have a >number of shootings daily and every scumbag over the age of 14 has >a .22 in his pocket, I think the UK has it right on that score.

I have worked in both the UK and in California. I do not think the UK has it right. More on that below.

>I previously stated that an American society without guns is an >unrealistic goal, but to my knowledge, handguns have never been as >prolific in the UK as they are in the USA .

I concur.

>I believe that >proportionately, there are a lot fewer murders by handguns in the UK. > >CA Stu

I believe you are correct on both metrics, handguns per 10,000 and murders per 10,000. However, I am more than a little leery of drawing from the English culture to address America's problem with violence. England has a king. England has hereditary royalty and aristocracy. England has a parliament. England does not have a bill of rights. While I really enjoyed working there, I did not and do not want to live there. I do not want a king in America. I do not want a hereditary royalty or aristocracy. I want to keep the bill of rights. I do not believe that it is valid to import a tiny part of the very English different cultural, social, and political system from England to America. I believe we need to address and solve the American problem with violent crime in the setting and context of America. -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA -- Marc (hopes he never needs a gun and has one because he might)

[MERK]

I guess so. We have had new legislation regarding the registration of long arms and licensing of gun owners. No Ban. ~MERK Oops! Am I confused here? I was under the impression that Canada had recently banned private ownership of handguns. Am I confused? -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA ----Original Message-----

>From: "MERK" >To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR stoppies (in the criminal sense) >Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 17:03 > >Uh...Handguns aren`t banned in Canada. And, why would not having a >handgun make one "Defenseless"? ~MERK

[marcclarke@unforgettable.com]

I stand corrected. Thank you. -- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA ----Original Message-----

>From: "MERK" >To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR stoppies (in the criminal sense) >Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 20:47 > >I guess so. We have had new legislation regarding the registration of >long arms and licensing of gun owners. No Ban. ~MERK > >Oops! Am I confused here? I was under the impression that Canada had >recently banned private ownership of handguns. Am I confused? > >-- Marc, Kawasaki KLR650 A12, Loveland, Colorado, USA

[FGJ]

> That is patently ridiculous. > How many 13 year olds bite or kick someone to death?

Stu That was obviously meant to be facetous. the entire line of thought concerning controling human behaviour through the banning of inamate objects is what's patently ridiculous.

> I know all the gun enthusiasts on the list will love this, but I > would rather there were no handguns in private ownership. > I am enough of a realist to understand that in the USA, this will > never happen, I mean you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, > there are far too many handguns out there already in the USA. But > I'll bet not many of the UK listers worry about their kids getting > shot on the way to school...

I think the demographics of our respective societies are entirely different your governments pathetic attempts at instilling order are ludicrous, an Olympic free pistol shooter has to keep his or her .22 target pistol in France or Belgium and go there to practice, we all know just how insidious those Olympic atheletes are, a clear and present danger, no doubt.

> > And Fred, quit it with the name calling, OK? Just because you don't > agree with a country's laws, does that really make them "idiots" or > does it make you an "Ugly American" for saying that?

I apologize for calling your nations socialist leadership idiot's, perhaps I'll call them intellectually challenged, every time you folks get in a jam we end up shipping you all kinds of arms, then as soon as the crisis has passed they dump all of that ordinance in the Channel, So the unwashed masses can't overthrow the monarchy or whatever, I believe that was the case in WWI and WWII, during the dark days after Dunkirk and before we entered the war there were American citizens donating thier firearms including shotguns and sporting rifles and shipping them over before Congress could gear up and start Lend lease. Logic and pragmatism occoured briefly during the mid nineteenth century when the powers that be started the "Volunteer Movement " where your government fearing an invasion from the continent, and as usual being totally unprepared started your NRA and promoted long range target shooting building rifle ranges and giving away military rifles and I'm fairly certain many of those weapons ended up in the Channel once the danger had passed. I bet I could go into a biker bar in any of your major cities and buy a fully automatic Kalishnakov or Scorpion machine pistol perhaps even an RPG. The black market in Europe is flooded with Ivan's goodies now that they've fallen on hard times. In the past decade 38 American states have instituted liberal concealed carry (Shall Issue) which started in Florida, all of the lefties started screaming " the sky is falling " they said the streets would run red with blood as the citizen's would doubtless be waxing each other in droves over parking disputes etc, what actually happened was that violent crime against strangers in urban area's went down 38% as the dirtbags realized that woman, handicapped or elderly person might just cap them, they started preying on tourists in rental cars etc as they probably weren't armed, you don't need to accept my words, check out the statistics. Fred J Don't you be messin with my Squirrels

[FGJ]

> I guess so. We have had new legislation regarding the registration of > long arms and licensing of gun owners. No Ban. ~MERK > Oops! Am I confused here? I was under the impression that Canada had > recently banned private ownership of handguns. Am I confused? >

I think they're taking the incremental approach on disarming the Canadians, it's the boiling the frogs principal if you turn up the heat slowly they'll end up being happily boiled, if you try turning up the heat too fast they'll jump out, our politicians work on the same principal, our Republicans are very fond of this particular approach wheras our Democrats are too anxious and heavy handed. Personally I'll sleep better once the Canadians are disarmed, as sooner or later they're going to want to get even for our previous invasions, (1777, 1812) and it is the largest unguarded border in the world, they're lulling us into a false sense of complacency with the Red Green schtick.

[Dan Oaks]

on 10/3/01 2:00 AM, marcclarke@... at marcclarke@... wrote:

> Over on the motorcycle side of human on human automobile versus motorcycle > collisions, I am a strong advocate of much better training and licensing for > motorcyclists. The MSF has collected statistics showing that their trained > students have a tremendously lower collision rate than untrained > motorcyclists. Similarly, I support routine (yearly? biannually?) driver's > written license and on-the-road re-testing and re-certification for all > automobile drivers, especially seniors (who the statistics show are > disproportionately involved in collisions with motorcyclists).

I am a strong advocate of much better training and stricter licensing of automobile and truck drivers. I really believe some of them are legally blind, and legally retarded. My father died in a nursing home at 96 and still had a driver's license that was good for several more years. It had been renewed through the mail. He had the sense to voluntarily stop driving after he inadvertantly backed into a neighbors Lincoln Towne Car and totaled it with his Honda Civic doing less than $300 damage to the Honda (Should have entered him in a demo derby). Most people don't have the sense or good judgement to lay down their keys when the time comes. I was hit head-on a few years ago by a 93 year old in a Pinto that didn't have the facilities to realize he had quickly whipped into the opposing lane. Speaking as both a victim and and old fart, that's bullshit. I say put all us old people, that don't want to take driving tests each year, on motorscooters and golf carts. -- bierdo an older person