Treated lumber for bird house

Hear ya on that one Dave. An the term arbitarirly defined as "assault "
rifle is interesting. Has to do with the styling like having a flsh
surpressor or "military" style stock. oesn't have anything to do with the
letahlity of it. Most shooting deaths in the US are by .22s. Which most
people won't call an assault rifle. Then again the M16 is a .222 Yep it's
a high powered .22.

Me I only own four guns. An old Walther 38 my Dad picked up in Germany
during WWII, a ,25 derringer five shot Webly aand two rifles I use to hunt
with a British Enfield .303 (Infantry issue) and an 1897 Marlin lever action
.38-55. Only things I'ver shot were game animals and the occassional hog
for buthcering.

D. Mo
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >
> > As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
> > People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
> > I guess they ran out of paper targets.
> >
> > BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using
their gun
> > for the purpose for which it was intended.<g>
> >
>

Birdhouses are one of my specialties and I now mostly work with pine.
Surprising enough, even cedar is considered by many to be too toxic for birds. I
don't know anything about AC2 but I would not use it.

Neal


"Indyrose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
> making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
> don't trust the new stuff.
>
> I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
> just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
> exterior paint for protection.
>
> Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
> mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
> animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
> to finish sand the stuff.
>
> Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?
>
> Indyrose
>
> Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
> com.

Dave,

Very easy to disprove the old "Every Fourteen Minutes" bit, or even worse
the 50,000+ bit with simple math.
Most people tend to believe what they believe rather than think.

Simple way to look at it is by examining with facts and make your own
assumption.

Say we believed the 14 minute bit, than the following states would have the
following gunshot deaths.

Okalahoma 449 per year or 1.23 a day
Virginia 939 per year or 2.57 a day.

Now if you live in those states watch you local news and you should expect
to hear about the same amount of deaths reported per day for the ENTIRE year
. This is of course under the assumption that a "gunshot" death is news
worthy. LOL

Now if we use the 50,000 per year number we come up with :

Minnesota 869 per year or 2.38 per day
Florida 2,904 per year or 7.95 per day

Somebody in FL please watch the late news and report how many gunshot
victims are in the news tonight.

Since in fact nobody can come up with an accurate source for these bogus
Gunshot numbers, it is a lot easier to disprove it using simple factual
math. I can only assume that the people who believe these numbers, are bad
at math, and are the same people you see standing in line at the lottery.

Roger L

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:39:17 GMT, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
> >>ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).
> >
> > Actually the number is WAY low.
>
> Based on what specific data, exactly?
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.
>
> > Conversation is over.
>
> I see, this is the "I'm going to make a claim, refuse to back it up with
> any legitimate data other than 'I said so' and bail out" tactic. Ah yes,
> always an effective way to make your case.
>
> > Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the
world who
> > suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.
>
> ...followed by the personal insult. Yup, you're a classic. Your next
> step is, I believe, to follow up even though you claimed you were done.
> Maybe you could post some actual sources of your claimed data? You know,
> ones that don't come from Sarah Brady and company?
>

I don't like working with PT lumber, although I recently constructed a
park bench using it. You should work with it outdoors and with a
properly fitted dust mask. The splinters from PT wood are nasty and
take a long time to heal. For bird houses, I prefer pine. One pine
house is over 18 years old and still in use today--I think the tar
shingle on the roof helped preserve it. I also built a bat house,
made from pine.

On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>> As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
>> People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
>> I guess they ran out of paper targets.
>
>Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
>ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).

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.

Conversation is over.
Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> If the pesticide industry is any indicator, NOTHING they
> make is safe. First they took Chlordane off the market,
> which I used freely around my property. So I bought
> Dursban. Now that's banned. I also used a termite killer
> that is no longer sold due to it's toxicity. At some point,
> I think the industry will replace all their products as
> safety concerns continue to pile up.
>
>
While some of the stuff is truly scary (i.e. DDT), a lot of the
banning is to protect people who use the stuff incorrectly. And
I have to wonder if somebody isn't seeing dollar signs on
product liability lawsuits.

There's no product more dangerous than an automobile when used
incorrectly. OK, maybe a motorcycle :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:40:10 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:45:11 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>or an assault rifle... <g>
>>
> How do you use an assault rifle wrong?
> They are designed for one purpose only. To shoot people.

Odd, I've got several rifles defined by the legislature as "assult
rifles", and I haven't shot anyone with 'em. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or your point of view is incorrect.

> So if you aren't shooting people with it, you are using it wrong.

So shooting holes in paper targets from 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards
isn't legitimate in your world? That's nice, but keep out of my world.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:58:35 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2004 18:48:43 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Odd, I've got several rifles defined by the legislature as "assult
>>rifles", and I haven't shot anyone with 'em. Either I'm doing
>>something wrong,
>
> Exactly.

So you are saying that I should be killing people with my guns. Wow.
Sorry, but I don't accept your interpretation, and find it insulting.
Personal ownership of firearms is why you _have_ the right to free
speech.

>>> So if you aren't shooting people with it, you are using it wrong.
>>So shooting holes in paper targets from 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards
>>isn't legitimate in your world?
>
> Why not RPGs?

Evasion noted.

>>That's nice, but keep out of my world.
>
> As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
> People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
> I guess they ran out of paper targets.

Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).

> BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using their gun
> for the purpose for which it was intended.<g>

And circuit boards were designed for guided missles, therefore all
computers are ballistic weapons as well. Logic isn't your strong point,
is it.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:39:17 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
>>ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).
>
> Actually the number is WAY low.

Based on what specific data, exactly?

> 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.

Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.

> Conversation is over.

I see, this is the "I'm going to make a claim, refuse to back it up with
any legitimate data other than 'I said so' and bail out" tactic. Ah yes,
always an effective way to make your case.

> Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
> suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

...followed by the personal insult. Yup, you're a classic. Your next
step is, I believe, to follow up even though you claimed you were done.
Maybe you could post some actual sources of your claimed data? You know,
ones that don't come from Sarah Brady and company?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:59:47 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:36:56 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've shot a variety of rifles and pistols and haven't yet
>>used a person as a target!
>>
> 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.

And if you're typing on a computer, you're using circuit boards for
a purpose for which they weren't designed; they were first used in
guided missiles. Initial design purpose is irrelevant to legitimate
use of a technology.

> In fact the 45 was adopted by the military so officers could shoot and kill, at
> close range, their own men for cowardice.

Cite, please?

> 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.

I have many devices classified by the government as "assault weapons", yet
I do not use them to kill people.

> It serves no other
> purpose. Shooting paper targets shaped like people is the behavior of the
> mentally ill.

Oooooookay, but a round target is OK with you? I mean, shooting at a
piece of wood pulp with one shape of ink on it is baaaaaad, but it's OK
if it's round?

> 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>

What does pissing have to do with target shooting?

> But shooting them is considered normal.
> Only in America.

You seem to be humanizing a paper target, based on the shape of the
ink printed on it. This is irrational.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:05:10 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2004 19:59:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>...followed by the personal insult.
>
> I never insulted you. I said you are sick. Mentally ill.

This isn't an insult in your mind? Wow.

> I feel sorry for people like you.
> But I worry sick about those unfortunate enough to be your neighbors.

The funny thing is, most of my neighbors come over to my place to
shoot. Many coworkers come out to my place to shoot. Even people who
have never touched a gun in their lives are keen on coming out, learning
how to safely handle the machinery, and learn the enjoyment that comes in
being able to use the physical and mental discipline needed to produce
a decent group of holes in a piece of paper at a distance.

I also note a complete and utter response to the substantive points
made in my post, and the evasion and apparent concession has been duly noted.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.
>
> Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
> For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573

29000 seems to be a smaller number than 50000.

> Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
> firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
> and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
> etc.

> For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
> does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.
>
> Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585

> That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.
> Backed up well enough for you?

How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
criminals?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:42:10 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> I love this one.
> LAKEWOOD - A 36-year-old Lakewood man was killed Wednesday while trying to teach
> his 13-year-old son about gun safety, police say.

Glad you find humor in a dumbass's death. Very compassionate of you.

> What this report fails to include is that the guys two daughters aged 10 and 7
> were in the room at the time as well.
> The moron was teaching them how to do a quick draw from under his bed pillow.
> I wonder if the shooter inherited the guns.<g>

I'd say he taught his kids about gun safety all right - as a counterexample.
Is there a point in this, or are you just sharing an amusing anecdote
with us?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:42:26 GMT, Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
>> How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
>> from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
>> criminals?
>
> Why should I run those numbers for you? Does it matter? The point was
> that a lot of violence (or accidents) happens with firearms.

Yes, that much is true.

> I didn't say anything about conclusions; in fact, I very much avoided
> saying anything of the sort. However, you disputed the numbers, I gave
> you the numbers. It is now up to you to go further.

Fair enough, but I think I'll pass - this topic loses a bit of glitter
after the dozenth time or so.

> I suspect that no matter how I broke down the numbers you would
> eventually fall back to the old adage "Guns don't kill people, people
> kill people". So I say screw it, no point in arguing either way.

And tell me how that's wrong. At the end of the day, no piece of hardware
operates itself, there's a human directing it. Until or unless guns
develop intelligence which allows them to be autonomous, it's still the
person who bears responsibility for their actions.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Conversation is over.
> Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
> suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.
>
I never thought I'd be defending Dave, but I am :-).

I grew up in an era and place where eveyone had guns. Kids even
brought them to school so they could go hunting on the way home.
While there were people who misused them, most of the people who
got shot deserved it.

The rule was never, never point a gun at someone (or something)
unless you intend to pull the trigger.

If you were a kid stealing watermelons or corn, you got rock
salt.

If you were an adult doing the same, you got birdshot or rabbit
shot.

If you broke into a house, you got a .38 or .45 slug or a
hunting bullet.

The problem isn't the guns, it's the breakdown of society.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <pmkierst-
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I suspect that no matter how I broke down the numbers you would
> eventually fall back to the old adage "Guns don't kill people, people
> kill people". So I say screw it, no point in arguing either way.
>
Actually, I prefer "Those who beat their swords into plowshares
wind up plowing for those who didn't."

Or, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

As long as there is one person in the country who has a gun and
is willing to use it for criminal purposes, I'll hang on to
mine.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <pmkierst-
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> However, I will admit that quite a few countries have high gun ownership
> without a coorsponding high homicide rate, so it is quite apparent that
> gun ownership itself is not the cause. Whether it contributes is, of
> course, open for debate and extremely difficult to measure with any
> level of certainty.
>
A voice of reason. Thank you.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> But will your steak knife travel through several walls and kill the neighbors
> child two doors down?
>
Neither will my bullets. I intentionally buy ones that
disintegrate on imapct with anything hard. On thieves, they
just mushroom :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> what about a Scary Sharp chisel, Larry? That can cause
> grievous bodily harm!
>
But seldom to several people at once :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:48:48 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:26:33 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>>Shooting paper targets shaped like people is the behavior of the
>>>mentally ill.
>>
>>Perhaps so
>
> That's the first rational thing you've posted today.
>
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.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:52:34 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:24:16 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>Neither will my bullets. I intentionally buy ones that
>>disintegrate on imapct with anything hard. On thieves, they
>>just mushroom :-).
>
> Personally I don't believe a petty thief deserves the death penalty but that's
> just me.

If someone breaks into my house, they are doing so with the understanding
that I am likely to be able to defend myself. As such, it is reasonable
and prudent to think that they are likewise able and willing to do me
and my family harm. As such, I will stop them from being a threat
before they can hurt me or my family.

> And unlike you, the thought of killing another human being doesn't put a smile
> on my face, it makes me ill.

How little you understand us. Killing someone, even a worthless shit of
an intruder, is the last thing I'd want to do. But don't you DARE take
away my means to defend myself from that same worthless intruder.

> I'm surprised you aren't over in Iraq.
> You would have a great time.

Wow. Just.....wow.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >Neither will my bullets. I intentionally buy ones that
> >disintegrate on imapct with anything hard. On thieves, they
> >just mushroom :-).
>
> Personally I don't believe a petty thief deserves the death penalty but that's
> just me.
> And unlike you, the thought of killing another human being doesn't put a smile
> on my face, it makes me ill.

Boy, are you sick! Or just a troll.

First, I've never shot anyone and hope I never have to. But if
some doped up @#!$% breaks into my house while I'm home, I'd
much rather I kill him than vice versa.

Would you rather I called 911 so the police could haul me and my
family off to the morgue when they finally got there?

> I'm surprised you aren't over in Iraq.
> You would have a great time.
>
If you read this newsgroup, you'd know that I'm opposed to the
war in Iraq. But I do admit wondering why all those so-and-so's
dancing around to celebrate another dead US soldier don't at
least get a fire hose turned on them.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Greetings and Salutations....

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:40:10 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:45:11 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>or an assault rifle... <g>
>>
>How do you use an assault rifle wrong?
>They are designed for one purpose only. To shoot people.
>So if you aren't shooting people with it, you are using it wrong.
>
>>dave
>>
>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>snip
>>>
>>> There's no product more dangerous than an automobile when used
>>> incorrectly. OK, maybe a motorcycle :-).
>>>
>
Not trying to throw gasoline on the fire here, but, this
is an amazing thread. It only took five or six posts to turn
into a useless flamewar over whether or not folks should have
the right to possess guns. Got to love the Net.
For what it is worth, I think that using pressure
treated wood for much of anything except building sills and
uses that contact the ground directly is a bad idea. There
are enough sources of toxins in the bird's environment now,
we don't need to add an even closer one. Also, of course,
the dust is pretty nasty for humans too.
As for the gun control argument that takes up the
other hundreds of posts...
#1 - Gun control is a 1/2" group at 50 yards.
#2 - While it is true enough that America
has problems, they are related more to the culture of
mindless violence fostered by foolish mistakes in child
rearing by parents, the weakening of standards in
schools, and, the pervasive influence of television.
#3 - Americans "love" guns...and fight
to preserve the shrinking abilities to own them without
hindrance not because we are all homocidal maniacs, just
waiting with bated breath for the chance to blow a hole
in another citizen, but, because our founders realized
that the only true protection that the citizens have
against a government out of control is the last resort
of armed rebellion. It may be true that this resort is
getting further and further away from reality, but, it
IS the way that this country was founded. "Working within
the system", negotiations, diplomacy, were all tried and
failed. About the only GOOD thing that came from all
that effort was that Ben Franklin had a great time (and
quite a number of them, if the records are anywhere
near accurate).
#4 - many statistics have been bandied about
in this, and, I am sure that everyone has had a grand
time doing it. The fact is that there are vast areas
of America where a person being shot and killed is
a very rare occurence. There are parts of America
where it seems the rule is that we can't have
breakfast until somebody gets blown away. Interestingly
enough, there seems to be a real correlation between
population density and killings.
How about this...Let's agree that those of us
in America who want to own guns, will buy guns. Those
of us in America who DON'T want to own guns, can NOT buy
guns. The rest of the world can do what ever their laws
allow. Now...let's go back to debating Norm and his
influence on woodworking.
I, for one, think that Norm, while he might
have some lacks as a woodworker, performs a valuable
service, in that he makes the hobby approachable and
understandable, and, in some cases, helps folks understand
that what I do in the workshop is difficult, requires skill
and takes time
Regards
Dave Mundt

Bjórrúnar skaltu Larry Jaques rista --

> If you want to be really informed,
> I suggest that everyone read John Lott's "More Guns, Less
> Crime"

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

On 8 Jun 2004 19:59:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
>> suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.
>
>...followed by the personal insult.

I never insulted you. I said you are sick. Mentally ill.
I feel sorry for people like you.
But I worry sick about those unfortunate enough to be your neighbors.

I toiled for a while at a Wild Birds Unltd store. The manager/owner knew her
stuff and was vehemently against ANY finish on the wood, even those that are
"non-toxic" for humans. She felt that not only were the birds susceptible to
the treated wood itself but also to the outgassing that cannot be prevented.
Her recommendation was to use untreated, unfinished pine. Yes, it will
decay, but no, the birds won't.

Bob

"Indyrose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
> making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
> don't trust the new stuff.
>
> I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
> just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
> exterior paint for protection.
>
> Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
> mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
> animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
> to finish sand the stuff.
>
> Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?
>
> Indyrose
>
> Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
> com.

Do not use treated lumber. There are a lot if toxins that can hurt birds out there.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On 8 Jun 2004 19:07:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
>>> People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
>>> I guess they ran out of paper targets.
>>
>>Cite, please? (Translation: I think you pulled that number out of your
>>ass, and would like to see you back it up with a legitimate source).
>
>Actually the number is WAY low.
>Far more than 50,000 people are SHOT every year in the US.

Citation, please?

>Every fourteen minutes someone DIES from a gun shot wound in the US.

Let's have some facts here, shall we, instead of just repeating bullshit
that you read somewhere?

Source for the following is the 2003 World Almanac and Book of Facts (World
Almanac Books, New York), pages 76- 80.

In 1999 [latest year this almanac provides statistics for], there were 28,874
total deaths involving firearms in the United States. Of these, the majority
were suicide (16,599). Approximately three out of eight were homicides
(10,828). Another 824 were accidents, and in 324 cases "the intention involved
(whether accident, suicide, or homicide) could not be determined."

One year contains 525,600 minutes. Therefore, the rate of firearm deaths from
all causes in the US in 1999 was one every eighteen minutes -- and a firearm
*homicide* occurred, on average, once every 49 minutes.

For comparison purposes, in the same year, 42,401 people died in motor vehicle
accidents, and more people died of falls (13,162) and poisoning (12,186) than
died of firearm homicides -- and one-point-five *million* people die of
cancer, heart disease, and stroke every year.

For those who are unduly concerned about firearm _accidents_, please note that
more people drowned (3,529), choked (3,885), suffocated (1,618) or died in
fires (3,348), than died in firearm accidents (824, as noted above).

>Conversation is over.

Translation: you don't have any facts to back up your claims.

>Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
>suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.

Wrong again. That group is called "liberals". One symptom of their illness is
the delusion that laws, in and of themselves, actually have any effect on the
behavior of the criminal class, a group which _by_definition_ does not obey
laws. This most frequently manifests itself as the delusional belief that
legislation restricting the use or possession of firearms can in any way
reduce the crime rate, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

--
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.

or an assault rifle... <g>

dave

Larry Blanchard wrote:
snip
>
> There's no product more dangerous than an automobile when used
> incorrectly. OK, maybe a motorcycle :-).
>

so when the police practice their shooting skills at the
target range, they are mentally ill?

dave

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:26:33 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>>>Shooting paper targets shaped like people is the behavior of the
>>>mentally ill.
>>
>>Perhaps so
>
>
> That's the first rational thing you've posted today.
>

so you want Clancy to be the National Security Advisor?

dave

Bruce Barnett wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Look at 911. They used the aircraft that they
>>were riding in. Took everyone by total surprise.
>
>
> Nope. Just some people who ignored warnings.
>
> Anyone who read Tom Clancy's best-selling _Debt of Honor_ wasn't
> totally surprised of a commercial plane being used as a weapon.
>
> (That's the one where a 747 crashed into the Presidential inauguration.)
>
>

Imagine that. A toxic poison. Who'd a thought .

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:gzkxc.81663

> I also used a termite killer
> that is no longer sold due to it's toxicity.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I toiled for a while at a Wild Birds Unltd store. The manager/owner knew her
> stuff and was vehemently against ANY finish on the wood, even those that are
> "non-toxic" for humans. She felt that not only were the birds susceptible to
> the treated wood itself but also to the outgassing that cannot be prevented.
> Her recommendation was to use untreated, unfinished pine. Yes, it will
> decay, but no, the birds won't.

You know Bob, my first inclination was that PT lumber was no good for
birds either. But then I was quickly reminded of the sparrows nesting
(and shitting) under my deck. Maybe sparrows have a higher tolerance,
considering they have 3 nests tucked in between the PT joists.

We used to have robins too, but the damned sparrows chased them off.

Maybe it's time for a cat...
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Rick Chamberlain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > I toiled for a while at a Wild Birds Unltd store. The manager/owner knew
> her
> > > stuff and was vehemently against ANY finish on the wood, even those that
> are
> > > "non-toxic" for humans. She felt that not only were the birds
> susceptible to
> > > the treated wood itself but also to the outgassing that cannot be
> prevented.
> > > Her recommendation was to use untreated, unfinished pine. Yes, it will
> > > decay, but no, the birds won't.
> >
> > You know Bob, my first inclination was that PT lumber was no good for
> > birds either. But then I was quickly reminded of the sparrows nesting
> > (and shitting) under my deck. Maybe sparrows have a higher tolerance,
> > considering they have 3 nests tucked in between the PT joists.
> >
> > We used to have robins too, but the damned sparrows chased them off.
> >
> > Maybe it's time for a cat...
>
> ...or some sparrow houses. That'll teach you use ipe.
>
> How was the getaway weekend?

Heh. Knew there was going to be a downside to that wood.

Never got there... I did get to Minny for a business meeting last week
tho. Got back in time to help my sister put in a patio and raised
veggie bed. Didn't feel too bad after half a bottle of ibuprofen and a
gallon of water.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

you are able to diagnose over the 'net? That's pretty
amazing, but I think a bit unethical. We'll have to get
your medical license lifted...you DO have a license to
practice don't you??

dave

[email protected] wrote:

> On 8 Jun 2004 19:59:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Gun owners in the US are the single largest identifiable group in the world who
>>>suffer from a serious mental illness but go largely untreated.
>>
>>...followed by the personal insult.
>
>
> I never insulted you. I said you are sick. Mentally ill.
> I feel sorry for people like you.
> But I worry sick about those unfortunate enough to be your neighbors.
>
>

absolutely.

I must confess, I've even used a tee shirt to apply shellac.
That MUST be a use that Fruit of the Loom and Jockey has
never endorsed. I'll turn myself in to the nearest Macy's.

dave

Dave Hinz wrote:

>
> And if you're typing on a computer, you're using circuit boards for
> a purpose for which they weren't designed; they were first used in
> guided missiles. Initial design purpose is irrelevant to legitimate
> use of a technology.
>
>

Now THERE'S a special interest group!

Question: What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the
ocean?

Answer: A good start! :)

dave

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:szoxc.81756
>
>>Look at
>>911. They used the aircraft that they were riding in. Took
>>everyone by total surprise.
>
>
> Not according to the lawyers handling the suits against Boeing and the
> Airlines.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:22:34 -0700, Larry Jaques
> <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If you rule out gangs killing one another, DOCTORS kill more
>>people than guns do each year, as do automobiles and accidents.
>
>When is the last time a gun did life saving surgery or drove you to work.
>When is the last time a bullet did anything but kill or maim?

Guns save lives, too, every time they are used for self-defense.

>Bullets have killed or maimed a quarter million american already this century.

Statistics, please -- particularly as regards your use of the word "maimed".

Don't forget to check the statistics on the number of people killed or maimed
by motor vehicles.

>Every one of those bullets did exactly what it was designed to do.
>A bullet has no other purpose.

False, and you know it. It has already been explained to you that bullets are
also used in target shooting. Are you unaware that shooting is, and has been
for many years, an Olympic sport?

>Why Do americans enjoy killing and maiming each other with guns?

We don't. Where did you get the idea that we do? For heaven's sake, man, turn
off your damned television set and interact with the real world. Try reading
the books that were suggested in another post -- you might actually learn
something new.

>That's the question that must be answered.

No, the question that must be answered is why you have these irrational,
delusional beliefs.

>We know it's a mental illness, but can it be cured.

And I hope that someday you find your cure.

--
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.

millions of people did NOT expect airplanes to crash into
the twin towers, bringing them both down, nor striking the
Pentagon.

Why did YOU say something as silly as that??

dave

Bruce Barnett wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>so you want Clancy to be the National Security Advisor?
>
>
> Why on earth do you say something as silly as that?
>
> You did say "totally surprised" didn't you?
>
> And the fact that the scenario was known to MILLIONS of people would
> suggest that this wasn't a case of "Gee - no one could POSSIBLY have
> ever expected it." And it's not as if Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan novels are
> unpopular for those involved in the U. S. government.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>dave
>>
>>Bruce Barnett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Look at 911. They used the aircraft that they
>>>>were riding in. Took everyone by total surprise.
>>>
>>>Nope. Just some people who ignored warnings.
>>>Anyone who read Tom Clancy's best-selling _Debt of Honor_ wasn't
>>>totally surprised of a commercial plane being used as a weapon.
>>>(That's the one where a 747 crashed into the Presidential
>>>inauguration.)
>>>
>>
>

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> here is a link to one of the chemicals. make up your own
> mind as to it's safety.
>
> http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ET/ethanolamine.html
>
> If the pesticide industry is any indicator, NOTHING they
> make is safe.

Yes, now that Bayer has started marketing pesticides, I'm convinced aspirin
must be unsafe.

> First they took Chlordane off the market,
> which I used freely around my property. So I bought
> Dursban. Now that's banned. I also used a termite killer
> that is no longer sold due to it's toxicity.

I sure wish I had some Pentachlor wood preservative. My father had his
garage doors replaced after a hurricane in 1983, cheap, basic doors of
(untrested) pine frames with MDF panels. I was a teen then, and was
prepping and painting them, and first I prushed on some Pentachlor
preservative he'd bought. The doors were painted on the outside only
(though I later did paint one on the inside). Painted twice in the past 20
years (due for another painting now). The bottom couple of panels have been
under water for hours at a timethree or four times, and the bottom eight -
twelve inches of the doors have been soaked for hours in minor floods
probably a dozen times. The wood is in great condition, while I've replaced
all of the hardware once, the springs twice, and probably should replace a
few of the rollers again. It may wipe out all the wildlife in miles, give
downwind neighbors cancer and explain why the cat had that pesky extra head,
but, damn, it sure preserved that wood!

(I wore rubber gloves, a respirator and goggles when I applied the stuff,
and *still* got a drop spalshed in my eye. My father, a chemical engineer,
phoned while I was rinsing my eye out, and freaked out, wanted to come take
me to the ER.)


>At some point,
> I think the industry will replace all their products as
> safety concerns continue to pile up.

I replaced the pesticide foggers I used regularly in my workshop with
lizards. Well, the lizards (geckos) moved in, and I found I no longer had
the recurring problem with crickets getting into my woodpile.

Bjórrúnar skaltu Larry Jaques rista --

> Nonetheless, I look to his book to show dozens of good points
> which are now being confirmed by studies since his.

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.

the stuff they have now is not as effective. Can you
understand that bit of science, you smart-assed twit?

dave

CW wrote:

> Imagine that. A toxic poison. Who'd a thought .
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:gzkxc.81663
>
>
>>I also used a termite killer
>>that is no longer sold due to it's toxicity.
>
>
>

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.
>
>Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
>
>For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573
>
>Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
>firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
>and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
>etc.
>
>For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
>does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.
>
>Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585
>
>That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.
>
>Backed up well enough for you?

I love this one.
LAKEWOOD - A 36-year-old Lakewood man was killed Wednesday while trying to teach
his 13-year-old son about gun safety, police say.

Investigators say the man was trying to show his son how to deal with intruders
when the gun went off at their home in the 100 block of South Kendall Street
around 3:45 p.m.

A bullet struck the man in his head. He died at St. Anthony's Hospital a short
time later.

No names have been released.

Police said the teen thought the gun was unloaded when it went off. At this
time, police have not decided if they will file charges against him.

-------
What this report fails to include is that the guys two daughters aged 10 and 7
were in the room at the time as well.
The moron was teaching them how to do a quick draw from under his bed pillow.
I wonder if the shooter inherited the guns.<g>

Indyrose wrote:

> One of my 4-H wood working kids turned up with treated lumber for
> making a bird house. It's the new stuff, AC2-- not CCA -- but I still
> don't trust the new stuff.
>
> I'm in the process of telling him why that is a bad idea, and to use
> just about anything else instead -- even cheap pine with a good latex
> exterior paint for protection.
>
> Although it is touted as being "less toxic," that still doesn't put my
> mind at ease. Personally, I wouldn't work with it indoors, use it with
> animals (birds) or let kids handle it much. I certainly wouldn't want
> to finish sand the stuff.
>
> Am I being too cautious, as the kid's parents seem to think I am?
>
> Indyrose
>
> Reply on the wreck or to my "real" email at indyrose at milmac dot
> com.

I think the big problem is that birds are quite sensitive to substances that
a human wouldn't even be aware of. For example, miners used to use
canaries as warning of the presence of toxic gases--the canary would die
long before the buildup was high enough to harm the miners, so they'd know
to get out or ventilate in plenty of time. That being the case, with
anything that birds are going to live in I think it is best to err on the
side of caution.

Googling "birdhouse pressure treated" got one 8 year old extension service
link that said it was OK, the many, many others said not to.

<http://birds.cornell.edu/birdhouse/bhbasics/bhbasics_index.html> has lots
of good information on birdhouses. Since it's part of a research project
being conducted by the Cornell Ornithology lab which is one of the top
avian research organizations in the world, I think anything they say you
can pretty much take as gospel, and one of the first things they say is
"untreated wood".

I suspect that heart cedar with an asphalt shingle top would last a good
long time.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:

> Look at 911. They used the aircraft that they
> were riding in. Took everyone by total surprise.

Nope. Just some people who ignored warnings.

Anyone who read Tom Clancy's best-selling _Debt of Honor_ wasn't
totally surprised of a commercial plane being used as a weapon.

(That's the one where a 747 crashed into the Presidential inauguration.)


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:36:56 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've shot a variety of rifles and pistols and haven't yet
>>used a person as a target!
>>
> 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.

Bull.

First, it is unlawful for anyone in the United States to own an assault
rifle unless they have been interviewed, reviewed, background checked,
folded, spindled, stapled, and mutilated to a degree that should satisfy
any reasonable person. The few who pass the check then pay a rather large
tax, sometimes several times the price of the firearm, for the privilege.
If you know of an incident subsequent to 1934, when the the current law was
enacted, in which a lawfully obtained assault rifle was used in the
commission of a crime then please be kind enough to provide a reference to
that incident.

Second, the most popular type of target shooting competition in the US is
one that was designed specifically to improve the shooting skills of the
American public for military purposes--it was started by officers who
fought on both sides in the Civil War as a reaction to the abominable
marksmanship exhibited by the average soldier in that war. One of the
rules of that competition is that one use a current US military
rifle--since the current US military rifle is an assault rifle, the rules
have been adjusted to allow the use of firearms that are dimensionally the
same, have the same operating procedures, and use the same ammunition but
that are not assault rifles, so that competitors may lawfully own the
firearms necessary to participate in that competition.

Third, the .45 was designed for the purpose of stopping Huk insurrectionists
who by using certain drugs, putting themselves in great pain during their
attacks, and taking other actions intended to improve their ability to
withstand wounds, put themselves into a physical and mental state such that
the standard service pistol of the time would _not_ stop them--it would
inflict a fatal wound but death would come slowly and they would do a great
deal of harm before they died. One can shoot and kill ones own men at
close range with any firearm, there is certainly no need for the .45.

As for large caliber handguns being designed to shoot people, in point of
fact large caliber handguns are mostly designed for shooting game or
targets. The military .45 is not a "large caliber handgun" by contemporary
standards--that honor would go to such things as the .50 Desert Eagle.

>>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?
>>
> But will your steak knife travel through several walls and kill the
> neighbors child two doors down?

It takes a fairly powerful rifle bullet to "travel through several walls and
kill the neighbor's 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.

Please define "assault weapon".

> It serves no
> other purpose. Shooting paper targets shaped like people is the behavior
> of the mentally ill.

So all police officers are mentally ill? Further, most target competition
in the US involves round targets. The kind in which civilian-legal
facsimiles of military rifles are used certainly does.

> 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>

Urination in public is generally frowned upon. So is discharging a fiream
in a residential area. And the cops are much more likely to come to a
report of a shooting that to a report of a pissing.

> But shooting them is considered normal.
> Only in America.

So where are you that your police do not train with human-shaped targets? I
suggest that you clean your own house before you try to clean ours. Or
maybe it's OK with you that your police are insane by your standards.

>>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!)

I note that you have no response to that.

>>dave
>>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
>>> People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
>>> I guess they ran out of paper targets.
>>>
>>> BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using
>>> their gun for the purpose for which it was intended.<g>
>>>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:

> so you want Clancy to be the National Security Advisor?

Why on earth do you say something as silly as that?

You did say "totally surprised" didn't you?

And the fact that the scenario was known to MILLIONS of people would
suggest that this wasn't a case of "Gee - no one could POSSIBLY have
ever expected it." And it's not as if Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan novels are
unpopular for those involved in the U. S. government.









>
> dave
>
> Bruce Barnett wrote:
>
>> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>Look at 911. They used the aircraft that they
>>> were riding in. Took everyone by total surprise.
>> Nope. Just some people who ignored warnings.
>> Anyone who read Tom Clancy's best-selling _Debt of Honor_ wasn't
>> totally surprised of a commercial plane being used as a weapon.
>> (That's the one where a 747 crashed into the Presidential
>> inauguration.)
>>
>

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:

> millions of people did NOT expect airplanes to crash into the twin
> towers, bringing them both down, nor striking the Pentagon.
>
> Why did YOU say something as silly as that??

I didn't say they EXPECTED it to happen.
But they were aware that it COULD happen.

Are you telling me that no one in the CIA and NSA ONCE thought of a
possiblility that millions of people knew were possible? After it was
the major premise of a best-selling book? After the "Jack Ryan"
series became one of the most popular military action series ever?

If so, then the NSA/CIA guys would be "totally clueless" as well as
"totally surprised."

I personally don't think that is the case. I don't consider each and
every one of them to be complete fools.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

14,454 gun related SUICIDES in 2001

dave

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:19:54 GMT, Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Yes, I've seen this claim before, but not by anyone who can back it up.
>>
>>Some numbers from the US government, http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
>>For 2001, firearm death count was 29,573
>
>
> 29000 seems to be a smaller number than 50000.
>
>
>>Also from the same source, 2001 again, homicide (not necessarily from
>>firearms) was the #2 killer for ages 15-34, the #4 killer from ages 1-9
>>and the #6 killer from 35-44. These numbers include accidents, illness,
>>etc.
>
>
>>For non-fatal injuries from firearms, there were 63,012 for 2001. This
>>does *not* include BB guns and pellet guns.
>>
>>Total injuries and deaths from firearms in 2001 in the U.S.: 92,585
>
>
>
>>That is 253/day, 10/hour or about one every 5 1/2 minutes.
>>Backed up well enough for you?
>
>
> How many of these are suicides? How many are criminal-on-criminal violence?
> How many of them are in places where gun control prohibits honest folks
> from protecting themselves, making them easy (and safe) targets of armed
> criminals?
>

On 8 Jun 2004 18:48:43 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:40:10 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:45:11 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>or an assault rifle... <g>
>>>
>> How do you use an assault rifle wrong?
>> They are designed for one purpose only. To shoot people.
>
>Odd, I've got several rifles defined by the legislature as "assult
>rifles", and I haven't shot anyone with 'em. Either I'm doing
>something wrong,

Exactly.

>> So if you aren't shooting people with it, you are using it wrong.
>
>So shooting holes in paper targets from 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards
>isn't legitimate in your world?

Why not RPGs?

>That's nice, but keep out of my world.

As long as gun nuts like you stay out of mine you can depend on it.
People in your world shoot 50,000 other Americans a year.
I guess they ran out of paper targets.

BTW, almost every one of those people who shot other people were using their gun
for the purpose for which it was intended.<g>