juanesky 0 #51 January 21, 2004 Well, you are so advent about giving your expert opinion about US, that you seem to be a little off and have little knowledge to talk about. This should not be a hatred toward US issue, but rather a friendly dialogue that would bring us closer. But either way, you are then satisfied then it is OK to posses a gun for self defence after all.....Hmmm"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BPO 0 #52 January 21, 2004 I never stated I have an expert opinion about the US.. and never showed any hatred towards the US.. I think there are a number of good things to be said about the US.. but IMO the whole gun-thing is not one of them.. Mental note.. never say anything about guns and Americans.. nothing but trouble comes from it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #53 January 21, 2004 Brother, I am an expert and I don't even try to discuss the subject in polite company . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BPO 0 #54 January 21, 2004 Never, ever, ever, not even when drunk, start a conversation about guns and or gun control.. especially not with a US-citizen.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Deuce 1 #55 January 21, 2004 Well, I was proud to take an Englishman and a Dutchman out into the desert at Eloy and instruct them in the finer points of shooting a Glock .45. Pretty cool roscoe for the FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER SHOT ANY TYPE OF FIREARM! But then again, neither of those guys were all that polite Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #56 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd I feel perfectly safe in Chicago, and recently returned from NYC where I also felt safe. So what? Those two cities are both in the top 10 list for the highest crime rates in America. So if you felt safe in those high-crime places, then you should feel safe everywhere in America. Therefore, why are you so worried about guns? I feel safe because I avoid obviously risky places. I'm not worried at all about guns, I don't keep starting threads about them. Someone else here is so paranoid that they do that on a regular basis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #57 January 21, 2004 QuoteWell, I was proud to take an Englishman and a Dutchman out into the desert at Eloy and instruct them in the finer points of shooting a Glock .45. Pretty cool roscoe for the FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER SHOT ANY TYPE OF FIREARM! Yeah, I have never shot any type of firearm in my life, but would love to try it one day. Philly, you confuse me. First you were saying that you were happy you were allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself against that idiot who shot another person over a parking space argument. Then, as the story alledgedly changes, you indicate how good the gun laws are since the previously branded bad guy who probably didn't have a license anyways, was being attacked with a club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #58 January 21, 2004 QuoteNever, ever, ever, not even when drunk, start a conversation about guns and or gun control.. especially not with a US-citizen.. Don't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #59 January 21, 2004 QuoteWell, you are so advent about giving your expert opinion about US, I don't understand this sentence. "Advent"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #60 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteWell, I was proud to take an Englishman and a Dutchman out into the desert at Eloy and instruct them in the finer points of shooting a Glock .45. Pretty cool roscoe for the FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER SHOT ANY TYPE OF FIREARM! Yeah, I have never shot any type of firearm in my life, but would love to try it one day. Philly, you confuse me. First you were saying that you were happy you were allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself against that idiot who shot another person over a parking space argument. Then, as the story alledgedly changes, you indicate how good the gun laws are since the previously branded bad guy who probably didn't have a license anyways, was being attacked with a club. I know you're not stupid, so that must be a troll. I'll explain anyway just in case. If it was a case of a nut job shooting at some guy over a parkinig space, then the person getting shot would have been better off if he had a gun to protect himself if the guy kept shooting. If it was a case of a guy shooting someone that was coming after him with a club, then it's a good thing he had a gun to protect himself. In other words, having a gun either benefitted or would have benefitted the victim, whomever it may have been. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #61 January 21, 2004 QuotePhilly, you confuse me. First you were saying that you were happy you were allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself against that idiot who shot another person over a parking space argument. Damn, Justin, do we have to explain everything to you? Come on. The guy only got shot in the leg. You mean a parking space isn't worth getting shot in Canada? Besides, with bilateral symmetry, we have two legs. That means you can even afford to double-park and get shot twice. Don't you Canadians know anything? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BPO 0 #62 January 21, 2004 QuoteDon't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society. in what way would you say this forum is not a typical cross section of US society, concerning the gun-debate? .. just to be on the safe side: I'll stick to my previous stated mental note Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bmcd308 0 #63 January 21, 2004 >>in what way would you say this forum is not a typical cross section of US society, concerning the gun-debate? << I have found that skydivers are typically either very libertarian or very liberal. Most Americans are just very uninformed. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #64 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteDon't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society. in what way would you say this forum is not a typical cross section of US society, concerning the gun-debate? .. just to be on the safe side: I'll stick to my previous stated mental note Well, it is my experience that skydivers, as a group, are not at all representative of the population as a whole. YMMV.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #65 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt would appear that the victim did not get shot in the leg. It would appear that the intended victim of a clubbing was able to stop his attacker. From today's Philadelphia Inquirer, with more details: Road-rage incident sparks shooting A road rage showdown exploded on Locust Street in Center City yesterday afternoon, as blood and bullets splattered the pavement, leaving two men wounded. David Smith, 20, a pedestrian caught in the crossfire, was grazed by a flying bullet or a piece of flying debris, police said. Smith, bleeding from his head, ran into the nearby Mean Bean Cafe on Locust Street and cafe "barrista" Scott Jones came to his aid. Smith asked Jones for a cup of black coffee. "I didn't realize what happened until people told me to drop to the floor," said Jones, who used the espresso machine as a shield. Police said Smith's injury was minor. He was not hospitalized. Puddles of blood were freezing over last night across the street from the restaurant More Than Just Ice Cream, steps from where the shootout unfolded. It all began when two drivers cut each other off while driving on North Broad Street shortly before 4:30 p.m., police said. Contrary to initial reports, the motorists were not arguing over a parking space, police said. They flipped each other the finger, then continued driving erratically toward Center City. Finally, one of the drivers, Tarik Bembery, 23, pulled over on Locust Street near 12th to drop off his girlfriend, a passenger in his Pontiac station wagon. At that point, police said the other driver, Sebastino Garro, 24, pulled his Cadillac El Dorado over a half a block down Locust and walked toward Bembery waving a collapsible baton, police said. Seeing the threat, Bembery pulled out a .50 caliber Desert Eagle, a powerful handgun, and fired three shots - one striking Garro's leg, police said. "He [Garro] tried to run, but he didn't get very far," said Lt. Orlando Destefano of the 6th Police District. A nearby Port Authority officer heard the shots and grabbed Bembery until city police arrived, Destefano said. He is charged with aggravated assault. Garro was listed in stable condition last night at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. He will face charges for instigating the confrontation by threatening Bembery with the baton, Destefano said. Story Here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 January 21, 2004 QuoteSo because its (guns) in the constitution it must be right?? Why not have a referendum... can that be done in the states? The Constitution is "the" source. That makes it a right. And the prescribed process for changing the Constutition is to call a Constitutional convention of all 50 states, to vote on a change, such as revoking the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That is sort of like a referendum. If the anti-gun folks are so all-fired sure that the 2nd Amendment really doesn't recognize such a right, then they ought to get their sympathetic politicians to make this move, and try and revoke it. It would be fun to watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #67 January 21, 2004 QuoteI say if you made having a handgun illegal and made possession incur severe penalties, a lot less criminals would be "packing". Bzzzt - wrong answer! That's what England has done. They banned handguns outright, confiscating all those which were privately owned. Anyone now caught with a handgun, whether you're committing a crime with it or not, is in serious trouble. So, according to your theory, gun crime should be down drastically in this handgun-free haven, right? Guess again. Gun crime has gun up dramatically, since they instituted this change in their law, in 1996. See the attached chart. Notice how handgun crimes were relatively flat, or declining, prior to 1996. Then notice what happens after 1997 once all the handguns had been confiscated from law-abiding citizens. The criminals ran amok! Gun control laws don't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #68 January 21, 2004 So both of them are now facing charges. Good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #69 January 21, 2004 QuoteFACT is that... the other side has PROOF that guns do attract violence.. Please point me to some of this stuff. QuoteHow come every time anyone offers a personal opinion on guns, the pro-gun side get aggressive/defensive.. could be because of the gun they carry? If you take an ordinary, calm, lawful person, and put a gun in his hand, he does not automatically transmogrify into an aggressive murderous beast. He's still the same guy he was before, but with a gun in his hand. When you put a parachute rig on your back, do you turn into a crazed, death-defying, irrational nut? The pro-gun side gets defensive, because the anti-gun side wants to take away their gun property and their gun rights. That's a natural reaction. If someone was trying to take away something of yours, you would get defensive too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #70 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe pro-gun side gets defensive, because the anti-gun side wants to take away their gun property and their gun rights. That's a natural reaction. If someone was trying to take away something of yours, you would get defensive too. This is like the chicken and the egg. Neither of us can say what came first, but you are right that each side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #71 January 21, 2004 QuoteDavid Smith, 20, a pedestrian caught in the crossfire, was grazed by a flying bullet or a piece of flying debris, police said. That's my intern's brother who is sitting next to me right now. QuoteSmith, bleeding from his head, ran into the nearby Mean Bean Cafe on Locust Street I get coffee there a couple times a week. QuoteIt all began when two drivers cut each other off while driving on North Broad Street shortly before 4:30 p.m., police said. Contrary to initial reports, the motorists were not arguing over a parking space, police said. They flipped each other the finger, then continued driving erratically toward Center City. The fact that they were mutually confrontational means that the shooting was not justified. It's only justified in the case of an innocent victim. It doesn't say if he had a permit to carry or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #72 January 21, 2004 QuoteI feel safe because I avoid obviously risky places. Not everyone in America is fortunate enough to be able to do that. Some citizens have to live and work in dangerous places. They should be allowed to own a gun to defend themselves. QuoteI don't keep starting threads about them. Someone else here is so paranoid that they do that on a regular basis. I believe I've started only two "gun" threads in the last two months. This thread was not started by me. And just because I talk about guns, does not make me "paranoid". I talk a lot about parachutes too, so does that make me paranoid about parachutes? For a professor, your arguments don't demonstrate much in the way of facts or logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #73 January 21, 2004 QuoteNever, ever, ever, not even when drunk, start a conversation about guns and or gun control.. especially not with a US-citizen.. Not getting the answers you want? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #74 January 21, 2004 QuoteDon't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society. Why do you think that skydivers don't represent a typical cross-section of society? We have plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers, students, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich, poor, middle-class - all walks of life. Please explain what you mean here... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #75 January 21, 2004 QuoteFor a professor, your arguments don't demonstrate much in the way of facts or logic. QuoteWe have plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers, students, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich, poor, middle-class - all walks of life. Simply saying what we have doesn't dispute his assertion. If you could show the relative weightings of those groups, then you could begin to demonstrate your point using facts and logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Deuce 1 #55 January 21, 2004 Well, I was proud to take an Englishman and a Dutchman out into the desert at Eloy and instruct them in the finer points of shooting a Glock .45. Pretty cool roscoe for the FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER SHOT ANY TYPE OF FIREARM! But then again, neither of those guys were all that polite Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #56 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd I feel perfectly safe in Chicago, and recently returned from NYC where I also felt safe. So what? Those two cities are both in the top 10 list for the highest crime rates in America. So if you felt safe in those high-crime places, then you should feel safe everywhere in America. Therefore, why are you so worried about guns? I feel safe because I avoid obviously risky places. I'm not worried at all about guns, I don't keep starting threads about them. Someone else here is so paranoid that they do that on a regular basis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #57 January 21, 2004 QuoteWell, I was proud to take an Englishman and a Dutchman out into the desert at Eloy and instruct them in the finer points of shooting a Glock .45. Pretty cool roscoe for the FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER SHOT ANY TYPE OF FIREARM! Yeah, I have never shot any type of firearm in my life, but would love to try it one day. Philly, you confuse me. First you were saying that you were happy you were allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself against that idiot who shot another person over a parking space argument. Then, as the story alledgedly changes, you indicate how good the gun laws are since the previously branded bad guy who probably didn't have a license anyways, was being attacked with a club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #58 January 21, 2004 QuoteNever, ever, ever, not even when drunk, start a conversation about guns and or gun control.. especially not with a US-citizen.. Don't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #59 January 21, 2004 QuoteWell, you are so advent about giving your expert opinion about US, I don't understand this sentence. "Advent"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #60 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteWell, I was proud to take an Englishman and a Dutchman out into the desert at Eloy and instruct them in the finer points of shooting a Glock .45. Pretty cool roscoe for the FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER SHOT ANY TYPE OF FIREARM! Yeah, I have never shot any type of firearm in my life, but would love to try it one day. Philly, you confuse me. First you were saying that you were happy you were allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself against that idiot who shot another person over a parking space argument. Then, as the story alledgedly changes, you indicate how good the gun laws are since the previously branded bad guy who probably didn't have a license anyways, was being attacked with a club. I know you're not stupid, so that must be a troll. I'll explain anyway just in case. If it was a case of a nut job shooting at some guy over a parkinig space, then the person getting shot would have been better off if he had a gun to protect himself if the guy kept shooting. If it was a case of a guy shooting someone that was coming after him with a club, then it's a good thing he had a gun to protect himself. In other words, having a gun either benefitted or would have benefitted the victim, whomever it may have been. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #61 January 21, 2004 QuotePhilly, you confuse me. First you were saying that you were happy you were allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself against that idiot who shot another person over a parking space argument. Damn, Justin, do we have to explain everything to you? Come on. The guy only got shot in the leg. You mean a parking space isn't worth getting shot in Canada? Besides, with bilateral symmetry, we have two legs. That means you can even afford to double-park and get shot twice. Don't you Canadians know anything? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BPO 0 #62 January 21, 2004 QuoteDon't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society. in what way would you say this forum is not a typical cross section of US society, concerning the gun-debate? .. just to be on the safe side: I'll stick to my previous stated mental note Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #63 January 21, 2004 >>in what way would you say this forum is not a typical cross section of US society, concerning the gun-debate? << I have found that skydivers are typically either very libertarian or very liberal. Most Americans are just very uninformed. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #64 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteDon't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society. in what way would you say this forum is not a typical cross section of US society, concerning the gun-debate? .. just to be on the safe side: I'll stick to my previous stated mental note Well, it is my experience that skydivers, as a group, are not at all representative of the population as a whole. YMMV.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #65 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt would appear that the victim did not get shot in the leg. It would appear that the intended victim of a clubbing was able to stop his attacker. From today's Philadelphia Inquirer, with more details: Road-rage incident sparks shooting A road rage showdown exploded on Locust Street in Center City yesterday afternoon, as blood and bullets splattered the pavement, leaving two men wounded. David Smith, 20, a pedestrian caught in the crossfire, was grazed by a flying bullet or a piece of flying debris, police said. Smith, bleeding from his head, ran into the nearby Mean Bean Cafe on Locust Street and cafe "barrista" Scott Jones came to his aid. Smith asked Jones for a cup of black coffee. "I didn't realize what happened until people told me to drop to the floor," said Jones, who used the espresso machine as a shield. Police said Smith's injury was minor. He was not hospitalized. Puddles of blood were freezing over last night across the street from the restaurant More Than Just Ice Cream, steps from where the shootout unfolded. It all began when two drivers cut each other off while driving on North Broad Street shortly before 4:30 p.m., police said. Contrary to initial reports, the motorists were not arguing over a parking space, police said. They flipped each other the finger, then continued driving erratically toward Center City. Finally, one of the drivers, Tarik Bembery, 23, pulled over on Locust Street near 12th to drop off his girlfriend, a passenger in his Pontiac station wagon. At that point, police said the other driver, Sebastino Garro, 24, pulled his Cadillac El Dorado over a half a block down Locust and walked toward Bembery waving a collapsible baton, police said. Seeing the threat, Bembery pulled out a .50 caliber Desert Eagle, a powerful handgun, and fired three shots - one striking Garro's leg, police said. "He [Garro] tried to run, but he didn't get very far," said Lt. Orlando Destefano of the 6th Police District. A nearby Port Authority officer heard the shots and grabbed Bembery until city police arrived, Destefano said. He is charged with aggravated assault. Garro was listed in stable condition last night at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. He will face charges for instigating the confrontation by threatening Bembery with the baton, Destefano said. Story Here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 January 21, 2004 QuoteSo because its (guns) in the constitution it must be right?? Why not have a referendum... can that be done in the states? The Constitution is "the" source. That makes it a right. And the prescribed process for changing the Constutition is to call a Constitutional convention of all 50 states, to vote on a change, such as revoking the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That is sort of like a referendum. If the anti-gun folks are so all-fired sure that the 2nd Amendment really doesn't recognize such a right, then they ought to get their sympathetic politicians to make this move, and try and revoke it. It would be fun to watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 January 21, 2004 QuoteI say if you made having a handgun illegal and made possession incur severe penalties, a lot less criminals would be "packing". Bzzzt - wrong answer! That's what England has done. They banned handguns outright, confiscating all those which were privately owned. Anyone now caught with a handgun, whether you're committing a crime with it or not, is in serious trouble. So, according to your theory, gun crime should be down drastically in this handgun-free haven, right? Guess again. Gun crime has gun up dramatically, since they instituted this change in their law, in 1996. See the attached chart. Notice how handgun crimes were relatively flat, or declining, prior to 1996. Then notice what happens after 1997 once all the handguns had been confiscated from law-abiding citizens. The criminals ran amok! Gun control laws don't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #68 January 21, 2004 So both of them are now facing charges. Good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #69 January 21, 2004 QuoteFACT is that... the other side has PROOF that guns do attract violence.. Please point me to some of this stuff. QuoteHow come every time anyone offers a personal opinion on guns, the pro-gun side get aggressive/defensive.. could be because of the gun they carry? If you take an ordinary, calm, lawful person, and put a gun in his hand, he does not automatically transmogrify into an aggressive murderous beast. He's still the same guy he was before, but with a gun in his hand. When you put a parachute rig on your back, do you turn into a crazed, death-defying, irrational nut? The pro-gun side gets defensive, because the anti-gun side wants to take away their gun property and their gun rights. That's a natural reaction. If someone was trying to take away something of yours, you would get defensive too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #70 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe pro-gun side gets defensive, because the anti-gun side wants to take away their gun property and their gun rights. That's a natural reaction. If someone was trying to take away something of yours, you would get defensive too. This is like the chicken and the egg. Neither of us can say what came first, but you are right that each side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #71 January 21, 2004 QuoteDavid Smith, 20, a pedestrian caught in the crossfire, was grazed by a flying bullet or a piece of flying debris, police said. That's my intern's brother who is sitting next to me right now. QuoteSmith, bleeding from his head, ran into the nearby Mean Bean Cafe on Locust Street I get coffee there a couple times a week. QuoteIt all began when two drivers cut each other off while driving on North Broad Street shortly before 4:30 p.m., police said. Contrary to initial reports, the motorists were not arguing over a parking space, police said. They flipped each other the finger, then continued driving erratically toward Center City. The fact that they were mutually confrontational means that the shooting was not justified. It's only justified in the case of an innocent victim. It doesn't say if he had a permit to carry or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 January 21, 2004 QuoteI feel safe because I avoid obviously risky places. Not everyone in America is fortunate enough to be able to do that. Some citizens have to live and work in dangerous places. They should be allowed to own a gun to defend themselves. QuoteI don't keep starting threads about them. Someone else here is so paranoid that they do that on a regular basis. I believe I've started only two "gun" threads in the last two months. This thread was not started by me. And just because I talk about guns, does not make me "paranoid". I talk a lot about parachutes too, so does that make me paranoid about parachutes? For a professor, your arguments don't demonstrate much in the way of facts or logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #73 January 21, 2004 QuoteNever, ever, ever, not even when drunk, start a conversation about guns and or gun control.. especially not with a US-citizen.. Not getting the answers you want? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #74 January 21, 2004 QuoteDon't think for a moment that this forum represents a typical cross section of US society. Why do you think that skydivers don't represent a typical cross-section of society? We have plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers, students, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich, poor, middle-class - all walks of life. Please explain what you mean here... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #75 January 21, 2004 QuoteFor a professor, your arguments don't demonstrate much in the way of facts or logic. QuoteWe have plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers, students, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich, poor, middle-class - all walks of life. Simply saying what we have doesn't dispute his assertion. If you could show the relative weightings of those groups, then you could begin to demonstrate your point using facts and logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
