More Guns in America to reduce crime?

I came across a blog entry today, and it's likely the most ridiculous posting I've seen in a very long time. This blogger says he's been a broadcast journalist for more than 32 years: "I've held every job there is in a radio or television station. I've lived and worked all over the world and am presently writing for an international news agency based in Washington, DC."

He quotes in his article that "More guns result in less crime. Yet liberals can't see it. They are totally blind to the facts and no matter how much evidence is laid at their feet, they stick their fingers in their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and scream. Sometimes they stamp their feet."

Apparently he hasn't check any stats on how many accidental gun deaths there are every year. Surely you must consider the side effects of having more guns when you're claiming that more guns will make the world safer. He doesn't realize that if more people in the US are carrying around guns, more criminals will get their hands on guns, and the chances of someone losing their temper and using a gun will also be increased. His article states that if "law abiding citizens are allowed to arm themselves, violent crimes go down about 24 percent over the following 5 years". If everyone in the US was "law abiding" and carried a gun, obviously there wouldn't be any crime, because everyone abides by the law.

He also states that "Blacks benefit more from gun ownership than whites", "gun control is sexist", it's "a waste of government money" and it's "dishonest".

I urge you to view his opinion and tell me what you think. Link

This is the first time I've heard someone suggest that the US needs to eliminate gun control in order to reduce its gun murders and violent crimes.


(Blogger seems to be acting up -- apologies if this is posted twice)

You must not talk to a lot of arch-conservatives. There's a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" (I believe it's by the criminologist, Kleck, that the blogger cites in the link.) that is often cited by the crazier conservative elements in my online cohort.

The one inescapable thing I keep coming back to is that gun statistics are meaningless. For every statistic a conservative will throw at you, there's an equally compelling one from the gun control side. And vice versa.

As a result, I've grown to be tolerant of guns -- not anti-gun control by any means, but certainly less "anti-gun" than I used to be. If a responsible person wants to own a gun, why should I stop them? It's the irresponsible gun owners that we have to worry about, so shouldn't "the left" be thinking up ways to deal with them specifically rather than all gun owners in these broad and sweeping legislative measures? And since most gun-related crime comes from illegal guns, shouldn't the focus be on stopping legal guns from becoming illegal guns in the first place?

Kleck's statistics have been shown to be wrong time and time again, so I think you're right to think the blogger is off his rocker a bit. But that said, Kleck's legion of NRA-card-carrying followers do make good points with regards to the success rate of some concealed guns being used by women in assaults, et cetera. So really, the issue for me comes back to the most major problems we have: illegal guns being used for illegal purposes and irresponsible gun owners doing irresponsible things with their guns.

We need innovative liberals to come up with ideas on how to target those segments of the population. There are laws on the books that are harsh for the mistake of losing or misplacing a gun that's later used in a crime. But we need to make them more enforceable and much harsher in their penalties. We need to have a way to really nail anyone caught selling or buying a gun without the proper licenses or certificates. Gun shows need serious cracking down since there's a lot of illegal activity that stems from them. And so on. Waiting periods are OK, and assault rifle bans are nice. But the REAL argument that needs to be had isn't being brought up by anyone IMHO. 

Posted by Evan
3/15/2005 04:55:00 pm  
"(Blogger seems to be acting up -- apologies if this is posted twice) "

S'ok Evan, Blogger has been screwing up for several weeks now. Most of the time, even if a comment doesn't seem to make it, it will eventually turn up. Very frustrating, and we are investigating alternative hosting. I removed the duplicate for now. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/15/2005 05:27:00 pm  
Evan, you're right; I haven't followed very closely the US gun issue. Here in Canada I know that many of our illegal guns come from B&E's at houses and gun stores, and a lot of guns are smuggled across the border from gun shows in the US. This was the first I'd heard about "More Guns, Less Crime", and I'm sure in a perfect world that theory would prove true. But I think the more guns you have, the more likely a criminal will get his/her hands on a gun. Canada has already proved that a Federal Gun registry system doesn't work either and has a huge price tag attached to it. I think you're right that they need to look at how criminals are getting their hands on guns and how you can reduce it. In Canada's situation, you might have stricter rules on locking up your guns, and maybe stores that sell guns should require by law to have a certain level of security.

I think targeting the gun shows is a great idea, and would likely be a great start for reducing gun crimes. 

Posted by Jim
3/15/2005 06:14:00 pm  
Hey, what does everyone think about having title/summary for each article as opposed to showing the article in its entirety? It would make it easier to browse through articles and the scroll bar wouldn't be so thin too. 

Posted by Jim
3/15/2005 06:21:00 pm  
what does everyone think about having title/summary for each article as opposed to showing the article in its entirety? ”

I don't think Blogger offers this functionality. TypePad does, and you can have your article showing the first few lines, and under it an "expand" button which will then reveal the rest of the article. Same thing happens when you click on the "comment" button (i.e. you see the full post).

But here with Blogger, I'm not aware you can do this. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/15/2005 06:49:00 pm  
The one inescapable thing I keep coming back to is that gun statistics are meaningless ”

Interesting. What about statistics involving comparisons between countries?

Dianne published some time back some stats about murder rates in the US, UK, France and Japan, and while I don't remember the exact numbers, it went something like:

Compared to the US, if you live in the UK, you have 15 times less chance of being murdered; in France 13 times; in Japan, 30 times.

Do you realize what it means? It means there are 30 times more murders in the US than in Japan, and that is adjusting the figures to take into account the different population sizes, i.e. it's a fair comparison.

Now, if we compare gun access, we have:

US: easy
UK, France: very difficult
Japan: near impossible 

Posted by WhyNot
3/15/2005 07:15:00 pm  

One thing that strikes me is the rhetoric that if one has a gun, one can protect oneself from someone else who attacks them with a gun, and therefore this will magically reduce the number of gun murders.

Apart from the obvious off the planet absurdity of such reasoning, I'd like to point out that when some nutcase with a gun decides to shoot you out of the blue, you have no chance whatsoever with your own gun unless you're superman.

I've never been threatened with a gun in the US or in France, but have twice in Australia.

1. I was 19, working in an all night hambuger joint, busy behind the counter. Look up and there is a rifle right in my face. Behind the rifle is a guy with a stocking over his face, who says "here is the bag, fill it up with the till's contents".

2. A few years later, while driving taxis on the weekends for extra income, this passenger suddenly pulls a revolver and points it to me saying "have you ever seen one of these? Ever been attacked?".

I'd like someone to demonstrate to me what good me having a gun would have done. I would also like someone to demonstrate that those 2 guys NOT  having guns would not have been the better solution in the first place. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/15/2005 07:41:00 pm  
US: easy
UK, France: very difficult
Japan: near impossible

A good point -- but then any gun-toting conservative can shoot back, "What about Switzerland? Male citizens are *required* to own a gun." And that's true.

I think there's an underlying criminal culture and mentality -- not necessarily one of violence but one of crime in general, ignorance, etc -- that helps breed our gun problems.

Now, I agree that the ease of getting weapons in combination with that culture is one that breeds problems. But I don't think the ease of getting a legal gun is a big problem because most gun deaths don't happen from legal guns. They happen from illegal ones, which are probably even easier to get. But making laws about things that are illegal is a tricky business, as the drug laws demonstrate nicely. Targeted, thoughtful laws and laws that apply pressure directly to the people who lose or sell their guns into an illegal market seem like a good way to deal with that.

But some hunter buying a gun at K-Mart? A criminal is not terribly likely to be behind him in line to buy a weapon where there'll be a receipt of the purchase.

Anyhow -- that's kind of what I mean when I say that gun stats in the US are meaningless. They're so manufactured by the two sides of the argument that it's hard to know what's "true" and what's not. In order to have meaningful stats on gun ownership and usage, the US needs to track legal vs. illegal guns used in crimes and accidents, incidents of accidents compared to the rate of proper training and licenses among owners, incidents committed with guns or gun parts from gun shows, et cetera. Just general stats don't mean much because there's a HUGE legal gun culture here that does nothing but hunt, collect, and target shoot. There's also a huge illegal gun culture here that needs to be better tracked specifically and that's more indicative of our crime rates and gun violence rates. 

Posted by Evan
3/15/2005 08:13:00 pm  

I see your point, and it makes a lot of sense. A few things still don't add up right in my mind though.

1. The Switzerland argument. Ok, so one country where everybody has guns doesn't rank in the "dangerous places to live". How does this prove that guns are not dangerous? All it proves is that the mentality/culture in Switzerland is such that guns are not a major problem. When clearly, in the US, guns kill on a grand scale. If guns weren't available, then the murder rate would obviously drop by a huge factor. I don't understand how saying that guns don't kill in Switzerland while they do in the US proves that guns don't kill when in the wrong hands.

To me, it's like trying to prove that crossing the road in front of cars is not a problem because a few ppl do and don't get run over.

2. If it is true that most deaths don't happen from legal guns in the US, but from illegal ones, then how come is it so easy to get hold of illegal guns? Also what's an illegal gun? Is it an illegal weapon, or is not actually a very legal weapon but acquired illegally? And if so, isn't there an obvious relationship between easiness of acquiring "illegal" guns and easiness of acquiring "legal" ones?

3. “But making laws about things that are illegal is a tricky business, as the drug laws demonstrate nicely ”

They may be tricky, but clearly they can be implemented to a reasonably successful degree as demonstrated by the examples of [insert every western country except the USA]. The results may not be 100%, and as shown in my comparison between France/UK/Japan, not equally successful, but clearly they do get somewhere.

What do you/anyone else think? 

Posted by WhyNot
3/15/2005 10:00:00 pm  
God, you should see the crap literature I get from the NRA (always asking for money of course) - incessantly pounding away the message that the only thing standing between you and hordes of terrorists is your Glock. It's silly. Guns are never "safe." They are extremely dangerous items that require extremely careful and safe handling. They also require a mature, realistic attitude. There are enough whackos already armed to the teeth, and I while I own guns, I do NOT carry them for "self defense." I have more faith in humanity than that, and I refuse to walk the earth in constant fear. I agree with you Evan, gun shows are a huge loophole for criminal firearm exchange and laws should be targeted towards those segments of the population who commit crimes.....
Hey, come to think of it, 99% of the time it is men who commit violent crimes with guns. So here is some Lefty Legislation for you: lets give all women their own personal gun (and teach them how to use it safely), and take all guns away from all men. How 'bout it? Discuss.


Posted by Sarah
3/15/2005 10:17:00 pm  
I don't have a problem with people allowed to have guns so much, it's the accountability. My ranting aside, we have greater controls on things less deadly. The fact that any information on a gun sale has to be disposed of within 24 hours is ridiculous. The NRA is insane if they believe guns shouldn't be registered with an ID number and the ownerrs licensed. That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment and falls into the realm of common sense. I believe everyone who wants to own a gun should pass a proficiency test as well before they are licensed, just so they don't kill their damn selves with the fucking thing. 

Posted by The Fixer
3/15/2005 10:37:00 pm  
Amen, Fixer. 

Posted by Sarah
3/15/2005 10:47:00 pm  
How does this prove that guns are not dangerous? All it proves is that the mentality/culture in Switzerland is such that guns are not a major problem. 

It doesn't. But my point is simply that PURE statistics can lie in the case of guns. So citing one country or even 10 countries in comparison to another can be misleading -- every bit as misleading as the crap from the original blog to which Jim referred in his post.

...then how come is it so easy to get hold of illegal guns? Also what's an illegal gun? Is it an illegal weapon, or is not actually a very legal weapon but acquired illegally?

Well, it can be both. But as I understand it, most actual gun-related crimes are committed with guns that are typically legal but that was sold/purchased to the offender illegally (or was stolen).

It's easy to get those, I think, because any idiot can steal a gun and file off the serial numbers (or whatever) and there's not a good way to trace it back to the owner unless there's a clear record of the owner's gun or its ballistics. Lots of people lose or sell guns via pawn shops or without bills of sale, et cetera. The system loses track of them and then they end up at a pawn shop or in a brown paper bag being sold on the street. If I'm recalling it properly, one of the more important but overlooked moments in Bowling for Columbine, I think, was when one of the hick 20-somethings said that he drove down to Detroit and sold guns that he'd gotten up there.

And if so, isn't there an obvious relationship between easiness of acquiring "illegal" guns and easiness of acquiring "legal" ones?

This I'm not so sure about. I think if a million people purchased legal guns and not a single one lost it or sold it illegally for fear of the repurcussions, it'd be a LOT harder to get illegal guns. Not impossible, but more difficult.

To be realistic, the US is always going to have a gun culture here just like it's always going to have a nutjob creationist culture and a pot-smoking hippie culture and an urban culture and...so on. But most of those people are so fanatical about their guns that they only use them responsibly. They're weird and sometimes problematic. But for the most part, it's what happens if they lose their gun or one of their less fanatical co-gun owners sells their gun, et cetera. Really hammering down on that or requiring that a lost gun be reported with a VERY strict and enforceable punishment seems like the beginnings of an incentive to curtail these more criminal uses of weapons by preventing the availability of the weapon in the first place.

And of course, the extreme poverty in urban centers is a uniquely American aspect that has to be considered. Getting rid of that over the next 20 years would do more to curb gun violence in general than anything else, I'd guess.

Posted by Evan
3/15/2005 11:05:00 pm  
I'm with Chris Rock on this issue. I say let'em make all the guns they want, let people buy all the guns they want....but every bullet costs $5000.00.  

Posted by surrogate
3/15/2005 11:13:00 pm  
My experience with guns and violence has been of the domestic variety. We cannot forget the human personality that is subject to react when the right buttons are pushed and when guns are part of the equation it will be the gun that is used over a knife or other weapon.

According to the FBI, thirty-three percent of women who are murdered with firearms are killed by an intimate partner. Households with guns are eight times more likely to have a firearm homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance than homes without guns, and the risk of gun-related domestic homicide is much higher if there is a history of domestic violence.

That being said, if I lived in the states I would be back to my gun owning ways because of the culture of violence. If you find yourself in an argument that gets heated the chances of you getting shot are high. Here in France the most you will have is a shouting match and a glass of wine in the face.

The best thing women can do in order to protect themselves is to take some sort of self-defense class in hopes that they may not have to use their gun.

It is a culture issue and one that won't change for decades if ever.

Posted by Dianne
3/15/2005 11:43:00 pm  
Well guys, I have a solution to the problem.

As Chris Rock states it: "Gun Control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. If each bullet cost five thousand dollars, people would think twice before they shoot someone!" "You see a guy shot on the street, you know he did something wrong".

Posted by Jim
3/16/2005 12:41:00 am  
Surrogate - I didn't realize you posted the Chris Rock comment, my browser cache was hiding your comment ;) 

Posted by Jim
3/16/2005 12:46:00 am  
"Hey, come to think of it, 99% of the time it is men who commit violent crimes with guns. So here is some Lefty Legislation for you: lets give all women their own personal gun (and teach them how to use it safely), and take all guns away from all men. "

Don't get me started on PMS and penis envy, Sarah. LOL 

Posted by Dianne
3/16/2005 12:47:00 am  
Hey, I was serious! Dammit, guys' attitudes (note, none of them picked up on that comment as you did Dianne) are 99% of the problem. Maybe it's time for some radical changes :) 

Posted by Sarah
3/16/2005 03:02:00 am  
"note, none of them picked up on that comment as you did Dianne "

I did, Sarah, and you're entirely right. Only, if men didn't have guns, women wouldn't need them either, right? So back to my advocating for no guns at all.

And here are some stats to substantiate your point (and mine incidentally):
(sorry if this looks messy, but there is no way to create a table inside a comment)

Homicides by relationship and weapon type, 1990-2002

Relationship of
victim to offender
  | Total | Gun | Knife | Blunt object | Force | Other weapon

Husband | 100% | 70% | 26% | 2% | 1% | 2%
Ex-husband | 100% | 87% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 2%
Wife | 100% | 68% | 14% | 5% | 9% | 4%
Ex-wife | 100% | 78% | 12% | 2% | 6% | 2%
Boyfriend | 100% | 46% | 45% | 3% | 3% | 3%
Girlfriend | 100% | 57% | 19% | 5% | 14% | 5%

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2002. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/16/2005 04:03:00 am  
Outlaw the goddamned things already.

I just love the argument that most gun crimes are commited with illegal guns. Just curious: where did they illegal guns come from?

Could it be they are stolen from legal sources? Just maybe?


Posted by deviant1
3/16/2005 05:51:00 pm  
deviant1 that's a thought. I had a semi-automatic Beretta stolen from my home that was never recovered that I know of. I ran a nightclub at the time and carried it on my person because I handled lots of cash. The theft was reported to the police but it was such a 'sweet little gun' I'm not sure I would have trusted them to give it back to me if it was recovered.

Let me add something to my previous statement about owning a gun if I lived in the states. I meant that statement. I've been attacked and had guns held on me 3 times in my life. But, along with carrying a gun I would work hard for stricter gun laws so perhaps the day would come when I wouldn't feel the need to carry.

Posted by Dianne
3/16/2005 07:56:00 pm  
"'sweet little gun'  "

Sweet lil gun? Geee....wozzat, honey? I thought the only sweet lil guns were the ones May West spotted. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/16/2005 08:04:00 pm  
My future Glock is sweet as hell :) 

Posted by Sarah
3/17/2005 04:51:00 am  
WhyNot the term used for a gun does seem a bit strange. LOL But, for me it would reference the gun's look and the way it handles. It's a nice piece of work... It would have nothing to do with it's killing power though this would make it sweet for some.

Sarah, I've never laid eyes on a Glock. The most powerful handgun I've used was a .357 magnum owned by an ex-husband. He went off his brain one day and killed our dog. He would have used it on me but I saw the dog first and took off. It's a long story but another example of the danger of guns in the hands of unstable personalities. My dad btw who is dead now shot a man in the stomach while in one of his drunken stupors. The gun was small caliber and the man lived thank goodness. I could go on and on with hairy stories of guns in the wrong hands and I'm sorry to say I think this is most of the US population.  

Posted by Dianne
3/17/2005 11:55:00 am  
Unfortunately you are right Dianne - I grew up in a state where hunting is revered more than football is in Texas, and there are way too many idiots vying for the Darwin Awards out there. Too many "accidents", too many "oops I thought it was a deer", too many "nah the kids won't find it *there*"....and way too many men willing to use their guns as a way to intimidate and control their partners. An American woman has far more to fear from her boyfriend/husband than she does from strangers.


I don't buy the NRA propaganda. I refuse to let fear rule my life. The safest thing I can do is choose a partner who is not violent, and keep our guns unloaded and locked when not using them. 

Posted by Sarah
3/17/2005 08:21:00 pm  
This is the gun I want this year:
I love the grip on it - better for my smaller hands, and really well balanced. I have been using my bf's 19 in target practice and so far it's my favorite. Plus it's easy to disassemble and I like the safety.
3/17/2005 08:38:00 pm  

When the day comes that I feel the need to carry, its going to be the same day I get up and move somewhere safer :) 

Posted by deviant1
3/17/2005 10:47:00 pm  
"its going to be the same day I get up and move somewhere safer :)  "

Amen, D1. Dianne lived all her like in the States carrying a gun and a baseball bat. Her life was threatened many times. When we moved here, she left the gun behind but brought her big stick. I daresay she now realizes she doesn't even need her big stick here.

In view of what's been said so far and the stats provided as well as the personal bits of experiences, I'd be curious to hear someone still try to prove to me that:

1. More guns are better and safer for every body
2. More guns will therefore reduce crime rate
3. More guns will mean that the murder rate in the US with is 30 times higher than in Japan will actually reduce and make the States as safe as Japan where getting a gun is impossible.
4. The situation wouldn't be 100 times better if there was in fact no gun at all instead of everyone having one. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/18/2005 02:03:00 am  
"When the day comes that I feel the need to carry, its going to be the same day I get up and move somewhere safer :)  "

I understand devient1. I did move although not for this reason. It great living in a country where I can leave my door unlocked when at home without worrying that someone is going to enter unannounced. I'm serious about this. We never lock our door except when we leave.  

Posted by Dianne
3/18/2005 03:31:00 pm  
Sarah, I can say the price of the gun is not sweet at all. Expensive target practice?
3/18/2005 03:34:00 pm  
We never lock our door except when we leave ”

And Dianne never locks her car. And I never lock my big red hot and throbbing sport motorbike (no external lock, and I don't even bother steer-lock it) even though it's just sitting right in the street in the middle of town. I even leave the special bag that sits on the gas tank there 24/24, as well as the digital clock on the dashboard which is only held by velcro - 4 years later, neither of them has been pinched yet.

Oh but come to think of it, I'm wrong: someone once stole one of my 2-euros stretchy straps when I left them dangling down the side of the bike for 5 days in a row.

Duh! If only I had had a gun , I could have prevented that horrific strap stealing crime by shooting the bastard, right? 

Posted by WhyNot
3/18/2005 05:14:00 pm  
Dianne if I had to pay to go to a range it would be far more expensive, but my future hubby has many acres of land, much of it wooded and we keep the trails clear every summer so we have lots of places to shoot. Plus my dad also has another 26 acres, great for deer hunting too. The gun I want is going to be at least $500 so yes it is expensive, but in the meantime I can just borrow one of my sweetie's 996983682626 other guns (not really that many, but he is a collector!) So for most of the time, the only thing I have to pay for is ammunition. 

Posted by Sarah
3/19/2005 03:41:00 pm  
*pats Whynot gently on the top of his head*
That must have been truly traumatic. What great reserve you displayed in not spraying several rounds of cartridges into his evil, (no doubt French) body! Here in Amerika we would have strung him up by his toenails in front of the Ten Commandments tablet down at the courthouse and let Bubba and Wade take potshots at him until he was good 'n dead. He clearly deserves nothing less.

*Smiles and turns up the volume on her Edith Piaff CD*
3/19/2005 03:47:00 pm  
That must have been truly traumatic. ”

It was, Sarah. I'm still having nightmares and have to go to primal scream therapy classes every week.

What great reserve you displayed in not spraying several rounds of cartridges into his evil, (no doubt French) body!

Too right! That evil body had  to be a French one fir sure. Only the French can be THAT hateful! Worse than them Muslim sandniggers. Just ask CAO. She's an authority on the subject.

Here in Amerika we would have strung him up by his toenails in front of the Ten Commandments tablet down at the courthouse and let Bubba and Wade take potshots at him until he was good 'n dead. He clearly deserves nothing less.

LOL, well you'll be pleased to hear our right wing gov is religiously attending White House correspondance courses and is learning the Amerikan Way real fast. Two days ago, some newly created hit-n-run cop brigade from the big cities stormed through our village, spotted Dianne's car being parked in a no-parking zone (as if there was a parking zone in a Fr village...) and were on the verge of towing it away if it hadn't been for a young girl neighbor (one of those hateful muslims, btw) in our small block of apartments knocking at our door and telling me to get my ass out and into the street quick smart, seeing there was a SWAT team sniffing at Dianne's old bomb like a pack of hyenas.

Total cost: 112 euros. Vive Sarkozy and Raffarin, yeah! 

Posted by WhyNot
3/19/2005 04:28:00 pm  
Dianne, Carrying a gun to protect one's self is truly foreign to me. The only gun I've ever handled is a BB gun and a pellet gun when I was a kid. I've never known anyone in my life who's carried a gun to protect themselves. The only people I know with 'real' guns are people who hunt, and they keep their guns locked up etc when not hunting.

I think it's truly sad when someone lives in a place where they feel it necessary to carry a gun to protect themself. I live in a downtown apartment and I rarely lock my door as well.

But fear is relative. When I lived outside of the city, fear was implanted in our heads from the newspapers. We grew up hearing about all the murders and rapes, etc that happen in the city. That's all you'd ever hear about. So every time I went to the city I'd be afraid of getting shot. When you live here in the city, you realize that there are 60 murders a year in a city of 4.5 million, so you're more likely to die from a car accident in a small town than to be murdered in the city. It's incredible how the media can make people so fearful, I still know people to this day who are afraid to go to Toronto (one of the safest cities in the world) 

Posted by Jim
3/19/2005 08:15:00 pm  
Jim, I understand what you're saying and you sound like someone who has lived his life unscathed by the criminal element. This is great! I have not been so lucky. Many people are forced to live in areas of the city that most including the police never enter. It's a whole other world. For many, home is the most dangerous place in the world.

Although it's certainly possible to own a weapon here in France the largest part of the population is not interested. Robbery is the most prevailing crime but you rarely hear of a gun being involved.  

Posted by Dianne
3/19/2005 08:27:00 pm  

'); preview.document.close();} function PostComment(frm){if (frm.Comment.value=="" || (confirmBeforePost && confirm(confirmText)==false))return; if(frm.rememberMe.checked){ setCookie('author',frm.author.value); setCookie('email',frm.email.value); setCookie('url',frm.url.value); setCookie('remember','true');}else{ setCookie('remember','false');} var txt=frm.Comment.value; txt=txt.replace('','&'+'#'+'160;'); txt= txt.replace('','&'+'#'+'160;'); txt=txt.replace('','&'+'#'+'160;'); frm.postBody.value=txt; frm.postBody.value+="&"+"#1"+"60;\n\n"+ getAuthorInfo(frm); frm.submit();} function toggleRemember(frm){if(frm.rememberMe.checked) setCookie('remember','true');else setCookie('remember','false');} function getCookie(name){var rexp = new RegExp(name + "=([^;]+)");var val=rexp.exec(document.cookie); return (val!=null)?unescape(val[1]):"";} function setCookie(name, value){document.cookie=name+ "="+escape(value)+";expires="+expiry.toGMTString();} document.write('
'+ formCaption+'
');if(!document.all) document.write("


<< Home