Another NRA Poster Boy
Dan Kimmel
But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
Aaron Denney
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
> But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
Note that this guy had an "assault rifle", and managed to injure one
person. I'd say he was the problem, not the gun. I could easily do
that much with a baseball bat.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Sea Wasp
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
> But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
>
They obviously aren't.
1) The Gun didn't go on a rampage.
2) Some people contend that the reason "guns are the problem" is that
they're more efficient at killing people. If, as claimed, this guy was
carrying an assault rifle, he fired dozens of rounds and managed to
get ONE person. You know, I could go on a rampage with a kitchen knife
and rack up a better body count than that.
The problem is morons and lunatics, not specific weapons. We don't
even have knowledge from that story as to whether he legally owned the
weapon; if not, then all the gun bans in the world wouldn't have
prevented that shooting. If you did remove the gun, what makes you
think he wouldn't have gone nuts with a knife, club, or anything else?
You can at least argue that guns are a problem if you have like 20
people shot in a few seconds -- that's clearly going to be a hard feat
to match with a non-firearm, unless you go to poison gas or explosives
-- but one person hurt by a lunatic? Nope. Hell, he could probably
manage that with his bare hands.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Joel Rosenberg
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
> But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
>
>
>
Yup. Nor, for that matter, is this guy an "NRA Poster Boy" in any sane,
sober sense.
Still, I don't understand -- New York has very strict gun laws. Surely
a crime with guns can't happen there.
Joel Rosenberg
Sure. He could easily have done more damage than he did with John
Kerry's "trusty" double-barreled shotgun. Or, for that matter, a pump
shotgun -- he could have reloaded in between shots, if it had been
convenient.
That said, it could have been a lot worse. It's vanishingly unlikely
that there'd have been anybody there to stop him before the police
arrived, and it's probably just as well that he got jumped when he ran
out of ammunition.
Joel Rosenberg
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
> But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
>
>
>
And it gets even wierder -- the state of New York restricts the
manufacture and ownership of a list of "semiautomatic assault weapons,"
and allows localities to enact and enforce stricter firearms laws
than the state.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ny#aw
So the report is surely mistaken -- after all, it would have been
illegal for the fellow to possess an "assault weapon" in New York.
Howard Shubs
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> Still, I don't understand -- New York has very strict gun laws. Surely
> a crime with guns can't happen there.
Of *course* not. Gun laws solve ALL problems, right??
--
Nobody knows Particle Man.
Howard Shubs
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
> But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
What about this makes you think guns are "the" problem?
Dale Farmer
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
> But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
well, I'd be surprised if this fellow actually had the appropriate
licenses and permits that NY requires to possess the gun in
question. The fellow was surely lacking in the brainpower
department, only managing to hit one person with a rifle while
in a crowded shopping mall. ANother clue was that he ran
out of ammunition, possibly he forgot to bring any reloads, or
didn't know how to reload. He probably would have done
better by using the rifle as a club, or going to the kitchenware
section and selecting a few of the dangerously sharp and
easily accessible knives there.
--Dale
Douglas Berry
<daniel...@rcn.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
rec.arts.sf.fandom beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
>But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
Yes, and New York's strict gun laws prevented this from happening,
right?
By the way, I own several firearms, from pistols to a M-1903A4
Springfield that I use to hit targets over a kilometer away. The only
time I have ever fired at a living being was while I was a soldier in
combat.
Lunatics are the problem.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Eudaemonic Plague
most everyone else knows that no one is going to be "converted", so
why cause animosity in this group? If all you want is piss people
off, why not do it in a ng that's more or less dedicated to it?
Myself, I like guns, but don't care much for the NRA. Like many
others (I know it's true), I sure as hell don't get any pleasure out
of watching you guys bang heads...especially, since I'm sure you're
all intelligent enough to realize the futility. Every day at work, I
have the "pleasure" of watching morons bitch, moan, whine, and argue
over nothing. They at least have the excuse of being stupid and
thoroughly undereducated...how about you guys?
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:XJmdnZxfQvF...@rcn.net...
: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
Peter Meilinger
>So the report is surely mistaken -- after all, it would have been
>illegal for the fellow to possess an "assault weapon" in New York.
Okay, I'm not particularly on either side of the gun argument,
and especially not on this particular example of it. But it
does occur to me that New York's strict gun laws don't exist in
a vacuum. No state or city can completely control what comes
through its borders from other states or cities. There's no
customs inspections, for one thing. No matter how strict the
laws are, someone can always bring in guns from places the
laws aren't as strict.
Whether that means New York should give up on trying to outlaw
guns, or that the less strict places should tighten their laws,
is an argument that never seems to go out of style around here.
But sarcastically saying "This couldn't possibly happen in
New York!" makes about as much sense as saying murder never
happens because it's illegal in the US.
Pete
Joel Rosenberg
"When knives are outlawed . . . "
Pete McCutchen
<seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> You can at least argue that guns are a problem if you have like 20
>people shot in a few seconds -- that's clearly going to be a hard feat
>to match with a non-firearm, unless you go to poison gas or explosives
An automobile rampage could easily rack up 20 or more fatalities in a
few seconds, if the attacker chose his location right.
--
Pete McCutchen
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
>>So the report is surely mistaken -- after all, it would have been
>>illegal for the fellow to possess an "assault weapon" in New York.
>
> Okay, I'm not particularly on either side of the gun argument,
> and especially not on this particular example of it. But it
> does occur to me that New York's strict gun laws don't exist in
> a vacuum. No state or city can completely control what comes
> through its borders from other states or cities. There's no
> customs inspections, for one thing. No matter how strict the
> laws are, someone can always bring in guns from places the
> laws aren't as strict.
Breaking a number of state and federal laws in the process...
This is the argument for federal regulation of just about everything.
You can say the same thing about liquor, or pornography/erotica, or
drugs, or just about anything else that's currently regulated on a state
and local level and can be transported. I see the differing states' laws
as an advantage, not a disadvantage. It generates occasional friction
but it eliminates a lot of the idiocy that results from trying to force
every place into the same mold. And it's worked so well in the past...
> Whether that means New York should give up on trying to outlaw
> guns, or that the less strict places should tighten their laws,
> is an argument that never seems to go out of style around here.
I'll add a third possiblity... That both New York (or other "stricter"
places) and the federal government should treat illegal sales,
transportation and possession as serious matters. If New York thinks
guns are that serious a problem then how about a lengthy prison sentence
for possession? Maybe an even longer sentence for illegal sale?
> But sarcastically saying "This couldn't possibly happen in
> New York!" makes about as much sense as saying murder never
> happens because it's illegal in the US.
Well, that is one of the styles of sarcasm. In this case they're
pointing out that if the weapon was illegal in New York then any number
of laws were already broken. One law was broken by possessing it,
another by purchasing it, another by transporting it and possibly
another by selling it. That's the point. Even if the weapon were
purchased in a less strict place the purchaser would have had to
violate three separate laws, two of them federal, to make the purchase,
and the seller might have violated a federal law as well. They key is
that *nobody cares*. The odds of the individual being prosecuted unless
he commits a crime with that gun, even in New York, are less than the
odds of winning the lottery.
And what's with the NRA Poster Boy BS, anyway? Are doctors that commit
malpractice "AMA Poster Boys". Are crooked lawyers "ABA Poster Boys"?
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Dan Kimmel
"Eudaemonic Plague" <gh...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:cuqgbu$vjc$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Dan, why are you deliberately stirring shit up? You know, I know, and
> most everyone else knows that no one is going to be "converted", so
> why cause animosity in this group? If all you want is piss people
> off, why not do it in a ng that's more or less dedicated to it?
>
In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you here)
need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life consequences
to their "anything goes" philosophy.
Dan Kimmel
Aaron Denney
Do they need to be reminded on this newsgroup? Do they actually have an
"anything goes" attitude? (Hint: many want the laws against felons
having guns applied far more stringently.) Would stricter laws have
helped here, as the guy was already breaking at least two laws?
Mark Atwood
>
> In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you here)
> need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life consequences
> to their "anything goes" philosophy.
Do you happen to have any Message-IDs for any of these "anything goes"
articles?
I rather doubt it.
Surprise me, or STFU.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
ma...@atwood.name | you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Mark Atwood
> > I rather doubt it.
>
> The 'gun nuts' are quite fond of claiming that they have the right
> to shoot someone who is stealing an apple from one of their
> trees. They think that their property, no matter how little the
> actual value, is worth more than someone else's life.
Message-Id's, please.
Want to know something funny? I used to be a mild supporter of gun control.
Then I started actually reading what the two sides actaully wrote, and
how they behaved. The idiotic foaming-at-the-mouth bad behavior of
the `grabbers prompted me to research the subject more deeply, and
with the knowledge thus gained, I changed my mind and position, and
thus I became a pro-RKBAer.
Morons like you are one of the best recruiting tools "my side" has.
Douglas Berry
<daniel...@rcn.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
rec.arts.sf.fandom beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
I don't know a single gun owner with an "anything goes" attitude.
Hell, I'm a firearms safety instructior, a Range Safety Officer, and
strongly support increased penalties for crimes when a gun is used.
David Dyer-Bennet
> http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
I'd call it a poster boy for gun control, myself. Sure works well,
dunnit?
I also suspect the article of being incorrect on one detail -- it's
very unlikely it was actually an automatic (as in full-auto, continues
shooting as long as the trigger is pulled back) weapon.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
Not me. If you've completed your sentence including probation time, I
think all rights should be restored including firearms ownership.
Joel Rosenberg
> Nisarel <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>I rather doubt it.
>>
>>The 'gun nuts' are quite fond of claiming that they have the right
>>to shoot someone who is stealing an apple from one of their
>>trees. They think that their property, no matter how little the
>>actual value, is worth more than someone else's life.
>
>
> Message-Id's, please.
>
>
> Want to know something funny? I used to be a mild supporter of gun control.
>
> Then I started actually reading what the two sides actaully wrote, and
> how they behaved. The idiotic foaming-at-the-mouth bad behavior of
> the `grabbers prompted me to research the subject more deeply, and
> with the knowledge thus gained, I changed my mind and position, and
> thus I became a pro-RKBAer.
>
> Morons like you are one of the best recruiting tools "my side" has.
>
Yup. It's the clever, reasonable-sounding ones that take a fair amount
of deconstruction.
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So the report is surely mistaken -- after all, it would have been
>>illegal for the fellow to possess an "assault weapon" in New York.
>
>
> Okay, I'm not particularly on either side of the gun argument,
> and especially not on this particular example of it. But it
> does occur to me that New York's strict gun laws don't exist in
> a vacuum.
True. But they appear to have been enacted with that belief -- among
others -- in mind. One of the virtues of the Federal system -- which
allows states to do many things differently -- is that it serves as a
demonstration to New Yorkers, among others, that more liberal laws can
serve a state well.
That said, I'm not expecting that New York will adopt what I think of as
more sensible gun laws soon. I think it could be done in California
much more easily -- California's initiative provision would mean that it
would be necessary to do little more than get enough votes -- although
it would be expensive; my back-of-the-envelope SWAG is about $50 million
for the ad campaign, as the reformers would have to overcome not only
the checkbooks that are always available to the Brady Bunch, but the MSM
bias on the issue.
Joel Rosenberg
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
>
>
>>http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>
>
> I'd call it a poster boy for gun control, myself. Sure works well,
> dunnit?
>
> I also suspect the article of being incorrect on one detail -- it's
> very unlikely it was actually an automatic (as in full-auto, continues
> shooting as long as the trigger is pulled back) weapon.
Given the typical reliability of the MSM on such matters, I wouldn't be
very much surprised if it's not even a semiauto -- slightly, but not
mroe than that -- even though other stories have already claimed that it
was an AK47.
Sea Wasp
Fine. With a bow and arrow. Or a thrown dagger. Or a baseball, for
cryin' out loud.
Why in the world do you say the GUN is the problem? It's f'ing
lunatics who try to KILL people who are the problem, and they don't
just use guns; they use everything from guns to bombs to knives to
bows to poison.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Dan Kimmel
"Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2brany...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
> >
> > In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you
here)
> > need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life
consequences
> > to their "anything goes" philosophy.
>
> Do you happen to have any Message-IDs for any of these "anything goes"
> articles?
>
> I rather doubt it.
>
> Surprise me, or STFU.
Send me a retainer for going through old messages on your behalf, or do it
yourself.
Dan Kimmel
> Nisarel <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> writes:
> > > I rather doubt it.
> >
> > The 'gun nuts' are quite fond of claiming that they have the right
> > to shoot someone who is stealing an apple from one of their
> > trees. They think that their property, no matter how little the
> > actual value, is worth more than someone else's life.
>
> Message-Id's, please.
>
>
> Want to know something funny? I used to be a mild supporter of gun
control.
>
> Then I started actually reading what the two sides actaully wrote, and
> how they behaved. The idiotic foaming-at-the-mouth bad behavior of
> the `grabbers prompted me to research the subject more deeply, and
> with the knowledge thus gained, I changed my mind and position, and
> thus I became a pro-RKBAer.
>
> Morons like you are one of the best recruiting tools "my side" has.
You mean ignorance like yours is the best recruiting tool the gun nuts have.
Dan Kimmel
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2r7ji2...@gw.dd-b.net...
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> writes:
>
> > On 2005-02-14, Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Eudaemonic Plague" <gh...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cuqgbu$vjc$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> >>> Dan, why are you deliberately stirring shit up? You know, I know, and
> >>> most everyone else knows that no one is going to be "converted", so
> >>> why cause animosity in this group? If all you want is piss people
> >>> off, why not do it in a ng that's more or less dedicated to it?
> >>>
> >>
> >> In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you
here)
> >> need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life
consequences
> >> to their "anything goes" philosophy.
> >
> > Do they need to be reminded on this newsgroup? Do they actually have an
> > "anything goes" attitude? (Hint: many want the laws against felons
> > having guns applied far more stringently.) Would stricter laws have
> > helped here, as the guy was already breaking at least two laws?
>
> Not me. If you've completed your sentence including probation time, I
> think all rights should be restored including firearms ownership.
Hey, why not issue them guns as they leave the prison?
Dan Kimmel
"Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:42112C2A...@sgeobviousinc.com...
If thousands of people were being killed or injured each year by thrown
daggers, I'd say that's a problem that has to be addressed.
Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Sea Wasp
>
> If thousands of people were being killed or injured each year by thrown
> daggers, I'd say that's a problem that has to be addressed.
Thousands are killed every year by cars. Many are killed via poison
and other methods every year. Guns are the weapon of choice because
they're available if someone wants one and doesn't care about the
consequences (which lunatics generally don't). Take the guns away --
if you can, which you really can't -- and they'll just find another
method.
Or do you have some odd notion that people never killed each other
before, oh, what, 1400?
>
> Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Guns are used because they're available. If they were not available,
the nutcases would use something else.
Colombine, f'rinstance, which anti-gun types love to hold up as an
example. If guns had not been available, they wouldn't have killed all
those people, right?
Wrong. They had already prepared bombs. But they didn't USE them
because they had guns. And the bombs they had prepared would have
likely killed MORE people and done MORE damage. The guns just allowed
them more DIRECTED killing, so they marginally preferred the guns to
bombs.
And, of course, they didn't LEGALLY have the guns to begin with, thus
showing how very little effect "gun control" has on crime anyway.
How did the terrorists decide to kill a lot of people in the USA?
With guns? Why, no. They used airplanes -- flying bombs. And did they
take over the planes with guns? Why, no! They used... little sharp
things. Yes, I certainly see how the careful control of firearms
protected people in the Twin Towers. And we can see how wonderful the
effect of trying to increase safety from such events has been -- to
create paranoia, give the government more power, and effectively
achieve very little in the way of actual security. But somehow you
think that controlling Those Devilish Guns will work out better?
The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
HE WILL.
Aaron Denney
> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
> nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
> HE WILL.
*cough* Antietam.
Joel Rosenberg
Weaseling noted.
Karl Johanson
> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns, nor
> are any future ones likely to.
Forgive my ignorance on the specifics of US history. But wasn't there
any 'mass killings' of natives by the US government & colonists, in
numbers greater than the WTC attack?
Karl Johanson
Joe Ellis
Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
*cough* Andersonville
--
Joe Ellis
Joel Rosenberg
At least arguably, he was pointing to something other than warfare
between armies. There's certainly plenty to choose from absent that,
though -- Lawrence, Tulsa, Wounded Knee, Mountain Meadows, Haun's Mill,
or, if you're into fiction, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Ward
Churchill's fictional Mandan massacre.
Joe Ellis
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I'll believe you'll find far more Native Americans were killed by
smallpox, measles, and starvation than were killed by guns...
--
Joe Ellis
Mark Atwood
> "Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
> news:m2brany...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
> >
> > articles?
> >
> > I rather doubt it.
> >
> > Surprise me, or STFU.
>
> Send me a retainer for going through old messages on your behalf, or do it
> yourself.
In the blogoverse, it's considered standard practice to link to some
viewpoint before you fisk, deconstruct, flame, or ridicule it, and
is considered more than a little rude not to.
One of the few ways the blogoverse is better than USENET.
Or in other words, you have lots of hat, but have no cattle.
Dan Kimmel
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
> > "Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
> > news:m2brany...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
> > >
> > > Do you happen to have any Message-IDs for any of these "anything goes"
> > > articles?
> > >
> > > I rather doubt it.
> > >
> > > Surprise me, or STFU.
> >
> > Send me a retainer for going through old messages on your behalf, or do
it
> > yourself.
>
> In the blogoverse, it's considered standard practice to link to some
> viewpoint before you fisk, deconstruct, flame, or ridicule it, and
> is considered more than a little rude not to.
Tell someone who cares.
> One of the few ways the blogoverse is better than USENET.
>
>
> Or in other words, you have lots of hat, but have no cattle.
In other words, you're desperately in need of getting a life.
Dan Kimmel
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
> >
> > If thousands of people were being killed or injured each year by thrown
> > daggers, I'd say that's a problem that has to be addressed.
>
> Thousands are killed every year by cars.
And we requiring licensing of drivers, registration of automobiles, and have
all sorts of other rules and restrictions.
>Many are killed via poison
> and other methods every year.
And many poisons are restricted.
>Guns are the weapon of choice because
> they're available if someone wants one and doesn't care about the
> consequences (which lunatics generally don't). Take the guns away --
> if you can, which you really can't -- and they'll just find another
> method.
Or find it that much harder to kill or injure or commit suicide.
> Or do you have some odd notion that people never killed each other
> before, oh, what, 1400?
Guns certainly make it *easier*. Of course you really can't be arguing that
you would prefer to return to the 14th century, can you?
>
> >
> > Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
>
> Guns are used because they're available. If they were not available,
> the nutcases would use something else.
Lame excuse. Guns make it *easier* to kill people without having to
actually get close to them or otherwise come into contact. Or were there
lots of 13th century cases of people taking bows and arrows to the local
fair and killing people at random?
> Colombine, f'rinstance, which anti-gun types love to hold up as an
> example. If guns had not been available, they wouldn't have killed all
> those people, right?
>
> Wrong. They had already prepared bombs. But they didn't USE them
> because they had guns. And the bombs they had prepared would have
> likely killed MORE people and done MORE damage. The guns just allowed
> them more DIRECTED killing, so they marginally preferred the guns to
> bombs.
This is one of the STUPIDEST rationalizations I've ever come across. You
don't actually believe this BS do you? That it was free access to guns that
prevented them from using bombs?
> And, of course, they didn't LEGALLY have the guns to begin with, thus
> showing how very little effect "gun control" has on crime anyway.
Or how the NRA and its supporters have weakened gun control laws to prevent
them from being effective.
> How did the terrorists decide to kill a lot of people in the USA?
> With guns? Why, no. They used airplanes -- flying bombs. And did they
> take over the planes with guns? Why, no! They used... little sharp
> things. Yes, I certainly see how the careful control of firearms
> protected people in the Twin Towers. And we can see how wonderful the
> effect of trying to increase safety from such events has been -- to
> create paranoia, give the government more power, and effectively
> achieve very little in the way of actual security. But somehow you
> think that controlling Those Devilish Guns will work out better?
>
> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
> nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
> HE WILL.
And your moronic answer is to make it *easier* for nutcases to do so.
Dan Kimmel
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:R_bQd.392405$6l.43693@pd7tw2no...
There was also a little todo known as the Civil War.
mike weber
<daniel...@rcn.com> typed
>
>"Aaron Denney" <wno...@ofb.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnd0vror...@ofb.net...
>> On 2005-02-14, Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> > http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4193072/detail.html
>> >
>> > But, Joel and David and Seth assure us, *guns* aren't the problem.
>>
>> Note that this guy had an "assault rifle", and managed to injure one
>> person. I'd say he was the problem, not the gun. I could easily do
>> that much with a baseball bat.
>
>Not at a distance.
>
He wasn't at a distance.
Not that you'll see this.
Unless you lied about plonking me.
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Karl Johanson
news:filker-D6FFE7....@news1.east.earthlink.net...
I agree completely. Some pathogen deaths were inadvertent, some, I
understand were the result of intentional efforts to spread disease
(happened here in BC in at least one incident as well). Starvation was
likely intentional in some cases; the intentional slaughter of buffalo
to destroy native food supplies for example. I have no idea of possible
numbers involved though, or those killed by guns & other military
weapons in such campaigns.
Karl Johanson
mike weber
typed
>The fellow was surely lacking in the brainpower
>department, only managing to hit one person with a rifle while
>in a crowded shopping mall.
Two.
And the Armed Forces recruiter may lose the leg.
Joel Rosenberg
>
>>Guns are the weapon of choice because
>>they're available if someone wants one and doesn't care about the
>>consequences (which lunatics generally don't). Take the guns away --
>>if you can, which you really can't -- and they'll just find another
>>method.
>
>
> Or find it that much harder to kill or injure or commit suicide.
The suicide matter has been studied -- the Canadian experiment shows
that, when guns become available, the only thing that changes is the
method of suicide. Whether for good or ill, poisons, automobiles,
drugs, rope, and high places are generally available.
As to difficulty in killing people, I think that McVeigh demonstrated
that it's pretty easy for somebody with access to an automobile, and
fertilizer and diesel -- basically, everybody.
But it's all a thought experiment; you're doing well at disarming the
law-abiding folks in Massachusetts, but failing miserably at disarming
the criminals. Since, because of the evil NRA and the even more evil
2nd Amendment, you aren't going to be able to disarm the populace
generally, you -- well, one, not you, Dan -- might think about
legislation that aren't just thought experiments.
Keith F. Lynch
> Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
>> nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill
>> someone, HE WILL.
> *cough* Antietam.
It's true that Sea Wasp should have said the largest *non-government*
mass killing. Antietam is hardly an argument for disarming *civilians*.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Joel Rosenberg
> "Joe Ellis" <fil...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:filker-D6FFE7....@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>
>>In article <R_bQd.392405$6l.43693@pd7tw2no>,
>>"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
>>>>nor
>>>>are any future ones likely to.
>>>
>>>Forgive my ignorance on the specifics of US history. But wasn't there
>>>any 'mass killings' of natives by the US government & colonists, in
>>>numbers greater than the WTC attack?
>>>
>>>Karl Johanson
>>
>>I'll believe you'll find far more Native Americans were killed by
>>smallpox, measles, and starvation than were killed by guns...
>
>
> I agree completely. Some pathogen deaths were inadvertent, some, I
> understand were the result of intentional efforts to spread disease
> (happened here in BC in at least one incident as well).
This appears not to be the case, at least in the US. (It's possible --
although it appears unlikely, that the British Lord Amherst did
something of the sort, pre-US.) The most famous incident -- the Mandan
Indian one, largely put forward by Ward Churchill -- pretty clearly
didn't happen, if you believe the sources that Churchill referenced.
(There definitely was a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan in 1837, but
it simply was not spread by US military -- doctors or otherwise -- at
the Fort Clark, as they existed only in Churchill's mislabelled
fiction.) See http://hal.lamar.edu/~BROWNTF/Churchill1.htm.
Keith F. Lynch
> Not me. If you've completed your sentence including probation time,
> I think all rights should be restored including firearms ownership.
The NRA strongly disagrees with you. If you're a member, please see
if you can get them to change their position on Project Exile. Thanks.
Keith F. Lynch
> (Hint: many want the laws against felons having guns applied far
> more stringently.)
Do you? Currently, if I were to so much as kick an abandoned gun into
a storm sewer to keep children from finding it, I would get a mandatory
five year prison sentence, due to my false conviction 28 years ago of a
crime in which it was never alleged that anyone was hurt or threatened.
My record is otherwise perfectly clean, before and since.
Do you believe this is too lenient?
Mark Atwood
>
> In other words, you're desperately in need of getting a life.
Who has posted the most on this thread, who has compulsively followed
up to almost every opposing post on this thread, and when the subject
starts to die down, goes and digs up another MSM newsarticle to point
to to stir it all up again?
Is this your life?
Mark Atwood
As if any government will allow gun bans from stopping it from going
to war...
Mark Atwood
> something of the sort, pre-US.) The most famous incident -- the
> Mandan Indian one, largely put forward by Ward Churchill -- pretty
> clearly didn't happen
Ward Churchill, fraud and lier.
*I* am more "Native American" than he is.
My mother's mother was as "Native American" as he *claims* to be.
Pete McCutchen
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>I agree completely. Some pathogen deaths were inadvertent, some, I
>understand were the result of intentional efforts to spread disease
>(happened here in BC in at least one incident as well).
The last time this came up, I asked for proof that it had ever
happened. As I recall, the best evidence, as of now, is that one
particularly anti-Indian guy suggested spreading infected blankets,
but that there was no evidence he ever did so. There's certainly no
evidence that it took place on a large scale, even if there were one
or two isolated incidents.
--
Pete McCutchen
Karl Johanson
news:15s111p7vedqbn0ug...@4ax.com...
I'll talk to the person who researched about it happening in BC and see
if they have a listing of references.
Karl Johanson
Jack Heneghan
This led me to google on massacres. Wikipedia can be overwhelming at
times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres
--
*********************************
COSine - A Science Fiction Convention
coming to a Colorado Springs near you.
www.rialto.org/cosine
*********************************
Aaron Denney
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>> (Hint: many want the laws against felons having guns applied far
>> more stringently.)
>
> Do you? Currently, if I were to so much as kick an abandoned gun into
> a storm sewer to keep children from finding it, I would get a mandatory
> five year prison sentence, due to my false conviction 28 years ago of a
> crime in which it was never alleged that anyone was hurt or threatened.
> My record is otherwise perfectly clean, before and since.
>
> Do you believe this is too lenient?
It would obviously be a miscarriage applied like that.
In practice, for a long long time, all gun charges that could have been
applied to those who used guns in the commission of a crime were
routinely ignored.
If one isn't going to abolish the justice system, then there will
inescapably be innocents falsely convicted. It sucks, but even with
that proviso, it could quite well be much better than no justice system.
I'd like things in that regard to be improved. It is getting better in
some places, with such things as mandatory recording of interrogations,
in which the interrogatee gets a copy of the tape. I'm sorry you happen
to live in an uncivilized state and don't wish to "vote with your feet".
In terms of allowing ex-prisoners access to guns, I think it would be
fine for non-violent offenders. For violent offenders (and I don't
think the retro-active reclassification of what you were convicted for
should count) I think restricting that access could be beneficial.
Is it perfect? Of course not, but as with any decision process like
this one has to play the percentages.
Doug Wickstrom
<2l9Qd.7983$Sq5....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> caused electrons to dance and
photons to travel coherently in saying:
>MSM
[*]
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Quin tu istanc orationem hinc veterem atque antiquam amoves?"
--Plautus, "Miles Gloriosus"
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Doug Wickstrom
<qYbQd.18427$w75....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> caused electrons to dance and
photons to travel coherently in saying:
>Ward
>Churchill's fictional Mandan massacre.
[*]
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"I must say that I find television very educational. Every time someone
switches it on I go into another room and read a good book." --Groucho Marx
Doug Wickstrom
<curpui$4kk$1...@panix1.panix.com>
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> caused electrons to dance
and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Not me. If you've completed your sentence including probation time,
>> I think all rights should be restored including firearms ownership.
>
>The NRA strongly disagrees with you. If you're a member, please see
>if you can get them to change their position on Project Exile. Thanks.
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's a member.
I am, though, and during the business meeting at the 1994
National Convention, I introduced a resolution to the effect that
if the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right not
subject to limitation by Congress, just as all of the other
enumerated rights are (let us not go into the bit about
non-enumerated powers being forbidden to Congress), then we
should not attempt to restrict anyone's rights, even if we think
it's a good idea. It's hypocritical, for one, and bad precedent,
for another.
I was shouted down by then-president Marian Hammer, and
surprisingly, by Neal Knox, with whom I had earlier discussed the
motion. I never voted for Knox again, after that weasel.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Old age brings pleasant memories, sometimes of things that really happened."
--Don Kirkman
Douglas Berry
<daniel...@rcn.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
rec.arts.sf.fandom beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>"Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
>news:m2k6pal...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
>> > "Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
>> > news:m2brany...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
>> > >
>> > > Do you happen to have any Message-IDs for any of these "anything goes"
>> > > articles?
>> > >
>> > > I rather doubt it.
>> > >
>> > > Surprise me, or STFU.
>> >
>> > Send me a retainer for going through old messages on your behalf, or do
>it
>> > yourself.
>>
>> In the blogoverse, it's considered standard practice to link to some
>> viewpoint before you fisk, deconstruct, flame, or ridicule it, and
>> is considered more than a little rude not to.
>
>Tell someone who cares.
Your tacit admission that you can't back up your claim is noted, and
laughed at heartily.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Randolph Fritz
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
>>
>> There was also a little todo known as the Civil War.
>
> As if any government will allow gun bans from stopping it from going
> to war...
>
It doesn't have to be a government. *Never* underestimate the power
of mass panic.
Randolph
Tom Hardy
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
>> "Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
>> news:m2brany...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
>> >
>> > Do you happen to have any Message-IDs for any of these "anything
>> > goes" articles?
>> >
>> > I rather doubt it.
>> >
>> > Surprise me, or STFU.
>>
>> Send me a retainer for going through old messages on your behalf, or
>> do it yourself.
Or in other words, "no".
I am probably not your average gun nut, in that I don't personally have
much use for the things, but I take the attitude that guns are
property, and you don't mess with people's property, therefore you
don't mess with their guns. So in that sense I'm more "anything goes"
than your average gun nut.
I've also had the opportunity to cut my fingers off with a skill saw, or
drop a car on my head, or fall off a roof, and been aware of it.
I've also been comfortable surrounded by 10,000 civilians in a packed
campground, most of them carrying, with lots of active shooting, and
I've found them to be far more genteel and personable than some on this
newsgroup.
> In the blogoverse, it's considered standard practice to link to some
> viewpoint before you fisk, deconstruct, flame, or ridicule it, and
> is considered more than a little rude not to.
I think it was pretty standard on USENET at one time, too.
> One of the few ways the blogoverse is better than USENET.
I'll bet USENET is a bit of a backwater for people without permanent
connections. Dial-up users like me often feel a bit inhibited from
digging up or following references.
> Or in other words, you have lots of hat, but have no cattle.
--
Tom Hardy <*> rha...@visi.com <*> http://www.visi.com/~rhardy
Just don't create a file called -rf. --Larry Wall
Mark Atwood
> >
> > As if any government will allow gun bans from stopping it from going
> > to war...
>
> It doesn't have to be a government. *Never* underestimate the power
> of mass panic.
One of the largest genocides in living memory was done with machetes.
Once again, gun control would have done diddly squat to prevent it.
Aaron Denney
> In article <slrnd12hps...@ofb.net>,
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2005-02-15, Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
>>> nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
>>> HE WILL.
>>
>>*cough* Antietam.
>
Similar magnitude, over a much longer period of time. Antietam was one
day.
Given the time period and somewhat looser causal chain, one could even
legitimately consider most of the deaths to be seperate acts and not
really mass killings. Not that I wish to defend the actions of the
South in this or most other instances associated with the War between
the States.
Aaron Denney
> Aaron Denney wrote:
>> On 2005-02-15, Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
>>>nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
>>>HE WILL.
>>
>>
>> *cough* Antietam.
>>
>
> between armies.
Oh, sure, but it's not explicit, and as it stands is ripe for some
smartass to come along and make that comment. It certainly isn't a
great counterexample in the context of civilian, rather than military,
ownership of firearms.
Randolph Fritz
>> >
>> > As if any government will allow gun bans from stopping it from going
>> > to war...
>>
>> It doesn't have to be a government. *Never* underestimate the power
>> of mass panic.
>
> One of the largest genocides in living memory was done with machetes.
>
But we aren't talking about that place; we're talking about the USA.
The large numbers of firearms we have plus mass panic would likely be
a disaster on an unprecedented scale. Mark, are you ever scared of
mass violence, here in the USA? If not, why not?
Randolph
Mark Atwood
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:12:23 -0600, in message
> <2l9Qd.7983$Sq5....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> caused electrons to dance and
> photons to travel coherently in saying:
>
> >MSM
>
> [*]
Blogese for "Mainstream Media", a.k.a. the system of television news,
news magazines, newspapers, and wire services, with their crew of
reporters, journalists, editors, and publishers, with a strong
implication of the assorted and myriad flaws in said media.
Mark Atwood
My answer to that is irrelevant. The odds of a violent mass panic in
the US, whatever they may be, are also irrelevant. Confiscation or
other elimation or reduction of firearms will do diddly to lower the
risk, or lower the damage if it happens.
Hell, I can see half a dozen standard propane tanks in plain sight
when I pull into my apt building each day. I can blow the side off
this building with just the gasoline and propane I personally own. I
know how to made a four winds shotgun. I know how to make black
powder. There are 4 gasoline stations within a short walk of where my
ass is sitting. I know where to get the books that teach how to
machine everything from a derringer up to a battlerifle. I am not
unique in this knowledge, or in the knowledge of this knowledge.
If, for some strange reason (which you seem unwilling to give examples
of), the US is gripped with genocidal mass violence, passage of
the bradyites wet dreams will do nothing and less than nothing
to stem the bloodshed, and in my opinion, would make it worse.
Are *you* afraid of "mass violence in the USA"? And why do *you*
think that gun control has anything to do with it?
David G. Bell
wno...@ofb.net "Aaron Denney" wrote:
> On 2005-02-15, Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> > The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
> > nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
> > HE WILL.
>
> *cough* Antietam.
I think a deaths-per-perpetrator figure might show significant
differences.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Joel Rosenberg
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:12:23 -0600, in message
> <2l9Qd.7983$Sq5....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> caused electrons to dance and
> photons to travel coherently in saying:
>
>
>>MSM
>
>
> [*]
>
MainStream Media -- "mainstream media", major TV networks and large
newspapers.
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> writes:
>
>>something of the sort, pre-US.) The most famous incident -- the
>>Mandan Indian one, largely put forward by Ward Churchill -- pretty
>>clearly didn't happen
>
>
> Ward Churchill, fraud and lier.
Yup. He's -- properly, IMHO -- protected against losing his job for
much of his fraud, lies, and disgusting speech. (And less so for
retaliation against his students.) But not for the academic fraud.
Joel Rosenberg
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>>(Hint: many want the laws against felons having guns applied far
>>more stringently.)
>
>
> Do you? Currently, if I were to so much as kick an abandoned gun into
> a storm sewer to keep children from finding it, I would get a mandatory
> five year prison sentence, due to my false conviction 28 years ago of a
> crime in which it was never alleged that anyone was hurt or threatened.
> My record is otherwise perfectly clean, before and since.
>
> Do you believe this is too lenient?
I don't. I think it's silly, and hope (and expect) that in that
situation, you'd not only not get a prison sentence, but not even be
prosecuted. (Yes, I know that you think you would be.)
What he's probably referring to -- and what I'd be referring to -- would
be things like the fellow behind one of the local "straw buyer" programs
(a convicted felon), being allowed to plead out to less than 48 months
for 117 well-documented "straw purchases." Or the very common event of
felon-in-possession being dealt away, or not even dealt away.
Joel Rosenberg
> "Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:42114395...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If thousands of people were being killed or injured each year by thrown
>>>daggers, I'd say that's a problem that has to be addressed.
>>
>>Thousands are killed every year by cars.
>
>
> And we requiring licensing of drivers, registration of automobiles, and have
> all sorts of other rules and restrictions.
>
And if the effect of such licensing, registration, etc. were to allow
pretty much any law-abiding, competent adult to carry a handgun, it's
unlikely -- verging on the impossible -- that any state would ever have
passed a "shall issue" carry permit law. The effect of such laws is,
more or less, to give carry permits the same effect as drivers licenses,
although -- often, but not always -- the restrictions are more strict.
Sea Wasp
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>>Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
>>>nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill
>>>someone, HE WILL.
>>
>
>>*cough* Antietam.
>
>
> mass killing. Antietam is hardly an argument for disarming *civilians*.
I should have said "largest criminal killings" perhaps. This would
eliminate all the wiseasses trying to avoid the point by bringing up
either warfare or the deaths of the Native American tribes.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Michael Benveniste
> In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you here)
> need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life
consequences
> to their "anything goes" philosophy.
Everyone needs to be reminded about personal responsibility, vigilence,
and duty now and again. "Liberty Tree," "Blood of Patriots" and all
that rot. But I respectfully submit that your method and choice of
venue stinks.
I've watched and, to my shame, occasionally dropped into on-line
"debates" on this topic for over 25 years. In all that time, the
examples cited change frequently, the posters names change less
frequently, and the underlying issues and beliefs change not at
all.
Trying to "remind" people whose minds are made up, either way, is
pointless. Those with any semblence of an open mind, or who hold views
on neither extreme have long since moved on to reading a different
thread.
For those of you who are in this to create acrimony and to bring on
the premature death of the universe by waste heat, congratulations,
it's working perfectly. You know who you are. Remember, the next
project status meeting is Saturday. You know where.
For those of you who think "we have to keep the issue in the public
consciousness," you don't. Billions are already being spent doing
just that, and that doesn't count the efforts of murderers.
For those of you waiting for those addle-brained relatives of Coalface
and Detritus to return to RASFF, I doubt you'll have long to wait.
For those of you who think you hold the high moral ground, you don't.
For those of you who think "my ability to express my ideas is
superior to my predecessors," it isn't.
For those of you who think "it will be different this time," it
won't be.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Joe Ellis
Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>On 2005-02-15, Joe Ellis <fil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnd12hps...@ofb.net>,
>> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-02-15, Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>> The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
>>>> nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill someone,
>>>> HE WILL.
>>>
>>>*cough* Antietam.
>>
>> *cough* Andersonville
>
>Similar magnitude, over a much longer period of time. Antietam was one
>day.
>
>Given the time period and somewhat looser causal chain, one could even
>legitimately consider most of the deaths to be seperate acts and not
>really mass killings. Not that I wish to defend the actions of the
>South in this or most other instances associated with the War between
>the States.
On the other hand, Antietam was a battle in a declared war with deaths
on both sides, while Andersonville was the deaths of prisoners of war of
one side who were largely the ultimate resonsibility of one individual.
Which one looks more like murder?
... and at Andersonville, the killing was accomplished without the use
of firearms.
--
Joe Ellis
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
I'm not scared because the last time it happened to me, I... Wait. Darn.
When it happened to my dad he... Dang. Well, my grandfather said... Or
maybe he was talking about his great-grandfather. Nope, not that either.
My great-great-grandfather WAS in town the day Morgan's Raiders looted
the place, but nobody was hurt.
To put it another way, what historical evidence or current trends makes
you think it's a scenario likely enough to be planned for by any but the
most radical of survivalists?
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Peter Meilinger
>Mark Atwood <ma...@atwood.name> wrote:
>> I used to be a mild supporter of gun control.
>Message-Id's, please.
Out of curiousity, have you ever provided the sort
of evidence you're asking for here?
Pete
joelr
sober person pause if he were in Kimmel's pos -- oops. Never mind.
Peter Meilinger
>Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>> Out of curiousity, have you ever provided the sort
>> of evidence you're asking for here?
>Yes.
Message-IDs, please?
Pete
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2r7ji2...@gw.dd-b.net...
>> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> writes:
>>
>> > On 2005-02-14, Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Eudaemonic Plague" <gh...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:cuqgbu$vjc$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>> >>> Dan, why are you deliberately stirring shit up? You know, I know, and
>> >>> most everyone else knows that no one is going to be "converted", so
>> >>> why cause animosity in this group? If all you want is piss people
>> >>> off, why not do it in a ng that's more or less dedicated to it?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you
> here)
>> >> need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life
> consequences
>> >> to their "anything goes" philosophy.
>> >
>> > Do they need to be reminded on this newsgroup? Do they actually have an
>> > "anything goes" attitude? (Hint: many want the laws against felons
>> > having guns applied far more stringently.) Would stricter laws have
>> > helped here, as the guy was already breaking at least two laws?
>>
>> Not me. If you've completed your sentence including probation time, I
>> think all rights should be restored including firearms ownership.
>
> Hey, why not issue them guns as they leave the prison?
I think the self-selection in firearms ownership is actually fairly
valuable. A lot of the people who shouldn't carry (poor anger
management skills, lots of anger, some other things probably) mostly
choose not to. So leaving it a choice probably makes a *big*
difference in the good results it causes. Besides, it's a big
responsibility, and should be a personal choice for that reason as
well.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
Various race riots are what come to my mind; most recently the Rodney
King riots. Also the occasional sports riot.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Not me. If you've completed your sentence including probation time,
>> I think all rights should be restored including firearms ownership.
>
> The NRA strongly disagrees with you. If you're a member, please see
> if you can get them to change their position on Project Exile. Thanks.
It's a political compromise position, plus for whatever reason a lot
of conservatives are unable to conceive of any *good* people being
falsely convicted, so they feel it's a free tradeoff. I think. I am,
currently, a member, though it's a marginal choice for me; they're
stupid about enough things, and too willing to trade away important
rights.
Dan Kimmel
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-...@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:37edruF...@individual.net...
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > In this case because the unreconstructed gun nuts (not counting you
here)
> > need to be reminded from time to time that there are real life
> consequences
> > to their "anything goes" philosophy.
>
> Everyone needs to be reminded about personal responsibility, vigilence,
> and duty now and again. "Liberty Tree," "Blood of Patriots" and all
> that rot. But I respectfully submit that your method and choice of
> venue stinks.
>
> I've watched and, to my shame, occasionally dropped into on-line
> "debates" on this topic for over 25 years. In all that time, the
> examples cited change frequently, the posters names change less
> frequently, and the underlying issues and beliefs change not at
> all.
>
> Trying to "remind" people whose minds are made up, either way, is
> pointless. Those with any semblence of an open mind, or who hold views
> on neither extreme have long since moved on to reading a different
> thread.
Cool your jets, Michael. I've largely dropped out of the discussions for
precisely the reasons you mention. But with the ongoing discussions about
myth of "self-defense" being so important to gun owners, I couldn't resist
bringing some real world facts to people's attentions. That those whose
minds are made up won't change their minds is a good reason not to
*continue* the discussion, particularly when one person argued that if the
guy at the mall didn't have a rifle he might have hurled daggers at people.
Baseball bats also seem to be a popular alternate "weapon" (probably from
someone who just watched "The Untouchables" on DVD).
Those who are going on and on are beating a dead horse. But not everyone
expressing an opinion on the subject is in the same situation.
Dan Kimmel
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The largest mass killings on American soil have not involved guns,
> >>>nor are any future ones likely to. If a nutcase wants to kill
> >>>someone, HE WILL.
> >>
> >
> >>*cough* Antietam.
> >
> >
> > It's true that Sea Wasp should have said the largest *non-government*
> > mass killing. Antietam is hardly an argument for disarming *civilians*.
>
> I should have said "largest criminal killings" perhaps. This would
> eliminate all the wiseasses trying to avoid the point by bringing up
> either warfare or the deaths of the Native American tribes.
Oh please. If you're going to start classifying mass killings to exclude
the ones that are inconvenient to your point, there's no question that
al-Queda felt they were at war with *us*.
Dan Kimmel
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a093111i1a61mipml...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:27:58 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
> <daniel...@rcn.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
> rec.arts.sf.fandom beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
> >
> >"Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
> >news:m2k6pal...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
> >> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
> >> > "Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
> >> > news:m2brany...@amsu.mark.atwood.name...
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you happen to have any Message-IDs for any of these "anything
goes"
> >> > > articles?
> >> > >
> >> > > I rather doubt it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Surprise me, or STFU.
> >> >
> >> > Send me a retainer for going through old messages on your behalf, or
do
> >it
> >> > yourself.
> >>
> >> In the blogoverse, it's considered standard practice to link to some
> >> viewpoint before you fisk, deconstruct, flame, or ridicule it, and
> >> is considered more than a little rude not to.
> >
> >Tell someone who cares.
>
> Your tacit admission that you can't back up your claim is noted, and
> laughed at heartily.
Wow, are you this illiterate in real life? I'm not interested in some nerd
from the "blogoverse" ordering me to do research for him.
If he or you wants me to go look things up, send me money for my time.
Dan Kimmel
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
> > "Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > In other words, you're desperately in need of getting a life.
>
> Who has posted the most on this thread, who has compulsively followed
> up to almost every opposing post on this thread, and when the subject
> starts to die down, goes and digs up another MSM newsarticle to point
> to to stir it all up again?
>
> Is this your life?
No, but it sounds a lot like yours.
I've largely exited the discussion, as you obviously haven't noticed.