Re It's the GUNS stupid!
!Jones
>In article <jch79tg5ienv4et9g...@4ax.com>, N. Lofton
><nei...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:22:41 GMT, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >A handgun is the statistically proven best means of self
>> >defense. People who defend themselves with a handgun are less
>> >apt to be injured than person who use alternative weapons or
>> >cooperation with the perp. Handguns save lives, and that is a
>> >fact.
>
>>
>> They take many more innocent ones than they save. It's just a
fact,
>
>No, it is your unsupported (and unsupportable) opinion.
>
>The *lowest* number taken for successful with-gun self defenses
>per year over here is 80K, and that is roughly an order of
>magnitude below the mean of values returned by all other studies
>done on the subject.
>
>The NCVS returns a severe low-ball estimate.
>
>
>> the citizen "militia" doesn't shoot very well. The criminal being
>> shot is a pathological exception to the 35,000 or so killed each
year.
>
>Clever of you to include suicides along with accidents and criminal
>action. Makes you feel better, perhaps, even it doesn't say much
>about your statistical ability.
>
>> Oh, and puleeeeze don't quote that silly study by the Florida
>> professor (funded ny the nra)
>
>You're either ignorant of fact, or you're a bald-faced liar.
>
>Which is it?
>
>> that claimed *millions* of incidents of
>> defensive gun use each year. Now *that* was a regular
knee-slapper!
>
>How would you know? Judging from what you're posting here, you
>wouldn't have been able to follow the argument if you did
>get around to reading it.
Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
Look... if you buy something that's on sale, you're not saving money;
you're *spending* money. Why can't you people get that simple fact of
economics through your heads?
Jones
Allen James
<lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
They do?
All by themselves?
Is it magic?
Peter Morris
"Allen James" <shra...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:shrapnel-8D6A18...@news.enteract.com...
Of course not.
Guns don't kill people.
Bullets do.
--
______________________
/_____________________(_)
| _____________________ email to
| | |__________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/____________________ at Hotmail dot com
|_____________________(_)
Snake
No People Kill People!!!!!!! They do it with knives, guns, screw
drivers, bows, bats, rocks, cars, water, and many many other things.
>
> Look... if you buy something that's on sale, you're not saving money;
> you're *spending* money. Why can't you people get that simple fact of
> economics through your heads?
>
Let's see, just for the sake of discussion, I need a car and cars sell
for $10,000. If the dealer has a sale and the car is selling for
$7,000, are you saying tat I have not saved $3,000 on the price?? I
need the car weather or not it is on sale.
> Jones
--
Snake
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the
courts, not to overthrow
the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution: neither
is it in any manner
dependent on that instrument for it's existence. The second amendment
means no more than that
it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to
restrict the powers of the
national government"
92 U. S. 542, U. S. v. Curishank
(U. S. la. 1875)
Earl Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <3A952C4F...@northsound.com>, Snake
<se...@northsound.com> a écrit :
> Snake
That says it all.
Earl
Ron Bargoot
>
> Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
>
Apparently you live in a fantasy world where inanimate objects suddenly
spring to life and commit nefarious deeds. In the real world, where
most of us live, guns are lifeless metal objects that sit complacently
not bothering anyone, until some "maroon" picks it up and pulls the
trigger.
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.com
Robert Frenchu
I have proof: The Smith & Wesson Cam (TM)
http://209.25.215.117/gun/guns_watch.html
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters Ron Bargoot
<ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote:
>Apparently you live in a fantasy world where inanimate objects suddenly
>spring to life and commit nefarious deeds. In the real world, where
>most of us live, guns are lifeless metal objects that sit complacently
>not bothering anyone, until some "maroon" picks it up and pulls the
>trigger.
OK, your point. I shouldn't have flown off the handle like that. The
person I was replying to had argued how many lives were *saved* each
year by guns... that's what I meant. Their purpose is to kill other
humans; they have no other.
The discussion centers on the literal and semantic "meaning" of the
Second Amendment... that's more the point than can a gun kill by
itself. (Although, they *have* been known to accidentally discharge,
you know.)
Thank you for getting me back in line.
Snake
Why, do you think you are able to judge a person by there name and no
other information??? Are you royalty???
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters
cas...@sherrill.kiva.net (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
>In article <9svc9t0n75jap4rco...@4ax.com>,
>!Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>OK, your point. I shouldn't have flown off the handle like that. The
>>person I was replying to had argued how many lives were *saved* each
>>year by guns... that's what I meant. Their purpose is to kill other
>>humans; they have no other.
>
>No other purpose for guns?
>What about skeet shooting?
>What about hunting?
>What about display?
>What about damaging enemy equipment?
>What about competition rifle?
>What about starting guns?
>What about signal flare guns?
>
>Are you *sure* guns have no other purpose than to kill people?
>
>Note that I haven't even mentioned self defense, and the fact
>that a gun can be used in a non-lethal manner as was so well
>demonstrated by the Secret Service recently.
On my desk, I have an M-26 hand grenade. (Calm down, Nigel... I
bought it at the "Death Before Dishonor T-shirt" store. It's inert)
I use it for a paperweight. (Nonsense! I use it to add to the
clutter... a "paperweight" implies some type of organization in that
chaos.)
Would you accept that this is a valid use for hand grenades?
(Bring forth the Holy Hand Grenade!)
Jones
>
>>The discussion centers on the literal and semantic "meaning" of the
>>Second Amendment... that's more the point than can a gun kill by
>>itself. (Although, they *have* been known to accidentally discharge,
>>you know.)
>
>They have? Odd. I've never seen a gun just accidentally discharge
>all by itself. Someone else posted this web-cam. Interesting stuff.
>That mean 'ole nasty gun still hasn't lept up and killed anybody!
>http://209.25.215.117/gun/guns_watch.html
>
>-Geoff
f...@leland.stanford.edu
killing another human is NOT the only one. If that were the case, considering
how many guns there are and how much ammo is used each year there wouldn't be
anyone left alive.
The simple fact (apparently a fact you cannot fathom) is that a gun is a tool that
can be used for "good" or "bad" purposes. The list of uses for a gun can begin
here: target shooting (consider Olympic sports), hunting to put food on the table,
self defense, national defense.
The same gun that a criminal can use to commit a horrible crime - a crime that could
be committed with any number of other tools (knives, baseball bats etc) can be
used to save lives when used by a honest person or police officer.
The use of a gun for self defense more often than not leaves all parties unharmed.
The presence of a gun can and DOES deter many criminals. A gun can make a 90lb
woman EQUAL to a 200 lb attacker(s). The liberal media wants you to believe the
big lie that a gun in the home is too dangerous or a gun in the hand can be
turned against you. While these things can happen, with only a little training
and the will to defend yourself a gun is a very practical tool to defend yourself
and loved ones.
Frank
John Rennie
"Ron Bargoot" <ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:3A967589...@tufts.edu...
Why its good ole' Headache Ron to the rescue of all the persecuted gun
nutters. The thing is Ron that there are so many guns hanging around in
America waiting to be picked up. Which is why Americans are 8 times more
likely to be murdered than the English even tho' we have more burglaries,
muggings and car thefts than you do! It is also the reason why there are
that many more suicides in America - about 3 to every one here.
Ron Bargoot
>
>
> OK, your point. I shouldn't have flown off the handle like that. The
> person I was replying to had argued how many lives were *saved* each
> year by guns... that's what I meant. Their purpose is to kill other
> humans; they have no other.
Guns have purposes besides occasionally killing a human. Hunting. Yes,
even handguns. I have seen Brown Bear hunted with dogs and .45 colt
semis. Target shooting, even at the Olympics. And self defense. I'm
not talking about actually shooting someone. Thousands of crimes are
prevented every year by a victim merely displaying a gun. And then of
course, there is their intrinsic beauty. A well made gun is a marvel of
engineering and craftsmanship.
>
> The discussion centers on the literal and semantic "meaning" of the
> Second Amendment...
Well, that's a horse of a different color. My take is this. At the
time the Bill of Rights was written, it was assumed that the definition
of the word "Militia" was universally accepted to mean "The people
themselves". The framers of our great country did not see the need to
include the definition of the word in the sentence, no more than they
would define any other term used. So for the historically impaired, it
would read:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, and the militia being comprised of the people themselves, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Is that better?
> that's more the point than can a gun kill by
> itself. (Although, they *have* been known to accidentally discharge,
> you know.)
Yes, and usually when in the hands of a police officer.
>
> Thank you for getting me back in line.
anytime.
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.com
Nigel Brooks
"!Jones" <lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca5d9tkp0d9m357ob...@4ax.com...
For a moment there I thought it was to mess with innocent chickens.
Brooks
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> "Ron Bargoot" <ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote:
> > Apparently you live in a fantasy world where inanimate objects suddenly
> > spring to life and commit nefarious deeds. In the real world, where
> > most of us live, guns are lifeless metal objects that sit complacently
> > not bothering anyone, until some "maroon" picks it up and pulls the
> > trigger.
> Why its good ole' Headache Ron to the rescue of all the persecuted gun
> nutters. The thing is Ron that there are so many guns hanging around
in
> America waiting to be picked up. Which is why Americans are 8 times
> more likely to be murdered than the English
If you're a pimp, pusher gang member of a minority group...and so?
I see, it's those Evil Gunz (tm) which manage to emit Evil Gunz Rays
that magically "kill" people all by themselves. You obviously believe
in voodoo, right? Or is it that Mad Cow Disease that has infected
most Limey brains prevents you from logically constating reality?
> even tho' we have more burglaries, muggings and car thefts than
> you do! It is also the reason why there are that many more suicides
> in America - about 3 to every one here.
And Japan, where the private ownership of ANY firearms is almost
nil, has twice the suicide rate of the U.S.....I guess just watching U.S.
TV shows and movies where Evil Gunz (tm) are in evidence drives
the poor Japanese to jump off of buildings, hang, gas, poison themselves
to such a degree?
--
"As the Russians say, if you beat a hare enough, it can
learn to light matches." Dimitri Vulis
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
sys...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> N. Lofton <nei...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:22:41 GMT, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >A handgun is the statistically proven best means of self
>>> >defense. People who defend themselves with a handgun are less
>>> >apt to be injured than person who use alternative weapons or
>>> >cooperation with the perp.
Unless the perp also has a firearm.
It which case cooperation has a slight advantage.
(obviously this means that if the perp has a firearm you don't
draw your firearm unless forced to or given a perfect opportunity
plus a serious threat. the evidence suggests that perps usually
use firearms to control the victim, not to kill 'em).
>>> They take many more innocent ones than they save.
>>The *lowest* number taken for successful with-gun self defenses
>>per year over here is 80K, and that is roughly an order of
>>magnitude below the mean of values returned by all other studies
>>done on the subject.
>Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
>Look... if you buy something that's on sale, you're not saving money;
>you're *spending* money. Why can't you people get that simple fact of
>economics through your heads?
Using old numbers from memory, there are roughly 20k firearm murders per
year.
If you banned handguns , some %age of those would have been successfully
carried out with other weapons and some %age would have been carried out
with illegal firearms ,either made in a machine shop, or stolen from
cops (that is a surprisingly big, though probably reducable number) or
imported.
there are roughly 20k suicides, if you got the cojones to put a gun
in your mouth, you can jump from a bridge too.
there is some relatively small number of aggravated assaults with firearms,
they wouldn't change at all (except that some of the murders would change
into aggravated assaults).
After doing some number crunching I came to the conclusion that there
are about 240,000 DGUs per year. Each of those uses prevents or reduces
the impact of a robbery or an aggravated assault or a murder.
Yes, firearms kill people, they also save lives. They also put food on
the table, they also provide entertainment (I don't understand it but
I don't understand a lot of things).
The numbers are not anywhere clear enough to declare with certainty
that it would be a net positive much less that it would be enough
of a net positive to justify taking people's property and rights away.
Robert Morphis
Someone with whom I disagree
>The simple fact (apparently a fact you cannot fathom) is that a gun
is a tool that
>can be used for "good" or "bad" purposes. The list of uses for a gun
can begin
>here: target shooting (consider Olympic sports), hunting to put food
on the table,
>self defense, national defense.
Yes... you'll stand on our shores; just you and your gun (with your
teflon bullets, of course) ready to repel the foreign invaders from
our beaches! We will fight in the trenches! We will fight in the
fields! We will fight in the streets! Give me a break, will you?
Jones
TAO
>
> Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
I have never even heard a *rumor* that guns kill people.
I suggest not watching the "news" on television.
wavoka
John Rennie wrote in message <976dfv$u01$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
or suicide every day. It is also the truth that people like you want to
punish 300 milion people for the actions of less than 1% of 10% of the
population.
I have four guns on my computer desk right now. They are all loaded. They
were loaded yesterday, and they will be loaded tomorrow. Does that make me
"32 times more likely"?
-*MORT*-
POD {Ò¿Ó}
could stick a few antlers on them and let them out their pens, if that
would make you feel like real hunters??
!Jones
<ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote:
>"!Jones" wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> OK, your point. I shouldn't have flown off the handle like that.
The
>> person I was replying to had argued how many lives were *saved*
each
>> year by guns... that's what I meant. Their purpose is to kill
other
>> humans; they have no other.
>
>Guns have purposes besides occasionally killing a human. Hunting.
Yes,
>even handguns. I have seen Brown Bear hunted with dogs and .45 colt
>semis. Target shooting, even at the Olympics. And self defense.
I'm
>not talking about actually shooting someone. Thousands of crimes are
>prevented every year by a victim merely displaying a gun.
Yes, what was that guy's name in Florida? He called a few gun owners
and asked them if they had ever used a dun defensively... of course
they *all* said yes. So, they were attacked, had to hold someone off
at gunpoint and then went on about their business without even
bothering to call the police? I was skeptical before I found out that
the NRA had funded it.
Any shooting that I have ever been in a position to know about... even
those ruled self defense, really weren't any such thing. (And I have
direct, eye witness knowledge of three shootings, two of them fatal.)
Jones
Dave Proctor
news:R9Dl6.46049$9u3.6...@news1.onlynews.com...
> The truth is that somewhere around 300 million guns are not used in murder
> or suicide every day. It is also the truth that people like you want to
> punish 300 milion people for the actions of less than 1% of 10% of the
> population.
(To bring this back on topic for alt.activism.death-penalty)
And very, very few convicted murderers will ever murder again, yet society
believes that those convicted of the most heinous of murders should be
executed, in order to "protect society". If there is a need to permanently
remove thexse offenders, so that they can not reoffend (when only a
miniscule amount do) why can't society apply the same rules to guns? (Note,
I am NOT talking about executing these offenders because of the nature of
their crimes, just looking at it from the "preventing reoffending"
viewpoint).
Dave
John Rennie
> were loaded yesterday, and they will be loaded tomorrow. Does that make me
> "32 times more likely"?
>
> -*MORT*-
What a bloody awful world you must live in.
Frightened of absolutely everybody aren't you?
I'd say there's a very good chance that you
will kill yourself with one of your guns. I feel
sorry for you Mort.
!Jones
You're suggesting, then, that a person who commits a crime with a gun
should be executed?
Jones
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> blurped:
> "wavoka" <wav...@deja.com> wrote:
> > I have four guns on my computer desk right now. They are all loaded.
They
> > were loaded yesterday, and they will be loaded tomorrow. Does that make
me
> > "32 times more likely"?
> What a bloody awful world you must live in.
> Frightened of absolutely everybody aren't you?
> I'd say there's a very good chance that you
> will kill yourself with one of your guns. I feel
> sorry for you Mort.
>>>>
And the 12" deadly assault kitchen knife you own - I bet you're
going to go out tonight and disembowel some poor prostitutes,
aren't you, you pathetic Limey psychopath? Why do you own
such a thing??
chris
Hey nut case.... The NRA did NOT fund the statistics found at the local
enforcement offices.
No Floridian gun owner paid by the NRA changed the facts....
I hope you will feel safe when only felons and crime lords have guns....
This has been proven time and time again.... History cannot convince
liberal confiscation....
As soon as they can CONTROL Americans... {NOT GOING TO HAPPEN} People do
not like to be controlled....
P.S. Police aren't paid enough to save your ass..... Check your watch
sometime when you have a .45 pointed at your family and you called
911.......
"!Jones" wrote:
> Any shooting that I have ever been in a position to know about... even
> those ruled self defense, really weren't any such thing. (And I have
> direct, eye witness knowledge of three shootings, two of them fatal.)
>
> Jones
--
____________________
-=Chris Yeager=- \
____________________/
Frank G. Hunter RN
>
>> Any shooting that I have ever been in a position to know about... even
>> those ruled self defense, really weren't any such thing. (And I have
>> direct, eye witness knowledge of three shootings, two of them fatal.)
>>
>> Jones
WOW, three whole incidents, now that is statistically significant.
In the first place, many who use a gun in self defense without shooting are
reluctant to involve the police because of the risk that they will be arrested
or harrassed over the fact they own a gun or pulled one. I know of MANY more
than three incidents of this happening, actually in the hundreds. Thats my own
personal experience. The incidents number in the hundreds of thousands, and
they have a long history.
Secondly, the media has a tendency to hush or ignore these incidents because in
general, they are against private ownership of guns. They have consistently
been on the side of the anti-gun forces, democrats and liberals who have made
no bones about the fact that they wish to remove firearms from the hands of
private citizens. They play up unfortunate incidents involving firearms for all
they are worth, ignoring facts such as the obvious safety and common sense
rules that were violated in favor of the emotional aspects and villification of
the people involved.
Thirdly, when you make all kinds of laws to outlaw firearms in the possession
of private citizens, and do not prosecute criminals for possession, or invoke
the full penalties for those convicted felons who are found in possession of a
firearm, all you accomplish is the denial of means of self defense to
responsible citizens, while giving convicted felons another reason to not take
the law seriously. Look up "Project Exile" as it is being done in Richmond
Virginia for an example of effective crime reduction while using existing gun
laws.
It isn't the GUNS stupid. It's the stupid going on about getting rid of the
guns, while avoiding the aspects of INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY for INDIVIDUAL
CHOICES, kinda like the real subject of this group.
To tell the truth, the average teenager with an automobile on the road is a
much larger threat to my life and health than the average gun owner. It has to
do with being responsible for your actions. It has to do with being educated in
safety. It has to do with respect for others. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH THE
EXISTENCE OF A HUNK OF METAL AND PLASTIC THAT HAS NO WILL OF ITS OWN.
People like you give me a case of the ass.
Frank G. Hunter R.N.
The more I get to know people, the more I appreciate my Labradors.
See Frank's Team Hunter Click Below:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1406410&a=10512350
Dave Proctor
No, what I am saying is that if you are going to execute a stack of
murderers because one or two of them *may* murder again, you should apply
that logic to firearms and remove them because one or two fo them *may* be
used to kill humans.
Dave
!Jones
>
>Hey nut case....
Good start! You've really put me in my place, I'll tell you. Listen,
son... if you choose to participate, then you do so knowing that
you'll meet people who will disagree with you. Actually, I object to
the vitriolic, uncivilized behavior that I find on USENET. I accept
that we may disagree... even disagree vehemently over certain issues;
however, I choose to limit this type of outburst on my part. I'd
appreciate it if you would try to follow suite.
The NRA did NOT fund the statistics found at the local
>enforcement offices.
The lack of evidence from local LEOs was my whole point.
>No Floridian gun owner paid by the NRA changed the facts....
Somebody help me out here! (Damn! I'd just *hate* it if I actually
had to get off my ass and do my own research!) The famous "study"
about the millions of defensive uses each year... who??? University
of Fla.??? 1998??? Crap... I'm having a "senior moment" here. But
he was NRA funded... whoever he was. (Awwww... come on... )
>I hope you will feel safe when only felons and crime lords have
guns....
Well, yes, in fact... I would feel much safer if you wouldn't mind
putting that gun down, thank you.
>This has been proven time and time again.... History cannot convince
>liberal confiscation....
>As soon as they can CONTROL Americans... {NOT GOING TO HAPPEN}
Darn it! And I thought that everyone on this group was about to give
up and let me take their guns. Oh well.
>People do
>not like to be controlled....
>
>P.S. Police aren't paid enough to save your ass..... Check your
watch
>sometime when you have a .45 pointed at your family and you called
>911.......
That's exactly my point. I'd prefer not to be in that position...
soooo... uhhhhh... would you mind putting that .45 down please? Yes,
there's a nice lad... it's OK, son. Nobody is going to take your gun.
We'll see to it that you get help. Now, just step back... away from
the gun...
!Jones
Damn, Dave... you make great sense for an Australian. I don't have a
bit of trouble with it. Although, I do tend to oppose capital
punishment as ineffective. I'd be quicker to get rid of some
inanimate object than a human, though.
Jones
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>!Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> N. Lofton <nei...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:22:41 GMT, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >A handgun is the statistically proven best means of self
>>>> >defense. People who defend themselves with a handgun are less
>>>> >apt to be injured than person who use alternative weapons or
>>>> >cooperation with the perp.
>
>Unless the perp also has a firearm.
Wrong. Data from police files shows otherwise. Try the FBI or DOJ for the figures.
>It which case cooperation has a slight advantage.
Nope! More likely to end in injury or death if the attacker is violent.
>(obviously this means that if the perp has a firearm you don't
>draw your firearm unless forced to or given a perfect opportunity
>plus a serious threat.
Someone holding a gun on me or waving a club, or presenting a knife pointed at me
is "not" a serious threat?
>the evidence suggests that perps usually
>use firearms to control the victim, not to kill 'em).
I'm not interested in the "usual" scenario. I'm interested in my odds of survival
when I'm one of the unfortunates who draw the "kill'em" ticket. That is why I am
armed. That is why I draw on demand....the stupid perp demanding my compliance.
>>>> They take many more innocent ones than they save.
>
>>>The *lowest* number taken for successful with-gun self defenses
>>>per year over here is 80K, and that is roughly an order of
>>>magnitude below the mean of values returned by all other studies
>>>done on the subject.
>
>>Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
>
>>Look... if you buy something that's on sale, you're not saving money;
>>you're *spending* money. Why can't you people get that simple fact of
>>economics through your heads?
>
>Using old numbers from memory, there are roughly 20k firearm murders per
>year.
If you not only strip away all the justifiables, the suicides (not means dependent
the researchers say), and especially the gang banger on each other figures, I hear
it comes out about 5-6 thousand. Pretty tiny rate in a population of over 200
mill, don't you think?
>If you banned handguns , some %age of those would have been successfully
>carried out with other weapons and some %age would have been carried out
>with illegal firearms ,either made in a machine shop, or stolen from
>cops (that is a surprisingly big, though probably reducable number) or
>imported.
Yes, you are on to something there. Why ban handguns when it wouldn't serve to do
anything but disarm law abiding citizens. No criminal would trot on down and turn
in their handgun when the ban is announced.
>there are roughly 20k suicides, if you got the cojones to put a gun
>in your mouth, you can jump from a bridge too.
Ebsolooootelly
>there is some relatively small number of aggravated assaults with firearms,
>they wouldn't change at all (except that some of the murders would change
>into aggravated assaults).
>
>After doing some number crunching I came to the conclusion that there
>are about 240,000 DGUs per year. Each of those uses prevents or reduces
>the impact of a robbery or an aggravated assault or a murder.
>
>Yes, firearms kill people, they also save lives. They also put food on
>the table, they also provide entertainment (I don't understand it but
>I don't understand a lot of things).
>
>The numbers are not anywhere clear enough to declare with certainty
>that it would be a net positive much less that it would be enough
>of a net positive to justify taking people's property and rights away.
>
>Robert Morphis
You are right.
d'geezer ®
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
there is found state education. It has been discovered
that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to
commence tyranny in the nursery." -- Benjamin Disraeli
an0...@hotmail.com
Poofter git,
Do you eat meat (non-mad cow meat that is)?
If so, then you're a prat.
Now, sit down and consider yourself educated. :-)
KarenMarie
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:07 -0800, Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
[snipped out of bandwidth consideration, NOT lack of interest]
>
> Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
*Blaming GUNS for KILLING makes about as much sense at blaming PENCILS for
SPELLING MISTAKES.
if I snipped incorrectly, and attributed the above to the wrong person, I
apologize in advance
Deep Thought
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters, "KarenMarie"
<Karen...@phoneyaddress.com> wrote:
>
>"!Jones" <lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:42499t4l8ehu91p02...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:07 -0800, Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>[snipped out of bandwidth consideration, NOT lack of interest]
>>
>> Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
>> Jones
>
>
>*Blaming GUNS for KILLING makes about as much sense at blaming PENCILS for
>SPELLING MISTAKES.
I was once typing an important document and meant to write "election".
I wrote "erection" and it altered the whole semantic content. The
sentence was syntactally correct so the checker didn't catch it.
But nobody died as a result.
KarenMarie
sending it.
:)! What a hoot!!!
"Deep Thought" <joc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3a986437...@news.ramlink.net...
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Because guns don't have free will and murderers do. If I flood the country with
guns any crimes commited with them will be by criminals. The guns themselves will
not do a thing. If I flood the country with released murderers........well, you
get the idea.
So a gun used in a killing can be returned to the rightful owners (assuming he or
she is not the perp) and there is about 0 chance the gun will be used to kill
anyone.
Can you say the same for a murderer returned to society?
>
>Dave
>
d'geezer Ž
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
I've had guns on "my desk" and person probably longer than *DEATH* has, yet all
they have served to do, as I suspect his has, is deter violent crime. I know mine
have directly, twice.
No tell me, from where do you get the supporting data that Mort will be more
likely to kill himself because he has guns?
And when you tell me do give me a source. I'd like to go and check those figures
for myself.
On the other hand what business is it of yours if I or Mort decide checking out is
the next step to a long and glorious life, or what means we chose to do so?
You are a limpwristed twit aren't you.
d'geezer ®
Wm James
>Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
Criminals kill people. Is this really impossible for you to
comprehend?
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:29:09 GMT, in
>alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters Ron Bargoot
><ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote:
>
>>Apparently you live in a fantasy world where inanimate objects suddenly
>>spring to life and commit nefarious deeds. In the real world, where
>>most of us live, guns are lifeless metal objects that sit complacently
>>not bothering anyone, until some "maroon" picks it up and pulls the
>>trigger.
>
>OK, your point. I shouldn't have flown off the handle like that. The
>person I was replying to had argued how many lives were *saved* each
>year by guns... that's what I meant. Their purpose is to kill other
>humans; they have no other.
Their purpose is to provide the user with the ability to propel
projectiles, generally for making holes. Your phobia leads you to
conclude that this can only result in a person's death. In reality,
the user having that capability has proven time and time again to stop
attacks without the projectiles being propelled. It should also be
noted that there are various sports which involve making holes with
such devices in things clearly not human, most not even living.
BTW, do you know what a nail gun is?
>The discussion centers on the literal and semantic "meaning" of the
>Second Amendment... that's more the point than can a gun kill by
>itself. (Although, they *have* been known to accidentally discharge,
>you know.)
>
>Thank you for getting me back in line.
They have been known to have been accidently discharged by a user. I
know of no modern cases of spontanous combustion of powder inside a
chambered shell.
William R. James
JIGSAW1695
>From: Wm James wrj...@kudzucountry.com
>Date: 2/25/01 2:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <5idh9tkd9h74b8h2i...@4ax.com>
Now there is something we can talk about:
Spontaneous Human Combustion.
We had a case here in St. Pete. In the fifties. There have been reports of
other such incidents in the media. If I had not read the case file I would
have catagorizied the report of SHC in the same file drawer as Elvis Sightings
or CHUD's
Jigsaw
!Jones
<wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote:
>Their purpose is to provide the user with the ability to propel
>projectiles, generally for making holes. Your phobia leads you to
>conclude that this can only result in a person's death. In reality,
>the user having that capability has proven time and time again to
stop
>attacks without the projectiles being propelled. It should also be
>noted that there are various sports which involve making holes with
>such devices in things clearly not human, most not even living.
Excuse me, but this is getting pretty silly. You're suggesting that
guns were developed for the purpose of punching holes in things? No,
I think that even the most rabid of NRA members would admit that the
gun's primary purpose was and remains as a weapon. When I was much
younger, I used to box. I still work the heavy bag... but boxing is
essentially fighting. Why do you think Mike Tyson is so popular? Is
it the art?... the sport?... nonsense! The sheeple want to see
someone get mauled so that they can vicariously posses a pair of
balls.
Same thing with a gun. I think that the best argument for guns (and
I've only seen it presented once) is that it's a thing of intrinsic
beauty... or can be. It's bad enough that I have to hear: "target
shooting" and "deer hunting" (and we're discussing CCW)... but if
you're going to come along and suggest, with a straight face,
nonetheless, that a gun's purpose is a tool for making holes, I'm just
going to have to laugh.
Mostly, a gun's purpose is to practice quick-draw in the mirror and do
war faces. You ever done war faces in the mirror while practicing
quick-draw? Naaaa... this is a serious bunch; nobody even knows what
I'm talking about.
Jones
John Rennie
"Frank G. Hunter RN" <hunt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010224131639...@ng-fg1.aol.com.
Snipped..
>
> Secondly, the media has a tendency to hush or ignore these incidents
because in
> general, they are against private ownership of guns. They have
consistently
> been on the side of the anti-gun forces, democrats and liberals who have
made
> no bones about the fact that they wish to remove firearms from the hands
of
> private citizens. They play up unfortunate incidents involving firearms
for all
> they are worth, ignoring facts such as the obvious safety and common sense
> rules that were violated in favor of the emotional aspects and
villification of
> the people involved.
Any reason you can offer Frank as to why your 'media' is
against the easy availability of guns in the USA? Are they in the pay
of foreign agents? Do they wish to see the downfall of
a freedom loving America? Have they a financial interest
in the demise of the small arms industry? Perhaps they are just
too intelligent for their own good and being so intelligent, they
are not representative of the 'man-in-the-street' or should that now
be 'man-in-the car'?
> Thirdly, when you make all kinds of laws to outlaw firearms in the
possession
> of private citizens, and do not prosecute criminals for possession, or
invoke
> the full penalties for those convicted felons who are found in possession
of a
> firearm, all you accomplish is the denial of means of self defense to
> responsible citizens, while giving convicted felons another reason to not
take
> the law seriously. Look up "Project Exile" as it is being done in
Richmond
> Virginia for an example of effective crime reduction while using existing
gun
> laws.
Crime may well be reduced in Richmond but have murders, other homicides
and suicides been reduced?
John Rennie
"Wm James" <wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote in message
news:4edh9ts335npt72ll...@4ax.com...
Not necessarily! 6 year old children kill other children if they have a
gun to do it with. No gun, no death! There isn't any doubt about it,
even the statistics produced on web pages run by pro-gun enthusiasts, prove
that easy gun availability increases the number of violent deaths. Take
Switzerland often held up as an example where gun availability doesn't mean
more violent deaths. Wrong! Compared with the UK which has, admittedly,
very stringent rules affecting gun ownership, Switzerland's rates of murders
and suicides are three times higher even tho' their crime rates are lower.
Steve Hix
(Deep Thought) wrote:
Mein Kampf
Das Kapital
The Little Red Book
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
A word is not tangible.
Now try to find an analogy that will work better. My gun is about as resposible
for deaths by shooting as my prick is responsible for rape and overpopulation. Two
kids, no rapes.
I'll tell you what, if you are a male, why not, in the interest of defending your
logic, cut your prick off because some have misused theirs?
Please post a digital image here. That is one this news group WILL happily accept.
d'geezer Ž
PS, just thought I'd get a jump on the gun grabber as we know that about 90% of
the time when they start losing the argument there is going to be some reference
to our guns and our penises. Hope you gunnies all appreciate it...hehehehe d'g
Frank G. Hunter RN
>From: "John Rennie" Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net
>Date: 2/25/2001 2:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <97bmhl$1n7$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
IMHO the media are what I define as Liberals, and as such, portray things that
are not within the liberal agenda as being undesireable. Examples abound but
one that comes to mind is the portrayal of Ex President Clinton and his Amorous
Follies. When a Conservative was accused of similar behavior, the media
portrayal was not of simple reporting of facts, it was villification. Other
Liberal groups such as NOW were baying for blood. Clintons actions on the other
hand, though similar in nature did not provoke a similar response. During the
Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas stories, The liberals again were baying for blood,
but the accusations of sexual harrassment made by other women against Clinton
were not met by the media with the same response.
In general, I believe those with liberal agendas, the media included to Believe
themselves to be above all the "men in the street" and the "average Joe
Six-Pack." They appear to be of the opinion that those who do not share their
views are of lower intellect and education, and therefore the view of the "man
in the street" is incorrect.
Words and statistics are powerful things, but when they are used to deceive,
their value, and that of those who speak or write them become questionable to
say the least. The Liberals and the media appear to see themselves as some sort
of ELITE, and therefore worthy of leadership and have no problem with imposing
their views on the masses "for their own good," despite their need for
deception.
Intelligent? Undoubtably.
Correct? That is very questionable in my eyes. It comes down to the a basic
point in my beliefs.
The point is individual responsibility, and individual accountability for one's
own actions. That is the basic difference.
>> Thirdly, when you make all kinds of laws to outlaw firearms in the
>possession
>> of private citizens, and do not prosecute criminals for possession, or
>invoke
>> the full penalties for those convicted felons who are found in possession
>of a
>> firearm, all you accomplish is the denial of means of self defense to
>> responsible citizens, while giving convicted felons another reason to not
>take
>> the law seriously. Look up "Project Exile" as it is being done in
>Richmond
>> Virginia for an example of effective crime reduction while using existing
>gun
>> laws.
>
>Crime may well be reduced in Richmond but have murders, other homicides
>and suicides been reduced?
I will have to check the figures on that, or you might check them out yourself.
I do believe that is the case, and the very fact that the overall crime rate is
significantly reduced speaks volumes for "Project Exile." But again, I am
referring to taking guns out of the hands of criminals, and severely punishing
those who use them in criminal acts. Again my point is individual
responsibility and accountability. I see a real problem with making a law, but
not enforcing it for the intention for which it was made. The Clinton/ Gore
Administration showed a decided willingness to further restrict the rights of
law abiding gun owners here in the US throughout their term. They also showed a
decided unwillingness to prosecute criminals under federal Gun statutes. That
again speaks volumes. If the general Idea of Gun control and/or restriction is
public safety, it doesn't make sense to attempt to further restrict law abiding
gun owners from purchase, while not prosecuting Known felons for crimes
committed with guns. Seems to me that the real agenda here is disarming the
general population. There are a number of reasons for a government to do that,
and I am not real happy about most of them.
I see it this way, when an individual gives up their rights in *exchange* for
*security*, that security lasts only as long as the continuing goodwill of
those who are promising the security, if indeed they are able to come through
with their promises. I have grave doubts about both the ability to provide that
security, and the continuing goodwill. And I might add, I have many historical
examples to validate my thinking on this.
John Rennie
Rant against Liberals snipped
> >Crime may well be reduced in Richmond but have murders, other homicides
> >and suicides been reduced?
>
> I will have to check the figures on that, or you might check them out
yourself.
I expect YOU to check the figures. That way you will find out that
compared with figures in the UK which has, with Australia, the most
stringent rules regarding the possession of handguns, the figure for
homicides in Richmond is ridiculously high. This is not, repeat not, just
because of the prevalence of handguns. The point has been made many
times on the ng that the USA's disgustingly high level of homicides is down
to many factors, including a terrible civil war, slavery and prejudices but
the easy availability of handguns aids and abets all of these and increases
many times the chances of a violent death for an American citizen.
The following article from the November issue of the Scientific American has
also been published more than once on this ng. No doubt you will include
the contributor as one of those 'liberal' media hacks but if you can push
your glaring prejudices to one side for a spell, you might even learn
something.
The Roots of Homicide
The U.S property crime rate matches those of most other industrialised
countries, but its homicide rate exceeds Western Europe's by 4 to 1 and
Japan's by 7 to 1. The historical roots of this disparity may lie not in the
Western frontier, as many believe, but in the institution of slavery and the
unusual history of firearms in America.
In the antebellum South, whites used the threat of violence to intimidate
blacks and encourage deference. In the view of historian Roger Lane of
Haverford College, the respect demanded of slaves fostered a 'culture of
honor' in which a man's personal worth was measured by how others behaved
towards him. Trivial slights had to be answered immediately and with
physical force, if necessary. Homicide resulting from quarrels did not
usually result in a conviction. The Southern culture of honor spread to
poor whites and to the slaves themselves, who eventually brought it to the
inner cities of the North. Disrespect for the law was reinforced by the
tendency of authorities to ignore murder of blacks by blacks. Current high
homicide rates in the former Confederate states and in many large cities
trace largely to the attitudes developed during slavery, according to Lane.
He also says that high rates in the Southwest reflect in part attitudes
among the Mexican-Americans, many of whom also practice a culture of honor
tracing to the region's historical circumstances.
The American attitude on firearms is rooted in British North America,
where all freeman, except in Quaker Pennsylvania, were required to carry
arms for protection against the Indians, the French and others. The
colonial era's long guns and duelling pistols were expensive and hard to
manipulate and thus were not often used in disputes. But then in the 1840's
came the more efficient, cheaper and easily concealed Colt revolvers and
with them, an increase in white homicide rates. More than 80 percent of
gun murders today involve a handgun.
Among Western industrialised nations, gun ownership correlates with
homicide: in England and Wales, where virtually no one owns a gun, the
homicide rate was only 1.3 per 100,000 population, whereas in Finland, which
has the highest gun ownership level, the homicide rate was 2.7. If gun
ownership were the only determinant of homicide, the U.S. rate would fall
into the intermediate category. It is the COMBINATION of easy access to
guns and an extraordinary readiness to use them that helps make the U>S
homicide rate so high. According to Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkings
of the University of California at Berkeley, up to half the difference in
homicide rates between the U.S. and Europe is explained by greater gun use
by Americans.
The U.S. has seen several waves of homicide, including one that peaked
before the Civil War, a possible second wave that crested in the 1920's, and
the current wave, which peaked in 1980. The ascending phase of this wave,
which began in about 1960, more or less concluded with several trends that
have been proposed as contributors to homicide: the decline of union
manufacturing jobs; the breakup of families with the rise of divorce; the
increase in births to unwed mothers; and the growth of illegal drug use.
The decline in rates since 1991 coincided with the waning of the crack
cocaine epidemic that started in 1985. Other developments including greater
police efforts to prevent gun carrying and the recent economic expansion,
which provided more jobs, have played a role. The proportion of young men,
always the most violent group in society, fell in the 1990's and so
contributed to the decline in homicides.
One of the most hopeful developments in recent years is detailed by
Richard Curtis of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who found that
many disadvantaged Puerto Rican and black youths in New York City became
deeply disenchanted with the drug use of parents and older siblings and are
now attempting to re-establish their lives and their communities. Cutis
believes that similar developments are happening in other cities across the
country. Still, no one knows how the next generation of young men will feel
and act, and no one can predict what devastating new drug might be concocted
or how the fast-changing U.S. economy will affect the murder rate.
Wm James
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:45:41 -0600, Wm James
><wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote:
>
>>Their purpose is to provide the user with the ability to propel
>>projectiles, generally for making holes. Your phobia leads you to
>>conclude that this can only result in a person's death. In reality,
>>the user having that capability has proven time and time again to
>stop
>>attacks without the projectiles being propelled. It should also be
>>noted that there are various sports which involve making holes with
>>such devices in things clearly not human, most not even living.
>
>Excuse me, but this is getting pretty silly. You're suggesting that
>guns were developed for the purpose of punching holes in things? No,
>I think that even the most rabid of NRA members would admit that the
>gun's primary purpose was and remains as a weapon. When I was much
>younger, I used to box. I still work the heavy bag... but boxing is
>essentially fighting. Why do you think Mike Tyson is so popular? Is
>it the art?... the sport?... nonsense! The sheeple want to see
>someone get mauled so that they can vicariously posses a pair of
>balls.
People like gore, sure. (Not Al gore, just gore) :)
However the reason the tool was invented was to punch holes in prey,
including people. The boomarang, yoyo, javlin, and even the ball were
also invented as weapons. So was the stick, most likely.
>Same thing with a gun. I think that the best argument for guns (and
>I've only seen it presented once) is that it's a thing of intrinsic
>beauty... or can be. It's bad enough that I have to hear: "target
>shooting" and "deer hunting" (and we're discussing CCW)... but if
>you're going to come along and suggest, with a straight face,
>nonetheless, that a gun's purpose is a tool for making holes, I'm just
>going to have to laugh.
Laugh at reality all you want, but it doesn't alter it.
>Mostly, a gun's purpose is to practice quick-draw in the mirror and do
>war faces. You ever done war faces in the mirror while practicing
>quick-draw? Naaaa... this is a serious bunch; nobody even knows what
>I'm talking about.
>
>Jones
I get it now. You would like a gun as a toy to play cowboy with so
you assume everyone else is playing with dangerous toys? You need
help with your problem regarding guns. Other gun owners don't see it
that way. In case you aren't aware, you can't do a western quickdraw
with most of them anyway.
William R. James
Wm James
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
And power tool deaths are 1000's of times higher in the US than in
rural Ethopia. So what? Of you don't have something, you don't have
accidents involving them. You want to ban electricity too? What about
fire? Stoves? Gas? Swimming pools are quite dangerous to children
too. Lets ban everything which could be used in an accident, OK?
And notice that I didn't mention cars. .... oops... :)
William R. James
John Rennie
Thats awfully clever of you William comparing the USA with Ethiopia. How
about my comparison of Switzerland and the UK - a little more apposite
surely? I always preferred your brother Henry, now I know why.
>
sys...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>>
>[snipped out of bandwidth consideration, NOT lack of interest]
>>
>
>
>*Blaming GUNS for KILLING makes about as much sense at blaming PENCILS for
>SPELLING MISTAKES.
Quite right, the appropriate analogy would be with pens. Knives and
baseball bats are pencils.
look at the ratio of murders to aggravated assaults committed with firearms.
Look at the same ratio for any other weapon.
Under most circumstances I fear for my life from about 10% of
the population when they are armed with anything besides a
firearm. If I can't run away I can find something to defend
myself with.
The reason a lot of people are dead is because somebody had a firearm.
Does that reduce the guilt of the person that pulled the trigger?
No, but in a non-trivial manner of speaking guns are responsible
for deaths.
Robert
sys...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>sys...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>>>> N. Lofton <nei...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>> David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
>>>>> >A handgun is the statistically proven best means of self
>>>>> >defense. People who defend themselves with a handgun are less
>>>>> >apt to be injured than person who use alternative weapons or
>>>>> >cooperation with the perp.
>>Unless the perp also has a firearm.
>Wrong. Data from police files shows otherwise. Try the FBI or DOJ for
>the figures.
Your wish is my command ;-)
>>It which case cooperation has a slight advantage.
>Nope! More likely to end in injury or death if the attacker is violent.
Injury rates involved in Assaults and Robberies
----------------------------------------------
Only those | All
involving firearm |
----------------------------------------------
No resistance 26.5%
passive resistance 21.8
(including evasion)
resistance with
firearm 20% 13.1
resistance without 50
firearm
Total 17 32.3
17% of /all/ victims of non-fatal firearm related crimes are injured.
(adding in murders shifts that by about 1 percentage point.)
Of those who are injured 19% are shot and 15% receive some other
serious injury.
The numbers in the second column are from 1979-1984, they are from
Kleck's "Point Blank". I beleive he is directly quoting DOJ
data.
The numbers in the first column come from:
"Firearm Injury from Crime" April 1996, NCJ-160093
and
"Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and
Firearm Theft", April 1994, NCJ-147003
Both put out by
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
>>(obviously this means that if the perp has a firearm you don't
>>draw your firearm unless forced to or given a perfect opportunity
>>plus a serious threat.
>Someone holding a gun on me or waving a club, or presenting a knife
>pointed at me is "not" a serious threat?
Serious is a relative term.
>>>>> [Guns] take many more innocent ones than they save.
>>Using old numbers from memory, there are roughly 20k firearm murders per
>>year.
21k in 1995.
>If you not only strip away all the justifiables,
1000-2000, about 300 of which are not counted in the 20k above.
>the suicides (not means dependent the researchers say),
not counted in the 20k above.
>and especially the gang banger on each other figures,
as best I can determine that runs around 2k.
>I hear it comes out about 5-6 thousand.
As best I can determine it is still well above 10k.
The above comes from the 1995 FBI UCR.
Robert
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters
sys...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
I tend to agree that one has a ways to go to argue that, therefore, we
should ban guns; however, it's incomprehensible that someone can argue
with a straight face that it's just as easy to kill with a club as
with a gun.
Jones
an0...@hotmail.com
>"KarenMarie" <Karen...@phoneyaddress.com> writes:
>>"!Jones" <lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:07 -0800, Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>[snipped out of bandwidth consideration, NOT lack of interest]
>>>
>>> Oh, grief! Guns *KILL* people, you maroon!
>>> Jones
>>
>>
>>*Blaming GUNS for KILLING makes about as much sense at blaming PENCILS for
>>SPELLING MISTAKES.
>
>Quite right, the appropriate analogy would be with pens. Knives and
>baseball bats are pencils.
>
>look at the ratio of murders to aggravated assaults committed with firearms.
>
>Look at the same ratio for any other weapon.
The purpose of a tool, and the deaths resulting from improper or
illegal use of said tools are not correlative.
>Under most circumstances I fear for my life from about 10% of
>the population when they are armed with anything besides a
>firearm. If I can't run away I can find something to defend
>myself with.
Sometimes that's too little too late. Shouldn't we as law-abiding
citizens be able to make our own individual descisions?
>The reason a lot of people are dead is because somebody had a firearm.
And many more people die every year because somebody had a car and
sometimes too much to drink.
Your point?
>Does that reduce the guilt of the person that pulled the trigger?
Every situation is unique. Many times firearms are used to *prevent*
crime.
>No, but in a non-trivial manner of speaking guns are responsible
>for deaths.
Sorry. Almost three times as many people are killed by cars every
year, and they're not even "designed" to kill. Seems to me cars are
much more dangerous!
>Robert
an0...@hotmail.com
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I'm being trolled, right? It simply isn't possible that you can't
know that.
Y'all quit trolling me!!!!
Jones
KarenMarie
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a9af796...@news.jax.bellsouth.net...
other vehicles, then got out ant started fist fighting.
Hmmm should be ban cars? I mean, isn't is just as fair that EVERY one be
punished for the actions of a few?
Panhead
Hands!
We need to ban hands ...that can be made into a fist!
Just think of the things we wouldn't be able to "handle" without
those!
jigo
The point is that if something is not available in a country, then of
course it will not be involved in deaths there. But international
comparisons are really of limited value in general. They show
correlation, not cause and effect. There is a very good correlation
between breast cancer rates and countries where women wear brassieres.
There is also a good correlation with the number of flush toilets in the
country.
And those comparisons really evade the fundamental ethical point: Even if
something were to lower mortality, does the government or society have a
right to impose it on everyone, especially when it involves taking away
what many regard as a fundamental right? You may well be able to lower
the crime and murder rate if the police could stop and frisk people at
will or search a home or car at will, but would that really be worth the
loss of privacy?
Wm James
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
I was comparing power tool deaths in a place without power tools to
power tool deaths in a place with an abundance of power tools. My
point was simply that where something isn't available, accidents
regarding them are rare. Swimming pool accidents are rare at the
south pole too, as are house fires in the rain forrest, and snake
bites in Ireland.
> I always preferred your brother Henry, now I know why.
What about Memphis James? He's not my brother but he is A brother. :)
http://www.kudzucountry.com/memjames/
William R. James
James S. Cochrane
John Rennie wrote:
>
> The most fundamental right is the right to life and that is a right
> that your ethical standpoint denies to 40000 of your citizens every
> year.
>
>
By that standard, your "fundamental right" to life is denied to
everyone, eventually.
Frank G. Hunter RN
>Date: 2/27/2001 1:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <97gro0$s81$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>
>"jigo" <ji...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A9B5F...@erols.com...
>> John Rennie wrote:
>> >
>> > "Wm James" <wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote in message
>> > news:s8cl9t4l0gj2itrcg...@4ax.com..
>> > > <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>>
>>
>> course it will not be involved in deaths there.
>
So then comparisons of homocide rates in countries where handguns are severely
limited would be a bad comparison to the US?
>But international
>> comparisons are really of limited value in general.
>
>Have you any idea of how similar Switzerland
>and the UK are? It is an excellent example of
>how the unlimited circulation of guns is THE
>factor in the higher number of homicides in
>Switzerland or Finalnd for that matter.
>
>
> They show
>> correlation, not cause and effect. There is a very good correlation
>> between breast cancer rates and countries where women wear brassieres.
>> There is also a good correlation with the number of flush toilets in the
>> country.
>
>Wriggle! Wriggle!
I notice you do not answer this, instead you imply his argument has no merit.
OK here's a few arguments that go to cause and effect.
I propose that it is the constant reiteration to the effect that those who
commit crimes are somehow "victims" themselves, that society has somehow
"failed them" that CREATES an attitude ripe for criminal behavior, up to and
including murder.
I propose that fighting to obtain futher rights, and comforts to the guilty,
CREATES in their minds justification or at least mitigation for their choices.
I propose that the attitude that the government provides "rights" instead of
recognizing them and protecting them CREATES an atmosphere that denies the
fundamental principles of individual responsibility and individual
accountability. I propose that taking the hard-earned income from individuals
and "redistribute" it to reward laziness, irresponsibility, gain political
power through pandering, reproduction without regard to ability to provide for
offspring, and provide a means for existence without the need for effort to
CREATE an atmosphere whereby certain individuals look to the government to
provide both physical necessities, and security , despite the abundance of
opportunity. And that it further provides for further generations of
individuals who are not instilled with values that inhibit their tendency
toward criminal actions but instead increases their dependence on the "Wisdom"
and policies of political beliefs that have shown over and over that they have
not only no basis in fact or practice, but instead rely on emotion and
villification of opposing beliefs.
That sir, is not wiggling, that is standing toe to toe with the liberal ethical
stance, and saying that IT denies those lives, and and fosters the beliefs and
behaviors of those individuals who pull the trigger, and those who both
willingly and unwillingly aid them.
>> And those comparisons really evade the fundamental ethical point: Even if
>> something were to lower mortality, does the government or society have a
>> right to impose it on everyone, especially when it involves taking away
>> what many regard as a fundamental right?
>
>The most fundamental right is the right to life and that is a right
>that your ethical standpoint denies to 40000 of your citizens every
>year.
Now THAT is what I call logical. HIS ethical standpoint denies the right to
life of 40000 citizens every year. Think about that. I own guns, mostly
sporting arms but I own a few handguns. How has my ownership and belief in the
right to own firearms denied 1 single individual his right to life? I have
killed no one. I doubt the poster has either. If he had, and done it in a
particularly ghastly way, you would be for saving his life. Yet you propose
denying a very effective means of self defense to the majority of people
who_have_committed_no_CRIME. I have never heard of any firearm that could
think, that had choices, that moved of its own volition and fired itself at a
human with the express purpose of doing harm or ending the human life. Those
acts were done by humans, and you maintain they still have the right to live.
The gun was merely their instrument of choice. And they chose it, it did not
magically appear, they obtained it for the purpose.Myself, and millions of
other gun owners do not obtain handguns for the purpose of unjust aggression,
but you would deny us the ability to effectively defend ourselfs against those
who would harm us. Add this to the fact that most inmates who are on death row
have a history of criminal behavior, how effective would a law banning
handguns or any other firearm be in deterring them? Yet you go on about their
rights to life. The fact is that it is already illegal for a convicted felon to
possess or attempt to obtain a firearm.
A further fact, a law abiding armed citizen CAN effectively prevent a criminal
from commission of a crime, and further prevent them from ANY further criminal
activity. I have serious doubts as to the ability of an unarmed citizen doing
the same. I hate the thought that I may find myself in either position, but
neither would be my choice.
The 40000 citizens you mention died how?
Suicide? The gun was only an instrument used by the individual. If his self
extermination were his true goal, would the fact he does not possess a firearm
stop him. Does it stop the suicides in the UK or Australia? Nope, he would
still die by his own hands, he would merely use another method. Should we
outlaw knives, bridges, tylenol tablets, garage doors that close while an
automobile is inside?
They were murdered by another. Hmm, you are against the DP, is it not true that
we can prevent a reoccurence of this act if we get *rid* of the criminal who
perpetrated it? MY firearms are already locked up.
> You may well be able to lower
>> the crime and murder rate if the police could stop and frisk people at
>> will or search a home or car at will, but would that really be worth the
>> loss of privacy?
>
>There is no loss of privacy in the UK because of our
>gun laws. You must stop this gross exaggerations in
>order to prop up an increasingly desperate argument.
Well I am glad you said that. Far be it from you to offer gross exaggeration
to prop up and increasingly desperate argument.
Scout
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:97gro0$s81$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Wm James" <wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote in message
> > > news:s8cl9t4l0gj2itrcg...@4ax.com..
> > > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:44:40 -0000, "John Rennie"
> > > > <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> >
> > The point is that if something is not available in a country, then of
> > course it will not be involved in deaths there.
>
>
>
> > comparisons are really of limited value in general.
>
> and the UK are? It is an excellent example of
> how the unlimited circulation of guns is THE
> factor in the higher number of homicides in
> Switzerland or Finalnd for that matter.
Well then you can explain how the lack of guns accounts for the higher
number of homicides in
Mexico, Jamaica, and Taiwan.
John Rennie
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
news:iDUm6.19409$Sl.8...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
Read carefully. Mexico, Jamaica and Taiwan are unlike the UK whereas
Switzerland and Finland, as they are European countries, are quite similar
to the UK except for the fact that we have a better sense of humour which
necessary when dealing with posters like yourself. Realistic comparisons
can be made between countries that have similar cultures.
Frank G. Hunter RN
I expected that. You ask for my views, and then dismiss them, instead of
answering them. I must have hit close to home.
>> >Crime may well be reduced in Richmond but have murders, other homicides
>> >and suicides been reduced?
>>
>> I will have to check the figures on that, or you might check them out
>yourself.
>
>
>I expect YOU to check the figures. That way you will find out that
>compared with figures in the UK which has, with Australia, the most
>stringent rules regarding the possession of handguns, the figure for
>homicides in Richmond is ridiculously high.
Personally, I don't really care what the rates are in the UK or in Australia. I
don't live there. I might consider it if I decide to visit, and if I were to go
there, I would not even think of bringing a gun. I have a lot of respect for
the law, no matter what country I am in. I also have a lot of respect for the
fact that the culture and history of other countries are different, and I would
not venture to judge them or their citizens based soley on my own personal
beliefs.
My point about Richmond, was in the significant *reduction* of instances of
violent crime and especially those involving handguns by strictly enforcing the
present laws, and prosecuting under federal statute convicted felons who were
in possession a handgun. My point being, that we need to ENFORCE the laws that
are already present, and in so doing, have shown a significant reduction in the
crime rate. In other words, we deter would be criminals with a sure, certain,
severe, and "no nonsense" approach. Until we do that, new gun control laws only
deter the individuals who already have a respect for, and obey the law.
This is not, repeat not, just
>because of the prevalence of handguns.
I couldn't agree more.
The point has been made many
>times on the ng that the USA's disgustingly high level of homicides is down
>to many factors, including a terrible civil war, slavery and prejudices but
>the easy availability of handguns aids and abets all of these and increases
>many times the chances of a violent death for an American citizen.
And I propose that the fact that I own handguns know how to use them, follow
gun safety rules, and am prepared to use them if necessary, substatially
lessens the chance that I will have a voilent death. ( I am afraid I am not an
afficianado of the handgun, however, I WOULD love to own a matched set of
shotguns made right there in Britain, the Purdey), I know for a fact that the
Royals use these in their hunting, and that the Her Majesty also owned a
beautiful Labrador stud named Harvey at one time.
See there, I can appreciate beauty and workmanship, art, and good breeding no
matter where they are found. Please don't characterize me as an "Ugly American"
or as uneducated, I will surprise you.
>The following article from the November issue of the Scientific American has
>also been published more than once on this ng. No doubt you will include
>the contributor as one of those 'liberal' media hacks
NOPE, I am quick to refute an argument, and I know that I have strong views.
But they are not set in stone, as I learn more and more every day. I am however
a sceptic by nature. Despite that, you can rest assured that I have a deep
appreciation for intelligence, and debate. I may not agree with you, but I will
vigorously defend your right to your views.
but if you can push
>your glaring prejudices to one side for a spell, you might even learn
>something.
Now that's not very nice. Predjudice is judgement not based on fact. I am
always willing to listen to facts, if they are pertinent and offered in the
spirit of education, and not somehow distorted or spun in order to limit my
reaction.
>The Roots of Homicide
>
>The U.S property crime rate matches those of most other industrialised
>countries, but its homicide rate exceeds Western Europe's by 4 to 1 and
>Japan's by 7 to 1.
True, and regrettable, but the cultures are different, and in the case of
Japan, vastly different. Their ethics of personal accountabilitly and personal
responsibility are much more prevalent in Japan than in the US. There is also
the culture of "Team spirit" and severe censure of those who break the law.
The historical roots of this disparity may lie not in the
>Western frontier, as many believe, but in the institution of slavery and the
>unusual history of firearms in America.
>
> In the antebellum South, whites used the threat of violence to intimidate
>blacks and encourage deference. In the view of historian Roger Lane of
>Haverford College, the respect demanded of slaves fostered a 'culture of
>honor' in which a man's personal worth was measured by how others behaved
>towards him. Trivial slights had to be answered immediately and with
>physical force, if necessary. Homicide resulting from quarrels did not
>usually result in a conviction. The Southern culture of honor spread to
>poor whites and to the slaves themselves, who eventually brought it to the
>inner cities of the North.
Disrespect for the law was reinforced by the
>tendency of authorities to ignore murder of blacks by blacks.
Actually I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Regardless of the race or
any other factor, disrespect for the law IMHO is caused by ignoring any murder,
or not doing whatever is necessary to bring the offender to justice. The fact
that black on black crime was then, and regrettably is still not given the
import of crimes committed across racial lines is shameful. But "racial
profiling" and concentrating efforts in high crime areas is met with much
resistance. They are characterized as being bigoted, and discriminatory. I
don't have the answer to this. Although I can see certain valid points on both
sides. However, I also disagree with giving too much creedence to claims of
racism that are made when an African American is arrested for a crime. The
"race card" gets played way too often, and now real examples of racist
attitudes by law enforcement are me with skepticism.
Current high
>homicide rates in the former Confederate states and in many large cities
>trace largely to the attitudes developed during slavery, according to Lane.
Interesting theory, I would love to see what Lane said, instead of the
paraphrase. I would also tend to agree with the the "culture of Honor" but I
would point out that this is a phenomenon that is associated with gang
(criminal) activity. To "diss" (show disrespect) a "gansta"(gangster,
individual member of a criminal organization) will assuredly mean harm if not
death to the individual who does it. It is not limited to other gang members,
it would also include the rest of the population. Unfortunately, the gangs do
not publish the equivalent of "Miss Manners" for dealing with gang-bangers, and
"dissing" one would also include not submitting to their will. IMHO, when
dealing with a "gansta" one should practice the same types of precautions one
would with a wild and dangerous animal.
Keep them at a distance, try not to rile them, utilize avenues of escape
whenever possible, but if faced with an imminent attack, one should be prepared
to eliminate the threat with any means necessary. It pays to be prepared.
>He also says that high rates in the Southwest reflect in part attitudes
>among the Mexican-Americans, many of whom also practice a culture of honor
>tracing to the region's historical circumstances.
And regrettably, high rates of gang activity among Hispanic populations in all
cities in the US, among those would be those in the Southwest.
> The American attitude on firearms is rooted in British North America,
>where all freeman, except in Quaker Pennsylvania, were required to carry
>arms for protection against the Indians, the French and others.
Interestingly enough, Right to carry laws were established in both Florida, and
Texas within recent memory. Both were coincidently followed with reduction in
violent crimes against innocent citizens. In Florida, foreign travelers were
specifically targeted by criminals at one time due in part to the unlikelihood
that they would be armed. This was an admission by the perpetrators.
The
>colonial era's long guns and duelling pistols were expensive and hard to
>manipulate and thus were not often used in disputes. But then in the 1840's
>came the more efficient, cheaper and easily concealed Colt revolvers and
>with them, an increase in white homicide rates. More than 80 percent of
>gun murders today involve a handgun.
Again, my point exactly. We need to keep these out of the hands of known
criminals, and whenever one is found in possession of a firearm, the punishment
should be swift, certain, and sure. Lets not coddle these criminals. That is
what Project Exile was all about.
> Among Western industrialised nations, gun ownership correlates with
>homicide: in England and Wales, where virtually no one owns a gun, the
>homicide rate was only 1.3 per 100,000 population, whereas in Finland, which
>has the highest gun ownership level, the homicide rate was 2.7. If gun
>ownership were the only determinant of homicide, the U.S. rate would fall
>into the intermediate category.
You hear that OSMO? Americans ARE more civilized than the Finns. John Rennie
provided the proof.
It is the COMBINATION of easy access to
>guns and an extraordinary readiness to use them that helps make the US
>homicide rate so high.
It is also the reason we have never been invaded as France and many other
European countries have. IMHO it is also the reason why certain elements in our
government have been more respectful of it's citizenry's other rights, and it
is also the reason why certain what I would term Undesirable political elements
fear to push their ill conceived agendas too far.
According to Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkings
>of the University of California at Berkeley, up to half the difference in
>homicide rates between the U.S. and Europe is explained by greater gun use
>by Americans.
>
> The U.S. has seen several waves of homicide, including one that peaked
>before the Civil War,
Interestingly enough, this was also the period where a large element of the
citizenry was fearful of the increasing power of the Federal Government, and
their interference in the rights of the States to govern. The peak of fear,
coincides with the peak mentioned above. The result WAS the The Civil War, with
slavery being only one of the more apparent causes.
a possible second wave that crested in the 1920's, and
>the current wave, which peaked in 1980. The ascending phase of this wave,
>which began in about 1960, more or less concluded with several trends that
>have been proposed as contributors to homicide: the decline of union
>manufacturing jobs; the breakup of families with the rise of divorce; the
>increase in births to unwed mothers; and the growth of illegal drug use.
>The decline in rates since 1991 coincided with the waning of the crack
>cocaine epidemic that started in 1985. Other developments including greater
>police efforts to prevent gun carrying and the recent economic expansion,
>which provided more jobs, have played a role. The proportion of young men,
>always the most violent group in society, fell in the 1990's and so
>contributed to the decline in homicides.
>
> One of the most hopeful developments in recent years is detailed by
>Richard Curtis of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who found that
>many disadvantaged Puerto Rican and black youths in New York City became
>deeply disenchanted with the drug use of parents and older siblings and are
>now attempting to re-establish their lives and their communities.
Again, the rise of individual responsibility, individual accountability, and
self motivation vs. "victimhood."
Cutis
>believes that similar developments are happening in other cities across the
>country. Still, no one knows how the next generation of young men will feel
>and act, and no one can predict what devastating new drug might be concocted
>or how the fast-changing U.S. economy will affect the murder rate.
Thank you John for that very enlightening and pertinent article.
But I have a question, How exactly does that refute my points about liberal
politics and attitudes being behind some of the cultural problems we face here
in the States?
John Rennie
> >Rant against Liberals snipped
>
> I expected that. You ask for my views, and then dismiss them, instead of
> answering them. I must have hit close to home.
Don't get so uppity - I agree Liberals are a bore - one of the many reasons
why I am not one.
There is no way that America can now have the same gun laws as ourselves.
The cat is out of bag - if you had restrictions only the innocent would obey
the new laws - the criminal fraternity would be even more powerful.
I don't despise you Frank for your adherence to your weapons but I do think
that the prevalence of these guns will ensure that America's high rate of
homicide will continue and that the DP or LWOP will have very little effect
one way or the other.
>
>
> >The following article from the November issue of the Scientific American
has
> >also been published more than once on this ng. No doubt you will include
> >the contributor as one of those 'liberal' media hacks
>
> NOPE, I am quick to refute an argument, and I know that I have strong
views.
> But they are not set in stone, as I learn more and more every day. I am
however
> a sceptic by nature. Despite that, you can rest assured that I have a deep
> appreciation for intelligence, and debate. I may not agree with you, but I
will
> vigorously defend your right to your views.
>
> but if you can push
> >your glaring prejudices to one side for a spell, you might even learn
> >something.
>
> Now that's not very nice.
Well even my best friends wouldn't call me very nice but they do tend to
think that I am straight.
Predjudice is judgement not based on fact. I am
> always willing to listen to facts, if they are pertinent and offered in
the
> spirit of education, and not somehow distorted or spun in order to limit
my
> reaction.
I am just going to smip those parts where I agree which is mostly.
>
> >The Roots of Homicide
> >
eventually brought it to the
> >inner cities of the North.
>
>
>
>
>
> The
> >colonial era's long guns and duelling pistols were expensive and hard to
> >manipulate and thus were not often used in disputes. But then in the
1840's
> >came the more efficient, cheaper and easily concealed Colt revolvers and
> >with them, an increase in white homicide rates. More than 80 percent of
> >gun murders today involve a handgun.
> Again, my point exactly. We need to keep these out of the hands of known
> criminals, and whenever one is found in possession of a firearm, the
punishment
> should be swift, certain, and sure. Lets not coddle these criminals. That
is
> what Project Exile was all about.
You may have missed a very important point here. When the Second Amendment
was passed, the number of firearms in circulation were very few. A
malcontent like myself could suggest that it was intended for the very few
property owners who had firearms to defend themsleves against a majority
of artisans or workers who might have been infected by 'true' revolutionary
spirit emanating from France almost precisely at the same time the Bill of
Rights was added to the Constitution.
>
> > Among Western industrialised nations, gun ownership correlates with
> >homicide: in England and Wales, where virtually no one owns a gun, the
> >homicide rate was only 1.3 per 100,000 population, whereas in Finland,
which
> >has the highest gun ownership level, the homicide rate was 2.7. If gun
> >ownership were the only determinant of homicide, the U.S. rate would fall
> >into the intermediate category.
>
> You hear that OSMO? Americans ARE more civilized than the Finns. John
Rennie
> provided the proof.
Hehe! But it is not 'the only determinant of homicide' as this article
proves.
>
> It is the COMBINATION of easy access to
> >guns and an extraordinary readiness to use them that helps make the US
> >homicide rate so high.
>
> It is also the reason we have never been invaded as France and many other
> European countries have.
Oh Frank really. Only Mexico or Canada could invade. I hope you
appreciate your geographical position and are thankful. We are thankful
for 'our magnificent moat' as Cromwell called it the British Channel but
that's only 22 miles wide; your 'moat' is 3000 miles.
IMHO it is also the reason why certain elements in our
> government have been more respectful of it's citizenry's other rights, and
it
> is also the reason why certain what I would term Undesirable political
elements
> fear to push their ill conceived agendas too far.
We have never treated so called 'undesirable elements' as you have e.g
banning the Communist Party, we do not have easy availability of arms and
with respect we are a much freeer country than you are. You are in fact
one of the most restrictive countries of the West. Your laws on drinking,
soft drugs are draconian. Your public officials delight in finding ways to
obstruct. St George's excellent
diatribes on this point are good to read. If you challenge this statement
I'll drag one up from Google.
Well I don't see that. I see a population goaded by it's army of lawyers
not taking responsibility for its own actions, claimng fault by others,
claiming compensation for that fault even if they shared in that fault.
(BTW that attitude is spreading here and it makes me so angry).
>
>
> Thank you John for that very enlightening and pertinent article.
>
> But I have a question, How exactly does that refute my points about
liberal
> politics and attitudes being behind some of the cultural problems we face
here
> in the States?
> Frank G. Hunter R.N.
It doesn't. I just said that to get up your nose - remember I am not very
nice.
Scout
So culture and not guns is the determining factor?
How do you explain comparing Switzerland then. A nation with a long history
of resisting tyranny, oppression and conquering armies. Where as the
UK.....well they reveled in all of those.
Oh, THAT cultural difference doesn't matter.
So tell me, since culture is clearly a significant factor, why should I
utterly and totally ignore those cultural differences that DO exist and may
well account for all differences without even considering the issue of guns?
Attila
>
> "James S. Cochrane" <coch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9C40AE...@mindspring.com...
> murdered that the average Brit? You gun lovers are just pawing the
ground,
> you have no arguments - you love your little toys and you don't want Mummy
> to take them away from you because you don't know how to play properly.
Why is the average Ingsoc more likely to be robbed or burgled? You gun
grabbers are just mewling, you can't stand it that we don't have to tolerate
the sort of indignities which you must.
Steve Hix
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> "jigo" <ji...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A9B5F...@erols.com...
> > John Rennie wrote:
> > >
> > > "Wm James" <wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote in message
> > > news:s8cl9t4l0gj2itrcg...@4ax.com..
> > > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:44:40 -0000, "John Rennie"
> > > > <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> >
> > The point is that if something is not available in a country, then of
> > course it will not be involved in deaths there.
>
> That is my entire point.
>
>
> But international
> > comparisons are really of limited value in general.
>
> Have you any idea of how similar Switzerland
> and the UK are? It is an excellent example of
> how the unlimited circulation of guns is THE
> factor in the higher number of homicides in
> Switzerland or Finalnd for that matter.
It might be an interesting argument if it were the case
that homicides by other means are also at the same rates
in all three countries.
If they are not, some other factors must apply.
Wm James
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
>"jigo" <ji...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A9B5F...@erols.com...
>> John Rennie wrote:
>> >
>> > "Wm James" <wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote in message
>> > news:s8cl9t4l0gj2itrcg...@4ax.com..
>> > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:44:40 -0000, "John Rennie"
>> > > <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>>
>>
>> The point is that if something is not available in a country, then of
>> course it will not be involved in deaths there.
>
>That is my entire point.
>
>
>But international
>> comparisons are really of limited value in general.
>
>Have you any idea of how similar Switzerland
>and the UK are? It is an excellent example of
>how the unlimited circulation of guns is THE
>factor in the higher number of homicides in
>Switzerland or Finalnd for that matter.
You seem to want to compare suicides as if they are relavent.
William R. James
Wm James
>Under most circumstances I fear for my life from about 10% of
>the population when they are armed with anything besides a
>firearm. If I can't run away I can find something to defend
>myself with.
>
>The reason a lot of people are dead is because somebody had a firearm.
The reason some people are dead is because somebody DIDN'T have a
firearm when a criminal did.
William R. James
Albert Isham
wrj...@kudzucountry.com says...
laws have more gun-related deaths.
Marksman
"Albert Isham" <jai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v75n6.1579$%4.18...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Correction, areas with the strongest anti rights (firearm control) laws have
the most firearm crimes (Look Washington DC.)
Again I prove you wrong. Better ask the DNC (your socialist leaders) for
more believable propaganda.
James F. Mayer
> >
> >
> >>Under most circumstances I fear for my life from about 10% of
> >>the population when they are armed with anything besides a
> >>firearm. If I can't run away I can find something to defend
> >>myself with.
> >>
> >>The reason a lot of people are dead is because somebody had a firearm.
> >
> >The reason some people are dead is because somebody DIDN'T have a
> >firearm when a criminal did.
> >
> That is just gun lobby - unfounded - propaganda. States with lax gun control
> laws have more gun-related deaths.
>
>
deaths but Washington D.C.lead the nation in violent crime for five years
running and is still in the top 5.
Frank G. Hunter RN
>>>the population when they are armed with anything besides a
>>>firearm. If I can't run away I can find something to defend
>>>myself with.
>>>
>>>The reason a lot of people are dead is because somebody had a firearm.
>>
>>The reason some people are dead is because somebody DIDN'T have a
>>firearm when a criminal did.
>>
>That is just gun lobby - unfounded - propaganda. States with lax gun control
>
>laws have more gun-related deaths.
Really? I suppose there must be some other reasons for the gun related deaths
in states like New York, Massachusetts, and California?
IMHO, The states who are the least willing to enforce the existing laws are the
ones with the problem.
Roger Rozell
<jf...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote:
The problem is that Washington D.C. has donr the right thing and
banned guns, however, all you have to do is drive a few miles.
Nothing less than a nation-wide approach will work.
Panhead
Then we can have a nationwide crime rate like DC's.
Brilliant thinking!
Roger Rozell
wrote:
>
>"Albert Isham" <jai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:v75n6.1579$%4.18...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> In article <li3p9tc75iapj63qu...@4ax.com>,
>> wrj...@kudzucountry.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >>Under most circumstances I fear for my life from about 10% of
>> >>the population when they are armed with anything besides a
>> >>firearm. If I can't run away I can find something to defend
>> >>myself with.
>> >>
>> >>The reason a lot of people are dead is because somebody had a
firearm.
>> >
>> >The reason some people are dead is because somebody DIDN'T have a
>> >firearm when a criminal did.
>> >
>> That is just gun lobby - unfounded - propaganda. States with lax
gun
>control
>> laws have more gun-related deaths.
>>
>>
>
>Correction, areas with the strongest anti rights (firearm control)
laws have
>the most firearm crimes (Look Washington DC.)
DC had a huge gun problem before they restricted. The guns are the
problem.
Roger Rozell
wrote:
Stupidity! Utter folly! Where do these people get the idea that
someone died because someone *didn't* have a gun? Every time I read
this group I wonder if I'm still in Kansas anymore. They're almost
surrealistic.
Roger
Roger Rozell
Only to the extent that they're many times a spur of the moment
decision... like killing a lover in a domestic fight. If the gun
wasn't there, they wouldn't happen.
Roger
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
Wm James <wrj...@kudzucountry.com> wrote:
> >You seem to want to compare suicides as if they are relavent.
> Only to the extent that they're many times a spur of the moment
> decision... like killing a lover in a domestic fight. If the gun
> wasn't there, they wouldn't happen.
>>>>
So, nobody was ever killed prior to the invention of gunpowder?
===============================
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:30:56 -0600, Wm James
>>
>
>decision... like killing a lover in a domestic fight. If the gun
>wasn't there, they wouldn't happen.
Your statement demonstrates an astounding ignorance of both suicide and
of domestic violence.
--
The function of government is to provide us with service; the function
of the media is to supply the Vaseline.
-- Memoirs of Lucille G. Kropotkin
Frank G. Hunter RN
<snip old>
>> Then Washington D.C. should be one of the areas with the least
>gun-related
>>deaths but Washington D.C.lead the nation in violent crime for five
>years
>>running and is still in the top 5.
>
>The problem is that Washington D.C. has donr the right thing and
>banned guns, however, all you have to do is drive a few miles.
>Nothing less than a nation-wide approach will work.
Hmm. But if the guns are banned there, then someone must be breaking the law to
bring them there. What would stop certain others from breaking a nationwide
law?
Seems to me that your solution of a ban would have no effect on criminals, and
those are the ones the rest of us are worried about.
no one of consequence
Roger Rozell <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
]On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:36:16 -0500, "Marksman" <som...@somewhere.com>
So why did the murder rate go up after they restricted?
--
|Patrick Chester wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Panhead
Bullshit.
They had, and still do have, a PEOPLE problem.
The town is a virtual toilet!
> The guns are the
> ]problem.
>
> So why did the murder rate go up after they restricted?
Shhh!
Don't confuse him.
Frank G. Hunter RN
DC still has a HUGE gun problem. The problem is the criminals still have theirs
because they don't care about the law, and the law abiding don't. So the
criminals have one more advantage they can use. Actually 2, they have
individuals like yourself whose "simplistic solutions" cause more problems than
they solve. You need to get real.
Predators have a tendency to go after the most vulnerable prey. It's their
nature.
Criminals have a tendency to use guns to prey on others, it's their nature.
Taking the guns away from them won't change their nature.
I suggest an experiment. You get into a cage with a hungry lion and try to pull
it's teeth and claws. I will even provide a pair of pliers if you wish. No
charge.
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters jd...@jdege.visi.com
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:40:10 -0600, Roger Rozell <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:30:56 -0600, Wm James
>>>
>>>You seem to want to compare suicides as if they are relavent.
>>
>>Only to the extent that they're many times a spur of the moment
>>decision... like killing a lover in a domestic fight. If the gun
>>wasn't there, they wouldn't happen.
>
>Your statement demonstrates an astounding ignorance of both suicide and
>of domestic violence.
And yours, astounding arrogance. I have known two. Both were "spur
of the moment" acts where they happened to have a gun. I'm not
claiming that all are such; however, I doubt that you have anything
much to add or you would have taken the opportunity of your posting to
have done so.
Jones
Panhead
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:46:59 GMT, in
> alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters jd...@jdege.visi.com
> (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:40:10 -0600, Roger Rozell <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:30:56 -0600, Wm James
> >>>
> >>>You seem to want to compare suicides as if they are relavent.
> >>
> >>Only to the extent that they're many times a spur of the moment
> >>decision... like killing a lover in a domestic fight. If the gun
> >>wasn't there, they wouldn't happen.
> >
> >Your statement demonstrates an astounding ignorance of both suicide and
> >of domestic violence.
>
> And yours, astounding arrogance. I have known two.
Maybe it's because they knew you? (sfst)
> Both were "spur
> of the moment" acts where they happened to have a gun.
And are you saying for sure that if a firearm wasn't present,
they'd still be alive?
> I'm not
> claiming that all are such;
Wise choice.
> however, I doubt that you have anything
> much to add or you would have taken the opportunity of your posting to
> have done so.
As would have you and Roger.
Roger said a mouth full by insinuating that guns cause suicide
and "spur of the moment" murder.
Rope, shoelaces, knives, and other forms of suffocation like
the use of ones of own hands don't either.
Yet, they sure do get used a lot though.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/boston/20010228/lo/suicide_in_state_top_homicides_1.html
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/boston/20010227/lo/knifings_peddling_of_blades_targeted_1.html
Ian Mac Lure
[snip]
: That is just gun lobby - unfounded - propaganda. States with lax gun control
: laws have more gun-related deaths.
Oh? Really? In your dreams Ali ( short for Ali-Babble )
Facts bother Ali. He winds up doing backstroke down that river
in Egypt...
<CAVEAT>
Readers are warned that the text of legal decisions posted
by Albert are likely to include interpolations by the
firearms prohibition lobby.
The actual text may be found at:
or
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/
The latter site also contains opinions on the cases however
they are clearly identifiable as such and not presented as
being part of any decision.
Ali is like unto a brook for he doth babble.
</CAVEAT>
--
* Ian B MacLure ********* Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
* VR Level=3/Holding ************************ sbay.linux henchman *
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters Panhead
<panmy...@intac.com> wrote:
>And are you saying for sure that if a firearm wasn't present,
>they'd still be alive?
For the two that I know of, that's what I'm saying... as sure as I can
be. (I don't know that they'd still be alive. One happened in '69
and the other in '84. I don't think they'd have committed suicide,
though.)
Jones
Panhead
Well, the fact remains that they did indeed commit suicide.
So even believing that if they had not had a gun they would still
be live and kicking at that particular time is rather a moot
point now.
Otherwise, yer seeing as some others do, that guns give off some
unpronounceable cosmic type ray that can't be detected that tells
to the owner: "Use me! Use ME!"
And no, I am NOT saying that a very large amount of
people...maybe even most(?)... do not indeed use a fire arm to
off themselves, because they most certainly do.
Just for shits-n-giggles, what were they so despondent over?
Something other than a physically painful terminal illness like
cancer or, were they simply nutziod like most suicidal yokels?
And because you are so very "sure as you can be" you must know a
bit about these cases.
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters Panhead
<panmy...@intac.com> wrote:
>"!Jones" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:56:05 -0500, in
>> alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters Panhead
>> <panmy...@intac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And are you saying for sure that if a firearm wasn't present,
>> >they'd still be alive?
>>
>> For the two that I know of, that's what I'm saying... as sure as I can
>> be. (I don't know that they'd still be alive. One happened in '69
>> and the other in '84. I don't think they'd have committed suicide,
>> though.)
>
> Well, the fact remains that they did indeed commit suicide.
>So even believing that if they had not had a gun they would still
>be live and kicking at that particular time is rather a moot
>point now.
> Otherwise, yer seeing as some others do, that guns give off some
>unpronounceable cosmic type ray that can't be detected that tells
>to the owner: "Use me! Use ME!"
No, I'm saying exactly what I wrote. In two isolated cases which
probably don't particularly impact the general statistics much one way
or the other, someone I knew whipped out a gun and shot themselves to
death. It's my opinion that, had the gun not been available, they
probably wouldn't have done it five minutes later.
> And no, I am NOT saying that a very large amount of
>people...maybe even most(?)... do not indeed use a fire arm to
>off themselves, because they most certainly do.
>
> Just for shits-n-giggles, what were they so despondent over?
> Something other than a physically painful terminal illness like
>cancer or, were they simply nutziod like most suicidal yokels?
> And because you are so very "sure as you can be" you must know a
>bit about these cases.
Yes I do. One had received an ass chewing for having poorly shined
boots in the army (or something like that. It was in Vietnam, so it
wasn't "shined boots" per se, but something silly) and the other was
in an argument with her family over something. Her 11 year-old son
was in the room when she did it. Very tragic...
Jones
John Rennie
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrn99q3r2...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:40:10 -0600, Roger Rozell <roge...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:30:56 -0600, Wm James
> >>
> >>You seem to want to compare suicides as if they are relavent.
> >
> >Only to the extent that they're many times a spur of the moment
> >decision... like killing a lover in a domestic fight. If the gun
> >wasn't there, they wouldn't happen.
>
> Your statement demonstrates an astounding ignorance of both suicide and
> of domestic violence.
Oh and you were going to give us the benefit of your immense knowledge on
this subject but obviously you were called away. Suicides are committed
without the benefit of firearms but many potential suicides change their
mind and call for help - something they cant do if they have blown the back
of their head off.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>No, I'm saying exactly what I wrote. In two isolated cases which
>probably don't particularly impact the general statistics much one way
>or the other, someone I knew whipped out a gun and shot themselves to
>death. It's my opinion that, had the gun not been available, they
>probably wouldn't have done it five minutes later.
How long had they been thinking about this? When did they get the gun,
how long had they had it? If they had not been able to get the gun,
what else might they have done?
Perhaps you are right, and if they had been stopped, five minutes later
they would have changed their mind. But the odds that they would have
tried again in a few weeks or months is quite high.
--
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They
have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of
government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their
principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine
for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times
out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by
looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage,
and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
- H. L. Mencken
Jeffrey C. Dege
The primary cause of suicide is untreated depression. It's not a "spur
of the moment" thing. Yes, perhaps if the gun had not been there they
wouldn't have committed suicide at that moment, but the condition would
still exist.
From the Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education website:
http://www.save.org/whattodo2.shtml
The road, which ends in suicide, is usually a very long one. The
process doesn't happen over night. People who become suicidal have
usually suffered from a brain illness such as clinical depression,
anxiety disorder, bipolar (manic depression) or schizophrenia for
many years. Some have sought professional treatment; others have not.
Some have felt suicidal in the past, for others, the suicidal thoughts
are new.
The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that
95% of all suicides occur at the peak of a depressive episode.
The illnesses that cause suicide can distort thinking, so people
can't think clearly or rationally. They may not know they have
a treatable illness, or they may think that they can't be helped.
Their illness can cause thoughts of hopelessness and helplessness,
which may then lead to suicidal thoughts.
As for domestic violence, eighty-eight percent (88%) of victims of
domestic violence fatalities had a documented history of physical abuse.
(Florida Governor's Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Florida
Mortality Review Project, 1997, pp.46-48, tables 14-21).
Murder of intimates is almost exclusively the end of a long pattern of
abuse.
--
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Panhead
Your opinion is noted.
>
> > And no, I am NOT saying that a very large amount of
> >people...maybe even most(?)... do not indeed use a fire arm to
> >off themselves, because they most certainly do.
> >
> > Just for shits-n-giggles, what were they so despondent over?
> > Something other than a physically painful terminal illness like
> >cancer or, were they simply nutziod like most suicidal yokels?
> > And because you are so very "sure as you can be" you must know a
> >bit about these cases.
>
> Yes I do. One had received an ass chewing for having poorly shined
> boots in the army (or something like that. It was in Vietnam, so it
> wasn't "shined boots" per se, but something silly) and the other was
> in an argument with her family over something. Her 11 year-old son
> was in the room when she did it. Very tragic...
Indeed, both circumstances were tragic.
However, they were both nutz... obviously.
Wm James
wrote:
>In article <li3p9tc75iapj63qu...@4ax.com>,
Nonsense. DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and the
highest crime rate involving guns. NY as well. And even in states
with less restrictive laws often the larger cities have restrictions
and have the higher rates.
William R. James
Wm. (Wild Bill) Stone
> John Rennie wrote:
> Oh yes? Then why is the average American 8 times more likely to be
> murdered that the average Brit? You gun lovers are just pawing the ground,
> you have no arguments - you love your little toys and you don't want Mummy
> to take them away from you because you don't know how to play properly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2000.
A quarter of English are victims of crime: By Sean O'Neill
PEOPLE living in England and Wales are at greater risk of falling
victim to crime than citizens of most other industrialised nations,
according to a study published yesterday.
The International Crime Victims Survey, based on 34,000 telephone
interviews across 17 countries, found that 26 per cent of people -
more than one in four - in England and Wales had been victims of crime
in 1999. The figure for Scotland was 23 per cent and in Northern
Ireland 15 per cent.
Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said the research confirmed previous
evidence "that levels of victimisation are higher than in most
comparable countries for most categories of crime". Mr Straw said that
although the police and other agencies were working hard to reduce
crime, "no one should be under any illusions about the challenges
ahead".
England and Wales were second only to Australia in the examination of
"victimisation rates", details of which appeared in the Economist.
There was a downward trend in crime levels from previous surveys in
1991 and 1999. People in England and Wales were at greater risk than
anywhere else of having their cars stolen: 2.6 per cent fell victim to
vehicle theft.
The average rate was 1.2 per cent and the Japanese were least likely
to have their cars stolen with a victim rate of just 0.1 per cent.
Theft from cars was highest in Poland, where nine per cent of people
had items stolen from their vehicles. In England and Wales the level
was eight per cent.
The percentage of the population which suffered "contact crime" in
England and Wales was 3.6 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent in the
United States and 0.4 per cent in Japan. Burglary rates in England and
Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 per cent)
and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry
than England and Wales (2.8 per cent).
The risk of robbery was comparatively low in all the countries
surveyed. Highest rates were in Poland, where 1.8 per cent of the
population said they had been robbed in 1999, followed by Australia
and England and Wales (both 1.2 per cent). By far the lowest robbery
risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (both 0.1 per cent)
After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime
was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada (24 per
cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the
middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation rate.
Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland, each with 15 per cent, recorded
the lowest overall victimisation rates in the survey which was
conducted by Leiden University in Holland and published by the Dutch
justice ministry.
---------------------------
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily
win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory
will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when
you have to fight with all the odds against you and only a
precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case.
You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because
it is better to perish than live as slaves."
-Sir Winston Churchill
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> >Your statement demonstrates an astounding ignorance of both
> > suicide and of domestic violence.
> And yours, astounding arrogance. I have known two. Both were "spur
> of the moment" acts where they happened to have a gun.........
>>>>
And both would have slapped themselves on the forehead after
discovering...No Gun!! and gone back to their butterfly collections
instead of picking up a kitchen knife, table leg, tire iron, hoe, rake,
shovel.......right? All crime is specifically tool dependent? Gee,
what a theory. Too bad there's absolutely nothing to support such
a theory.
--
"People hate to see others die, but they love to be on
the spot when they do." Harry Houdini
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Wm James
So what? That can also be said for bridges, medicine, cars' etc..
William R. James