The gun debate and aus.politics
James D. Nicholson
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
The fancy is all in Peter's head. Poor soul.
> The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
> used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
> not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
> especially for the criminal market.
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>harmless. It's the ready availability of firearms that bugs me. Where do
>you think the people who haven't bothered registering their weapons get
>their firearms? Some underground arms bazaar, perhaps? No, the weapons
>originate from legal sources.
Brian Miller
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, the guns are purchased from an "underground arms bazaar". It's the
same
bazaar which allows cocaine, heroine, and marijuana to be readily
available.
Of course all the guns originally came from a legal source: A legal gun
owner
whose weapon is stolen. (Police also get weapons stolen from them.)
Oh, yes,
let's not forget the bazaar where that German woman purchased a live
hand
grenade for a Christmas mass. The even tighter controls on grenade
distribution didn't stop that purchase.
--
Jim Nicholson
http://www.tsra.com
Read John Ross' Unintended Consequences while you still can.
Birth is the main cause of death. B.C.-J. Hart (Jan. 13,'97)
James D. Nicholson
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
> discussion has gone on long enough.
>
> In Australia, self-defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm, we have
> a low firearm-related death rate, and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
> well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
> Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
> the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
>
> The arguments for general or wider availability are specious in the
> extreme, and boil down to a few points:
>
> The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
> The armed forces are the proper defenders of national sovereignty, and if
> citizens have to carry firearms in case their government turns nasty, well,
> what can I say that hasn't been said about Waco or Oklahoma City?
>
> The right of self-defence. We don't need firearms in Australia to defend
> ourselves. Maybe some people feel a need to sleep with an unsecured and
> loaded gun, but not here. I rather think that in the US, the problem is the
> number of gun owners and armed citizens, regardless of attempts to convince
> me that criminals are neither owners nor citizens, or that the law-abidin'
> gun-toters are immune from committing crimes.
>
> The notion that armed criminals will somehow not defend themselves against
> attempts by sleepy armed householders to shoot them. This really needs no
> debate.
>
> The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
> used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
> not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
> especially for the criminal market.
>
> firearms, the dimensions of their ammunition and whether they are designed
> to kill or not. Millions of soldiers killed in wars, tens of thousands of
> US citizens and 35 people killed at Port Arthur are good enough reason for
> me to believe that they are indeed lethal.
>
> Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
> arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
> beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
> in fairness to my fellow aus.politics members, I'll refrain from commenting
> on the subject unless it relates to Australian politics or I can get in a
> really good shot at some muggins.
>
> So if the nutters want the last word, go for it. I won't be listening. I'm
> going to reinstall that "gun" filter on my newsreader and get back to some
> real debate, which is shooting down the myths of the republicans, sniping
> at the Democrats, blazing away at ATSIC, discussing the prospects in
> by-elections and trying to inject a little fun into the group.
>
> Thanks for all the fun, fellows, but there's not a lot of point in
> continuing. The Uniform Firearm Legislation is a done deal and is not going
> to be reversed. You want to demonstrate that I'm wrong, go get a few people
> elected to Parliament. Hell, I sincerely hope you do get a few senators up
> - that'd wipe the smile from Kernot's dial.
>
> But if you want to talk shit, stick to the gun groups.
Now, I ask you folks. Who was talking what.
Peter
^^^^^
> I can't help but notice the shrieks of silence on
>this topic from the dedicated gun enthusiasts. They pick up on every minor
>detail, and split hares, but on this point, they let it through to the
>keeper.
Allan Peyton
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see them ignoring the very worst of your buffoonery, Peter, as do I.
Such a lot of your stuff is simply not worth responding to, and your
"Bald + fat + lots of sweat glands = gun-owner" equation would have to
be even sillier than your usual fare.
James D. Nicholson
It's hard to believe he was having that much fun. To wit:
Peter
^^^^^
>The point is, if he'd used a bolt action rifle, some one would have walked
>up and grappled with him or beat him over the head with a wine bottle or
>something. Bryant wasn't a trained marksman or anything. It requires bugger
>all training to pull the trigger on an SLR, but if you want a decent rate
>of fire with a bolt action *and* accuracy, you've got to be very skilled.
addinall
^^^^^^^^
Not so Pete. Remember this loony took _hours_ to off all his victims.
Why not grapple him anyway, semi-auto or not? It would be better
if someone was carrying a .357 in a coat and blown the dick into bits.
Given the accuracy and rate of fire issue. A very good shooter
Brian Seargent recently shot a perfect with a 103 year old swede
against M1's AR15, M16's and not a few old .30's. Although he is
_very_ skilled. So what do we ban next, skilled people?
James D. Nicholson
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
> I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when I suggest that this
> discussion has gone on long enough.
It really got too hot for Peter:
Here's a sample where Stacey C. ripped his illogic:
Peter
^^^^^
: Yeah, but it's relatively easy to defend yourself against clubs and
sticks
: and knives. Hold up a stout chair and your clubber's blows are
diverted.
: Takes a longer time to kill someone too. But it's difficult to deflect
a
: bullet.
Stacey C.
^^^^^^^^
Where are you going to find a holster for a chair, Peter? (Mental
picture of McKay carrying a chair with him where-ever he goes; :-))
Also,
you're ignoring the fact that guns are a very SIMPLE item to make; I've
seen and fired guns that were made entirely IN PRISON. If someone can
make
a gun in prison, they can sure as hell make one on the outside. Here in
Canada, you can walk into a hardware store with $10 and buy everything
you
need to make a 12-gauge (single-barrel, double-barreled, sawed-off,
etc.),
and it'll work just as well for killing someone or robbing a bank as any
commercially-made gun. Maybe your next step is to ban all tubing, gas
furnaces, toilets, etc.?
Stacey C.
James D. Nicholson
Peter Mackay wrote:
> Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
> arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
> beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
I guess his misreader or his ranting ran past the post I gave him on
6'1", 198 pounds. Not bald either folks. Not gonna make any wild claims
on that age. Point is. Prithee tell me what that has to do with the RKBA
debate that he prolonged.
Peter Nield
Peter Mackay wrote:
> The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
> used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
> not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
> especially for the criminal market.
8<---------------------------------------------------
Peter Nield, Systems Engineer, Datacom Systems Limted
mailto:pet...@datacom.co.nz
aka Pidge aka P-Jay aka Peter-John
--------------------------------------------------->8
Peter Mackay
Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when I suggest that this
discussion has gone on long enough.
In Australia, self-defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm, we have
a low firearm-related death rate, and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
The arguments for general or wider availability are specious in the
extreme, and boil down to a few points:
The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
The armed forces are the proper defenders of national sovereignty, and if
citizens have to carry firearms in case their government turns nasty, well,
what can I say that hasn't been said about Waco or Oklahoma City?
The right of self-defence. We don't need firearms in Australia to defend
ourselves. Maybe some people feel a need to sleep with an unsecured and
loaded gun, but not here. I rather think that in the US, the problem is the
number of gun owners and armed citizens, regardless of attempts to convince
me that criminals are neither owners nor citizens, or that the law-abidin'
gun-toters are immune from committing crimes.
The notion that armed criminals will somehow not defend themselves against
attempts by sleepy armed householders to shoot them. This really needs no
debate.
The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
especially for the criminal market.
And then there's all the sidetracks we've explored over the various
firearms, the dimensions of their ammunition and whether they are designed
to kill or not. Millions of soldiers killed in wars, tens of thousands of
US citizens and 35 people killed at Port Arthur are good enough reason for
me to believe that they are indeed lethal.
Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
in fairness to my fellow aus.politics members, I'll refrain from commenting
on the subject unless it relates to Australian politics or I can get in a
really good shot at some muggins.
So if the nutters want the last word, go for it. I won't be listening. I'm
going to reinstall that "gun" filter on my newsreader and get back to some
real debate, which is shooting down the myths of the republicans, sniping
at the Democrats, blazing away at ATSIC, discussing the prospects in
by-elections and trying to inject a little fun into the group.
Thanks for all the fun, fellows, but there's not a lot of point in
continuing. The Uniform Firearm Legislation is a done deal and is not going
to be reversed. You want to demonstrate that I'm wrong, go get a few people
elected to Parliament. Hell, I sincerely hope you do get a few senators up
- that'd wipe the smile from Kernot's dial.
But if you want to talk shit, stick to the gun groups.
Thank you.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
LongBow
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
>I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when I suggest that this
>discussion has gone on long enough.
Hey! Allan Peyton Smith!!! Is this what old peter does when things
start getting to tight for him? Takes his 'filter' and goes home!
Knowing Peter, this is just a feint!
Dave Nott
In article <AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>,
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>
>The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
>used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
>not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
>especially for the criminal market.
>
In the 1920's, the U.S. tried prohibition. It failed.
Currently, we have the "War on Drugs." Another abject failure.
In spite of these well-known facts, Mr. Mackay, et al, still
think a "war on guns" will work.
Clearly, Mr. Mackay is one of theose folks Santayana was talking
about...
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <5c6tqf$pki$3...@nntp2.uunet.ca>,
blck...@true.north.com (LongBow) wrote:-
>pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
Sure does. He did the same thing around June last year. If you think
his crap was bad this time around, you oughta check Deja News around
that period. He ran totally out of arguments, and was relying on
making fun of a certain person's hyphenated name. :-)
Shortly after that, he turned on his filter.
I'm disappointed that he's left again so soon, there are quite a few
questions I asked which he ignored totally. Also, I would have liked
an answer to an excellent one Col asked. Aah, who cares.
Please try to go a bit easier on Bwian, eh, else we're going to run
out of gun-grabbers. :-) (I must say, you did a thorough job on Bwian,
especially in the debate about GW. Great stuff!)
>Knowing Peter, this is just a feint!
Dunno. We'll have to see. He's a fascinating character, there's no
doubt whatsoever.
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our enemies
have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
-Joseph Stalin
Fred Davis VA3FD
In article <AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>,
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
ROTFL!! Sorry Petey, you're that one getting cut to ribbons lately...
>I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when I suggest that this
>discussion has gone on long enough.
Awfully nice of you to speak for "all" aus.politics readers...
>In Australia, self-defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm,
...according to politicians...
we have
>a low firearm-related death rate,
As do we in Canada...
and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
>well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
>Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
>the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
>
>The arguments for general or wider availability are specious
Sez you.
in the
>extreme, and boil down to a few points:
>
>The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
>The armed forces are the proper defenders of national sovereignty, and if
>citizens have to carry firearms in case their government turns nasty, well,
>what can I say that hasn't been said about Waco or Oklahoma City?
>
>The right of self-defence. We don't need firearms in Australia to defend
>ourselves.
Nice of you to speak for all Australians.
Maybe some people feel a need to sleep with an unsecured and
>loaded gun, but not here. I rather think that in the US, the problem is the
>number of gun owners and armed citizens,
What "problem"? Violent crime? This is due to gun owners?
regardless of attempts to convince
>me that criminals are neither owners nor citizens, or that the law-abidin'
>gun-toters are immune from committing crimes.
The vast, vast majority, are in fact, law abiding.
>The notion that armed criminals will somehow not defend themselves against
>attempts by sleepy armed householders to shoot them. This really needs no
>debate.
The fact is that there's more burlaries/break and enters per capita
in Oz than either the US or Canada. Could it have something to do with
"more guns" per capita in the latter two countries?
>The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist.
No, not in your utopia.
The arms
>used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources.
All of them? Simply amazing!
They are
>not home-made,
None of them?
they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
>especially for the criminal market.
>
>And then there's all the sidetracks we've explored over the various
>firearms, the dimensions of their ammunition and whether they are designed
>to kill or not. Millions of soldiers killed in wars, tens of thousands of
>US citizens and 35 people killed at Port Arthur are good enough reason for
>me to believe that they are indeed lethal.
Most firearms can be used with lethal effect, yes.
>Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
>arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
>beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter,
Amazing. Ad hominems usually indicate (as in this case) that the
debator is losing badly.
but
>in fairness to my fellow aus.politics members, I'll refrain from commenting
>on the subject unless it relates to Australian politics or I can get in a
>really good shot at some muggins.
You just don't get it. Oz passed a law banning semi-auto and pump
long guns. The reason that we Canadians and Americans have been posting
is to simply voice our opinion that your gov't is wasting a horrible
amount of YOUR money, will be confiscating personal property (some of
which is generations in the family), and will be "creating" criminals
out of otherwise perfectly law-abiding folks. But this doesn't bother
you, no, of course not, and you know why, Petey? Because it doesn't
effect YOU (other than your tax dollars being wasted).
>So if the nutters want the last word, go for it.
More desperate ad hominems.
I won't be listening. I'm
>going to reinstall that "gun" filter on my newsreader and get back to some
>real debate,
Could smell this coming a mile away (1.6 kms for y'all).
which is shooting down the myths of the republicans, sniping
>at the Democrats, blazing away at ATSIC, discussing the prospects in
>by-elections and trying to inject a little fun into the group.
>
>Thanks for all the fun, fellows, but there's not a lot of point in
>continuing.
Hmm, the closest I may have actually come to agreeing with you.
It's really, really sad what's happened in Oz, though. Both the
tragedy and the knee-jerk "law" from Jackboot Johnnie.
The Uniform Firearm Legislation is a done deal and is not going
>to be reversed.
Ah, never say never!
You want to demonstrate that I'm wrong, go get a few people
>elected to Parliament. Hell, I sincerely hope you do get a few senators up
>- that'd wipe the smile from Kernot's dial.
>
>But if you want to talk shit, stick to the gun groups.
>
>Thank you.
Yer welcome.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred M. Davis VA3FD | These opinions are mine
Nepean, ON. | fmd...@nortel.com
http://www.magi.com/~freddo | fre...@magi.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Toppan
Please stop crossposting this threat to sci.military.naval.
---
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu
Rail, Sea and Air InfoPages and FAQ Archive (Military & TC FAQs)
[http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/] mirror [http://www.announce.com/~elmer/]
If Yoda so strong in force is, why words in right order he cannot put?
Dane Lance
Peter Mackay <pete...@netinfo.com.au> wrote in article
<AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>...
> Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
> I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when I suggest that this
> discussion has gone on long enough.
Oh sure, how neat and tidy, just call off the debate because you think
you've won something.
>
> In Australia, self-defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm,
What a pity.
> we have
> a low firearm-related death rate, and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
> well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
> Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
> the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
>
> The arguments for general or wider availability are specious in the
> extreme,
Not when all the facts speak for themselves.
> and boil down to a few points:
>
> The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
Coming from someone that does not live under or seem to
have even a rudimentary comprehension of it, your lable of "load of
crap" does nothing but show your ignorance.
> The armed forces are the proper defenders of national sovereignty,
No more or no less than the people's militia.
> and if
> citizens have to carry firearms in case their government turns nasty, well,
> what can I say that hasn't been said about Waco or Oklahoma City?
It's not a matter of have to, it's a matter of the system being
setup that way from the very start.
>
> The right of self-defence. We don't need firearms in Australia to defend
> ourselves.
Speaking for yourself only, of course. It is this very "I know what's good
for you better than you do" attitude that's the probelm. However, it is
apparent
that you Aussies are quite willing to accept control of your lives. I do,
however
know of at least one Aussie that disagrees, and as a result, is now a U.S.
citizen.
> Maybe some people feel a need to sleep with an unsecured and
> loaded gun, but not here.
Again, speaking for yourself, of course.
> I rather think that in the US, the problem is the
> number of gun owners and armed citizens, regardless of attempts to convince
> me that criminals are neither owners nor citizens, or that the law-abidin'
> gun-toters are immune from committing crimes.
And it quite apparent that your thought processes are entirely incorrect.
>
> The notion that armed criminals will somehow not defend themselves against
> attempts by sleepy armed householders to shoot them. This really needs no
> debate.
And your point is?
>
> The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
> used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
> not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
> especially for the criminal market.
So you've been there mate? You know this for fact? Interesting
considering that every industrialized nation on this planet produces firearms
of one sort or another, and they all export them to other countries.
Let's see, I can name a few off the top of my head.....
Rossi (South America), Sig Sauer (Germany), Baretta (Italy), Kalashnikov
(Russia). Oh, and they all export to this country too.
Speaking of specious and a load of crap.....
>
> And then there's all the sidetracks we've explored over the various
> firearms, the dimensions of their ammunition and whether they are designed
> to kill or not. Millions of soldiers killed in wars, tens of thousands of
> US citizens and 35 people killed at Port Arthur are good enough reason for
> me to believe that they are indeed lethal.
And I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
>
> Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
> arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
> beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
> in fairness to my fellow aus.politics members, I'll refrain from commenting
> on the subject unless it relates to Australian politics or I can get in a
> really good shot at some muggins.
Probably for the best. However, if you really are interested
in ending the discussion on your end, just say so and leave. Just
couldn't resist these parting shots though, eh?
>
> So if the nutters want the last word, go for it. I won't be listening. I'm
> going to reinstall that "gun" filter on my newsreader and get back to some
> real debate, which is shooting down the myths of the republicans, sniping
> at the Democrats, blazing away at ATSIC, discussing the prospects in
> by-elections and trying to inject a little fun into the group.
>
> Thanks for all the fun, fellows, but there's not a lot of point in
> continuing. The Uniform Firearm Legislation is a done deal and is not going
> to be reversed. You want to demonstrate that I'm wrong, go get a few people
> elected to Parliament. Hell, I sincerely hope you do get a few senators up
> - that'd wipe the smile from Kernot's dial.
>
> But if you want to talk shit, stick to the gun groups.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
> _\ /_
>
Good bye and good riddence!
Translation for Peter's post: I have no real logic and fact to argue with, so I
will just go back and stick my head in the sand with the rest of my
socialist brothers.
Kaiser1
Peter,
Your conceit is only exceeded by its complete lack of justification.
As one who does not now and has never owned a gun, I have seen
your arguments and unrelated side tracks (OKC had something
to do with guns?) totally dismantled by those who believe gun
ownership is a necessary right. I hope that the other causes you
believe in have more effective defenders than yourself.
Regards
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:58:52 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter
Mackay) wrote:
>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
>I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when I suggest that this
>discussion has gone on long enough.
>
>In Australia, self-defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm, we have
>a low firearm-related death rate, and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
>well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
>Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
>the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
>
>The arguments for general or wider availability are specious in the
>extreme, and boil down to a few points:
>
>The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
>The armed forces are the proper defenders of national sovereignty, and if
>citizens have to carry firearms in case their government turns nasty, well,
>what can I say that hasn't been said about Waco or Oklahoma City?
>
>The right of self-defence. We don't need firearms in Australia to defend
>ourselves. Maybe some people feel a need to sleep with an unsecured and
>loaded gun, but not here. I rather think that in the US, the problem is the
>number of gun owners and armed citizens, regardless of attempts to convince
>me that criminals are neither owners nor citizens, or that the law-abidin'
>gun-toters are immune from committing crimes.
>
>The notion that armed criminals will somehow not defend themselves against
>attempts by sleepy armed householders to shoot them. This really needs no
>debate.
>
>The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
>used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
>not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
>especially for the criminal market.
>
>And then there's all the sidetracks we've explored over the various
>firearms, the dimensions of their ammunition and whether they are designed
>to kill or not. Millions of soldiers killed in wars, tens of thousands of
>US citizens and 35 people killed at Port Arthur are good enough reason for
>me to believe that they are indeed lethal.
>
>Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
>arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
>beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
>in fairness to my fellow aus.politics members, I'll refrain from commenting
>on the subject unless it relates to Australian politics or I can get in a
>really good shot at some muggins.
>
Blackthorne
fmd...@nortel.com (Fred Davis VA3FD) writes:
>In article <AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>,
>pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
>ROTFL!! Sorry Petey, you're that one getting cut to ribbons lately...
I think Peter Mackay is actually one of the few people in aus.politics
who doesn't either speak out of their arse, or speak viewpoints that
are someone else's poorly thought out idioms. Then again, I am biased
towards those who use their brain during the posting process.
Blackthorne
Brian
On 23 Jan 1997, Dane Lance wrote:
>
>
> Peter Mackay <pete...@netinfo.com.au> wrote in article
> <AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>...
> >
> > The right of self-defence. We don't need firearms in Australia to defend
> > ourselves.
>
> Speaking for yourself only, of course. It is this very "I know what's good
> for you better than you do" attitude that's the probelm. However, it is
> apparent
> that you Aussies are quite willing to accept control of your lives. I do,
> however
> know of at least one Aussie that disagrees, and as a result, is now a U.S.
> citizen.
So what?
I know of at least a dozen Americans whom have immigrated to
Australia exactly because they want to feel safer and not live in a
country which is so fucked up that everybody has to have a gun in order
to feel safe.
In one state (South Australia, if you're interested) the state
government ran a series of those "feel good" television adverts where
they interviewed public figures about why they liked living there. One
was an ex-American who made the statement that the reason why he like
living in Adelaide was because, "its just like Southern California,
except its a hell of a lot safer!"
If your ex-Australian left because of the gun control laws, I'd
be very surprised but so what? You're example proves little IMO (as does
mine). People live where they like, because they like it there. Such
choices are made upon many factors, some of which concern lifetstyle
(likes guns) or feelings of personal safety.
--Brian Ross--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Caius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum"
Julius Caesar
http://mulder.waite.adelaide.edu.au/~bross/
Jason Gottlieb
Brilliant post!
A non-Aussie,
Jason
--
Jason Gottlieb
Come check out my home page!
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
G Merryweather
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:58:52 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter
Mackay) wrote:
> In Australia, self-defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm, we have
> a low firearm-related death rate, and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
> well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
> Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
> the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
Hmm, amazing what some media hysteria can achieve.
I didn't think it had such widespread support of the general public.
Politicans have to support the minority groups, as it is a "tyranny of
the minority" (Peter Drucker) where 5% of the vote is enough to decide
an issue as the other 95% cannot or willnot react in time or can't be
bothered.
Geoff
Ph/ Fax 64-9-2669936
Radar FAQ and Forte Agent automation FAQ both at
http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
sc...@uow.edu.au (Blackthorne) wrote:-
>fmd...@nortel.com (Fred Davis VA3FD) writes:
>>In article <AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>,
>>pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>>>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
>>ROTFL!! Sorry Petey, you're that one getting cut to ribbons lately...
>I think Peter Mackay is actually one of the few people in aus.politics
>who doesn't either speak out of their arse, or speak viewpoints that
>are someone else's poorly thought out idioms. Then again, I am biased
>towards those who use their brain during the posting process.
Petey is quite brilliant when the facts are on his side. When they
aren't, he attempts to bury the entire debate under a pile of, well,
shit.
I recently counted near 70 posts in one day from him, most of them
aimed at the fire-arm debate, and most of them chock-full of absolute
rubbish. This behaviour is not normal.
His tactic appears to be to totally disrupt any debate (and the
fire-arm debate in particular) that he realizes he can't win. He has
been remarkably succesful. My guess is that very few people (other
than the actual participants) have been following the gun debate
threads, due to the tremendous amount of overburden that he's dumped
on them. I believe that's exactly what Mr Mackay set out to acheive.
I don't like what he's done, but I would defend (though not to the
death) his right to do it.
I do think it's a shame, though.
Fred Davis VA3FD
In article <32E6E0...@iamerica.net>, jam...@iamerica.net wrote:
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> > Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
> > arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
> > beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
>
> I guess his misreader or his ranting ran past the post I gave him on
> 6'1", 198 pounds. Not bald either folks. Not gonna make any wild claims
> on that age. Point is. Prithee tell me what that has to do with the RKBA
> debate that he prolonged.
I can only guess that Peter would like to ban guns from anyone over,
hmm, 60 or so? Basing this on his comments about the 85 year old
woman who killed her would-be rapist with her deceased husbands
handgun. Remember, Peter said it would have been OK if she had
spilled the criminals guts on the floor with a knife, but it was
definitely NOT OK with him that she used a gun.
Strange. Very strange.
LongBow
sc...@uow.edu.au (Blackthorne) wrote:
>fmd...@nortel.com (Fred Davis VA3FD) writes:
>>In article <AF0CD8CC...@betty-p05.netinfo.com.au>,
>>pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>>>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the gun fanciers,
>>ROTFL!! Sorry Petey, you're that one getting cut to ribbons lately...
>I think Peter Mackay is actually one of the few people in aus.politics
>who doesn't either speak out of their arse, or speak viewpoints that
>are someone else's poorly thought out idioms.
ROTFL!!!
He may well be good at aus.politics, but he's the one being the arse
about the gun debate and says so himself!
>Then again, I am biased
>towards those who use their brain during the posting process.
Using your brain to publish bullshit = bullshit!
Peter Mackay
In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please (Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.co wrote:
> I don't like what he's done, but I would defend (though not to the
> death) his right to do it.
Like being defended by a plate of warm lettuce. Er, thanks, Alan.
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <AF0F596E...@betty-p03.netinfo.com.au>,
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:-
>In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
>Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please (Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.co wrote:
>> I don't like what he's done, but I would defend (though not to the
>> death) his right to do it.
>Like being defended by a plate of warm lettuce.
Hmm. :-)
Well, anyway, it's the thought that counts, isn't it?
>Er, thanks, Alan.
No problemo, I'm sure you'd do the same for me.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies
attending too much liberty than those attending too
small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
David L Evens
Peter Mackay (pete...@netinfo.com.au) wrote:
: In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
: Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please (Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.co wrote:
: > I don't like what he's done, but I would defend (though not to the
: > death) his right to do it.
: Like being defended by a plate of warm lettuce. Er, thanks, Alan.
Of course, intelligent people understand that the rule of law survives
not becuasae of people being willing to die for it, but because of people
who are willing to kill for it.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Honeycutt& Joy Eddy
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
>
> The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
other of out Bill of Rights do you find objectionable? Free Speech, Right
to an Attorney, Jury Trial, Right to Confront Accusers etc? Why don't we
just scrap the whole thing?
I am happy that you feel safe in your bed. I do not. Several times in
the past year in my city, people have broken into occuped homes, raped
the women and murdered the occupants (yes I am trying to move) Have you
ever been mugged, or had a gun pointed at you in traffic? I have. I have
never had to draw my pistol, but knowing that it is there is VERY
comforting.
An old American saying is "God created man, Col. Colt mad him equal"
Kris
Kris Honeycutt& Joy Eddy
Kris
James D. Nicholson
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <32E6E0...@iamerica.net>,
> "James D. Nicholson" <jam...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>
> > Peter Mackay wrote:
> > > Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
> > > arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
> > > beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
> >
> > I guess his misreader or his ranting ran past the post I gave him on
> > 6'1", 198 pounds. Not bald either folks. Not gonna make any wild claims
> > on that age. Point is. Prithee tell me what that has to do with the RKBA
> > debate that he prolonged.
>
> tell us how much hair you have, just that you are not bald, nor your age,
> nor your level of fitness. Yet you want to go toe to toe with the Russkis
> (or someone). They'd be laughing so much they won't be able to shoot
> straight, is that it?
This information flows both ways, sport. That was a size 9 shoe, wasn't
it? Lace on the underwear?
> Not that it makes any difference to me *what* Jim looks like, but it is
> amusing to see the fellow squirm.
What's amusing is to see a guy who has been ran off and hid and is now
trying to crawl back with gobbledegook.
> But gaze around your next NRA meeting, and look at the tall, trim, fit and
> healthy young men and women. Contrast them with the fat, overweight balding
> slobs at your army base. There should be one nearby - you fellows have
> quite a large standing army, not to mention the militia.
Looks like you're still driving around Canberra aimlessly with your left
blinker on.
Roope J Lehto
Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au (Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please) wrote:
: In Message-ID <AF0F596E...@betty-p03.netinfo.com.au>,
: pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:-
: >Like being defended by a plate of warm lettuce.
: Hmm. :-)
: Well, anyway, it's the thought that counts, isn't it?
Please keep this discussion out of the .military newsgroups, as it has
little to do with them.
Edit your headers accordingly.
--
Roope J. Lehto
rjl...@kruuna.helsinki.fi
Kevin Hall
> >I think I speak for all aus.politics readers
____________________________________________________________________________
All three of you?
Take care, Kevin
Peter Mackay
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> > Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
> > arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
> > beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
>
> I guess his misreader or his ranting ran past the post I gave him on
> 6'1", 198 pounds. Not bald either folks. Not gonna make any wild claims
> on that age. Point is. Prithee tell me what that has to do with the RKBA
> debate that he prolonged.
That height and weight can give you a paunch, Jim, and I notice you don't
tell us how much hair you have, just that you are not bald, nor your age,
nor your level of fitness. Yet you want to go toe to toe with the Russkis
(or someone). They'd be laughing so much they won't be able to shoot
straight, is that it?
Not that it makes any difference to me *what* Jim looks like, but it is
amusing to see the fellow squirm.
But gaze around your next NRA meeting, and look at the tall, trim, fit and
healthy young men and women. Contrast them with the fat, overweight balding
slobs at your army base. There should be one nearby - you fellows have
quite a large standing army, not to mention the militia.
~ m
LongBow
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>Yet you want to go toe to toe with the Russkis
>(or someone). They'd be laughing so much they won't be able to shoot
>straight, is that it?
Well now,Pete,aren't you the little fellow who blurted out the AK-47
was "wildly inacurate" and was only good for "spitting distance"?
(We know it was you) and of course the russkie's would be half
drunk on vodka or russian brake fluid (oh yes they do distil it ),so
add laughing now and they'd be easy prey for a little old lady
and a bolt action rifle! ;-)
Andrew Toppan
Please stop crossposting this thread into groups it does not belong in.
This thread is currently crossposted to the following groups:
Newsgroups: aus.politics,
talk.politics.guns,
can.talk.guns,
nz.general,
soc.culture.australian,
can.politics,
soc.culture.usa,
soc.culture.british,
alt.military,
alt.military.cadet,
alt.military.aas,
alt.military.police,
sci.military.naval,
alt.war,
soc.veterans
There is an excellent chance that the readers of those groups DON'T
WANT TO READ ABOUT GUN DEBATES. If we want to read about guns, we will
visit gun groups. Please PUT THIS DEBATE WHERE IT BELONGS.
Even if "the other guy" won't do it, be a mature, intelligent person and
cut the irrelevant newsgroups from the headers when you post an article.
Include a Followup-To: line to redirect further discussion to the
appropriate forums.
If you don't know how to choose which groups you are posting to,
you are not qualified to be posting at all.
Followups set.
Miguel Cruz
Dane Lance <la...@txdirect.net> wrote:
> So you've been there mate? You know this for fact? Interesting
>considering that every industrialized nation on this planet produces firearms
>of one sort or another, and they all export them to other countries.
Iceland?
miguel
r...@inetworld.net
Look bright-eyes. Australian culture is not American culture.
Aussies have their own way of looking at rights and their own laws
ensuring those they believe to be important. So to ask which of the
Bill of Rights he'd object to is, at its basis, a nonsensical
question.
> An old American saying is "God created man, Col. Colt made him equal"
Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
American.
=Bob
James D. Nicholson
Sorry, Roope. It was one Peter Mackay that spammed you.
James D. Nicholson
I am sorry, Andrew. It was one Peter Mackay that spammed you. List
your group and I will edit.
--
Alan Luchetti <\
>>Much as I enjoy shooting down the emotional arguments of the
>>gun fanciers, I think I speak for all aus.politics readers when
>>I suggest that this discussion has gone on long enough.
>>
>>Thank you.
> Well, Peter, old man...throwing in the towel are you?
No, Yank. We're just terminally bored by idiotic cross-posts from
the world weaponry capital.
- -
alan
L
\-/
Kym Horsell
In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
>[talking about someone else]
>This behaviour is not normal.
Goodness. APS is now a self-appointed arbiter of "normality".
On the banana republic!
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <5ch9ta$9...@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:-
>In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>>In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
>>[talking about someone else]
>>This behaviour is not normal.
>Goodness. APS is now a self-appointed arbiter of "normality".
>On the banana republic!
Kym, I'm impressed! Not one single spelling mistake in your entire
post.
Well done, old man!
(BTW, are you fat and bald and sweaty? There seems to be a bit of a
fascination with these things around these parts lately.)
JEL
And violent crime capital, and murder capital, and hate crime capital,
and child abuse capital.
The gun nuts never see a correlation between guns and crime and
violence. All they, with their tunnel vision, see is what they want to
see. And what they want to see does not correspond with reality.
So work hard to keep guns out of Australia. If guns ever get as
prevalent in your country as they are here, your country will,
unfortunately, become more like us than you are now, which will be too
bad for you.
LL
>Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
>culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
>difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
>need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
>reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
>Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
>everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
>American.
>
>=Bob
>
>
>
J
Warwick Bond
Kym Horsell wrote:
>
> In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
> Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
> >In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
> >[talking about someone else]
> >This behaviour is not normal.
>
> Goodness. APS is now a self-appointed arbiter of "normality".
>
> On the banana republic!
>
> R. Kym Horsell
> KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
> http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Maybe it's because he can can look at the issue from outside. He if
anyone would be able to avoid subjectivity. (Although he may exhibit
some bias against those different from him, those burdened with
"normality").
Rgds
Warwick
Kym Horsell
In article <5chun6$8...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>In Message-ID <5ch9ta$9...@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:-
>
>>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>>>In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
>>>[talking about someone else]
>>>This behaviour is not normal.
>
>>Goodness. APS is now a self-appointed arbiter of "normality".
>
>>On the banana republic!
>
>post.
You is eesily impressed. So I can't take thus as evidunce of enythung
very mush.
Now! If you'd said "that was well-reasoned you lefty pinko scumbag", I
would have takin ut as a comploment.
Dave Nott
In article <32EC99...@ime.net>,
JEL <jo...@ime.net> wrote:
>
>And violent crime capital, and murder capital, and hate crime capital,
>and child abuse capital.
>
>The gun nuts never see a correlation between guns and crime and
>violence. All they, with their tunnel vision, see is what they want to
>see. And what they want to see does not correspond with reality.
>
The gun prohibitionists never see that there is NO correlation between
legal gun ownership and high rates of violent crime. An examination
of ALL of the international comparisons shows this.
The problem with the United States is that it has become socially
acceptable here to use violence to take what one wants, or to settle
old scores. Taking guns from the people who don't misuse them, while
leaving armed the people who do misuse guns is lunacy. It is the
gun prohibitionists who have no grasp of reality. If the assertion
that legal availability of firearms leads to higher rates of violent
crime were true, only violent crime rates involving guns would be
high in the U.S. But rates of violent crimes involving knives, fists,
etc. are ALSO high in the U.S.
Owen Dare
On 27 Jan 1997 15:11:22 +1100, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
Horsell) wrote:
>In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>>In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
>>[talking about someone else]
>>This behaviour is not normal.
>
>Goodness. APS is now a self-appointed arbiter of "normality".
>
>On the banana republic!
I must say Kym, you've been very quiet lately. I've almost missed you.
Don't tell me you have to pay for your internet account now ;-)
Owen Dare
Fred Davis VA3FD
In article <AF10B52F...@betty-p04.netinfo.com.au>,
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>In article <32E6E0...@iamerica.net>,
>"James D. Nicholson" <jam...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Mackay wrote:
>> > Now, I enjoy this stuff - it's amusing for me to knock holes in specious
>> > arguments and watch poor Jim Nicholson try to pretend that he isn't an
>> > beer-bellied, balding, middle-aged and most unlikely freedom fighter, but
>>
>> I guess his misreader or his ranting ran past the post I gave him on
>> 6'1", 198 pounds. Not bald either folks. Not gonna make any wild claims
>> on that age. Point is. Prithee tell me what that has to do with the RKBA
>> debate that he prolonged.
>
>That height and weight can give you a paunch, Jim, and I notice you don't
>tell us how much hair you have, just that you are not bald, nor your age,
>nor your level of fitness. Yet you want to go toe to toe with the Russkis
>(or someone). They'd be laughing so much they won't be able to shoot
>straight, is that it?
Whattsa matter Petey, these fellas don't fit your idea of the master race?
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
> _\ /_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred Davis VA3FD http://www.magi.com/~freddo
Stittsville, ON fre...@magi.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JEL
The thing that amazes me is the number of people in the world who don't
want to immigrate to the United States, and who think that the United
States is socially a Third World Nation.
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <5cjvd8$1...@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:-
>In article <5chun6$8...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>>In Message-ID <5ch9ta$9...@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
>>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:-
>>
>>>In article <5c968a$9...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
>>>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>>>>In Message-ID <5c7ush$bau$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>,
>>>>[talking about someone else]
>>>>This behaviour is not normal.
>>
>>>Goodness. APS is now a self-appointed arbiter of "normality".
>>
>>>On the banana republic!
>>
>>Kym, I'm impressed! Not one single spelling mistake in your entire
>>post.
>You is eesily impressed. So I can't take thus as evidunce of enythung
>very mush.
>Now! If you'd said "that was well-reasoned you lefty pinko scumbag", I
>would have takin ut as a comploment.
Dream on.
--------------------------------------------------------
"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement
for Socialism is its adherents."
-George Orwell.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lars Ormberg
JEL wrote:
> > Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
> > J
>
> The thing that amazes me is the number of people in the world who don't
> want to immigrate to the United States, and who think that the United
> States is socially a Third World Nation.
I notice that you're from Maine. This explains not all, but much.
You see, New England is calm, serene, and peaceful to much an extent.
Kind of like the Atlantic provinces with money all the same colour.
From what people have been saying here: Vermont, New England, Maine,
etc. have the lowest gun abuse rate in the States despite having similar
levels of gun ownership.
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
__
The Commodore's webpage is bigger, badder, and more Java-packed than
ever before! Take a tour at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and have
an experience only categorizable as Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres across the country. (Oh, and some Star Wars
thing is supposedly on as well. Like anybody cares).
Kym Horsell
In article <32eccd02...@news.agate.net>, LL <b...@time.net> wrote:
>>[US & violence]
>Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
Why do people smoke, drink and gamble?
On the other hand, seems an increasing number of Americans want to
emmigrate. Looking through some Reports of the President in past years,
I noted a jump from around 4 mn Americans living outside the US
in 1989 to more than 14 mn by 1992. (I also note the Report no longer
distingusihes between those American citizens living permanently outside
the country, or just on extended trips as MD's of "O/S" companies).
In Australia we've seen (and has been recently remarked even on the
more staid news services) a marked increase in US-citizen MD's of
Aussie-based banks and economic consultancies (and quite a lot else).
No doubt this partly explains the increasing complaints about US-style
bank charegs (e.g. $25 to get a duplicate statement; and similar charges
for cancelling cheques &ct at one such Aus-side example thereof), and
soaring exec sallaries ("to be consistent with ``international'' standards
for executive sallaries").
No doubt -- in the case of Aus -- this is made all the more convenient
by the recent streamlining of visa requirements for business visitors;
something the US was more-or-less trying to strong-arm through the Fed
govt for the past few years.
On the other hand, "we" always have Uncle Rupert and one Hell of a lot of
ex-pat medical researchers State-side. ;-)
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <32eccd02...@news.agate.net>,
b...@time.net (LL) wrote:-
>>Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
>>culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
>>difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
>>need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
>>reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
>>Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
>>everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
>>American.
>>
>>=Bob
>>
>>
>>
>Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
Exactly. Many thousands of refugee men, women and children risk their
lives each year, trying to get to a place where they have some sort of
protection against government and non-government criminals.
B. Schwartz
"Kevin Hall" <tall...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >I think I speak for all aus.politics readers
Don't do that...
Just speak for yourself...
As for this incessant crossposting????
B. S.
James D. Nicholson
Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
>
> In Message-ID <32eccd02...@news.agate.net>,
> b...@time.net (LL) wrote:-
>
> >>Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
> >>culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
> >>difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
> >>need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
> >>reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
> >>Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
> >>everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
> >>American.
> >>
> >>=Bob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
>
> Exactly. Many thousands of refugee men, women and children risk their
> lives each year, trying to get to a place where they have some sort of
> protection against government and non-government criminals.
It is amazing how quickly the risks at the Berlin Wall have been
forgotten and the conditions that caused people to take those risks.
Civilians were disarmed in East Berlin, were they not?
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <32EFFA...@iamerica.net>,
"James D. Nicholson" <jam...@iamerica.net> wrote:-
>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
>>
>> In Message-ID <32eccd02...@news.agate.net>,
>> b...@time.net (LL) wrote:-
>>
>> >>Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
>> >>culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
>> >>difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
>> >>need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
>> >>reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
>> >>Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
>> >>everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
>> >>American.
>> >>
>> >>=Bob
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
>>
>> Exactly. Many thousands of refugee men, women and children risk their
>> lives each year, trying to get to a place where they have some sort of
>> protection against government and non-government criminals.
>It is amazing how quickly the risks at the Berlin Wall have been
>forgotten and the conditions that caused people to take those risks.
>Civilians were disarmed in East Berlin, were they not?
I would expect so. The more oppressive the government, the more likely
they are to have total gun prohibition.
Mary & Jim Roble
LL wrote:
>
> >Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
> >culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
> >difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
> >need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
> >reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
> >Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
> >everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
> >American.
> >
> >=Bob
> >
> >
> >
> Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
r...@inetworld.net
>Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
>>
>> In Message-ID <32eccd02...@news.agate.net>,
>> b...@time.net (LL) wrote:-
>>
>> >>Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
>> >>culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
>> >>difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
>> >>need to be heavily armed? I mean really; all you're managing to do is
>> >>reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
>> >>Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
>> >>everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
>> >>American.
>> >Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
Why is it that the jingoists on here can never come up with a better
argument than "they want to immigrate here". There are around 4 or 5
billion people on this planet. The fact that a few million want to
immigrate to the U.S. doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.
>> Exactly. Many thousands of refugee men, women and children risk their
>> lives each year, trying to get to a place where they have some sort of
>> protection against government and non-government criminals.
And a hell of a lot of them go to Canada or European countries. The
U.S. is hardly the only country that takes in refugees.
>It is amazing how quickly the risks at the Berlin Wall have been
>forgotten and the conditions that caused people to take those risks.
>Civilians were disarmed in East Berlin, were they not?
And virtually all of those people who left East Berlin settled in
Germany, not the U.S. I repeat; not everyone wants to be an American.
Learn to live with it.
=Bob
Rick Davis
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:56:35 GMT, Mary & Jim Roble <mro...@fyi.net>
wrote:
>LL wrote:
>> >
>> Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
>> J
>
>To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
>care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
>protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
No, they can get that in Oz.
The Aussie's I know moved here for economic freedom. Compared to Oz
our markets are like a street bazar.
Rick
unb.ca
> To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
> care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
> protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
I thought you had to buy medical insurance in the states, I didn't know
you had free medical care. When did this happen?
Timothy J. McCorkle
Alan Peyton-Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
>
> In Message-ID <32eccd02...@news.agate.net>,
> b...@time.net (LL) wrote:-
>
> >>culture of violence that we have in the U.S.? Is it really that
> >>difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
> >>American.
> >>
Nooo not every nation has the same culture of violence . but pick up any
issue of SOF from vol. 1 on and count the pictures of 9 yr olds carrying
Heavy weapons, and a big national geo. smile for the camera. How bout S.
Africa where a good time is sticking a tire full of gasoline soaked rags
around the neck of your political opponants and lighting it. As far as
everyone on earth, Idi Amin, Saddam Ass-ain, Pol POt and all the rest of
the tyrants Know that an unarmed population prevents anyone from
fighting back, so they damn sure dont't want to Think like americans.
As for the random Kook shooting up a bunch of people, I'd like to think
that the janitor of that school in scotland, or some poor anzac vet
wishes they had the right to keep and bear arms.Some damn fool would
then have had to hold memorial services for the Kooks after the fired
their first few rounds instead of burying innocent kids by the truck
load.
Finally, this is SCI.MILITARY.NAVAL! cross post this crap to alt binery
bugger me or some place else.
--
Timothy J. "SNORKLE" McCorkle
ex.MM1(ss)nuc [SSN-575,SSN-607]
"Gun Control is being able to hit the correctly designated Target before
it screws you."
>,_;-**o\oHo/o**-;_,<
Tim
rda...@airmail.net (Rick Davis) wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:56:35 GMT, Mary & Jim Roble <mro...@fyi.net>
>wrote:
>>LL wrote:
>>> >
>>> Funny, why is it that so many want to immigrate here?
>>> J
>>
>>To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
>>care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
>>protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
>No, they can get that in Oz.
>The Aussie's I know moved here for economic freedom. Compared to Oz
>our markets are like a street bazar.
>Rick
You are kidding right? The US is the last country in the world to believe in
free trade.
regards, Tim...
David L Evens
@unb.ca wrote:
: > To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
: > care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
: > protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
: I thought you had to buy medical insurance in the states, I didn't know
: you had free medical care. When did this happen?
A good many years ago. Government funded medical care for those over 65
and those on welfare. Those with good jobs get medical coverage as part
of their employment benefits, and the really wealthy can pay it out of
their personal funds.
The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
tax-financed medical coverage.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
crol...@pvtnetworks.net
@unb.ca wrote:
>
> > To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
> > care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
> > protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
>
> I thought you had to buy medical insurance in the states, I didn't know
> you had free medical care. When did this happen?
Its been that way for a long time. If you are poor and can't pay you just
wait untill you are very sick and go to the emergency room at any
hospital. If you aren't near death they may ask you to wait some more but
if you are near death you'll get treated. Babies and trauma cases always
get treated too.
You sure are stupid, is it all that cold weather or what?
BiNM
Timothy J. McCorkle
Sorry, I was tired.
--
Timothy J. "SNORKLE" McCorkle
ex.MM1(ss)nuc [SSN-575,SSN-607]
>,_;-**o\oHo/o**-;_,<
Randrup, Peter & Eleanor
OK, you drive!
`````````
Randrup, Peter & Eleanor
Timothy J. McCorkle wrote:
>
> Sorry, I was tired.
> --
> Timothy J. "SNORKLE" McCorkle
> ex.MM1(ss)nuc [SSN-575,SSN-607]
> "I ought to be a chickenpot pie" g. fritz
> >,_;-**o\oHo/o**-;_,<
Oops! Where's the . . . .
Jerome Bigge
On 1 Feb 1997 00:44:42 GMT, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
>@unb.ca wrote:
>: > To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
>: > care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
>: > protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
>
>: I thought you had to buy medical insurance in the states, I didn't know
>: you had free medical care. When did this happen?
>
>A good many years ago. Government funded medical care for those over 65
>and those on welfare. Those with good jobs get medical coverage as part
>of their employment benefits, and the really wealthy can pay it out of
>their personal funds.
>
>The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
>this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
>tax-financed medical coverage.
>
There was a proposal some years back by Senator Kennedy that employers
either would have to provide some level of medical insurance for their
employees or pay a certain tax to the government who would then
provide a certain level of medical insurance to the working poor.
This was called "play or pay", and was defeated by the Republicans.
Who are of course well aware that the working poor do not vote
Republican as a rule. Or Libertarian for that matter either... The
amount of the tax was close to the amount the employer now pays
into the Social Security system for each employee. It was said that
this would reduce employment, make people worse off than before.
The same thing can be said for unions, everything else that raises the
cost to the employer. This issue is merely "proof" of the truth that
here in the US (and I supposed everywhere else), the politically
powerless are the "niggers" that get shit upon by everyone else.
>---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
>Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
>A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
>A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
>We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
>---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
>"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
>"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
>down all the laws?"
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
>on content.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the WARLADY series of SF fantasy novels.
Download them at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
David L Evens
Adam (ad...@poboxes.com) wrote:
: On 1 Feb 1997 00:44:42 GMT, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
: >@unb.ca wrote:
: >: > To answer the last question: The US provides free, free, free food, medical
: >: > care, housing, and the everyday citizen provides in addition the latter
: >: > protection. LOCK THE GATES, save our hard earned dollars.
: >
: >: I thought you had to buy medical insurance in the states, I didn't know
: >: you had free medical care. When did this happen?
: >
: >A good many years ago. Government funded medical care for those over 65
: >and those on welfare. Those with good jobs get medical coverage as part
: >of their employment benefits, and the really wealthy can pay it out of
: >their personal funds.
: >
: >The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
: >this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
: >tax-financed medical coverage.
: Unfortunately, the working poor tend to be those with inadequate education, or
: saleable skills, sometimes coupled with a lack of motivation to emprove their
: conditions. There is a substaintial demand at all times for plumbers,
: electricians, brick masons, pipe fitters and a wide variety of so called
: skilled and semi-skilled labor. Do they fair well? certainly they do. It's
: well know among those who track such things, that during of poor econimic
: times those in the "trades" do very well. Consequently, I don't think it's a
: matter of providing more or better employment so much as it is providing
: better and more skilled employees.
: What we need to give people is not money (because they give that away for
: stuff) but skills (which they can dispense and get money for).
And this comes down to the same thing: Improving the employment by
improving the employee.
: You know...The old "give a fish-catch a fish" routine.
: Adam
--
Tony Sutorius
dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) had a good, hard think and this came
out...
>The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
>this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
>tax-financed medical coverage.
Yeah, good one David... how long do you expect your employment programme (I
assume you have one all figured out) to have to operate before the problem
of low pay is eliminated? Please express your answer in either decades or
"tens of millions dead from curable illness".
Cheers.
Tony
======================================Have=You=Killed=A=Sig=Today?==
Tony Sutorius Aspiring Groover to...@central.co.nz
12 Reserve Road Mobile (025)479683
Plimmerton, New Zealand Ph(+644)2339090 Fx(+644)2330990
documentaryfilmmakerresearcherwriterconsultanttupfaqerfirefighteretc
============| "Hukt on Foniks" - It werkt fore mee! |===============
David L Evens
Tony Sutorius (to...@central.co.nz) wrote:
: dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) had a good, hard think and this came
: out...
: >The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
: >this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
: >tax-financed medical coverage.
: Yeah, good one David... how long do you expect your employment programme (I
: assume you have one all figured out) to have to operate before the problem
: of low pay is eliminated? Please express your answer in either decades or
: "tens of millions dead from curable illness".
You know what happens when socialists are allowed to run a country.
You're living through the results.
Archon
In article <32eb7818...@news.inetworld.net>, r...@inetworld.net wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:34:49 -0800, Kris Honeycutt& Joy Eddy
> <kri...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The US Second Amendment. Not applicable here, and a load of crap anyway.
>
> >> Intresting that you think the 2nd ammend. is a load of crap. Which
> >other of out Bill of Rights do you find objectionable? Free Speech, Right
> >to an Attorney, Jury Trial, Right to Confront Accusers etc? Why don't we
> >just scrap the whole thing?
> > I am happy that you feel safe in your bed. I do not. Several times in
> >the past year in my city, people have broken into occuped homes, raped
> >the women and murdered the occupants (yes I am trying to move) Have you
> >ever been mugged, or had a gun pointed at you in traffic? I have. I have
> >never had to draw my pistol, but knowing that it is there is VERY
> >comforting.
>
> Look bright-eyes. Australian culture is not American culture.
> Aussies have their own way of looking at rights
Or rather not looking at them until its too late!
and their own laws
> ensuring those they believe to be important. So to ask which of the
> Bill of Rights he'd object to is, at its basis, a nonsensical
> question.
Not really, for without the second ammendmant the first cannot be enforced
by the populace. Without no 2 youre just putting your hope in a
'benevolent' government. (If there were such a thing)
>
> > An old American saying is "God created man, Col. Colt made him equal"
>
> Do you really not understand that other nations do not have the same
> culture of violence that we have in the U.S.?
Wake up you brain dead leftist! Look at the Mid-East Half the world is at war!!!
Man is not basically good, so quit believing the Liberal fairy tale that
he is!!!
Is it really that
> difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
> need to be heavily armed?
Israel does! Go tell them to disarm!!! And they will tell you what an
ignorant fool you are!!! You would have told England to give up to Hitler!
I mean really; all you're managing to do is
> reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
> Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
> everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
> American.
So if you dont want to, DONT BE AN AMERICAN!! MOVE TO CUBA!! Land of State
socialism, government health care and GUN CONTROL!!! A Liberal jellyfish
like you would love it there!!! Too bad youd have to lose your freedom of
speech!!
Jack D Papin
>
> =Bob
crol...@pvtnetworks.net
Tony Sutorius wrote:
>
> Yeah, good one David... how long do you expect your employment programme (I
> assume you have one all figured out) to have to operate before the problem
> of low pay is eliminated? Please express your answer in either decades or
> "tens of millions dead from curable illness".
>
>
> Tony
> And just why should I care how the ignorant and lazy die?
BiNM
stan clark
>
> The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
> this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
> tax-financed medical coverage.
Actually, the problem will solve itself. The sick and injured working
poor will all die off because they cannot afford medical attention.
That will also solve our working poor problem - who needs them? Some
people feel that the working poor deserve medical care also, but only if
it doesn't cost anything. Some Americans even think like Australians!
Tony Sutorius
>: Yeah, good one David... how long do you expect your employment programme (I
>: assume you have one all figured out) to have to operate before the problem
>: of low pay is eliminated? Please express your answer in either decades or
>: "tens of millions dead from curable illness".
>
>You know what happens when socialists are allowed to run a country.
>You're living through the results.
Clearly your expertise on political economy is only exceeded by your
expertise on world geography and history.... where exactly do you think New
Zealand is?
Or do you have some bold new definition of socialism you'd like to share?
In anticipation....
.... Tony Sutorius
Shane Scheikowski
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:58:52 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter
Mackay) wrote:
>
>The mythical underground arms supermarket. This doesn't exist. The arms
>used for criminal activities originate from legitimate sources. They are
>not home-made, they are not imported from Libya, and they are not made
>especially for the criminal market.
>
One question, how does all that herion get into our country?
It's smuggled in you fucking idiot.
Peter Mackay
In article <Phoenix-0302...@ts24-1.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
Pho...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Archon) wrote:
Gotta wonder whether some people read thread titles.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
Dave Hill
>> Is it really that
>> > difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
>> > need to be heavily armed?
>>
>> Israel does! Go tell them to disarm!!! And they will tell you what an
>> ignorant fool you are!!! You would have told England to give up to Hitler
Leave us OUT of this. Following Dunblane, there is a strong debate on
gun control between the gun lobby, who wish to keep our existing
(strict) gun control laws (but enforce them better) and those who wish
to ban all guns altogether. The vast majority of UK public opinion
supports strict gun control in one form or another. The snowdrop
petition organised by the Dunblane parents called for a total ban on
handguns and attracted about 750,000 signitures. Not all other nations
feel the need to be heavily armed.
>> I mean really; all you're managing to do is
>> > reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world has toward
>> > Americans, since you seem incapable of accepting the fact that not
>> > everyone on earth thinks like an American or wants to think like an
>> > American.
>>
>> So if you dont want to, DONT BE AN AMERICAN!! MOVE TO CUBA!! Land of State
>> socialism, government health care and GUN CONTROL!!! A Liberal jellyfish
>> like you would love it there!!! Too bad youd have to lose your freedom of
>> speech!!
No. I don't want to be an American (though I admire many things about
the USA). I'll stay in UK (or Oz). Land of (new) socialism, government
health care (it's great!) and gun control (it works). As for freedom of
speech, well matey, what does this count as, eh ?
Seriously, we Brits do not understand the American obsession with guns.
I understand, and respect, an obsession for free speech, religious
freedom and justice but I do not understand why you allow thousands of
US citizens to be gunned down every year. Just what is the 2nd
ammendment, who are these weapons to be used by and against? Any
coherent answers would be appreciated.
regards
--
Dave Hill
Dave Thompson
Peter Mackay <pete...@netinfo.com.au> wrote in article
<AF1C94FF...@betty-p06.netinfo.com.au>...
>
> Gotta wonder whether some people read thread titles.
>
>
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
> _\ /_
One DOES wonder whether Peter Mackay reads Newsgroup names. Trim
your headers and take this senseless childlike bickering back to
aus.politics and LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!!!!
Dave Thompson
Eric Williams
In a previous post, Dave Hill (dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Seriously, we Brits do not understand the American obsession with guns.
: I understand, and respect, an obsession for free speech, religious
: freedom and justice but I do not understand why you allow thousands of
: US citizens to be gunned down every year. Just what is the 2nd
: ammendment, who are these weapons to be used by and against? Any
: coherent answers would be appreciated.
The question is, when your government ignores your vote, punishes you
when you speak out, persecutes religious practitioners, and generally
declares war on the populace, what can you do if you've allowed
yourself to be disarmed? This hasn't happened in the US, but can
anyone give me a guarantee that that fact has nothing whatsoever to do
with the deterring thought in some would-be despot's mind that a large
percentage of its citizens are well-armed?
What appears to be an obsession is in many US citizen's mind the
drawing of the line in the sand. All of the other usurpations of
fundamental human rights by a tyranical government *must* be precluded
by the disarming of the populace. Those who don't understand the
concept, step right up and let me put these handcuffs on you. I
promise I won't hurt you, they're only for your own protection.
--
Eric Williams | wd6...@netcom.com | WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Dost Thou know that the ages will pass, and humanity will proclaim by
the lips of their sages that there is no crime, and therefore no sin;
there is only hunger? In the end they will lay their freedom at our
feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us!" They will
understand themselves at last, that freedom and bread enough for all
are inconceivable together.
-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
In Message-ID <0Q97bGAA...@dchill.demon.co.uk>,
Dave Hill <dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk> wrote:-
>>> Is it really that
>>> > difficult for you to understand that other nations do not feel the
>>> > need to be heavily armed?
>>>
>>> Israel does! Go tell them to disarm!!! And they will tell you what an
>>> ignorant fool you are!!! You would have told England to give up to Hitler
>Leave us OUT of this. Following Dunblane, there is a strong debate on
>gun control between the gun lobby, who wish to keep our existing
>(strict) gun control laws (but enforce them better) and those who wish
>to ban all guns altogether. The vast majority of UK public opinion
>supports strict gun control in one form or another. The snowdrop
>petition organised by the Dunblane parents called for a total ban on
>handguns and attracted about 750,000 signitures.
What, 750,000 out of the whole population of the U.K.? Or just
Scotland? or where? Your figure is a bit meaningless without this
information.
Our largest anti-prohibition rally was about 160,000 very vocal and
determined (though totally non-violent) individuals. The gun control
mob have never been able to herd together more than a couple of
thousand embarrassed-looking sheeple, most of whom looked to me as
though they'd rather be sailing.
Peter H. Proctor
In article <0Q97bGAA...@dchill.demon.co.uk> Dave Hill <dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk> writes:
>From: Dave Hill <dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: The gun debate and aus.politics
>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:41:04 +0000
>
>Seriously, we Brits do not understand the American obsession with guns.
>I understand, and respect, an obsession for free speech, religious
>freedom and justice but I do not understand why you allow thousands of
>US citizens to be gunned down every year. Just what is the 2nd
>ammendment, who are these weapons to be used by and against? Any
>coherent answers would be appreciated.
We retain the old Whiggish theory that popular firearms are essential as
a makeweight against government tyrrany. Also, it come from our frontier
history, where firearms were as much a tool as an axe.
As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ). In turn,
this is secondary to complex social forces to complicated to explain here.
Cultural forces seem to overwhelm the availabilty of firearms as a variable--
Thus, firearms murder rates in the US are strongly correlated with the
firearms rate in the country their ancestors can from.
Many of us not think that we should pay the price because some
American subcultures misuse firearms. Why blame us ? we didn't do it.
It is like taking automobiles away from everyone because a few people drive
while drunk.
Dr. P
>regards
>--
>Dave Hill
Paul
> As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
> murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ). In turn,
> this is secondary to complex social forces to complicated to explain here.
> Cultural forces seem to overwhelm the availabilty of firearms as a variable--
> Thus, firearms murder rates in the US are strongly correlated with the
> firearms rate in the country their ancestors can from.
>
> Many of us not think that we should pay the price because some
> American subcultures misuse firearms. Why blame us ? we didn't do it.
> It is like taking automobiles away from everyone because a few people drive
> while drunk.
>
> Dr. P
>
> >regards
> >--
> >Dave Hill
How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
cities practically identical from just about every point of view
(climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
higher in Seattle? The only possible explanation for this goes by the
gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
the USA...
Paul Goyette, very happy NOT to be an American. I'd rather be
Australian, French, British, Dutch, Belgian,...(the list is pretty long)
than an American.
James D. Nicholson
Paul wrote:
>
> > As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
> > murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ). In turn,
> > this is secondary to complex social forces to complicated to explain here.
> > Cultural forces seem to overwhelm the availabilty of firearms as a variable--
> > Thus, firearms murder rates in the US are strongly correlated with the
> > firearms rate in the country their ancestors can from.
> >
> > Many of us not think that we should pay the price because some
> > American subcultures misuse firearms. Why blame us ? we didn't do it.
> > It is like taking automobiles away from everyone because a few people drive
> > while drunk.
> >
> > Dr. P
> >
> > >regards
> > >--
> > >Dave Hill
>
> How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
> cities practically identical from just about every point of view
> (climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
> the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
> higher in Seattle? The only possible explanation for this goes by the
> gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
> Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
> the USA...
It's not quite like that in the USA either, Paul.
> Paul Goyette, very happy NOT to be an American. I'd rather be
> Australian, French, British, Dutch, Belgian,...(the list is pretty long)
> than an American.
To each his own, right? Home is where the heart is, and the grass is not
always greener on the other side of the fence. I like it where I am
because I can see how hard it would be for anybody to ever rule the USA.
As long as the 2nd is in effect, my descendants will share the same
freedoms that I have.
--
Jim Nicholson
http://www.tsra.com
Read John Ross' Unintended Consequences-Now available from TSRA
Self-defence is Nature's eldest law.
John Dryden (1631-1700), English poet, dramatist, critic. Absalom and
Achitophel
JEL
Or better yet, maybe we can erect great big camps, with real big gas
chambers, and we can do the same thing to our working poor that the
nazi's did to the Jews and Gypsies, and you can run them. Then you can
crow about how you put your money where your fascist heart is.
David L Evens
stan clark (st...@could.com) wrote:
: > The only problem is the working poor lack coverage. The solution for
: > this is to improove the employment of the working poor, not more
: > tax-financed medical coverage.
: Actually, the problem will solve itself. The sick and injured working
: poor will all die off because they cannot afford medical attention.
: That will also solve our working poor problem - who needs them? Some
: people feel that the working poor deserve medical care also, but only if
: it doesn't cost anything. Some Americans even think like Australians!
Actually, what happens for almost all of them in this scenario of yours is
that they become to sick to work, fall onto the welfare roles, and are
then elligable for Medicare in the US.
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
Dave Hill <dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>Seriously, we Brits do not understand the American obsession with guns.
>I understand, and respect, an obsession for free speech, religious
>freedom and justice but I do not understand why you allow thousands of
>US citizens to be gunned down every year. Just what is the 2nd
>ammendment, who are these weapons to be used by and against? Any
>coherent answers would be appreciated.
The Second Amendment is a referal to the fact that if it had not been
for the common yeomanry of the self equiped militia of 200 odd years
ago, the American Revolution would have died still born, and to borrow
a quote from a Brit, we would be "British Subjects," and not "American
Citizens."
The entire thrust of the Bill of Rights is something that few other
governments in the world have ever acknowleged, and that is that the
government should be "By the People, For the People and Of the
People," and therefor the government must be subject to the people.
Unfortunately, this requires the people to participate in the
government, by voting, serving on juries and running for office, all
of which are sadly lacking in the US in many cases.
>regards
>--
>Dave Hill
ck
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
Kri...@AOL.com KC5EVN
"Reckless, Hell! I hit jus' where I was aimin'"
"Bubba Shot the Jukebox!" Mark Chestnut, 1995
Julia R. Cochrane
Dave Hill <dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk> writes:
<snip>
>No. I don't want to be an American (though I admire many things about
>the USA). I'll stay in UK (or Oz). Land of (new) socialism, government
>health care (it's great!) and gun control (it works). As for freedom of
>speech, well matey, what does this count as, eh ?
>Seriously, we Brits do not understand the American obsession with guns.
>I understand, and respect, an obsession for free speech, religious
>freedom and justice but I do not understand why you allow thousands of
>US citizens to be gunned down every year. Just what is the 2nd
>ammendment, who are these weapons to be used by and against? Any
>coherent answers would be appreciated.
<snip>
Okay, I'll answer, but if you want to discuss you'll need to email
me because I almost never read Usenet News anymore.
The citizens being gunned down are either suicides which would happen
anyway (but can be prevented by good early treatment for depression---
which treatment I support), accidents---which are decreasing steadily
and have been for decades, self-defense---which we don't lose any sleep
over, or murders. The typical murderer in the US has a long history of
prior arrests and an average of 1 prior felony conviction. The typical
convicted murderer in the US serves less time in jail than the typical
convicted murderer in the UK. This is why we think it will be more
productive to reduce murders by keeping murderers and other violent
felons in jail and not letting them loose to victimize more people.
We are changing our laws all over the country to keep violent felons
in jail longer, but since by our laws these changes can only apply to
future crimes and not to felons already in jail, it takes time for this
to show an effect.
US Citizens with clean criminal records (no violent felonies, drug
convictions, or forcible misdemeanors) and minimal training who choose
to go to the trouble of getting a permit to carry a gun have risks of
committing a crime that are almost non-existant compared to the rest
of the population.
This addresses the "gunned down" issue---the people who are getting
their guns legally aren't the ones doing the crimes.
Now, for the issue of why we feel so strongly about the issue.
Americans have a strong belief that giving up one freedom is a
"slippery slope" that will lead to the loss of other freedoms.
We also have a strong belief that we ought to be let alone to do
anything we please as long as we aren't directly harming someone
else or someone else's property.
There are some Americans who don't think this way, but it's part of
a traditional belief system that's pretty characteristic of us.
Anyway, since we can show with good, solid statistics (used honestly)
that those of us with clean records owning guns are no danger to
anyone else, and aren't hurting anyone else, someone trying to tell
us we can't strikes us as unjust.
Then there's the very natural question that we ask ourselves of why
someone wants to take our guns away. I'm reminded of the comment of
a friend about his feelings about sexual bondage, "If I'm going to
like it so much, why do they think they have to tie me down first?"
If someone doesn't plan me any harm, then why do they want to disarm
me, since I'm not hurting anyone else?
Naturally, we mistrust the motives of the people attempting to do
the disarming and are concerned about what else they might want to
take away once we are disarmed and helpless to resist.
Now, what I've just said about why we feel the way we do is a
discussion of emotions, as any explanation of feelings would have to
be.
The question that the discussion raises is whether or not those
feelings are rational or not. My belief is that they are rational,
and one of the references I use to support that claim is a book
by Hayek _The Road to Serfdom_ in which he discusses how once free
nations become totalitarian, gradually and unintentionally.
He makes a very good case.
Anyway, your second question reflects a cultural difference between
our two peoples. A UK perspective would be, "Why should people be
so deeply devoted to keeping and carrying guns?" An American perspective
is more, "Why should people be so deeply devoted to taking guns away
from people who clearly aren't hurting anyone with them?"----We agree
with you, by the way, on taking the guns away from people who *are*
hurting people with them, or whose criminal or mental histories show
a predisposition to hurting other people.
It's a difference in perspective: "Why should you be allowed to....?"
versus, "What right have you to stop me or anyone else from....?"
This difference in perspective is why many Americans consider people
in many other parts of the world to be unfree. By traditionally
American standards, they are unfree---just by virtue of living in
a culture that views things from that perspective.
You're not necessarily wrong, we're not necessarily wrong, we're
just...different.
Julie
>regards
>--
>Dave Hill
--
I can see you crying for the children of the flame; I can feel you comforting
their fears from the dread, unspeakable name; I can hear you screaming out
the truth saying children, come be free; I can hear tears in the wind.
Dave Nott
In article <0Q97bGAA...@dchill.demon.co.uk>,
Dave Hill <dch...@dchill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Seriously, we Brits do not understand the American obsession with guns.
>I understand, and respect, an obsession for free speech, religious
>freedom and justice but
> I do not understand why you allow thousands of
> US citizens to be gunned down every year.
The underlying assumption you are making here is that
gun control will reduce violent crime (of course, I
dispute that). I submit that your country is less
violent due to a less violent culture--NOT gun control.
Rates of violent crime NOT involving guns are also
absurdly high in the U.S., when compared to other
industrialized nations. Surely you would not suggest
that this is due to a wider availabilty of knives and
club-sized objects (not to mention hands and feet!)?
Nathan Schmidt
Paul wrote:
> How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
> cities practically identical from just about every point of view
> (climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
> the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
> higher in Seattle? The only possible explanation for this goes by the
> gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
> Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
> the USA...
Vancouver and Seattle may be very similar, even down to the proportion
of their population made up of non-white minorities. That's where the
difference begins - Vancouver's predominantly asian minorities have a
very low homicide rate, while Seattle's black and hispanic minorities
have a very high one. The white majorities have very similar homicide
rate, though, as you note, firearms availability is greater in Seattle.
Sorry, I don't have the references at hand - they may be contained in the
excellent book "The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy" (the author of
which whose name escapes me at the moment), but I'm sure someone in the
long list of crossposted newsgroups has the hard facts at hand. This
Vancouver-Seattle comparison is a very popular misconception that alot of
people seem to hold.
> Paul Goyette, very happy NOT to be an American. I'd rather be
> Australian, French, British, Dutch, Belgian,...(the list is pretty long)
> than an American.
Nathan Schmidt, happy to be a Canadian, but wishing we had a second
amendment...
Dave Nott
In article <32F8CB...@Goyette.com>,
Paul <Pa...@Goyette.com> wrote:
>
>How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
>cities practically identical from just about every point of view
>(climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
>the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
>higher in Seattle? The only possible explanation for this goes by the
>gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
>Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
>the USA...
>
>
BZZZZT! Sorry, you are wrong. There IS a demographic difference
between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. Seattle has a large percentage
of inner-city poor, including blacks and hispanics. Guess which
demographic the vast majority of Seattle's higher violent crime
rate occurs in?
When you compare the same demographic groups in Seattle and
Vancouver, the rates of violent crime are about the same.
The violent crime porblem in the U.S. could be thought of as
the "hangover" we are suffering from hundreds of years of
slavery, Jim Crow and glass ceilings.
Kym Horsell
In article <32ecdab9....@news.ihug.co.nz>,
G Merryweather <ge...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:58:52 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter
>Mackay) wrote:
>> a low firearm-related death rate, and the Uniform Firearm Legislation is
>> well-supported by all major political parties (and the Democrats and
>> Greens) as well as the general community, and is a significant victory for
>> the Prime Minister in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy.
>
> Hmm, amazing what some media hysteria can achieve.
> I didn't think it had such widespread support of the general public.
>Politicans have to support the minority groups, as it is a "tyranny of
>the minority" (Peter Drucker) where 5% of the vote is enough to decide
>an issue as the other 95% cannot or willnot react in time or can't be
>bothered.
You forgot "or really think it more important than bread and butter issues".
In a recent State by-election here in Vic there were a number of candidates
running for the largely rural seat of Gippsland. At least 2 stood on
gun/anti-Asian (sometimes rendered as "pro Hanson") issues. The 2 major
candidates (Lib and ALP indep) got primary votes of 40% and 35% (from memory),
and the larger of the 2 pro-gun indeps got around 7% of the primary vote.
With such an interest level -- in a rurual seat -- most commentators are
not holding breath for this to translate to many Federal seats.
But then, this is Victoria -- other states (and we all know which ones
I "may" be refering to ;-) "may" be different.
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au
Fred Davis VA3FD
In article <32F8CB...@Goyette.com>, Pa...@Goyette.com wrote:
:How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
:cities practically identical from just about every point of view
:(climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
:the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
:higher in Seattle? The only possible explanation for this goes by the
:gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
:Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
:the USA...
This "study" has been thoroughly debunked. See:
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/seattle.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred M. Davis VA3FD | These opinions are mine
Nepean, ON. | fmd...@nortel.com
http://www.magi.com/~freddo | fre...@magi.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stacey Cherwonak
Paul (Pa...@Goyette.com) wrote:
: > As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
: > murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ). In turn,
: > this is secondary to complex social forces to complicated to explain here.
: > Cultural forces seem to overwhelm the availabilty of firearms as a variable--
: > Thus, firearms murder rates in the US are strongly correlated with the
: > firearms rate in the country their ancestors can from.
: >
: > Many of us not think that we should pay the price because some
: > American subcultures misuse firearms. Why blame us ? we didn't do it.
: > It is like taking automobiles away from everyone because a few people drive
: > while drunk.
: >
: > Dr. P
: >
: > >regards
: > >--
: > >Dave Hill
: How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
: cities practically identical from just about every point of view
: (climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
: the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
: higher in Seattle? The only possible explanation for this goes by the
: gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
: Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
: the USA...
Actually, Paul, the MAJORITY (ie. white. middle-class) population of
Seattle actually has a LOWER murder rate than Vancouver does. (6.2 per
100,000 vs. 6.4 per 100,000) The reason Seattle's overall rate came out
higher in this study is because of the murder rates among Seattle's Black
and Hispanic populations, both of which suffer from higher rates of drug
and alcohol abuse and poverty. (Rates of 36.6 and 26.9,
respectively). Therefore, even though Seattleites are allowed to carry
concealed handguns and buy a gun without all of the paperwork
Vancouverites go through, their majority is actually SAFER than ours.
Stacey C. (posting from a suburb of Vancouver)
Peter H. Proctor
In article <32FAF8...@es.co.nz> Ian Riddler <grif...@es.co.nz> writes:
>From: Ian Riddler <grif...@es.co.nz>
>Subject: Re: The gun debate and aus.politics
>Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>>
>> As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
>> murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ).
>So the answer is obvious - remove the 3% population from circulation :-)
>(Or just take the weapons from them :-0 )
But this would be racist.... Interestingly, the Supremes just ruled
that is is not illegal to enforce laws differentially along racial lines if a
particular variety of law-breaking is concentrated in one racial minority.
The ruling concerned crack cocaine--- The narcs were only investigating and
busting blacks, some of whom appealed their convictions on the basis that
the Narcs were not investigating whites.
In theory, the same ruling could be used to justify differential
enforcement of firearms laws among blacks. Damn, this sounds like a rerun
of the old Southern system. I wish some of the black Democratic legislators
who vote for these firearms laws could understand this.
Dr. P
Peter H. Proctor
In article <32F8CB...@Goyette.com> Paul <Pa...@Goyette.com> writes:
>From: Paul <Pa...@Goyette.com>
>Subject: Re: The gun debate and aus.politics
>> As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
>> murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ). In turn,
>> this is secondary to complex social forces to complicated to explain here.
>> Cultural forces seem to overwhelm the availabilty of firearms as a variable--
>> Thus, firearms murder rates in the US are strongly correlated with the
>> firearms rate in the country their ancestors can from.
>>
>> Many of us not think that we should pay the price because some
>> American subcultures misuse firearms. Why blame us ? we didn't do it.
>> It is like taking automobiles away from everyone because a few people drive
>> while drunk.
>>
>> Dr. P
>How would you respond to the act that comparing Vancouver and Seattle,
>cities practically identical from just about every point of view
>(climate and economic comparisons, even favourite TV and dario stations)
>the only significant difference is the homicide rate, which is MUCH
>higher in Seattle?
Actually Seattle has significantly more non white minorities.
The only possible explanation for this goes by the
>gun control legislation, which is much more conservative in Canada.
>Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
>the USA...
Know the study well and it proves my case. If you omit inner city
minorities from the figures, the firearms injury rate in Seattle is almost
exatly the same as in Vancouver. But you actually have to _read_ the paper
and the followups in the NEJM to get this. Nonetheless, it is still
cynically being used by antigunners as propaganda for their cause.
You seem to have been suckered
Dr. P
Azeez Hayne
In article <pproctor.31...@neosoft.com>, ppro...@neosoft.com
(Peter H. Proctor) wrote:
> But this would be racist.... Interestingly, the Supremes just ruled
> that is is not illegal to enforce laws differentially along racial lines if a
> particular variety of law-breaking is concentrated in one racial minority.
> The ruling concerned crack cocaine--- The narcs were only investigating and
> busting blacks, some of whom appealed their convictions on the basis that
> the Narcs were not investigating whites.
>
Could you please post or e-mail me the specific case citation? I'm
currently taking an American Constitutional Law class and would be very
interested in reading the decision. Thanks.
Azeez
"Trix are for kids, Lucky Charms are for your MOM!"
-me
"The reason the movements of 60's and 70's seem so radical is that the 50's were so dead..."
-J
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."
James D. Nicholson
Alan Brown wrote:
>
> In article <32F8CB...@goyette.com>, Paul <Pa...@Goyette.com> wrote:
>
> >Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
> >the USA...
>
> more firearms per head of population than the USA, BUT - handguns are
> strictly controlled. The murder rate is low enough that a firearms
> related homicide is national news.
>
> What percentage of USA firearms homocides are committed with rifles?
I don't know, but you make a good point. Nevertheless, it did not stop
the assault weapon ban on rifles with certain attachments like bayonet
lugs, etc.(Who in the hell goes around with a bayonet on his rifle.)
even though the FBI numbers show that the banned rifles are involved in
less than 1 percent of the homicides. The antis do not care about logic.
There are some tables for Chicago in 1994 that you might find
enlightening at http://www.concentric.net/~peatea56/chifacts.shtml
It will only take a quick click to see the numbers.
John M. Atkinson
Alan Brown wrote:
>
> In article <32F8CB...@goyette.com>, Paul <Pa...@Goyette.com> wrote:
>
> >Weapons ARE permitted but not just over the counter to anyone like in
> >the USA...
>
> Weapons are permitted in NZ too - last stats I saw showed that we have
> more firearms per head of population than the USA, BUT - handguns are
> strictly controlled. The murder rate is low enough that a firearms
> related homicide is national news.
>
> What percentage of USA firearms homocides are committed with rifles?
Damn near zero.
--
John M. Atkinson
jatk...@gmu.edu
As a rule, high culture and military power go hand in hand, as evidenced
in the cases of Greece and Rome.
- Baron Colmar von der Goltz
Dave Hill
Oh dear, I was only trying to stir things. Another response which
deserves a reply.
In article <5d9hqn$7...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>, "Alan Peyton-
Smith=av...@tpgi.com.au" <Aim_Jun...@sum1.else.please> writes
>What, 750,000 out of the whole population of the U.K.? Or just
>Scotland? or where? Your figure is a bit meaningless without this
>information.
I'm pretty sure it was the whole of the UK. Population was about 57
million last time I looked.
>Our largest anti-prohibition rally was about 160,000 very vocal and
>determined (though totally non-violent) individuals. The gun control
>mob have never been able to herd together more than a couple of
>thousand embarrassed-looking sheeple, most of whom looked to me as
>though they'd rather be sailing.
Its pretty much the other way round other here. The gun control (as
opposed to prohibition) lobby include the leaders of all three political
parties. The debate between them is on how much gun control and how to
implement it rather than the principle itself.
regards
--
Dave Hill
Ian Riddler
Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>
> As for which Americans kill each other: over half of all American
> murders invlove 3% of the population ( inner city black males ).
So the answer is obvious - remove the 3% population from circulation :-)
(Or just take the weapons from them :-0 )
--
___/\___ |Ian Riddler | "Vir! Intelligence has nothing
( ______) |i...@ecnz.benmore.co.nz | to do with politics!"
/\ ____)\ | | -Londo
/_/\___) \_\ |No Junk E-mail! | <*>