Research material on Guns
Sabsy
REPORTS:
Kids & Guns
Marian Wright Edelman introduces this comprehensive report on the growing
violence among our young people. More and more kids are being found on both
sides of the trigger. This informative and timely booklet examines why
young people are being killed and killing at such skyrocketing rates. The
booklet divides the gun violence problem into the areas of homicide,
suicide, and unintentional killings. Each section is fully discussed with
statistics, expert commentary, and graphs. The Educational Fund goes beyond
the hard statistics to bring you personalized stories and testimonials.
A special section details the unique phenomenon of guns in schools. Who's
bringing them and why? How do we stop it?
The end of the manual is filled with suggestions and recommendations to
make our world safe for young people. These recommendations reflect an
honest appraisal of the gun violence problem and what must be done to
protect our children. Drastic action is needed to curb deeply disturbing
trends.
Kids and Guns is available for $3.00 from the Educational Fund to End
Handgun Violence.
For More Information about Grassroots Organizations operating in your area,
please call the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence at 202-544-7227.
The Unspoken Tragedy: Firearm Suicide in the United States
The Unspoken Tragedy is a comprehensive study of the latest research
onsuicide. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence reports that guns are the
mostcommon method of suicide for males and females of all age groups. Each
year,approximately 17,000 people die from firearm suicide. In fact, more
Americansdie from firearm suicide than firearm homicide. "For too long
people havelooked at gun violence as simply a crime problem," says Michael
Beard,Executive Director of CSGV, "But if America is ever going to come to
termswith its addiction to guns, we need to understand that we are not only
killingeach other, we are killing ourselves - literally. The Unspoken
Tragedy shedslight on a subject many have chosen to ignore."
The Unspoken Tragedy investigates the growing trends of firearm use in
suicide. CSGV reports thathistorically, females and young people have
experienced relatively low suiciderates. However, both females and youths
have experienced dramatic increases infirearm suicide rates over the last
15 years. "Americans' concern fortheir family's protection is completely
legitimate," says Michael Beard, "But,instead of offering protection, a gun
in the home puts families at an evengreater risk."
Some of the findings include:
From 1988 to 1992, 60% of suicide fatalities involved firearms. Youngpeople
who have a gun in their home are at a greater risk of suicide than
youngpeople who do not have guns in their home. Suicidal adolescents are 75
timesmore likely to commit suicide when a gun is kept in their home.
In 1992, the suicide rate for 15- to 19- year-olds was 13.0 per
100,000,exceeding the national average of 12.0 per 100,000.
From 1980-1992, the suicide rate for 10-14 year-olds increased 120%.
Firearms are now the most frequent method of suicide for both males and
femaleswithin this age group.
From 1980-1992, the suicide rate for 15-19 year-olds increased 28.3%.
Firearm related suicides accounted for 81% of the increase in this age
group.
Females attempt suicide 2-9 times more often than males, but
historicallyhave used less lethal means. However, the proportion of females
using firearmsin suicides has increased over the last four decades.
The study stresses the difficulty of identifying who may attempt suicide.
Asubstantial number of young suicide victims exhibit no academic or
behavioralproblems before they attempt to take their life. The Unspoken
Tragedy concludesthat often there is no way to determine who might attempt
suicide and that gunsin the home make most attempts fatal.
The report also stresses the influence of impulse in suicide attempts.
Thegreater the difficulty of obtaining a means to commit suicide, the less
likelyit is that an attempt will occur according to the study. "All too
often Ihear from the grieving parents of a kid who picked up a gun to play
Russianroulette," Beard says, "Given the risks of having a gun in the
home,why would anyone take the chance? Suicide attempts are often spur of
the momentincidents and all too often handguns ensure that they become
fatal tragedies."
The name Unspoken Tragedy is derived from the hesitance with which
bothsides in the gun control debate have treated this issue. Conventual
methods ofgun control would do little to reduce firearm suicide, while the
gun lobby isunderstandably not anxious to publicize any segment of the
mounting death tollfrom gunfire. CSGV recommends families remove guns from
their homes and thatthe sale of future handguns be banned.
NRA Report: "Overrated: The NRA and the 1994 Elections."
This report dispels the myth that the 1994 elections were an
overwhelmingtriumph orchestrated by the National Rifle Association.
Instead, the Coalitionfound that the gun lobby's effect on the election was
minimal and that theoutcome of the election appeared to be an NRA victory
primarily due to the gunlobby's preference for Republican candidates.
"They're just not as powerful as people think," stated JeffMuchnick of the
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "The lesson of the lastelection is that you
can take on the gun lobby and survive in Congress even ifyou're from
Texas." The report details how the only two Texas Congressmandefeated on
election day were longtime NRA supporters, while at the same timemembers of
the Texas delegation who voted to ban assault weapons were
winningreelection.
One key aspect of the report examined the reelection rates of
DemocraticHouse incumbents based on their gun control voting records.
"Overrated"found that strong gun control supporters were just as likely to
be reelected astheir solidly pro-gun colleagues. Only Democratic incumbents
were studiedbecause no Republican incumbents were defeated last year.
The large number of Democrats who lost is one reason the NRA has been
ableto take credit for winning elections the report found. Overall, the
NRAcontributed 4.7 times more to Republicans than to Democrats. In the
Senate, theNRA gave exclusively to Republicans. When the NRA did give to
Democrats, therecipients were most often incumbents who were not faced with
a strongchallenger. In the House, only one Democratic challenger and three
open seatDemocratic candidates received any NRA funding. The discrepancy
betweendonations to the two major parties led the authors of the report to
dub the NRA"the National Republican Association." In addition, the report
foundthat Republicans won with or without NRA support and cited several
examples ofDemocrats losing despite the support of the gun lobby.
The NRA's practice of targeting members of Congress who maintain
anythingless that complete loyalty is revealed in "Overrated." The
reportdetails NRA campaigns against former long-term supporters who went
against theNRA on one key vote. "The lesson here," according to Muchnick,
"isif you vote against the NRA once, you might as well do so all the time."
Grass Roots Manual
This manual gives tangible ideas about what people can do to make their
communities safer. The Educational Fund's grassroots manual details how
people can mobilize and organize their community to bring about
constructive change. Concrete examples of individual and collective action
are documented.
The manual examines organizing in the developmental stages of getting
informed, getting organized, and getting results. People must know how
pervasive and encompassing gun violence is nationally and in their own
communities. In addition, this manual explains how to articulate your
message as well as who should be recruited to join your coalition or
movement. There are plenty of allies in your community waiting to be
approached and asked to help.
Finally, this manual provides a list of events and activities that
organizations can hold to increase awareness about the problem of gun
violence. Most of these events have been successfully orchestrated by
grassroots organizations already.
The grassroots manual is available for $5.00 from the Educational Fund to
End Handgun Violence.
PERIODICALS:
Ceasefire Action Network Newsletter:
This quarterly newsletter is written with the "grass roots"activist in
mind. The Ceasefire Action Network Newsletter containspertinent information
for anybody who wants to be involved in the reduction ofgun violence
movement. Each issue contains information regarding everythingfrom grass
roots activities around the nation to current legislation at theFederal
level. Highlights from the most recent issue include:
The Firearms Litigation Reporter:
In our efforts to keep the legal community abreast of the latest in
firearms litigation, the Firearms LitigationClearinghouse publishes the
Firearms Litigation Reporter. Everyquarter, the staff at the Firearms
Litigation Clearinghouse searches the countryfor the most interesting
issues and cases surrounding firearms litigation. TheReporter covers a wide
variety of litigation topics such as, specificfirearm defects, specific
manufacturer information, winning stratagies and more. Attorneys and
non-attorneys alike subscribe to the Firearms LitigationReporter to keep
informed of the emerging field of firearms litigation.
G17
> REPORTS:
> Kids & Guns
> Marian Wright Edelman introduces this comprehensive report on
> the growing
> violence among our young people. More and more kids are being
> ...[snip]
> statistics, expert commentary, and graphs. The Educational
Expert commentary. Yes. Like from the people who invented the
concept of "assault weapon".
> Fund goes beyond
> the hard statistics to bring you personalized stories and
Here are some stories regarding the Brady Bill waiting period:
More Women and Children Killed By The Brady Bill
The following stories represent examples of what happens when
political power brokers like Sarah Brady start to define the
parameters of "public safety." There is nothing public or safe
about the process that culminates in lethal legislation such as
the Brady Bill.
President William Jefferson Clinton shares equally in being
responsible for the deaths of these Americans. Sadly, these
examples are examples of "disposable" women and children. That
is, those women and children who serve no politcal purpose
and whose deaths cannot be exploited to further the liberal
political agenda.
An equal share of blame for these uneccessary deaths rests
squarely on the shoulders of other celebrated men and women
who roll excitedly in the liberal scat being generated daily in
Washington, D.C. Among the more vocal champions of legislation
that extinguishes innocent American lives would be; our
Attorney General, Janet Reno; the representative fron New York,
Charles Schumer and the misguided ladies from California,
Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and Diane Feinstein. Dozens of
organizations in the publically-funded, but allegedly "private"
sector whose employees and/or members pay dues that finance
the passing of deadly legislation are guilty of killing their
neighbors as well.
Not one of the above persons or organizations will send so much
as a sympathy card to the families of these victims. Why
would they? It would serve no political purpose. Instead, only
the memories of these young and vibrant Americans, once alive
and now dead, will survive to see another Christmas or
celebrate another birthday.
This is the reality of the Brady Bill.
Bonnie Elmasri
On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor,
worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining
order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her
children. When she asked the instructor about getting a
handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour
waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were
murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
Rayna Ross
On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a
21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of
a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her
bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had
previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way
into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took
aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The
burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by
the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which
determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the
attacker.
Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before
the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check."
Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue
Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed
that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all
handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a
"cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal
been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be
undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
Sonya Miller
Armed with a knife, Charles A. Grant, Jr., sexually assaulted a
33-year-old woman on a Virginia beach one Tuesday in 1991.
The assault was videotaped by a tourist who (not having a
permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection) apparently
could do nothing to help except record the crime.
The following day, Wednesday, Charles Grant raped a 12-year-old
girl. News broadcasts of the videotape of Grant's
Tuesday assault frightened many people in the nearby Nags Head
community.
A young woman named Sonya Miller had been wanting a handgun for
a while, and on that Wednesday, her father bought her a
38 Special revolver. He gave her the revolver that evening. At
about 9 P.M., Miss Miller went to the post office to pick up
her mail. As she stepped into the dimly lit parking lot near
the post office, Charles Grant saw her, and she saw Charles
Grant.
They both screamed. Grant told the young woman he would not
hurt her, but when she attempted to get into her car, Grant
lunged at the door. He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step
preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled. Miss
Miller drove home; her father called the sheriff's offices, and
Charles Grant was apprehended. Regarding the handgun Miss
Miller had just acquired, "It's the only thing that saved her
life," her father observed.
What a Difference a Day Makes
In 1985 in San Leandro, California, a woman and her daughter
were threatened by a neighbor. Instead of being able
immediately to obtain a handgun for self-defense, the woman had
to wait fifteen days. The day after she finally was allowed to
pick up her gun, the neighbor attacked them, and she shot him
in self-defense. Had the man attacked fourteen rather than
sixteen days after his initial threat, the woman and her
daughter might have been raped.
Catherine Latta
In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of
Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain
permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously
robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her.
The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit
would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then,"
Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon she went to a bad part
of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the
street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside
her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided
not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense
homicide, or the illegal gun.
Sabsy
G17 <lu...@iafrica.com> wrote in article
<N.010997....@196-7-195-14.iafrica.com>...
>
> This is the reality of the Brady Bill.
>
> Bonnie Elmasri
> On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor,
> worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining
> order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her
> children. When she asked the instructor about getting a
> handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour
> waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were
> murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
How were they murdered?
If the husband used a gun, how did he obtain it?
>
> Rayna Ross
> On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a
> 21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of
> a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her
> bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had
> previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way
> into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took
> aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The
> burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by
> the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which
> determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the
> attacker.
So, how was this the fault of the Brady Law?
Where was her gun when this guy took aim.
Are we to believe that the gun just landed in her hand or that she had the
gun all along?
>
> Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before
> the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check."
> Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue
> Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed
> that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all
> handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a
> "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal
> been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be
> undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
Pretty amazing
Have any cases where the guns were prematurely used?
surely, that is not your intention right
You have 1500 people accidentally with firearms obtained with or without
the Brady law
Care to publish the storied of the people who dies in the hands of careless
gun owners?
How did grant get his firearm.
Are you telling me that you believe this story especially this line
***He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
> began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
> to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
> Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
> fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step
> preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled***
Come on
If this guy had wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented from even
going to her car.
Are we to believe that this lady ignored the gun aimed at her and proceeded
to acquire her gun and readied while the Grant was watching her.
Please, give me a break.
Do you believe in ferry tales?
>
> What a Difference a Day Makes
> In 1985 in San Leandro, California, a woman and her daughter
> were threatened by a neighbor. Instead of being able
> immediately to obtain a handgun for self-defense, the woman had
> to wait fifteen days. The day after she finally was allowed to
> pick up her gun, the neighbor attacked them, and she shot him
> in self-defense. Had the man attacked fourteen rather than
> sixteen days after his initial threat, the woman and her
> daughter might have been raped.
Had the lady told the police about the incident, the person would have been
apprehended.
This is another no brainer; a game on timing at best but no proof that
anything would happen or would not have happened.
What did the neighbor have?
A gun?
How was it obtained?
Was it legally owned?
you have to check these before proving my point
>
> Catherine Latta
> In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of
> Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain
> permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously
> robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her.
Post Office clerks have killed plenty of people already.
Any stories about them??
> The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit
> would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then,"
> Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon she went to a bad part
> of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the
> street.
How was this semi-auto acquired by the previous owner??
> Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside
> her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided
> not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense
> homicide, or the illegal gun.
Tell us how this happen
Was he carrying the gun outside waiting for him?
Did she run inside and get the gun to kill him?
Was he carrying any gun
These stories do not make any intelligent sense, at best.
Look like one of those I saw a UFO stories
all these examples do not prove or disprove legal gun ownership
>
>
>
Nosy
<In article <01bbfe6d$530d6de0$ab6d93cf@sabsy> "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> writes:
< G17 <lu...@iafrica.com> wrote in article
< <N.010997....@196-7-195-14.iafrica.com>...
< >
< >
< > Bonnie Elmasri
< > On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor,
< > worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining
< > order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her
< > children. When she asked the instructor about getting a
< > handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour
< > waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were
< > murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
< How were they murdered?
Does it make a difference?
< If the husband used a gun, how did he obtain it?
The point is, Elmasri *could* have defended herself
and her children, but she was waiting for the state's
permission...
< > Rayna Ross
< > On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a
< > 21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of
< > a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her
< > bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had
< > previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way
< > into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took
< > aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The
< > burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by
< > the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which
< > determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the
< > attacker.
< So, how was this the fault of the Brady Law?
It wasn't, but only because she already had her firearm;
had she been *waiting* for state approval, likely she would
be dead.
< Where was her gun when this guy took aim.
Her handgun was in her hand when she took aim. Try reading
what is written.
< Are we to believe that the gun just landed in her hand or that she had the
< gun all along?
She had it, no thanks to Brady.
< > Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before
< > the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check."
< > Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue
< > Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed
< > that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all
< > handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a
< > "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal
< > been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be
< > undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
< Pretty amazing
Not at all. A waiting period would have likely lead to
her death.
< How did grant get his firearm.
Maybe from an illegal firearms dealer?
< Are you telling me that you believe this story especially this line
< ***He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
Rapists do things like that, now don't they?
< > began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
< > to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
< > Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
< > fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step
< > preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled***
< Come on
< If this guy had wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented from even
< going to her car.
< Are we to believe that this lady ignored the gun aimed at her and proceeded
< to acquire her gun and readied while the Grant was watching her.
< Please, give me a break.
Shrug.
< Do you believe in ferry tales?
Yes, I do. Ferryboats exist....
< > What a Difference a Day Makes
< > In 1985 in San Leandro, California, a woman and her daughter
< > were threatened by a neighbor. Instead of being able
< > immediately to obtain a handgun for self-defense, the woman had
< > to wait fifteen days. The day after she finally was allowed to
< > pick up her gun, the neighbor attacked them, and she shot him
< > in self-defense. Had the man attacked fourteen rather than
< > sixteen days after his initial threat, the woman and her
< > daughter might have been raped.
< Had the lady told the police about the incident, the person would have been
< apprehended.
Really? Sure about that?
< This is another no brainer; a game on timing at best but no proof that
< anything would happen or would not have happened.
Waiting periods can KILL.
< > Catherine Latta
< > In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of
< > Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain
< > permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously
< > robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her.
< Post Office clerks have killed plenty of people already.
Bigot.
< > The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit
< > would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then,"
< > Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon she went to a bad part
< > of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the
< > street.
< How was this semi-auto acquired by the previous owner??
Who knows? She resorted to breaking the law to save
her life!
< > Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside
< > her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided
< > not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense
< > homicide, or the illegal gun.
< Tell us how this happen
See above.
< Was he carrying the gun outside waiting for him?
Huh?
< Did she run inside and get the gun to kill him?
< Was he carrying any gun
See above.
< These stories do not make any intelligent sense, at best.
More sense than the "questions".
< Look like one of those I saw a UFO stories
< all these examples do not prove or disprove legal gun ownership
These examples show what the Brady act can do: lead to
death.
Chris Smith
"Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> wrote:
->G17 <lu...@iafrica.com> wrote in article
-><N.010997....@196-7-195-14.iafrica.com>...
->>
->> This is the reality of the Brady Bill.
->> bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had
->> previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way
->> into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took
->> aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The
->> burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by
->> the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which
->> determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the
->> attacker.
->
->So, how was this the fault of the Brady Law?
->Where was her gun when this guy took aim.
->Are we to believe that the gun just landed in her hand or that she had the
->gun all along?
You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. Re-read the above
paragraph. Try to determine who it was that was taking aim. Can you
determine from the above paragraph, how the burglar was armed?
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
- Howard Aiken
Chris Smith
"Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> wrote:
->Pretty amazing
->Have any cases where the guns were prematurely used?
->surely, that is not your intention right
->You have 1500 people accidentally with firearms obtained with or without
->the Brady law
->Care to publish the storied of the people who dies in the hands of careless
->gun owners?
I apologize for my previous posting, criticizing your reading
comprehension skills. It only became apparent after I read this
paragraph, that English is a second language for you. You might save
yourself some embarrassment by practicing your grammar in a less
confrontational manner.
Sabsy
Chris Smith <ch...@darientel.net> wrote in article
<32d62c65...@news.america.net>...
> "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> ->G17 <lu...@iafrica.com> wrote in article
> -><N.010997....@196-7-195-14.iafrica.com>...
> ->>
> ->> This is the reality of the Brady Bill.
>
> ->> bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had
> ->> previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way
> ->> into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took
> ->> aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The
> ->> burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by
> ->> the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which
> ->> determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the
> ->> attacker.
> ->
> ->So, how was this the fault of the Brady Law?
> ->Where was her gun when this guy took aim.
> ->Are we to believe that the gun just landed in her hand or that she had
the
> ->gun all along?
>
> You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. Re-read the above
> paragraph. Try to determine who it was that was taking aim. Can you
> determine from the above paragraph, how the burglar was armed?
>
> "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any
good,
> you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
THE POINT: Where was her gun when this guy smashed into her apartment with
the bayonet.
I find it interesting that you only picked up only this incident and then
concluded that I have a reading or comprehension problem.
What happened to the rest of my post?
What addition are you making in the debate except to be the english master
We have too many of those, around
> - Howard Aiken
>
Sabsy
Chris Smith <ch...@darientel.net> wrote in article
<32d72ec4...@news.america.net>...
> "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> wrote:
> ->Pretty amazing
> ->Have any cases where the guns were prematurely used?
> ->surely, that is not your intention right
> ->You have 1500 people accidentally with firearms obtained with or
without
> ->the Brady law
> ->Care to publish the storied of the people who dies in the hands of
careless
> ->gun owners?
>
> I apologize for my previous posting, criticizing your reading
> comprehension skills. It only became apparent after I read this
> paragraph, that English is a second language for you. You might save
> yourself some embarrassment by practicing your grammar in a less
> confrontational manner.
wow, we have another English teacher of a moron.
It seems to me that you got the point and I have no clue what you are
yapping on about.
Thanks to your addition of the debate.
I am sure you are one of those perfectionists who have coals stuck up their
ass thinking that people have the time to send the posts to their grammar
teachers.
If you got the point, then so be it.
Incase you have not noticed, I could careless how you feel about my grammar
or spelling as long as you can read what I wrote.
BTW, my last paragraph has 2 spelling mistakes (dies instead of died and
storied instead of stories) and a left out word.
So, if you were as smart as you make us believe, you would have noticed
that "s" and "D" on the keyboard are next to each other and it is therefore
easy to make a typing mistake.
Atleast this shows your inability to read your keyboard and understand it.
Somehow, that does nor surprise me. I have met many people like you and
they tend to have a sad life; correcting people's spelling in a spoken
conversation
Ag shame
> "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any
good,
> you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
> - Howard Aiken
>
Sabsy
Subject: Facts and Guns
From: "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com>
Date: 1997/01/06
Message-Id: <01bbfb7b$70138fe0$816493cf@sabsy>
Organization: Sabsy Ltd
Newsgroups: soc.culture.south-Africa,za.politics
USA GUN DEATHS
The USA has a population of some 254 million.
•From 1968 to 1991, deaths due to motor vehicles in the USA have declined
by 21% (from 54,842 to 43,536) while during the same period deaths due to
firearms increased by 60% (from 23,875 to 38,317). [Source: Deaths
resulting from firearm and motorvehiclerelated injuries United States,
19681991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, US Centres for Disease
Control, 1994; 43:3742.]
•In 1991 firearms were used in 60.1% of all suicides and 67.8% of all
homicides in the USA. There were 38,317 deaths due to firearms. 48.3% of
these deaths were suicides, 46.9% were homicides, and the remainder were
unintentional or of uncertain intent. Firearmrelated deaths were the
fourth leading cause of yearsofpotentiallifelost before age 65.
[Source: Firearmrelated years of potential life lost before age 65
yearsUnited States, 19801991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, US
Centres for Disease Control, 1994; 43:60911.]
•There were 26,513 homicide victims in the USA in 1991. 13,122 (49%) were
males aged 1534 years. This is the second leading cause of death among
males in the age group and accounted for 18% of those deaths. From 1985 to
1991, the homicide rate for males age 1519 rose from 13 to 33 per 100,000.
The only 5year age group with a higher rate is males aged 2024, who had a
rate of 41.2 in 1991. [Source: Homicides among 1519yearold males
United States, 1963 1991.Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, US Centres
for Disease Control, 1994; 43:7257.]
•An estimated 99,025 persons were treated for nonfatal firearmrelated
injuries in US hospital emergency departments in 1992. The rate of nonfatal
firearmrelated injuries treated was 2.6 times the national rate of fatal
firearmrelated injuries for 1992. [Source: Annest JL, Mercy JA, Gibson DR,
Ryan GW. National estimates of nonfatal firearmrelated injuries: beyond
the tip of the iceberg. JAMA 1995; 273:174954.]
In summary, the USA has nearly 14 times our population. It has 64 times our
total gun deaths, and 211 times our gun homicide rate. In the other
direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just
over seven times our population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest
homicide rate, just 60 people were murdered with guns -- nearly 30% less
than Australia's gun murder rate.
AUSTRALIAUSA JAPANPopulation18,173,6001254,250,0002133,831,0003Total annual
gun deaths5964 38,3175not obtainedTotal gun homicides85417,9715606
References
1. Australian Bureau of Statistics Dec 1995
2. World Bank World Development Report 1992: population estimate for 1991
3. World Bank World Development Report 1992: population estimate for 1992
4. Average for four years 1990-2,1994. Data from Australian Bureau of
Statistics
5. Deaths resulting from firearm and motor vehicle related injuries
United States, 19681991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, US Centres
for Disease Control, 1994; 43:3742.
6. A Report for Congress: Firearms Regulation: Comparative Overviews of
Selected Foreign Nations, prepared by the Law Library staff of the Law
Library of Congress, USA August 1994.
Copyright © 1996 Deja News, Inc.
magi...@fast.co.za wrote in article
<c0.9w.2DfcFK$0...@return.fast.co.za>...
> Sabsy <sa...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Russian roulette," Beard says, "Given the risks of having a gun in the
> >home,why would anyone take the chance? Suicide attempts are often spur
of
> >the moment incidents and all too often handguns ensure that they become
> >fatal tragedies."
>
> >The name Unspoken Tragedy is derived from the hesitance with which
> >both sides in the gun control debate have treated this issue. Conventual
> >methods ofgun control would do little to reduce firearm suicide, while
the
> >gun lobby is understandably not anxious to publicize any segment of the
> >mounting death toll from gunfire. CSGV recommends families remove guns
from
> >their homes and that the sale of future handguns be banned.
>
> I see. Now how would this be reconciled with the following suicide
statistics?
>
> Japan 18.1
> United States 12.5
>
> Deaths rates per 100,000 population from "suicide and self-inflicted
injury,"
> as listed in the 1991 'Statistical Abstracts of the United States,' which
credits
> the World Health Organization, Geneva, '1989 World Health Statistics
Annual.'
> Most figures are for 1987 or 1988, but a few date back to 1986 or 1985.
>
>
>
Sabsy
Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote in article
<ATAYLOR.97...@gauss.nmsu.edu>...
> <In article <01bbfe6d$530d6de0$ab6d93cf@sabsy> "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com>
writes:
> < G17 <lu...@iafrica.com> wrote in article
> < <N.010997....@196-7-195-14.iafrica.com>...
> < >
> < > This is the reality of the Brady Bill.
> < >
> < > Bonnie Elmasri
> < > On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor,
> < > worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining
> < > order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her
> < > children. When she asked the instructor about getting a
> < > handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour
> < > waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were
> < > murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
>
> < How were they murdered?
>
> Does it make a difference?
Yes it does?
Stolen gun, perhaps stolen from legal owners
>
> < If the husband used a gun, how did he obtain it?
>
> The point is, Elmasri *could* have defended herself
> and her children, but she was waiting for the state's
> permission...
No, the point is about guns and how legal guns can be obtained by criminals
and sick husbands.
So, it easy to just point a finger on one side to prop your own stats, but
it is also important to see whether the case that I have been making was
apparent in the murder i.e the husband either used a gun he legally
obtained or a gun he stole from a legal owner.
See what I mean??
>
> < > Rayna Ross
> < > On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a
> < > 21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of
> < > a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her
> < > bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had
> < > previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way
> < > into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took
> < > aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The
> < > burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by
> < > the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which
> < > determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the
> < > attacker.
>
> < So, how was this the fault of the Brady Law?
>
> It wasn't, but only because she already had her firearm;
> had she been *waiting* for state approval, likely she would
> be dead.
So, now we are into the metaphysical
Predicting what would have been?
I am sorry, I do not understand that field of science and will leave it to
the experts
>
> < Where was her gun when this guy took aim.
>
> Her handgun was in her hand when she took aim. Try reading
> what is written.
Nope, it does not say in the passage where the gun was.
Of course, you decided to snip that part. If you wanted me to read what was
written, I am sure you would have been kind enough to have left it there,
Afterall, you have spare lines
>
> < Are we to believe that the gun just landed in her hand or that she had
the
> < gun all along?
>
> She had it, no thanks to Brady.
If I remember well, the incident started outside the car, right?
where was the guy's gun at the time, assuming her gun was in the car.
Is she went to the car to retrieve her gun, is possible that the time that
elapsed shows that he was not going to do it.
It is possible that he never had a gun in the 1st place.
Therefore, the facts were inadequate to make a decision.
Furthermore, where did the guy get the gun and was it legal or was it
obtained from legal owners by other means?
These facts are important to show how easily it is to obtain weapons for
criminals and sicko too,
The story seems to shy away from those facts.
>
> < > Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before
> < > the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check."
> < > Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue
> < > Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed
> < > that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all
> < > handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a
> < > "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal
> < > been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be
> < > undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
>
> < Pretty amazing
>
> Not at all. A waiting period would have likely lead to
> her death.
How do we know this?? As I said before, I am not in the business of
predicting the future, because I if I was I could count you the number of
people's whose life might have been saved, spared or changed if gun laws
were into effect.
Maybe from a legal owner who lost their gun, or maybe this guy obtained it
legally
Again, you have no clue, do you?
Again, add one to my argument.
Infact, your arguments are totally advancing my arguments
>
> < Are you telling me that you believe this story especially this line
> < ***He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
>
> Rapists do things like that, now don't they?
It is quite interesting that you decided to cut the quote into the part you
liked
This is the quote I mentioned in its entity
***He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
fifteen minutes before.***
This above paragraph sounds like a fairy tale.
Try to read the entire paragraph and see where it sounds unbelievable.
Are we to believe that the gun was stuck in her face before she got her own
gun?
If the guy was going to use his gun anyway, don't you think he would have
fired the minutes the lady moved towards her car, opened the door, opened
the place where the gun was, picked the gun and pointed at the guy.
How long did that action take/
Nanoseconds? 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute?
This story is not complete and totally adds to the debate about controlling
guns because the guy must have had the gun either legally or obtained it
from a legal sources.
Care to discuss that?
>
> < > began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
> < > to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
> < > Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
> < > fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step
> < > preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled***
>
> < Come on
> < If this guy had wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented from
even
> < going to her car.
> < Are we to believe that this lady ignored the gun aimed at her and
proceeded
> < to acquire her gun and readied while the Grant was watching her.
> < Please, give me a break.
>
> Shrug.
I am glad you shrugged because it take away from the source.
These stories are lacking in detail and can be used for both sides.
Furthermore, these stories rely on predicting what could have been?
>
> < Do you believe in ferry tales?
>
> Yes, I do. Ferryboats exist....
Good for you
I certainly doubt if you believe in the details provided by these stories
They are very easy to discount, but I guess you already knew that, hence
the SHRUG
>
> < > What a Difference a Day Makes
> < > In 1985 in San Leandro, California, a woman and her daughter
> < > were threatened by a neighbor. Instead of being able
> < > immediately to obtain a handgun for self-defense, the woman had
> < > to wait fifteen days. The day after she finally was allowed to
> < > pick up her gun, the neighbor attacked them, and she shot him
> < > in self-defense. Had the man attacked fourteen rather than
> < > sixteen days after his initial threat, the woman and her
> < > daughter might have been raped.
>
> < Had the lady told the police about the incident, the person would
have been
> < apprehended.
>
> Really? Sure about that?
My point exactly.
You have been busy telling me what would have happen, please let me engage
in these astrological fantasy, please.
Actually, I believe that some PDs are very conscious about that.
Of course, if it was LA, then it would have been hard.
>
> < This is another no brainer; a game on timing at best but no proof
that
> < anything would happen or would not have happened.
>
> Waiting periods can KILL.
Rushing into guns does kill people too.
I love slogans but they tend to be empty, so are the above stories
>
> < > Catherine Latta
> < > In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of
> < > Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain
> < > permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously
> < > robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her.
>
> < Post Office clerks have killed plenty of people already.
>
> Bigot.
You mean that bigots have killed plenty of people too??
With guns too.
Well, if you care to research it, many people have been killed in the
post-office by disgruntled postoffice clerks.
Infact, this is like a joke these days.
Have you see the American movie "My Fellow Americans" in reference to the
CIA guy. Listen to the comment about his assigned to the CIA instead of the
Post Office
>
> < > The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit
> < > would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then,"
> < > Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon she went to a bad part
> < > of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the
> < > street.
>
> < How was this semi-auto acquired by the previous owner??
>
> Who knows? She resorted to breaking the law to save
> her life!
You keep adding to my argument, you know that?
If this women can obtain guns like this, what do you think criminals can do
to obtain even better guns, and we know they can afford them because they
can also steal them.
Next time, try to take the opposite side, ok?
>
> < > Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside
> < > her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided
> < > not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense
> < > homicide, or the illegal gun.
>
> < Tell us how this happen
>
> See above.
I am sorry, the above story is lacking in detail.
What did he have when he attacked her?
Was she waiting outside with the gun in her hand?
Was he armed with a gun or knife or just bare fists?
If he was armed with a gun, where did he get and how?
Did the lady fire after being assaulted or did she shoot after he rushed
her.
Point is, the story is lacking in detail to even know what happen.
I think the story was kept lacking to prevent seeing the stuff involved
that could support the anti-gun lobby
>
> < Was she carrying the gun outside waiting for him?
>
> Huh?
You know what I am asking, answers please.
>
> < Did she run inside and get the gun to kill him?
> < Was he carrying any gun
>
> See above.
The above insert does not include that information.
I am sure you knew that.
Remember to type shrug when you do not know the answer or I will just look
at "see above" as the same thing as shrug
Here is what you ask me to look at and it does not begin to answer the
questions I asked you.
Catherine Latta
In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of
Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain
permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously
robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her.
The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit
would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then,"
Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon she went to a bad part
of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the
street.
Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside
her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided
not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense
homicide, or the illegal gun.
> < These stories do not make any intelligent sense, at best.
>
> More sense than the "questions".
I am sorry, sir,
the questions are meant to find out what the stories have failed to
uncover.
I believe that you know that but you are stumped for answers to support
yourself and you decide to evade the issue.
In any case, I think you knew exactly that these points were 2 edged swords
and you were hoping that I would not ask the obvious questions.
Good try!! :)
>
> < Look like one of those I saw a UFO stories
> < all these examples do not prove or disprove legal gun ownership
>
> These examples show what the Brady act can do: lead to
> death.
Not exactly, they could also support making guns illegal which could have
prevented these morons from obtaining the guns to threaten women.
Dane Lance
Sabsy <sa...@aol.com> wrote in article
<01bc0040$22df55a0$b86293cf@sabsy>...
:
:
: >
: > < How were they murdered?
: >
: > Does it make a difference?
:
: Yes it does?
: Stolen gun, perhaps stolen from legal owners
No, you completely missed the point. It was already
a given that the guy was going to try to harm her, matters none
the means by which he intended to do so. The POINT is because
of the Brady Law, this woman was forced to wait on her gun
purchase. The result was her death. If the Brady Law had not
forced her to wait, she would have had her gun and could
have stopped the attacker. Now, that's as clear as it gets.
If you still fail to understand this, there's no hope....
: No, the point is about guns and how legal guns can be obtained by
criminals
: and sick husbands.
: So, it easy to just point a finger on one side to prop your own stats,
but
: it is also important to see whether the case that I have been making was
: apparent in the murder i.e the husband either used a gun he legally
: obtained or a gun he stole from a legal owner.
: See what I mean??
But this presupposes he used a gun at all. What if it
were a knife? What if it were a lead pipe? It does not change
the outcome, BECAUSE OF the Brady Law.
: > < > Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before
: > < > the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check."
: > < > Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue
: > < > Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed
: > < > that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all
: > < > handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a
: > < > "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal
: > < > been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be
: > < > undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
: >
: > < Pretty amazing
: >
: > Not at all. A waiting period would have likely lead to
: > her death.
:
: How do we know this?? As I said before, I am not in the business of
: predicting the future, because I if I was I could count you the number of
: people's whose life might have been saved, spared or changed if gun laws
: were into effect.
Ok, so change "death" to "been harmed". What's the difference?
:: >
: > < How did grant get his firearm.
: >
: > Maybe from an illegal firearms dealer?
:
: Maybe from a legal owner who lost their gun, or maybe this guy obtained
it
: legally
: Again, you have no clue, do you?
: Again, add one to my argument.
: Infact, your arguments are totally advancing my arguments
I see, so if someone breaks into my home, steals my guns,
"I'm" the criminal? Interesting concept you have.
The guy obtained it legally. He uses the gun to commit
a crime...gee, doesn't that make him a criminal? Gee, what if
he used something other than a gun? Doesn't this STILL
make him a criminal? It makes no difference what someone
uses, or where they get it, a criminal act is a criminal act and when
it is perpetrated on someone, who are you to say what means
should or shouldn't be used to stop it?
Oh, I know...ban all guns and criminals won't have them,
right? Inaccurate/unsubstantiated; fellacious regardless.
Or, better yet, unarmed people are too stupid to use
any other means to harm or kill? Is that it?
:
: >
: > < Are you telling me that you believe this story especially this line
: > < ***He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
: >
: > Rapists do things like that, now don't they?
:
: It is quite interesting that you decided to cut the quote into the part
you
: liked
: This is the quote I mentioned in its entity
:
: ***He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face,
: began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
: to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
: Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
: fifteen minutes before.***
:
: This above paragraph sounds like a fairy tale.
: Try to read the entire paragraph and see where it sounds unbelievable.
: Are we to believe that the gun was stuck in her face before she got her
own
: gun?
: If the guy was going to use his gun anyway, don't you think he would have
: fired the minutes the lady moved towards her car, opened the door, opened
: the place where the gun was, picked the gun and pointed at the guy.
I seem to recall you spouting something about metaphysics and
predicting the future and all that. Fairy tale indeed....were you there?
Do you have some source of information that we don't?
: How long did that action take/
: Nanoseconds? 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute?
: This story is not complete and totally adds to the debate about
controlling
: guns because the guy must have had the gun either legally or obtained it
: from a legal sources.
: Care to discuss that?
What does the timing of the action have to do with anything?
I see, if it takes more than X amount of time, then the action could not
have happened. Is that it?
:
: >
: > < > began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
: > < > to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
: > < > Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
: > < > fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step
: > < > preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled***
: >
: > < Come on
: > < If this guy had wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented from
: even
: > < going to her car.
There's those damn metaphysics again...sure you don't
have a degree in it?
: > < Are we to believe that this lady ignored the gun aimed at her and
: proceeded
: > < to acquire her gun and readied while the Grant was watching her.
: > < Please, give me a break.
And I suppose you have evidence to the contrary?
: I am glad you shrugged because it take away from the source.
: These stories are lacking in detail and can be used for both sides.
: Furthermore, these stories rely on predicting what could have been?
Well, it's generally a given that when someone pulls a gun
on you they usually aren't doing it for a good reason....but I suppose
you think that someone approaching you with a knife in hand, a gun
pointing at you, or some other weapon (regardless of where they obtained
it)
that these people just want to be all warm and fuzzy....
:
: Good for you
: I certainly doubt if you believe in the details provided by these stories
: They are very easy to discount, but I guess you already knew that, hence
: the SHRUG
Well, since most of these accounts come from published
sources and/or police reports, I would miost certainly believe them
over anything you may have to say about them, however incorrect
or misguided it might be.
: >
: > < Had the lady told the police about the incident, the person would
: have been
: > < apprehended.
: >
: > Really? Sure about that?
: My point exactly.
: You have been busy telling me what would have happen, please let me
engage
: in these astrological fantasy, please.
: Actually, I believe that some PDs are very conscious about that.
: Of course, if it was LA, then it would have been hard.
So you prefer to rely on being unsure about a situation?
Oh please....let's not use this metaphysical, astrological fantasy
crap when it's convenient for you, and discount it when it is not.
Can you tell us, with 100% certainty, what the outcome
of any criminal situation will be (and I'll even let you choose which
ever one you want) if someone just grovels at the criminals feet?
I am absolutely 100% sure that you can not. With that said, you
have absolutely ZERO grounds for advocating gun banning, registration
or any other form of gun control.
: > Waiting periods can KILL.
:
: Rushing into guns does kill people too.
: I love slogans but they tend to be empty, so are the above stories
So the police and/or newspapers from which these accounts
come from are all lying? Granted, I don't beleive everything I read, but
then again, I can usually back up that belief with some facts or other,
documentation.....
: >
: > < Post Office clerks have killed plenty of people already.
: >
: > Bigot.
:
: You mean that bigots have killed plenty of people too??
: With guns too.
: Well, if you care to research it, many people have been killed in the
: post-office by disgruntled postoffice clerks.
: Infact, this is like a joke these days.
: Have you see the American movie "My Fellow Americans" in reference to the
: CIA guy. Listen to the comment about his assigned to the CIA instead of
the
: Post Office
And this proves???? Oh, ok criminals exist. Criminals use guns
to commit crimes. Mental instability exists in human beings. Some
mentally
unstable people commit crimes. Hate to tell ya this, but um, lots of
folks already know this....
: >
: > < How was this semi-auto acquired by the previous owner??
: >
: > Who knows? She resorted to breaking the law to save
: > her life!
:
: You keep adding to my argument, you know that?
: If this women can obtain guns like this, what do you think criminals can
do
: to obtain even better guns, and we know they can afford them because they
: can also steal them.
: Next time, try to take the opposite side, ok?
No this only proves that banning guns, registering guns won't
do a damn thing to stop criminals from having them! You've as much
as admitted it!
: >
: > < Tell us how this happen
: >
: > See above.
:
: I am sorry, the above story is lacking in detail.
: What did he have when he attacked her?
What difference does it make? He attacked her.
: Was she waiting outside with the gun in her hand?
Again, what difference does it make? She used
her gun to stop him.
: Was he armed with a gun or knife or just bare fists?
Again, what difference does it make? He attacked her.
: If he was armed with a gun, where did he get and how?
AGAIN! what difference does it make? He attacked her!
: Did the lady fire after being assaulted or did she shoot after he rushed
: her.
See above...
: Point is, the story is lacking in detail to even know what happen.
You can't comprehend what you read? He attacked her,
she shot him. Done deal. What more do you need to know?
: I think the story was kept lacking to prevent seeing the stuff involved
: that could support the anti-gun lobby
Nothing lacking, you just refuse to understand that
there IS nothing that supports the anti-gun lobby. Oh well, I guess
you can count all the anti-gunners themselves.....
:
: >
: > < Did she run inside and get the gun to kill him?
: > < Was he carrying any gun
And this affects the outcome how?
::
: > < These stories do not make any intelligent sense, at best.
: >
: > More sense than the "questions".
:
: I am sorry, sir,
: the questions are meant to find out what the stories have failed to
: uncover.
: I believe that you know that but you are stumped for answers to support
: yourself and you decide to evade the issue.
: In any case, I think you knew exactly that these points were 2 edged
swords
: and you were hoping that I would not ask the obvious questions.
: Good try!! :)
Not at all. You are making strawman arguements about
supposed failures to present some facts. Facts, that while not
expressed in the particuler articles, have no bearing on the point
being made or the outcome of the particular incidents. You hide
behind meaningless questions that do not contribute to ANY side
of the arguement, much less your own....
:
: >
: > < Look like one of those I saw a UFO stories
: > < all these examples do not prove or disprove legal gun ownership
: >
: > These examples show what the Brady act can do: lead to
: > death.
:
: Not exactly, they could also support making guns illegal which could have
: prevented these morons from obtaining the guns to threaten women.
And you have yet to prove that banning guns WILL prevent
morons from obtaining them. The question as to whether or not
any of the above perps had one or not does not support your
claim at all.
Sabsy
Dane Lance <la...@txdirect.net> wrote in article
<01bc00a7$8b4c40a0$ae5e39cc@speeddemon>...
>
>
> Sabsy <sa...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <01bc0040$22df55a0$b86293cf@sabsy>...
> :
> :
> : >
> : > < How were they murdered?
> : >
> : > Does it make a difference?
> :
> : Yes it does?
> : Stolen gun, perhaps stolen from legal owners
>
> No, you completely missed the point.
NO NO NO, you missed the point
My point has always been about guns in the hands of criminals obtained from
legal owners.
> It was already
> a given that the guy was going to try to harm her, matters none
> the means by which he intended to do so.
Makes a lot of difference whether he was armed and where he got the gun and
whether he would have been able to get the gun if the laws were stricter.
so, you see my friend, you are the one missing the point.
Read my previous point and see my point of argument
> The POINT is because
> of the Brady Law, this woman was forced to wait on her gun
> purchase.
This is your point and not mine.
Mine is that because of gun availability, this guy could have been using a
gun obtained from a legal owner. I think it is about time you familiarize
yourself with my argument and not expect me to just follow your lead.
> The result was her death. If the Brady Law had not
> forced her to wait, she would have had her gun and could
> have stopped the attacker.
So, you are assuming that she would have been able to use the gun, had the
gun when she was attacked, that she would have had bullets in, that the gun
would not have been stolen already and that assumes that the gun would not
have killed a member of the family, etc.
These are too many assumptions that you have not addressed,
Try to address these assumptions.
Life does not follow little patterns that depends on what the Brady Bill
does
> Now, that's as clear as it gets.
assuming that you were prepared to make hundred assumption as to what could
have happened between the time the gun was obtained and the time the attack
took place.
> If you still fail to understand this, there's no hope....
Assuming that you believe you have any hope
>
> : No, the point is about guns and how legal guns can be obtained by
> criminals
> : and sick husbands.
> : So, it easy to just point a finger on one side to prop your own stats,
> but
> : it is also important to see whether the case that I have been making
was
> : apparent in the murder i.e the husband either used a gun he legally
> : obtained or a gun he stole from a legal owner.
> : See what I mean??
>
> But this presupposes he used a gun at all.
exactly, you made a lot of presuppositions and yet you deny me that right.
This is why I said the stories are lacking in detail because it is
important to the writer to portray only their side.
If the guy used a gun, your side had to explain if the person obtained the
gun legally or he obtained illegally from a legal owner.
If the guy used other means, I am sure your side would have been happy to
make that point clear, too, right?
> What if it
> were a knife? What if it were a lead pipe? It does not change
> the outcome, BECAUSE OF the Brady Law.
Yes it does
The Brady Law does not determine whether a criminal carries a gun or a pipe
to attack somebody.
Also, you do not know what the guy was carrying either, so I can speculate,
and hence I said the information was in adequate so that it can portray the
failures of the Brady Bill without showing all the pertinent fact.
Once you start to show all the facts, then you make the argument much more
intelligent because there will be fewer what if questions.
>
>
> : > < > Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before
> : > < > the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check."
> : > < > Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue
> : > < > Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed
> : > < > that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all
> : > < > handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a
> : > < > "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal
> : > < > been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be
> : > < > undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
> : >
> : > < Pretty amazing
> : >
> : > Not at all. A waiting period would have likely lead to
> : > her death.
> :
> : How do we know this?? As I said before, I am not in the business of
> : predicting the future, because I if I was I could count you the number
of
> : people's whose life might have been saved, spared or changed if gun
laws
> : were into effect.
>
> Ok, so change "death" to "been harmed". What's the difference?
Still speculations
>
> :: >
> : > < How did grant get his firearm.
> : >
> : > Maybe from an illegal firearms dealer?
> :
> : Maybe from a legal owner who lost their gun, or maybe this guy obtained
> it
> : legally
> : Again, you have no clue, do you?
> : Again, add one to my argument.
> : Infact, your arguments are totally advancing my arguments
>
> I see, so if someone breaks into my home, steals my guns,
> "I'm" the criminal?
I think it important for you to understand English 1st.
nowhere did i say that anyone who has their gun stolen is a criminal
A moron perhaps, but I never said that.
I am more than capable of advancing my own points and conclusions and
please spare me the childish conclusions that are stupid at best
> Interesting concept you have.
actually, it is not my concept, but your own
> The guy obtained it legally. He uses the gun to commit
> a crime...gee, doesn't that make him a criminal?
Yes it does.
Thank you for your help
> Gee, what if
> he used something other than a gun? Doesn't this STILL
> make him a criminal?
Yes it does
Criminal is used here to indicate someone whose intention is to harm
another not to defend themselves
> It makes no difference what someone
> uses,
Certainly does
with a gun, I can kill just about anyone, but with a knife, I have to
choose my targets and the likely targets will be women and older people.
However, you fail to notice what the argument is all about, and so far, I
think this one of your biggest problems.
You joined a debate where you did not know the full facts and you are
making arguments that have nothing to do with the point that initiated this
whole scenario
> or where they get it, a criminal act is a criminal act and when
> it is perpetrated on someone, who are you to say what means
> should or shouldn't be used to stop it?
I thought we were talking about guns here.
Please let me know if we have moved on to criminal activity.
> Oh, I know...ban all guns and criminals won't have them,
> right? Inaccurate/unsubstantiated; fellacious regardless.
Remember, I said let me make my own conclusions.
That will save you time to read the rest of the arguments and get what they
say and what the points are.
Now, go for it
> Or, better yet, unarmed people are too stupid to use
> any other means to harm or kill? Is that it?
G26 explain to this guy the debate is all about here.
He is losing it :)
No, this is questioning the steps that were taken by the lady to move from
the initial position to the point where she was able to get to her gun
that should be part of the record and is not metaphysical.
i see you did not answer this either.
I did not expect you or anyone on your side to be able to address the steps
that resulted to the final installment.
try if you can, but I suspect that you are stumped, right?
> Fairy tale indeed....were you there?
Were you?
Your story was written so that I can put myself in the situation.
The facts are incomplete and therefore do not tell all the sides of the
story
> Do you have some source of information that we don't?
Do you?
>
> : How long did that action take/
> : Nanoseconds? 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute?
> : This story is not complete and totally adds to the debate about
> controlling
> : guns because the guy must have had the gun either legally or obtained
it
> : from a legal sources.
> : Care to discuss that?
>
> What does the timing of the action have to do with anything?
You are not too smart, are you?
The timing determines the time the gun was pointed at her and the time she
was able to get the gun and how much time he had to respond to all that.
If she was superwoman, then I would understand the guy being unable to
respond to all the steps above.
if the women took longer than a second to get to a car, open the door and
get her own gun, the guy had more adequate time to shoot her.
since he did not shoot her when she moved towards the car, opened the door,
opened the place the gun was kept and raised the gun, it tells me that he
would not have shot anyway.
Hope you can just comprehend that because I am getting tired of making you
the obvious
> I see, if it takes more than X amount of time, then the action could not
> have happened. Is that it?
Again, let me make my own conclusions.
With your ability of thought, I would not want people to think I think in
the same process as you, otherwise my life is over.
>
> :
> : >
> : > < > began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
> : > < > to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya
> : > < > Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
> : > < > fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step
> : > < > preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled***
> : >
> : > < Come on
> : > < If this guy had wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented from
> : even
> : > < going to her car.
>
> There's those damn metaphysics again...sure you don't
> have a degree in it?
This is not metaphysics moron, but is what happened
The guy did not shoot (fact)
The lady moved towards her car(fact)
The lady partly or fully got into her car (fact of the story)
The lady obtained her gun (fact)
All this is happening while the guy has his gun on his hands (fact)
It takes less than a second to fire a gun (fact)
The guy had an opportunity to fire at the lady (fact, unless we are to
believe that she was superwoman)
This is a matter of logic, but I will understand if that is not in your
league.
the conclusion is based on what actually happened and not metaphysics.
i do understand your lack of it, though, otherwise it would not advance
your argument
>
> : > < Are we to believe that this lady ignored the gun aimed at her and
> : proceeded
> : > < to acquire her gun and readied while the Grant was watching her.
> : > < Please, give me a break.
>
> And I suppose you have evidence to the contrary?
This question is sophomoric and does not even attempt to answer the obvious
questions.
I see you deleted the SHRUG from G26
Pretty slick, hey?
If you read my questions, i am asking for what happened while the guy had
the gun pointed.
There is no evidence for whatever action he did not take, BUT WE KNOW THAT
HE DID NOT FIRE THE GUN after being presented with ample opportunity to
shoot the lady.
Now, chew on that.
>
>
> : I am glad you shrugged because it take away from the source.
> : These stories are lacking in detail and can be used for both sides.
> : Furthermore, these stories rely on predicting what could have been?
>
> Well, it's generally a given that when someone pulls a gun
> on you they usually aren't doing it for a good reason....but I suppose
> you think that someone approaching you with a knife in hand, a gun
> pointing at you, or some other weapon (regardless of where they obtained
> it)
> that these people just want to be all warm and fuzzy....
Again, I ask you to let me make my own conclusions.
Your conclusions are not based on the facts presented while mine do.
so, we are not conclude in the same way.
It would also help to point where I mentioned what you refer to as "warm
and fuzzy.." that led you to conclude on my behalf.
To use your own line above "Well, it's generally a given that when someone
pulls a gun on you they usually aren't doing it for a good reason", why did
our friend not perform his non-so-good-did with his gun after being given
ample opportunity to do so?
>
> :
> : Good for you
> : I certainly doubt if you believe in the details provided by these
stories
> : They are very easy to discount, but I guess you already knew that,
hence
> : the SHRUG
>
> Well, since most of these accounts come from published
> sources and/or police reports, I would miost certainly believe them
> over anything you may have to say about them, however incorrect
> or misguided it might be.
Good for you, and am sure with my published reports from the FBI, you would
believe them from your misguided conclusions, right?
However, the last paragraph is typical of people who have no argument to
advance and they come back
"No I cannot trust you even though you make sense in your questions,
because the sources of the misinformation is the police" Ha
BTW, I pointed to you that the stories might be true but are woefully
inadequate to make any sensible conclusion out of them.
I m sure police reports are better organized than that because if that is
not the case, gun owners and non-gun owners are doomed.
you have yet to answer the questions I have about these stories.
BTW, published stories are questioned by independent thinking people.
We cannot expect everyone to have independent thought, so, you might be
safe.
However, in school they should have taught you to question everything.
Just because something is published, it does not make it the only truth,
especially since there are different views out there.
So, those who do not question published work, are doomed to blindly follow
other people's views.
However, this does not surprise me about you.
You have as yet to make any point in all your correspondence and I think
this is the last time I will read any post from you because I know the line
already.
>
> : >
> : > < Had the lady told the police about the incident, the person would
> : have been
> : > < apprehended.
> : >
> : > Really? Sure about that?
> : My point exactly.
> : You have been busy telling me what would have happen, please let me
> engage
> : in these astrological fantasy, please.
> : Actually, I believe that some PDs are very conscious about that.
> : Of course, if it was LA, then it would have been hard.
>
> So you prefer to rely on being unsure about a situation?
You cannot be sure even if you have a gun, so what the hell are you talking
about?
There are many things people can do if they feel like they are threatened
and they might cost lest than what it cost to buy a gun
> Oh please..
Sure
>..let's not use this metaphysical, astrological fantasy
> crap when it's convenient for you, and discount it when it is not.
OK, we will use it when it is convenient for you
Happy now?
> Can you tell us, with 100% certainty, what the outcome
> of any criminal situation will be (and I'll even let you choose which
> ever one you want) if someone just grovels at the criminals feet?
You have a problem with reading, right?
surely, you have read somewhere about my argument about this?
> I am absolutely 100% sure that you can not.
and of course you can?
> With that said, you
> have absolutely ZERO grounds for advocating gun banning, registration
> or any other form of gun control.
I love your conclusion and are you going to use the above paragraph as a
basis? WOW?
Seeing the American education system at work?
>
> : > Waiting periods can KILL.
> :
> : Rushing into guns does kill people too.
> : I love slogans but they tend to be empty, so are the above stories
>
> So the police and/or newspapers from which these accounts
> come from are all lying?
Try reading the argument thoroughly next time because I will not respond to
this stupid conclusion.
It is one thing to respond to 371 and it one think to keep repeating the
same thing
> Granted, I don't beleive everything I read, but
> then again, I can usually back up that belief with some facts or other,
> documentation.....
Of course, you are the smart one, your excellence
>
> : >
> : > < Post Office clerks have killed plenty of people already.
> : >
> : > Bigot.
> :
> : You mean that bigots have killed plenty of people too??
> : With guns too.
> : Well, if you care to research it, many people have been killed in the
> : post-office by disgruntled postoffice clerks.
> : Infact, this is like a joke these days.
> : Have you see the American movie "My Fellow Americans" in reference to
the
> : CIA guy. Listen to the comment about his assigned to the CIA instead of
> the
> : Post Office
>
> And this proves????
That you are a moron who have no sense of humor
>Oh, ok criminals exist.
Really??
Thank you for that piece of information.
I will store it for use in the future
> Criminals use guns
> to commit crimes.
They do?
I thought they just bite their victims
> Mental instability exists in human beings.
You think so? i am learning something new here
Thanks to you
>Some
> mentally
> unstable people commit crimes.
You think so
Since this is published, I guess I will have to believe you
> Hate to tell ya this, but um, lots of
> folks already know this....
Well, I guess I was the only one who did not know this, thank you for
helping with it.
>
> : >
> : > < How was this semi-auto acquired by the previous owner??
> : >
> : > Who knows? She resorted to breaking the law to save
> : > her life!
> :
> : You keep adding to my argument, you know that?
> : If this women can obtain guns like this, what do you think criminals
can
> do
> : to obtain even better guns, and we know they can afford them because
they
> : can also steal them.
> : Next time, try to take the opposite side, ok?
>
> No this only proves that banning guns, registering guns won't
> do a damn thing to stop criminals from having them! You've as much
> as admitted it!
I like the way you argue.
So guns are banned, not made anymore and the ones the police get are
confiscated from the criminals. This makes the availability of guns limited
and more expensive for criminals and so petty criminals will not have them.
Eliminates all handgun accidents and you still think your conclusion holds
water.
Debating is not your suite sir. Making a lot of hollow noise seems to be
the only you can do.
>
> : >
> : > < Tell us how this happen
> : >
> : > See above.
> :
> : I am sorry, the above story is lacking in detail.
> : What did he have when he attacked her?
>
> What difference does it make? He attacked her.
Makes a lot of difference, if you read my arguments.
But, I think you do not.
>
> : Was she waiting outside with the gun in her hand?
>
> Again, what difference does it make? She used
> her gun to stop him.
Again, it makes a lot of difference.
I doubt if you will ever be a lawyer
>
> : Was he armed with a gun or knife or just bare fists?
>
> Again, what difference does it make? He attacked her.
Makes a lot of difference
>
> : If he was armed with a gun, where did he get and how?
>
> AGAIN! what difference does it make? He attacked her!
it is very important for my counter argument of legally obtained guns being
available to criminal elements.
However, you are beginning to date yourself.
How old are you?
What level of education do you have?
You seem to have no concept of debating, at all.
>
> : Did the lady fire after being assaulted or did she shoot after he
rushed
> : her.
>
> See above...
See above.....
>
> : Point is, the story is lacking in detail to even know what happen.
>
> You can't comprehend what you read?
Neither are you.
If you answer all the questions I wrote, maybe it could help me comprehend
better what really happened.
I cannot just take any story that is published to be true reflection of
what happened.
It is possible that the stories were doctored to show one view and blanket
all the other arguments
> He attacked her,
> she shot him. Done deal. What more do you need to know?
Smart people want all the facts involved
Imbeciles believe the paragraph that they read.
That is the difference between us
Life is not a paragraph, but a bunch of questions and answers.
>
> : I think the story was kept lacking to prevent seeing the stuff involved
> : that could support the anti-gun lobby
>
> Nothing lacking, you just refuse to understand that
> there IS nothing that supports the anti-gun lobby.
So, why not have the full details about the story or answering the
questions that are generated on reading these short stories? eh?
> Oh well, I guess
> you can count all the anti-gunners themselves.....
Conclusion, again?
>
> :
> : >
> : > < Did she run inside and get the gun to kill him?
> : > < Was he carrying any gun
>
> And this affects the outcome how?
exactly
> ::
> : > < These stories do not make any intelligent sense, at best.
> : >
> : > More sense than the "questions".
> :
> : I am sorry, sir,
> : the questions are meant to find out what the stories have failed to
> : uncover.
> : I believe that you know that but you are stumped for answers to support
> : yourself and you decide to evade the issue.
> : In any case, I think you knew exactly that these points were 2 edged
> swords
> : and you were hoping that I would not ask the obvious questions.
> : Good try!! :)
>
> Not at all. You are making strawman arguements about
> supposed failures to present some facts. Facts, that while not
> expressed in the particuler articles,
Thank you for finally acknowledging this.
I would now sleep much better knowing that you found this out that the
stories create more questions than answers.
You are smarter than I initially thought
> have no bearing on the point
> being made or the outcome of the particular incidents.
you are arguing on the outcome, but I am not arguing on that.
Can you get that through your skull, please?
> You hide
> behind meaningless questions that do not contribute to ANY side
> of the arguement, much less your own....
So, why not answer them and we see whose side they fall in?
>
> :
> : >
> : > < Look like one of those I saw a UFO stories
> : > < all these examples do not prove or disprove legal gun ownership
> : >
> : > These examples show what the Brady act can do: lead to
> : > death.
> :
> : Not exactly, they could also support making guns illegal which could
have
> : prevented these morons from obtaining the guns to threaten women.
>
> And you have yet to prove that banning guns WILL prevent
> morons from obtaining them.
And you have as yet to prove anything, let alone proving that you
understand the argument in the 1st place.
> The question as to whether or not
> any of the above perps had one or not does not support your
> claim at all.
Sophomoric conclusion at its best
Read, read and read some more
When you are ready, come back and bring independent support where the
information can be verified.
Good luck
>
>
Dane Lance
Sabsy <sa...@aol.com> wrote in article
<01bc00c1$09fa0680$f38092cf@sabsy>...
:
:
: Dane Lance <la...@txdirect.net> wrote in article
: <01bc00a7$8b4c40a0$ae5e39cc@speeddemon>...
: >
: >
: > Sabsy <sa...@aol.com> wrote in article
: > <01bc0040$22df55a0$b86293cf@sabsy>...
:
: > : Yes it does?
: > : Stolen gun, perhaps stolen from legal owners
: >
: > No, you completely missed the point.
:
: NO NO NO, you missed the point
: My point has always been about guns in the hands of criminals obtained
from
: legal owners.
Which would be what percentage of the total guns in the hands
of criminals? None the less, you challenged the other poster on the
grounds
of the Brady Law. You contended that the Brady Law could not
be responsible for a persons death. The original poster contended it
could and posted all the previous articles. You continue to argue
about the means by which the attacker obtained a gun (if one was
used by the attacker at all).
:
: Makes a lot of difference whether he was armed and where he got the gun
and
: whether he would have been able to get the gun if the laws were stricter.
The argument was centered on the effects of the Brady Law.
The points being made by the poster of the articles had to do with the
person(s) being attacked. Doesn't matter if he was armed with a gun
or not. Doesn't matter where he obtained the gun (if he even had one).
Whether he would have been able to get a gun if the laws were stricter
is the very same "what if" argument you so vehemontly rail against later
in your post.
: so, you see my friend, you are the one missing the point.
: Read my previous point and see my point of argument
Uh huh....
: > The POINT is because
: > of the Brady Law, this woman was forced to wait on her gun
: > purchase.
:
: This is your point and not mine.
: Mine is that because of gun availability, this guy could have been using
a
: gun obtained from a legal owner. I think it is about time you familiarize
: yourself with my argument and not expect me to just follow your lead.
This is also the point of the poster of the articles to which
you so strongly disagreed and tried, unsuccessfully, to argue against.
So what if the guy used a gun he stole from a legal owner, does
that somehow make the gun MORE dangerous or life threatening
than if he purchased it himself?
:
: > The result was her death. If the Brady Law had not
: > forced her to wait, she would have had her gun and could
: > have stopped the attacker.
:
: So, you are assuming that she would have been able to use the gun, had
the
: gun when she was attacked, that she would have had bullets in, that the
gun
: would not have been stolen already and that assumes that the gun would
not
: have killed a member of the family, etc.
Your assumption, not mine. Notice I said "could have", I never said
"definitely would have". I assumed nothing. My statement clearly
indicates
that the Brady Law was the factor in denying this woman a means of
defending
herself from the attack, a means, by the way, that has been proven, both
statistically and practically to be very effective in such situations. I
refer you
to the published crime statistics by the U.S. Department of Justice, the
FBI
publications on same, publications by Dr. Kleck, Lott, etc.
: These are too many assumptions that you have not addressed,
: Try to address these assumptions.
: Life does not follow little patterns that depends on what the Brady Bill
: does
I have made no assumptions.
:
: > Now, that's as clear as it gets.
:
: assuming that you were prepared to make hundred assumption as to what
could
: have happened between the time the gun was obtained and the time the
attack
: took place.
However, since I did not...
: Assuming that you believe you have any hope
Oh, yes indeed, sir!
:
: >
: > But this presupposes he used a gun at all.
:
: exactly, you made a lot of presuppositions and yet you deny me that
right.
I have made no presuppositions. I deny you nothing, you
are doing quite well on your own....
: This is why I said the stories are lacking in detail because it is
: important to the writer to portray only their side.
Another assumption?
: If the guy used a gun, your side had to explain if the person obtained
the
: gun legally or he obtained illegally from a legal owner.
: If the guy used other means, I am sure your side would have been happy to
: make that point clear, too, right?
Ask the publishers of the articles.
: Yes it does
: The Brady Law does not determine whether a criminal carries a gun or a
pipe
: to attack somebody.
: Also, you do not know what the guy was carrying either, so I can
speculate,
: and hence I said the information was in adequate so that it can portray
the
: failures of the Brady Bill without showing all the pertinent fact.
: Once you start to show all the facts, then you make the argument much
more
: intelligent because there will be fewer what if questions.
There are no "what ifs". The Brady Bill denies the purchase of
a firearm for a given length of time, a time frame, which the articles
show,
can be deadly. Deadly by direct cause from the Brady Bill.
:
: > : How do we know this?? As I said before, I am not in the business of
: > : predicting the future, because I if I was I could count you the
number
: of people's whose life might have been saved, spared or changed if gun
: laws were into effect.
: >
: > Ok, so change "death" to "been harmed". What's the difference?
:
: Still speculations
No more speculative than saying "I could count you the number
of people's whose life might have been saved, spared or changed if
gun laws were in effect." However, the article did say "attacked".
Nothing speculative there.
:
: >
: > I see, so if someone breaks into my home, steals my guns,
: > "I'm" the criminal?
:
: I think it important for you to understand English 1st.
: nowhere did i say that anyone who has their gun stolen is a criminal
By implication.
: A moron perhaps, but I never said that.
Ok, you didn't say it.
: I am more than capable of advancing my own points and conclusions and
: please spare me the childish conclusions that are stupid at best
HA! Excuse me oh high and mighty! I'm sorry I interefered with
your conclusions and points of specualtion....
:
: > Interesting concept you have.
:
: actually, it is not my concept, but your own
Is not, is too, is not....and you have the audacity
to call me childish...tsk tsk.
:
: > The guy obtained it legally. He uses the gun to commit
: > a crime...gee, doesn't that make him a criminal?
:
: Yes it does.
: Thank you for your help
At least we agree on something...
:
: > Gee, what if
: > he used something other than a gun? Doesn't this STILL
: > make him a criminal?
:
: Yes it does
: Criminal is used here to indicate someone whose intention is to harm
: another not to defend themselves
Again, we agree...damn, we're on a roll here!
:
: > It makes no difference what someone
: > uses,
:
: Certainly does
: with a gun, I can kill just about anyone, but with a knife, I have to
: choose my targets and the likely targets will be women and older people.
And to borrow your rhetoric, assuming that you would have
been able to use the gun, had the gun when you went out to murder, that
you would have had bullets in, that the gun would not have been
stolen already and that assumes that the gun would not have killed a member
of your family, etc."
You may have to choose weaker targets for knife use, but to imply that
others do is again, speculation on your part. "Likely" is interchangeable
with
"probably", ergo speculative.
: However, you fail to notice what the argument is all about, and so far, I
: think this one of your biggest problems.
: You joined a debate where you did not know the full facts and you are
: making arguments that have nothing to do with the point that initiated
this
: whole scenario
Accusation of speculation. Use speculation to support your
own arguments, then attempt switch of topic. Excellent debating
on your part. I don't give a rats butt what you initially intended. Your
arguments from the previous post are bunk.
:
: > or where they get it, a criminal act is a criminal act and when
: > it is perpetrated on someone, who are you to say what means
: > should or shouldn't be used to stop it?
:
: I thought we were talking about guns here.
: Please let me know if we have moved on to criminal activity.
You so strongly tie the two together, I thought the
connection would be easy for you. I apologize for giving you
too much credit.
:
: > Oh, I know...ban all guns and criminals won't have them,
: > right? Inaccurate/unsubstantiated; fellacious regardless.
:
: Remember, I said let me make my own conclusions.
: That will save you time to read the rest of the arguments and get what
they
: say and what the points are.
: Now, go for it
Well then, make some conclusions and stop speculating.
:
: > Or, better yet, unarmed people are too stupid to use
: > any other means to harm or kill? Is that it?
:
: G26 explain to this guy the debate is all about here.
: He is losing it :)
Uh huh...
: > :
And your question was "If the guy was going to use his gun anyway,
don't you think he would have fired the minutes the lady moved towards her
car, opened the door, opened the place where the gun was, picked the gun
and pointed at the guy." It would appear that you already have the steps
taken by the woman, do I have to repeat them for you? Your question, while
thinly veiled, is nothing more than an implied "he would have fired",
fellacious
conclusion on your part.
: I did not expect you or anyone on your side to be able to address the
steps
: that resulted to the final installment.
: try if you can, but I suspect that you are stumped, right?
Address them? There they are.
: > Fairy tale indeed....were you there?
:
: Were you?
I did not call the event a "fairy tale" nor did I make
the implication that the guy would have fired, as you did.
:
: Your story was written so that I can put myself in the situation.
: The facts are incomplete and therefore do not tell all the sides of the
: story
We don't know all the reasons as to why he attacked her.
We don't know if they were having a lovers quarrel, we don't know
if the man was mentally insane, we don't know a lot of the details about
the people. It doesn't change the chain of events and it doesn't change
the outcome.
: > Do you have some source of information that we don't?
:
: Do you?
You made the claim it was a fairy tale.
:
: >
: > : How long did that action take/
: > : Nanoseconds? 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute?
: > : This story is not complete and totally adds to the debate about
: > controlling
: > : guns because the guy must have had the gun either legally or obtained
: it
: > : from a legal sources.
: > : Care to discuss that?
: >
: > What does the timing of the action have to do with anything?
:
: You are not too smart, are you
Oh, the insults are just tearing me apart!
: The timing determines the time the gun was pointed at her and the time
she
: was able to get the gun and how much time he had to respond to all that.
: If she was superwoman, then I would understand the guy being unable to
: respond to all the steps above.
Assuming, on your part, of course, that he simply HAD to react.
: if the women took longer than a second to get to a car, open the door and
: get her own gun, the guy had more adequate time to shoot her.
Yes he did, again, assuming that he wanted to shoot her right
then.
: since he did not shoot her when she moved towards the car, opened the
door,
: opened the place the gun was kept and raised the gun, it tells me that he
: would not have shot anyway.
Then you obviously have no knowledge of criminal activity, murder
or any other such events. Speculative conclusion at best. Do you know
what he was thinking at that moment? No. I'll spare you the effort of
typing "And do you?"...no, I don't either, so neither one of us know what
he
was thinking. It matters none however, as the article tells us the chain
of
events. He did not shoot at that point in time. We can speculate all we
want to
about whether or not he would have/should have, et al.
: Hope you can just comprehend that because I am getting tired of making
you
: the obvious
You haven't made anything yet, except a lot of the same kinds of
assumptions you so piously reprimand.
:
: > I see, if it takes more than X amount of time, then the action could
not
: > have happened. Is that it?
:
: Again, let me make my own conclusions.
You made your conclusion....here, I'll quote it again for you;
"If the guy was going to use his gun anyway, don't you think he would
have fired the minutes the lady moved towards her car, opened the door,
opened the place where the gun was, picked the gun and pointed at the guy."
: With your ability of thought, I would not want people to think I think in
: the same process as you, otherwise my life is over.
Yeah, all your anti-gun buddies would disown you for
being intelligent and responsible, but thanks for the compliment
just the same.
: > : > < > began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going
: > : > < > to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you."
Sonya
:
: > : > < > Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than
: > : > < > fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a
step
:
: > : > < > preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled***
: > : >
: > : > < Come on
: > : > < If this guy had wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented
from
: > : even going to her car.
: >
: > There's those damn metaphysics again...sure you don't
: > have a degree in it?
:
: This is not metaphysics moron, but is what happened
No, what happened is that he said "I'm going to kill you", she
responded "No, I'm going to kill you", picked up her revolver, pulled
the hammer back and the guy ran for it. It is at this point that
you picked up your crystal ball and said " Come on, If this guy had
wanted to shoot her, he would have prevented from even going to
her car." So can I conclude that you have some powers that
allow you to read criminals minds? Or is this another one of
your whacky speculations?
: The guy did not shoot (fact)
Yep.
: The lady moved towards her car(fact)
Agreed.
: The lady partly or fully got into her car (fact of the story)
Sure, I'll buy that.
: The lady obtained her gun (fact)
Yes.
: All this is happening while the guy has his gun on his hands (fact)
Ok.
: It takes less than a second to fire a gun (fact)
In some cases, yes. I'll accept that in this
situation.
: The guy had an opportunity to fire at the lady (fact, unless we are to
: believe that she was superwoman)
BZZZT!!! Brick wall!! The guy had an opportunity to fire (fact).
Superwoman has nothing to do with it. Now, explain to me where I
can find something that says "he absolutely had to fire at her".
Your implication, just as in your previous one, is one of false nature.
:
: This is a matter of logic, but I will understand if that is not in your
: league.
Correct, mine is far above the one you are playing in.
: the conclusion is based on what actually happened and not metaphysics.
What actually happened is that he did not fire and ran away
when she produced her own pistol. The only conclusion that can be drawn
is that the atttacker was frightened off by the woman producing that
pistol.
Anything else, such as, he had more than enough tinme to shoot, therefore
he would have, as you implied, is pure speculative bunk.
: i do understand your lack of it, though, otherwise it would not advance
: your argument
Correct again, logic on the level you display wouldn't even
meet the minimum requirements for my side.
: > : > < Are we to believe that this lady ignored the gun aimed at her
and
: > : proceeded
: > : > < to acquire her gun and readied while the Grant was watching
her.
: > : > < Please, give me a break.
: >
: > And I suppose you have evidence to the contrary?
:
: This question is sophomoric and does not even attempt to answer the
obvious
: questions.
You claim that "I" cannot debate, yet "you" continually
fail to meet even the most rudimentary guidelines of debate.
You are making the fellacious, speculative implication that the lady
couldn't have ignored the gun aimed at her. The burden of proof
is upon "you", sir to support your claim. Sophomoric indeed....
: I see you deleted the SHRUG from G26
: Pretty slick, hey?
So, sue me? It neither added nor subtracted from
the debate.
: If you read my questions, i am asking for what happened while the guy had
: the gun pointed.
Hardly, you continually espoused lament that he didn't shoot her
and implied that he SHOULD have.
: There is no evidence for whatever action he did not take, BUT WE KNOW
THAT
: HE DID NOT FIRE THE GUN
Well, there is a glimmer of hope for you after all, however it
doesn't excuse all your previous speculation.
: after being presented with ample opportunity to
: shoot the lady.
: Now, chew on that.
And again, the thinly veiled implication that he should have.
Again, speculation on your part.
: > Well, it's generally a given that when someone pulls a gun
: > on you they usually aren't doing it for a good reason....but I suppose
: > you think that someone approaching you with a knife in hand, a gun
: > pointing at you, or some other weapon (regardless of where they
obtained
: > it)
: > that these people just want to be all warm and fuzzy....
:
: Again, I ask you to let me make my own conclusions.
You are making plenty, it's just that they are all based
on fellacious speculation.
: Your conclusions are not based on the facts presented while mine do.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh yes, the facts were presented alright!
: so, we are not conclude in the same way.
: It would also help to point where I mentioned what you refer to as "warm
: and fuzzy.." that led you to conclude on my behalf.
No, I did not conclude anything on your behalf, hence the
wording "I suppose".
:
: To use your own line above "Well, it's generally a given that when
someone
: pulls a gun on you they usually aren't doing it for a good reason", why
did
: our friend not perform his non-so-good-did with his gun after being given
: ample opportunity to do so?
You assume that the deed was only to be done then and there.
Specualtion. The intent was there, as demonstrated by his words. The
exact extent of the intent is unknown, but does not change the threat
to the woman, her reaction and the outcome.
: > Well, since most of these accounts come from published
: > sources and/or police reports, I would miost certainly believe them
: > over anything you may have to say about them, however incorrect
: > or misguided it might be.
:
: Good for you, and am sure with my published reports from the FBI, you
would
: believe them from your misguided conclusions, right?
: However, the last paragraph is typical of people who have no argument to
: advance and they come back
: "No I cannot trust you even though you make sense in your questions,
: because the sources of the misinformation is the police"
Now who's making conclusions for whom? You also make
speculative conclusions about the validity of your questions.
: Ha
: BTW, I pointed to you that the stories might be true but are woefully
: inadequate to make any sensible conclusion out of them.
Your ability to comprehend, or lack thereof, is no
fault of my own.
: I m sure police reports are better organized than that because if that is
: not the case, gun owners and non-gun owners are doomed.
Speculation?
: you have yet to answer the questions I have about these stories.
You have yet to comprehend the exquisitely simple answers
that have been given.
: BTW, published stories are questioned by independent thinking people.
Of course, this includes all your so-called FBI data too, right?
: We cannot expect everyone to have independent thought, so, you might be
: safe.
Amen!
: However, in school they should have taught you to question everything.
: Just because something is published, it does not make it the only truth,
: especially since there are different views out there.
I'm questioning alright, I'm questioning your sense of reality.
: So, those who do not question published work, are doomed to blindly
follow
: other people's views.
By all means question, but spare us the silly assumptions.
: However, this does not surprise me about you.
Of course not! When you're on the bottom of the mental pile,
nothing surprises you.
: You have as yet to make any point in all your correspondence and I think
: this is the last time I will read any post from you because I know the
line
: already.
No, you have yet to comprehend any of the glaringly simple points
that I have made. Again, no fault of my own.
As to your last.....just more silly speculation on your part...too bad.
: > : > < Had the lady told the police about the incident, the person
would
: > : have been
: > : > < apprehended.
: > : >
: > : > Really? Sure about that?
: > : My point exactly.
: > : You have been busy telling me what would have happen, please let me
: > engage in these astrological fantasy, please.
: > : Actually, I believe that some PDs are very conscious about that.
: > : Of course, if it was LA, then it would have been hard.
: >
: > So you prefer to rely on being unsure about a situation?
:
: You cannot be sure even if you have a gun, so what the hell are you
talking
: about?
You're an idiot, sir, plain and simple. You believe "some PD's to
be conscious about that." I would certainly hope that the PD's are
conscious. What DO you know about the police? Are you an LEO?
: There are many things people can do if they feel like they are threatened
: and they might cost lest than what it cost to buy a gun
This is about the only thing you've said that has any merit
or sense attached to it.
:
: > Oh please..
:
: Sure
:
: >..let's not use this metaphysical, astrological fantasy
: > crap when it's convenient for you, and discount it when it is not.
:
: OK, we will use it when it is convenient for you
: Happy now?
Speaking of sophomoric....
:
: > Can you tell us, with 100% certainty, what the outcome
: > of any criminal situation will be (and I'll even let you choose which
: > ever one you want) if someone just grovels at the criminals feet?
:
: You have a problem with reading, right?
: surely, you have read somewhere about my argument about this?
I'll do better, I'll quote you; "Had the lady told the police about
the incident, the person would have been apprehended." Sounds like
a pretty definitive statement to me. Of course, this is again based on
speculation, it assumes that the police will find the suspect. You
really don't know that much about police work, do you?
: > I am absolutely 100% sure that you can not.
:
: and of course you can?
Show me where I made the claim. I have, however made
the claim that you cannot and you reply with more of your
previously reprimanded, sophomoric responses.
:
: > With that said, you
: > have absolutely ZERO grounds for advocating gun banning, registration
: > or any other form of gun control.
:
: I love your conclusion and are you going to use the above paragraph as a
: basis? WOW?
: Seeing the American education system at work?
Absolutely. A valid conclusion supported by the above
paragraph. Of course, all your speculation and fecetious conclusions
only help all the more.
: > : > Waiting periods can KILL.
: > :
: > : Rushing into guns does kill people too.
: > : I love slogans but they tend to be empty, so are the above stories
: >
: > So the police and/or newspapers from which these accounts
: > come from are all lying?
:
: Try reading the argument thoroughly next time because I will not respond
to
: this stupid conclusion.
Hey pal, you made the claim that the stories are all empty.
: It is one thing to respond to 371 and it one think to keep repeating the
: same thing
So then why do you do it?
:
: > Granted, I don't beleive everything I read, but
: > then again, I can usually back up that belief with some facts or other,
: > documentation.....
:
: Of course, you are the smart one, your excellence
About time you recognized that.
: > : > < Post Office clerks have killed plenty of people already.
: > : >
: > : > Bigot.
: > :
: > : You mean that bigots have killed plenty of people too??
: > : With guns too.
: > : Well, if you care to research it, many people have been killed in the
: > : post-office by disgruntled postoffice clerks.
: > : Infact, this is like a joke these days.
: > : Have you see the American movie "My Fellow Americans" in reference to
: the
: > : CIA guy. Listen to the comment about his assigned to the CIA instead
of
: > the
: > : Post Office
: >
: > And this proves????
:
: That you are a moron who have no sense of humor
Mere opinion. And we all know what opinions are like....
or do I have to tell you about that too?
:
: >Oh, ok criminals exist.
:
: Really??
: Thank you for that piece of information.
: I will store it for use in the future
A wise move on your part.
:
: > Criminals use guns
: > to commit crimes.
:
: They do?
: I thought they just bite their victims
Bzzzzt.
:
: > Mental instability exists in human beings.
:
: You think so? i am learning something new here
: Thanks to you
You are quite welcome, and many claim idiots
can't be taught.
: >Some
: > mentally
: > unstable people commit crimes.
:
: You think so
: Since this is published, I guess I will have to believe you
No, it's fact.
:
: > Hate to tell ya this, but um, lots of
: > folks already know this....
:
: Well, I guess I was the only one who did not know this, thank you for
: helping with it.
Again, you're welcome. It was apparent from your
posts that you didn't know this. Glad I could be of assistance.
: > : > < How was this semi-auto acquired by the previous owner??
: > : >
: > : > Who knows? She resorted to breaking the law to save
: > : > her life!
: > :
: > : You keep adding to my argument, you know that?
: > : If this women can obtain guns like this, what do you think criminals
: can
: > do
: > : to obtain even better guns, and we know they can afford them because
: they
: > : can also steal them.
: > : Next time, try to take the opposite side, ok?
: >
: > No this only proves that banning guns, registering guns won't
: > do a damn thing to stop criminals from having them! You've as much
: > as admitted it!
:
: I like the way you argue.
Thank you, so do I.
: So guns are banned, not made anymore and the ones the police get are
: confiscated from the criminals. This makes the availability of guns
limited
: and more expensive for criminals and so petty criminals will not have
them.
: Eliminates all handgun accidents and you still think your conclusion
holds
: water.
Bzzzt. More silly speculation and fecetious conclusions.
: Debating is not your suite sir. Making a lot of hollow noise seems to be
: the only you can do.
Shall I call a waaaaaaaambulance for you now?
: > : > < Tell us how this happen
: > : >
: > : > See above.
: > :
: > : I am sorry, the above story is lacking in detail.
: > : What did he have when he attacked her?
: >
: > What difference does it make? He attacked her.
:
: Makes a lot of difference, if you read my arguments.
: But, I think you do not.
I read all your silly speculation. Not a shred of
proof for any difference anywhere to be found.
:
: >
: > : Was she waiting outside with the gun in her hand?
: >
: > Again, what difference does it make? She used
: > her gun to stop him.
:
: Again, it makes a lot of difference.
: I doubt if you will ever be a lawyer
As if your silly opinion validates your claim
of difference?
: > : Was he armed with a gun or knife or just bare fists?
: >
: > Again, what difference does it make? He attacked her.
:
: Makes a lot of difference
then support it.
: > : If he was armed with a gun, where did he get and how?
: >
: > AGAIN! what difference does it make? He attacked her!
:
: it is very important for my counter argument of legally obtained guns
being
: available to criminal elements.
: However, you are beginning to date yourself.
: How old are you?
: What level of education do you have?
: You seem to have no concept of debating, at all.
Ho hum, now we have to go and drag age and
education and all that into it, eh? I don't see the relevency, but I'll
humor you....
age: 32
education: bachelors in computer science, U of MD.
Associates in applied science (intelligence collection), CCAF.
Previous federal certification as an LEO.
Several years experience in LE, to include homicide
investigation and under cover work.
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss some of my
previous work, nor any of my current work.
And you?
: > : Did the lady fire after being assaulted or did she shoot after he
: rushed
: > : her.
: >
: > See above...
:
: See above.....
: >
: > : Point is, the story is lacking in detail to even know what happen.
: >
: > You can't comprehend what you read?
:
: Neither are you.
: If you answer all the questions I wrote, maybe it could help me
comprehend
: better what really happened.
: I cannot just take any story that is published to be true reflection of
: what happened.
: It is possible that the stories were doctored to show one view and
blanket
: all the other arguments
:
: > He attacked her,
: > she shot him. Done deal. What more do you need to know?
:
: Smart people want all the facts involved
: Imbeciles believe the paragraph that they read.
: That is the difference between us
: Life is not a paragraph, but a bunch of questions and answers.
I will retract my above response out of recognition
of its purposeful intent to be snide. I will also recognize your
previous response as valid and an attempt on your part to
truly seek answers, however I will say it is just as easy to say it is
probable that the stories have not been doctored. It is also
possible that the poster of the articles failed to include the
sources of the stories (as they are almost always included
in these types of stories when printed in the material that
I read them in). What I'm saying is that these articles
bear an extreme resemblance to those published in such
magazines as "The American Hunter", etc. The articles
are pulled from various local newspapers from around the
country. I have no reason to doubt their validity, as the
sources are easily verifiable.
: > : I think the story was kept lacking to prevent seeing the stuff
involved
: > : that could support the anti-gun lobby
: >
: > Nothing lacking, you just refuse to understand that
: > there IS nothing that supports the anti-gun lobby.
:
: So, why not have the full details about the story or answering the
: questions that are generated on reading these short stories? eh?
Perhaps you should call the editors that published the
stories and ask them. As for answering your questions, which
ones have not been answered?
: > Oh well, I guess
: > you can count all the anti-gunners themselves.....
:
: Conclusion, again?
Absolutely.
: > : > < Did she run inside and get the gun to kill him?
: > : > < Was he carrying any gun
: >
: > And this affects the outcome how?
:
: exactly
Well?
: > : > < These stories do not make any intelligent sense, at best.
: > : >
: > : > More sense than the "questions".
: > :
: > : I am sorry, sir,
: > : the questions are meant to find out what the stories have failed to
: > : uncover.
: > : I believe that you know that but you are stumped for answers to
support
: > : yourself and you decide to evade the issue.
I have evaded nothing. The questions you have asked
have no relevence on the events or outcomes of the posted articles.
If you wish to start a completely different debate, then
by all means do so.
: > : In any case, I think you knew exactly that these points were 2 edged
: > swords
On the contrary!
: > : and you were hoping that I would not ask the obvious questions.
: > : Good try!! :)
I hoped nothing of you, and received it, in abundance.
: >
: > Not at all. You are making strawman arguements about
: > supposed failures to present some facts. Facts, that while not
: > expressed in the particuler articles,
:
: Thank you for finally acknowledging this.
: I would now sleep much better knowing that you found this out that the
: stories create more questions than answers.
: You are smarter than I initially thought
I never said the articles did not include certain facts.
I said the facts that you want are irrelevent.
:
: > have no bearing on the point
: > being made or the outcome of the particular incidents.
:
: you are arguing on the outcome, but I am not arguing on that.
: Can you get that through your skull, please?
Do I have to quote you again?
: > You hide
: > behind meaningless questions that do not contribute to ANY side
: > of the arguement, much less your own....
:
: So, why not answer them and we see whose side they fall in?
Already did, you lose.
: > : > < Look like one of those I saw a UFO stories
: > : > < all these examples do not prove or disprove legal gun ownership
: > : >
: > : > These examples show what the Brady act can do: lead to
: > : > death.
: > :
: > : Not exactly, they could also support making guns illegal which could
: have
: > : prevented these morons from obtaining the guns to threaten women.
: >
: > And you have yet to prove that banning guns WILL prevent
: > morons from obtaining them.
:
: And you have as yet to prove anything, let alone proving that you
: understand the argument in the 1st place.
There ya go! Make silly, fecetious conclusions, that really proves
that banning guns will keep them out of criminals hands!
:
: > The question as to whether or not
: > any of the above perps had one or not does not support your
: > claim at all.
:
: Sophomoric conclusion at its best
: Read, read and read some more
: When you are ready, come back and bring independent support where the
: information can be verified.
Just as soon as you start verifying your speculative claims...
:
: Good luck
yeah, you'll need it.
Sabsy
magi...@fast.co.za wrote in article
<c0.9w.2DgBKL$0...@return.fast.co.za>...
> "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > > >mounting death toll from gunfire. CSGV recommends families remove
guns
> > > > from their homes and that the sale of future handguns be banned.
>
> > > I see. Now how would this be reconciled with the following suicide
> statistics?
>
> > > Japan 18.1
> > > United States 12.5
>
> <Most of an article which mixes homicides and suicides deleted. One point
is very
> relevant to this discussion though.>
why not let people do their judgement as to the relevance of the stats.
Afterall, this is only 20 lines
>
> > direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has
just
>
> I see. So Japan's experience is that despite having the world's toughest
gun laws
> it has a higher suicide rate than the USA where guns laws vary from state
to state.
> So much for GSGV's argument if one goes for simple international
comparisons.
>
> By the way, I suspect variations in philosophy, etc. have more to do with
suicide
> than gun availability. In some societies people bottle up their rage,
frustration, etc.
> and take it out on themselves, in other societies they take it out on
others. Some
> societies may be more violent than others. And so on and so on.
>
Gun
> suicide statistics?
>
> Japan 18.1
> United States 12.5
>
> Deaths rates per 100,000 population from "suicide and
> self-inflicted injury,"
> as listed in the 1991 'Statistical Abstracts of the United
> States,' which credits
> the World Health Organization, Geneva, '1989 World Health
> Statistics Annual.'
There are differences between Japan and the USA with regard to
which cases are included in the murder and suicide statistics.
The Japanese government seems to have some or other reasons for
creating a certain impression. The Japanese government
contributes most of the funding to the UNO for undemocratic
"international agreements" regarding ownership of firearms.
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Sabsy
Dane Lance <la...@txdirect.net> wrote in article
<01bc00f2$b81faae0$LocalHost@speeddemon>...
> Which would be what percentage of the total guns in the hands
> of criminals? None the less, you challenged the other poster on the
> grounds
> of the Brady Law. You contended that the Brady Law could not
> be responsible for a persons death. The original poster contended it
> could and posted all the previous articles. You continue to argue
> about the means by which the attacker obtained a gun (if one was
> used by the attacker at all).
>
> > 5. Q. Are there any exceptions to the 5-day waiting period requirement?
> >
> > A. Licensees need not comply with the waiting period requirements in 4
> > situations. These include handgun transfers (a) pursuant to an
offical's
> > written statement of the buyer's need for a handgun based upon a threat
to
> > life; (b) to buyers having a State permit or whose records have been
> > checked and in either case an official has verified eligibility to
possess
> > firearms; (c) of National Firearms Act weapons approved by ATF; and (d)
> > certified by ATF as exempt because compliance with the waiting period
is
> > impractical.
> > --
Peter Johansen
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:17:58 GMT, magi...@fast.co.za wrote:
>By the way, I suspect variations in philosophy, etc. have more to do with suicide
>than gun availability. In some societies people bottle up their rage, frustration, etc.
>and take it out on themselves, in other societies they take it out on others. Some
>societies may be more violent than others. And so on and so on.
You could also look at it this way (no proof though, just my not so
humble thoughts):
I bet suicide is usually committed in the way which the person
1) considers to be the most efficient/least
painful/quickest....
2) has available means, i.e. gun/razor/car exhaust...
For instance, from the stats given in this NG, i assume that very
little suicides in Japan are committed with Guns. This figure would be
considerably higher (in relative terms) in the US for the above two
reasons.
Since Guns (and other weapons) are easier to use to kill other persons
than e.g. razors, It would be safe to assume that someone in the
sombrest of moods and not in a sane condition would find it easier to
"take it out on others" (instead of on themselves) when a Gun is
available.
Wouldn't it be easier to let "bottled up rage" spill over onto another
person than onto yourself. Especially if you don't have to do this
with a razer...
What I am suggesting here is that some of the many cases of suicide in
countries like Japan would take the form of an assault in countries
like the US (and SA, to keep this posting relevant to the NG) - not
least because of the availability here of suitable means of assault.
Why prefer suicide to lethal assault? (What a sick choice.) Because no
violence is committed against other people.
Peter
d...@dbn.lia.net
On 1997-01-10 sa...@aol.com said:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,za.politics
>Chris Smith <ch...@darientel.net> wrote in article
><32d72ec4...@news.america.net>...
>> "Sabsy" <sa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ->Pretty amazing
>> ->Have any cases where the guns were prematurely used?
>> ->surely, that is not your intention right
>> ->You have 1500 people accidentally with firearms obtained with or
>without
>> ->the Brady law
>> ->Care to publish the storied of the people who dies in the hands
>of careless
>> ->gun owners?
>> I apologize for my previous posting, criticizing your reading
>> comprehension skills. It only became apparent after I read this
>> paragraph, that English is a second language for you. You might
>>save yourself some embarrassment by practicing your grammar in a
>>less confrontational manner.
>wow, we have another English teacher of a moron.
Intrusion of another pedant .... " another moronic English teacher "
or " moron of an English teacher " fits the bill rather.
As it stands you are indicated as the " moron " being taught English.
>I am sure you are one of those perfectionists who have coals stuck
>up their ass thinking that people have the time to send the posts
>to their grammar teachers.
You don't reread your posts before sending?
>If you got the point, then so be it.
>Incase you have not noticed, I could careless how you feel about my
>grammar or spelling as long as you can read what I wrote.
That is fairly apparent ... but the issue of comprehensibility comes into
play ... sure one can read what you have written but is it always
understandable. One would hope and trust that on completion of your MBA you
will not adopt the same attitude and slackness in your dealings with
your future employers.
>BTW, my last paragraph has 2 spelling mistakes (dies instead of
>died and storied instead of stories) and a left out word.
>So, if you were as smart as you make us believe, you would have
>noticed that "s" and "D" on the keyboard are next to each other and
>it is therefore easy to make a typing mistake.
Ever heard of spell checkers ... simple and to use. And why not write
offline ... more room for contemplation.
>Atleast this shows your inability to read your keyboard and
>understand it. Somehow, that does nor surprise me. I have met many
>people like you and they tend to have a sad life; correcting
>people's spelling in a spoken conversation
>Ag shame
Now that's an interesting observation ... correcting peoples' spelling in a
spoken conversation! :-) Beg pardon but how is that done? And how do we have
conversation other than in a spoken manner? Something new to be learnt each
and every day.
Don
Net-Tamer V 1.07 - Test Drive
Sabsy
d...@dbn.lia.net wrote in article <1167cd$3143a.157@NEWS>...
Wow, looks like you did some research.
Well, sir, it has brought me this far.
I guess we are the ones who make the money and you are the ones that design
spellcheckers.
See you at the language store
>
> >BTW, my last paragraph has 2 spelling mistakes (dies instead of
> >died and storied instead of stories) and a left out word.
> >So, if you were as smart as you make us believe, you would have
> >noticed that "s" and "D" on the keyboard are next to each other and
> >it is therefore easy to make a typing mistake.
>
> Ever heard of spell checkers .
No, what is that?
lo...@hotmail.com
In Article<01bc0822$630c6c00$696c93cf@sabsy>, <sa...@aol.com> writes:
> > >Atleast this shows your inability to read your keyboard and
> > >understand it. Somehow, that does nor surprise me. I have met many
> > >people like you and they tend to have a sad life; correcting
> > >people's spelling in a spoken conversation
> > >Ag shame
> >
Don
Sasby is deaf and spelling everything he says to other people via sign
language (he is propably too stupid to lip-read). So that is why his spelling
gets corrected in 'spoken' conversation. Rather than fight with the poor guy
rather symapthise with him.
Cheers
Lou
Sabsy
lo...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<NEWTNews.8539330...@lourenss.hipsys.co.za>...
>
> Lou is deaf and spelling everything he says to other people via sign
> language (he is propably too stupid to lip-read). So that is why his
spelling
> gets corrected in 'spoken' conversation. Rather than fight with the poor
guy
> rather symapthise with him.
>
> Cheers
> Lou
>
>
You reckon so?