Armed intruders.
Roger Thomas
Bloke thought he heard an intruder in his back yard last night, about
8 pm, in Mackay, and went to investigate. Apparently he was right.
The intruder shot him in the back as he returned to the house, killing him.
[source: ABC radio news]
Now who was it rabbiting on about Oz intruders not being armed?
Mark Addinall
Not I :)
We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
. Do everything they ask you
. Give them anything they want
. If it seems appropriate, ask them if they could leave.
Ah TV, you gotta love it.
A nation of rugged individuals. More like a nation of fucking
stupid pussies.
Mark.
Roger Thomas
In article <3343F3...@southwest.com.au>,
> We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
>
> Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
>
> . Do everything they ask you
> . Give them anything they want
> . If it seems appropriate, ask them if they could leave.
>
> Ah TV, you gotta love it.
Was that *really* on tv?!!
Has my understanding of the English language suddenly failed me or
is that guvmint encouragement to all and sundry to join the new
growth industry of home invasion?
S'pose we gotta wait until some polly's minder goes rank & does
him over then put out a series of ads encouraging the other minders
to do the same. Maybe the guvmints' attitude would change then.
> A nation of rugged individuals. More like a nation of fucking
> stupid pussies.
Replace 'nation' by 'parliament' eh.
Reg Braddock
>> Now who was it rabbiting on about Oz intruders not being armed?
>We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
>
>Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
>
> . Do everything they ask you
> . Give them anything they want
> . If it seems appropriate, ask them if they could leave.
>
>Ah TV, you gotta love it.
>
>A nation of rugged individuals. More like a nation of fucking
>stupid pussies.
The Liberal (sic) government in SA recently watered down the
self-defence provisions at law. Before, you could use force if you
(genuinely) believed that you were in danger. Along comes Trevor
"They'll never screen Salo in my town" Griffiths who now intends that
people should limit their use of force to that which proportional to
that being used agaist oneself.
Quite bizarre, I must say. You're there at night, half asleep at 3AM
or being attacked in a car park and the wankers in parliament think
that you should consider your use of force and limit it to that which
is proportional. They have shown a complete lack of intelligence.
Reg.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Kym Horsell
In article <slrn5k8j5u....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:13:11 -0800, Mark Addinall
><addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
>>> Now who was it rabbiting on about Oz intruders not being armed?
>>We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
>>Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
>> . Do everything they ask you
>> . Give them anything they want
>> . If it seems appropriate, ask them if they could leave.
>>Ah TV, you gotta love it.
>>A nation of rugged individuals. More like a nation of fucking
>>stupid pussies.
>
>The Liberal (sic) government in SA recently watered down the
>self-defence provisions at law. Before, you could use force if you
>(genuinely) believed that you were in danger. Along comes Trevor
>"They'll never screen Salo in my town" Griffiths who now intends that
>people should limit their use of force to that which proportional to
>that being used agaist oneself.
Might even save a few people in SA getting shot in the back....
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Owen Dare
On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
wrote:
>In article <slrn5k8j5u....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
>Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:13:11 -0800, Mark Addinall
>><addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
>>The Liberal (sic) government in SA recently watered down the
>>self-defence provisions at law. Before, you could use force if you
>>(genuinely) believed that you were in danger. Along comes Trevor
>>"They'll never screen Salo in my town" Griffiths who now intends that
>>people should limit their use of force to that which proportional to
>>that being used agaist oneself.
>
>Might even save a few people in SA getting shot in the back....
Nah, it just means that as well as my .45, I've now gotta have a
knife, pick handle and other assorted blunt instruments lined up
against the wall so's I can be sure to have the "appropriate" level of
defence ready :-)
Maybe we can all employ second's as well to make the selection more
formal. We could use a few of those "work" for the dole conscripts.
Owen Dare
ow...@globec.com.au
http://www.globec.com.au/~owend/
Free Fire Zone
Now with an on-line chat room
Reg Braddock
On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, Kym Horsell <khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <slrn5k8j5u....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
>Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>The Liberal (sic) government in SA recently watered down the
>>self-defence provisions at law. Before, you could use force if you
>>(genuinely) believed that you were in danger. Along comes Trevor
>>"They'll never screen Salo in my town" Griffiths who now intends that
>>people should limit their use of force to that which proportional to
>>that being used agaist oneself.
>
>Might even save a few people in SA getting shot in the back....
You have a most fascinating view of self defence when you equate that
with shooting someone in the back. The opposition leader was on the
radio relating how he confronted people in his house with a spear (he
was aboriginal affairs minister at the time.) Didn't use it - merely
scared the bastards off. (That's understandable: on camera he looks
hideous. One hates to think how bad he would look at 2am :)
Self defence does not necessarily mean that anyone dies. It is good
when no one dies. However, it is better, should anyone die, that it
should be the attacker.
And no, shooting someone in the back would probably not be bought by
any court as self defence. I worry about anyone who cannot tell the
difference between self defence and murder.
Actually, I worry that such a lack of respect for life that those who
confuse murder and self defence might become generalised.
Kym Horsell
In article <3344d2f3...@news.powerup.com.au>,
Owen Dare <ow...@globec.com.au> wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <slrn5k8j5u....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
>>Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>>The Liberal (sic) government in SA recently watered down the
>>>self-defence provisions at law. Before, you could use force if you
>>>(genuinely) believed that you were in danger. Along comes Trevor
>>>"They'll never screen Salo in my town" Griffiths who now intends that
>>>people should limit their use of force to that which proportional to
>>>that being used agaist oneself.
>>
>>Might even save a few people in SA getting shot in the back....
>
>knife, pick handle and other assorted blunt instruments lined up
>against the wall so's I can be sure to have the "appropriate" level of
>defence ready :-)
>Maybe we can all employ second's as well to make the selection more
>formal. We could use a few of those "work" for the dole conscripts.
You never know who's listening. Someone might be "worried" you
didn't mention good locks or a cell-phone or similar as "self defence tools".
Mark Addinall
Roger Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3343F3...@southwest.com.au>,
> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> writes:
> >
> > Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
> >
> > . Do everything they ask you
> > . Give them anything they want
> > . If it seems appropriate, ask them if they could leave.
> >
> > Ah TV, you gotta love it.
>
Tuesday evening. Channel 7.
It nust be true, I heard it on the news.
>
> Has my understanding of the English language suddenly failed me or
> is that guvmint encouragement to all and sundry to join the new
> growth industry of home invasion?
No, just give in. It's safer.
>
> S'pose we gotta wait until some polly's minder goes rank & does
> him over then put out a series of ads encouraging the other minders
> to do the same. Maybe the guvmints' attitude would change then.
>
> > A nation of rugged individuals. More like a nation of fucking
> > stupid pussies.
>
> Replace 'nation' by 'parliament' eh.
I'll keep my post the way it is for the moment.
Cheers,
Mark.
Reg Braddock
On 4 Apr 1997 21:37:16 +1000, Kym Horsell <khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <3344d2f3...@news.powerup.com.au>,
>Owen Dare <ow...@globec.com.au> wrote:
>>On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
>>wrote:
>>
>>knife, pick handle and other assorted blunt instruments lined up
>>against the wall so's I can be sure to have the "appropriate" level of
>>defence ready :-)
>>Maybe we can all employ second's as well to make the selection more
>>formal. We could use a few of those "work" for the dole conscripts.
>
>You never know who's listening. Someone might be "worried" you
>didn't mention good locks or a cell-phone or similar as "self defence tools".
And when there isn't time to dial the number, wait on hold and explain
your situation? When the locks don't keep them out, as so often
happens (unless you think burglaries are reall aliens abducting your
property)?
People have a _right_ to self defence. Certain people in governments
may like to deny that, but it does not change the fact that, not only
do people have the _right_, but that they will exercise that _right_.
That said, no one will force you to defend yourself Kym. Indeed, I
asusme that you will be of such high principle that should anyone
attack you, you will not resist.
Owen Dare
On 4 Apr 1997 21:37:16 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
wrote:
>In article <3344d2f3...@news.powerup.com.au>,
>Owen Dare <ow...@globec.com.au> wrote:
>>On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <slrn5k8j5u....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
>>>Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:13:11 -0800, Mark Addinall
>>>><addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
>>Nah, it just means that as well as my .45, I've now gotta have a
>>knife, pick handle and other assorted blunt instruments lined up
>>against the wall so's I can be sure to have the "appropriate" level of
>>defence ready :-)
>>Maybe we can all employ second's as well to make the selection more
>>formal. We could use a few of those "work" for the dole conscripts.
>
>You never know who's listening. Someone might be "worried" you
>didn't mention good locks or a cell-phone or similar as "self defence tools".
Does one use a weaver or isosceles stance with a Lockwood 001 TM
deadlock ?
Is there any restriction on battery capacity if I choose a cell-phone,
or is it alright as long as it doesn't substantialy copy a military
unit or have automatic dialling facilities?
FREEZE PUNK! Drop my TV or I'll irradiate ya wif me Nokia!
Kym Horsell
In article <slrn5k9q52....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, Kym Horsell <khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>>In article <slrn5k8j5u....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
>>Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>>self-defence provisions at law. Before, you could use force if you
>>>(genuinely) believed that you were in danger. Along comes Trevor
>>>"They'll never screen Salo in my town" Griffiths who now intends that
>>>people should limit their use of force to that which proportional to
>>>that being used agaist oneself.
>>
>>Might even save a few people in SA getting shot in the back....
>
No, any "equating" along those lines you've done, youself.
If you read the above again -- you will note *I'm* talking about
"limiting the use of force in proportion to that being used" and
that *that* might "save a few people in SA getting shot in the back".
But your own "equate" is quite insteresting...
[21 lines elided]
Kym Horsell
In article <slrn5kbal8....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
Reg Braddock <brad...@labrador.apana.org.au> wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1997 21:37:16 +1000, Kym Horsell <khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>>In article <3344d2f3...@news.powerup.com.au>,
>>>On 4 Apr 1997 18:51:53 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Nah, it just means that as well as my .45, I've now gotta have a
>>>knife, pick handle and other assorted blunt instruments lined up
>>>against the wall so's I can be sure to have the "appropriate" level of
>>>defence ready :-)
>>>Maybe we can all employ second's as well to make the selection more
>>>formal. We could use a few of those "work" for the dole conscripts.
>>
>>You never know who's listening. Someone might be "worried" you
>>didn't mention good locks or a cell-phone or similar as "self defence tools".
>
>your situation? When the locks don't keep them out, as so often
>happens (unless you think burglaries are reall aliens abducting your
>property)?
And when you have to unlock the box with the ammo, unlock the box with
the gun, load the gun &ct?
[18 lines]
Dan Day
>> > We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
>> > Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
>> > . Do everything they ask you
>> > . Give them anything they want
Even if "anything they want" includes your life, your wife as
a plaything, and your children for satanic sacrifices?
Hmmm...
Carey Jones
[Satire mode ON]
Of course. Your belief that your life is more valuable than theirs is
egocentric, at best, and deranged, at worst. Your wife should be
flattered that these total strangers find her so attractive, and remember
the Biblical injunction to "love her neighbors". And who do you think you
are, denying them the opportunity to express their religious beliefs? ;-)
[Satire mode OFF]
Seriously, does it suprise you that a spineless Socialist government would
advocate any but the most spineless response by its citizens?
Carey L. Jones (car...@pipeline.com)
"Privately held arms are the T-cells of liberty.
Liberty will only be secure when those who advocate
gun control are viewed with the same horror and
loathing that we would have for someone who
deliberately infected others with AIDS."
Peter Mackay
In article <5icuc6$k...@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:
> In article <334bb037...@news.powerup.com.au>,
> Owen Dare <ow...@globec.com.au> wrote:
> >Does one use a weaver or isosceles stance with a Lockwood 001 TM
> >deadlock ?
>
> Armed or not, stance will initially be prone. (On back).
Sir! I am not prone to argue! (as Cleopatra said to Mark Antony)
>
> >Is there any restriction on battery capacity if I choose a cell-phone,
> >or is it alright as long as it doesn't substantialy copy a military
> >unit or have automatic dialling facilities?
> >
> >FREEZE PUNK! Drop my TV or I'll irradiate ya wif me Nokia!
>
> One could always try "(overheard) You're just around the CORNER OFFICER?",
> if it comes to that...
"Please God! Don't let me kill again!"
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
Brian
On 9 Apr 1997, Carey Jones wrote:
> In article <334a8caf....@news.globalcenter.net>, d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) says:
> >
> >>> > We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
> >>> > Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
> >>> > . Do everything they ask you
> >>> > . Give them anything they want
> >
> >Even if "anything they want" includes your life, your wife as
> >a plaything, and your children for satanic sacrifices?
[snip]
> Seriously, does it suprise you that a spineless Socialist government would
> advocate any but the most spineless response by its citizens?
The West Australian state government "socialist"?
In your dreams mate!
Same for virtually every other state and the federal governemnt
as well.
It would appear, as usual, to the American gun nuts that anything
which smacks of a government enacting stricter gun controls *_MUST_* come
from a "socialist government".
Best joke I've read all week, Court, a socialist! hahahahahahahah!
--Brian Ross--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Caius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum"
Julius Caesar
http://mulder.waite.adelaide.edu.au/~bross/
Brian
On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Adrian Pinkewich wrote:
> I have a question for you :
>
> " Do you believe that if someone broke into your house, not only
> causing great fear to yourself and your family, and were armed you could
> retain these touching views? " Qutie frankly i believe that there is no
> better deterant to home invadors than a few of their buddies getting
> bullets. Dont try and spout me all this garbage about them coming with
> increased arms then, because quite frankly i dont see why the criminal
> is so well looked after in Australias legal system.
Perhaps because they are citizens and hence entitled to the same
rights as everybody else?
Are you suggesting we scrap the present system and replace it
with say, the old Soviet one, where presumption of guilt is automatic?
> Purhaps if we had
> Harsh(er) jailing systems there would be more of a deterant to crime.
Such touching naivitity. Have you ever even seen an Australian
gaol from the outside, let alone the inside. Most of the older ones are
very good representations of later Victorian hell-holes. They have not,
in the least, deterred crime. If anything, the attitude of "lock them up
and forget them" which is essentially what your suggesting, has simply
resulted in the establishment of "colleges of crime" where young,
relatively inexperiences crims, whom could well be in for minor offences,
go in and get exposed to the real hard-cases and come out much better
able to commit more and worse crimes.
Its interesting that most that could be described as "hardened"
(ie recidivists) tend to have much lower educations and could well be
illiterate. I'm sure that Kym could enlighten us with the stats on the
relative educations of the criminals in our gaols.
The key to _preventing_ crime is not arming people en mass for "self
defence" IMO but ensuring that people get a good education.
> > You have a most fascinating view of self defence when you equate that
> > with shooting someone in the back. The opposition leader was on the
> > radio relating how he confronted people in his house with a spear (he
> > was aboriginal affairs minister at the time.) Didn't use it - merely
> > scared the bastards off. (That's understandable: on camera he looks
> > hideous. One hates to think how bad he would look at 2am :)
> IMHO If someone comes into my house to steal from me, i see no reason
> why i shouldnt take a shot at them, even in the back. Now i am a
> Christian so it raises all sorts of Grey areas, however i dont believe
> that i should have sympathy for someone trying to wrong me. At all.
> Especially when they question the lives of my family.
One is forced to wonder how, if they are fleeing, they are
"questioning the lives of" your "family".
Sounds to me that your just after good old fashion revenge.
> > Self defence does not necessarily mean that anyone dies. It is good
> > when no one dies. However, it is better, should anyone die, that it
> > should be the attacker.
>
> True. However it is difficult to determine wether or not the attacker
> will harm you. Saftey first! Why should i have their interests at heart
> when they are trying to harm me?
Perhaps because they have the same legal entitlements as you do?
You can choose to ignore the law, but be well aware that when the
law comes to judge you, your actions will be taken into account.
> > And no, shooting someone in the back would probably not be bought by
> > any court as self defence. I worry about anyone who cannot tell the
> > difference between self defence and murder.
>
> TRue. But it is not normal circumstances. Again i say ; why give the
> criminal more rights than the person they are wronging?
They don't. They have the _same_ rights.
> > Actually, I worry that such a lack of respect for life that those who
> > confuse murder and self defence might become generalised.
>
> Murder in self-defence is not desiable, but the person should under _no_
> circumstances be treated as if it was in cold blood..
The point is that you are suggesting that indeed, they should be
given the chance to do that exactly.
Mark Addinall
Brian wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 1997, Carey Jones wrote:
>
> > In article <334a8caf....@news.globalcenter.net>, d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) says:
> > >
> > >>> > We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
> > >>> > Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
> > >>> > . Do everything they ask you
> > >>> > . Give them anything they want
> > >
> > >Even if "anything they want" includes your life, your wife as
> > >a plaything, and your children for satanic sacrifices?
I'm afraid so. An interesting program runs on the TV tonight concerning
the alarming increase in 'home invasion' in Perth. I phoned the
network to ask them the content in general terms; the same I'm afraid;
. be polite
. do anything they ask
. give them anything they want
. contact the police as soon as possible
Not good enough IMHO.
We just had our budget over here, we are _very_ short of police,
but we managed to increase our funding to the police force by
1%
Fucking great.
In Australia you are discouraged from defending yourself. Tools
to defend yourself are either banned, or the laws placed on
ownership makes them incapable of being used as a defensive
item.
The police are unable (and increasingly so) to protect citizens.
Criminals and crazies _still_ manage to get weapons.
We spend 2 billion banning and destroying citizens guns and
can only manage to increase the police funding by 1%
It seems like this country is being run by idiots. Unfortunatly
it is mainly populated by idiots.
The last time I was a victim of 'home invasion' I was lucky.
He attacked with a knife and I beat the shit out of him with
a broomstick. Not so lucky the two old ladies he got before me (same
night). One threatened and kicked, the other had her face smashed
with a lump hammer. Nice little cunt heh?
I phoned the police when he took a runner. It only took two and a
bit hours to get to my place (Rapid Creek).
>
> [snip]
> Best joke I've read all week, Court, a socialist! hahahahahahahah!
Well I don't think it's a joke and I live here. The 'right'
conservative government have lost the plot in my opinion.
Not only on the gun issue, but on many other policies.
I think in many ways they are acting like a socialist government.
Certainly new laws have been passed that restrict my actions,
against my will, without my consultation and without representation.
OK, johnny's not a socialist, he's a facist. Same animal,
different uniform is all.
>
> --Brian
Mark.
A.nonpartis...@home.com
>Brian wrote:
>>
>> On 9 Apr 1997, Carey Jones wrote:
>>
>> > In article <334a8caf....@news.globalcenter.net>, d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) says:
>> > >
>> > >>> > We had a report over here in Sandgroper land about home invaders;
>> > >>> > Apparently the word from the guvmint of the day is:-
>> > >>> > . Do everything they ask you
>> > >>> > . Give them anything they want
>> > >
>> > >Even if "anything they want" includes your life, your wife as
>> > >a plaything, and your children for satanic sacrifices?
>
>I'm afraid so. An interesting program runs on the TV tonight concerning
>the alarming increase in 'home invasion' in Perth. I phoned the
>network to ask them the content in general terms; the same I'm afraid;
>
> . be polite
> . do anything they ask
> . give them anything they want
> . contact the police as soon as possible
It's not just Australia. This is precisely the advice given by US
police departments, especially to convenience-store clerks. By and
large, it seems like a good idea. If you are armed and adequately
prepared to defend yourself, chances are you'd ignore that advice
anyway. If not, you probably should follow it.
C.S.Clark
On 8 Apr 1997 18:07:34 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
wrote:
>One could always try "(overheard) You're just around the CORNER OFFICER?",
>if it comes to that...
The crime would expire in a fit of laughter. Now if you said, " what,
I have to wait until he does something to me before you can act?"
or, "It will take you how long? 2 hours? Yes I know that you are
very busy." then he would believe that you were really on the
line to the police.
Col
James D. Nicholson
The party line is that it happens so seldom in Australia that your body
bag is not of much concern to the politicians and their supporters, Col.
Your body bag would be in the same category with the other 84% of the
homicides that are not firearm related. Doesn't that make you feel
better?
--
Jim Nicholson
http://www.tsra.com
In the word of no master am I bound to believe. Horace (65-8 B.C.),
Roman poet.
James D. Nicholson
Brian wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Adrian Pinkewich wrote:
>
> > I have a question for you :
> >
> > " Do you believe that if someone broke into your house, not only
> > causing great fear to yourself and your family, and were armed you could
> > retain these touching views? " Qutie frankly i believe that there is no
> > better deterant to home invadors than a few of their buddies getting
> > bullets. Dont try and spout me all this garbage about them coming with
> > increased arms then, because quite frankly i dont see why the criminal
> > is so well looked after in Australias legal system.
>
> Perhaps because they are citizens and hence entitled to the same
> rights as everybody else?
Hardly. Once they have committed the acts above, the courts will regard
the self defense actions of the law abiding resident much different from
the same actions taken by the invader. If that's not the case in
Australia, God Save the Queen!
James D. Nicholson
Brian wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, James D. Nicholson wrote:
>
> > Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Adrian Pinkewich wrote:
>
> > > > I have a question for you :
> > > >
> > > > " Do you believe that if someone broke into your house, not only
> > > > causing great fear to yourself and your family, and were armed you could
> > > > retain these touching views? " Qutie frankly i believe that there is no
> > > > better deterant to home invadors than a few of their buddies getting
> > > > bullets. Dont try and spout me all this garbage about them coming with
> > > > increased arms then, because quite frankly i dont see why the criminal
> > > > is so well looked after in Australias legal system.
> > >
> > > Perhaps because they are citizens and hence entitled to the same
> > > rights as everybody else?
> >
> > Hardly. Once they have committed the acts above, the courts will regard
> > the self defense actions of the law abiding resident much different from
> > the same actions taken by the invader. If that's not the case in
> > Australia, God Save the Queen!
>
> Gee, Jimbo, that might be how American courts operate but
> Australian and English ones (interesting how England has developed along
> the same lines as Australias, but the US, which split from the UK so much
> earlier has such bizare notions about equality before the law) are different.
I don't believe any civilised court would apply the same treatment to
lawful and unlawful citizens. There would be no incentive to be lawful
and no distinction between law abiding and criminals. There is no way
that Australia has gone that far over the ledge.
> The criminal may well have committed a crime, but then so has the
> home occupier by attacking
The reference was to self defense.
the criminal. Two wrongs don't make a right. QED
Only one wrong in self defense, and that is the actions of the
aggressor.
> We have though, been over this, time and time again, many times
> Jimbo.
Maybe you'll get it right one of these times. Now why would I think
that.
I find it interesting how your mind keeps coming back to this,
> making the same mistakes in reasoning, attempting to apply Texan law to
> Australian situations which are indeed covered by Australian law. But
> then, we know you're a creature of your environment and have thus far
> demonstrated a singular inability to rise above your conditioning.
>
> Now, lets go back to the start again and remind you that
> aus.politics is *_AUSTRALIAN_*.politics, not austin.politics.
>
> Do you want me to continue your lesson Jimbo?
First, establish your credibility. You can start by telling me about
that three year old of yours again.
--
Jim Nicholson
JDN: How fast can the three year old run?
Brian Ross: Fast enough. Faster than most adults, he can also dodge
much more effectively as well.
JDN: Wow! Who would have ever thought that!
Brian Ross: Indeed, who would. (Good Gun Stories, aus.politics)
1997/02/24
Brian
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, James D. Nicholson wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Adrian Pinkewich wrote:
> > > I have a question for you :
> > >
> > > " Do you believe that if someone broke into your house, not only
> > > causing great fear to yourself and your family, and were armed you could
> > > retain these touching views? " Qutie frankly i believe that there is no
> > > better deterant to home invadors than a few of their buddies getting
> > > bullets. Dont try and spout me all this garbage about them coming with
> > > increased arms then, because quite frankly i dont see why the criminal
> > > is so well looked after in Australias legal system.
> >
> > Perhaps because they are citizens and hence entitled to the same
> > rights as everybody else?
>
> Hardly. Once they have committed the acts above, the courts will regard
> the self defense actions of the law abiding resident much different from
> the same actions taken by the invader. If that's not the case in
> Australia, God Save the Queen!
Gee, Jimbo, that might be how American courts operate but
Australian and English ones (interesting how England has developed along
the same lines as Australias, but the US, which split from the UK so much
earlier has such bizare notions about equality before the law) are different.
The criminal may well have committed a crime, but then so has the
home occupier by attacking the criminal. Two wrongs don't make a right. QED
We have though, been over this, time and time again, many times
Jimbo. I find it interesting how your mind keeps coming back to this,
making the same mistakes in reasoning, attempting to apply Texan law to
Australian situations which are indeed covered by Australian law. But
then, we know you're a creature of your environment and have thus far
demonstrated a singular inability to rise above your conditioning.
Now, lets go back to the start again and remind you that
aus.politics is *_AUSTRALIAN_*.politics, not austin.politics.
Do you want me to continue your lesson Jimbo?
Kym Horsell
In article <33552fa9...@news.tudelft.nl>,
<A.nonpartis...@home.com> wrote:
>It's not just Australia. This is precisely the advice given by US
>police departments, especially to convenience-store clerks. By and
>large, it seems like a good idea. If you are armed and adequately
>prepared to defend yourself, chances are you'd ignore that advice
>anyway. If not, you probably should follow it.
I realise I'm hand-selecting data -- but it still is seems valid (according
to some) -- regarding two holdups on the same day a couple of weeks
back (if anyone pokes aroun Aussie News -- what's left of it -- it's
under the daily items) on the Aus East coast.
In one locale:
2 people come into a convenience store. One is armed with a knife.
Other is armed with what turns out to be a toy pistol. Owner has
a gun under the counter -- apparently was *supposed* to be keeping
it under lock and key down at the range -- but you know how some
"law abiding gun owners" are. ;-) Anyway he dragged it out and
gave both would-be-offenders a peppering with 38 slugs. They both
lived (I understand), but probably aren't happy.
Other locale:
Would-be-robber came into the convenience store claiming (sic) to have a gun.
The attendant ran out of the shop. The robber spent some time trying
to jump over the counter. Finally managed that -- but couldn't
get the cash register open. He then went running out of the store; apparently
finding the attendant sill outside; chased him back in; but the attendant
then locked himself in a back room. Would-be robber still couldn't
get the register open.
Greg Sheppard
Kym Horsell wrote:
> In article <33552fa9...@news.tudelft.nl>,
> In one locale:
> 2 people come into a convenience store. One is armed with a knife.
> Other is armed with what turns out to be a toy pistol. Owner has
> a gun under the counter -- apparently was *supposed* to be keeping
> it under lock and key down at the range -- but you know how some
> "law abiding gun owners" are. ;-)
Yep, you said it Kim.
Law is unenforceable, stupid and unworkable.
Solution: ignore it, and do what the bloke above did.
Seems, at the very least, he avoided the _probability_ (statistically,
in Oz anyway: better than 80%) of getting cut up pretty badly.
Backs up his judgement against that of the authorities IMHO.
> Other locale:
>
> Would-be-robber came into the convenience store claiming (sic) to have a gun.
> The attendant ran out of the shop. The robber spent some time trying
> to jump over the counter. Finally managed that -- but couldn't
> get the cash register open. He then went running out of the store; apparently
> finding the attendant sill outside; chased him back in; but the attendant
> then locked himself in a back room. Would-be robber still couldn't
> get the register open.
Which proves????
If we're into anecdotes - heres one which _happened_ to ME!
Spent several years working in banking - back in the bad old days before
ATM's, and when most banks were issued pistols for cash protection.
Carried one around for years and never needed to use it.
Then the bank union and the Cain government got together and activated
for the removal of pistols from the banks. OK training was scanty, but
the _members_ were never consulted.
Several months afterwards a fruit loop walked into the next-door bank to
see the manager. Tried to get a loan for some nutty scheme he had
(something to do with an funding an army in Lebanon - this was during
the latter phases of the civil war). When the manager tried to get rid
of him, he produced a large knife and proceeded to slice significant
pieces off the manager.
Staff (all female) panicked and exited, stage right - into us - so we
sent for help.
When the police _finally_ arrived - after I'd had enough time to do a
recce, come back, kick the walls a few times that we had NOTHING to him
help with, and make a few phone calls for assistance - they commenced
negotiating with the bloke. They had no idea what was going on, and due
to the way that they took over the scene, nobody was able to get to them
to brief them.
Eventually - they got inside and overpowered him, to find the manager
within minutes of death. Fortunately, the ambo's were on site, and saved
his life, but the bloke (aged in his 40's) NEVER worked again, due to a
combination of his injuries and trauma.
The point is - I don't know if he would have, or could have used a
firearm to protect himself.
I _know_ that I was prepared to use one, if necessary, to save him, but
_couldn't_ because the (legal) possibility had been taken away from me
for political purposes. And if I had done so, the manager would have got
medical attention _much_ sooner, and _may_ not have suffered as
severely.
So we have a situation where the 99.99 percentile of firearms in a
community had NO ill effects, but were removed because of dangers which
*might* occur - in the minds of a small percentage who had no contact
with the day to day situation.
And in doing so, at least one life was destroyed.
And this, on a macro scale is what you are advocating.
Personally, I would rather have the ability and never use it than not
have the ability and need it.
Reg Braddock
On 14 Apr 1997 16:59:13 +1000, Kym Horsell
<khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>Other locale:
>
>Would-be-robber came into the convenience store claiming (sic) to have a gun.
>The attendant ran out of the shop. The robber spent some time trying
>to jump over the counter. Finally managed that -- but couldn't
>get the cash register open. He then went running out of the store; apparently
>finding the attendant sill outside; chased him back in; but the attendant
>then locked himself in a back room. Would-be robber still couldn't
>get the register open.
They're including the 100m sprint time as a inteview criteria for
convenience store clerks?
Brian
On 15 Apr 1997, Reg Braddock wrote:
> On 14 Apr 1997 16:59:13 +1000, Kym Horsell
> <khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Other locale:
> >
> >Would-be-robber came into the convenience store claiming (sic) to have a gun.
> >The attendant ran out of the shop. The robber spent some time trying
> >to jump over the counter. Finally managed that -- but couldn't
> >get the cash register open. He then went running out of the store; apparently
> >finding the attendant sill outside; chased him back in; but the attendant
> >then locked himself in a back room. Would-be robber still couldn't
> >get the register open.
>
> They're including the 100m sprint time as a inteview criteria for
> convenience store clerks?
Well, it would appear that it, and counter-jumping need to be
included in the selection critaria for robbers, now doesn't it?
Kym Horsell
In article <3352F5...@atea.mat.army.defence.gov.au>,
Greg Sheppard <shep...@atea.mat.army.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In article <33552fa9...@news.tudelft.nl>,
>> In one locale:
>> 2 people come into a convenience store. One is armed with a knife.
>> Other is armed with what turns out to be a toy pistol. Owner has
>> a gun under the counter -- apparently was *supposed* to be keeping
>> it under lock and key down at the range -- but you know how some
>> "law abiding gun owners" are. ;-)
>Yep, you said it Kim.
>Law is unenforceable, stupid and unworkable.
Just like road rules? (It's "Kym", BTW).
>Solution: ignore it, and do what the bloke above did.
>Seems, at the very least, he avoided the _probability_ (statistically,
>in Oz anyway: better than 80%) of getting cut up pretty badly.
Where do you get the "better than 80%" number from?
(Thin air, I know, is a much-consulted source, but I'm afraid
not one I generally recognise).
>Backs up his judgement against that of the authorities IMHO.
>> Other locale:
>>
>> Would-be-robber came into the convenience store claiming (sic) to have a gun.
>> The attendant ran out of the shop. The robber spent some time trying
>> to jump over the counter. Finally managed that -- but couldn't
>> get the cash register open. He then went running out of the store; apparently
>> finding the attendant sill outside; chased him back in; but the attendant
>> then locked himself in a back room. Would-be robber still couldn't
>> get the register open.
>
>Which proves????
What do you think it proves? Not really much.
But -- just co-incidentally -- in the case where there was a real firearm
involved -- people got hurt. (I also forgot to mention, the person with
the gun was also slahsed with the knife. One wonders whether he was simply
emboldened by the fact he knew he had a firearm).
Another lesson that might be learned -- crime in Australia is
not much like the "good gun stories" one sees inundating aus.*
newsgroups from time-to-time. Remember, per capita, violent crime is
10-20 (depending on type) times more likely in [some other country]
than in (even) Sydney. Violent crime in a country where 50% of households
own a firearm of some kind, and around 1/3 own a handgun, is also
of a completely different character than that in a country where an
estimated 20% of HH own a firearm of any kind and less than 5% a handgun.
Yet another lesson -- running or locking yourself in a room is (apparently)
an effective form of self-defence. Not very macho -- so won't appeal
to many Dirty Harry fans.
Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in which
the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun -- what the
general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every convenience
store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use it.
[55 lines of some other anecdote elided]
C.S.Clark
>Your body bag would be in the same category with the other 84% of the
>homicides that are not firearm related. Doesn't that make you feel
>better?
That would be the "politically correct" way for me to feel Jim.
For some reason though, I don't really feel comfortable about
trusting the current government to do what's right for
Australia. The current thinking seems to be to do what's right
for the whole world.
Col
John Alan 'Sir Twist' Belli
On 15 Apr 1997 15:52:53 +1000,
In talk.politics.guns, in message
<5iv53l$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) said:
...
|Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in which
|the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun -- what the
|general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every convenience
|store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use it.
He might think again, and decide it wasn't worth the risk?
|[55 lines of some other anecdote elided]
|
|--
|R. Kym Horsell
ST
--
Sir Twist is John Alan Belli sirt...@pobox.com
PGP Key ID 0xFD7399CD http://www.pobox.com/~sirtwist
62906E6A F1F26625 0830F0F5 4E0CB80C
By finger, and on website and keyservers. U/~ (_@___# O-
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Mike Garcia
In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a store's
>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and shot
>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
Lets see, you're postulating that these poor misguided individuals who shoot
the security guard would not have done so if the laws of Florida did not
allow law abiding people to carry concealed firearms. These two were willing
to _kill_ to avoid capture, what makes you think they would have not been
armed with a firearm if the laws of Florida were different? Are you
suggesting the shooter was licenced to carry? Do you think it was legal for
the shooter to even _own_ a firearm considering that a prior felony or violent
misdemeanor conviction would disqualify him? If they were willing to kill to
avoid a petty theft beef why would you assume they cared about the firearm
laws?
Mike G
chuck butcher
In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:
>In article <335be394...@news.zippo.com>,
>John Alan 'Sir Twist' Belli <SirT...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>On 15 Apr 1997 15:52:53 +1000,
>>In talk.politics.guns, in message
>><5iv53l$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
>>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) said:
>>
>> ...
>>|Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in
which
>>|the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun --
what the
>>|general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every
convenience
>>|store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use
it.
>>
>>He might think again, and decide it wasn't worth the risk?
>
>No sequitur.
>
>We know there are still robberies in the USA (running somewhat
>at a greater rate than other industrial countries) -- so
"deciding it wasn't
>worth the risk" obviously doesn't happen in all cases.
>
>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting
into
>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a
store's
>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece
and shot
>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
And you're proposing that criminals intent on a crime
carry openly? God, what planet are you from? Do you have an
actual life that has experiences or is everything theoretical?
Lee E. Brown
In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>, khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:
>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a store's
>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and shot
>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
Yet another vacuous comment from the androgynous Horsell.
So they were "geting into the carry concealed thing," eh? And exactly what
evidence do you have that these fellows had a concealed carry license?
Or is the problem really that as far as guns are concerned, you can't tell
criminals from lawful gun owners? They're all the same to you, right?
-- Best Regards --
Lee E. Brown
Kym Horsell
In article <335be394...@news.zippo.com>,
John Alan 'Sir Twist' Belli <SirT...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>On 15 Apr 1997 15:52:53 +1000,
>In talk.politics.guns, in message
><5iv53l$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) said:
>
> ...
>|Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in which
>|the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun -- what the
>|general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every convenience
>|store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use it.
>
>He might think again, and decide it wasn't worth the risk?
No sequitur.
We know there are still robberies in the USA (running somewhat
at a greater rate than other industrial countries) -- so "deciding it wasn't
worth the risk" obviously doesn't happen in all cases.
I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a store's
TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and shot
the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
--
Kym Horsell
In article <5klm52$42i$1...@skydiver.jaguNET.com>,
Lee E. Brown <leeb...@nospam.jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>, khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:
>
>>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a store's
>>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and shot
>>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
>
(a) it was a news item.
(b) what evidence do you have that I am androgynous?
(or are you possibly simply trying to say that *you* can't determine
gender from postings)?
Kym Horsell
In article <MTG.389....@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu>,
Mike Garcia <M...@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>
>>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a store's
>>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and shot
>>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
>
>the security guard would not have done so if the laws of Florida did not
[blah blah elided]
I noted an event. Your interpretation of my motivation is your own projection.
James F. Mayer
In <5ks0nc$i...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au
(Kym Horsell) writes:
>
>In article <MTG.389....@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Mike Garcia <M...@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>>In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>
khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>>
>>>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
>>>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a
store's
>>>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and
shot
>>>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
>>
>>Lets see, you're postulating that these poor misguided individuals
who shoot
>>the security guard would not have done so if the laws of Florida did
not
>>allow law abiding people to carry concealed firearms. ...
>[blah blah elided]
>
>I noted an event. Your interpretation of my motivation is your own
projection.
>
You seem to be insinuating that if there was no concealed carry law
in Florida that the criminals in this case would not have had access to
firearms to commit the crime. This is pure bunk as criminals will find
the tools of their trade where they can and use them at their
discretion. You may have been noting an event but you have colored it
to suit your biases.
Kym Horsell
In article <5ks8if$d...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
James F. Mayer <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <5ks0nc$i...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au
>(Kym Horsell) writes:
>>
>>In article <MTG.389....@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>Mike Garcia <M...@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>
>khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>>>>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
>>>>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a
>store's
>>>>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and
>shot
>>>>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
> You seem to be insinuating that if there was no concealed carry law
>in Florida that the criminals in this case would not have had access to
>firearms to commit the crime.
No. That is not unambiguously "insinuated" by what I said.
For instance I could have simply been indicating an example of
"availability and use". I.e. CCW is "available" in Florida, and
many people take advantage of the availability to use it.
Hence -- you have (again) projected some belief from yourself onto
my little notation.
>This is pure bunk as criminals will find
If it's bunk -- we note that it's bunk you invented.
>the tools of their trade where they can and use them at their
>discretion. You may have been noting an event but you have colored it
>to suit your biases.
Now you're being hypocritical.
When you criticise someone for doing something, try to ensure
that (a) you're obviously not doing that same thing yourself,
and (b) try to take precautions so the other person can't *show*
you to be doing that, based on something you just said.
Nosy
<In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
< John Alan 'Sir Twist' Belli <SirT...@pobox.com> wrote:
< >
< >In talk.politics.guns, in message
< ><5iv53l$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
< >khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) said:
< >
< > ...
< >|Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in which
< >|the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun -- what the
< >|general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every convenience
< >|store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use it.
< >
< >He might think again, and decide it wasn't worth the risk?
< No sequitur.
Incorrect.
< We know there are still robberies in the USA (running somewhat
< at a greater rate than other industrial countries) -- so "deciding it wasn't
< worth the risk" obviously doesn't happen in all cases.
Of course, "we" know nothing of the kind.
< I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
< the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a store's
< TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and shot
< the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
Horsell disingenuously conflates criminals who are illegally
carrying concealed firearms with law-abiding citizens that
have obtained permits to carry concealed.
How very dishonest.
Brian Claypool
Kym Horsell wrote:
>
> In article <5ks8if$d...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> James F. Mayer <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <5ks0nc$i...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au
> >>
> >>In article <MTG.389....@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu>,
> >>Mike Garcia <M...@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
> >>>>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
> >>>>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a
> >store's
> >>>>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and
> >shot
> >>>>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
> > You seem to be insinuating that if there was no concealed carry law
> >in Florida that the criminals in this case would not have had access to
> >firearms to commit the crime.
>
> No. That is not unambiguously "insinuated" by what I said.
> For instance I could have simply been indicating an example of
> "availability and use". I.e. CCW is "available" in Florida, and
> many people take advantage of the availability to use it.
>
> Hence -- you have (again) projected some belief from yourself onto
> my little notation.
>
> >This is pure bunk as criminals will find
>
> If it's bunk -- we note that it's bunk you invented.
>
> >the tools of their trade where they can and use them at their
> >discretion. You may have been noting an event but you have colored it
> >to suit your biases.
>
> Now you're being hypocritical.
>
> When you criticise someone for doing something, try to ensure
> that (a) you're obviously not doing that same thing yourself,
> and (b) try to take precautions so the other person can't *show*
> you to be doing that, based on something you just said.
>
> --
> R. Kym Horsell
> KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
> http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
I'm a bit confused.
Are you saying that the criminals detailed in your post had CCW
licenses? If they didn't, I guess that they must have been just like
the slimeballs here in California who rob 7-11's at gun point but
don't have CCW licenses?
Gosh, imagine that! California has some of the most restrictive gun
laws in the country, but we still have an awful lot of gun related
crime!
Just what was your point?
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Kym Horsell
In article <ATAYLOR.97...@gauss.nmsu.edu>,
Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
><In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>< John Alan 'Sir Twist' Belli <SirT...@pobox.com> wrote:
>< >
>, >On 15 Apr 1997 15:52:53 +1000,
>< >In talk.politics.guns, in message
>< ><5iv53l$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
>< >khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) said:
>< >
>< > ...
>< >|Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in which
>< >|the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun -- what the
>< >|general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every convenience
>< >|store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use it.
>< >
>< >He might think again, and decide it wasn't worth the risk?
>
>< No sequitur.
>
> Incorrect.
Shouldn't that be "you are Brian Ross"?
Kym Horsell
In article <337A8E...@ix.netcom.com>,
Brian Claypool <bama...@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
...
>> >khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>> >>>>I noted in NBC news today that even shop stealers are getting into
>> >>>>the carry concealed thing in Florida. A pair were monitored on a
>> >store's
>> >>>>TV camera and later challenged by a guard. One pulled a piece and
>> >shot
>> >>>>the guard. Over a stolen razor, said NBC.
>> ...
>Are you saying that the criminals detailed in your post had CCW
>licenses?
If so, I can't find where I said that.
>If they didn't, I guess that they must have been just like
>the slimeballs here in California who rob 7-11's at gun point but
>don't have CCW licenses?
>
>Gosh, imagine that! California has some of the most restrictive gun
>laws in the country, but we still have an awful lot of gun related
>crime!
>
>Just what was your point?
My original "point" was to illustrate "availability [being] linked with use".
As for "restructive gun laws", I understand there's a Federal push on
this week to enforce the laws that have been enacted. It's one thing
to *have* (e.g.) laws against speeding, and quite another to have
people actually obey them (or, as it turned out in "one" case, not). ;-)
As another point of controversay -- NBC in its coverage of the "new
Federal gun drive" that is -- apparently -- to see photo ID's used
to purchase firearms, NBC mentioned the following statistic that comes
as a surprise to me.
They said that over the past (several years) the number of American
households claiming to possess at least 1 firearm had fallen from "around 1/2"
to "around 1/3".
If true, sounds rather surprising.
Nosy
<In article <5lk9ok$n...@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
< In article <ATAYLOR.97...@gauss.nmsu.edu>,
< Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
< ><In article <5kktje$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> khor...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
< >< In article <335be394...@news.zippo.com>,
< >< John Alan 'Sir Twist' Belli <SirT...@pobox.com> wrote:
< >< >
< >, >On 15 Apr 1997 15:52:53 +1000,
< >< >In talk.politics.guns, in message
< >< ><5iv53l$c...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
< >< >khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) said:
< >< >
< >< > ...
< >< >|Finally -- one can only imagine the outcome of the above -- in which
< >< >|the robbers were armed -- but in no case with a (real) gun -- what the
< >< >|general effect of the so-called "criminal" knowing that every convenience
< >< >|store attendant had a firearm and was just *itching* to use it.
< >< >
< >< >He might think again, and decide it wasn't worth the risk?
< >
< >< No sequitur.
< >
< > Incorrect.
< Shouldn't that be "you are Brian Ross"?
Non sequitur.