Testimony Before Violent Crimes Commission (LONG)
Bill Gray
Last week I testified before the Governor's Commission on Violent
Crime in a public hearing in St. Paul.
Here is (approximately) what I said:
In the 1930's AT&T introduced dial telephones, eliminating thousands
of operators' jobs. The move was controversial and AT&T took some
flak over it because of the high Depression-era unemployment rates.
But by the 1970's, had AT&T not gone to dial technology, every woman
in America would have had to be a telephone operator to handle the
call volume.
Presently in Minnesota, we have an "operator assisted" approach to
safety in the streets. I suggest that a "direct dial" approach to
personal safety would have better results. Let me give you just one
specific example.
In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.
When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.
Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! :-) ]
Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.
The results?
In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.
In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)
The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.
Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.
Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.
My home was built in 1913. It has never burned. But we still have
two operational smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher. We practice
fire drills with our children. We do *not* just count on the fire
department to save us if something goes wrong.
I have never been in a personal injury automobile accident. But I still
wear seatbelts whenever they are available, and require all passengers
to use them when I am driving. We also maintain our cars as best we
can and we drive sober and defensively. We do *not* just count on the
paramedics to save us if something goes wrong.
Since my family moved to Minnesota in 1987, we have been victims of
crime 8 times. Before that, in Tennessee, we were burglarized three
times. How can it be sensible for us to just depend on the police for
our protection?
We are *not* talking about vigilantism here, but simple self-reliance.
We are not talking about shooting anyone, anywhere at the drop of a
hat; that privilege is reserved for the criminals. We are only talking
about reasonable self-defense. Remember that it was not armed citizens
who threw a grenade into the Smalley's home and killed two elderly
invalids, or who shot Tycel Nelson, or two thirteen-year-old Hmong boys
in the back with a shotgun from behind cover in broad daylight. Those
were the "professionals."*
Armed citizens may make some mistakes, too. But they have proven
statistically to be better risks than the police when it comes to
justifiable shooting.
I urge the members of the Commission to remember that to protect women,
one must empower them. I ask that you recommend to the Governor that he
support an amendment to the state constitution guaranteeing the right
of each citizen to keep and bear arms for the purpose of legitimate
self-defense.
Thank you.
To what I had time to present to the Commission I'd like to point out
that the average sentence served per rape is about 84.5 days. If that
seems low, remember that most rapists are not caught, and the average
convicted rapist had raped 17 times before being apprehended.
*Notes to the net about local cases mentioned in the testimony:
Lloyd (?) Smalley and his female companion, both elderly, invalids, and
black, were killed by Minneapolice (TM) who threw a "flash-bang" grenade
into their home to "confuse and disorient" the "drug dealers" they were
raiding.
The grenade landed in the room where Smalley and his companion were
confined to bed. The resulting fire killed them both. The younger
housemates who cared for the Smalley couple--and who may have been
selling drugs on the side--were in the front of the house. The Smalley
couple was in the rear in a bedroom. Any citizen who threw such a
grenade under these circumstances would go to prison for a long, long time.
The cop is still "protecting" the public in Minneapolis.
Tycel Nelson, a 17 year old black male, was at a party when someone
fired a few shots. (It is not known whether they were fired at someone,
or even if they were gunshots and not firecrackers.) On hearing the
sirens of approaching police, Tycel and many other partygoers bugged out
rather than have to deal with the Minneapolice (TM).
One heroic officer shot Tycel in the back with a shotgun as Tycel ran.
A small-caliber handgun was found near Tycel's body, but friends and
relatives vociferously deny that he ever had a gun. As a shooter, I
can assure the non-shooting public that it is rather difficult (to
understate it considerably) to place an accurate shot behind you while
running away from someone, especially at the 25 yard range the officer
fired from. Put another way--had any ordinary citizen fired under
those circumstances, s/he would have faced charges and likely been
convicted for at least manslaughter. The heroic officer who shot Tycel
is still on patrol in Minneapolis.
The two 13 year old Hmong boys were running from a stolen car they had
wrecked following a police chase. One of them had a screwdriver in his
hand. The officer shot them in the back from a position behind some farm
equipment. Again, any citizen who shot under those circumstances would
face charges and probable conviction.
--
gr...@hawkmoon.mn.org
"Veni, vini, vomiti!" -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Mr. X
>
mega snip...
>The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
>widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
>themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
>learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
>of the defenseless in those other locations.
I'm sure our IllustriousCongress(tm) will fix this oversight by
passing legisaltion making it illegal for any individual or local
municipality to engage in any action that would cause the indigenous
criminal element to leave the vicinity and do business elsewhere,
thereby ensuring the safety of the members of one community at the
expense of the members of another. After all this is AMERICA God
damn it where people are all EXACTLY THE SAME, which is the TRUE
meaning of 'created equal' and therefore NO CITIZEN shall enjoy a
higher degree of safety than any other. The STATE provides safety,
NOT the individual. The STATE is PERFECT God damn it and if any of
you miserable little insignificant wads of fly shit DARE to think
otherwise, the STATE will see to it that you NEVER think contrary
to the accepted and PoliticallyCorrect(tm) dogma that we shove down
your miserable fucking pencil necked throats every day.
You all GOT THAT? You'd BETTER! Just for your insolence,
DOUBLE THE TAXES! HA! That'l show you what for!
[note for the humor impaired: This, ah say this is a *joke* son]
Carry on...
James Douglas Del Vecchio
house by policemen to "confuse" "drug dealers". In Minneaplolis MN.
Per report, policeman who threw the gernade into the slain invalids'
bedroom is still on the job.
What were the names and dates for this story please?
Jim Del Vecchio
Jeff Pipkins
>In article <1991Oct8.1...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> gr...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Bill Gray) writes:
>>
> mega snip...
>
>>The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
>>widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
>>themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
>>learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
>>of the defenseless in those other locations.
>
> I'm sure our IllustriousCongress(tm) will fix this oversight by
> passing legisaltion making it illegal for any individual or local
> municipality to engage in any action that would cause the indigenous
> criminal element to leave the vicinity and do business elsewhere,
> thereby ensuring the safety of the members of one community at the
> expense of the members of another. After all this is AMERICA God
> damn it where people are all EXACTLY THE SAME, which is the TRUE
> meaning of 'created equal' and therefore NO CITIZEN shall enjoy a
> higher degree of safety than any other. [megasnip]
There used to be a saying here in Texas:
"God made all men, and Sam Colt made them equal!"
>[note for the humor impaired: This, ah say this is a *joke* son]
------------------------------------------------------------------- [sig #18]
Jeff D. Pipkins <uunet!cpqhou!pipkinsj> |
<pipk...@cpqhou.se.hou.com> NOTE: I am | I'd rather have a bottle in front of
NOT authorized to represent my employer. | me than a frontal lobotamy.
Use my opinions ONLY at your OWN risk. |
Scott Woodson
>Crime in a public hearing in St. Paul.
>
>Here is (approximately) what I said:
.
>In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
>there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
>Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
>below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
>areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
>
>Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
>in addition to the rape reductions.
.
Those are some pretty good statistics. Here, I've got some of my own:
In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't have
tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
Lyers, damned lyers, and statiticians.
(Ever notice how much lyer sounds like lawyer? 8-)
I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
After all, the tobacco industry has been coming up with statistics
for years that show that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to ones
health!
(These opinions are mine.)
Scott!
Russell Turpin
In article <34...@calmasd.Prime.COM> s...@calmasd.Prime.COM (Scott Woodson) writes:
> In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
> 27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
> 9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't
> have tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
Of course. Because I know how the argument is constructed.
But what is the murder rate in Mexico?
> Lyers, damned lyers, and statiticians.
> I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
It means that the list of countries was well selected to make a
point. A pro-gun activist could make the opposite point by
juxtaposing places with low murder rates and liberal laws
against places with a high murder rate and very stringent gun
control laws. Consider the four categories below.
(1) low murder rate, little gun control
(2) high murder rate, little gun control
(3) low murder rate, stringent gun control
(4) high murder rate, stringent gun control
I suspect that there are plenty of examples for each category.
The US falls into the second category. The gun control lobby
can make a point by juxtaposing the US with a handful of
countries from category (3). A pro-gun activist might argue
that guns increase safety by juxaposing instances of (1)
and (4). Neither argument is worth a damn.
By the way, the word is spelled "liar".
Russell
lawrence.v.cipriani
>
>In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
>27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
>9014 in the good ole USA.
You should be talking about murder rates in order to adjust for population
level; e.g., comparing the number of murders in Liechtenstein to the USA is
absurd.
>Only one of these countries doesn't have tough handgun control laws.
>Can you guess?
You should also be concerned with the overall crime rates before and after
tough handgun control laws were implemented in a given nation; e.g., if
the violent crime rate in England was even lower before tough handgun
control laws were passed one would not jump to the conclusion that tough
handgun control laws kept or brought the violent crime rate down. The
violent crime rates in all the countries who passed tough handgun control
laws rose after those laws were passed.
Perhaps you can name at least one jurisdiction, of any size, where the
violent crime rate fell after a tough handgun control law was passed ?
I'll make it even easier, can you name at least one jurisdiction where
the violent crime rate fell after any gun control was passed ?
>I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
They were cooked up to scare people unknowledgeable about firearms into
supporting even more draconian gun control laws.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Nosy
Unlike Mr. Woodson, I know that firearms debates on the net properly
belong in talk.politics.guns, therefore the followup is set THERE
rather than misc.legal.
<In article <34...@calmasd.Prime.COM> s...@calmasd.Prime.COM (Scott Woodson) writes:
< Those are some pretty good statistics. Here, I've got some of my own:
< In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
< 27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
< 9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't have
< tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
I challenge this claim; I say that handguns killed none
of those people, but rather that criminals USED handguns
to kill people or that individuals USED handguns to
take their own lives. Your attempt to blame a crime on
an inanimate object is noted.
Now then, the last claim. Please define what you mean by
"tough" handgun laws. For example, compare and contrast
the handguns laws of Washington, D.C. (a ban since 1976)
with the handguns laws of Switzerland. Do you actually
KNOW what is involved in getting a handgun license
in Switzerland? It is, in fact, easier to LEGALLY get a
handgun in Lucerne, Switzerland than it is in New York
City. Note the key word: LEGALLY.
I, for one, would feel more comfortable walking
the streets of Lucerne at 3 AM than in NYC.
I suspect you have an agenda and cut the facts to fit.
< Lyers, damned lyers, and statiticians.
< (Ever notice how much lyer sounds like lawyer? 8-)
< I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
< After all, the tobacco industry has been coming up with statistics
< for years that show that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to ones
< health!
It would also be more useful to compare murder RATES,
that is # of murders/100,000 population, rather than
total number of crimes.
Matthew T. Russotto
appropriate forums. I have restored the original newsgroup list, and set
followups to t.p.guns]
>In article <1991Oct8.1...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> gr...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Bill Gray) writes:
>>
>>Last week I testified before the Governor's Commission on Violent
>>Crime in a public hearing in St. Paul.
>>
>>Here is (approximately) what I said:
>.
>.
>>In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
>>there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
>>Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
>>below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
>>areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
>>
>>Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
>>in addition to the rape reductions.
>.
>.
>Those are some pretty good statistics. Here, I've got some of my own:
>
>In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
>27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
>9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't have
>tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
None of them, if you consider local regulations (most US murders occur in
areas with strict gun control).
>I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
>After all, the tobacco industry has been coming up with statistics
>for years that show that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to ones
>health!
>(These opinions are mine.)
They weren't opinions-- they were a cheap shot, as is shown by your dishonest
redirection of followups.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Frank Crary
strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
HCI In 19__ there were N murders in England, M in France....." It
would be nice to print an almost identical poster, but contrasting the
US to countries with gun control and high murder rates.
I'd suggest Mexico, Laos, Columbia, and/or South Africa.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
The Terminator
could have an accident and become handicapped one day!
(But as Captain Picard says, "Well Done!" :-)
Phil Ronzone
Well, first of all, the 9,014 is the combined total of ALL firearms,
not just handguns. Secondly, in almost all cantons in Switzerland,
firearms are a lot easier to acquire than in New York City, which
has an extremely high homicide rate by firearms. I don't
think Austria is very strict either. And you left out both
Germany and Italy -- guess you didn't liek those figures, huh?
So here I am, less than 2 miles from guns shops were I can buy
such weapons as the H&K SP89, the AR15 Sporter, semi-automatic
shotguns, SKS rifles, and guess what?
Yet again ANOTHER year with a single homicide by firearm.
FYI - where I live is in Cupertino, which is 8 miles from East Palo
Alto, a high crime "slum" city, and about 11 miles from East San Jose,
parts of which I wouldn't want to be in at night. Distances are all
by miles traveled on 4-lane+ highways, so travel roads are no hindrance.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
September 14 - commissioning of the "Hue City" -- ho ho ho, way to
go, Nicaruaga, East Germany, USSR, next is Vietnam!
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
Oh yes. Probably Jamaica is the worst. It's laws are so strict that
60 minutes reported on an Australian that got off a plane with a hat that
have several decorations in it, one of which was a dummy (inert) rifle
cartridge. He got 7 years. Period. Jamaica's per capita homicide rate
is so high they don't discuss -- it's been estimated to approached 100
per 100,000!
They are now running another Jamaica is safe, come play tourist campaign.
Just don't the streets at night, or as the travel agencies put it,
stay in groups and don't carry VCS, cameras or other obviously expensive
goods.
Bill Gray
>
Depends on how you define murder. If you mean the unjustified taking of
innocent human life, then I'd suggest you include China, Iraq, Cambodia,
and, until very recently, just about anywhere in the Eastern Bloc. Gun
control was *very* popular among all these governments.
Far and away the largest cause of violent death in my lifetime has been
governments killing their own people. Garden-variety murder is a distant
second.
Bill
P.S. I have attempted to set followups to talk.politics.guns. I am not
sure I succeeded. :-(
--
gr...@hawkmoon.mn.org
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!" -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Stanford Guillory
>In article <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcr...@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
>cartridge. He got 7 years. Period. Jamaica's per capita homicide rate
>is so high they don't discuss -- it's been estimated to approached 100
>per 100,000!
Yes, but what percentage are committed by guns?
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Stanford S. Guillory sgui...@pcocd2.intel.com
The sin of another should excite only compassion in your heart.
The Terminator
>In article <1991Oct14.03...@netcom.COM> ph...@netcom.COM (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcr...@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>
>Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
>committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
>
>>cartridge. He got 7 years. Period. Jamaica's per capita homicide rate
>>is so high they don't discuss -- it's been estimated to approached 100
>>per 100,000!
>
>Yes, but what percentage are committed by guns?
>
Jerry Roe
>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>HCI In 19__ there were N murders in England, M in France....." It
Sure. Washington, D.C.; New York City; Detroit...you get the picture.
Jerry Roe
j...@nsc.nsc.com ...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl}!nsc!jrr
Russell Turpin
In article <1991Oct14....@intelhf.hf.intel.com> sgu...@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Stanford Guillory) writes:
> Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
> committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
Not at all.
The real issue is whether, and to what extent, control of handguns
decreases the rate of *all* murders and injurious assaults. If,
tomorrow, all handguns were to disappear from NYC, that might only
shift the means of violence. Drug dealers, instead of carrying
automatic pistols, might carry sawed-off shotguns. Those who want
a gun at home might also merely turn to guns other than pistols.
This would not necessarily make NYC a safer place; it might even
make it a more dangerous place. It would be no benefit if the
number of murders committed by handguns were to drop, only to be
made up by murders committed with other means.
I don't usually enter the gun-control fray. For some reason,
it seems to bring out people's worst arguments and analysis.
Russell
Stanford Guillory
>
> Guns are a tool (one of many), not the problem. Assuming that outlawing guns
>will actually affect the outlaws (hah!) simply means that the killings
>will be done with other tools.
Perhaps, but it is not as easy to kill with other weapons. The maxim
that guns don't kill people, people kill people may be true, but
people are a lot more effective at killing when they have a gun.
>
> Statistics will then show that knives are present in a significant number
>of crime related deaths.
Yes, but the number of deaths will be significantly lower.
>
>Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>Then, we'll outlaw fire.
Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
to your victim, and you need to be physically powerful, at least
as powerful as your victim, and possibly more. With the above items,
you also take the chance of losing the struggle and suffering injury.
One of my fears is that some little punk is going to get pissed at
me in traffic and pull a gun and shoot me. I'd like to see that same
punk come at me with a tire iron. I'd shove it up his ass.
(My apologies for letting my sexist, macho side show on soc.women.)
BTW, I have been chastized for not checking the crosspostings, so I am
taking this out of soc.women and talk.rape. Also, I apologize, but
since I do not read the other groups, I will probably not see any
responses. I might read one of them for a week just to see.
>| Michael Rivero riv...@dev8j.mdcbbs "A Human's Human!" |
Roger White
>>In article <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcr...@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>
>Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
>committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
>
Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
Rog
Stanford Guillory
>
>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die. Plus, if you go into a rage
against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
rolling pin out of the house.
>
>Rog
Andy Freeman
>> Statistics will then show that knives are present in a significant number
>>of crime related deaths.
>
>Yes, but the number of deaths will be significantly lower.
Gun control has never been associated with a reduction in the murder
rate, not in the UK, not in Canada, and not in any US jurisdiction.
So, either gun control doesn't take guns away from people who murder,
or they seem to be able to do without.
Of course, if Guillory is discussing an ideal world, where guns don't
exist, his comments are relevant. In this world they aren't, because
gun control doesn't have the effects he assumes. It's easy to disarm
people who aren't going to kill anyone, but that doesn't accomplish
anything. It has proved impossible to disarm people who will kill, so
gun control fails as crime control. Perhaps Guillory has another
purpose in mind.
BTW - The murder rate in the US is now about 10x as high as the UK's.
(Before the UK introduced gun control, the difference was a factor of
16.) If gun control is the difference, then how come the non-gun
murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than the UK's total murder
rate? Is there knife control in the UK? Do they have fewer fists?
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
Andy Freeman
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
Not even close. Handguns are only marginally more lethal than knives;
both kill about 15%. (Knives are more lethal than many other things
that are classified as edged weapons.) Rifles and shotguns can be
80% lethal, but they're not commonly used to shoot people.
Effective killers use fire. Somewhat less effective killers use cars.
(The exceptions are serial killers; almost all of them use knives,
rope, and fists/feet.)
>Plus, if you go into a rage against your spouse with a frying pan, you
>have to stay in that irrational state a lot longer to kill them than
>if you had a gun.
You only have to stay mad enough to hit once, or maybe twice. Since
most people who actually take up pans against their spouses in anger
pound until their arms are tired, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
It doesn't take many blows to reliably kill with a knife either.
If you really believe the "rush of passion" argument, then guns are
LESS lethal because the sound is a greater shock to the attacker than
the squick of a blade or the thud of a pan. Remember, that theory
says that they really don't want to kill and and guns speedup the
"snap out of it" process.
Of course, trying to be consistent with a bogus theory is somewhat
silly. People who kill, regardless of weapon choice, happen to have a
history of violence toward others.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
He's much more likely to kill his playmates by sneaking them into the
family pool.
Robert D. Silverman
:Stanford,
: I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
:
:In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
:
:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
--
Bob Silverman
#include <std.disclaimer>
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Eolid enthusiast
>>
>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth.
Are you just trying to start an argument, or are you *really* as
ignorant as your statment makes you look?
You need to do a *lot* of study on the subject. Man was an efficient
killer long before firearms came into being, and there are a lot of
weapons that far surpass individual firearms for efficiency. (And
completely ignoring nuclear weapons and the like.)
He was an efficient killer before metal tools came on the scene, for
that matter.
Why don't you start by finding out about the Mongols under Genghis
and his successors?
>It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
This one was brought up a couple days back, you must have missed it.
The lethality of gun vs knife is roughly 1:1. Check your stats again.
>Plus, if you go into a rage
>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
Don't bet on it. It might, and it might not. Someone mad enough
to pound on someone with a skillet (or bat or...) is not likely to
quit soon enough to help the victim much.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
It would not be anywhere near the problem that it is (not that it's
a major cause of children's deaths, compared to the other major
killers) if kids were taught reasonable gun safety, rather than
picking up what they "know" from TV and playing games with their
pals.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only drawback with morning is that it | Chasing nebulae till 3 am
comes at such an inconvenient time of day. | may explain it, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
james c oconnor
> In article <1991Oct15.1...@philabs.philips.com> r...@philabs.philips.com (Roger White) writes:
>>
>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
> Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
> with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
> since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
> victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
I'd REALLY like to see those stats, since that runs counter to nearly
everything I've seen.
As to rage with a frying pan, blunt objects are exceedingly deadly.
I've never gone into a rage with a gun or a frying pan, even though
there were times when I was angry and had both handy. Maybe you know
people who just have no control over themselves, but then no amount
of state-imposed control will keep them from harming others except for
solitary confinement.
Jim
--
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
John Kapson
I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
<sg> to your victim, and you need to be physically powerful, at least
<sg> as powerful as your victim, and possibly more. With the above items,
<sg> you also take the chance of losing the struggle and suffering injury.
The largest mass murder in several decades was committed with a gallon
of gasoline. Remember earlier this year when some nutcase set fire to that
nightclub in New York? 87 people died (none of them "right next to" their
killer) but I didn't hear people clamoring to ban gas or have background
checks before selling it.
People are either killers or non-killers; a gun may make it slightly easier
for them to try, but it doesn't make them necessarily more effective(*), and a
gun certainly won't take a person who normally wouldn't kill and suddenly
make hir homocidal.
(*) In Detroit 1986 (+/- a couple years) 365 young drug dealers (age<18) [oops,
maybe I should say "children" like HCI does] shot each other but only 41
died. Too bad.
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| John Kapson NRA IEEE ACM |"The strongest reason for the people to |
| Engineer / Grad Student | retain the right to keep and bear arms is, |
| kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu | as a last resort, to protect themselves |
| kap...@erim.org | against tyranny in government." T. Jefferson |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Eolid enthusiast
>In article <1991Oct16.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) writes:
>:Stanford,
>: I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
>:
>:In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
>:
>:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
>:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>
>I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
I hate to dissappoint you...ever heard of target shooting? (Like with
a bow and arrow, for example?) Take a good look at some target guns and
you'll see something that not only was not designed for killing, but would
be a good deal less effective for the task than a number of items in the
list above that you dismiss as being different due to differing primary
purpose.
>"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
It must take some courage to admit that...
seh
p.s. I must be due for some vacation. I'm not normally this testy.
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) says:
>
>The largest mass murder in several decades was committed with a gallon
>of gasoline. Remember earlier this year when some nutcase set fire to that
>nightclub in New York? 87 people died (none of them "right next to" their
>killer) but I didn't hear people clamoring to ban gas or have background
>checks before selling it.
>
>People are either killers or non-killers; a gun may make it slightly easier
>for them to try, but it doesn't make them necessarily more effective(*), and a
>gun certainly won't take a person who normally wouldn't kill and suddenly
>make hir homocidal.
>
>(*) In Detroit 1986 (+/- a couple years) 365 young drug dealers (age<18)
>[oops,
>maybe I should say "children" like HCI does] shot each other but only 41
>died. Too bad.
>
is one of the most bogus reasons for being against any form of gun
control. No reasonable person advocates banning useful objects or
substances merely because some lunatic "might" use it to harm others,
but society does require licensing for people who operate dangerous
machinery or handle lethal and toxic substances.
Are you seriously saying that since it's the person who does the
killing, and not the object that person uses to commit the murders,
therefore everybody should be allowed to own an uzi? how about a
laser beam weapon? or a missile? or a nuclear bomb?
The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Robert Allen
+:Stanford,
+: I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
+:
+:In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
+:
+:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
+:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
+
+I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
+All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
+
+When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
+the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
What is noise is your stupid remarks.
Saying the primary purpose of guns is to kill is like saying the
primary purpose of cars is to do drive by shootings.
--
Robert Allen, r...@sun.com DISCLAIMER: I said it, not my company.
"Traditionalists often study what is taught, not what there is to create."
- Ed Parker, Grandmaster, American Kenpo.
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
fcr...@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) says:
>
>The Supreme Court ruled in
>(as I recall 1942) in US v. Miller, exactly where to draw the line.
>According to the Court, individual citizens have the right to keep and
>bare ANY weapon which contributes to the continuation and effectiveness of
~~~~~~~~~~
Does anybody know where I can buy an H-bomb wholesale? I'll bet
we can pick them up real cheap at a government surplus auction
considering all the arms reduction going on with the end of the cold war.
>the militia. It is, according to the Supreme Court, unconstitutional for
>the government to pass ANY law which restricts this right. The only
>way to "license" firearms is to either amend the Constitution and repeal
>the Second Amendment, or find a was to "license" that will not restrict
>a law abiding citizen's right to own a firearm.
>
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
>>
>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
This isn't so-- the stats have been posted here before, perhaps someone has
them on hand.
>Plus, if you go into a rage
>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
I don't know about you, but when I get into a rage at someone, I feel like
hurting them with my bare hands-- less personal techniques just don't come
to mind.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
So don't put the gun where the child can get at it! If the child is not old
enough or responsible enough to handle the gun, he shouldn't be able to get to
it? Do you leave Liquid Drano where a kid can get at it, if the kid is likely
to drink it?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
"We do not need any characterizations like "Shame" from the Senator from
Massachusetts" --- Sen. Arlan Specter
Matthew T. Russotto
>>
>> Guns are a tool (one of many), not the problem. Assuming that outlawing guns
>>will actually affect the outlaws (hah!) simply means that the killings
>>will be done with other tools.
>
>Perhaps, but it is not as easy to kill with other weapons. The maxim
>that guns don't kill people, people kill people may be true, but
>people are a lot more effective at killing when they have a gun.
Well, they are more effective at killing people they are trying to kill. If
you mean killing indiscriminately, fire is the best weapon.
>>Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>>Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>>Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>>Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>>Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>>Then, we'll outlaw fire.
>
>Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
>killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>to your victim, and you need to be physically powerful, at least
>as powerful as your victim, and possibly more. With the above items,
>you also take the chance of losing the struggle and suffering injury.
Not fire.
But, all those differences you point out are double edged. I can, using
a gun, stop an assailant before he is close enough to do me any harm. I
don't need to be as strong as he is, and I take a much smaller chance
of losing the struggle.
>One of my fears is that some little punk is going to get pissed at
>me in traffic and pull a gun and shoot me. I'd like to see that same
>punk come at me with a tire iron. I'd shove it up his ass.
Good for YOU. But if some 6' 3" thug comes at ME with a tire iron, I'm not
going to be able to shove it up his ass. If I'm in a car, I might take off,
if possible, but otherwise, I'm screwed without a gun.
>Stanford S. Guillory sgui...@pcocd2.intel.com
>The sin of another should excite only compassion in your heart.
Not envy? :-)
Rodrigo Vanegas
>I'd suggest Mexico, Laos, Columbia, and/or South Africa.
That's *Colombia*. Will I ever see this spelled correctly by an
American?
Rodrigo Vanegas
Frank Crary
> The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
>licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
>that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
>
According to the Court, individual citizens have the right to keep and
bare ANY weapon which contributes to the continuation and effectiveness of
the government to pass ANY law which restricts this right. The only
way to "license" firearms is to either amend the Constitution and repeal
the Second Amendment, or find a was to "license" that will not restrict
a law abiding citizen's right to own a firearm.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
John Kapson
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
>:
>:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
>:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>
>I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
>When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
>the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
Gee Bob, I've been shooting for about seventeen years, own several firearms
(including the dreaded SemiAutomatics (*gasp*)) and I've never killed anyone.
I must be doing something wrong, huh? Regardless of what you think guns are
made for, DEAD IS DEAD. Like the mass murder info that you conveniently
snipped out. Do you think those people care whether it was a man with a gun
or an arsonist that killed them? Read this again: dead is dead. If you
want to lower the murder rate, why not take a hard look at _why_ some people
choose to kill others, not what instrument they do it with.
Finally, here's the open question that no hoplophobic gun-banner has yet
supplied an answer to: can you name _any_ area where increased gun control
or a total gun ban has brought about a decrease in the crime rate? Didn't
think you could.
>Bob Silverman
>"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
You are a perfect example of this statement. Why don't you learn the FACTS
about gun control (or even guns in general) before you jump on the HCI
bandwagon?
John Kapson
> Are you seriously saying that since it's the person who does the
>killing, and not the object that person uses to commit the murders,
>therefore everybody should be allowed to own an uzi? how about a
>laser beam weapon? or a missile? or a nuclear bomb?
Why should you be afraid of the average law-aiding citizen (like myself,
for example) owning an uzi? Personally, I don't own one yet, but I have
several of the NewDreadedSemiAutomaticPistols, I've been shooting for
about seventeen years, yet I've never hurt _anyone_ with my firearms.
Why shouldn't _I_ be allowed to own one if I want one? Don't tell me,
"because other people have used to for evil". _I_ haven't. Give me some
good reasons why _I_ shouldn't be allowed to own the firearm of my choice.
> The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
>licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
>that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
Well, since the govts own studies show that about 90% of criminals
obtain their firearms illegally, I guess there is no appropriate place
to draw the line. Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
Open question: Name any country (or state, city, etc.) where the crime rate
has decreased following the enaction of restrictive gun control laws or total
gun bans.
> Larry Parrish
> par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
If this is supposed to be areas of high crime/strict gun control, the
District of Columbia works as well as Colombia :-)
Paul Wallich
> Guns are a tool (one of many), not the problem. Assuming that outlawing guns
>will actually affect the outlaws (hah!) simply means that the killings
>will be done with other tools.
The fact remains that guns are more dangerous. You are more likely
to kill someone if you attack them with a gun than with something
else. To wit:
"Compared with assaults with guns, attacks with knives were more
likely to result in multiple wounds, and they were equally likely
to damage a part of the body where death can result. The five-to-one
difference in death rate [between gun & knife assaults] thus seems
to stem from the greater dangerousness of the firearm . . .
If such instrumentality effects are large, a shift from guns to
knives would cause a drop in the homicide rate even if the total
rate of violent assault did not change. Other studies have
corroborated the presence of large instrumentality effects in
urban violence." ("Firearms, Violence and Public Policy", Franklin
E. Zimring, _Scientific American_, November 1991, p. 49.)
lawrence.v.cipriani
>The fact remains that guns are more dangerous. You are more likely
>to kill someone if you attack them with a gun than with something
>else. To wit:
>
>"Compared with assaults with guns, attacks with knives were more
>likely to result in multiple wounds, and they were equally likely
>to damage a part of the body where death can result. The five-to-one
>difference in death rate [between gun & knife assaults] thus seems
>to stem from the greater dangerousness of the firearm . . .
> If such instrumentality effects are large, a shift from guns to
>knives would cause a drop in the homicide rate even if the total
>rate of violent assault did not change. Other studies have
>corroborated the presence of large instrumentality effects in
>urban violence." ("Firearms, Violence and Public Policy", Franklin
>E. Zimring, _Scientific American_, November 1991, p. 49.)
The key mistake Zimring makes is assuming people who use firearms
in crimes and people who use other weapons, say knives, have the
same motivations.
See "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America" by Wright,
Rossi and Daly for a complete refutation of this argument.
Zimring is so caught up in his fantasy world he hasn't taken the
time to read refutations of his work. That's hardly sticking to
the scientific method.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
George Tucker
>The largest mass murder in several decades was committed with a gallon
>of gasoline.
Khmer Rouge all used a variety of weapons.
George Tucker tuc...@den.hac.com
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) says:
>
> Why should you be afraid of the average law-aiding citizen (like myself,
>for example) owning an uzi? Personally, I don't own one yet, but I have
>several of the NewDreadedSemiAutomaticPistols, I've been shooting for
>about seventeen years, yet I've never hurt _anyone_ with my firearms.
>Why shouldn't _I_ be allowed to own one if I want one? Don't tell me,
>"because other people have used to for evil". _I_ haven't. Give me some
>good reasons why _I_ shouldn't be allowed to own the firearm of my choice.
>
you really mean aiding?) citizen to own an uzi. _You_ *are* advocating
allowing *anyone* to own *any* weapon without *any* restrictions (see
your comments below).
I also own two rifles and have been shooting for more than 20 years,
and I too have not hurt _anyone_; but that does not mean I think it's
reasonable to allow any Joe Blow off the street to buy whatever
automatic weapon he wants without any checks into his qualifications.
>
> Well, since the govts own studies show that about 90% of criminals
>obtain their firearms illegally, I guess there is no appropriate place
>to draw the line. Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
>happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
>been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
>
>Open question: Name any country (or state, city, etc.) where the crime rate
>has decreased following the enaction of restrictive gun control laws or total
>gun bans.
>
to reduce the number of killings from *guns*. Understand? If you want
to argue about effective ways to reduce the *crime* rate, then let's
take this discussion elsewhere and talk about economic remedies, drug
and vice law reform, judicial reform, adequate law enforcement and
prison facility funding, etc. etc.
If you want to know where murders from *guns* have decreased as
a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look into the records
of Japan and England. To suggest the purpose of gun control is to
reduce deaths from arson and other crimes not involving guns and,
since these *other* crimes do not diminish, therefore gun control is
useless is simply twisted logic.
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Mr. X
In article <1991Oct16.1...@linus.mitre.org> b...@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>
>I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
>When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
>the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
>--
>Bob Silverman
You are obviously in painful ignorance of firearms. Some other
similarly ignorant person made the exact statement concerning the
'sole' purpose of a gun. Sorry, but you have succeeded in making
a complete fool of yourself in front of the entire net. No flame,
just fact. Do you know *anything* substantive about firearms, other
than the fact that they can be used to kill? If not (which your
statements seem to suggest), why not try learning about firearms
firsthand, rather than through mediating sources? It would not cost
you much and at least you'd stand a chance of making a passably
intelligent statement of opinion rather than utter nonsense that only
serves to paint yourself as a non-credible source.
As a show of good will I will even list a few other purposes of a
gun:
To shoot in competition. There are *many* different
categories.
To provide food. Yes this involves killing, but then so does
the buying and eating of steak, chicken, pork chops, fish,
etc. If you think you are any less of a killer than a hunter
then I suggest you go visit a slaughterhouse. They stink of
death and I can tell you first hand that the killing of
cattle and other livestock is UGLY UGLY business. And I might
add that at least the hunter has the guts to do the dirty
work themselves rather than hiring someone else to do that
which they find too distasteful to personally undertake.
At any rate we are talking about killing for food and that
usually does not include humans on the menu.
To dissuade another person from committing an act of violence
against oneself or someone else. This may be accomplished
with or without violence depending on the situation at hand.
The nonviolent outcome is by far the most common. There have
been mountains of stats posted here in support of this
assertion. Seek and ye shall find.
To stop another person from continuing an act of violence
against oneself or someone else. This may also be done
with or without violence, given the circumstances.
Even in violent cases, wounding an assailant is a possible
alternative to killing.
To give a people the ability to defend themselves against
milipol (that's my contraction for military-political)
threats, whether foreign or domestic. This is the major
intent behind the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Without
it, YOU (as well as the rest of us) would have ABSOLUTELY no
recourse but to accept EVERY decree to come down from yon
lofty tower 'du le Guv'. What do you say to the Guv when
a gun is pointed at your defenseless person? NO? Don't
think so.
To act as paperweight. :-)
So you see, there are many purposes to which guns are well suited,
killing being only one. Indeed, a gun is often the ideal method
by which all physical violence is thoroughly avoided.
If I could not defend my home (for example) with a gun, I would use
my Katana (Japanese sword). I can hold a robber at bay from a
distance with a gun, thereby giving me the best chance to spare a
life. With the sword, I am afraid the only safe choice for defense
would be to cleave them in half before they knew what was happening.
Are you going to tell me that the gun is more likely to kill?
-Andy V.
Lee King
Accelerator Ce nter) wrote:
> If you want to know where murders from *guns* have
>decreased as a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look
>into the records of Japan and England. To suggest the purpose of
>gun control is to reduce deaths from arson and other crimes not
>involving guns and, since these *other* crimes do not diminish,
>therefore gun control is useless is simply twisted logic.
<
> Larry Parrish
> par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Larry, I suppose it would be nice for the gunbanners if gun control had
decreased murders, but you'll have to look farther than England (or
Canada, or Japan, or Australia, etc) to find evidence of that. England
(and the others) never had a gun problem (or a murder problem, compared to
the United States), and murders with guns didn't go down after they passed
their gun control laws. Like all crimes, murders by gun have gone UP in
England since the laws.
Best I can find from my survey of the sociological/criminological field
in the last 2-3 years (Kleck, Zimring, Wright & Rossi, etc), there is NO
causal relationship between guns and murder, or guns and crime.
--
Curious about the Libertarian Party? Call LP National HQ at 1-800-682-1776,
or send your USPS address to 76177...@COMPUSERVE.COM, attn. Marc Montoni
Joe Green
>
> I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
> All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
> When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
> the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
> --
> Bob Silverman
> #include <std.disclaimer>
> Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
> "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
I have been reading this file for several months and am impressed that the
pro-RKBA people have the patience to respond to nonsensical assertions like
the one above -- again and again and again. Yet it seems that their
opponents -- fellows like this who encounter this file and are not
ashamed to display their complete ignorance -- never ever concede
that they might be wrong, never provide facts, never do more than
make assertions like this. I am always looking about for examples
of irony to chat about in my close reading seminars. This fellow's
signature provides the best example in a long time.
--
lawrence.v.cipriani
>In article <1991Oct17.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
>kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) says:
>>
> I also own two rifles and have been shooting for more than 20 years,
>and I too have not hurt _anyone_; but that does not mean I think it's
>reasonable to allow any Joe Blow off the street to buy whatever
>automatic weapon he wants without any checks into his qualifications.
Why not ? Come on, lets have a reasoned debate instead of "I think
it's unreasonable."
>> Well, since the govts own studies show that about 90% of criminals
The stat is 5 out of 6 [approximately] criminals obtain their firearms
from non-retail sources. Of the 1 out of 6 who obtain their firearms
from retail sources some were stolen or obtained via straw-man sale.
>>obtain their firearms illegally, I guess there is no appropriate place
>>to draw the line. Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
>>happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
>>been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
>>
>>Open question: Name any country (or state, city, etc.) where the crime rate
>>has decreased following the enaction of restrictive gun control laws or total
>>gun bans.
>>
> You're arguing a *different* point. Gun control laws are designed
>to reduce the number of killings from *guns*. Understand?
If the with-gun murder rate decreases because of a gun-control law
[I'm still waiting for an example of such a jurisdiction anywhere
in the known universe] but the with-gun self-defense rate falls so
much that crime increases then the gun-control law has backfired.
Understand ?
Why is it advocates of gun control keep forgeting that decent people
who use firearms for their self protection are prevented from defending
themselves by gun control laws ? Doesn't that matter ? I guess not.
>If you want to argue about effective ways to reduce the *crime* rate,
>then let's take this discussion elsewhere and talk about economic
>remedies, drug and vice law reform, judicial reform, adequate law
>enforcement and prison facility funding, etc. etc.
Start a talk.politics.crime newsgroup and I'll participate.
> If you want to know where murders from *guns* have decreased as
>a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look into the records
>of Japan and England.
See previous comment. Too, I'll bet the with-gun murder rate in
those nations rose after those laws went into effect.
>To suggest the purpose of gun control is to reduce deaths from arson
>and other crimes not involving guns and, since these *other* crimes do
>not diminish, therefore gun control is useless is simply twisted logic.
Look, he can misrepresent other peoples arguments too!
Mr. X
>In article <1991Oct15.1...@philabs.philips.com> r...@philabs.philips.com (Roger White) writes:
>
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
This is nonsense. First of all, and I have stated this before,
in a premeditated kill situation a gun is almost without exception
the most UNDESIREABLE weapon imaginable. It is a LAST RESORT
alternative. They are highly inefficient from the standpoint of
strategy and in some ways even tactically, depending on how one looks
at these things. I have PLENTY of training in the KILLING arts as well
as other combat oriented martial arts and can say that your statement
about humans being inefficient killers without firearms it
categorically false.
Being well trained in blade arts and having used them in combat and
knowing many people whose cumulative killing experience totals
literally over a thousand kills, hand to hand, your statement regarding
the relative efficacy of guns and knives is utterly false. I don't
know if you are making these figures up off the top of your head or
if you simply have lousy information sources, but I find it unethical
to post such false statements. If your anti-gun position has any true
merit then it should stand on it and not be propped up with false
statements of fact and poisonous innuendo.
>Plus, if you go into a rage
>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
I doubt that. One good swing up side the head with a cast iron frying
pan is *very* likely to kill on the first stroke. What you and many
people continually fail to realize is how incredibly easy it is to
kill someone... ANYONE regardless of size strength etc. If I were to
whack out like that guy in Texas, I would probably kill thousands
before getting caught. I know how to do it and how to get away with
it. There are lots of people like me in this world with such knowledge
yet all someone like yourself sees are the guns. If I chose to kill you
there would be NOTHING you could do to stop me. Indeed if any average
citizen decided the same, there would be little more in the way of
alternatives open to you. Whether or not they suceeded would depend
more on planning and PATIENCE than anything else. You guys just do not
seem to get it at all.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
If they smack little Johnny up the block in the head with it they just
might succeed. A responsible adult does not leave a gun anywhere that
a child could possibly get to it. If they do and an injury occurs,
send them to Hell for it. Responsibility must be assumed in any
case, but certainly so where firearms are involved.
-Andy V.
Matthew T. Russotto
Just heard that Volkmer PASSED, despite the Texas killings (which, of course,
involved handguns anyway-- not semiautomatic rifles)
Anyone know what sort of gun-control is left in the Omnibus Crime Bill? I
know there is lots of other stuff violating the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Andy Freeman
>to reduce the number of killings from *guns*. Understand?
We understand. We also disagree and point out that dead is dead. Gun
control does not produce benefits if all it does is get with-gun
killers to kill with other weapons.
> If you want to know where murders from *guns* have decreased as
>a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look into the records
>of Japan and England.
I have done that research wrt England. (See Firearms Controls by
Colin Greenwood.) It turns out that the UK's gun control laws have
not been associated with any decrease in murder; since they were
passed, the UK's murder rate has increased faster than the US'.
Whether this means that UK people are now killing with other weapons
or are still killing with guns is irrelevant; gun control hasn't
provided any benefits.
>To suggest the purpose of gun control is to
>reduce deaths from arson and other crimes not involving guns and,
>since these *other* crimes do not diminish, therefore gun control is
>useless is simply twisted logic.
If gun control results in substitution of other weapons with the same
effect, it is a failure. If it results in no change in gun crime, it
is a failure. The UK experience has been a failure.
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
C. D. Tavares
> In article <1991Oct16.1...@linus.mitre.org> b...@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> >I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
> >All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
> (including the dreaded SemiAutomatics (*gasp*)) and I've never killed anyone.
And in this corner is the Great Vonzini, who has thrown knives as part of his
act for 25 years -- equivalent proof that knives are not primarily meant to cut
food.
Speaking of which, over in the Soviet Union, they've had nukes for roughly 40
years now, and have never killed anyone with them. Equivalent proof that the
purpose of nukes is to be bookends. (In fact, the US use of two nukes could
almost be considered "in the noise.")
Let's retire this argument of "guns aren't made for killing because *I* have
guns and *I* don't kill with them." Guns were invented as weapons; guns are
marketed as weapons; and the vast majority of guns are purchased as weapons.
--
c...@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona
> In article <1991Oct16.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) writes:
> : I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
> :
> :<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
> :<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>
> All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
> the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
Geez, Bob! to repeat another's argument, I _must_be_misusing_my_guns!!!!
I have used guns for years and have never killed a single person. I haven't
even killed a single animal in the last 9 years. Maybe you can tell me how
I am misusing my guns???
BTW,
switch-blades are made to kill.
pipes cut to 3 ft and filled with cement are made to kill
a tire iron is not carried on one's person to repair flat tires (we usually leave
them in the car for that purpose!)
a sharp wooden stick can be cut and shaped for the express purpose of killing
fires can be set for the express purpose of killing
Likewise, guns can be used for the express purpose of killing - or they can be
used for the express purpose of protecting life! I call it a question of which
life is more important, a mugger/burglar/rapist/murderer or the assailant's victim?
Care to answer that question?
--
Without either the 1st or 2nd amendment, we would have no liberty: the 1st
allows us to find out whats happening, the 2nd allows us to do something about
it! The 2nd will be taken away first, followed by the 1st and then the rest of
our freedoms. - Andrew Ford INTERNET: gtephx!fo...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
The Terminator
>that place in Texas today if just one customer had been armed and properly
>trained. I don't think it would have been 23, do you?
>
>Still Rog
I don't live in Texas, (I'm from Missouri and going to school in MA--barf!)
but it sounds like a cool place--all those guns an' all. If I lived
there, I'd try bringing multiple murder charges against each member of
the Texas State Legislature who voted against the concealed carry bill:
"The following members of the Texas Senate/House are under arrest for
conspiracy to commit murder: ...., ...., ...., ... ... By emasculating
the free citizens of this state, stripping them of their inalienable right
to control their own destiny and come to the aid of their fellow man, these
loathsome criminals contributed to the deaths of 23 people, dead because
no one around them was empowered with a reasonable means to stop the madman
who took their lives, this reasonable means--carrying a firearm--having
been annihilated by said legislators."
Earl Wallace
>...
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
>When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
>the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
If you're killed with a car, that's "noise"? I dare say killing is killing.
Doesn't matter what THING was used for the kill, dead is dead.
Long before there were guns, people still murdered each other, did you know
that? (Do they still teach such things in school or is that politically
incorrect thought?).
Hopeless, just hopeless. No one cares about fixing anything. That's the
real problem. Everyone wants easy and simple solutions without the fuss and
bother of good old hard work. Maybe that's way our standard of living is
moving down -- we're too damm lazy to fix anything.
Hard:
----
Guns can be used to kill, so we'll make sure people who want to use them for
their hunting and sporting fun will be able to do so, but we'll offer free
safety and law courses to ensure they'll be able to use them in a safe and
lawful manner. They'll be two classes of people: "type-qualified" and
"regular". Regular people will be subjected to the same gun laws on the
books today. Type-qualified people are those who take the various free
courses for all types of guns (rifle, shotgun, pistol, machine-gun,
you-name-it-gun) and these courses will range from basic to advanced.
Much like getting your FAA Pilot's license, you'll be type-qualified for
certain classes of weapons. You'll have a set of written, oral and practical
exams and once passed, you'll be allowed to carry that weapon freely in your
car, home, boat, plane, range and place of sleep (hotels, motels,
campgrounds, etc.). Pass another set of courses for carrying a weapon
concealed on your person.
If you don't pass any of the courses, you'll be considered a "regular".
The citizens and the police will form neighbor security programs (NSP) that
allow citizens to catch speeders, drunk and bad drivers, and handle traffic
flow problems. Again, more training courses.
Anyone who uses these extensions to their rights to take another's life
without just cause or attempts a serious unlawful act with the use of a
weapon, will face execution or 200 years in jail with no chance of parole.
You get these extensions to your basic rights at the risk of losing
them and your basic rights and freedoms. You make the choice of how much
responsibility you want to take on. Society doesn't make that choice for
you.
Easy and Simple:
---------------
Ban guns.
Now, which solution does someone with an I/Q over 80 take? Is there more than
one solution to the problem?
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
(lawrence.v.cipriani) says:
>
>In article <91290.114...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>PAR...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>
>> I also own two rifles and have been shooting for more than 20 years,
>>and I too have not hurt _anyone_; but that does not mean I think it's
>>reasonable to allow any Joe Blow off the street to buy whatever
>>automatic weapon he wants without any checks into his qualifications.
>
>Why not ? Come on, lets have a reasoned debate instead of "I think
>it's unreasonable."
>
>from non-retail sources. Of the 1 out of 6 who obtain their firearms
>from retail sources some were stolen or obtained via straw-man sale.
>
purchase firearms just because they can always obtain them illegally?
If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe
a criminal will most likely purchase a gun to harm others, not just
for self-protection; so although he can always obtain a gun illegally
doesn't mean I should then advocate letting him purchase one as easily
as buying bread.
>
>Why is it advocates of gun control keep forgeting that decent people
>who use firearms for their self protection are prevented from defending
>themselves by gun control laws ? Doesn't that matter ? I guess not.
>
guns for self-protection? Do you really need to own an uzi to protect
yourself? Do you really still hold the Wild West mentality where
every individual needs to pack a piece in public?
I have no problem with law-abiding private citizens owning guns
which they have been properly licensed and trained to use correctly.
I do not believe every person needs to own and constantly carry around
an automatic weapon. If the "War on Drugs" continually escalates
however, I agree that a Chicago-style prohibition-era mentality may
be unavoidable.
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Jari Jokiniemi
> Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
>happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
>been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
This is such a strong claim that I really would like to see the
crime rates from EVERY single place on earth where gun restrictions or
bans have been enacted. Finding even one single place anywhere on earth
not supporting the statement makes the statement untrue.
--
Jari Jokiniemi / / Technical Research Centre of Finland:
/ OH2MPO / j...@tik.vtt.fi +358 0 456 6009
DO IT NOW! / OH3BU / University of Helsinki:
/ HSC 1182 / joki...@cs.Helsinki.FI joki...@finuha.BITNET
j chapman flack
>In <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>Sure. Washington, D.C.; New York City; Detroit...you get the picture.
Excuse me? We don't have strong gun control laws. There have been a few
initiatives over the years, all unsuccessful. I don't think we qualify for
your list.
--
Chap Flack Their tanks will rust. Our songs will last.
ch...@art-sy.detroit.mi.us -MIKHS 0EODWPAKHS
Nothing I say represents Appropriate Roles for Technology unless I say it does.
Jon J Thaler
newsgroups (misc.legal and talk.politics.guns). It is not relevant
to soc.women or talk.rape, and the repetitious harrangues are boring to
most of us.
Michael Larish
I'm not real familiar with the Volkmer admendment. How does it affect
our RKBA? I'd really appreciate a response in E-mail since I don't always
get a chance to read this message area fully...
I'm dying to find out whether this stuff passes because if it does
pass, I'll probably head out next week and buy the .45 I've been looking
at before it becomes TOO late...
--
Michael Larish | 31x-ray1078 X-Ray SSB Club,Paradise,CA 27.355 MHz LSB
aka Nomad the Wanderer | C&M Radio Group - Frequency: 27.215 MHz AM
no...@ecst.csuchico.edu | Chico State Amateur Radio Society
CSU Chico, CA | Passed the novice & tech - just waiting for my ticket!
The Terminator
>In article <1991Oct16.0...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> an...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>BTW - The murder rate in the US is now about 10x as high as the UK's.
>>(Before the UK introduced gun control, the difference was a factor of
>>16.) If gun control is the difference, then how come the non-gun
>>murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than the UK's total murder
>>rate? Is there knife control in the UK? Do they have fewer fists?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes. It's an offense called "Possession of an offensive weapon".
>Same here in Australia.
>
So how do you skin an animal you kill? How do you cut watermelon
or slice a turkey? Surely you're not saying people can't OWN
knives where you live? There ARE many places where repressive laws
prohibit carry/purchase of certain types of knives, but never ownership.
John Kapson
>In article <1991Oct17.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) writes:
>> Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
>>happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
>>been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
>
>This is such a strong claim that I really would like to see the
>crime rates from EVERY single place on earth where gun restrictions or
>bans have been enacted. Finding even one single place anywhere on earth
>not supporting the statement makes the statement untrue.
Well, I guess my claim is too strong. I will rephrase: for every location
THAT I HAVE SEEN STATS FOR, the crime rate has increased following enaction
of laws to either (1) ban guns or (2) implement restrictions on ownership.
Now, if you do know of anyplace where increased gun restrictions or total
gun bans has brought about a reduction in the crime rate, please tell me.
Roger White
>In article <1991Oct15.1...@philabs.philips.com> r...@philabs.philips.com (Roger White) writes:
>>
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
Well, as a matter of fact I've seen stats that would say the opposite. I also
talked to an EMS fellow I know and he said that people were more likely to die
from knife wounds than gunshot wounds, in his experience.
Unfortuantely, like you, I don't have any facts or references to back up what
I said. Maybe someone out there does?
>Plus, if you go into a rage
>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
I don't buy this at all. One whop off the head with a cast iron frying pan
will do you in I bet. Alas, again no proof.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
A child properly trained won't touch a gun. A responsible person won't leave
a gun where a kid can get at it. My 4-year-old grandson, who's living with me
at the moment (with his mom) knows the difference between a real gun and a toy
and he won't touch the real gun unless grandpa says okay. But then, he's
been trained. To tell you the truth, I'm more worried about him cutting
someone with a knife because of these GD'd Ninja Turtles. And yes, I'm
teaching him about that too.
>
>>
>>Rog
>
>Stanford S. Guillory sgui...@pcocd2.intel.com
>The sin of another should excite only compassion in your heart.
Richard Chandler
> Who says that gun control laws prevent decent people from using
> to protect yourself? Do you really still hold the Wild West [HOT BUTTON]
> mentality where every individual needs to pack a piece [HOT BUTTON] in
> public?
> I have no problem with law-abiding private citizens owning guns
> which they have been properly licensed and trained to use correctly.
> I do not believe every person needs to own and constantly carry around
> escalates however, I agree that a Chicago-style prohibition-era mentality
> may be unavoidable.
He sure knows how to sling phrases around, doesn't he. I wonder if he can
post with unloaded words and the safety on....
As others have done: To the first question: Any law that prevents people
from open or concealed carry prevents people from protecting themselves.
Second: No, you don't NEED and uzi (of whatever variety) but does that mean
that only one standard self defense gun should be allowed?
Third: The "Wild West" mentality involved helping your neighbors in times of
trouble, and average citizens taking an active part in law enforcement. I
think we could USE a little of that attitude today.
--
If ONE patron at Luby's Cafeteria had been armed, dozens of people would be
alive and uninjured today. Support Open Carry laws.
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296
Joe Green
My God. Do you know anything whatsoever about what current gun
control laws require? Do you bother to read any of the replies to
your assertions?
Pay attention just for a minute. It has been against the law for YEARS
and YEARS to own an automatic weapon without passing all sorts of
stringent requirements -- including being fingerprinted, going
through a background check, obtaining the permission of local
authorities (in some cases), registering and paying a special
tax on the weapon, etc. etc. No one has asserted that there is
a need to "own and constantly carry around automatic weapons."
Gun control laws prevent "decent people" from protecting themselves
because these laws make it a crime to carry the weapon needed
to protect oneself and, in some cases, make it a crime to even
own the weapon needed to protect oneself. Check out what rights
are provided to gun owners by the local authorities in Washington DC.
Make some effort to learn some facts.
If more people were permitted to protect themselves by carrying the
tool needed to acomplish this, someone may have shot the asshole
in Texas and prevented some of these deaths. But, precisely
because gun control laws deny people this basic right, these
people were slaughtered like cattle.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
> Do you seriously believe that criminals should be allowed to
>purchase firearms just because they can always obtain them illegally?
If criminals can always obtain firearms illegally, then gun control will
affect only law-abiding citizens, and thus have no benefits. Therefore, given
those conditions, there should be no gun control.
>If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe
>a criminal will most likely purchase a gun to harm others, not just
>for self-protection; so although he can always obtain a gun illegally
>doesn't mean I should then advocate letting him purchase one as easily
>as buying bread.
Since you can't tell who is buying a gun for self protection and who is
buying it to harm others beforehand, you will have to impair ALL citizen's
ability to get firearms legally-- this will not affect criminals given the
assumption above that criminals can always obtain them illegaly.
> Who says that gun control laws prevent decent people from using
>guns for self-protection? Do you really need to own an uzi to protect
>yourself? Do you really still hold the Wild West mentality where
>every individual needs to pack a piece in public?
What do you think would happen if someone smashed through the wall of a
restaurant in the Wild West, and started shooting people. How many do you
think he would get? I'm not sure universal carry is the best solution, but
it is better than the current situation where carry is illegal.
> I have no problem with law-abiding private citizens owning guns
>which they have been properly licensed and trained to use correctly.
What is the licensing for? What does it do, besides certify that the
government says it is OK for this private ctizen to exercise his rights?
>I do not believe every person needs to own and constantly carry around
>an automatic weapon.
Me neither-- too heavy. Seems to me a handgun would be a better choice.
> If the "War on Drugs" continually escalates
>however, I agree that a Chicago-style prohibition-era mentality may
>be unavoidable.
>
> Larry Parrish
> par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Check out Southeast DC-- it is already here.
Steve Adams
>In article <1991Oct17.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, l...@cbnews.cb.att.com
>(lawrence.v.cipriani) says:
>>
>>In article <91290.114...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>>PAR...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>
>>> I also own two rifles and have been shooting for more than 20 years,
>>>and I too have not hurt _anyone_; but that does not mean I think it's
>>>reasonable to allow any Joe Blow off the street to buy whatever
>>>automatic weapon he wants without any checks into his qualifications.
Give me a revolver with a speed loader and I'd be able to do just as well
as the nut in Texas. And, if you take my revolver, how do I defend myself
against the criminal who doesn't care what my itty-bitty little gun
control laws say? The criminals will *ALWAYS* be able to get guns. Think
they're going to follow the law?????
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
-------------------
ad...@spss.com Phone: (312) 329-3522
Steve Adams Fax: (312) 329-3558
James Warren
> In article <1991Oct16.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) writes:
> :Stanford,
> : I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
> :
> :In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
> :<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
> :
> :<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
> :<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>
> All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
> When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
> the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
> Bob Silverman
> #include <std.disclaimer>
> Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
> "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
You are living proof. Too bad the rest of your post is not as accurate.
Paul Wallich
>In article <27...@well.sf.ca.us> pwal...@well.sf.ca.us (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>[article quote about the increased dangerousness of guns delete]
>> ("Firearms, Violence and Public Policy", Franklin
>>E. Zimring, _Scientific American_, November 1991, p. 49.)
>The key mistake Zimring makes is assuming people who use firearms
>in crimes and people who use other weapons, say knives, have the
>same motivations.
If guns and knives are more or less equally available, then it appears
likely that at least some people will attack with guns because the
gun was the weapon to hand; only if guns are quite difficult to obtain
will all people attacking with guns (nb a much smaller number) be
using guns solely because they intend to kill.
>See "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America" by Wright,
>Rossi and Daly for a complete refutation of this argument.
See the rest of the article for a refutation of Wright, Rossi et al.
Zimring goes through the various arguments about motivation etc
fairly carefully. Note that he also does not come down in favor of
any particular scheme for reducing gun-related violence.
paul
funny, ya post an identifiable, verifiable statistic & what do you get...
Andy Freeman
>In <1991Oct14.2...@nsc.nsc.com>, jrr (Jerry Roe) writes:
>>In <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>
>>Sure. Washington, D.C.; New York City; Detroit...you get the picture.
>
>Excuse me? We don't have strong gun control laws. There have been a few
>initiatives over the years, all unsuccessful. I don't think we qualify for
>your list.
You qualify as well as Canada does, and you have the same border control.
Note that there is still a difference in gun crime. Maybe gun
control, which isn't different, isn't responsible for the difference
in gun crime rates. Since the gun crime rate differences predate the
gun control, that's a good bet.
Daniel Bowen
>BTW - The murder rate in the US is now about 10x as high as the UK's.
>(Before the UK introduced gun control, the difference was a factor of
>16.) If gun control is the difference, then how come the non-gun
>murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than the UK's total murder
>rate? Is there knife control in the UK? Do they have fewer fists?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. It's an offense called "Possession of an offensive weapon".
Same here in Australia.
Daniel Bowen
--
Daniel Bowen, Monash University | Fit as a fiddle,
Melbourne, Australia-------------| Right as rain.
edb13...@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au | If one thing is certain,
edb...@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au | I'm perfectly sane. [TCWF 59]
Andy Freeman
>>BTW - The murder rate in the US is now about 10x as high as the UK's.
>>(Before the UK introduced gun control, the difference was a factor of
>>16.) If gun control is the difference, then how come the non-gun
>>murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than the UK's total murder
>>rate? Is there knife control in the UK? Do they have fewer fists?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes. It's an offense called "Possession of an offensive weapon".
>Same here in Australia.
What kind of licensing requirement is there? Do you have to keep them
locked up? Are criminals forbidden to buy them? Is there a
background check, waiting period, required training, minimum age, and
so on?
As a result of all of this, are there fewer knives/person in the UK
than in the US? Do most homes use something else to cut food?
Oh, you meant that it is illegal to carry knives as weapons. That's
the same as in the US, so it doesn't explain the difference.
Mr. X
>
>"The following members of the Texas Senate/House are under arrest for
>conspiracy to commit murder: ...., ...., ...., ... ... By emasculating
>the free citizens of this state, stripping them of their inalienable right
>to control their own destiny and come to the aid of their fellow man, these
>loathsome criminals contributed to the deaths of 23 people, dead because
>no one around them was empowered with a reasonable means to stop the madman
>who took their lives, this reasonable means--carrying a firearm--having
>been annihilated by said legislators."
Oh, if only we COULD... *sigh*
-Andy V.
James Wiggs
>In article <91290.114...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> PAR...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>In article <1991Oct17.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
>>>Open question: Name any country (or state, city, etc.) where the crime rate
>>>has decreased following the enaction of restrictive gun control laws or total
>>>gun bans.
>> You're arguing a *different* point. Gun control laws are designed
>>to reduce the number of killings from *guns*. Understand?
>
>[I'm still waiting for an example of such a jurisdiction anywhere
>in the known universe] but the with-gun self-defense rate falls so
>much that crime increases then the gun-control law has backfired.
>Understand ?
I doubt he will, Larry.
>Why is it advocates of gun control keep forgeting that decent people
>who use firearms for their self protection are prevented from defending
>themselves by gun control laws ? Doesn't that matter ? I guess not.
No, it doesn't--at least not if you're Howie Metzenbaum...
>> If you want to know where murders from *guns* have decreased as
>>a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look into the records
>>of Japan and England.
>
>See previous comment. Too, I'll bet the with-gun murder rate in
>those nations rose after those laws went into effect.
It certainly did in the UK. There was a lengthy article posted here about
6-8 months ago on the history of gun control in the UK. I've archived it to
tape, so it isn't immediately available. However, the number of murders with
guns in the UK for the previous decade to the implementation of gun bans
averaged something like *6* per year, a number they can only dream about
today. Note that this was the combined number for all guns, not just
handguns.
I've seen no such study on Japan, but I do know that the Japanese have
*always* preferred to kill each other with edged weapons when the occasion
arose. My understanding is that the newer generation of the Yakuza is
using guns much more frequently. They are looked upon with a certain
disdain by the older members, who consider the use of guns somewhat
effete.
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
>"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
James Wiggs
wi...@chemc2.chem.washington.edu _or_ wi...@milton.u.washington.edu
#include <std.disclaimer>
"Good morning, Dr. Silberman. How's the knee?" - Sarah Connor
Jon J Thaler
(... lots of pro and anti-gun verbiage deleted...)
> Oh, BTW, I deleted the part about my stance on guns. I am not anti-gun.
This won't protect you from the flames. Opinions about gun control, both
pro and con, are held with religious fervor, and the ecumenical spirit
does not abound in this particular religion. Any deviation from the dogma,
no matter how small or well intentioned, is treated as heresy and punished
by eternal damnation.
The Terminator
Carrying openly subjects one to harassment from liberals and makes one
a choice first target for a robber or crazy. To help in a time of crisis,
you must surprise the robber. Support Concealed Carry laws.
James Wiggs
>In article <1991Oct15.2...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> sgu...@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Stanford Guillory) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct15.1...@philabs.philips.com> r...@philabs.philips.com (Roger White) writes:
>>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>>
>>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
>
>Well, as a matter of fact I've seen stats that would say the opposite. I also
>talked to an EMS fellow I know and he said that people were more likely to die
>from knife wounds than gunshot wounds, in his experience.
>
>Unfortuantely, like you, I don't have any facts or references to back up what
>I said. Maybe someone out there does?
I do. Here they are, from a previous post by Andy Freeman--thanks, Andy!
#See Wilson and Sherman's "Civilian Penetrating Wounds of the Abdomen"
#(Annals of Surgery 153, pg 639) and Ryzkoff's "Selective Conservatism
#in Penetrating Abdominal Trauma" and the general discussion in
#Benenson's "A Controlled Look at Gun Control" in 14 NY Law Forum 718.
#
#According to the experts "there is no reason to expect that a sharp
#knife inflicts less damage than a dull, low-velocity bullet." As far
#as recovery rates go, 83.2% survive handgun wounds, 85.7% survive ice
#picks, and 86.7% survive butcher knives.
>>>Rog
>>
>>Stanford S. Guillory sgui...@pcocd2.intel.com
>>The sin of another should excite only compassion in your heart.
>
>Another question you might think about is how many people would have died in
>that place in Texas today if just one customer had been armed and properly
>trained. I don't think it would have been 23, do you?
Far fewer. Perhaps only one--the perp.
Of course, we wouldn't have heard about it, either; it would have been a
non-event.
>Still Rog
I've removed soc.women and talk.rape from the subject header.
Stanford Guillory
>In article <1991Oct15.2...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> sgu...@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Stanford Guillory) writes:
>>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
>
>them on hand.
Somebody has already contested the figures I posted, stating that both
guns and knives have a 15% kill rate. I got my figures out of Newsweek
magazine several years ago. I guess people aren't the marksmen they used
to be.
Question: How many people would have died in that Texas massacre if
the assailant's weapon had been a knife?
>I don't know about you, but when I get into a rage at someone, I feel like
>hurting them with my bare hands-- less personal techniques just don't come
>to mind.
Right. But this automatically shortens the list of people you could
kill. For instance, we can scratch Mike Tyson off the list right off
the bat.
>So don't put the gun where the child can get at it! If the child is not old
>enough or responsible enough to handle the gun, he shouldn't be able to get to
I'll be sure to mention this to the parents of the next child who dies this
way. I'm sure they will apreciate me locking the barn door for them.
I thought I had edited the newsgroups this was appearing in. I won't do
so this time, but can somebody please tell me why this is in soc.men,
soc.women, and talk.rape?
Stanford Guillory
>that place in Texas today if just one customer had been armed and properly
>trained. I don't think it would have been 23, do you?
Gee, that goes and shows you how varied the human mind is. The question
I asked myself is hom many people could he have killed if he had had
a baseball bat. I don't thinks it would have been 23, do you?
And on the topic of the relative efficiency of guns and knives, ask
yourself this: How many people can you kill with a gun in 10 minutes
on a city street? How many with a knife? If compute the
equation:
#people_killed
----------------
time
I don't think there can be any doubt about which weapon is more
"efficient". If knives are so great, are guns the weapon of choice?
Knives are quieter, cheaper.
>Still Rog
Stanford Guillory
>
> This is nonsense. First of all, and I have stated this before,
> in a premeditated kill situation a gun is almost without exception
> the most UNDESIREABLE weapon imaginable. It is a LAST RESORT
> at these things. I have PLENTY of training in the KILLING arts as well
> as other combat oriented martial arts and can say that your statement
> about humans being inefficient killers without firearms it
> categorically false.
>
Read those statements again. I think you missed an important point.
You are an efficient killer because of you "plenty of training" (gee
how pathetic that sounds, and he's actually proud of it). Probably
more training than 99% of the human race. To kill without a gun, you
need an edge, eitehr more power, or skill. A gun requires no such
edge.
And one more time for those who didn't get, the Man as an inefficient
killer is meant to be in comparison to certain other carnivores. I
think sharks are much more efficeint killers than men.
> I doubt that. One good swing up side the head with a cast iron frying
> pan is *very* likely to kill on the first stroke. What you and many
And yet people survive such attacks all the time.
> people continually fail to realize is how incredibly easy it is to
> kill someone... ANYONE regardless of size strength etc. If I were to
I realize quite well how easy it is to kill people. I also know that
only a small portion of the population is as proficient as yourself.
> whack out like that guy in Texas, I would probably kill thousands
> before getting caught. I know how to do it and how to get away with
> it. There are lots of people like me in this world with such knowledge
And in fact, I would suggest you get some help immediately. I don't
mean to sound offensive, but you appear sick.
> yet all someone like yourself sees are the guns. If I chose to kill you
> there would be NOTHING you could do to stop me. Indeed if any average
Wanna bet? I could shoot you. In fact, you have pissed me off so much
let's put your theories to the test. We'll stand at thiry paces. I will
be holding a loaded .357 magnum. You will have your "plenty of training".
Name the place and time. Oh, BTW, could you bring a .357 magnum for
me to use, I don't have one.
> citizen decided the same, there would be little more in the way of
> alternatives open to you. Whether or not they suceeded would depend
> more on planning and PATIENCE than anything else. You guys just do not
> seem to get it at all.
No, you don't seem to get. Most murders aren't well thought plans to
elimanate someone. Life is an Agatha Christie Novel. Sure, if I actually
wanted to kill someone, and was willing to come up with a plan to
get myself in a situation where I could perform the killing, I would
probably be successful. The fact is most murders don't have this personal,
focused aspect to them.
> -Andy V.
Matthew T. Russotto
>In article <1991Oct16.2...@eng.umd.edu> russ...@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>Question: How many people would have died in that Texas massacre if
>the assailant's weapon had been a knife?
I don't know. Depends on just how good a killer he was. Probably fewer
people, unless he was trained in killing people with a knife. How many would
have died if he just drove his truck around the place?
>>I don't know about you, but when I get into a rage at someone, I feel like
>>hurting them with my bare hands-- less personal techniques just don't come
>>to mind.
>
>Right. But this automatically shortens the list of people you could
>kill. For instance, we can scratch Mike Tyson off the list right off
>the bat.
It shortens the list of people I could kill if I flew into a rage and wasn't
able to control myself (I am a mostly civilized person-- I control myself).
It doesn't shorten the list of people I could kill if I set out to kill them.
Poison, guns, cars (deliberate killing by car is tough to prove-- and the
murder/non-negligent homicide don't seem to include any), etc-- those weapons
work against anyone. You, being a big tough guy who could beat up a punk
with a tire iron using only your bare hands, consider this a problem with guns.
Me, being a 150 lb weakling, consider that to be an advantage.
If I had some REASON for killing Mike Tyson, for instance, he flew into a rage
and went after ME (not too unlikely if you believe the accusations flying
around, and I knew Tyson), I want the gun-- because nothing else I could use
could stop him.
>>So don't put the gun where the child can get at it! If the child is not old
>>enough or responsible enough to handle the gun, he shouldn't be able to get to
>
>I'll be sure to mention this to the parents of the next child who dies this
>way. I'm sure they will apreciate me locking the barn door for them.
Tell it to the next child who dies of drinking Drano, too. Or who runs over
his playmates playing in a car left running. Or who burns down the house
playing with matches. Accidents happen with all sorts of tools-- if an
accident occurs because a child was negligently allowed access, blame the
person who allowed access, not the tools.
>I thought I had edited the newsgroups this was appearing in. I won't do
>so this time, but can somebody please tell me why this is in soc.men,
>soc.women, and talk.rape?
I didn't see soc.men. I've removed soc.women. But talk.rape is (marginally)
relevant-- because the fact that using a gun doesn't require having physical
strength on par with the person being shot is important in rape cases, as
rape victims tend to be smaller, lighter, and less strong, than rapists.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
Bill Gray
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth.
This is spoken with so much authority one might almost believe it is
true.
In the wake of the Killeen atrocity, most of the network talking heads
were claiming it was the "worst mass murder in American history."
Not even close. It was approximately 1/4 as bad as the worst I am aware
of, in which a single male killed 87 people in a New York City after-
hours club.
His weapon was a beer bottle full of gasoline.
To approximate the death toll from that single incident, you would have to
combine the toll of all the mass shootings for several years. The Killeen
and McDonald's (San Diego) attacks total less than 1/2 the New York
firebomb.
No gun rights proponent wants a world full of shootouts on every street
corner. But the evidence clearly shows that massacres happen to
UNarmed people. Having a weapon probably would not have helped any of
the New York firebomb victims. But it was the fire by responding police
at Killeen that stopped the lunatic's killing, not the pleas for mercy
of his unarmed prey. (Yes, I know he took his own life. But he was
distracted from his rampage by having to defend himself from the police
gunfire. According to the news reports, he was hit several times
before he ended the carnage with his own death.)
By the way--the line to disarm yourself and your friends starts to the left.
The *extreme* left.
Bill
--
gr...@rsvl.unisys.com
Unisys has enough problems without being blamed for my personal opinions.
Bill Gray
> I don't believe in banning all types of guns, but the above argument
^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ (1)
>is one of the most bogus reasons for being against any form of gun
>control. No reasonable person advocates banning useful objects or
>substances merely because some lunatic "might" use it to harm others,
>but society does require licensing for people who operate dangerous
>machinery or handle lethal and toxic substances.
(2)
> Are you seriously saying that since it's the person who does the
>killing, and not the object that person uses to commit the murders,
>therefore everybody should be allowed to own an uzi? how about a
^^^ (3)
>laser beam weapon? or a missile? or a nuclear bomb?
(4)
> The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
>licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
>that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
(5)
1.) Ah, the old "good gun-bad gun" ploy. Maybe you tink you are
telling the truth, but the track record of the HCI gun banners is
clearly one of "divide and conquer" tactics. They demonize one kind
of gun andpiously announce that it has "no legitimate use." It's fun,
and any number can play: handguns == "Saturday Night Specials"
semi-automatic rifles and pistols == "assault weapons"
hunting rifles == "sniper rifles"
shotguns == "crowd killers" == "weapons of ecological destruction"
2.) Here you decree that every act that may pose a risk to society
must be regulated by that society. This fails for either of two simple
reasons: First, the foundation of this country was that the people
are the source of all power government exerts; that is, government
exists and exerts it power through the sufferance of the people (its
master), not the other way around. This was recognized by the Framers
in the Bill of Rights, shrivelling away before our eyes in its 200th
year. Second, even if government *did* have the right to "grant" rights
(an oxymoron--something granted by government is a privilege it can
revoke at its whim while a right is something yours from birth), the
issue has already been settled by the 2nd Amendment. It provides that
the people (that includes me, idunno 'bout you!) have the right to keep
and bear arms.
3.) You watch too much tv. Uzi makes a splendid submachinegun that is
widely seen in tv and movies for the brain-dead, the so-called "action-
adventure" genre. They also make a semi-automatic version of the same
weapon that they designed in collaboration with the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) to be particularly difficult to convert to
submachinegun operation. It fires a 9mm pistol round that is the same
as most police departments. The cartridge is about as powerful as a
.38 Special revolver (the kind most departments carried a few years ago).
It is far less potent than the .357 or nearly any rifle cartridge.
*Sigh*
But it _looks_ like the submachinegun. Doesn't work like one, just
resembles it on the outside. Kind of like parking a Corvette with a
whopper of a V-8 and 4-speed next to one with a 6-cylinder and a mushy
automatic side by side. Without close inspection, you cannot see the
difference, a fact 60 Minutes and HCI love to exploit to terrify the
non-shooting urban majority.
4.) Oh, come on. This is a genuine non-issue. You can always tell
when a control freak is losing the argument because they start blithering
on about nukes and other strategic weapons. You've gone beyond the
call of duty with the laser idea, though.
5.) So what? A weapon is not an illegitimate thing. It is a useful
implement in an increasing number of cases. For instance, armed women
are raped at something less than 10% the rate unarmed women are. And
armed people are far harder to massacre. These whackos could choose
to attack police stations. Instead they choose restaurants (not
donut shops), offices, and other calm places where cops tend to be absent.
I bet you think that's just a coincidence.
Still, given that licensed people use cars to kill about 50,000/year
and criminals use guns around 9,000/year*, defending gasoline while
attacking "bad" guns seems a trifle backward. Furthermore, there are
enormous ecological and other costs to our automotive addiction. Estimates
run as high as 300,000 dead Iraqis in our recent tantrum about oil
prices. No one really knows yet what the costs in money and suffering
and death will be to deal with claimed effects of global warming. There
is a major problem with air quality in many major cities with attendant
fatalities to heart and respiratory diesase.
Compared to the costs of cars in our society, guns are a bargain.
Bill
* Suicide statistics are omitted. Suicidal people will kill themselves.
Japan and Sweden have far more restrictive gun laws than we do, but
substantially higher suicide rates. They just don't shoot themselves to
death.
P.S. I wish one of the net.leftist.gun.grabbers could explain why, if
the 9,000 or so homicides annually worry them so much, do they not get
as vocal about the tax-paid tobacco subsidy that helps kill about
400,000 Americans/year, many in unimaginable agony. We have predictable
frenzies in Congress trying to tell Americans a Big Lie--that they cannot
trust themselves with weapons--and studied silence on government-sponsored
mass murder.
David Marc Nieporent
>Give me a revolver with a speed loader and I'd be able to do just as well
>as the nut in Texas. And, if you take my revolver, how do I defend myself
>against the criminal who doesn't care what my itty-bitty little gun
>control laws say? The criminals will *ALWAYS* be able to get guns. Think
>they're going to follow the law?????
OK, I'll bite. I keep on seeing this comment. I still haven't seen
anyone explain what a "criminal" is -- I'll bet you've driven faster
than the speed limit, so I guess you're a "criminal." -- but there's a
different point I want to make here.
Explain how criminals will *ALWAYS* be able to get guns. Please
list the places where criminals will be able to obtain guns if
appropriate laws are passed. Then we can see which laws could stop
these methods. If *no* laws would, then I'll agree with you.
But note, that if we could stop 75% of these, then laws should be
passed. Of course 100% could never be stopped. But if most could, then
it would be worth it.
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
> -------------------
> ad...@spss.com Phone: (312) 329-3522
> Steve Adams Fax: (312) 329-3558
-----------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Cal Ripken Jr for AL MVP and Gold Glove!!!
----------------------------
Dhanesh K Samarasan
>
> >I'd suggest Mexico, Laos, Columbia, and/or South Africa.
> ^^^^^^^^
>That's *Colombia*. Will I ever see this spelled correctly by an
>American?
>
>Rodrigo Vanegas
1. Colombians are Americans, and I assume they can spell "Colombia."
2. Gringos cain't spell shit, man. Or haven't you noticed?
Cheers,
Dhanesh
Andy Freeman
> I do. Here they are, from a previous post by Andy Freeman--thanks, Andy!
Note that Andy probably won't post those stats any more because he's
going to rechase references after he gets his copy of Kleck's new book
"Point Blank: Guns & Violence in America". (Read "Andy uses the most
accurate data he knows about."; and his evaluation changes over time.)
Get the book folks. It's the best $60 you'll ever spend on gun arguments.
Andy Freeman
>"Compared with assaults with guns, attacks with knives were more
>likely to result in multiple wounds, and they were equally likely
>to damage a part of the body where death can result. The five-to-one
>difference in death rate [between gun & knife assaults] thus seems
>to stem from the greater dangerousness of the firearm . . .
Last year I heard Zimring speak. He still hadn't figured out that
"knife" isn't the same as "edged weapon" and his arguments fell apart
when the distinction was made. His "rebuttal" of the intent arguments
were even worse. When SA appears on my newsstand, I'll see if he's
improved since then.
> If such instrumentality effects are large, a shift from guns to
>knives would cause a drop in the homicide rate even if the total
>rate of violent assault did not change. Other studies have
>corroborated the presence of large instrumentality effects in
>urban violence." ("Firearms, Violence and Public Policy", Franklin
>E. Zimring, _Scientific American_, November 1991, p. 49.)
Did he bother to discuss what could bring about such a change? Gun
control laws haven't (not in the UK, not in Canada, and not in the US,
and some things will work locally if they will work at all).
Gene A. Kennedy
> >Another question you might think about is how many people would have died in
> >that place in Texas today if just one customer had been armed and properly
> >trained. I don't think it would have been 23, do you?
> >
> >Still Rog
>
> I don't live in Texas, (I'm from Missouri and going to school in MA--barf!)
> but it sounds like a cool place--all those guns an' all. If I lived
> there, I'd try bringing multiple murder charges against each member of
> the Texas State Legislature who voted against the concealed carry bill:
>
> "The following members of the Texas Senate/House are under arrest for
> conspiracy to commit murder: ...., ...., ...., ... ... By emasculating
Linking the failed gun-carry bill to this event in this way is not
a good argument if you consider what was really in that bill and
what happened in recent incident.
The bill in question failed, in part, because many saw it as
discriminating against the poor since it a rather high fee for the
permits ($250 per gun I think). It was just a bad bill, and was
opposed by many who also oppose gun control.
Secondly, if the recent surveys are to be believed, there is
something like a 1 in 5 chance that there were others present who
had guns with them. But under the circumstances, what would you
do? Noone can really answer that unless he/she was actually there
and was confronted with the *shock* of the situation. People do
behave strangely when in shock.
While I personally don't care to see new gun control laws, let's
leave this tragic event out of the discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
g...@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Freeman
>I *am* opposed to the tobacco subsidy, but there is a big difference. I
>don't really care if you destroy your lungs with tobacco. It doesn't
>affect me. As long as we outlaw smoking in public places, it really
>can't affect me.
If Nieporent's risk of being shot approaches that of the national
average, he should get into a different biz if the consequences of his
choice bother him.
BG Fitch
The Happy Land murder trial is over
87 dead 106 orphaned 59 widowed
Julio Gonzalez is guilty
the forman told us 174 times
And Julio did pour the gasoline
He did light the match
But Julio didn't pack them in
Or get the money from the door
Julio didn't build an illegal
social club with no escape
...
Julio's getting 25 to life
But five children died in
fires in Brooklyn
And 200 more dies last year
No headlines raged
And no charges will be brought
...
Get real man. It is one thing to contend that the Texas nightmare might
have comeout differently if someone had a gun. But you are comparing
apples and rocks. How many people get shot in bars settling what should
have / could have been a fist fight at most?
Inscidently, what if everyone in that place in Texas had a gun. Might have
got pretty interesting. When the police use weapons they are supposed to
be damn sure people know they are police.
Also, isn't it strange to you we have more of these this crap in the States
than they seem to in countrys where there isn't so much gun culture?
And another thing, I am not concerned with me and my friends being armed...
its you and your friends I'm not sure sure about. :-[
BTW, I don't intend to argue this in soc.women if I can help it (ie control
my news program) ... but there are lots of people on your side in talk.po.th
David Marc Nieporent
>4.) Oh, come on. This is a genuine non-issue. You can always tell
>when a control freak is losing the argument because they start blithering
>on about nukes and other strategic weapons. You've gone beyond the
>call of duty with the laser idea, though.
Oh come on. You can always tell when a gun "freak" is losing the
argument because he says "oh no, the nuke issue again. I don't have a
good answer to the nuke issue, so I'll attack the question."
>Still, given that licensed people use cars to kill about 50,000/year
>and criminals use guns around 9,000/year*, defending gasoline while
Do they? You're just talking about killings. How about all those armed
robberies which would be much more difficult if they didn't own guns?
>attacking "bad" guns seems a trifle backward. Furthermore, there are
>enormous ecological and other costs to our automotive addiction. Estimates
>run as high as 300,000 dead Iraqis in our recent tantrum about oil
>prices. No one really knows yet what the costs in money and suffering
>and death will be to deal with claimed effects of global warming. There
>is a major problem with air quality in many major cities with attendant
>fatalities to heart and respiratory diesase.
>Compared to the costs of cars in our society, guns are a bargain.
Except, of course, that you're omitting the benefits of cars, while
including the benefits of guns. (Yes, there are benefits. I'm not
afraid to admit it. I just think the disadvantages outweigh them.)
>Bill
>P.S. I wish one of the net.leftist.gun.grabbers could explain why, if
I don't know any leftists, but I'll answer it anyway.
>the 9,000 or so homicides annually worry them so much, do they not get
>as vocal about the tax-paid tobacco subsidy that helps kill about
>400,000 Americans/year, many in unimaginable agony. We have predictable
>frenzies in Congress trying to tell Americans a Big Lie--that they cannot
>trust themselves with weapons--and studied silence on government-sponsored
>mass murder.
I *am* opposed to the tobacco subsidy, but there is a big difference. I
don't really care if you destroy your lungs with tobacco. It doesn't
affect me. As long as we outlaw smoking in public places, it really
can't affect me.
>--
>gr...@rsvl.unisys.com
>Unisys has enough problems without being blamed for my personal opinions.
-----------------------------
anmar mirza
>>In article <1991Oct15.1...@philabs.philips.com> r...@philabs.philips.com (Roger White) writes:
>>>
>>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>>
>
>>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
>
>I don't buy this at all. One whop off the head with a cast iron frying pan
>will do you in I bet. Alas, again no proof.
>
>>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>>rolling pin out of the house.
>
About the same time the Killeen incident went on, we had a 15 year old
kill a 12 year old by hitting him in the head with a tree branch.
Happened in Paoli, Indiana.
Now we should outlaw those evil assault trees with the multi-branch
capability.
--
Anmar Mirza # If a product is good, # I speak only my # Space, humans next
EMT-A # they will stop making # opinions on these # goal in the race
N9ISY (tech) # it. Unless it is # subjects, IU has # for immortality.
Networks Tech.# designed to kill. # it's own. # --- me
Andy Freeman
>the assailant's weapon had been a knife?
Question: How many people would have died in that Texas massacre if
the assailant's weapon had been fire?
Note that he effectively blocked the exit with his vehicle.
Matthew T. Russotto
>
>Secondly, if the recent surveys are to be believed, there is
>something like a 1 in 5 chance that there were others present who
>had guns with them. But under the circumstances, what would you
>do? Noone can really answer that unless he/she was actually there
>and was confronted with the *shock* of the situation. People do
>behave strangely when in shock.
Some people behave rationally when in shock, also. Otherwise you wouldn't
see accident victims climbing out of their cars and walking home before
collapsing in shock. In any case, in 10 minutes, had a substantial # of the
people been armed (there is no evidence ANY of them was), it stretches
the limits of belief that none of them would have fired back.
>While I personally don't care to see new gun control laws, let's
>leave this tragic event out of the discussion.
Why? HCI and their forces aren't-- this is about as clear a real world
situation you are going to get where private gun ownership could have saved
many lives, and we should point it out. HCI is certainly going to claim
that were handguns illegal, this guy couldn't have killed anyone, and we
need an effective counter to that.
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <1991Oct19.2...@watson.ibm.com> bl...@watson.ibm.com (BG Fitch) writes:
>Get real man. It is one thing to contend that the Texas nightmare might
>have comeout differently if someone had a gun. But you are comparing
>apples and rocks. How many people get shot in bars settling what should
>have / could have been a fist fight at most?
Do you know the answer? Or are you just making innuendo?
>Inscidently, what if everyone in that place in Texas had a gun. Might have
>got pretty interesting. When the police use weapons they are supposed to
>be damn sure people know they are police.
What if everyone in that place had a gun? Well, after the guy crashed through
the window and started shooting, some of those people would have shot him, and
that would have been the end of the situation. By the time the cops showed
up, all the guns would have been put away and there would be 3 or 4 dead
people rather than 23 (the 2 killed when he ran his truck in, maybe another
killed before he was shot, and the killer himself)
>Also, isn't it strange to you we have more of these this crap in the States
>than they seem to in countrys where there isn't so much gun culture?
We have a lot more murders of all types-- not just gun murders.
BTW, do you remember the University of Montreal incident?
Even if this was the fault of some 'gun culture', you couldn't get rid of
it by outlawing guns, any more than you can get rid of the 'drug culture'
by outlawing drugs or the 'alcohol culture' by Prohibition. All you can do
is make it MORE violent.
>And another thing, I am not concerned with me and my friends being armed...
>its you and your friends I'm not sure sure about. :-[
OK, so you are an elitist.
But this is America, where everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the
law.
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <15...@princeton.Princeton.EDU> niep...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>don't really care if you destroy your lungs with tobacco. It doesn't
>affect me. As long as we outlaw smoking in public places, it really
>can't affect me.
Well, we HAVE outlawed shooting in public places, yet you are still complaining
about people buying guns.
Pat Myrto
>In article <1991Oct17.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, l...@cbnews.cb.att.com
>(lawrence.v.cipriani) says:
>>
>>In article <91290.114...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>>PAR...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>
>>>and I too have not hurt _anyone_; but that does not mean I think it's
>>>reasonable to allow any Joe Blow off the street to buy whatever
>>>automatic weapon he wants without any checks into his qualifications.
>>
>>Why not ? Come on, lets have a reasoned debate instead of "I think
>>it's unreasonable."
>>
>>The stat is 5 out of 6 [approximately] criminals obtain their firearms
>>from non-retail sources. Of the 1 out of 6 who obtain their firearms
>>from retail sources some were stolen or obtained via straw-man sale.
>>
> Do you seriously believe that criminals should be allowed to
>purchase firearms just because they can always obtain them illegally?
Nobody has advocated permitting criminals to purchase guns. What has
been said, repeatedly, is that the assorted gun laws have NO EFFECT on
the criminal obtaining their weapons. The gun laws only hinder the
LAW-ABIDING from getting firearms. Currently proposed laws can be
paraphrased as "It shall be illegal to possess any weapon of MODERN
design. Only fowling pieces or early design bolt-action hunting rifles shall be
legal to possess". That is pretty much what the EFFECT of the current
proposals would be. The criminal can get whatever he/she damn well
pleases, limited only by cost, while the law-abiding can get only
what the STATE says they can, limited by cost, and also will have to
go through a bureaucratic maze full of delays and hassles to do same.
HOW DOES THIS MAKE THE CRIME/VIOLENCE PROBLEM 'BETTER'? Almost without
exception, folks who kill using ANY weapon has a history of violent
behavior. Folks who are 'model citizens' that suddenly go off the
rails and do some mass murder are a very rare species indeed. Virtually
all such people who go off the rails have given many warnings. The
warnings were simply ignored, usually because it was too inconvenient
expensive for the authorities to deal with them. Better to blame
hardware items for the incident after the fact. AKA known as CYA.
As an aside, why are guns given special treatment? I would support
extra penalties for unprovoked/unjustified killing or maiming with
ANY weapon to amplify bare-hands effectiveness. Why limit such to
guns - is there some mystic magic attributable to guns? Remember,
unlike what the media would have one believe, a gun is NOT a small
nuke in effectiveness - it simply drills a hole of some size in the
target. The target does not launch itself into flight from the impact,
it does not turn into pink mist, a .38 spl does not creat a wound that
"starts at the neck and ends at the knees", as Sen Biden once said on
a news program sometime back, when he was bemoaning the fact that criminals
were no longer using low-powered "... Saturday Night Specials(tm)"
(first part of the SNS phrase omitted due to its offensive nature).
>If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe
You got that one right!!! :-)
>a criminal will most likely purchase a gun to harm others, not just
>for self-protection; so although he can always obtain a gun illegally
>doesn't mean I should then advocate letting him purchase one as easily
>as buying bread.
Why make it virtually impossible (as many current laws do, and laws
being proposed are working toward on a national scale)? The tendency
is to say "you can have weapon X as long as it is relatively ineffective
against anything other than a lone, relatively inept attacker. In NYC,
Wash DC, etc, the trend is "Tough. If attacked, just DIE. Please don't
be too messy about it, the govt agencies are allready overworked..."
Exceptions provided for Politically Powerful and Correct, such as Teddys
bodyguards, who clank while they walk..
>>
>>Why is it advocates of gun control keep forgeting that decent people
>>who use firearms for their self protection are prevented from defending
>>themselves by gun control laws ? Doesn't that matter ? I guess not.
>>
> Who says that gun control laws prevent decent people from using
>guns for self-protection? Do you really need to own an uzi to protect
You cannot use a gun if you cannot GET one - as again in NYC, DC, Morton
Grove, ...
>yourself? Do you really still hold the Wild West mentality where
>every individual needs to pack a piece in public?
Who is to say what tool a person needs for personal protection? As long
as the person does not infringe on the rights of others, such as act
in a violent or threatening manner, what business is it of ANYONE what
sort of tool a person chooses? Note there is a difference between firearms
and things like bombs and such - the firearm is directed at a particular
target, while explosive type devices are effectively directed at EVERYONE
at the same time - there is no discrimination between attacker and innocent.
THAT is why things like 'nukes', etc are bogus arguments. They are first
not militia weapons (one can argue whether they are even just weapons for
a soverign state). Such weapons are not viable for defense on an individual
level or for small-unit (read: squad or platoon level) tactics.
If you were being attacked by some gang because, for example, you testified
against a member you saw in a drive-by shooting, something like a FULL
AUTO Uzi might be what one needs. You surely don't believe that calling
911 is going to be much use? Or a bolt-action hunting rifle and its 3
or so shot capacity, slow to reload? Or a shotgun, which is easy to
remain beyond the effective range of in such a scenerio? Unlikely as this
is, it might NOT be so unlikely in a big city situation, if people started
testifying against them. The fact that in such environments, the people
are kept totally helpless. No wonder folks have such "poor memories"...
The choice of defensive tool should be made by the party using it, not
some bureaucrat that lives in a nice, safe neighborhood (possibly with
limited access enforced by an ARMED guard, like, for example, Ted
"swimming lessons" Kennedy). Only the person who is in the situation
being defended has a right to evaluate what tools are needed. Its
like me deciding what sort of <fill-in-desired-item> intended for your
situation you may be allowed to possess, based on MY likes and
dislikes, and lack of knowlege about the item.
> I have no problem with law-abiding private citizens owning guns
>which they have been properly licensed and trained to use correctly.
>I do not believe every person needs to own and constantly carry around
>an automatic weapon. If the "War on Drugs" continually escalates
Why not? (other than a personal dislike for the tool) if the criterea
I outlined above are considered? Have you ever handled one? Fired
one? Seen what they can, and CANNOT do? (Hint: special effects
shown on TV and in movies as to their effects are not accurate - the
downrange area does not wither and disappear) If you answer no to the
above questions, one has to question your qualifications to make
decisions on such weapons in my behalf.
>however, I agree that a Chicago-style prohibition-era mentality may
>be unavoidable.
I don't see why. Citizens that are allowed to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES
may well get much better memories regarding events they have seen,
especially regarding gang activity. If police were HONEST about the
exposure of retaliation, and would offer to TRAIN AND HELP EQUIP
an individual, plus offer to do what THEY can regarding protection
I would not be surprised if witnesses would not be noticebly easier
to obtain. However, since I truly believe that most gun laws have
as their reason for being motives OTHER than crime control, the
possibility of this happening is quite remote (on a par with hell
freezing over). My suspicions are unsubstantiated, other than by the
fact that such laws have never reduced crime, so there must be some
other reasons for officials wanting them in place SO DESPERATELY.
PS: I just saw the news reporting (grudgingly) that the gun provisions
have been struck from 3317. Now if they could remove some other attacks
on the Bill of Rights...
--
pat@rwing (Pat Myrto), Seattle, WA
...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
...!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!dataio!/
WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
David Marc Nieporent
(Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <15...@princeton.Princeton.EDU> I write:
>>I *am* opposed to the tobacco subsidy, but there is a big difference.
>>I don't really care if you destroy your lungs with tobacco. It
>>doesn't affect me. As long as we outlaw smoking in public places, it
>>really can't affect me.
>Well, we HAVE outlawed shooting in public places, yet you are still
>complaining about people buying guns.
Actually, I never said people shouldn't be able to buy guns. I simply
argued that there should be some restrictions.
Gordon Burditt
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
I challenge this statistic. I don't believe that 80% of intended shooting
victims even *get hit*, much less die (to qualify as an intended victim, the
attacker has to get off at least one shot). Some of them might not even know
they were attacked. Of course, this can happen with knives, too, especially
if they are being thrown, but it seems that it's a lot easier to make a
serious attempt to kill someone and end up inflicting no damage whatever
with a gun.
Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
lawrence.v.cipriani
>In article <1991Oct17.2...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, l...@cbnews.cb.att.com
>(lawrence.v.cipriani) says:
>>
>>>but that does not mean I think it's reasonable to allow any Joe Blow
>>>off the street to buy whatever automatic weapon he wants without any
>>>checks into his qualifications.
>>
>>Why not ? Come on, lets have a reasoned debate instead of "I think
>>it's unreasonable."
>>
>>The stat is 5 out of 6 [approximately] criminals obtain their firearms
>>from non-retail sources. Of the 1 out of 6 who obtain their firearms
>>from retail sources some were stolen or obtained via straw-man sale.
>>
> Do you seriously believe that criminals should be allowed to
>purchase firearms just because they can always obtain them illegally?
No [our definition of criminal may differ], but it is a futile waste
of law enforcement resources to have background checks, waiting
periods, etc. not to mention the violations of the right to keep and
bear arms for everyone else in society!
>If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe
>a criminal will most likely purchase a gun to harm others, not just
>for self-protection; so although he can always obtain a gun illegally
>doesn't mean I should then advocate letting him purchase one as easily
>as buying bread.
That all well and good, but they are unavoidable tradeoffs in any
public policy. You seem to be ignoring these tradeoffs.
>>Why is it advocates of gun control keep forgeting that decent people
>>who use firearms for their self protection are prevented from defending
>>themselves by gun control laws ? Doesn't that matter ? I guess not.
>>
> Who says that gun control laws prevent decent people from using
>guns for self-protection?
You'll have to be more specific when you say "gun control laws."
For example:
A waiting period prevents a non-gun owner from using a gun for
self-protection during the waiting period.
A background check which is not cost free to the buyer can prevent
someone from buying a firearm becuase the total cost is not affordable.
A concealed carry permit system which requires the approval of the
local chief law enforcement officer can be abused so only people
he likes are granted carry permits.
Laws against carrying concealed weapons prevent law abiding people
from being able to protect themselves from lunatics who shoot up
crowds of people.
>Do you really need to own an uzi to protect yourself?
What do you mean by "uzi" ? A semi-automatic pistol ? A fully-automatic
machine gun ? A fully-automatic machine pistol ? A sub-machinegun ?
Everyone one of those firearms is designed to protect people. It's the
size and type of the target, among other things, that determines the
type of firearm people need in a given context.
>Do you really still hold the Wild West mentality where
>every individual needs to pack a piece in public?
> I have no problem with law-abiding private citizens owning guns
>which they have been properly licensed and trained to use correctly.
What I advoate is nothing less than what is legal *now* in the state of
Vermont. Any person who is not convicted a violent crime is allowed to
carry a concelaed firearm. No background checks. No permits. No
being subject to the whim of the local constable. Nothing. Why is
that so "unreasonable" ?!? It works dammit.
Where are piles of dead bodies HCI scares people into believing will
be created under such a "Wild West mentality" ? Where are they ?!?
>I do not believe every person needs to own and constantly carry around
>an automatic weapon.
I believe people ought to be free to choose that option if they so
desire. I believe property owners [except the gov't] should be able
to decide whether or not a person with a firearm is allowed on their
property, and/or if it must be concealed or not.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Mr. X
>>
>> This is nonsense. First of all, and I have stated this before,
>> about humans being inefficient killers without firearms it
>> categorically false.
>>
>
>Read those statements again. I think you missed an important point.
>You are an efficient killer because of you "plenty of training" (gee
>how pathetic that sounds, and he's actually proud of it). Probably
You seem to think you know enough about me to label me as 'pathetic'
and to claim I am proud of my abilities. You know *nothing* about me
and should be a little more careful in how you speak to people you are
not familiar with. A little respect and courtesy is called for.
Your mouth could get your ass into some hot water some day with this
kind of behavior. While I am completely non-violent (contrary to your
assumptions) I have known people that would break you (or anyone else)
into small pieces for showing such disrespect. Personal attacks are not
neccessary.
>more training than 99% of the human race. To kill without a gun, you
>need an edge, eitehr more power, or skill. A gun requires no such
>edge.
>
To kill without a gun requires next to ZERO training. As I mentioned
before, determination and patience are MUCH more critical than
training. You may wish to educate yourself on such matters rather
than spewing false information.
>And one more time for those who didn't get, the Man as an inefficient
>killer is meant to be in comparison to certain other carnivores. I
>think sharks are much more efficeint killers than men.
You made absolutely no reference to this at all. If that is what
you meant then you should have said so. Anyway, what does the
efficiency of the shark as a killing machine have to do with t.p.g?
>
>> If I were to
>> whack out like that guy in Texas, I would probably kill thousands
>> before getting caught. I know how to do it and how to get away with
>> it. There are lots of people like me in this world with such knowledge
>
>And in fact, I would suggest you get some help immediately. I don't
>mean to sound offensive, but you appear sick.
>
And now I see you are a qualified physician! All I did was make a few
statements of possible fact and you have me diagnosed as mentally ill.
You seem very presumptuous indeed, and perhaps just a bit full of
yourself. I recieved training; no better and no worse than any other
training. I do not use it for violent purposes and hopefully never
will have to. My training has given me the confidence and ability to
recognize a true treat and walk away from those that are false. I have
walked away from several situations where a person might have acted
differently. How many people do you know that would walk out of a bar
after having walked away from a challenge with most of the patrons
mumbling things like 'pussy shit' as you leave, especially at 19 and
20 years of age, and not be bothered by it in the least? Most of the
folks I've met might find their egos just a bit too difficult to
ignore. Resulting fight accomplishes nothing except perhaps a trip to
the ER and/or the local jail.
>> yet all someone like yourself sees are the guns. If I chose to kill you
>> there would be NOTHING you could do to stop me. Indeed if any average
>
>Wanna bet? I could shoot you. In fact, you have pissed me off so much
>let's put your theories to the test. We'll stand at thiry paces. I will
>be holding a loaded .357 magnum. You will have your "plenty of training".
>Name the place and time. Oh, BTW, could you bring a .357 magnum for
>me to use, I don't have one.
If I decided to target YOU (which I assure you I have no interest in)
you would never know what hit you. Death would come out of nowhere
and be gone as quickly. Your statements are a bit silly.
>
>> citizen decided the same, there would be little more in the way of
>> alternatives open to you. Whether or not they suceeded would depend
>> more on planning and PATIENCE than anything else. You guys just do not
>> seem to get it at all.
>
>No, you don't seem to get. Most murders aren't well thought plans to
>elimanate someone. Life is an Agatha Christie Novel. Sure, if I actually
>wanted to kill someone, and was willing to come up with a plan to
>get myself in a situation where I could perform the killing, I would
>probably be successful. The fact is most murders don't have this personal,
>focused aspect to them.
We were not talking about 'most murders'. We were talking about the
inherent efficiency of the human being as killer. I stated that anyone
could take your (or anyone else's) life with relative ease given the
determination and some minimal level of common sense. I did not say
that every person on the planet (or even anything close) was so
inclined or informed as to want or be able to exercise their inborn
abilities. Nor do I feel that they necessarily should. I also said that
in a premeditated situation, there is little anyone can do about it
because the advantage is inherently with the attacker.
I did not say that I intended to take your life, so why do you get so
pissed? Perhaps the truth makes you a bit too uncomfortable? I am
not flaming you here so please don't get yourslef in an uproar. You
made a statement and I refuted it as false. I mean no harm to you or
to anyone else. I seems that statements that cause certain truths
about people to be made apparent are so horrible to some people that
they do not know how to deal with them properly. Said statements
are assumed to imply personal threats or indicate some psychopathology,
even when there is no such condition.
Go figure.
-Andy V.
PS. The statement of getting away with killing thousands is certainly
an exaggeration. MY mistake.