I'm afraid. Very Afraid.
The Zarg
whole "right to bear arms" debate...and I have to say, I am now very, very
afraid.
I am currently living in Scotland - but I have applied to study for the
third year of my Degree course at the University of South Carolina. Some of
the posts supporting the right to have guns, and even more so the personal
anecdotes of people who have stayed over there have chilled me to the
bone...a couple of people have made jokes about it when I've told them that
I'm moving over there about having keep my mouth shut or I'll get shot - or
even saying that I should buy a gun while I'm out there, and I've kind of
laughed it off...but reading that dicussion, and seeing a recent program on
gun ownership, has made me seriously reconsider going, and I'm begining to
think that if I stayed over there I would be living in constant fear.
I'm not the only one who feels this way - I know quite a few people who have
stopped going on holiday in the States because they are worried they'll get
held up at gunpoint, that they wouldn't feel safe having their children
there or even that they'll just get into an argument with someone and
they'll just snap and pull a gun on them.
To those who are supporting the right to bear arms - it should really make
you think about your position, that people from other countries are actually
scared to visit yours because of your fondness for, despite your arguments
to the contrary, what basically amounts to toys (and for proof of that, you
only have to look at how many children are thinking the same thing).
JBONETATI
gun ownership, has made me seriously reconsider going, and I'm begining to
think that if I stayed over there I would be living in constant fear.>>
Zarg,
Not to belittle your fears at all, may I suggest that you take a look at the
*odds* of something bad happening to you while you're here? If you're online
you can find out the crime statistics for South Carolina. In fact, the
University you plan to attend may have information for you.
Yes, things happen here in the States. But my opinion is that the so-called
news media has made making you afraid into it's *mission* simply because
covering and explaining issues is a lot harder and because bad news sells
advertising.
And don't get me started on how advertising tries to make us afraid!
Just food for thought.
Jan
Paul D. Shocklee
: I am currently living in Scotland - but I have applied to study for the
: third year of my Degree course at the University of South Carolina. Some of
: the posts supporting the right to have guns, and even more so the personal
: anecdotes of people who have stayed over there have chilled me to the
: bone...a couple of people have made jokes about it when I've told them that
: I'm moving over there about having keep my mouth shut or I'll get shot - or
: even saying that I should buy a gun while I'm out there, and I've kind of
: gun ownership, has made me seriously reconsider going, and I'm begining to
: think that if I stayed over there I would be living in constant fear.
Hey, Zarg, don't worry about it. I've been all over this country, from
Texas to NY to LA, and I've never even seen a gun drawn, except in movies.
I don't own a gun, and most of the people I know don't either.
On the other hand, I do agree with the argument that allowing
law-abiding citizens to carry weapons helps to protect even those
who are unarmed.
(Okay, technically, we *do* have an old Civil War rifle on our mantel,
but it's just an heirloom.)
--
Paul Shocklee
Graduate Student, Department of Physics, Princeton University
Researcher, Science Institute, Dunhaga 3, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland
Phone: +354-525-4429
Kurtz
"The Zarg" <The...@greysector.ezesurf.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8gcjog$lu1$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I haven't read the group in a while - and I have just finished reading the
> whole "right to bear arms" debate...and I have to say, I am now very, very
> afraid.
>
If you want to be afraid, that's your choice. Maybe you ought to be
afraid of the *highways* in the states. I see horrendous accidents
everyday. But facing down a gun? Not very likely. I've seen
muggings with knives and blunt objects or just fists - I've never
seen a hold-up in my life. I can remember a guy back in the 70's
who was afraid to walk near tall buildings here in the States for
fear of *snipers*. Takes all kinds, I guess.
Jms at B5
>law-abiding citizens to carry weapons helps to protect even those
>who are unarmed.
And there I have never disagreed. My sense has always been that a citizen
should undergo at least as much training to own a gun as s/he undergoes to own
and use a car. Proper training in safety, useage, storage and so on.
To the person afraid of coming here due to the violence issue...if you come
alone, you're going to be okay, because something like 4 out of 5 gun related
incidents happen between people who *know* each other (and in many cases are
married to or involved with one another).
People seem to go into this knee-jerk reaction whenver anyone starts saying
things like the stuff two paragraphs up, and make it into a threat to take away
one's gun. It's simply a statement that steps can and should be taken to make
sure the person who *buys* one knows how to use it.
A car exists for many purposes, and can if misused result in someone's death.
A handgun exists for only one purpose: to shoot another human being.
Shouldn't the standard for ownership of the latter be at *least* as reasonable
and thorough as the standard for the first?
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Mike Van Pelt
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I do agree with the argument that allowing
>>law-abiding citizens to carry weapons helps to protect even those
>>who are unarmed.
>
>And there I have never disagreed. My sense has always been that a
>citizen should undergo at least as much training to own a gun as
>s/he undergoes to own and use a car. Proper training in safety,
>useage, storage and so on.
This makes sense. However, there is a reason that many people
consider it a threat to take their guns -- reasonable-sounding
laws have many times in the past been used to deny people a
fundamental right. Poll tax. Literacy tests. Sullivan law.
And when the politicians who propose reasonable-sounding measures
get caught saying things like "If I could have gotten 51 votes in
the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up
every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would
have done that", that doesn't exactly reassure those of us who are
suspicious of the motives of these politicians.
>To the person afraid of coming here due to the violence
>issue...if you come alone, you're going to be okay, because
>something like 4 out of 5 gun related incidents happen between
>people who *know* each other (and in many cases are married to
>or involved with one another).
For sufficiently small values of "many". The vast majority of
the shooting victims who know their attackers know them in a
professional capacity - They are gangsters, shot by rival
gangsters. If you aren't a gangster, and stay away from
gangsters (check with locals on where the "bad parts of town"
are) your chances of running into trouble are pretty slim.
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | m...@netcom.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
lcou...@stetson.edu
"The Zarg" <The...@greysector.ezesurf.co.uk> wrote:
> I haven't read the group in a while - and I have just finished reading
the
> whole "right to bear arms" debate...and I have to say, I am now very,
very
> afraid.
>
the
> third year of my Degree course at the University of South Carolina.
Some of
> the posts supporting the right to have guns, and even more so the
personal
> anecdotes of people who have stayed over there have chilled me to the
> bone...a couple of people have made jokes about it when I've told them
that
> I'm moving over there about having keep my mouth shut or I'll get shot
- or
> even saying that I should buy a gun while I'm out there, and I've kind
of
> laughed it off...but reading that dicussion, and seeing a recent
program on
> gun ownership, has made me seriously reconsider going, and I'm
begining to
> think that if I stayed over there I would be living in constant fear.
>
who have
> stopped going on holiday in the States because they are worried
they'll get
> held up at gunpoint, that they wouldn't feel safe having their
children
> there or even that they'll just get into an argument with someone and
> they'll just snap and pull a gun on them.
>
> To those who are supporting the right to bear arms - it should really
make
> you think about your position, that people from other countries are
actually
> scared to visit yours because of your fondness for, despite your
arguments
> to the contrary, what basically amounts to toys (and for proof of
that, you
> only have to look at how many children are thinking the same thing).
>
Terrorism, which is (almost) unknown in the US.
You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
Lisa Coulter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lcou...@stetson.edu
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> >I do agree with the argument that allowing
> >law-abiding citizens to carry weapons helps to protect even those
> >who are unarmed.
>
> And there I have never disagreed. My sense has always been that a
citizen
> should undergo at least as much training to own a gun as s/he
undergoes to own
> and use a car. Proper training in safety, useage, storage and so on.
>
come
> alone, you're going to be okay, because something like 4 out of 5 gun
related
> incidents happen between people who *know* each other (and in many
cases are
> married to or involved with one another).
>
saying
> things like the stuff two paragraphs up, and make it into a threat to
take away
> one's gun. It's simply a statement that steps can and should be taken
to make
> sure the person who *buys* one knows how to use it.
>
> A car exists for many purposes, and can if misused result in someone's
death.
>
> A handgun exists for only one purpose: to shoot another human being.
>
> Shouldn't the standard for ownership of the latter be at *least* as
reasonable
> and thorough as the standard for the first?
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
>
>
now ;)). If I understand correctly, and I may be wrong, in Switzerland,
all males above a certain age must own guns and have the type of
training jms advocates.
WWS
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
> >To the person afraid of coming here due to the violence
> >issue...if you come alone, you're going to be okay, because
> >something like 4 out of 5 gun related incidents happen between
> >people who *know* each other (and in many cases are married to
> >or involved with one another).
>
> For sufficiently small values of "many". The vast majority of
> the shooting victims who know their attackers know them in a
> professional capacity - They are gangsters, shot by rival
> gangsters. If you aren't a gangster, and stay away from
> gangsters (check with locals on where the "bad parts of town"
> are) your chances of running into trouble are pretty slim.
That's simply not true. Gang violence is far overrated, and
as JBONETATI said, greatly dramatised by the news media to
spice up news coverage. Domestic violence is one of the
biggest causes of homicide in the US today - according to the
FBI, in 1992 30% of women killed in the United States died at
the hands of a spouse or a boyfriend. A slightly older study,
Carmody and Williams (Carmody, D.C. and K.R. Williams, "Wife
Assault and Perceptions of Sanctions." Violence and Victims 2,
1987, 1:25-38) found that 52% of the women killed between 1980
and 1984 were killed by a husband, ex-husband, common-law-husband
or boyfriend. About 2/3 of these cases involved firearms.
As JMS said, the vast majority of murder victims know their
attackers. In a quick look, I didn't find the comprehensive
statistics, but I did find a 1996 survey on women killed by
men. In 1996, there were 2,129 females murdered by males in
single victim/single offender incidents that were reported to
the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report. More than 12 times as
many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,866 victims)
than were killed by male strangers (151 victims).
More than a thousand female victims were wives or intimate
acquaintances of their killers.
There were 398 women shot and killed by their husband or intimate
acquaintance during the course of an argument.
More female homicides were committed with firearms (56 percent of cases)
than with all other weapons combined. Of the homicides committed with
firearms, almost three quarters (74 percent) were committed with handguns.
In 84 percent of all cases where circumstance could be determined,
homicides were not related to the commission of any other felony—such
as rape or robbery.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Michael J. Hennebry
>
>A handgun exists for only one purpose: to shoot another human being.
>
>Shouldn't the standard for ownership of the latter be at *least* as reasonable
>and thorough as the standard for the first?
Specious. There are at least three differences that point the other way.
There is no constitutional amendment relating to cars.
No one is trying to abolish private ownership of cars.
By people with any sense, handguns are not routinely pointed at
other people.
The third one is the reason cars kill more people than guns.
The reassurance of politicians that they are not trying
take away our right to own sporting guns doesn't help much
either. If there is no right to own a gun for security,
there is no right to own a gun for sport. There is no way
to twist the second amendment that far. There is no
reason to believe that politician who issues that reassurance
is honest.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
Iluvatar is the better part of Valar.
Andre Lieven
> In article <20000522232410...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>A car exists for many purposes, and can if misused result in someone's death.
>>
>>A handgun exists for only one purpose: to shoot another human being.
>>
>>Shouldn't the standard for ownership of the latter be at *least* as reasonable
>>and thorough as the standard for the first?
Yes, it ought to.
>
> Specious. There are at least three differences that point the other way.
Error.
> There is no constitutional amendment relating to cars.
It's pretty tough to write something in a political document, about an
object that *doesn't yet exist*. So, does this mean that no USian has
any rights on the Internet, as those slackers in 1776 failed to write
that in, too ?
> No one is trying to abolish private ownership of cars.
Actually, some people are. It's all a part of that pesky free speech thingy.
> By people with any sense, handguns are not routinely pointed at
> other people.
And, non existant handguns aren't, either. How do you weed out the
people not with any sense ?
>
> The third one is the reason cars kill more people than guns.
As a side effect of their use. Not as the only use.
>
> The reassurance of politicians that they are not trying
> take away our right to own sporting guns doesn't help much
> either. If there is no right to own a gun for security,
> there is no right to own a gun for sport. There is no way
> to twist the second amendment that far. There is no
> reason to believe that politician who issues that reassurance
> is honest.
So, 620 kids killed a year is just fine, to have a " sport " ?
Incidentally, sports are generally defined as games where either side
can win. Once you arm, and train the deer, and the bears, you *may*
qualify as a sport. Not until then.
>
> --
> Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
> Iluvatar is the better part of Valar.
Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
To...@fred.net
:> Yes, and my parents want to go to Europe and are afraid. You know why?
: Terrorism, which is (almost) unknown in the US.
: You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
: Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
: never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
Abfrag, Lisa. Went to the DC Zoo a few weeks before the shootings. I'll go
back. Why? Because I won't let irrational fear run my life.
PS to Zarg, now, you might hear about a flag issue in SXouth Carolina.....
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support
* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
"I'm not wealthy enough to be innocent." - Marc Bowden
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999 - http://www.wackyvoices.com
Alison Hopkins
To...@Fred.Net wrote in message ...
>This post on 23 May 2000 07:01:20 -0600 would probably sound more
commanding if lcou...@stetson.edu wasn't wearing the Yummy Sushi Pajamas:
>
>:> Yes, and my parents want to go to Europe and are afraid. You know why?
>: Terrorism, which is (almost) unknown in the US.
>: You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
>: Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
>: never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
>
>Abfrag, Lisa. Went to the DC Zoo a few weeks before the shootings. I'll go
>back. Why? Because I won't let irrational fear run my life.
>
Too damned right. I have had a few hundred pounds of Semtex explode a
quarter of a mile from my house - twice. It annoyed the hell out of me,
because it caused traffic chaos. I felt similarly when some twit planted one
in Leicester Square, meaning I missed a rather good film. I've not yet met a
native Londoner who reacted in fear and terror to such events, but rather
with an odd combination of irritation and sheer bloody mindedness. And fury
and sadness on those occasions when people died. I've a feeling we still
have a mass race memory from the last war. <g>
It makes you a bit careful about stray bags, and it's a pain that there
aren't any rubbish bins on the Underground, but whatever. I once stopped the
whole Jubilee line, when I found a holdall left behind in a carriage and
went and got the guard. He and I both sniffed dubiously at the thing, agreed
it was probably someone's shopping, but he wasn't taking any chances. Which
worked for me.
What did jolt me a little was realising I'd been through King's Cross thirty
minutes before they *found* the fire. The estimates reckoned it had been
burning for over an hour before that.
Ali
WWS
I've been around a good many things, mostly by chance. The only thing
that really bothered me was when they found a body in a dumpster at
the end of the block. Well, it wasn't really the body, so much; it was
the fact that the head was missing and no one could figure out where
it was.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Michael J. Hennebry
Andre Lieven <dg...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>Michael J. Hennebry (henn...@plains.nodak.edu) writes:
>> In article <20000522232410...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
>> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>A car exists for many purposes, and can if misused result in someone's death.
>>>
>>>A handgun exists for only one purpose: to shoot another human being.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't the standard for ownership of the latter be at *least* as reasonable
>>>and thorough as the standard for the first?
>
>Yes, it ought to.
>>
>> Specious. There are at least three differences that point the other way.
>
>Error.
>
>> There is no constitutional amendment relating to cars.
>
>It's pretty tough to write something in a political document, about an
The reason that there is no constitutional amendment relating to cars
does not affect the truth of my statement or AL's statement.
Difficult to do well, but not impossible.
In the USian 1789 constitution, some people have the right to movement,
but not the general public. The US Supreme Court "inferred" that from
the first amendment or possibly the tenth. The right to keep and use
any particular mode of transportation has yet to be announced by any
US government body.
IIRC, the automobile predates 1789. Does anyone recall when
Hero built his engine?
>... So, does this mean that no USian has
>any rights on the Internet, as those slackers in 1776 failed to write
>that in, too ?
Some would say so.
>> No one is trying to abolish private ownership of cars.
>
>Actually, some people are. It's all a part of that pesky free speech thingy.
I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't noticed any.
In any case, it's a bit like saying that some people are trying
to jump over the moon.
>> By people with any sense, handguns are not routinely pointed at
>> other people.
>
>And, non existant handguns aren't, either. How do you weed out the
>people not with any sense ?
Ask someone at the courthouse if they have a guardian.
If you insist on doing more than that, I'd suggest a written test
that can be graded by a machine.
If that is not enough, I'd suggest something like the Shoot Don't Shoot
simulations some policemen go through. Grade it with a machine. The
testee passes if he doesn't shoot anyone he shouldn't shoot. This
differs from the way one would score a policeman. There are very few
situations in which a civilian is required to shoot.
Since we are only trying to weed out those without sense, impersonation
is the only form of cheating that we need to prevent.
Regardless of the testing method, I'd suggest a 1% failure rate
as a hint that the test is too hard to pass constitutional muster.
>> The third one is the reason cars kill more people than guns.
>
>As a side effect of their use. Not as the only use.
Handguns can be used for more things than killing people.
The biggie is their use as threats. A "No" backed up by
a gun is much more likely to be taken seriously than a "No"
backed up by 140 lb.
>> The reassurance of politicians that they are not trying
>> take away our right to own sporting guns doesn't help much
>> either. If there is no right to own a gun for security,
>> there is no right to own a gun for sport. There is no way
>> to twist the second amendment that far. There is no
>> reason to believe that politician who issues that reassurance
>> is honest.
>
>So, 620 kids killed a year is just fine, to have a " sport " ?
>Incidentally, sports are generally defined as games where either side
>can win. Once you arm, and train the deer, and the bears, you *may*
>qualify as a sport. Not until then.
I'm not a hunter either, but you still have the wrong definition
of sport. What you describe is a competition or a contest.
Sport refers to something done for fun.
In any case, I do not regard "I thought he was a deer" as a good
excuse for killing someone. Relatives of the deceased might be
tempted to kill the juries that acquit or the prosecutors that
fail to prosecute in such cases, but I would recommend against it.
A slight maiming would be much better.
Steve Brinich
>> > No one is trying to abolish private ownership of cars.
>>
>> Actually, some people are. It's all a part of that pesky free speech thingy.
>
> I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't noticed any.
> In any case, it's a bit like saying that some people are trying
> to jump over the moon.
There are some such on the lunatic fringe of the environmental
movement. However, you are substantially correct in that car ownership
is not in any _practical_ danger.
> Regardless of the testing method, I'd suggest a 1% failure rate
> as a hint that the test is too hard to pass constitutional muster.
Another alternative: Require the police to permit civilians to take
their rookie-level test (with random mixing to insure that it _is_ the
same test as a police candidate gets), which for obvious reasons can't
be hard enough to fail the great majority of applicants.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Steve Brinich
> And there I have never disagreed. My sense has always been that a citizen
> should undergo at least as much training to own a gun as s/he undergoes to own
> and use a car. Proper training in safety, useage, storage and so on.
I wouldn't object to licensing guns like cars, as long as the analogy
is consistent, and so equally annoying to both sides.
However, I've yet to find a gun-rights advocate agreeable to a
recorded system of "points" for recklessness which could lead to license
revocation, or a gun-control advocate agreeable to requiring NYC or DC
to extend full faith and credit to a license from Vermont or Idaho.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Steve Brinich wrote:
> There are some such on the lunatic fringe of the environmental
> movement. However, you are substantially correct in that car ownership
> is not in any _practical_ danger.
Car ownership would be in for significantly tougher times, though, if the
government stopped subsidizing our oil. As George Will pointed out a few weeks
ago, many Americans drink water that, liter for liter, costs more than the gas in
their SUVs.
Kurtz
"The Reverend Jacob Corbin" <webm...@afriendlysbooks.com> wrote in message
news:392BA126...@afriendlysbooks.com...
I remember that remark, and while I often agree with George, he was
an idiot on this one. If I ever buy water, I buy it in those half-liter
bottles,
but I never drink a dozen gallons or more a day making deliveries in
a truck or commuting to and from work. (And my SUV gets the same
gas mileage my last three sedans got). George was pointing out that
Americans are crybabies when it comes to gas prices. Of course, if you
do a lot of driving, the higher gas prices are going to cost a lot. Some
kind of remark coming from a guy who could easily swallow an additional
50 to 100 bucks a month. And worse, if you depend on oil for *heat*.
emma...@panix.com
> You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
> Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
> never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
New York City actually has sane gun control and I feel a lot safer walking
around there than in rural areas where everyone seems to be packing.
Philadelphia is a city where it's now legal to carry a concealed weapon.
The first time I learned about that was right before I went into a
restaurant with an acquaintance who wanted to show me the "really neat toy"
he had just bought. Well, that was just great. Now I got to sit at a table
with an armed man for an hour, not knowing if the beer he was drinking
would make him lose his cool, worried that something I said might piss
him off, or that he might decide to play Charles Bronson to any one of
a number of situations that could have arisen. The point is, people who
expose you to guns without your consent are abridging your freedom and
forcing their values down your throat. Some of my friends in Philadelphia
are now beginning to experience gun accidents - one had a bullet come
through his floor because his downstairs neighbor/friend was cleaning
his AK-47! This crap happens all the time. Gun control is not about taking
guns away from everyone - it would be impossible to accomplish this in
the first place. It's about a *reasonable* degree of oversight so that
responsible people are the only ones legally allowed to possess such
weapons. Is it really so wrong to suggest that we limit gun ownership to
those who prove themselves responsible enough to handle it? The
Second Amendment is by no means a free pass for everyone who wants a
gun (or other "arms" - nuclear, perhaps?) to be able to obtain one or
a hundred.
emmanuel
Andre Lieven
> "The Reverend Jacob Corbin" <webm...@afriendlysbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:392BA126...@afriendlysbooks.com...
>>
>>
>> Steve Brinich wrote:
>>
>> > There are some such on the lunatic fringe of the environmental
>> > movement. However, you are substantially correct in that car ownership
>> > is not in any _practical_ danger.
>>
>> Car ownership would be in for significantly tougher times, though, if the
>> government stopped subsidizing our oil. As George Will pointed out a few
>> weeks ago, many Americans drink water that, liter for liter, costs more
>> than the gas in their SUVs.
>
> I remember that remark, and while I often agree with George, he was
> an idiot on this one. If I ever buy water, I buy it in those half-liter
> bottles, but I never drink a dozen gallons or more a day making deliveries
> in a truck or commuting to and from work.
The point is, that drinking water is about the least of all your water
uses. Do you do laundry ? Do you use your toilets. Do you take showers/
baths ? Do you cook, and use water in that, as well as washing up ?
Do you water your lawns ? Do you ever wash that SUV ?
Those are just a few, never mind all the water that went into the
industrial processes that made all the things that you own, and all
the products that you and your SUV consume, day in and day out.
> (And my SUV gets the same gas mileage my last three sedans got).
This one has me stumped, in a couple of ways. Most USians are urban
dwellers. So, what does an urban dweller need with an SUV type of
vehicle ? Can one use a Range Rover to it's designed potential in
Manhattan ? Or, is it a mere affectation ?
Oh, since gas efficiency is generally increasing in most vehicles,
that your SUV gets the " same " mileage isn't the point. As oil supplies
diminish, they will get rarer, and thus, assuming the *same* consumption,
more expensive. The increase in prices from Dec '98, to this last year
points that out. In some places, the prices doubled.
Given that, any change by consumers that does not increase efficiency
will use more fuel, and thus drive the prices even higher. So, if you
don't like the present state of prices, you are a part of what made them
go that way. You could have chosen a more efficient vehicle than an SUV.
( Which, IMHO, only ranchers have a real use for )
> George was pointing out that
> Americans are crybabies when it comes to gas prices. Of course, if you
> do a lot of driving, the higher gas prices are going to cost a lot. Some
> kind of remark coming from a guy who could easily swallow an additional
> 50 to 100 bucks a month. And worse, if you depend on oil for *heat*.
Well, he very likely wasn't just talking about his life. It's his job,
IIRC, to comment about the trends about life in the US. That would
include folks who make far less than him.
James Bell
emma...@panix.com wrote:
> Gun control is not about taking
> guns away from everyone - it would be impossible to accomplish this in
> the first place. It's about a *reasonable* degree of oversight so that
> responsible people are the only ones legally allowed to possess such
> weapons.
That's *your* definition of gun control. Much of the *actual* gun control
laws passed or proposed include nothing about training people to be
responsible and a lot of the word "ban".
Jim
Jonathan Biggar
>
> lcou...@stetson.edu wrote:
> > You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
> > Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
> > never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
>
> New York City actually has sane gun control and I feel a lot safer walking
> around there than in rural areas where everyone seems to be packing.
> Philadelphia is a city where it's now legal to carry a concealed weapon.
This is entirely an emotional response and not based on any logic. Even
though the murder and assault rates in NYC is down, they are still
significantly higher than in those "rural" areas that make you so
afraid. Of course if you want the prime example of why gun control a la
NYC doesn't work, just look at Washington D.C.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Jonathan Biggar
W> Car ownership would be in for significantly tougher times, though, if
the
> government stopped subsidizing our oil. As George Will pointed out a few weeks
> ago, many Americans drink water that, liter for liter, costs more than the gas in
> their SUVs.
The US government does not subsidize oil prices, unless you consider not
taxing it to death like all of those enlightened EU governments as a
subsidy.
Kurtz
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:8ggg5l$d68$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Kurtz" (mal...@erols.com) writes:
> > "The Reverend Jacob Corbin" <webm...@afriendlysbooks.com> wrote in
message
> > news:392BA126...@afriendlysbooks.com...
> >>
> >
> > an idiot on this one. If I ever buy water, I buy it in those half-liter
> > bottles, but I never drink a dozen gallons or more a day making
deliveries
> > in a truck or commuting to and from work.
>
> The point is, that drinking water is about the least of all your water
> uses. Do you do laundry ? Do you use your toilets. Do you take showers/
> baths ? Do you cook, and use water in that, as well as washing up ?
> Do you water your lawns ? Do you ever wash that SUV ?
>
> Those are just a few, never mind all the water that went into the
> industrial processes that made all the things that you own, and all
> the products that you and your SUV consume, day in and day out.
>
I'm missing your point. This was on "This Week", right? I think he
said the same thing about *milk*. His point, at the time, was if you
spend 2 bucks a gallon on milk, surely you can handle a rise of a few
dimes at the pump. And my response was, I don't drink 15 gallons
a day. And I don't heat my home for the winter with milk or water. The
rising cost of oil is more significant to me, than bottled water, which,
if it ever got too costly, I could just do without.
> > (And my SUV gets the same gas mileage my last three sedans got).
>
> This one has me stumped, in a couple of ways. Most USians are urban
> dwellers. So, what does an urban dweller need with an SUV type of
> vehicle ? Can one use a Range Rover to it's designed potential in
> Manhattan ? Or, is it a mere affectation ?
>
I don't know. I'm not an urban dweller. The nearest town to *me* has
a population of about 15,000 and it's 17 miles away. I live off a gravel
road, and most of my neighbors drive trucks. It's actually kind of funny,
because if you actually DO haul your butt to the nearest store, if you
drive an SUV it has so much company there, you might have to hunt
for it. When the weather is bad here, or there's local flooding, anything
less rugged than a truck is going nowhere. Last time it DID happen,
I drove through a stream where a guy was up to his *window* in water.
> Oh, since gas efficiency is generally increasing in most vehicles,
> that your SUV gets the " same " mileage isn't the point. As oil supplies
> diminish, they will get rarer, and thus, assuming the *same* consumption,
> more expensive. The increase in prices from Dec '98, to this last year
> points that out. In some places, the prices doubled.
>
I think it's some kind of popular and mistaken idea that SUV's are
consuming the nation's fuel. Not even close.
> Given that, any change by consumers that does not increase efficiency
> will use more fuel, and thus drive the prices even higher.
Or, wasteful usage, which once the gas crises of the 70's subsided,
Americans got back into squandering fuel. We can't give away the
car pool lanes here - no one wants to save fuel. There does seem to
be a critical point in gas prices whereupon people will choose to save.
It hasn't hit it yet.
So, if you
> don't like the present state of prices, you are a part of what made them
> go that way. You could have chosen a more efficient vehicle than an SUV.
> ( Which, IMHO, only ranchers have a real use for )
>
That is your opinion, and I do not share it, but I respect it. I have other
reasons for choosing my vehicle. If the sole purpose of an automobile
was to transport just one or two people and a handbag for luggage,
you'd be right. Add small children, a rural setting, bad roads and all
the hauling, and a small economical sedan is unfeasible. Unless you
think, to save the nation's gas supply, somehow I ought to move to a
city - a notion I consider a little drastic not to mention silly.
Like I said before, SUV's are not the problem, but they are a current
scapegoat. The numbers don't fit.
> > George was pointing out that
> > Americans are crybabies when it comes to gas prices. Of course, if you
> > do a lot of driving, the higher gas prices are going to cost a lot. Some
> > kind of remark coming from a guy who could easily swallow an additional
> > 50 to 100 bucks a month. And worse, if you depend on oil for *heat*.
>
> Well, he very likely wasn't just talking about his life. It's his job,
> IIRC, to comment about the trends about life in the US. That would
> include folks who make far less than him.
>
Most of the time, I agree with him. I disagree occasionally, like with the
Elian thing, but that's another story. Twice this year independent truckers
have massed on Washington to complain, because it cuts deeply into
their profits. Like most things, it's never as simple as it seems.
Gharlane of Eddore
lcou...@stetson.edu wrote:
>
> You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
> Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
> never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
>
Never been pall-bearer at a funeral for a friend who was killed by
feral pigs, because he was only carrying a .38 Special, have you?
Never had to jog on a park trail on the western slope of the Sierras,
Where The Cougars Hunt, have you?
If you went out at night, much in NYC, you must have stuck to the
Really Good neighborhoods.
In <8gg6e6$r23$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> writes:
>
> New York City actually has sane gun control
>
There is no such thing as "sane gun control;"
there is only "incremental confiscation."
( N.Y. City demonstrated this when it confiscated registered rifles
and shotguns that were *not* being used in the commission of crime. )
Note that New York City's first major "gun control" legislation, the
"Sullivan Law," was passed in 1912, primarily aimed at disarming the
citizens and small business owners who were being recalcitrant about
paying their "protection" money to Tammany Hall; and that Sullivan,
the guy whose name was on the silly thing, was moved to a loony bin
literally *days* later, because he was *NUTS*, and had served his
purpose for the guys who ran things.
If you're scared of guns, or don't expect to use them, feel free
not to own one; but don't try to infringe on OTHER people's rights.
>
> and I feel a lot safer walking around there than in rural areas
> where everyone seems to be packing.
>
You should look up a few stats before you decide where you're "safer."
You're a lot safer wandering around Philadelphia, now that they have
a few armed citizens, than you are in most "gun-free" Canadian cities...
or New York, obviously.
>
> Philadelphia is a city where it's now legal to carry a concealed weapon.
> The first time I learned about that was right before I went into a
> restaurant with an acquaintance who wanted to show me the "really neat
> toy" he had just bought. Well, that was just great. Now I got to sit at
> a table with an armed man for an hour, not knowing if the beer he was
> drinking would make him lose his cool, worried that something I said
> might piss him off, or that he might decide to play Charles Bronson
> to any one of a number of situations that could have arisen.
>
Grow up, lady; if he's going to be aggravated to the point of attacking,
the availability of specific tools isn't going to place you at any
greater risk. Your odds of dying from a knife attack are *higher*
than of dying from a pistol wound. If you're in danger, *LEAVE*.
If you're not in danger, don't put on airs.
>
> The point is, people who expose you to guns without your consent are
> abridging your freedom and forcing their values down your throat.
>
Repeat, GROW UP. The guy didn't have handcuffs on you, wasn't pointing
a side-arm at you, wasn't keeping you from leaving. If you were
*GENUINELY* uncomfortable, it was time to LEAVE, or START SCREAMING
if you couldn't leave. The fact that you sat and had dinner with
someone whose holster contents apparently terrified you is merely
an indicator that you're either easily cowed, or a complete liar
fabricating an instance of misebehavior on the part of a gun owner
to accumulate unverifiable "anecdotal evidence."
Your personal feelings of insecurity are not at issue in the creation
and enforcement of laws. We don't outlaw spiders because a kid at
school shows you a tarantula and you're too wussy to gripe.
.... and we don't outlaw sidearms just because some nelly has a
friend she can't trust, even though Philadelphia has one of the
better training, background check, and licensing systems....
I repeat, your emotional insecurities are not a basis
for laws that infringe on other people's rights.
>
> Some of my friends in Philadelphia are now beginning to experience
> gun accidents - one had a bullet come through his floor because his
> downstairs neighbor/friend was cleaning his AK-47!
>
Date and address, please, so we can verify that the incident actually
occurred. Since there is NO SUCH THING as a "firearms accident,"
merely criminally culpable negligence, naturally the guy involved
was arrested and tried on multiple misdemeanor violations, and there
will be a record.
>
> This crap happens all the time. Gun control is not about taking
> guns away from everyone - it would be impossible to accomplish this
> in the first place.
>
Of course it's about taking guns away from everyone; it's not about
"safety," it's about CONTROL OF THE POPULATION, and silly hoplophobes
like you, who are willing to form and propagate anti-gun memes, are
doing all the work for the politicians. As for 'impossible to
accomplish,' dang straight; anybody who can use hand tools can make
a gun. You can't legislate technology out of existence, all you
can do is terrorize the entire populace to the degree that they're
more willing to be victims of neighborhood thugs than of governmental
thugs.
>
> It's about a *reasonable* degree of oversight so that responsible
> people are the only ones legally allowed to possess such weapons.
>
Since "reasonable" measures historically become confiscation programs,
( vide recent examples in New York City and the entire state of
California ) most of us with an interest in the matter have been
ineluctably led to the stance that the only "reasonable" gun-control
measure is to behead anyone espousing any form of gun control; since
gun control accomplishes NOTHING, and is simply a euphemism for
forcible disarmament of the citizenry.
>
> Is it really so wrong to suggest that we limit gun ownership to
> those who prove themselves responsible enough to handle it? The
>
Yes, it's ENTIRELY wrong; because the populace doesn't get to
determine the criteria, and you end up with a system like the
"literacy tests" that were designed to keep black people from
voting, or the "concealed carry permit" system that allowed a
total of six licenses to be issued in San Francisco while
Diane Feinstein was Mayor... but *SHE* got a permit...
I am quite willing to stipulate potential benefits of licensing
concealed carry, at least for purposes of dicussion; but ownership
and "open carry" are simply not the province of government.
>
> Second Amendment is by no means a free pass for everyone who wants
> a gun (or other "arms" - nuclear, perhaps?) to be able to obtain
> one or a hundred.
>
Now you're being utterly ridiculous; the confusion of weapons of
mass destruction that require a nation to build and an armed force
to deliver... with small-arms that one man can "bear," is the kind
of straw-man argument we hear only from losers trying to divert
a discussion into other areas.
Bombs are the weapons of governments and other such terrorists;
*ARMS* are used by individual citizens.
If you're scared, stay home and put "NRA" stickers in your windows
so the burglars don't bother you.
I'd sooner you'd put up "GUN-FREE HOME!" signs, and get the kind
of treatment from the predators that your attitude deserves, but
then I'm a nasty person.
Zack Adamson
inflict on one another. But I never will be able to support the government
having control over who can have what. If people are truly wanting to stop
the violence, then they need to push for the current gun laws to be
enforced. Unfortunately, they are not. It is about punishing those that
wrongly use guns, not preventing those that correctly use them from having
them. If you use a gun in a crime, then it is supposed to increase the
charges and mean more jail time, but it is not always pushed. The Govt
wants to make it look like things don't work, so they have more control. As
for Training, I agree that people should learn everything they can about
firearms before they own them, but if you put it in the government's hands,
it will be used as a Bottleneck to prevent people from getting a gun. I know
in my current county of residence, supposedly anybody can apply for a carry
permit, but that county (the largest in Atlanta) budgets only one person to
process those permits. If you apply, you might get the permit in a year.
I have never seen a crook follow the law and apply for the permit).
I know my views will be unpopular, but I put this forth, has anybody out
there had to wait in an office building for over an hour for a SWAT team to
rescue them? I have and I still believe in the right to own a firearm.
Mark Barton did not change that for me. (by the way, he killed his family
with a hammer).
Zack Adamson
Jonathan Biggar <j...@floorboard.com> wrote in message
news:392BFFB2...@floorboard.com...
> emma...@panix.com wrote:
> >
> > lcou...@stetson.edu wrote:
> > > You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that
aren't.
> > > Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
> > > never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
> >
> > New York City actually has sane gun control and I feel a lot safer
walking
> > around there than in rural areas where everyone seems to be packing.
> > Philadelphia is a city where it's now legal to carry a concealed weapon.
>
> This is entirely an emotional response and not based on any logic. Even
> though the murder and assault rates in NYC is down, they are still
> significantly higher than in those "rural" areas that make you so
> afraid. Of course if you want the prime example of why gun control a la
> NYC doesn't work, just look at Washington D.C.
>
Alison Hopkins
WWS wrote in message <392B033E...@tyler.net>...
>I've been around a good many things, mostly by chance. The only thing
>that really bothered me was when they found a body in a dumpster at
>the end of the block. Well, it wasn't really the body, so much; it was
>the fact that the head was missing and no one could figure out where
>it was.
>
Hm. Do any of your local eateries serve pig's heads?
Ali
ImRastro
>Not to belittle your fears at all, may I suggest that you take a look at the
>*odds* of something bad happening to you while you're here?
You're right that the odds of something violent happening to an individual are
relatively low compared to, say, being in a car accident. However,
statistically, the odds of a visitor being violently attcked and/or killed in
the United States are greater than any other country. (For evidence of this
simply call up our own government's advisory warnings). I went to Cambodia in
the middle of a Khamer Rouge uprising and it was statistically safer to
vacation there than here. Gives one pause.
Just to be specific, you may have a greater statistical probability of being
pickpocketed in South-east Asia or Central America, but, because of the use of
guns in the US, you have a much higher probability of being injured or killed
here during the same crime.
Amy
JBONETATI
<<You're right that the odds of something violent happening to an individual
are
relatively low compared to, say, being in a car accident.>>
anymore! Wait, more accidents happen in the home...Eeek!
<<However, statistically, the odds of a visitor being violently attcked and/or
killed in the United States are greater than any other country.>>
And I'd imagine that statistically the odds of a visitor being violenlty
attacked and/or killed are pretty low when compared to the statistics for
permanent residents.
For that matter, how do the statistics for the number of visitors to the other
countries compare to ours? If you're looking at "More visitors to the US are
attacked than any other country" data you'd need to convert it to "X per 1000
visitors in each country" for there to be any valid comparison. We might be
higher but at least then you could compare the overall number of visitors to
each country, too.
<< I went to Cambodia in the middle of a Khamer Rouge uprising and it was
statistically safer to vacation there than here. Gives one pause.>>
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's fairly easy to increase the odds in your favor by
choosing your vacation location. The odds to consider would be when choosing
to spend time in LA or camping in the redwood forests.
My opinion is that the "world is out to get me" paranoia is as damaging as the
"That stuff only happens to other people, never to me" dreaming. What are the
*facts*? Then I can make a decision and live with it.
Jan
Michael J. Hennebry
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>Now you're being utterly ridiculous; the confusion of weapons of
>mass destruction that require a nation to build and an armed force
>to deliver... with small-arms that one man can "bear," is the kind
Actually the hard part about building a nuclear bomb in one's
basement is getting the fissile material.
Even without plutonium or purified U-235, one could do major damage
with a few tons of natural uranium and things which for which
one does not need a license.
To deliver such a weapon, wrap it in a bale or several of marijuana.
>of straw-man argument we hear only from losers trying to divert
>a discussion into other areas.
>
>Bombs are the weapons of governments and other such terrorists;
>*ARMS* are used by individual citizens.
It seems to me that the narrowest reasonable definition of "arms"
as used in the second amendment would have to include weapons used
by ordinary soldiers and weapons carried by soldiers chosen to
attack U.S. citizens.
emma...@panix.com
> There is no such thing as "sane gun control;"
> there is only "incremental confiscation."
You're beginning to make me think there's no such thing as a sane
gun owner. As someone who obviously believes in guns, you should
be among the first to insist that they be handled responsibly.
By basically saying there should be *no* regulations, you wind
up an accomplice to the mayhem that currently defines our culture.
> ( N.Y. City demonstrated this when it confiscated registered rifles
> and shotguns that were *not* being used in the commission of crime. )
While there may be a hundred reasons to have rifles and shotguns in
Wyoming, here in New York City we don't want or need them.
> If you're scared of guns, or don't expect to use them, feel free
> not to own one; but don't try to infringe on OTHER people's rights.
Your idea of freedom is most humorous. But I already knew that I was
free *not* to own a gun - thanks for the tip though. What I find
amazing is the incredible arrogance of some gun owners who feel that
they have every right to intimidate others with their gun toting.
Note that at NO time did I say that you shouldn't be allowed to own
a gun - just that it's wrong to expose others to it without their
consent. This hysterical reaction only proves further how distanced
from reason some members of the gun lobby have become.
> You should look up a few stats before you decide where you're "safer."
> You're a lot safer wandering around Philadelphia, now that they have
> a few armed citizens, than you are in most "gun-free" Canadian cities...
> or New York, obviously.
I see no statistics backing THAT up. The murder rate in NYC has
plummeted in the past few years. I don't believe it has in Philadelphia.
>> The point is, people who expose you to guns without your consent are
>> abridging your freedom and forcing their values down your throat.
>>
> Repeat, GROW UP. The guy didn't have handcuffs on you, wasn't pointing
> a side-arm at you, wasn't keeping you from leaving. If you were
> *GENUINELY* uncomfortable, it was time to LEAVE, or START SCREAMING
> if you couldn't leave. The fact that you sat and had dinner with
> someone whose holster contents apparently terrified you is merely
> an indicator that you're either easily cowed, or a complete liar
> fabricating an instance of misebehavior on the part of a gun owner
> to accumulate unverifiable "anecdotal evidence."
I maintain that I have the right not to be surrounded by deadly
weapons in a social setting. Is it the gun lobby's position that
law abiding citizens have no right to keep guns away from them?
This is certainly an ominous progression from simply wanting to
own a gun yourself.
> Your personal feelings of insecurity are not at issue in the creation
> and enforcement of laws. We don't outlaw spiders because a kid at
> school shows you a tarantula and you're too wussy to gripe.
> .... and we don't outlaw sidearms just because some nelly has a
> friend she can't trust, even though Philadelphia has one of the
> better training, background check, and licensing systems....
> I repeat, your emotional insecurities are not a basis
> for laws that infringe on other people's rights.
I suppose referring to me as a female is some twisted tactic of
winning arguments but you only make yourself look foolish. I've
seen the results of this superior training and a lot of people
are walking around the streets with guns who I know can't be
trusted with a burnt out match. But if that's what the people
there want, so be it. I'm quite content with the way things are
in New York so please don't impose your values on us.
emmanuel
Kurtz
<emma...@panix.com> wrote in message news:8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com...
>
> I maintain that I have the right not to be surrounded by deadly
> weapons in a social setting. Is it the gun lobby's position that
> law abiding citizens have no right to keep guns away from them?
> This is certainly an ominous progression from simply wanting to
> own a gun yourself.
>
This was the part of your post I either didn't understand, or just
couldn't believe. Are you saying that you possess the right to
be anywhere you want, and free from the presence of guns?
How does this not infringe on someone's right to carry one?
Your argument isn't very convincing to me - it sounds a lot like
the kind of argument bigots throw at me regarding wanting to
walk around unhindered by the presence of people whose race,
religion or sexual preference they don't like.
If you don't like it, you can exercise your freedom by removing
yourself. It's the same argument as "change the channel, or turn
it off". We have all kinds of folks who want to censor music,
movies and TV. We don't need more people saying they have
a right to NOT have everyone else exercise *theirs*.
Gharlane of Eddore
> there is only "incremental confiscation."
>
expansion:
Since gun control is impossible to achieve, all it can do is
criminalize possession; since the Bill of Rights guarantees
no infringement on the right to keep and bear, gun control
of any sort simply has no place in U.S. law.
There are quite enough provisions in the law against most forms
of crime, and all forms crime can be managed with or without guns;
if managed with guns, the statutes exist to punish or terminate
malefactors. The instrumentality employed in the commission
of the act is immaterial.
In <8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> writes:
>
> You're beginning to make me think there's no such thing as a sane
> gun owner. As someone who obviously believes in guns, you should
> be among the first to insist that they be handled responsibly.
> By basically saying there should be *no* regulations, you wind
> up an accomplice to the mayhem that currently defines our culture.
>
Amazing; someone with the at-least-two-digit-I.Q. intellectual
level requisite to operating a computer and posting to the Net
is actually asserting that people who possess machinery and
maintain their right to do so are somehow responsible for the
actions of OTHER people, who are often at great remove.
( "at great remove" means far, far away. )
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>
> ( N.Y. City demonstrated this when it confiscated registered rifles
> and shotguns that were *not* being used in the commission of crime. )
>
In <8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> writes:
>
> While there may be a hundred reasons to have rifles and shotguns in
> Wyoming, here in New York City we don't want or need them.
>
Then why did all those LAW ABIDING New York citizens possess them,
and legally register them, thus providing the city government with
a list of addresses to visit and confiscate?
( Of course, SINCE then, no one in New York City who keeps a shotgun
for burglars bothers to register it; they just zap the burglar,
wipe the prints off, and then when the cops show up a day or two
later, explain that the Bad Guy must have brought it with him
and fallen on it. )
It is not government's place to tell a free citizen what he or she
can or cannot own; it is not YOUR place to tell your neighbors what
they can and cannot own. So long as they behave with at least a
modicum of courtesy and do not impact your life, it is none of
your business whether they're spending their evenings in the basement
running a reloading press while watching "FRIENDS" on the tube,
or painting themselves blue and capering on the ridge-pole of their
roof, making obscene gestures at the moon.
It's a free country. YOUR opinion on how other people should live
is entirely moot, and has no validity outside your own head.
Assertions to the contrary constitute active assault on the rights
of others.
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>
> If you're scared of guns, or don't expect to use them, feel free
> not to own one; but don't try to infringe on OTHER people's rights.
>
In <8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> writes:
>
> Your idea of freedom is most humorous. But I already knew that I was
> free *not* to own a gun - thanks for the tip though. What I find
> amazing is the incredible arrogance of some gun owners who feel that
> they have every right to intimidate others with their gun toting.
>
"Intimidate?" You *are* aware that pulling a gun and "intimidating"
someone legally counts as ARMED ASSAULT, are you not? In most
locales, even "flashing" a gun by showing a holster is a MISDEMEANOR
OFFENSE, usually with graded penalties for various levels of abuse.
( Note that in most parts of the U.S., a firearms-related misdemeanor
will not get you jail time, but it WILL get your carry permit
revoked almost instantly; consequently, I beg leave to doubt that
this friend you keep citing, who scared you so badly by showing
you his gun, either exists OR behaved in the way you describe.
The vast majority of people who go to the trouble and jump through
all the legal hoops to get concealed-carry permits do *NOT* risk
their licenses with gratuitous behavior. )
If your friend who showed you his new pistol scared you so badly that
you're still trying to use it as anecdotal justification for what
you call "gun control," you must be utterly terrified of Avon Ladies
with tear-gas pens.
>
> Note that at NO time did I say that you shouldn't be allowed to own
> a gun - just that it's wrong to expose others to it without their
> consent.
>
You most certainly did. You support and espouse New York City style
"gun control," which has resulted in one of the three most restrictive
and flatly DANGEROUS areas in the entire U.S.A.
>
> This hysterical reaction only proves further how distanced
> from reason some members of the gun lobby have become.
>
Well, a lot of us used to be reasonable, and just nod and smile when
various members of the socialist bozo brigade tried to convince us
that we'd be better off disarmed and toothless, and robbed of life-long
hobbies and investments.
But since 1968, we've started being a bit more aggressive, since
you lot have no conception of what you're discussing and we're tired
of paying the freight for other people's ignorance and prejudice.
If I were *really* hysterical, I'd track you down, shadow you for
weeks, creep up on you from ambush, and spit on your poodle!
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>
> You should look up a few stats before you decide where you're "safer."
> You're a lot safer wandering around Philadelphia, now that they have
> a few armed citizens, than you are in most "gun-free" Canadian cities...
> or New York, obviously.
>
In <8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> writes:
>
> I see no statistics backing THAT up. The murder rate in NYC has
> plummeted in the past few years. I don't believe it has in Philadelphia.
>
Down, certainly; but hardly "plummetted."
( One paper, incidentally, asserts that a large percentage are just
not being formally reported. )
And the rate of illegal gun ownership in New York City has increased
by an estimated six thousand percent; guns are more readily, and
more cheaply, available on the streets of New York City than in
any other major urban center, with the possible exception of London.
The effects of Giuliani's management, the effects of competent
budget allocation and operational prioritization, have *nothing*
to do with gun availability; there are *MORE* guns in town there,
now, than there ever have been at any time in the past, and certainly
more than when R.G. took over.
And once you get a new mayor, or the upward economic drift heads down,
you'll see the same old rates.
<emma...@panix.com> originally wrote:
>
> The point is, people who expose you to guns without your consent are
> abridging your freedom and forcing their values down your throat.
>
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> originally wrote:
>
> Repeat, GROW UP. The guy didn't have handcuffs on you, wasn't pointing
> a side-arm at you, wasn't keeping you from leaving. If you were
> *GENUINELY* uncomfortable, it was time to LEAVE, or START SCREAMING
> if you couldn't leave. The fact that you sat and had dinner with
> someone whose holster contents apparently terrified you is merely
> an indicator that you're either easily cowed, or a complete liar
> fabricating an instance of misebehavior on the part of a gun owner
> to accumulate unverifiable "anecdotal evidence."
>
In <8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> writes:
>
> I maintain that I have the right not to be surrounded by deadly
> weapons in a social setting. Is it the gun lobby's position that
> law abiding citizens have no right to keep guns away from them?
> This is certainly an ominous progression from simply wanting to
> own a gun yourself.
>
You have the right to go anywhere in public you care to.
You do *NOT* have the right to dictate behavior, ethos, religion,
political preference, or on-board armament to any other human being,
so long as they are not actively engaged in assaultive behavior.
If you don't like it where you are, vote with your feet. This
works for countries, states, cities, and restaurants with "friends
who scare you."
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> originally wrote:
>
> Your personal feelings of insecurity are not at issue in the creation
> and enforcement of laws. We don't outlaw spiders because a kid at
> school shows you a tarantula and you're too wussy to gripe.
> .... and we don't outlaw sidearms just because some nelly has a
> friend she can't trust, even though Philadelphia has one of the
> better training, background check, and licensing systems....
> I repeat, your emotional insecurities are not a basis
> for laws that infringe on other people's rights.
>
In <8gjl4r$1ao$1...@news.panix.com> <emma...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose referring to me as a female is some twisted tactic of
> winning arguments but you only make yourself look foolish.
>
*SHRUG* The last rabid anti-gun-nut we had posting from "panix"
under the name of "emmanuel" was a severely disturbed lady-type-person.
If you're not she, no offense intended. At least not on that score.
>
> I've
> seen the results of this superior training and a lot of people
> are walking around the streets with guns who I know can't be
> trusted with a burnt out match. But if that's what the people
> there want, so be it. I'm quite content with the way things are
> in New York so please don't impose your values on us.
>
> emmanuel
>
As opposed to the orders-of-magnitude more people walking around
with knives, clubs, saps, automobiles, bombs, and fists.
As for "impose your values on us," I believe you're the one who
started that, by asserting that you had some sort of right to
dictate how other people live.
=================================================================
|| ||
|| " A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has ||
|| the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force ||
|| against another human being or to advocate or delegate ||
|| its initiation. Those who act consistently with this ||
|| principle are libertarians whether they realize it or ||
|| not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are ||
|| _not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." ||
|| ||
|| -- L. Neil Smith, a LP Presidential Candidate ||
|| ||
=================================================================
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Your argument isn't very convincing to me - it sounds a lot like
> the kind of argument bigots throw at me regarding wanting to
> walk around unhindered by the presence of people whose race,
> religion or sexual preference they don't like.
You aren't born with a gun. And governments usually do strike down
religions they deem destructive.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Pål Are Nordal
>
> It is not government's place to tell a free citizen what he or she
> can or cannot own; it is not YOUR place to tell your neighbors what
> they can and cannot own.
IMHO too many people are far too stupid for this to work. And even
bright people can, during a wrong moment, do things they end up
regretting for the rest of their lives - if left unchecked.
I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety net
out there, and one that isn't primarily concerned with getting a greater
profit margin.
Steve Brinich
> I maintain that I have the right not to be surrounded by deadly
> weapons in a social setting. Is it the gun lobby's position that
> law abiding citizens have no right to keep guns away from them?
> This is certainly an ominous progression from simply wanting to
> own a gun yourself.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We wont stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and
watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going
about their business unmolested, as if they owned the
country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp (_Lest Darkness Fall_)
WWS
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>
> Kurtz wrote:
> >
> > Your argument isn't very convincing to me - it sounds a lot like
> > the kind of argument bigots throw at me regarding wanting to
> > walk around unhindered by the presence of people whose race,
> > religion or sexual preference they don't like.
>
> You aren't born with a gun. And governments usually do strike down
> religions they deem destructive.
Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
Europeans do not.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Think parochially, post globally -- Peter McDermott
WWS
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>
> Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
> >
> > It is not government's place to tell a free citizen what he or she
> > can or cannot own; it is not YOUR place to tell your neighbors what
> > they can and cannot own.
>
> IMHO too many people are far too stupid for this to work. And even
> bright people can, during a wrong moment, do things they end up
> regretting for the rest of their lives - if left unchecked.
>
> I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety net
> out there, and one that isn't primarily concerned with getting a greater
> profit margin.
And that's why your ancestors stayed where you are, and why our ancestors
got on a boat and came over here, to get away from them.
Michael J. Hennebry
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> wrote:
: Another alternative: Require the police to permit civilians to take
:their rookie-level test (with random mixing to insure that it _is_ the
:same test as a police candidate gets), which for obvious reasons can't
:be hard enough to fail the great majority of applicants.
Can the rookie test be graded by a machine? If not, I'd object to it.
BTW what is the rookie test designed to determine?
Remember, sometimes a policeman is supposed to be looking for trouble
and deal with it when he finds it. Dealing with it might mean having
to shoot straight. If I can't shoot straight, I only need enough
sense to not shoot in the presence of innocent bystanders.
Michael J. Hennebry
:Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
:trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
:and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
:Europeans do not.
The Ghost Dance, Black Muslims, and Wicca are counterexamples.
Geoduck
>
>
>Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>>
>> Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>> >
>> > It is not government's place to tell a free citizen what he or she
>> > can or cannot own; it is not YOUR place to tell your neighbors what
>> > they can and cannot own.
>>
>> IMHO too many people are far too stupid for this to work. And even
>> bright people can, during a wrong moment, do things they end up
>> regretting for the rest of their lives - if left unchecked.
>>
>> I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety net
>> out there, and one that isn't primarily concerned with getting a greater
>> profit margin.
>
>And that's why your ancestors stayed where you are, and why our ancestors
>got on a boat and came over here, to get away from them.
Except of course for those who where shanghaied and brought here
against their will, and those who came over here because their
neighbors weren't quite religious enough...
--
Geoduck
geo...@usa.net
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Nathan Shafer
>
> In article <392E8562...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> :Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
> :trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
> :and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
> :Europeans do not.
>
> The Ghost Dance, Black Muslims, and Wicca are counterexamples.
Can you be more specific in what you mean? I am not familiar with
"The Ghost Dance," but I know (or have known) both black Muslims and
Wiccans who were absolutely free to worship however they liked.
Now in the *political* sense, black muslims have faced some problems
as they have had members who have espoused (and pursued) violent
uprisings against white oppression. But that's a political dimension
that is different from freedom to worship who and how you like.
- N.
Nathan Shafer
>
> > ( N.Y. City demonstrated this when it confiscated registered rifles
> > and shotguns that were *not* being used in the commission of crime. )
>
> Wyoming, here in New York City we don't want or need them.
Except for those in New York City who do. Or do you speak for every
citizen of the Big Apple?
> > If you're scared of guns, or don't expect to use them, feel free
> > not to own one; but don't try to infringe on OTHER people's rights.
>
> What I find
> amazing is the incredible arrogance of some gun owners who feel that
> they have every right to intimidate others with their gun toting.
What I find humorous is someone so insecure as to find the mere fact
of someone's posession of a gun to be "intimidation." I reiterate
Gharlane's point: grow up.
Or perhaps more to the point: if this "friend" is someone whom you find
to be so untrustworthy in the presence of a firearm...then I suggest you
examine your selection criteria for your friends.
> I maintain that I have the right not to be surrounded by deadly
> weapons in a social setting. Is it the gun lobby's position that
> law abiding citizens have no right to keep guns away from them?
I am not of the gun lobby, but that it certainly *my* position.
Just as law abiding atheists have no right to keep churches out
of their neighborhoods, or to keep religious fanatics out of their
schools. Just as law abiding Republicans have no right to keep copies
of Marx and Engels out of their libraries. Just as law abiding
vegetarians have no right to keep red meat out of their supermarkets.
And just as law abiding environmentalists have no right to demand that
their city ban internal combustion engines and all vehicles which
employ them.
You are free to control your behavior; you are not free to control mine.
- N.
Steve Brinich
> Can the rookie test be graded by a machine? If not, I'd object to it.
> BTW what is the rookie test designed to determine?
Good points.
Frankly, gun-control advocates have only themselves to blame for the
fact that it is not politically possible to tie gun ownership to some
measure of "responsibility". The concept has become as discredited as
literacy testing for the franchise, and for the same reason.
Andrew Swallow
of Eddore) writes:
>( Of course, SINCE then, no one in New York City who keeps a shotgun
> for burglars bothers to register it; they just zap the burglar,
> wipe the prints off, and then when the cops show up a day or two
> later, explain that the Bad Guy must have brought it with him
> and fallen on it. )
>
Crime control and tax savings with the same shot.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
>
>If your friend who showed you his new pistol scared you so badly that
>you're still trying to use it as anecdotal justification for what
>you call "gun control," you must be utterly terrified of Avon Ladies
>with tear-gas pens.
>
Tear-gas pens are banned in UK.
As Penn and Teller (Day of the Dead) found out so are catapults.
Andrew Swallow
Geoduck
wrote:
>Michael J. Hennebry wrote:
>>
>> In article <392E8562...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>> :Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
>> :trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
>> :and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
>> :Europeans do not.
>>
>> The Ghost Dance, Black Muslims, and Wicca are counterexamples.
>
>Can you be more specific in what you mean? I am not familiar with
>"The Ghost Dance," but I know (or have known) both black Muslims and
>Wiccans who were absolutely free to worship however they liked.
(snip)
The Ghost Dance was a Native American religious movement that
cropped up in 1890, when the US government was aggresively pounding
the last few nails in the NA culture's coffin. It was a messianic
Christian-based religion that spread like wildfire among the Plains
Indians, particularly the Sioux. Its adherents believed that the white
man would soon be swept away by God and all the dead Native Americans
would be revived. They further believed they could be rendered
impervious to bullets by wearing special garments and performing the
Dance. The massacre by the U.S. Army at Wounded Knee proved them
wrong. (Dee Brown's 1971 book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee covers all
of this in detail.)
Michael Ross
>
>
>Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>>
>> Kurtz wrote:
>> >
>> > Your argument isn't very convincing to me - it sounds a lot like
>> > the kind of argument bigots throw at me regarding wanting to
>> > walk around unhindered by the presence of people whose race,
>> > religion or sexual preference they don't like.
>>
>> You aren't born with a gun. And governments usually do strike down
>> religions they deem destructive.
>
>Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
>trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
>and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
>Europeans do not.
And Europeans have certain freedoms and rights guaranteed that
Americans do not enjoy.
An example: There are I believe certain states in the USA where it's
only a slight exaggeration to say that any sex act, except missionary
position between husband and wife, under the covers with the lights
out, is a criminal offence... where is the US citizens right to a
private life?
I'm not suggesting things are perfect in the EU in respect of laws
governing sexual conduct (and many other human rights situations), but
the EU Human Rights laws are improving the situation (eg UK govt.
recently forced to drop the ban on gays in military).
On balance I don't feel the US has too much to crow about...
Mike
Rangers Catering Corps - 'We boil for the One, we fry for the One'
http://www.corestore.org
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I am not of the gun lobby, but that it certainly *my* position.
> Just as law abiding atheists have no right to keep churches out
> of their neighborhoods, or to keep religious fanatics out of their
> schools.
What if a Mosque set up shop next door and started yodelling on at 5 in
the morning?
Wayne Throop
: And even bright people can, during a wrong moment, do things they end
: up regretting for the rest of their lives - if left unchecked.
Whereas, when governments decide leave no bright person unchecked,
everyone can simultaneously be ordered to do things that everybody ends
up regretting for the rest of their lives.
: I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety
: net out there, and one that isn't primarily concerned with getting a
: greater profit margin.
I gladly give up my right to bully other people in return for knowing
that other people will be discouraged from bullying me. I'm not so glad
to have people deciding what's best for me, what I'm allowed to own,
listen to, discuss, and so on.
As for providing a "safety net"...
are you really willing to put up with what some protection racket
says is "safe", or to have your nets built grudgingly by the lowest bidder?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Kurtz
"Michael Ross" <aba...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:dkttiskngvjthnnhj...@4ax.com...
On 26 May 2000 08:11:13 -0600, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>And Europeans have certain freedoms and rights guaranteed that
>Americans do not enjoy.
>An example: There are I believe certain states in the USA where it's
>only a slight exaggeration to say that any sex act, except missionary
>position between husband and wife, under the covers with the lights
>out, is a criminal offence... where is the US citizens right to a
>private life?
uuuh..is this the best you could come up with? A vague reference to
some unknown number of states who have some laws on the books
which ban unmentioned sexual behavior?
Maybe you are referring to the sodomy laws, many of which are
still on the books. They are almost all carryovers from English
law, and in the last 40 years, most of them have been repealed.
(Sodomy as described by some of them would even include
oral sex and masturbation). I'd bet your average resident of the
few remaining states aren't even aware of them - they are rarely
enforced. They're basically very old laws which some groups use
as a club from time to time, and they're being slowly removed.
At the beginning of this thread was the remark of freedom of
religion. The worst that can be said about it here is that people
are still prejudiced and frequently express *their* own lack of
tolerance of religion. Freedom of religion is still protected by the
government. The government does not actively repress any
religious group. I'm not entertaining any silly conspiracy theories
to the contrary - I don't believe them.
But as Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, your right
to swing your fist ends where my nose begins - if you think that
I'm restricting someone's religious freedom because they want to
sacrifice my dog or cat or create a ruckus in the middle of the
night - then I'm in favor of some restrictions. Sing your songs,
dance your dances, cast your spells, whatever - just don't pee on
my property or leave your trash on my lawn. And that's reasonable
to me. There's a line where religious practice sometimes crosses
over into other areas. To my understanding, all freedoms carry
with them some tiny bit of personal responsibility not to tread on
others' freedoms. When I read about these things in state
constitutions and papers written at the time of our country's founding,
I'm persuaded that it was just understood that all freedom comes
with responsible behavior - a basic assumption that people will not
abuse them.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> : Are Nordal <a_b...@bigfoot.com>
> : And even bright people can, during a wrong moment, do things they end
> : up regretting for the rest of their lives - if left unchecked.
>
> Whereas, when governments decide leave no bright person unchecked,
> everyone can simultaneously be ordered to do things that everybody ends
> up regretting for the rest of their lives.
So there no middle ground? Every limitation on one's rights is
ultimately to there to fulfil the politicians megalomaniac fantasies?
I truly don't get this mentality.
> : I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety
> : net out there, and one that isn't primarily concerned with getting a
> : greater profit margin.
>
> I gladly give up my right to bully other people in return for knowing
> that other people will be discouraged from bullying me. I'm not so glad
> to have people deciding what's best for me, what I'm allowed to own,
> listen to, discuss, and so on.
[ Note, now we're talking ideology - not gun control ]
So everybody knows what's best for themselves?
Take a person, allowed to preach racist propaganda as freedom of speech
until it escalates to violence. Spends a good period in prison learning
hate, and returns to the streets worse than ever.
Would it have been wrong to make the discussion for this person that
what he's saying is destructive crap, and try to force him into a
different path?
> As for providing a "safety net"...
> are you really willing to put up with what some protection racket
> says is "safe", or to have your nets built grudgingly by the lowest bidder?
No. It is built by the government. Of course, if the government is by
definition evil, then I guess this discussion has gone as far as it can go.
Gharlane of Eddore
Nathan Shafer wrote:
>
> I am not of the gun lobby, but that it certainly *my* position.
> Just as law abiding atheists have no right to keep churches out
> of their neighborhoods, or to keep religious fanatics out of
> their schools.
>
In <392F076D...@bigfoot.com> a_b...@bigfoot.com writes:
>
> What if a Mosque set up shop next door and started yodelling on
> at 5 in the morning?
>
Well, I don't know about Nathan, but I always kind of liked the
sound of skilled muezzin yodelling. It's just the equivalent
of church bells for a religion that traditionally couldn't afford
the brass to cast Really Big Bells, right?
I'd have no problems with a mosque in the neighborhood, as long
as they weren't shooting at the Jews, and the Jews weren't shooting
at them, and the Hindus down the street were also on good terms
with the particular faith operating the mosque....
"Religion" is only really a negative when it becomes Big Business,
politically active, or an "Us versus Them" cult with an urge to
proselytize.
Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean other folks shouldn't
have an avocation which is probably more fulfilling than InterNet
Addiction....
Michael Ross
>
>"Michael Ross" <aba...@ibm.net> wrote in message
>news:dkttiskngvjthnnhj...@4ax.com...
>On 26 May 2000 08:11:13 -0600, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And Europeans have certain freedoms and rights guaranteed that
>>Americans do not enjoy.
>
>>An example: There are I believe certain states in the USA where it's
>>only a slight exaggeration to say that any sex act, except missionary
>>position between husband and wife, under the covers with the lights
>>out, is a criminal offence... where is the US citizens right to a
>>private life?
>
>uuuh..is this the best you could come up with? A vague reference to
>some unknown number of states who have some laws on the books
>which ban unmentioned sexual behavior?
Ok wise guy, you want details. Fair enough:
(sodomy etc. generally means consenting oral or anal sex)
"Mississippi
Unnatural Intercourse, 10 years
Utah
Sodomy, 6 months, $1000
Virginia
Crime Against Nature, 5-20 years"
"Sodomy laws were once on the books in all 50 states and Puerto Rico,
but they have been repealed or struck down by
courts in 32 states. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court -- in perhaps
its most notorious decision this century, Bowers v.
Hardwick -- ruled that the Constitution allows states to
criminalize sodomy. "
>From the ACLU website at:
http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html
Still think you live in a country where all the important freedoms are
guaranteed? What freedoms you do or don't enjoy can, in some measure,
be decided by politicians appointing judges of certain views to the
Supreme court - eg recent controversy over candidates for election
being asked if they would be willing to appoint 'pro-choice' judges...
>
>Maybe you are referring to the sodomy laws, many of which are
>still on the books. They are almost all carryovers from English
>law, and in the last 40 years, most of them have been repealed.
>(Sodomy as described by some of them would even include
>oral sex and masturbation). I'd bet your average resident of the
>few remaining states aren't even aware of them - they are rarely
>enforced. They're basically very old laws which some groups use
>as a club from time to time, and they're being slowly removed.
Yes, they have been removed in many states, and are being challenged
in others, and are not always enforced. That's not the *point*, the
point is (see above) that they are *Constitutional* - you have NO
guaranteed freedom whatever in sexual matters, you are at the mercy of
whatever way the wind is blowing this year for the 'moral majority',
if they decide to re-enact such laws... Puerto Rico criminalised
sodomy a year or two back in a new law... in Alabama it's legal to
sell guns, but you can get jail for selling a 'sex aid', thanks to a
new law in the last couple of years...
Wayne Throop
::: And even bright people can, during a wrong moment, do things they
:: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: Whereas, when governments decide leave no bright person unchecked,
:: everyone can simultaneously be ordered to do things that everybody
:: ends up regretting for the rest of their lives.
: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l?= Are Nordal <a_b...@bigfoot.com>
: So there no middle ground?
There isn't? Where did you get that idea?
: Every limitation on one's rights is ultimately to there to fulfil the
: politicians megalomaniac fantasies?
If you say so. I certainly didn't.
I'm merely pointing out that when governments do something during
a wrong moment, the consequences can be far, far worse than individuals
doing things during wrong moments. Thus, shifting the burden of judgement
from individuals to governments is not automagically a good idea.
:: I'm not so glad to have people deciding what's best for me, what
:: I'm allowed to own, listen to, discuss, and so on.
: So everybody knows what's best for themselves?
How did you conclude that? Certainly nothing I said implies such a thing.
: Take a person, allowed to preach racist propaganda as freedom of
: speech until it escalates to violence. Spends a good period in prison
: learning hate, and returns to the streets worse than ever.
OK. Take such a person. Why does the existance of such a person
make restricting my rights of ownership just or rational?
: Would it have been wrong to make the discussion for this person that
: what he's saying is destructive crap, and try to force him into a
: different path?
Wrong, schmrong. Past attempts at such restrictions are
arguably counterproductive in their net effects.
For example. I think it's a bad thing for you to preach statist
propoganda against freedom of ownership. Should I make the decision
for you that what you are saying is (in the end) destructive crap,
and force you into a "different path"?
What, you claim that the racist may be spouting propoganda, and
heading down the road to ruin, but that YOU are just talking sense,
and if everybody just listens to you, we can force everybody to
stop using force. But then... why should I trust your notions
of sense vs propoganda any more than I trust the racist?
:: As for providing a "safety net"...
:: are you really willing [...]
:: to have your nets built grudgingly by the lowest bidder?
: No. It is built by the government.
"I've from the government. I'm here to help you."
Heh. I dunno how it is on your planet, but here on earth,
the phrase "built by the government" is just a euphemism for
"built by a group of people who are somewhat less accountable
for their actions that people not in the group". And quite
often, this involves being "built by the lowest bidder",
sometimes as a matter of law. Law created by this same
group of people-less-accountable-than-others.
: Of course, if the government is by definition evil, then I guess this
: discussion has gone as far as it can g= o.
Nothing I said expresses or implies that government is "by defnintion evil".
I'm merely trying to offset the impression YOU seem to be giving out
that governments have a negligably small tendency to err.
In short, you give every appearance looking at government intervention
though rose-tinted glasses, and ignoring the downside. IMO, that's not
a reasonable way of deciding on what it is worthwhile and beneficial for
a government to undertake.
Alison Hopkins
Gharlane of Eddore wrote in message <8gn5d7$f...@news.csus.edu>...
>"Religion" is only really a negative when it becomes Big Business,
>politically active, or an "Us versus Them" cult with an urge to
>proselytize.
>
You do have such a neat way of putting things in a most concise nutshell at
times.
Ali
WWS
Geoduck wrote:
>
> On 26 May 2000 10:56:52 -0600, Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael J. Hennebry wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <392E8562...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >> :Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
> >> :trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
> >> :and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
> >> :Europeans do not.
> >>
> >> The Ghost Dance, Black Muslims, and Wicca are counterexamples.
> >
> >Can you be more specific in what you mean? I am not familiar with
> >"The Ghost Dance," but I know (or have known) both black Muslims and
> >Wiccans who were absolutely free to worship however they liked.
>
> (snip)
>
> The Ghost Dance was a Native American religious movement that
> cropped up in 1890, when the US government was aggresively pounding
> the last few nails in the NA culture's coffin. It was a messianic
> Christian-based religion that spread like wildfire among the Plains
> Indians, particularly the Sioux. Its adherents believed that the white
> man would soon be swept away by God and all the dead Native Americans
> would be revived. They further believed they could be rendered
> impervious to bullets by wearing special garments and performing the
> Dance. The massacre by the U.S. Army at Wounded Knee proved them
> wrong. (Dee Brown's 1971 book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee covers all
> of this in detail.)
And, as you said, their destruction really had little to do with
what they believed and everything to do with who they were. Even
though the justification was that they were in open rebellion,
still no one living is proud or attempts to justify what happened
at Wounded Knee. One could almost make a similar claim for
David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, they got much the same
treatment. (except Janet Reno is still proud of herself for that
one)
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Nathan Shafer
>
> So there no middle ground? Every limitation on one's rights is
> ultimately to there to fulfil the politicians megalomaniac fantasies?
No, but it remains a limitation on one's rights. Furthermore, while
it may not be there to fulfill one politician's megalomanical
tendencies, once there it can easily serve another politician's
megalomanical tendencies.
The problem is that what an individual can do, a government can do
magnified hugely. People who see government as the solution to every
problem count on this: one individual (or a small group of them) can
build a house for a homeless person - therefore, a government can
build a whole housing project. Howeverm, these idealists tend to
forget (or ignore) that it works in reverse, and is much harder to
stop. For example: an individual can infringe on your property
rights - say by digging an improper sewer line that fouls up the
neighborhood. You can, however, take him before the Zoning Board,
you can sue him in court, you can get an injunction. However, if the
government tramples your propperty rights, they're gone for good,
and your recourse is much less. This is, after all, the GOVERNMENT.
So we really need to be very careful what powers and rights we grant
to government, because once those rights are taken from individuals,
they are hardly ever given back, and the potential for abuse is
ENORMOUS. The Framers understood this.
> > : I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety
> > : net out there
> >
> > I'm not so glad to have people deciding what's best for me, what
> > I'm allowed to own, listen to, discuss, and so on.
>
> [ Note, now we're talking ideology - not gun control ]
Not specifically, but this gets at the heart of what gun control is
all about.
> So everybody knows what's best for themselves?
Noooo, but some do. Are you saying that, just going on the odds, a
group of people who see you not as in individual, but as a [skin
color or ethnicity] [age]-year old [occupation] from [city of birth]
with a [spouse] and [number children] children and an income of
[annual income in your currency] per year are more likely to know
what is best for you than you are?
- N.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
> trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
> and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
> Europeans do not.
I have somewhat limited freedom of speech, but that's in areas I feel I
have little to add (like racism and hard-core porn :o). AFAIK, it has no
hindrances against criticizing the government (which is for the most
part filled with incompetent fools only interested in looking good on TeeVee).
Your freedom of speech is however, sometimes only as deep as your
pockets. Take Scientology. Doesn't matter if the laws say you're right -
they have the resources to keep on going until you run out of money, and
force you to sign a non-disclosure contract. In the US that is. In
Norway they got sued so badly that the local branch went bankrupt. And
the anti scientology web site http://www.xenu.net/ stores the really
touchy stuff on Norwegian servers because the cult can't get to it.
So USA as some bastion of freedom doesn't stick. There are always
limits, whether they are set by a democratically elected government, or
a private organization with its own agenda.
( And you really shouldn't generalize Europe. While the EU is
standardizing a whole bunch of things, we're still separate countries,
often with vastly different mindsets. )
ImRastro
<snip>
>For that matter, how do the statistics for the number of visitors to the
>other
>countries compare to ours? If you're looking at "More visitors to the US
>are
>attacked than any other country" data you'd need to convert it to "X per 1000
>visitors in each country" for there to be any valid comparison.
The statistics are a ratio as you describe actually. >
>And I'd imagine that statistically the odds of a visitor being violenlty
>attacked and/or killed are pretty low when compared to the statistics for
>permanent residents.
>
Many tourists are specific targets. Remember Florida a few years ago? Of
course, that's anicdotal. I don't know stats here.
>It's fairly easy to increase the odds in your favor by
>choosing your vacation location. The odds to consider would be when choosing
>to spend time in LA or camping in the redwood forests.
Probably true. Of course, I immediately thought of the three women killed in
Yosemiti. But that, again, is anicdotal.
All that nit-picketing aside, however, I think its foolish for anyone to
attempt to argue the fact that the US is one of the more violent countries
around. (And I'm not suggesting you were doing so Jbonetati. I'm moving on
from your post). The violence is not "caused" by guns, but they certainly
raise the stakes. Personally, I would never have one in my house.
TNW7Z
>emma...@panix.com wrote:
>> I maintain that I have the right not to be surrounded by deadly
>> weapons in a social setting. Is it the gun lobby's position that
>> law abiding citizens have no right to keep guns away from them?
>I am not of the gun lobby, but that it certainly *my* position.
>Just as law abiding atheists have no right to keep churches out
>of their neighborhoods, or to keep religious fanatics out of their
>schools. Just as law abiding Republicans have no right to keep copies
>of Marx and Engels out of their libraries. Just as law abiding
>vegetarians have no right to keep red meat out of their supermarkets.
>And just as law abiding environmentalists have no right to demand that
>their city ban internal combustion engines and all vehicles which
>employ them.
>
>You are free to control your behavior; you are not free to control mine.
The presence of churches, religious fanatics, books by Marx/Engels, red meat in
a supermarket, and internal cumbustion engines don't increase the likelihood
that those who don't like them will be maimed or killed by them.
For a civil and democratic society to survive there has to be compromise -- a
trade off between rights and restrictions. You aren't allowed to drive a car
without a license and registration, to run red lights, to speed, etc.
Everyone's behavior with regard to cars is to some degree controlled/restricted
for the good of all.
Guns, like cars, have considerable potential to harm others. A fair compromise
between the extremes (i.e., people who want guns banned and those who want them
without restriction) would be the same sort of restrictions we have on cars --
passing an exam to get a license, registration, insurance, required safety
features, etc.
TNW
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> I do agree with the argument that allowing law-abiding citizens to
> carry weapons helps to protect even those who are unarmed.
>
In <20000522232410...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> And there I have never disagreed. My sense has always been that a
> citizen should undergo at least as much training to own a gun as
> s/he undergoes to own and use a car. Proper training in safety,
> useage, storage and so on.
>
As soon as guns get within ten orders of magnitude of car lethality,
on a per-capita basis, this might have some validity in the real
world; but on the other hand, don't expect my support until such
time as it becomes as difficult for a habitual drunk driver with
multiple convictions and a revoked license, to walk out and buy a
car, as it is for a law-abiding citizen with a spiffy-clean record to
buy a gun. ( Particularly considering the number of children wounded
and killed every single day by drunk drivers, literally orders of
magnitude more than firearms deaths. If you were really concerned
with danger to children, and general negligence-related deaths,
you'd be addressing real problems. )
>
> To the person afraid of coming here due to the violence issue...if
> you come alone, you're going to be okay, because something like 4
> out of 5 gun related incidents happen between people who *know*
> each other (and in many cases are married to or involved with one
> another).
>
Only in JMS' rather fevered imagination. He thinks he knows something
about the subject because he once read an HCI press release derived
from a so-called "study" done by an unqualified M.D. named Kellerman,
whose continued salary in a cushy job was predicated on coming up with
results acceptable to the gun grabbers. ( and who not only cooked
his already highly selected and miniscule data set, but *acknowledged*
it in his initial write-up! )
( Nota bene: Kellerman's funding was finally pulled by the U.S.
Congress, not because people disagreed with him, but because he
wouldn't ( more likely, probably *couldn't* ) provide his raw
data and a description of the analytical methodology he used to
arrive at results that were hugely at odds with every other
*real* study in history, specifically including the yearly FBI
Uniform Crime Report. His work, incidentally, has been completely
discredited, and is rarely quoted even by people on the HCI side
of the discussion. If you want solid data in this area, see
Professor Gary Kleck's 1990 book, 'POINT BLANK,' or his more
recent popularized versions; Dr. Kleck is a card-carrying
self-avowed "liberal democrat" who just *happens* to be an
honest researcher, and his experimental methodology has never
been impugned by anyone on either side of the argument.
I sent a copy of his book to JMS years ago, but JMS has apparently
still not read it, or probably even looked at it. )
>
> People seem to go into this knee-jerk reaction whenver anyone starts
> saying things like the stuff two paragraphs up, and make it into a
> threat to take away one's gun. It's simply a statement that steps
> can and should be taken to make sure the person who *buys* one knows
> how to use it.
>
Wrong again, Joe; the law already provides all the penalties and
deterrents necessary for misuse of a firearm, and last year more
kids were killed by malfunctioning Congressionally-mandated "air
bags" than in firearms "accidents." Guns are simply *not* an
important, or even appreciable, factor in U.S. death rates.
The *only* reason for pasting specious "controls" on guns is to
create a registry; and the result of registration is invariably
confiscation. We've seen it in England, we've seen it in
Australia, we've seen it in New York, and we've seen it in
California; and they think we're stupid enough to just keep
going along with it when they keep coming back for more.
And they *will* keep coming back for more, because they've SAID
they're going to keep coming back until they've got them all.
"Reasonable" is just the word the likes of Feinstein and Schumer
use to mean "whatever we think we can get away with THIS year,
more than last year, and something to get the idiots accustomed
to putting up with it so we can come back for more NEXT year."
Your opinions in this area are as ill-informed and as unrelated
to reality as your opinions on Physics, and for much the same
reason; you have no valid information or real-world experience
to bring to bear on the subject.
You *mean* well, but you're working for the Bad Guys.
>
> A car exists for many purposes, and can if misused result in someone's
> death.
>
> A handgun exists for only one purpose: to shoot another human being.
>
Oh? Do tell; where did you find this out?
You're aware that over TWO BILLION rounds of .22 Long Rifle ammo
get manufactured and fired *EVERY* year, right? My *guess* would
be that not all the purchasers who shoot .22 in pistols are probably
shooting at people, or we'd have a whole lot less overpopulation
problem, whaddaya think?
By the way, "handgun" is a semantically loaded term, since it
carries, for much of the population, the implication that a
real gun can't be carried in/operated with, one hand; and
that, consequently, it's a "bad" device.
The primary purpose of a pistol is DEFENSE. This is why military
officers traditionally carry side-arms; they are not expected,
or *supposed*, to engage the enemy; but in a close-quarters combat
situation, they may need to be able to shoot in self-defense.
The only time a pistol is very useful for an *offense* or attack,
is when the victim isn't in a position to shoot back. This is
why assaultive crime rates in Florida have plummetted since their
passage of the shall-issue law; crooks know that a percentage of
their potential targets may be armed, and the oods are not good...
so now they're burglars instead of muggers.
>
> Shouldn't the standard for ownership of the latter be at *least*
> as reasonable and thorough as the standard for the first?
>
> jms
>
Your major problem in this area is that your personal definition of
"reasonable" amounts to a much-greater invasion of personal privacy
and autonomy than that already extant in the IRS databanks.
And as soon as we start needing an interstate highway system to
walk out into the desert and plink at tin cans, there *might*
be some justification for your assertion that some form of impact
might be appropriate; but that sort of thing *should* be covered
by usage fees and point-of-sale spot taxes, not registration.
If you have to register it, you don't own it; the state does.
If you have to be licensed to possess it, you don't own it;
the state does.
If you have to pay a regular tax or registration fee to retain
possession, you don't own it; you're renting it from the state.
( Refuse to pay the property taxes on your house; you'll find
out who *really* owns it. You're just renting it from the
state, even if you've got it "paid off." )
The *only* reason for "drivers' licenses" is registration
of *people*. Noticed how the state wants you to have
state-issued photo I.D. even if you don't have a "driver's
license?" It's not *about* "driving." It's about TRACKING.
If there were a real need for regulation of driving, it
could be handled by competing insurance corporations,
privately; and the public road system could just as easily
be toll-accessed privately-funded operations. This USED
to be the land of entrepreneurs, once upon a time; but a
high-grade road system is the hallmark of a socialist-
militarist society that might need to move massive quantities
of troops and material around on short notice. ( And of
course, it was also highly beneficial to the petroleum
companies who needed to create a market by shooting down
public transport and the railroad monopolies, but I digress.)
The primary reasons for vehicle registration and traffic
citation are, and always have been, *REVENUE*. Try to
bear this in mind.
In <8gdvkd$ddn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> lcou...@stetson.edu writes:
>
> This seems very reasonable to me. (I suppose I'm on the NRA's hate
> list now ;)). If I understand correctly, and I may be wrong, in
> Switzerland, all males above a certain age must own guns and have
> the type of training jms advocates.
>
Nope. JMS doesn't advocate military training, or private/personal
possession of machine guns. ( He's never done any time on active
duty, which is one reason that his scripts concerning the military
tend to be so inaccurate and ill-considered; what little he thinks
he knows about the military he learned from B&W movies made in the
fifties, or saw on TV when the networks were covering Viet Nam.)
Bear in mind that once upon a time, the U.S. *had* such training
in place in all high schools; it was called "ROTC," "Reserve
Officers' Training Corps." In recent decades, shaking nellies
have all but removed ROTC and any sort of training from our
schools; college ROTC has been pulled out of most of our major
land-grant college institutions, despite the fact that the
upper-division stipends were an excellent source of as-you-go
college income for minority and distaff students who were
interested, not to mention being the source of an excellent
leavening of citizen-soldiers in our military, to help keep
it from going overboard.
In U.S. non-urban areas, it was accepted for two centuries
that kids would learn to use firearms in the same way that they
learned to use other tools; from parents who'd beat the whey out
of them if they misbehaved or did dumb stuff with tools. Even
40-50 years ago, a huge percentage of U.S. kids toted .22 rifles
to school in case they got a chance to pop a couple of squirrels
en route home for supper, for supper.
It's only been in *recent* years that all kids haven't grown up
with guns and tools in their hands, as a percentage of the U.S.
population oozes toward urban centers and starts to vote democrat
because *they* live in a high-density environment where socialized
government and behavior is the norm, along with a higher crime
rate than has historically been the case.
The NRA doesn't "hate" you because you disagree with them;
they're having the time of their lives with the current
situation -- which has resulted in a surge in paid memberships,
to the point where the NRA now claims 3.6 *million* members,
with good odds of breaking FOUR million by the election
in November. The more people you and JMS steam off with
your cavalier evaluations of what other people should own,
and what kind of hoops they'll have to jump through to own
it, the happier the NRA is, because that's more adherents
you generate, and more funds in their coffers... *grin*
Michael J. Hennebry
:> :Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
:> :trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
:> :and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
:> :Europeans do not.
:> The Ghost Dance, Black Muslims, and Wicca are counterexamples.
:
:Can you be more specific in what you mean? I am not familiar with
:"The Ghost Dance," but I know (or have known) both black Muslims and
:Wiccans who were absolutely free to worship however they liked.
The U.S. military used deadly force to wipe out the Ghost Dance.
There is more info on the Ghost Dance than I have in another post.
So far as I know Wounded Knee was not a part of that.
Wounded Knee was revenge for Little Big Horn.
Wiccans (I think that is the correct term) are free to worship
as they like. They can even pass it on to their children,
if they can keep their children.
:Now in the *political* sense, black muslims have faced some problems
:as they have had members who have espoused (and pursued) violent
:uprisings against white oppression. But that's a political dimension
:that is different from freedom to worship who and how you like.
The Salem witches faced some political problems also.
Michael J. Hennebry
WWS
"Michael J. Hennebry" wrote:
>
> In article <20000526153510...@nso-cs.news.cs.com>,
> Andrew Swallow <andrewm...@cs.com> wrote:
> >Tear-gas pens are banned in UK.
>
> What about Kevlar vests?
Don't see how you could hurt yourself with those. Those pens are a
real bitch, though. Ever sit down to write a check and shoot
yourself in the eye with one? Ruins your entire afternoon, it does.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Think parochially, post globally -- Peter McDermott
WWS
"Michael J. Hennebry" wrote:
>
>
> :Now in the *political* sense, black muslims have faced some problems
> :as they have had members who have espoused (and pursued) violent
> :uprisings against white oppression. But that's a political dimension
> :that is different from freedom to worship who and how you like.
>
> The Salem witches faced some political problems also.
Of course, in later years the inhabitants of Salem were quite embarrassed
to find out that those people had not been witches at all, but merely
the undead returned to feast on the flesh of the living.
Nathan Shafer
>
> I have somewhat limited freedom of speech, but that's in areas I feel I
Define racism. Define "hard-core porn."
> AFAIK, it has no hindrances against criticizing the government (which is for the most
> part filled with incompetent fools only interested in looking good on TeeVee).
1. Is criticizing the gov't the only valid (or at least, the only
important) use of free speech?
2. Those fools are not only, or even primarily, interested in looking
good on TeeVee. They are primarily interested in keeping the PPP
they've got ("Power, Prestige, and Pay"), and secondarily interested
in acquiring more. Should your freedom to call them fools ever
actively interfere with either their primary or secondary aims,
start a stopwatch to see how quickly they move to take away that
freedom.
That said, the greatest danger to what liberties you do posess is not
found in politicians who simply want job security. The greatest threat
is to be found in politicians with Causes, the ones who believe that
they are trying to do a Good Thing, and because of that intent believe
that whatever they do to achieve that Good Thing is justified.
Those are the ones that give me sleepless nights. Imagine how
relieved I was to find out that Bill Clinton is, in fact, a sham, a
venal, petty, self-interested politician. The alternative was too
terrible to contemplate.
> Your freedom of speech is however, sometimes only as deep as your
> pockets. Take Scientology...[deleted]...there are always limits,
> whether they are set by a democratically elected government, or
> a private organization with its own agenda.
Yes. However, limits set by a private organization can never be as
far-reaching as those set by a government. The Church of Hubbard can sue
me? So what? The Reno Justice Dep't can *imprison* me, confiscate
everything I own, all without due process. They can call me a drug
dealer, send in the shock troops at 2 AM, and shoot me claiming they
thought they saw a weapon.
The power of gov't to f**k with people's lives will ALWAYS be greater
than that of private organizations.
- N.
Nathan Shafer
>
> The presence of churches, religious fanatics, books by Marx/Engels, red meat in
> a supermarket, and internal cumbustion engines don't increase the likelihood
> that those who don't like them will be maimed or killed by them.
> The presence of...internal cumbustion engines don't increase the likelihood
> that those who don't like them will be maimed or killed by them
Sure they do. No cars = no car accidents. And the statistics as to
auto fatalities, even with registration of vehicales and drivers, are
still higher than those for gun fatalities.
> The presence of...churches, religious fanatics, don't increase the likelihood
> that those who don't like them will be maimed or killed by them
Sure they do. Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Auto da Fe.
How many atheists and agnostics have lost their lives to the forces
of religious intolerance?
> The presence of...books by Marx/Engels don't increase the likelihood
> that those who don't like them will be maimed or killed by them
Sure they do. How many rightists would not have been killed in Cuba
if neither Castro nor Guevara had ever read the Communist Manifesto?
Ideas have vastly more power to kill than do guns. A gun can hold
only a few bullets, and therefore cause only a few deaths. A single
idea took the life millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others.
- Nathan
Nathan Shafer
>
> The U.S. military used deadly force to wipe out the Ghost Dance.
> There is more info on the Ghost Dance than I have in another post.
And as far as I can tell, both from that other post and from independent
knowledge of that era, the U.S. military used deadly force to wipe out
Indian warriors that they felt to be a threat. The religious issue
was peripheral, and therefore does not serve as a "counterexample" to
the idea of religious tolerance.
> Wiccans (I think that is the correct term) are free to worship
> as they like.
If you feel that way, then why did you offer Wiccans as another
counterexample?
> They can even pass it on to their children, if they can keep their
> children.
Could you be less cryptic, and elaborate on what you mean by this?
Are you suggesting that the U.S. government has a policy of confiscating
the children of Wiccans?
- Nathan
Andrew Swallow
of Eddore) writes:
>
>The only time a pistol is very useful for an *offense* or attack,
>is when the victim isn't in a position to shoot back. This is
>why assaultive crime rates in Florida have plummetted since their
>passage of the shall-issue law; crooks know that a percentage of
>their potential targets may be armed, and the oods are not good...
>so now they're burglars instead of muggers.
>
Are the police ared with the wrong weapons?
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> ( Particularly considering the number of children wounded
>and killed every single day by drunk drivers, literally orders of
>magnitude more than firearms deaths. If you were really concerned
>with danger to children, and general negligence-related deaths,
>you'd be addressing real problems. )
>
Maybe the law that says that cars driven by disqualified drivers can be
confiscated should be enforced.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Hennebry) writes:
>
>What about Kevlar vests?
>
Probably legal, but I would not know where to buy one.
Andrew Swallow
Pål Are Nordal
position of having to stand by my opinions. Since I'm not political
analyst/historian, and most of my knowledge in that area was not
accumulated in English, I fear that some of my arguments may be somewhat
clumsy. You have been warned. ]
Nathan Shafer wrote:
>
> Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> >
> > So there no middle ground? Every limitation on one's rights is
> > ultimately to there to fulfil the politicians megalomaniac fantasies?
>
> No, but it remains a limitation on one's rights. Furthermore, while
> it may not be there to fulfill one politician's megalomanical
> tendencies, once there it can easily serve another politician's
> megalomanical tendencies.
>
> The problem is that what an individual can do, a government can do
> magnified hugely. People who see government as the solution to every
> problem count on this: one individual (or a small group of them) can
> build a house for a homeless person - therefore, a government can
> build a whole housing project. Howeverm, these idealists tend to
> forget (or ignore) that it works in reverse, and is much harder to
> stop. For example: an individual can infringe on your property
> rights - say by digging an improper sewer line that fouls up the
> neighborhood. You can, however, take him before the Zoning Board,
> you can sue him in court, you can get an injunction. However, if the
> government tramples your propperty rights, they're gone for good,
> and your recourse is much less. This is, after all, the GOVERNMENT.
That's why a lot of countries have instituted parliamentarism. Before
that, the national assembly was weak and the king/PM/whatever would have
the real power. With it, the ruler became directly accountable to the
assembly and could be removed by majority vote.
So for the government to start to infringing the essential rights, the
majority of the elected representatives (from 6-8 parties) have to
support it, at which time I would initiate the getting the hell out of
here manoeuvre.
And nothing I can see currently points to this happening any time soon.
The politicians are far to busy looking good on TeeVee, where they can
brag about how they raised/lowered taxes/social security / pollution
/education /military /heath care/ pension / ect. Considering a media
that loves cutting politicians to shreds (regardless of party
affiliation), that's a full-time job.
> So we really need to be very careful what powers and rights we grant
> to government, because once those rights are taken from individuals,
> they are hardly ever given back, and the potential for abuse is
> ENORMOUS. The Framers understood this.
>
> > > : I gladly give up some of my freedom to know that there *is* a safety
> > > : net out there
> > >
> > > I'm not so glad to have people deciding what's best for me, what
> > > I'm allowed to own, listen to, discuss, and so on.
> >
> > [ Note, now we're talking ideology - not gun control ]
>
> Not specifically, but this gets at the heart of what gun control is
> all about.
I figure that "Guns cause serious trouble in unfit hands. How do you
keep them out of those?" is a more sensible approach, and should be be
more palatable for both sides.
Tough, on closer examination, it doesn't take much effort to turn it
back into ideology.
> > So everybody knows what's best for themselves?
>
> Noooo, but some do. Are you saying that, just going on the odds, a
> group of people who see you not as in individual, but as a [skin
> color or ethnicity] [age]-year old [occupation] from [city of birth]
> with a [spouse] and [number children] children and an income of
> [annual income in your currency] per year are more likely to know
> what is best for you than you are?
While my above comment still stands, it is better paired with "What
if what you decide is best for you, is unfortunate for a whole bunch of others?"
Take smoking, for which restrictions are slowly creeping in all over the
place. The government is taking the decision away from the individual.
In principle, do you think that is wrong?
Pål Are Nordal
>
> As soon as guns get within ten orders of magnitude of car lethality,
> on a per-capita basis, this might have some validity in the real
> world; but on the other hand, don't expect my support until such
> time as it becomes as difficult for a habitual drunk driver with
> multiple convictions and a revoked license, to walk out and buy a
> car, as it is for a law-abiding citizen with a spiffy-clean record to
> buy a gun. ( Particularly considering the number of children wounded
> and killed every single day by drunk drivers, literally orders of
> magnitude more than firearms deaths. If you were really concerned
> with danger to children, and general negligence-related deaths,
> you'd be addressing real problems. )
Errr... Aren't there a wee bit more cars in active use than there are
guns at any one time?
Pål Are Nordal
>
> "Michael J. Hennebry" wrote:
>
>
> Don't see how you could hurt yourself with those. Those pens are a
> real bitch, though. Ever sit down to write a check and shoot
> yourself in the eye with one? Ruins your entire afternoon, it does.
You think _that's_ bad? Try chewing on one! The things they call "pens"
these days...
Mark Maher
Pål Are Nordal wrote in message
<39346F28...@bigfoot.com>...
>Errr... Aren't there a wee bit more cars in active use than
there >are
>guns at any one time?
I guess it's a matter of where you look. I would argue that
numbers aren't really the issue, it is more a matter of how
effectively "rational" government regulation is in controlling
bad side effects from the use of anything.
I think a closer look at how government regulates motor vehicles
should provide perfect case study on just why regulation, by
itself, is futile in preventing death and injuries. At every
level and in every possible manner, government and other
organizations regulate the design, manufacture, distribution,
sale, ownership, possession and operation of motor vehicles. Yet
over 43,000 people died in the US last year because they
happened to be in or around a motor vehicle at the wrong time.
The federal government and the insurance lobby have forced the
car manufacturers (kicking and screaming all the way) into
installing a lot of personal safety equipment, some of which
actually prevents more injuries than they cause. Crash-testing
and other measures over time have forced improvements in the
design.
Economically, a motor vehicle is a *very* significant financial
investment, if you get it legally. It isn't an impulse buy item
by any stretch, unless you're fairly wealthy.
Most states require potential vehicle owners to take several
weeks of safety training and pass a practical test to
demonstrate that these people can operate this machine safely.
Once this is done, the state requires them to carry a photograph
ID with address and descriptive information (even medical
information in some cases) and they require people to update
their license when they move.
Motor vehicle ownership is registered in every state. A
prominently-displayed individual identification tag is required
for each vehicle to make it easy for law enforcement to identify
the vehicle and who owns its.
The operation of vehicles is regulated by a myriad of traffic
laws issued and enforced by every level of government.
Everything from lane stripes to sobriety check points are
employed to theoretically make it safer to drive. Most counties
maintain a separate judicial system just to address traffic
violations.
Then there is the continued financial burden of having to
maintain liability insurance, above and beyond the money one has
pay to purchase, register and get the license to operate a car.
The rates are subject to immediate raises based on an
individual's or an area's "safety."
Even with all of this, over 43,000 people died in one country in
one year. It would seem that all of these regulatory measures,
which sound *exactly* like what gun control advocates want to
put into place, have little impact on the death toll. If
regulation doesn't work, then why do they want more and more of
it?
To borrow from some of jms' own words, people don't take power,
they are given it. They are given it by people who are afraid or
stupid or both. They give up control because they have a grudge
to settle or a grievance to soothe and they don't care how it's
done. There are a lot of people out there who believe that we
need more control on firearms in this country. They mean well,
just as the people who advocated outlawing alcohol at the turn
of the last century did.
Fortunately, the folks who wrote the constitution were reminded
by a lot of other really smart folks that it wasn't good enough
to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority, the
few or the one. They had to protect the minority, the few or
even the one individual from the tyranny of the majority. That's
why the first ten amendments were added to the constitution. As
much as a lot of folks may not like it, the people's right to
keep and bear arms is guaranteed in this country. That's that.
__!_!__
Gizmo
10 of 10321
> Noooo, but some do. Are you saying that, just going on the odds, a
> group of people who see you not as in individual, but as a [skin
> color or ethnicity] [age]-year old [occupation] from [city of birth]
> with a [spouse] and [number children] children and an income of
> [annual income in your currency] per year are more likely to know
> what is best for you than you are?
While my above comment still stands, it is better paired with "What
if what you decide is best for you, is unfortunate for a whole bunch of
others?"
Take smoking, for which restrictions are slowly creeping in all over the
place. The government is taking the decision away from the individual.
In principle, do you think that is wrong?
_________________
Yes.
If I desire to posion my body, that is my choice. Others can choose to be
around me if they wish.
As for Rersturants and the like, if enough customers complain, they will
choose to ban smoking.
TNW7Z
<marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[Much snipped detailing the regulation of cars/driving.]
>Even with all of this, over 43,000 people died in one country in
>one year. It would seem that all of these regulatory measures,
>which sound *exactly* like what gun control advocates want to
>put into place, have little impact on the death toll. If
>regulation doesn't work, then why do they want more and more of
>it?
And what would the automobile death toll would be without regulation? Lower
speed limits, the use of seat belts, and required safety improvements *have*
lowered the automobile death rate. After Reagan signed the bill threatening
states with the loss of highway funds if they didn't raise the minimum drinking
age to 21, alcohol related traffic fatalities dropped dramatically. Between
1982 and 1997, for people age 15 to 20, traffic fatalities dropped 59%.
In 1997, 32,000 people in the US died from guns. Consider the number of people
who drive/ride in cars and the *amount of time* spent driving/riding in cars to
the number of people who use/carry firearms and the amount of time spent
using/carrying them. Then look back at those numbers -- 32,000 people dying
from guns and only 43,000 from cars. I say let's try similar regulations for
guns (age limits, training, testing, licensing, registration, and insurance)
and see what effect it has on the death rate.
>There are a lot of people out there who believe that we
>need more control on firearms in this country. They mean well,
>just as the people who advocated outlawing alcohol at the turn
>of the last century did.
Regulating is *very* different from outlawing.
>Fortunately, the folks who wrote the constitution were reminded
>by a lot of other really smart folks that it wasn't good enough
>to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority, the
>few or the one. They had to protect the minority, the few or
>even the one individual from the tyranny of the majority. That's
>why the first ten amendments were added to the constitution. As
>much as a lot of folks may not like it, the people's right to
>keep and bear arms is guaranteed in this country. That's that.
There's a very legitimate difference of opinion over what exactly is
guaranteed. The Supreme Court (unanimous Miller decision in 1939) and all
federals appeals courts since 1939 (whether they were liberal or conservative)
have ruled that the Second Amendment refers to states and their militias (i.e.,
the National Guard), *not* private gun ownership. A lower court judge in Texas
recently took the opposite view, and we'll have to see what happens if that
reaches the Supreme Court.
The difference of opinion does not necessarily follow party lines. The federal
appeals court rulings had little to do with the judges' political leanings.
Today, some liberal jurists agree with the "private gun ownership"
interpretation while some conservatives (e.g., Robert Bork) hold the opposite
view.
What exactly is guaranteed is not at all clear.
TNW
Lisa Coulter
Nathan Shafer wrote:
Interesting. I've known a number of Wiccans in my time. Never known any to
lose their children.
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> In article <8gvt5h$c...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane
> of Eddore) writes:
>
> > ( Particularly considering the number of children wounded
> >and killed every single day by drunk drivers, literally orders of
> >magnitude more than firearms deaths. If you were really concerned
> >with danger to children, and general negligence-related deaths,
> >you'd be addressing real problems. )
> >
>
> Maybe the law that says that cars driven by disqualified drivers can be
> confiscated should be enforced.
>
> Andrew Swallow
See that's the problems. There are lots of laws for people who drive drunk and
misuse guns. All the evidence points to the idea that if they were enforced we'd
be in much better shape. Ex: Columbine - unless I'm wrong, it was against the law
to bring those guns to school.
Lisa Coulter
TNW7Z
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, ideas/thoughts are behind both good and evil. A gun is one of the many
weapons used to carry out both good and evil. They are two entirely different
things.
Suppose one of my neighbors or a co-worker is a rather unstable religious
fanatic who reads Marx/Engels every day. Suppose we have a disagreement.
His religious beliefs and reading preferences can't kill or injure me until he
decides to either attack me with his bare hands or pick up a weapon. And any
weapon that can be used from a distance and kill many people at once is going
to have more serious consequences for me and anyone else who happens to be
around. And being armed myself is not going to help me if I'm not quicker on
the draw, and it certainly won't help if he decides to play sniper.
Serious gun regulation, similar to that for vehicles, (see my other post for
the cars vs. guns debate) might have a chance at stopping *some* (certainly not
all) dangerous people from obtaining weapons. In 1997, Brady law checks halted
69,000 gun sales (62% convicted felons, 5% fugitives from justice, 11% domestic
violence/stalking, 6% drug addiction, mental illness, 12% illegal
aliens,juveniles, dishonorably discharged servicemen, etc.). [Don't worry that
69,000 was only 2.7% of the applications for guns; 2,574,000 people's
applications were accepted. : ) ]
I would like to give serious gun regulation a try. Compromise is required to
ultimately prevent the breakdown of civil society in a democracy. And
compromise is *never* risk free. Then it wouldn't be compromise.
I'd like to see no guns at all; my compromise letting nearly everyone own guns
following training, testing, age restrictions, licensure, registration, etc.
Not at all risk free for me -- millions of people will still have access to
guns. (32,000 people died from guns in the US in 1997.) And what's the risk
of regulation for the pro-gun forces? -- fear of registration leading to
government takeover?
Looks like I'm compromising a hell of a lot more than the gun lobby. Maybe
they don't want to live in a democracy where compromise is required.
TNW
James Bell
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
> > In article <8gvt5h$c...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane
> > of Eddore) writes:
> >
> > > ( Particularly considering the number of children wounded
> > >and killed every single day by drunk drivers, literally orders of
> > >magnitude more than firearms deaths. If you were really concerned
> > >with danger to children, and general negligence-related deaths,
> > >you'd be addressing real problems. )
> > >
> >
> > Maybe the law that says that cars driven by disqualified drivers can be
> > confiscated should be enforced.
> >
> > Andrew Swallow
>
> See that's the problems. There are lots of laws for people who drive drunk and
> misuse guns. All the evidence points to the idea that if they were enforced we'd
> be in much better shape. Ex: Columbine - unless I'm wrong, it was against the law
> to bring those guns to school.
>
> Lisa Coulter
Laws have never prevented anyone from doing anything. It is the threat of
enforcement and punishment that is a deterrent. I have heard several numbers
floated about but it is fairly clear that 20-something different laws were violated
by the perpetrators at Columbine. Of course, when one plans to kill oneself after
the commission of the crime, neither the law nor threat of punishment are a
deterrent.
Jim
Simon Lipscomb
> I think a closer look at how government regulates motor vehicles
> should provide perfect case study on just why regulation, by
> itself, is futile in preventing death and injuries.
Of course, one could turn this argument around and say "If that's the
case, why worry about it?"
[Snipped your details about regulations on car ownership].
It's illegal to drink and drive, yet people do it. There are speed
limits, yet people regularly exceed them. You require insurance to
operate a car, but people drive without it. You are required by law to
wear a seatbelt (in UK, don't know about US). People drive without them.
The very existence of these laws does not prevent people from doing
them. Of course, if they get *caught* doing any of them they risk a fine
and licence endorsements, but the police aren't at every junction on
every road.
The position of the anti-(gun control) proponents in this forum is that
gun control is an infringement of their constitutional rights. Now, as I
understand it the reason for "right to bear arms" is so that, should the
government become tyrannical the people have the means to defend
themselves and, if required, overthrow that government. Am I right in
this?
Now, one could argue that an attempt by the US government (specifically
the US in this case because it this particular passage in your
constitution that causes all this trouble) to apply regulatory controls
on its citizens, be it compulsory wearing of seatbelts, banning smoking
in public areas or stricter gun ownership laws, is contravening the
constitution. This in turn can be extrapolated to suggest that the
government is oppressing its citizenry. In which case, let's not forget
that the constitution, upon which the nation is founded, allows that
citizenry to rebel against that government.
Now, I'm not a scholar of American political history, so I don't know if
the consitution stipulates that a new democratically elected government
should be put in place of the old deposed one, or if it allows anarchy
to develop. I'm sure it doesn't say that the leader of the revolution
can set himself up as dictator. Anyway, we've got rid of the old
oppressive regime and brought in a new one that's hopefully fairer. All
well and good.
(Bear with me, I am going somewhere with this, honest).
My point is, supposing the US goverment imposed a total ban on all gun
ownership. They could sell this to many by claiming that it would be
saving lives. But there are those of you who object. This government is
oppressing you! It's removing your tools that defend you against this
very act!
So, are people who feel that way just going to hand over their guns and
grumble about it? I doubt it. the USA is a pretty big country.
Government agents can't be everywhere. I'm pretty certain there are
people already building caches of weapons up in the Rockies for just
such a day.
To return to my original point. Laws governing the "responsible use" of
cars don't prevent irresponsible use outright (by your own admission).
Why should laws banning weapons be any different? If it criminalises
honest folk then surely any government that proposes such a motion is
going against the very spirit, the *written constitution* of the
country's foundation, right? Therefore it is up to the honest citizenry
to bring them down. The first recourse is to vote them out of office. If
such a government was so bent on totalitarian domination that they
banned fair elections, then armed resistance is the only way left,
right? But if they've banned all guns....
But wait, luckily somebody decided to ignore the edicts of this
totalitarian government. We've got our caches hidden away in the
wilderness, in the cities, in trailer parks. And what's more, we can
apply for aid from other countries.
In the UK it is illegal to make bombs. The specific charge is
"Conspiracy to create explosions". However, that hasn't stopped the IRA.
It hasn't stopped them from planting a bomb in a hotel where the then
government of that time were meeting for a conference. Had the bomb been
more destructive, had its placement been different, they could have
almost totally wiped out the government that they feel is oppressing
them. I doubt it would have changed much to be honest, but it shows that
illegality does not make a thing impossible.
I'm not trying to persuade you that gun control is a good thing, or that
the reverse is a bad thing. It's not my country, I don't have enough
experience to make a judgement in that sense. However, I do feel that
fears that tighter regulation of weapons is merely a prelude to a Big
Brother state are...well...over-extended shall we say. If that's the
reason for your opposition you should worry far more about CCTV
installation, and never use a bank card.
> Even with all of this, over 43,000 people died in one country in
> one year. It would seem that all of these regulatory measures,
> which sound *exactly* like what gun control advocates want to
> put into place, have little impact on the death toll. If
> regulation doesn't work, then why do they want more and more of
> it?
Without a figure for deaths *prior* to the instigation of these
measures, that statistic is meaningless. At the risk of sinking to
casuistry and emotivity say, for the sake of argument, that it was
43,001. Is that one life "acceptable losses" for the freedom to drive
how you like?
> To borrow from some of jms' own words, people don't take power,
> they are given it. They are given it by people who are afraid or
> stupid or both. They give up control because they have a grudge
> to settle or a grievance to soothe and they don't care how it's
> done. There are a lot of people out there who believe that we
> need more control on firearms in this country. They mean well,
> just as the people who advocated outlawing alcohol at the turn
> of the last century did.
The JMS quote is William Edgars talking specifically about President
Clarke, with reference to prior dictators but you'll note that Clarke
and those regimes that were not fictitious "future historical" ones were
all overthrown despite all their laws. Similarly, Prohibition was
repealed. To counterpoint Edgar's argument, if the common populace can
give power, they can take it back again too.
> Fortunately, the folks who wrote the constitution were reminded
> by a lot of other really smart folks that it wasn't good enough
> to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority, the
> few or the one. They had to protect the minority, the few or
> even the one individual from the tyranny of the majority. That's
> why the first ten amendments were added to the constitution. As
> much as a lot of folks may not like it, the people's right to
> keep and bear arms is guaranteed in this country. That's that.
Again, not knowing the US constitution I may be wrong here, but does not
the fact that guns are mentioned in it specifically makes gun control a
seperate issue from, say, public smoking or vehicle regs? Unless there's
some catchment statement that denies *any* infringement on an
individual's right to behave as they choose, these other situations are
not directly covered by the fundamental document of US identity and so
more easily enforced by the government. Please, correct me if I'm wrong
here.
Thus any attempt at gun control can more confidently be called
"unconstitutional" as it directly contravences that document whereas the
others only go against its perceived "spirit".
Note I said "an individual's right to behave as they choose" above but
I'm sure there must be limits to this. There must be laws against
infringement of another's person or property. How are the checks on
freedom and the checks on "decent" behaviour rectified? Or are they not?
Where does the basis for Federal law stem from?
The question I would ask is this. The constitution is a fine idea, but
has it worked? Is it still relevant in an America 250 years after it was
drafted? And is this the kind of question they ask in politics and
jurisprudence classes?
Again, I don't have the experience for an opinion on this either way.
I'm interested to see what people have to say on this. Here in the UK
the power of the monarchy was curtailed back in the 13th century by the
Magna Carta. As far as I'm aware it still applies despite the fact that
its antiquity renders most of it meaningless. I'm pretty confident that
the Queen isn't going to dam up my water supply with any fish weirs.
Si.
Geoduck
wrote:
(snip)
Someone wrote:
>>Take smoking, for which restrictions are slowly creeping in all over the
>>place. The government is taking the decision away from the individual.
>>In principle, do you think that is wrong?
asktrek replied:
>_________________
>
>Yes.
>
>If I desire to posion my body, that is my choice. Others can choose to be
>around me if they wish.
I agree with your first statement wholeheartedly, but "If they wish"?
So what about places where people *have* to go to carry out their
legal duties as citizens? If we both, say, get called for jury duty,
are you claiming that you have the inalienable right to put toxic
foul-smelling fumes into the air in my immediate vacinity? I
personally have *no* problem with the banning of smoking in
publically-owned buildings and facilities.
>As for Rersturants and the like, if enough customers complain, they will
>choose to ban smoking.
Again, on this point I agree with you. If you own the property, you
can dictate what people do there. (Within reason, of course.)
--
Geoduck
geo...@usa.net
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Nathan Shafer
>
> You are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, I am. The question remains: which is the apple, and which is the
orange?
> I would like to give serious gun regulation a try.
It has been tried. It didn't work. Criminals still got guns, law
abiding citizens didn't, and the crime rate went up.
The only thing left after that is complete confiscation.
> I'd like to see no guns at all
Not possible. The virgin has already gotten f***ed; she can't get
herself unf***ed. Guns exist, the only question now is who gets to
have them. Do we only want criminals and those acting under the aegis
of Authority to have them, or do we want to give the rest of the popu-
lation a chance?
> Looks like I'm compromising a hell of a lot more than the gun lobby.
How is it compromise when you give up a desire that you never had a
chance of realizing in the first place?
- N.
Nathan Shafer
>
> Nathan Shafer wrote:
> >
> > PÂl Are Nordal wrote:
> > >
> > > So there no middle ground? Every limitation on one's rights is
> > > ultimately to there to fulfil the politicians megalomaniac fantasies?
> >
> > magnified hugely.
>
And once they noticed that parliaments are not very effective at
"getting things done," they instituted strong executives. Ours may
be stronger than many, but there are always bureaucrats and others
who can make things happen, for good or ill. It is nearly impossible
to give great power to a government and expect said power to remain
checked.
> I figure that "Guns cause serious trouble in unfit hands. How do you
> keep them out of those?" is a more sensible approach.
But then we come back to the question: who decides which hands are fit,
and which aren't? Which brings us to the point below:
> > > So everybody knows what's best for themselves?
> >
> While my above comment still stands,
It does? You never answered my question, so I will repeat:
"Are you saying that, just going on the odds, a group of people who see
you not as in individual, but as a [skin color or ethnicity] [age]-year
old [occupation] from [city of birth] with a [spouse] and [number
children] children and an income of [annual income in your currency]
per year are more likely to know what is best for you than you are?"
I think it's a fair question, and I wish you would answer it directly.
If you say "Yes, they are," then no common ground between us is
possible.
To me, answering the above question in the affirmative indicates a
seriously infantile mentality, in perpetual need of a parent figure,
complete with figurative teats on which to suckle. I consider myself
an adult, and my goal in life is to stand on my own two feet.
> it is better paired with "What if what you decide is best for you, is
> unfortunate for a whole bunch of others?"
That's where we apply the Wendell Holmes Principle: "My right to swing
my arm ends where your nose begins" (or WTTE). We therefore institute
laws prohibiting, and providing penalities for, nose punching.
Bottom line:
1. Owning a gun does not harm you.
2. Shooting you with my gun harms you.
Applying the Wendell Holmes Principle, we make a law against shooting
people with guns, not owning them.
> Take smoking
Not at all a fair comparison for several reasons, the foremost of which
is this: a smoker has absolutely no control over which way the wind
drifts their smoke, and therefore over who is exposed to risk because
of their smoking. A gun owner has complete control over who is at
risk because of their gun ownership. Second, nicotine is an addictive
drug. Third, while health risks from secondhand smoke are widely
accepted, there is not a direct causal relationship between inhaling
secondhand smoke and getting lung cnacer; several other factors (such
as herdity, other environmental hazards, diet, general health, access
to health care) come into play. Fourth, one smokes cigrattes solely
for recreation/pleasure; gun ownership is a far more serious matter.
And last, though certainly not least, there is nothing in the Constitu-
tion of my country that guarantees that the right to keep and smoke
cigarettes shall not be infringed.
However, to answer your question:
> Take smoking, for which restrictions are slowly creeping in all over
> the place. The government is taking the decision away from the
> individual. In principle, do you think that is wrong?
Yes, I do.
- N.
Gharlane of Eddore
(Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>
> ( Particularly considering the number of children wounded
> and killed every single day by drunk drivers, literally orders of
> magnitude more than firearms deaths. If you were really concerned
> with danger to children, and general negligence-related deaths,
> you'd be addressing real problems. )
>
Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
> Maybe the law that says that cars driven by disqualified drivers can be
> confiscated should be enforced.
>
I'd sooner support permanent involuntary servitude for such individuals;
bolt them into remote-monitored tracking collars that also provide for
remote-control administration of therapeutic shocks when appropriate,
and put them to work pruning shrubbery in public parks, picking up
after the tourists in national parks, or perhaps as test animals in
medical research. Since they've proven they're quite willing to
commit repeated felonies dangerous to those around them, those around
them are entitled to take control of their behavior.
An alternative would be to just dump them on a blockaded island in the
South Pacific, without roads, cars, TV, medical care, or food shipments,
and let them do as they please.
In <39351DDC...@stetson.edu> Lisa Coulter
<lcou...@stetson.edu> writes:
>
> See that's the problems.
> There are lots of laws for people who drive drunk and misuse guns.
> All the evidence points to the idea that if they were enforced we'd
> be in much better shape.
>
Precisely the problem; incumbent politicians can't make mileage out
of non-existent problems, they have to have something to inflate
into a terrifying bugaboo, and then promise to protect everyone, in
exchange for a few more taxes or a bit less personal freedom.
You can't sell "protection" until you've created a threat, real or
illusory.
So *ENFORCEMNT* of existing laws won't do incumbent politicians
any good... they need PROBLEMS, not *solutions*.
>
> Ex: Columbine - unless I'm wrong, it was against the law
> to bring those guns to school.
>
Actually... and you can find some Web sites that deal with this...
the bozos who did that one had committed over *TWENTY* separate
felonies by the time they set foot on the campus, just in
procurement, possession, and transport. Further, they'd been
talking about it for months, and a great many listeners, putatively
responsible adults and kids, hadn't seen fit to go screaming to
the police.
The capper, of course, was the armed sheriff's deputy on site as
school security, who was in a position to *terminate* the entire
sequence of events, but retired from confrontation unwounded, with
ammunition left, to "make phone calls and co-ordinate first aid
and evacuation," or somesuch second-hand bovine fodder. Those
kids were simply not good enough with their long guns to constitute
a major threat, and the only pistol they had was a Tec-9, which
is notorious for jamming and general unreliability. ( Major
value of a Tec-9 is *looks*.. makes a wonderful movie prop.
There was an office shooting in San Francisco a few years back
where a lot of lives were saved by the jamming rate of a Tec-9.
San Francisco should have sent a bonus check to IntraTec for
making such a Safe Gun. )
The entire situation was *NOT* handled in a responsible, competent
manner, from the outset.
The U.K. equivalent is that nutter who shot up the school in
Dunblane; people had been griping about him for a *LONG* time,
and there was already a very hairy system in place for reviewing
and yanking gun licenses; but no inquiry was ever made, and
he was left in possession of a U.K. firearms license *despite*
his previous history and a large number of complaints, *despite*
the hugely constraining and restrictive U.K. licensing laws.
The kids in Dunblane died because the Brit cops weren't doing
the jobs they were paid to do. The kids in Columbine died
because no one got the cops involved early on, and because the
cops didn't handle the actual situation competently once it
began.
As far as I'm concerned, this is why teachers should be allowed
to pack heat while at work, *if* they care to.
-------------------------------------------------
If the extant laws were being enforced, and we weren't patting
psychos on the head and letting them walk, we'd have a lot less
problem. But politicians don't *WANT* a safe environment, because
then they'd be out of a job, or in a job of much less importance.
This is why the Klinton "Administration" brags about huge numbers
of felons and criminals turned away from firearms purchases by
the "Brady System." ---- and have prosecuted something like a
dozen actual cases over the entire period of the system's operation,
despite the fact that the *attempt* to purchase a firearm by someone
who's not allowed to, is a FELONY, one for which severe penalties
are prescribed. If the system were actually being operated, and
the "Administration"'s claims were true, there'd be a federal
prison somewhere with a couple of hundred thousand felons in it.
Crooks don't buy guns from legitimate dealers; they steal them,
have them smuggled in, or buy them on the street. But to hear
Herr Klinton tell it, we can stop all crime in its tracks by
just making it illegal for anyone to buy a gun. ( Since the
Afghani village smiths manage to make perfectly serviceable
crude AK-47's out of chunks of old railroad track, using
unpowered hand tools, I'm not clear on how forbbidding *purchase*
of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of anyone who
really wants one... )
So, yes, enforcement of existing laws would be more sensible than
passing more laws, laws which can only be applied to law-abiding
citizens who are not the problem; but it would make a whole lot more
sense to just dump all existing gun-control laws, particularly
including GCA'68, OCCB'94, and all of the "Executive Orders"
Herr Klinton has penned since entering office... and just agree
that gun-control laws are a waste of time and tax money.
Since conditions vary so hugely from one part of the U.S. to
another, the obvious approach is to allow locales to dictate
rules for carry, transport, and stowage while in transit.
( With no restrictions on purchase, or possession on private property. )
This would still be a can of worms, but a locally addressable one.
( Vide Kennesaw, Georgia, where local law requires the head of every
household to possess a firearm and be proficient in its use, with
exemptions for members of certain bona fide religions --- Kennesaw
doesn't really *enforce* the law, they just put it on the books as
a statement of attitude. Kennesaw, Georgia, has such a low crime
rate that you can leave your doors unlocked and let your kids talk
to strangers... )
Incidentally, the stricture against ex-felons possessing firearms
dates from 1938. Since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
don't seem to imply second-class citizenhood on the basis of
prior servitude, I'd say this is also probably unConstitutional.
If an ex-con can't be trusted in public, he shouldn't be loose
at all. The most obvious approach is an automatic, unappealable
death sentence for a second use of a gun in the commission of a
crime. --- Just provide an incentive to behave, and then USE it.
Gharlane of Eddore
This just now showed up at our site, due to the rather cranky
and wild and wonderful topic propagation paths involved in the
operation of the Net....
In <8gcjog$lu1$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"The Zarg" <The...@greysector.ezesurf.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I haven't read the group in a while - and I have just finished
> reading the whole "right to bear arms" debate...and I have to
> say, I am now very, very afraid.
>
You should be. The politicians in your country won't be happy
until you can't own a jack-knife without registration and
licensing. ( Unfortunately, a number of ours like their style
and seek to emulate them. )
>
> I am currently living in Scotland - but I have applied to study
> for the third year of my Degree course at the University of South
> Carolina. Some of the posts supporting the right to have guns,
> and even more so the personal anecdotes of people who have stayed
> over there have chilled me to the bone...a couple of people have
> made jokes about it when I've told them that I'm moving over there
> about having keep my mouth shut or I'll get shot - or even saying
> that I should buy a gun while I'm out there, and I've kind of
> laughed it off...
>
Well, if it's any help, I've been mugged at gunpoint, twice, in
Beautiful Downtown Vancouver, B.C., Canada, where Nasty Evil Bad Guns
are next thing to completely illegal, and it's a felony to carry
one. ( This was, by the way, years ago; armed robbery rates in
Vancouver are now a bit higher than they were then, but now that
I know which parts of town to stay out of at night, I don't have
that sort of problem when I visit there any more. )
I've always felt very safe in South Carolina, and no one's ever
tried to rob me there. Anecdotal, to be sure; but the folks I
met in S.C. tended to be quite civil and helpful, even after
they discovered that I was a Yankee.
It's *nothing* like as dangerous as being in, for example, Washington
D.C. or New York City. ( Both of which are statistically safer,
by the way, than several major urban areas in the U.K. )
>
> I'm not the only one who feels this way - I know quite a few
> people who have stopped going on holiday in the States because
> they are worried they'll get held up at gunpoint, that they
> wouldn't feel safe having their children there or even that
> they'll just get into an argument with someone and they'll
> just snap and pull a gun on them.
>
This doesn't happen. For a brief time, crimes against tourists
rose in Florida, which had liberalized "concealed carry" permit
issuance... since a very small percentage of people were armed,
it was Bad Business to try to rob people at gunpoint, and the
muggers either moved to states where crime is safe and legal,
like California, or re-tooled to work as burglars and thieves....
OR specialized in obvious tourists, knowing they'd be unarmed.
-- But once it became apparent that the Florida crooks were
going after tourists, Florida took the unprecedented step of
liberalizing concealed-carry permit issue for out-of-state folks;
that's right, you can get a non-resident concealed carry permit
for the state of Florida.
The out-of-state folks who were likely to be in bad situations,
or carrying gobs of cash and valuables, went to the trouble...
and robbing tourists became a dangerous thing to do.
Now, in Florida, even in the high-crime inner-urban areas,
you're statistically safer than in many parts of London,
because a minute percentage of the folks around you are armed.
A populace does not *need* to be armed to create a safe environment,
as long as *some* of the folks are armed... a minute percentage
is enough to make a palpable difference in crime rates, because
the Bad Guys simply don't know if it's safe to assault someone.
P.S. --
I'm intrigued by the fact that you lot seem to think you can take
"holiday" overseas. Are you actually allowed to leave the country,
with money in hand? Most highly socialist nations don't allow that
sort of thing. *grin*
>
> To those who are supporting the right to bear arms - it should
> really make you think about your position, that people from other
> countries are actually scared to visit yours because of your
> fondness for, despite your arguments to the contrary, what
> basically amounts to toys (and for proof of that, you only have
> to look at how many children are thinking the same thing).
>
Oh, eminently agreed. Unless you're in the process of using them
for something real, like self-defense, hunting, combat, revolution,
or just winning prize money, they *ARE* just toys, and expensive
ones at that. Primarily "boy toys," but a lot of little girls like
to use them, too.
One of those "Little Girls" just recently grew up to be a major
international competitor; ever hear of Kim Rhode, from California,
U.S.A. ? She won an Olympic Gold Medal in the Double Trap event,
at an age somewhere around 17. She was competing against people
of all ages, sexes, and experience levels, since Double Trap is
a massively difficult discipline, and there aren't enough master-grade
competitors in the world to justify separate divisions, the way
they do with general Trap matches. But she was a superior athlete,
in superior training, and set a number of records.
Of course, you'll never see her on a "Wheaties" box, since her
sport is not "politically correct," as it involves shooting flying
targets with high accuracy.
Bear in mind that the U.K. Olympic teams have to practice in places
like Belgium and Switzerland, since they can't bring their equipment
into the country. You can buy any sort of fully-automatic weapon
you like on a streetcorner in London, due to the massive upsurge in
illegal weapons traffic since the Great Confiscation... and the crime
and assault rates in the U.k. are continually rising, as are firearms
violations with recently imported guns.. but the residents can't
even own a .22 Short rifle to keep killer bunnies out of the garden.
Just *try* to keep vermin out of your garden with a golf club or
a set of watercolors; different hobbies have different applications
to the real world. ( With the exception of "golf." I have never
been able to discern any application of "golf" skills to survival,
obtaining food, combat, self-defense, or indeed any sort of endeavor
outside of dressing funny and getting sunburned. )
>
> ...but reading that dicussion, and seeing a recent
> program on gun ownership, has made me seriously reconsider going,
> and I'm begining to think that if I stayed over there I would be
> living in constant fear.
>
"A recent program on gun ownership?" You might ask yourself who
produced the program, who paid them, and what they want you to
believe and think on this subject, and then consider whether or
not you've been fed some massively slanted material specifically
aimed at terrorizing you....
Trust me on this; the folks in the U.S. are neither better nor worse
than the ones you know over there; the only differences are that
the U.S. residents have access to better medical and dental care,
don't look as terrified and haunted, and are usually easier to
understand.
If you're dubious, just go over to South Carolina for a visit before
committing... the food alone will convince you. You might decide
you want to *move* there, after you get a load of the weather, the
lower tax rates, the ladies, and the life style. ( If you prefer
snow and rain, go for Vermont or Oregon. *grin* )
In <8gdvec$dch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Lisa Coulter,
lcou...@stetson.edu writes:h
>
> Yes, and my parents want to go to Europe and are afraid.
> You know why? Terrorism, which is (almost) unknown in the US.
> You need to learn to distinguish rational fears from those that aren't.
> Somehow I've managed to live in the US for thirty- something years,
> never own or use a gun, including 6 years in NYC. Problems? None.
>
I already made some smarmy comments in response to the last two lines
of this posting by Ms. Dr. Coulter, since I'd seen them cited in another
posting, not realizing they were quoted out of context, or what they
were in response to; so I'll restrain myself a bit.
Lisa, if you ever do much vacationing west of the Mississipi, take an
armed native guide along... depending on the locale, you could meet
cougars, coyotes, javelinas, feral pigs, black bears, brown bears,
wolverines, and killer jackrabbits.... (*) several of which are
nearly as dangerous as New York Muggers. *grin*
(*) nota bene; American wolves tend not to be dangerous to human
beings, so don't worry about them. You're typically in a lot
more danger from territorial moose, which have been known to
charge and kill people.
====================================================================
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it."
--gene spafford, 1992
Andrew Swallow
of Eddore) writes:
>
>The kids in Dunblane died because the Brit cops weren't doing
>the jobs they were paid to do. The kids in Columbine died
>because no one got the cops involved early on, and because the
>cops didn't handle the actual situation competently once it
>began.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this is why teachers should be allowed
>to pack heat while at work, *if* they care to.
>
I know what you are saying, but in Dunblane the teachers would not have carried
guns. It is a town with a very low crime rate. In an inner-city area they
would have worried about the guns being stolen.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
of Eddore) writes:
>
>You should be. The politicians in your country won't be happy
>until you can't own a jack-knife without registration and
>licensing. ( Unfortunately, a number of ours like their style
>and seek to emulate them. )
>
If a jack-knife is a flick knife then they have already banned them.
Just a few more searches of people carrying knives should cut the crime rate.
Tell the police to search white youths as well as blacks,
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
(TNW7Z) writes:
>
>[Much snipped detailing the regulation of cars/driving.]
>
>>Even with all of this, over 43,000 people died in one country in
>>one year.
Desiging a safer car. Would adding a 12 foot long sponge to the front of cars
reduce the death toll?
The vehcile may be even safer, if the sponge was designed to lift children
rather than knock them over.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
<simon.l...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
>The position of the anti-(gun control) proponents in this forum is that
>gun control is an infringement of their constitutional rights. Now, as I
>understand it the reason for "right to bear arms" is so that, should the
>government become tyrannical the people have the means to defend
>themselves and, if required, overthrow that government. Am I right in
>this?
>
>
I have no statistics but I half remember that guns in the USA kill people in 2
main situations -
a. Spouses in the home
b. Other people any where else.
If carrying a loaded gun in the street or a car was made an offence then deaths
due to the second group should reduce. Possibly by bank robbers being arrested
before they can steal any money.
For spouse killing, I can only suggest that wives who commit adultery should
hide the ammunition when their husbands come home drunk.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
>
>P.S. --
>I'm intrigued by the fact that you lot seem to think you can take
>"holiday" overseas. Are you actually allowed to leave the country,
>with money in hand? Most highly socialist nations don't allow that
>sort of thing. *grin*
>
Margaret Thatcher changed the law to allow people to take money overseas,
Andrew Swallow
Gharlane of Eddore
In <20000526153510...@nso-cs.news.cs.com>,
Andrew Swallow <andrewm...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> Tear-gas pens are banned in UK.
>
Except for the writing of poetry that brings tears to your eyes...
In <8h0krh$r...@plains.nodak.edu> henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
(Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
>
> What about Kevlar vests?
>
You are aware, aren't you, that in the U.K. "vest" means "undershirt?"
In the U.K., they're most often made of flannel or wool, rather than
Kevlar(tm). ( They're not really up on modern fabrics like woven
cotton yet; industry progresses slowly in socialist nations. )
TNW7Z
>TNW7Z wrote:
>> I would like to give serious gun regulation a try.
>It has been tried. It didn't work. Criminals still got guns, law
>abiding citizens didn't, and the crime rate went up.
In the past 5 yrs. Massachusetts has passed the toughest gun laws in the
country and gun deaths have dropped by more than half. Coincidence? Time
will tell.
And regulation will not work until *all* states have the same laws. Otherwise
criminals buy guns in one state and carry them into another.
>> I'd like to see no guns at all
>Not possible. The virgin has already gotten f***ed; she can't get
>herself unf***ed. Guns exist, the only question now is who gets to
>have them.
Exactly. Ideally I'd like to see no guns at all, but precisely *because* there
are more than 200 million guns in this country and no way to put the genie back
in the bottle, I am in favor of *regulation*.
>Do we only want criminals and those acting under the aegis
>of Authority to have them, or do we want to give the rest of the popu-
>lation a chance?
Regulation will not be perfect, but it can prevent some of the wrong people
from getting guns. Let me repeat -- In 1997, Brady law checks halted 69,000
gun sales (62% convicted felons, 5% fugitives from justice, 11% domestic
violence/stalking, 6% drug addiction, mental illness, 12% illegal
aliens,juveniles, dishonorably discharged servicemen, etc.).
And licensure, registration, etc. will not prevent "the rest of the population"
(i.e., law-abiding citizens) from getting guns. The Brady law halted 69,000
gun sales but still allowed 2,574,000!!
>> Looks like I'm compromising a hell of a lot more than the gun lobby.
>How is it compromise when you give up a desire that you never had a
>chance of realizing in the first place?
That has nothing to do with compromise. We aren't negotiating a business deal.
We have a problem in this country -- A UN survey of 49 countries showed that
only the US and Czech Republic do not have a gun-licensing system, and our
*handgun* death rate is 3 times the average of any other country. A change is
needed, and if a significant no. of people want a particular solution,
regardless of whether there was a prior chance of realizing it, it can still be
placed on the bargaining table.
In a 1998 poll -- 57% of *gun* owners wanted tighter restrictions on guns, and
66% of *gun* owners wanted more restrictions on handguns. The fanatic minority
needs to compromise.
TNW
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> You aren't born with a gun. And governments usually do strike down
> religions they deem destructive.
>
P=E5l Are Nordal wrote:
>
> Maybe in Europe they do. This is a fundamental divide in this
> trans-atlantic conversation - Americans have certain freedoms
> and rights guaranteed them that the government cannot abrogate,
> Europeans do not.
>
Oh, it happens in America, too. There are a lot of us who used
to be a bit aggravated over the national motto being "IN GOD WE TRUST,"
and having it on all our money. ( Of course, since we stopped having
real money in 1963, we stopped taking it so seriously; who cares what
it says on "Monopoly" money? )
Main point is, there's a tacit avoidance of recognition of
non-"Christian" religions in the U.S. A couple of decades back,
some congresscritter slipped a rider into a completely unrelated
bill that yanked tax exemptions for certain pagan religions
which had previously been allowed to designate their covensteads
as legitimate churches for tax purposes....
And of course, we all know what happens if you run a fundamentalist
christian commune in Waco Texas, and let the feds get hard up for
a bit of newspaper space.
In <dkttiskngvjthnnhj...@4ax.com>
Michael Ross <aba...@ibm.net> writes:
>
> And Europeans have certain freedoms and rights guaranteed that
> Americans do not enjoy.
>
You mean the rights to pay confiscatory taxes, and be over-run
by German thugs in jack-boots, Russian thugs in jack-boots, or
U.S.-funded U.N. thugs in jack-boots?
>
> An example: There are I believe certain states in the USA where it's
> only a slight exaggeration to say that any sex act, except missionary
> position between husband and wife, under the covers with the lights
> out, is a criminal offence... where is the US citizens right to a
> private life?
>
Yes, and in Seattle, Washington, it used to be a felony to wear
roller skates in a publish washroom. Just because a law's on the
books doesn't mean it'll get enforced; even the most hideboundedly
conservative Republicans ( if there are any left in the world! )
wouldn't dare to have a public opinion on what can go on in
private between consenting adults.
>
> I'm not suggesting things are perfect in the EU in respect of laws
> governing sexual conduct (and many other human rights situations),
> but the EU Human Rights laws are improving the situation (eg UK govt.
> recently forced to drop the ban on gays in military).=20
>
As soon as the U.K. posthumously recognizes the contributions of
Alan Turing and knights him, I'll be willing to consider stipulating
that gays aren't moving targets over there. Clarke was a step
in the right direction, but they have a LONG way to go.
>
> On balance I don't feel the US has too much to crow about...
>
We certainly don't. We allowed a fraction of our population
to elect Herr Klinton... *TWICE*.
This is a level of embarrassment not achieved by a national
government since Argentina allowed itself to be taken over by
a bleached blonde with no management ability.
Gharlane of Eddore
(Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>
> You should be. The politicians in your country won't be happy
> until you can't own a jack-knife without registration and
> licensing. ( Unfortunately, a number of ours like their style
> and seek to emulate them. )
>
In <20000531201831...@nso-cr.news.cs.com>
andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew Swallow) writes:
>
> If a jack-knife is a flick knife then they have already banned them.
>
> Just a few more searches of people carrying knives should cut the crime rate.
> Tell the police to search white youths as well as blacks,
>
"Jack-knife" is a generic term for any pocket-sized knife with a folding
blade, which is *not* spring-powered, or openable with a one-handed
wrist-flick. The intent of most laws of this nature appears to
have been just creating an environment where knives capable of being
used as weapons are not readily available.
Michael J. Hennebry
Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<Michael J. Hennebry wrote:
<> Wiccans (I think that is the correct term) are free to worship
<> as they like.
<
<If you feel that way, then why did you offer Wiccans as another
<counterexample?
<
<> They can even pass it on to their children, if they can keep their
<> children.
<
<Could you be less cryptic, and elaborate on what you mean by this?
<Are you suggesting that the U.S. government has a policy of confiscating
<the children of Wiccans?
It's been a while since I read anything on the subject, so I can't
give much in the way of detail, much less examples.
So far as I am aware, there is no governmental effort to seek out
and take the children of Wiccans. If, for whatever reason, they
come to the attention of the gov'ment, Wicca is likely to be regarded
as proof of unfitness.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
Iluvatar is the better part of Valar.
Mark Randol
>
> Desiging a safer car. Would adding a 12 foot long sponge to the front of cars
> reduce the death toll?
Even better. Put a 12 inch, hardened steel spike pointing from the
center of the steering wheel to the driver.
No matter what safety improvements are made, seems that drivers are
"smart" enough to overcome them. Make a curve in the road safer and
drivers will speed up. Put ABS and airbags in cars and people drive
faster, follow too close, etc.
Mark