Aust. Gun Laws and Tasmanian Massacre
CAVIM
What are the current laws in Australia concerning possesion of
semi-auto's? As far as I know, the psycho who killed all those innocent
people was armed with a high capacity semi-auto, which I believed to be
iilegal to own. Someone in Australia did tell me however that Chiniese
and Indonesian pirates will sell these weapons to whoever has the money.
Does anyone know what was the specific make of the weapon used?
Also, in my opiniom, the Aussie gov't has it all wrong. If they would
have issued CCW's to its citizens, this situation could have been tamed.
IF ONE PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ARMED FOR SELF-DEFENSE THAT DAY, THE KILLER
WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED!!!! But he knew he was in no danger.....calmly
walking about, executing innocent people.
Regards, and my deepest sympathies.
Edward
TWCollier
I believe that gun laws under Australia's federal system are kind of like
ours here in the U.S. -- they vary widely from state to state. I also
understand that the laws of the state of Tasmania were the loosest, with
virtually no restrictions at all until fairly recently.
Steve Hix
In article n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com, twco...@aol.com (TWCollier) writes:
:I believe that gun laws under Australia's federal system are kind of like
:ours here in the U.S. -- they vary widely from state to state. I also
:understand that the laws of the state of Tasmania were the loosest, with
:virtually no restrictions at all until fairly recently.
They may be the most relaxed, but they were not exactly non-existent,
either.
According to email from an Australian poster this morning:
1. The shooter did not hold a valid licence (he was not eligible
for one as a diagnosed mental patient).
2. The shooter had a history of threatening to shoot people and
had been reported to police a number of times.
3. Within the last 12 months the shooter had been reported to
police for discharging his rifle into the air outside his home.
(Therefore the police had been informed that a non-licenced
shooter, a known mental patient, was illegally in possession
of a firearm.)
No action was taken as a result of the complaints - had the
existing laws been properly enforced, the massacre should not have happened
as the shooter would have been disarmed and probably hospitalised for
treatment.
Jeffrey Budzynski
Edward,
I'm under the impression that it was a high-capacity semi-auto.
Newsday, the local newspaper here in Long Island, New York, reported a
wire-release story that first said the killer "unpacked automatic
rifles from his tennis bag and started shooting." Then, an
accompanying editorial commentary had the author say, "the Tasmanian
gunman used an AR-15 and a Chinese-made assault rifle in his attack."
I wrote to Newsday post-haste earlier this afternoon by email, and
recieved a telephone call saying that my letter was being considered to
run in the next week or so. (A good indication that it will be
printed: they said that just before they ran my last two letter.) In
my letter, I assailed anti-gunners for outright lying about the
distinction between REAL assault weapons, and the politically-correct
definition of "assault-weapons." I said that if those were truly the
rifles used, they were NOT "automatic rifles." AR-15s are
semi-automatic. So are SKS rifles. And eyewitness reports stated that
the gunman fired slowly, deliberately choosing his next victims. Not
firing blindly and wildly on full-auto.
I went on to mention in my letter how when Glock introduced its
polymer-framed pistols, the anti-gunners went and disregarded any
factual information at all that was widely available about the guns,
and reported that they were the "weapon of choice of terrorists" and
could pass through airport security metal detectors undetected. All of
that was bullshit, and they HAD to have known it, since if one is at
all familiar with a Glock, one knows it is MOSTLY metal, as far as its
percentage of mass. But why let facts stand in your way when LIES can
achieve your agenda just as well and you don't have to bother with that
tedious research, or ethics, either? That's the ethos of the anti-gun
fright-mongers, anyway.
Well, I'll continue to do my best to keep the lies and the liars at
bay. Because we all know that when the lies are stripped away and the
truth is evident, the truth belongs to US.
Azure
OFWAT1
Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
bullets, there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
people, should be outlawed to the public.
OFWAT1
So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less of a threat to
society? Are you saying that because someone massacred 35 people with a
non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much damage as they wanted
to no matter how stringent the gun laws are? Semi-automatic guns are used
for the sole purpose of killing people, so are hand-guns or concealed
weapons. Semis have a large capacity to hold bullets without reloading,
and the tragedy in Tasmania would have been nowhere as bad had the gunman
been armed only with shot-guns.WHat is the point of everyone arming
themselves with hand-guns? Would the tragedy in Tasmania have been
averted if someone had a hand-gun with them... well that's debateable.
But I have been to Port Arthur and I can tell you that the people that go
there are just family day-trippers and wouldn't want to have anything to
do with guns.
People may kill people, but with a gun at least you can predict when it
is going kill people. You cannot tell if someone is at breaking-point,
and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out.
Guns kill people and that's all there is to it.
Olly
Jeffrey Bishop
In article <4m98md$b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>poa...@ix.netcom.com(Jeffrey Budzynski ) wrote:
>>In <4m4tq7$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) writes:
>Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
>semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
>bullets, there is no need for reloading.
Duh, do you honestly think that "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large
number of bullets"? It never ceases to amaze me how proud you
gun-grabbers are about your own ignorance.
>If he was only armed with some
>shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
Absolute horseshit. No gun takes that long to load, and the amount of time
he spent between shots, he could have loaded one round at a time. Never
mind the fact that "semiautomatic" has absolutely nothing to do with he
number of rounds a gun can hold anyway.
If he had used a shotgun instead of a medium-power rifle, no one would have
had a chance of survival.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Bishop finger jbi...@babel.ling.nwu.edu or
Northwestern University jbi...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
email to: jbi...@nwu.edu for PGP public key
CAVIM
Regarless of what the bastard was carrying, the fact is that if anyone
would have been armed for self-defense there is a great chance that he
would have been stopped, and quickly. And that B.S. about "family-day
trippers" not wanting to do with guns is absolute crap...I'm a happy
family person and I can protect my family from disgusting animals like
Tas-freak, thanks to my Glock 21 (of course, if I didn't have it I'd even
be willing to try to poke his eyes out with a toothpick if necessary;-)
Remember about a month ago that terrorist in Israel who drove into a bus
stop with his car? Well, guess what! HE WAS SHOT BY
BYSTANDERS...CITIZENS!! and thus he could kill no more. Think about it.
Edward
keba...@cc.memphis.edu
OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> writes:
> Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
> semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
> all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
> than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
> bullets, there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
> shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
> That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
> people, should be outlawed to the public.
Ah well. So you've magically made all semi-automatics vanish...
*Poof!*
What does the madman do? He brings two guns, and a sack of ammo.
Since he wasn't planning on "spraying bullets" anyway, he then
has the capability of reloading one gun while having another
with which to threaten anyone who tries to stop him while
he's reloading. If you're unarmed, it doesn't matter what
kind of a gun he has. If he's got two shotguns, especially
two "sporting" guns he's cut down to a short legth, he's
got the firepower of an "assault rifle" and then some.
So long as you don't lock up the nutters, they'll find a way.
--
**x*dna Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. The University Of Memphis
*(==) * <keba...@cc.memphis.edu> Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.
* \' * NRA/JPFO/ASM/GOP/U-U [Clinton Beats Clinton!]
*(=)*** t.p.g.FAQ: http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
"In the future, everyone can be the global village idiot
for fifteen free hours."--Android Warhol
.._. .._ _._. _._ . _.._ ___ _.
46 75 63 6B 20 45 78 6F 6E 21
Wolf
In <4m98md$b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> writes:
#poa...@ix.netcom.com(Jeffrey Budzynski ) wrote:
#>In <4m4tq7$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) writes:
#>>
#>>What are the current laws in Australia concerning possesion of
#>>semi-auto's? As far as I know, the psycho who killed all those
#>innocent
#>>people was armed with a high capacity semi-auto, which I believed to
#>be
#>>iilegal to own. Someone in Australia did tell me however that
#>Chiniese
#>>and Indonesian pirates will sell these weapons to whoever has the
#>money.
#>>Does anyone know what was the specific make of the weapon used?
#>>Also, in my opiniom, the Aussie gov't has it all wrong. If they would
#>>have issued CCW's to its citizens, this situation could have been
#>tamed.
#>>IF ONE PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ARMED FOR SELF-DEFENSE THAT DAY, THE
#>KILLER
#>>WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED!!!! But he knew he was in no
#>danger.....calmly
#>>walking about, executing innocent people.
#>>
#>> Regards, and my deepest sympathies.
#>>
#>> Edward
#>>
#>
#>
#>Edward,
#> I'm under the impression that it was a high-capacity semi-auto.
#>Newsday, the local newspaper here in Long Island, New York, reported a
#>wire-release story that first said the killer "unpacked automatic
#>rifles from his tennis bag and started shooting." Then, an
#>accompanying editorial commentary had the author say, "the Tasmanian
#>gunman used an AR-15 and a Chinese-made assault rifle in his attack."
#> I wrote to Newsday post-haste earlier this afternoon by email, and
#>recieved a telephone call saying that my letter was being considered to
#>run in the next week or so. (A good indication that it will be
#>printed: they said that just before they ran my last two letter.) In
#>my letter, I assailed anti-gunners for outright lying about the
#>distinction between REAL assault weapons, and the politically-correct
#>definition of "assault-weapons." I said that if those were truly the
#>rifles used, they were NOT "automatic rifles." AR-15s are
#>semi-automatic. So are SKS rifles. And eyewitness reports stated that
#>the gunman fired slowly, deliberately choosing his next victims. Not
#>firing blindly and wildly on full-auto.
#> I went on to mention in my letter how when Glock introduced its
#>polymer-framed pistols, the anti-gunners went and disregarded any
#>factual information at all that was widely available about the guns,
#>and reported that they were the "weapon of choice of terrorists" and
#>could pass through airport security metal detectors undetected. All of
#>that was bullshit, and they HAD to have known it, since if one is at
#>all familiar with a Glock, one knows it is MOSTLY metal, as far as its
#>percentage of mass. But why let facts stand in your way when LIES can
#>achieve your agenda just as well and you don't have to bother with that
#>tedious research, or ethics, either? That's the ethos of the anti-gun
#>fright-mongers, anyway.
#> Well, I'll continue to do my best to keep the lies and the liars at
#>bay. Because we all know that when the lies are stripped away and the
#>truth is evident, the truth belongs to US.
#>
#>
#> Azure
#Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
#semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
#all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
#than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
#bullets, there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
#shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
#That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
#people, should be outlawed to the public.
Given the rate of fire he was using, any semi-competent rifleman could have
done the same with an 1898 Mauser bolt-action rifle. As for shotguns, they
are DEADLIER than most handguns and many rifles. They can also be topped
off easier than a magazine fed weapon (at least most of the pump and semi-auto
ones). As for the gunman, from what has been reported, he was banned by law
from possessing firearms, due to mental illness, yet the police did not act
on reported threats and firearm's discharges. I place more blame on the police
and government, for disarming the law-abiding citizenry (by forbidding CCW) and
for not apprehending the individual after being informed of his stated violent
intentions and his illegal possession of weaponry.
James
Steve D. Fischer
In Israel this makes a certain amount of sense. Terrorism there
is an everyday occurrence. In Australia/Tasmania it's not the same.
While the horror of 35 deaths at one go is something to grieve over,
it's a very rare occurrence. People should not jump to quick conclusions
about banning guns when the correct response is to find a better way
to recognize when someone is on the verge of going bonkers. This guy
gave out PLENTY of signs, if the news reports are any indication. He
should have been jailed for threatening other people long ago, and his
weapons should have been confiscated until he received treatment for
whatever was bothering him.
David D Wigand
: So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less of a threat to
: non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much damage as they wanted
: to no matter how stringent the gun laws are? Semi-automatic guns are used
: for the sole purpose of killing people, so are hand-guns or concealed
: weapons. Semis have a large capacity to hold bullets without reloading,
: and the tragedy in Tasmania would have been nowhere as bad had the gunman
: been armed only with shot-guns.WHat is the point of everyone arming
: themselves with hand-guns? Would the tragedy in Tasmania have been
: averted if someone had a hand-gun with them... well that's debateable.
: But I have been to Port Arthur and I can tell you that the people that go
: there are just family day-trippers and wouldn't want to have anything to
: do with guns.
: People may kill people, but with a gun at least you can predict when it
: is going kill people. You cannot tell if someone is at breaking-point,
: and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out.
: Guns kill people and that's all there is to it.
: Olly
So, Olly, if there had been a plainclothes cop sitting next to him, it
would have went down the way it did? I carry a gun everywhere I go, and
it makes the space surrounding me MUCH safer. A gun in the hand of a
responsible person does not kill, unless it is necessary. Have you ever
seen a gun, sitting someplace by itself, fire and kill somebody without a
human attached? A gun is a tool, much like a baseball bat, a pickaxe, or
a knife. As to the shotgun bit, shotguns are a MUCH better up close
people killer than any semi auto. Think about it. OOO buckshot fires 8
projectiles similar at close range to a 9mm bullet with EACH trigger
pull. Load it with Flechettes, and it is even nastier. You are
obviously quite ignorant to the realities of weapons characteristics and
performance. You should find out what you are talking about.
ken whitehead
>Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
>semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>than using a normal rifle,
No it's not. And it is a normal rifle.
>as the gun is stocked with a large number of bullets, there is no need
for reloading.
Reloading wasn't an issue. The gunman was able to walk calmly from table to table
shooting people huddling there in fear. He could have used a single shot shotgun,
reloading after every shot and still been able to do it. Nobody offered any
resistance at all.
>If he was only armed with some
>shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
When you're the only one with a gun, and everybody is huddling under the tables
like sheep hoping the murderer picks somebody else next instead of them, you
can reload all you want. If nobody's in a position to offer resistance, the
killing can be a real leisurely thing, as you guys found out.
>That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
>people,
There is no such thing.
>should be outlawed to the public.
You ozzies do anything you like, but don't be surprised when you find out that
laws don't protect you against people who disregard the law.
Bruce Erickson
In article b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> () writes:
>
>Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
>semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>bullets, there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
>
>
Do you have any idea how quickly a 2 shot shotgun can be reloaded?
Revolvers can be reloaded in very few seconds.
Bought my semi-auto specifically for shooting at paper and steel targets.
Do I get to keep it?
Jim Wray
On Wednesday, May 01, 1996, OFWAT1 wrote...
> poa...@ix.netcom.com(Jeffrey Budzynski ) wrote:
> >In <4m4tq7$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) writes:
> >>
BIGSNIP
> Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
> semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
> all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
> than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
> bullets, there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
> shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
> That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
> people, should be outlawed to the public.
How is this...once the magazine runs dry an interlock prevents further
insertion of new rounds. Maybe that same interlock mechanism could have
been used to prevent the inserrtion of feet into mouths?
Oh, it wouldn't have work there either...sorry.
Steve Hix
In article b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> writes:
:
:So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less of a threat to
:non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much damage as they wanted
:to no matter how stringent the gun laws are? Semi-automatic guns are used
:for the sole purpose of killing people,
Your ignorance is showing. They are more often used for hunting or
target shooting.
:so are hand-guns
More ignorant twaddle. Explain how a Hammerli 280 is useful for much
other than target shooting.
:or concealed weapons.
Which is an issue of intent, not design. It could just as easily be concealed
solely for potential defensive use...or do you claim that plainclothes officers
intend to use them only for killing.
:Semis have a large capacity to hold bullets without reloading,
Right. Explains the 5-round magazines required for hunting use.
Also explains the semiauto firearms loaded with stripper clips (or singly)
into a fixed magazine.
Do your homework next time.
:and the tragedy in Tasmania would have been nowhere as bad had the
:gunman been armed only with shot-guns.
More ignorant twaddle. Shotguns tend to be *more* lethal a close range
than medium-caliber rifles *or* handguns, and they can be reloaded, easily,
more than fast enough to serve the needs of the Tasmaniac.
:WHat is the point of everyone arming themselves with hand-guns?
Why everybody? People who don't want to shouldn't be coerced into doing
so.
:Would the tragedy in Tasmania have been
:averted if someone had a hand-gun with them... well that's debateable.
High probability that such a person could have stopped the attack
early on. There was certainly enough time.
:But I have been to Port Arthur and I can tell you that the people that go
:there are just family day-trippers and wouldn't want to have anything to
:do with guns.
Another indication of your complete ignorance of fact.
:People may kill people, but with a gun at least you can predict when it
:is going kill people.
When someone *chooses* to do so. Intent is key.
:You cannot tell if someone is at breaking-point,
So the Tasmaniac's illegal possession (known by cops), shooting outside
his home, and threatening people were not warning signs?
Pull the other one.
:and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out.
Most people give lots of warnings before they flip out. This guy certainly
did.
:Guns kill people and that's all there is to it.
Even over here, only a tiny fraction are ever involved in any sort of
criminal use.
:Olly
Olly, try discussing the matter after you've done some homework.
You're not scoring to well so far.
Steve Hix
:all over the place.
Most Uzi's are semiauto. He would have had fewer victims if he had
been "spraying bullets all over the place", though.
:A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous than using a normal rifle,
This is explained by the fact that medium-caliber rifles are less lethal
than large-caliber ones.
I don't think so.
:as the gun is stocked with a large number of bullets, there is no need for
:reloading.
The Tasmaniac took time...he could have done as much damage with a
typical bolt-action, or even singleshot rifle. More with a shotgun.
:If he was only armed with some shotguns he probably only would have
:killed about 10 people at the most.
What are you talking about? Muzzleloading shotguns?
Historically, shotguns have been *more* lethal than rifles or handguns.
:That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
:people, should be outlawed to the public.
Since they are *vastly* more likely to be used for hunting or target
practice...your argument weakens.
Eric Jimerson
In <4mb1b0$9...@rap.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM> b...@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM<OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> () writes:
>>
>Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
>semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number
>of bullets,
Large number? Any number is a large number if you are the only
one with a gun.
there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
>>shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the
most.
How do you get that number?
Lets do some math...
Shotgun w/ 5 shot capacity... Shell with 9 OO buck pellets...
Thats 45 lethal projectiles- fireable in under 3 seconds. Lower the
shot size to #4, and you get a LOT more....than your typical "Assault
Weapon" can fire in the same amount of time...
>>That is why semi-automatic guns, used specifically only for killing
>>people, should be outlawed to the public.
Specifically? Oh, I see- if you have one and you dont shoot it
to kill people, you arent using it correctly? What a wonderful
argument- if you dont use it correctly, you should have it taken away,
and if you do use it correctly, you are a murderer...
What about my semi-auto gun for hunting? What about the one for
home defense? What about the one for Highpower Competition? What about
the Wife's gun for all three?
Jagdpanther
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4m9a80$5...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Jeffrey Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4m98md$b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>In <4m4tq7$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) writes:
>
>>Lies? What bullshit. The weapon used by the Tasmanian gunman was a
>>semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
>>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
>
>Duh, do you honestly think that "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large
>number of bullets"?
Strawman. Nobody said "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large number
of bullets". The magazine capacities of semi-automatic rifles just tend
to be large. SKS has 10 round magazine, the AR has probably 20. I have
read that the assault rifle increased the fire power of an infantry
soldier 5 fold compared to a bolt-action rifle -- and that is not
because assault rifles have automatic fire capability. (In most cases
automatic fire only wastes bullets).
>It never ceases to amaze me how proud you
>gun-grabbers are about your own ignorance.
>
>
>>If he was only armed with some
>>shotguns he probably only would have killed about 10 people at the most.
>
>Absolute horseshit. No gun takes that long to load, and the amount of time
>he spent between shots, he could have loaded one round at a time. Never
>mind the fact that "semiautomatic" has absolutely nothing to do with he
>number of rounds a gun can hold anyway.
>
Why do you think the intermediate rifle cartridges were developed? A
major reason was to allow carrying of more bullets.
Remember the guy was not someone who had clear planned motive to kill
particular persons. He was killing people for fun. I doubt it would have
been so much fun if he had to load bullets one at a time. With a gun
that had smaller magazine capacity he might have started his killing
with smaller amount of bullets.
Are you claiming that there is no correlation between the type of the
rifle (bolt-action, semi auto, selective fire) and the magazine
capacity?
>If he had used a shotgun instead of a medium-power rifle, no one would have
>had a chance of survival.
>
But he would probably have shot lesser amount of people. Also people can
survive even after being hit by shotgun. If I was 200 meters away from a
mad man I sure hope he'd have a shotgun than a rifle.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4m99dg$b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less of a threat to
>society? Are you saying that because someone massacred 35 people with a
>non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much damage as they wanted
>to no matter how stringent the gun laws are? Semi-automatic guns are used
>for the sole purpose of killing people,
This is not true. Semi-automatic guns are used also in hunting.
Osmo
Jeff Bishop
In article <4mbcr7$c...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>In article <4m9a80$5...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Jeffrey Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>>>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
>>>bullets, there is no need for reloading.
>>
>>Duh, do you honestly think that "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large
>>number of bullets"?
>
>Strawman. Nobody said "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large number
>of bullets".
Well, actually, that is *exactly* what he said, but oh well.
>Why do you think the intermediate rifle cartridges were developed? A
>major reason was to allow carrying of more bullets.
Another, which the gunophobes hate to be reminded about, is that from a
military standpoint, it is more effective to injure enemy soldiers than
to actually kill them.
>Remember the guy was not someone who had clear planned motive to kill
>particular persons. He was killing people for fun. I doubt it would have
>been so much fun if he had to load bullets one at a time. With a gun
>that had smaller magazine capacity he might have started his killing
>with smaller amount of bullets.
...and with more lethal ones, which was my point. I'd much rather be
shot with a .223 "assault" rifle than a 30'06 or, worst of all, a shotgun.
As for the case we discussing (the Tasmaniac) the number of reloads is
irrelevant given the rather long delay between shots.
>Are you claiming that there is no correlation between the type of the
>rifle (bolt-action, semi auto, selective fire) and the magazine
>capacity?
I'm claiming that separate issues should be discussed separately. Got
something against large magazines? Then ban *all* guns which accept
detachable magazines. Whether they are bolt action or semiautos is
irrelevant.
Frank Silbermann
>poa...@ix.netcom.com(Jeffrey Budzynski ) wrote:
>> I'm under the impression that it was a high-capacity semi-auto.
>> Newsday, the local newspaper here in Long Island, New York,
>> reported a wire-release story that first said the killer
>> "unpacked automatic rifles from his tennis bag and started shooting."
So much for the furor over "concealable" guns.
Able to choose the time and place of his attack,
a criminal can conceal anything.
If only he had used handguns instead of rifles,
he'd have had more difficulty hitting his target.
With a handgun, his hits would have destroyed less body tissue.
Many more of his victims would have survived.
OFWAT1 : <4m99dg$b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>
> So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less
> of a threat to society?
The point is that a gun ban would be futile.
He could have done as much damage with an ordinary bolt-action
hunting rifle and a stash of loaded magazines.
> Are you saying that because someone massacred 35 people
> with a non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much
> damage as they wanted to no matter how stringent the gun laws are?
The Oklahoma bombing already proved that.
> Semi-automatic guns are used for the sole purpose of
> killing people, so are hand-guns or concealed weapons.
The psychco gunman was a person. Killing him would have saved
dozens of innocent lives.
That's why it's so important always to have responsible citizens
everywhere carrying the mean to kill people.
> Semis have a large capacity to hold bullets without reloading,
So can most bolt-action rifles, and many lever-action rifles.
So can _any_ clip-fed gun.
And with a Winchester 1894 saddle gun, he could top off
the underbarrel feed-tube with individual cartridges
at his convenience, through the side loading gate.
> and the tragedy in Tasmania would have been nowhere
> as bad had the gunman been armed only with shot-guns.
Depends on the range. At close range a shotgun is deadlier.
A rifle makes a single hole; at close range, a shotgun punches
dozens of holes.
> What is the point of everyone arming themselves with hand-guns?
Anyone within 25 yards with a handgun might have stopped the slaughter.
A handgun is easier to carry than a rifle, and it's better than nothing.
> Would the tragedy in Tasmania have been averted if someone had
> a hand-gun with them... well that's debateable.
It might have helped; at worst, the return fire would have distracted
the psycho and reduced his ability to hold steady on target.
> But I have been to Port Arthur and I can tell you that the people
> that go there are just family day-trippers and wouldn't want
> to have anything to do with guns.
Carrying guns is indeed a bother. Especially rifles and shotguns.
That's why small, convenient handguns are so valuable.
Because the risk of finding oneself under attack by a murderous
psycho gunman is small, anyone who wishes to take that risk unarmed
should be free to do so.
> People may kill people, but with a gun at least you can predict
> when it is going kill people.
How?
> You cannot tell if someone is at breaking-point,
> and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out.
That's why I always carry a gun -- just in case.
I don't mind carrying it, and who knows when I might find myself
in the company of someone who is at the breaking point?
> Guns kill people and that's all there is to it.
Exactly.
Citizens need guns in case they ever need to kill someone
who is flipping out in a violent way.
------------------------------------------
Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
Dexter Guptill
Hmmm. My piece must be broken. I carry a high-capacity 9mm semiautomatic,
concealed. It hasn't killed a damn thing except paper targets. Doesn't
jump out of the holster and go berserk on its own, either. Now someone
threatening me or mine with death or grievous bodily harm (like your
nutcase, there, maybe...) is likely to be a tad unhappy to find out that I
carry, but the greater likelyhood is that I'll wear the thing out on
paper.
*** Dexter C. Guptill, Computer Services, American Fed of Teachers
*** Member, 49th VA Vol Inf CSA (N-SSA) & Hampden's Regiment of Foote (ECW)
*** AKA Ld. Erich von Kleinfeld, Stierbach, Atlantia (SCA)
DISCLAIMER: This is me, not AFT. They'd freak over some of my opinions...:-)
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mbuoq$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4mbcr7$c...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>In article <4m9a80$5...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>>Jeffrey Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more dangerous
>>>>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
>>>>bullets, there is no need for reloading.
>>>
>>>Duh, do you honestly think that "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large
>>>number of bullets"?
>>
>>Strawman. Nobody said "semiautomatic" means "stocked with a large number
>>of bullets".
>
>Well, actually, that is *exactly* what he said, but oh well.
I understood it to mean that a typical semi-automatic rifle stocks large
amounts of bullets.
>
>>Why do you think the intermediate rifle cartridges were developed? A
>>major reason was to allow carrying of more bullets.
>
>Another, which the gunophobes hate to be reminded about, is that from a
>military standpoint, it is more effective to injure enemy soldiers than
>to actually kill them.
>
It depends, have there been studies made about the issue? Killing has a
more demoralizing affect. When you are in a trench you keep your head
down because the enemy sniper would kill you. If you would only be
wounded, you would probably be more willing to stick your head up.
If you are claiming that intermediate rifle cartridges were designed to
wound, the prove it. At least here they were adopted because the effects
were on normal fighting ranges almost the same as with full power
cartridges and because they were lighter and the weapon was easier to
control on automatic fire. (A major reason was also that 7.62x54R has
problems of feeding in automatic fire)
>>Remember the guy was not someone who had clear planned motive to kill
>>particular persons. He was killing people for fun. I doubt it would have
>>been so much fun if he had to load bullets one at a time. With a gun
>>that had smaller magazine capacity he might have started his killing
>>with smaller amount of bullets.
>
>...and with more lethal ones, which was my point. I'd much rather be
>shot with a .223 "assault" rifle than a 30'06 or, worst of all, a shotgun.
>As for the case we discussing (the Tasmaniac) the number of reloads is
>irrelevant given the rather long delay between shots.
>
Is it irrelevant? Do you know what went on the head of the murderer.
Please do not assume he was performing some rational task.
>>Are you claiming that there is no correlation between the type of the
>>rifle (bolt-action, semi auto, selective fire) and the magazine
>>capacity?
>
>I'm claiming that separate issues should be discussed separately. Got
>something against large magazines?
Yes. I think three bullets is enough for most purposes.
>Then ban *all* guns which accept
>detachable magazines. Whether they are bolt action or semiautos is
>irrelevant.
>
I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
The action is not irrelevant, a semi-auto with a large magazine is more
dangerous than a bolt action with a same magazine (note that what
happened in Tasmania is not the only thing that can happen). Second
large magazines are not that common in bolt-action rifles.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mbhpf$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Eric Jimerson <jgp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4mb1b0$9...@rap.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM> b...@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM
>(Bruce Erickson) writes:
>>
>>In article b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, OFWAT1
><OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> () writes:
>
> there is no need for reloading. If he was only armed with some
>most.
>
> Lets do some math...
> Shotgun w/ 5 shot capacity... Shell with 9 OO buck pellets...
> Thats 45 lethal projectiles- fireable in under 3 seconds. Lower the
>shot size to #4, and you get a LOT more....than your typical "Assault
>Weapon" can fire in the same amount of time...
>
Since when have the pellets in a shotgun been individually targetable?
Osmo
Jeff Bishop
In article <4mf69i$7...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>In article <4mbuoq$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>Another, which the gunophobes hate to be reminded about, is that from a
>>military standpoint, it is more effective to injure enemy soldiers than
>>to actually kill them.
>It depends, have there been studies made about the issue? Killing has a
>more demoralizing affect. When you are in a trench you keep your head
>down because the enemy sniper would kill you. If you would only be
>wounded, you would probably be more willing to stick your head up.
Of course there is the potential to be killed. My point is that it is
a bigger drain on enemy resources to injure soldiers. If you kill them on
the spot, no need to drag them off to a medical ward or attempt to revive
them.
>If you are claiming that intermediate rifle cartridges were designed to
>wound, the prove it.
I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the reason for it. It is an
effect, and one which proved militarily useful.
>I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
>you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
>have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
You are a lunatic. If self-defense is not "valid," then what the hell is?
What is more "valid" than a person's right not to be killed by someone
else? It is the single most valid reason there is for anyone to own
a weapon, with or without your permission.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4macsc$o...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>Given the rate of fire he was using, any semi-competent rifleman could have
>done the same with an 1898 Mauser bolt-action rifle. As for shotguns, they
>are DEADLIER than most handguns and many rifles. They can also be topped
>off easier than a magazine fed weapon (at least most of the pump and semi-auto
>ones).
How many bullets did he fire? With a Mauser he would have needed to
reload about 10 times.
Who said people should freely get pump or semi-auto shotguns?
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mb1b0$9...@rap.sandiegoca.attgis.com>,
Bruce Erickson <b...@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
>In article b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> () writes:
>>
>>semi-automatic rifle, and he wasn't armed with an uzi spraying bullets
>>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large number of
>>people, should be outlawed to the public.
>>
>>
>
>
>
The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
anyway handguns should be strictly controlled.
Osmo
Donald R. McGregor
In article <4mf6i1$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>How many bullets did he fire? With a Mauser he would have needed to
>reload about 10 times.
Shrug. Stripper clip fed rifles can be reloaded very quickly.
In fact, the SKS I've heard he was carrying operates on exactly
this principle, and usually has a capacity of ten rounds.
--
Don McGregor | The wages of sin is death--but after taxes it's
mcg...@crl.com | only a tired feeling at the end of the day.
Bruce Erickson
In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>Date: 4 May 1996 12:08:22 +0300
>From: ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Aust. Gun Laws and Tasmanian Massacre
The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
restrictions, too.
Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
BE, from home.
A Traveler of the Orion Spiral Arm
OFWAT1 (OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au>) wrote:
:So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less of a threat to
:society?
Well, why do _you_ keep harping on semi-autos, as though they were
particularly dangerous?
:Are you saying that because someone massacred 35 people with a
:non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much damage as they wanted
:to no matter how stringent the gun laws are?
He could have set fire to a hospital instead. (SARCASM ALERT) Would
that have been more to your liking, since it doesn't involve an evil
semiauto weapon? (SARCASM ALERT OFF)
:Semi-automatic guns are used
:for the sole purpose of killing people, so are hand-guns or concealed
:weapons.
That's funny...I distinctly recall having a semiauto handgun (double
evil, huh?) in my hands last summer, and I didn't shoot anything but
paper with it.
:Semis have a large capacity to hold bullets without reloading,
:and the tragedy in Tasmania would have been nowhere as bad had the gunman
:been armed only with shot-guns.
You're certifiably nuts. Have you ever SEEN the pattern left by a
shotgun loaded with 12 guage 00 buck?! Besides, there are pump-action
shotguns which hold as many as 9 shells, and you can fire them almost
as fast as a semiauto rifle.
:WHat is the point of everyone arming
:themselves with hand-guns? Would the tragedy in Tasmania have been
:averted if someone had a hand-gun with them... well that's debateable.
It is debatable - the first honest thing you've said. But what
_isn't_ debatable is that letting the gunman keep shooting as long as
he wanted didn't help ANYONE.
:But I have been to Port Arthur and I can tell you that the people that go
:there are just family day-trippers and wouldn't want to have anything to
:do with guns.
So "family day-trippers" are somehow a special class of people,
totally separate from us weirdo gun-nuts? I don't think so...gun
owners come from all walks of life. Some of us even like to take day
trips.
:People may kill people, but with a gun at least you can predict when it
:is going kill people. You cannot tell if someone is at breaking-point,
:and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out.
By this argument, you shouldn't let the police have guns either. Nor
should _anyone_ have a knife - you just don't know when they'll flip
out! (But, as it so happens, you are almost completely wrong. It is
extremely rare for someone to just "flip out" and kill someone else.
There are almost invariably warning signs. When it appears that
someone did just "flip out"...it's usually 'cause other people ignored
the warnings.)
:Guns kill people and that's all there is to it.
Translated into English, this means "I'm sticking my fingers in my
ears and not listening to anything you say anymore!"
JD
--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
peace. We seek not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
Tom Davies
ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) wrote:
>Remember about a month ago that terrorist in Israel who drove into a bus
>stop with his car? Well, guess what! HE WAS SHOT BY
>BYSTANDERS...CITIZENS!! and thus he could kill no more. Think about it.
The reports I read said that he was an American tourist, who simply
lost control of his car.
Tom Davies
Frank Silbermann
><4m9ior$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CAVIM <ca...@aol.com> :
>>Remember about a month ago that terrorist in Israel who drove into a bus
>>stop with his car? Well, guess what! HE WAS SHOT BY
>>BYSTANDERS...CITIZENS!! and thus he could kill no more. Think about it.
>>
>
Steve D. Fischer: <4maffj$f...@crl12.crl.com>,
> In Israel this makes a certain amount of sense.
> Terrorism there is an everyday occurrence.
> In Australia/Tasmania it's not the same.
> While the horror of 35 deaths at one go is
> something to grieve over, it's a very rare occurrence.
Exactly. If violence is too rare to justify carrying a gun,
then it's too rare to justify _banning_ guns.
> when the correct response is to find a better way
> to recognize when someone is on the verge of going bonkers.
> This guy gave out PLENTY of signs, if the news reports
> are any indication.
That would destroy privacy. If people are unwilling to defend
themselves, however, I guess they'll have to put up with
a loss of privacy to facilitate governmental protection.
> He should have been jailed long ago for threatening
> other people, and his weapons should have been confiscated
> until he received treatment for whatever was bothering him.
Of course, this power could be abused to silence political dissenters.
But when people are unwilling to defend themselves, I guess
they'll have to put up with infringements of their _other_ rights,
if they want police sufficiently empowered to be able to protect them.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mfssq$r...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4mf69i$7...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>In article <4mbuoq$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Another, which the gunophobes hate to be reminded about, is that from a
>>>military standpoint, it is more effective to injure enemy soldiers than
>>>to actually kill them.
>
>>It depends, have there been studies made about the issue? Killing has a
>>more demoralizing affect. When you are in a trench you keep your head
>>down because the enemy sniper would kill you. If you would only be
>>wounded, you would probably be more willing to stick your head up.
>
>Of course there is the potential to be killed. My point is that it is
>a bigger drain on enemy resources to injure soldiers. If you kill them on
>the spot, no need to drag them off to a medical ward or attempt to revive
>them.
Why do you assume that the enemy takes care of their wounded?
>
>>If you are claiming that intermediate rifle cartridges were designed to
>>wound, the prove it.
>
>I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the reason for it. It is an
>effect, and one which proved militarily useful.
Full power cartridge is not that much more effective in killing. The main
reason why bullets used by military wound more often than kill is that
they are FMJ. Any nutcase using these guns is naturally not bind by the
Hague convention.
>
>>I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
>>you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
>>have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
>
>You are a lunatic. If self-defense is not "valid," then what the hell is?
Lunatic? Then the legislators here are also lunatic? Please do do assume
that someone is insane just because he has different opinions.
Valid reasons for having a gun? Well how about hunting, shooting as a
hobby or in competition.
>What is more "valid" than a person's right not to be killed by someone
>else? It is the single most valid reason there is for anyone to own
>a weapon, with or without your permission.
>
Here that is not recognized as a reason to have gun unless you have a
profession that warrants it. For example people who work at gun stores
are (at least in some cases) armed. So is naturally the police.
We just do nor accept the idea that shooting other people is a valid
reason to have a gun. People here do not need guns for self-defense,
partially because they are so much controlled.
Osmo
Jeffrey Bishop
In article <4mi99c$1...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>>I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
>>>you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
>>>have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
>>
>>You are a lunatic. If self-defense is not "valid," then what the hell is?
>
>Lunatic? Then the legislators here are also lunatic? Please do do assume
>that someone is insane just because he has different opinions.
Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not. Once your
wacked-out definition of "valid" becomes a law, the "just my opinion"
excuse is no longer valid because you are forcing it on everyone else.
>Valid reasons for having a gun? Well how about hunting, shooting as a
>hobby or in competition.
Both are fine by me, but I fail to see how anyone in their right mind could
consider either to be more important that protection human life. Very odd
set of values there.
>We just do nor accept the idea that shooting other people is a valid
>reason to have a gun. People here do not need guns for self-defense,
>partially because they are so much controlled.
Nice, so either women with deranged ex-boyfriends who threaten them either
don't need to live (the logical conclusion of your claim) or are really,
really tough. Or do you wish to claim that such things never happen there?
Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
guns, or anything else, for self-defense. If there is ONE valid reason
for doing anything, it is to stay alive.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Bishop finger jbi...@babel.ling.nwu.edu or
Northwestern University jbi...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
email to: jbi...@nwu.edu for PGP public key
Steve D. Fischer
In article <4mgbjl$g...@crl.crl.com>,
Donald R. McGregor <mcg...@crl.com> wrote:
>In article <4mf6i1$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>>How many bullets did he fire? With a Mauser he would have needed to
>>reload about 10 times.
>
>Shrug. Stripper clip fed rifles can be reloaded very quickly.
>In fact, the SKS I've heard he was carrying operates on exactly
>this principle, and usually has a capacity of ten rounds.
>
said that he was not firing rapidly. He appeared to be selecting his targets,
aiming, firing then moving on to the next target - probably why the body count
was so high. He took time to aim, unlike the Long Island Railroad shooter
who shot over 21 people but killed only 6 (with Black Talon ammo, no less!).
If you want to kill a lot of people, "spray and pray" isn't the best method.
Jeff Bishop
In article <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>>
>
>Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
>collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
Please provide evidence for this. Owning guns for self-defense does
not make a society more dangerous, any more than seatbelts cause
accidents.
Bruce Erickson
In article <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>Date: 6 May 1996 01:26:48 +0300
>From: ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Aust. Gun Laws and Tasmanian Massacre
>
>In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
>Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>
>>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>...
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
>>>anyway handguns should be strictly controlled.
>>>
>>>Osmo
>>
>>
>>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
>>nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
>>volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
>>restrictions, too.
>>
>
>Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
>just by more rifles at will.
This making the assumption the nut is obeying the law. It seems to me
a person who is so unbalanced that he intends to kill people isn't going
to be bothered by inconveniences such as justifications for buying yet
another gun. Colin Furgeson and Luigi Ferri weren't bothered by the fact
carrying loaded guns is illegal. The people they killed, dutifully, kept
themselves unarmed and suffered for it.
Oh well, it is working for you all, so far. I hope your luck continues.
>
>>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>>
>
>Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
>collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
Sounds like a good reason for allowing gun control to collapse.
>
>>
>>BE, from home.
>>
>>
>
>
>Osmo
>
A Traveler of the Orion Spiral Arm
Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)) wrote:
:In article <4mbuoq$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
:>In article <4mbcr7$c...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
:>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
:>>Remember the guy was not someone who had clear planned motive to kill
:>>particular persons. He was killing people for fun. I doubt it would have
:>>been so much fun if he had to load bullets one at a time. With a gun
:>>that had smaller magazine capacity he might have started his killing
:>>with smaller amount of bullets.
:>
:>...and with more lethal ones, which was my point. I'd much rather be
:>shot with a .223 "assault" rifle than a 30'06 or, worst of all, a shotgun.
:>As for the case we discussing (the Tasmaniac) the number of reloads is
:>irrelevant given the rather long delay between shots.
:>
:Is it irrelevant? Do you know what went on the head of the murderer.
:Please do not assume he was performing some rational task.
Talk about making a 180! First you flatly state that he was killing
people "for fun." Then you say "Do you know what went on in his
head?" Face it: no one knows just why he did what he did, not even
you.
:Yes. I think three bullets is enough for most purposes.
Evidently most police forces of the world disagree with you, as they
use guns with at least six rounds. And if you think three rounds is
enough for an angry grizzly, or a pack of wild dogs...well, I hope you
never miss...
:>Then ban *all* guns which accept
:>detachable magazines. Whether they are bolt action or semiautos is
:>irrelevant.
:>
:I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
:you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
:have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
Well, why the hell not? If self-defense isn't a valid reason, what
is? Putting meat on the table? Poking holes in paper? Defending
large amounts of money? Self-defense sure looks like the strongest
reason to me.
(BTW, if you have to get someone's permission to do something, it's
not a right, it's a privilege.)
:The action is not irrelevant, a semi-auto with a large magazine is more
:dangerous than a bolt action with a same magazine
Would you mind explaining why semiautos are inherently so much more
dangerous than any other kind of gun? Please note that guys like the
Tasmanian sniper often do use bolt-action rifles, and the Tasmanian
sniper could have used one, and it wouldn't have made any difference
in the body count.
:(note that what
:happened in Tasmania is not the only thing that can happen).
Whatever that means.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
>
>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
...
>>>
>>
>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
>>anyway handguns should be strictly controlled.
>>
>>Osmo
>
>
>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
>nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
>volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
>restrictions, too.
>
Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
just by more rifles at will.
>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>
Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
>
>BE, from home.
>
>
Osmo
Jeff Bishop
In article <4mk31m$e...@news-e2c.gnn.com>,
Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
>>just by more rifles at will.
>
>a person who is so unbalanced that he intends to kill people isn't going
>to be bothered by inconveniences such as justifications for buying yet
>another gun.
<sarcasm>
Well, gee, don't you think someone who wants to murder someone would
feel like he's already breaking enough laws? Surely he wouldn't want
to get caught murdering someone with an unlicensed gun!
</sarcasm>
>Oh well, it is working for you all, so far. I hope your luck continues.
It won't. Eventually, the Finnish equivalent of Colin Ferguson and the
Tazmaniac will strike Finland, too. And if the knee-jerk reactions in
Australia and the UK are any indication, no one will even question the
notion that their already-stringent gun laws need to be made even more
draconian.
Wolf
In <4mf6i1$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
#In article <4macsc$o...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
#>
#>Given the rate of fire he was using, any semi-competent rifleman could have
#>done the same with an 1898 Mauser bolt-action rifle. As for shotguns, they
#>are DEADLIER than most handguns and many rifles. They can also be topped
#>off easier than a magazine fed weapon (at least most of the pump and semi-auto
#>ones).
#How many bullets did he fire? With a Mauser he would have needed to
#reload about 10 times.
It isn't how many shots he fired, it's the rate of his shots. My FR-8,
which is a chopped and rechambered Mauser 98, holds five rounds, and is more
than accurate at 200m (could use better sights, and a better trigger, but hey).
Doesn't take long to reload, either, especially witha stripper clip.
#Who said people should freely get pump or semi-auto shotguns?
Well, from the article you snipped, the argument was to ban everything except
shotguns. No differentiation was made between pump and single shot shotguns.
And a practiced shooter can reload a single shot shotgun pretty quick, too...
And each shot is equivalent to an entire cylinderful from a revolver, or half
a magazine from a 9mm( or a full magazine from the SIG 225 I used to carry).
James
#Osmo
Wolf
In <4mi1om$g...@grumpy.fl.net.au> t...@fl.net.au (Tom Davies) writes:
#ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) wrote:
#>Remember about a month ago that terrorist in Israel who drove into a bus
#>stop with his car? Well, guess what! HE WAS SHOT BY
#>BYSTANDERS...CITIZENS!! and thus he could kill no more. Think about it.
#The reports I read said that he was an American tourist, who simply
#lost control of his car.
Some initial reports claimed that, until they had a forensics team investigate
the scene, and interviewed some friends and such. Seems the individual was
driving full speed, with no attempt to stop, and had told his friends to watch
for him on the news that night...
James
#Tom Davies
Wolf
In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
#In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
#Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
#>
#>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
#...
#>>>
#>>
#>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
#>>anyway handguns should be strictly controlled.
#>>
#>>Osmo
#>
#>
#>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
#>nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
#>volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
#>restrictions, too.
#>
#Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
#just by more rifles at will.
Sure worked for the nut in Tasmania, didn't it? He was ineligible to
own firearms, due to diagnosed mental illness, yet the police did nothing
about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally firing the
guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
#>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
#>
#Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
#collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
And what is the point of gun control?
#>
#>BE, from home.
#>
#>
#Osmo
James
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mik0f$l...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Jeffrey Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4mi99c$1...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>>>I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
>>>>you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
>>>>have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
>>>
>>
>>Lunatic? Then the legislators here are also lunatic? Please do do assume
>>that someone is insane just because he has different opinions.
>
>Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not.
How so? We are a democratic country. Our constitution says: "Sovereign
power in Finland shall belong to the people, represented by Parliament
convened in session." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/law/fi00001_.html)
We have democratically decided that our safety is better protected it
guns are not freely available. The fact that some Americans may not like
that does not really bother me.
>Once your
>wacked-out definition of "valid" becomes a law, the "just my opinion"
>excuse is no longer valid because you are forcing it on everyone else.
It has been a law here for a long time. Our current gun law is from 1933
(though it has been amended since). It is not my wacked-out definition.
>
>>Valid reasons for having a gun? Well how about hunting, shooting as a
>>hobby or in competition.
>
>Both are fine by me, but I fail to see how anyone in their right mind could
>consider either to be more important that protection human life. Very odd
>set of values there.
Because those guns that are used for "protection of human life" are
actually used against human life. The more guns there are in the society
the violent the society (which includes criminals) becomes. I do not
think we need arms race against criminals. Nobody benefits from that,
>
>>We just do nor accept the idea that shooting other people is a valid
>>reason to have a gun. People here do not need guns for self-defense,
>>partially because they are so much controlled.
>
>Nice, so either women with deranged ex-boyfriends who threaten them either
>don't need to live (the logical conclusion of your claim) or are really,
>really tough. Or do you wish to claim that such things never happen
>there?
Of course there are criminals here, but average person has no need to
fear for his life because of them.
We have to view issues as a whole. While having guns might in some cases
save someone, the net effect of them is negative.
>Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
>guns, or anything else, for self-defense.
NO. We have decided democratically that free access to guns is a bad
thing.
>If there is ONE valid reason
>for doing anything, it is to stay alive.
>
But we do not need guns to stay alive.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4miuv6$d...@news.bu.edu>,
A Traveler of the Orion Spiral Arm <jdwe...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)) wrote:
>
>:>In article <4mbcr7$c...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>:>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>:>>Remember the guy was not someone who had clear planned motive to kill
>:>>particular persons. He was killing people for fun. I doubt it would have
>:>>been so much fun if he had to load bullets one at a time. With a gun
>:>>that had smaller magazine capacity he might have started his killing
>:>>with smaller amount of bullets.
>:>
>:>...and with more lethal ones, which was my point. I'd much rather be
>:>shot with a .223 "assault" rifle than a 30'06 or, worst of all, a shotgun.
>:>As for the case we discussing (the Tasmaniac) the number of reloads is
>:>irrelevant given the rather long delay between shots.
>:>
>
>:Is it irrelevant? Do you know what went on the head of the murderer.
>:Please do not assume he was performing some rational task.
>
> Talk about making a 180! First you flatly state that he was killing
>people "for fun."
What other motive might he have had?
>Then you say "Do you know what went on in his
>head?" Face it: no one knows just why he did what he did, not even
>you.
>
>
>:Yes. I think three bullets is enough for most purposes.
>
> Evidently most police forces of the world disagree with you, as they
>use guns with at least six rounds. And if you think three rounds is
>enough for an angry grizzly, or a pack of wild dogs...well, I hope you
>never miss...
>
The issue is not weapons used by police but those used by civilians
i.e. hunting weapons.
>:>Then ban *all* guns which accept
>:>detachable magazines. Whether they are bolt action or semiautos is
>:>irrelevant.
>:>
>
>:I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
>:you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
>:have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
>
> Well, why the hell not? If self-defense isn't a valid reason, what
>is?
Hunting, target practice, volunteer reserve training etc. etc. You know
things that do not involve shooting other people.
>Putting meat on the table? Poking holes in paper? Defending
>large amounts of money? Self-defense sure looks like the strongest
>reason to me.
> (BTW, if you have to get someone's permission to do something, it's
>not a right, it's a privilege.)
>
And there is no right to own guns.
>:The action is not irrelevant, a semi-auto with a large magazine is more
>:dangerous than a bolt action with a same magazine
>
> Would you mind explaining why semiautos are inherently so much more
>dangerous than any other kind of gun? Please note that guys like the
>Tasmanian sniper often do use bolt-action rifles, and the Tasmanian
>sniper could have used one, and it wouldn't have made any difference
>in the body count.
>
Semi autos have larger magazines that allow the user to carry more
bullets comfortably.
...
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
>>Date: 6 May 1996 01:26:48 +0300
>>From: ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>>Subject: Re: Aust. Gun Laws and Tasmanian Massacre
>>
>>Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
>>>
>>
>>Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
>
>a person who is so unbalanced that he intends to kill people isn't going
>to be bothered by inconveniences such as justifications for buying yet
>another gun.
Who says they are planning their act beforehand? Why do you assume the
person knows where to get an illegal gun?
...
>
>>
>>>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>>>
>>
>>Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
>>collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
>
>Sounds like a good reason for allowing gun control to collapse.
>
Maybe you want the society to collapse, but I do not.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mjdl9$b...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>>>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>>>
>>
>>Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
>>collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
>
>not make a society more dangerous, any more than seatbelts cause
>accidents.
>
There is a difference. First those guns that are owned for self-defense
can be stolen. Second the more guns there are in the society, the more
guns the criminals need. Here the idea of someone killing the victim
during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
Guns kill, seatbelts save lives. IMO there is a huge difference.
Osmo
Mark Addinall
TWCollier (twco...@aol.com) wrote:
: I believe that gun laws under Australia's federal system are kind of like
: ours here in the U.S. -- they vary widely from state to state. I also
: understand that the laws of the state of Tasmania were the loosest, with
: virtually no restrictions at all until fairly recently.
Not correct. What the gun control lobby calls loose, is very strict
compared to most. In all states in Australia a license is required
to own a firearm. Pistols are severly restricted. You have to be
a member of an accredited club, and only shoot the pistol during
range time at the club. It is illegal to carry it elsewhere.
Automatic firearms have been banned since 1926. No shooters
license is granted to people with a criminal record or with a
history of mental instability.
The 'looseness' the gun control people refer to is the ability
to purchase a semi-automatic, military style firearm in
Tasmania. An AR-15 semi was the 'culprit'.
Now all semi's look like being banned, even down to .22RF.
It should only cost us about a billion dollars to implement
the new laws. Are there any jobs available for senior
networking people in California?
Mark.
Mark Addinall
A Traveler of the Orion Spiral Arm (jdwe...@bu.edu) wrote:
: OFWAT1 (OFWAT1 <OFW...@student.monash.edu.au>) wrote:
: :So what's your point? Semi-automatic weapons are less of a threat to
: :society?
: Well, why do _you_ keep harping on semi-autos, as though they were
: particularly dangerous?
: :Are you saying that because someone massacred 35 people with a
: :non-automatic weapon, that psychos can do as much damage as they wanted
: :to no matter how stringent the gun laws are?
: He could have set fire to a hospital instead. (SARCASM ALERT) Would
: that have been more to your liking, since it doesn't involve an evil
: semiauto weapon? (SARCASM ALERT OFF)
: :Semi-automatic guns are used
: :for the sole purpose of killing people, so are hand-guns or concealed
: :weapons.
: That's funny...I distinctly recall having a semiauto handgun (double
: evil, huh?) in my hands last summer, and I didn't shoot anything but
: paper with it.
But it still is _EVIL_.
: :Semis have a large capacity to hold bullets without reloading,
: :and the tragedy in Tasmania would have been nowhere as bad had the gunman
: :been armed only with shot-guns.
: You're certifiably nuts. Have you ever SEEN the pattern left by a
: shotgun loaded with 12 guage 00 buck?! Besides, there are pump-action
: shotguns which hold as many as 9 shells, and you can fire them almost
: as fast as a semiauto rifle.
The really stupid fucking thing is, now thanks to this whako, and
the hand wringing control freaks, next week we are going to ban
all semi-auto's. Regardless. So everyone owning a .22RF semi is
a big bad criminal. It will only cost abaout a billion dollars
to do this, and I can still buy a pump action shotgun and sabet
solids just in case I feel the need to fuck up someone's day.
Lunacy on a big scale.
: :WHat is the point of everyone arming
Jesus I'm sick of that this week.
I'm the only shooter in aus.politics, and it's wearing a little thin.
: JD
: --
: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
: better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
: peace. We seek not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the
: hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may
: posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
Mark.
Jeff Bishop
In article <4mlq83$r...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>In article <4mjdl9$b...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>Please provide evidence for this. Owning guns for self-defense does
>>not make a society more dangerous, any more than seatbelts cause
>>accidents.
>
>There is a difference. First those guns that are owned for self-defense
>can be stolen.
Duh, I guess that means guns owned for hunting or target shooting can't
be stolen?!
>Second the more guns there are in the society, the more
>guns the criminals need.
Oh, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I should turn in my guns so
that any criminal who attacks me will have an easier job. Sorry, but
I'm more interested in making his job harder rather than easier.
>Here the idea of someone killing the victim
>during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
Here it is far from unknown, and it usually happens when the victim
provides little or no resistance. I'll bet murder and rape *arent'*
unknown over there, but for victims to kill their would-be murders
is unknown over there too. But since we've already established that
you want society to shape their behavior around criminals so that those
poor misunderstood souls can break into your house but get no guns, and
so they don't "need" them in the first place, I guess you are just as
happy to make sure no would-be rapist or murderer gets hurt either.
Jeff Bishop
In article <4mlpgf$q...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not.
>
>How so? We are a democratic country.
Cool. So was Weimar Germany. Democracy is no justification for bad
laws, whether it is Finland treating gun owners like criminals, Ireland
(until recently) forcing couples to stay married, or any other nosy
law.
>We have democratically decided that our safety is better protected it
>guns are not freely available.
You could democratically decide that gravity was a myth, too. Wouldn't
make it so. At least my suggestion wouldn't get anyone hurt or killed.
Yours does, but lucky for you, anyone killed in cold blood without the
means to defend himself won't be around to vote next time anyway.
>The fact that some Americans may not like that does not really bother me.
The fact that you value your unquestioned dogma more than empirical
research does bother me.
>It has been a law here for a long time. Our current gun law is from 1933
>(though it has been amended since). It is not my wacked-out definition.
It most certainly is your wacked-out definition. I never claimed that
you had a monopoly on wacked-out definitions, nor that you invented them.
In any case, I can forgive the parliament of 1933, since no real data
on guns and crime was available at that time. Today there is no excuse.
>Because those guns that are used for "protection of human life" are
>actually used against human life.
Nonsense. In the vast majority of cases, brandishing is all it takes and
the criminal flees. In a few cases, shooting is necessary, but if it
comes down to a life for a life, I don't value the life of a criminal
anywhere near as much as I value the life of an innocent person.
>Of course there are criminals here, but average person has no need to
>fear for his life because of them.
So only the average person counts. Sick.
>
>>Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
>>guns, or anything else, for self-defense.
>
>NO. We have decided democratically that free access to guns is a bad
>thing.
And you were wrong. Contrary to your myopic claims, some people DO
need a gun to stay alive, and just because you decided "democratically"
to make them into sitting ducks does not justify the idiotic practice.
Only invididuals can know which category they fall into.
John Simutis
Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: In article <4mfssq$r...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
: >In article <4mf69i$7...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
: >Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
: >>In article <4mbuoq$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
: >
: >>>Another, which the gunophobes hate to be reminded about, is that from a
: >>>to actually kill them.
: >
: >>It depends, have there been studies made about the issue? Killing has a
: >>more demoralizing affect. When you are in a trench you keep your head
: >>down because the enemy sniper would kill you. If you would only be
: >>wounded, you would probably be more willing to stick your head up.
: >
: >Of course there is the potential to be killed. My point is that it is
: >a bigger drain on enemy resources to injure soldiers. If you kill them on
: >the spot, no need to drag them off to a medical ward or attempt to revive
: >them.
: Why do you assume that the enemy takes care of their wounded?
: >
: >>If you are claiming that intermediate rifle cartridges were designed to
: >>wound, the prove it.
: >
: >I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the reason for it. It is an
: >effect, and one which proved militarily useful.
: Full power cartridge is not that much more effective in killing. The main
: reason why bullets used by military wound more often than kill is that
: they are FMJ. Any nutcase using these guns is naturally not bind by the
: Hague convention.
True.
"Florida A.W. Commission - Exec Summary Part 2
STOCKTON -- THE FACTS by Martin L. Fackler, MD
Madman shoots 35 in Stockton schoolyard; 30 of those hit survive.
That would have been the appropriate headline. Why did the media
dwell almost exclusively on the five that did not survive?
A military type AK-47 rifle was used. Full-metal-jacketed
military type bullets were used. That 86% of those children recovered
from their wounds comes as no surprise to those who understand this
particular bullet's wounding potential . Those familiar with the
international laws governing warfare recognize that the military
full-metal-jacketed bullet is specifically designed to limit tissue
disruption -- to wound rather than to kill. Purportedly mandated for
"humanitarian" reasons by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, this
type of bullet actually proves to be more effective for most warfare.
It removes not only the one hit from the ranks of the combatants, but
also those needed to care for him.
Full-metal-jacketed bullets are prohibited for hunting; they are
too likely to wound rather than kill. Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47
bullets do not deform significantly on striking the body, unless they
strike bone. They characteristically travel point-forward until they
penetrate 9 to 10 inches of tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways
during its tissue path, it causes increased disruption). This means
that most AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater
damage that produced by handgun bullets. The limited tissue
disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is
consistent with well documented data from Vietnam (the Wound Data and
Munitions Effectiveness Team collected approximately 700 cases of
AK-47 hits), as well as with controlled research studies from various
wound ballistics laboratories."
Dr. Fackler is a wound ballistics expert with the US Army.
Bruce Erickson
>
>>
>>>
>>>>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
>>>collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe you want the society to collapse, but I do not.
>
>Osmo
Removing guns reduces violent encounters to brute force. This gives great
advantage to large or multiple assailants. Being injured or killed is a risk
criminals voluntarily accept when they make threats of the same to their victims.
I think it is only fair that victims have a credible ability to realize that risk.
Since law-abiding people don't commit crimes, there is little risk to other
law-abiding citizens when they carrying guns. Having a gun when attacked reduces
any advantage an assailant might have over the victim.
The risk of civilization collapsing seems greatest to me when gun control is
strengthened. The risk is a function of the intent of the people who impose,
and are subject to, the controls. Disarming the Finns probably would not result
in mayhem. However, we have a real-world experiment in Washington D.C. to
indicate a safe and peaceful result is not guaranteed.
I think it is fantastic that Finland is as safe as it is. I think it is important
to realize it is because the people living there are not strongly motivated
to hurt one and other.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mlgnn$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>In <4mf6i1$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>
>#In article <4macsc$o...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>#Who said people should freely get pump or semi-auto shotguns?
>
>Well, from the article you snipped, the argument was to ban everything except
>shotguns. No differentiation was made between pump and single shot shotguns.
>And a practiced shooter can reload a single shot shotgun pretty quick, too...
>And each shot is equivalent to an entire cylinderful from a revolver, or half
>a magazine from a 9mm( or a full magazine from the SIG 225 I used to carry).
>
You can kill six people with a revolver without reloading. You hardly
can do that with a single shot from a shotgun.
>James
>
>#Osmo
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>
>#In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
>#Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
>#>
>#>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>#...
>
>#>>>
>#>>
>#>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
>#>>anyway handguns should be strictly controlled.
>#>>
>#>>Osmo
>#>
>#>
>#>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
>#>nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
>#>volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
>#>restrictions, too.
>#>
>
>#just by more rifles at will.
>
>Sure worked for the nut in Tasmania, didn't it? He was ineligible to
>own firearms, due to diagnosed mental illness, yet the police did nothing
>about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally firing the
>guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
>
Shows that the laws were too lax.
>#>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
>#>
>
>#Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
>#collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
>
>And what is the point of gun control?
>
To make the society safe.
Osmo
Kevin W. Kulow
(snip)
: :The action is not irrelevant, a semi-auto with a large magazine is more
: :dangerous than a bolt action with a same magazine
: Would you mind explaining why semiautos are inherently so much more
: dangerous than any other kind of gun? Please note that guys like the
: Tasmanian sniper often do use bolt-action rifles, and the Tasmanian
: sniper could have used one, and it wouldn't have made any difference
: in the body count.
: :(note that what
: :happened in Tasmania is not the only thing that can happen).
Anyone old enough to be alive in the 1960's will remember the story of
Charles Whitman...
He was armed with a bolt-action rifle (a 6mm Remington, if memory serves)
and climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin. At distances
of up to three city blocks, he proceeded to kill 13 people and wound
another 31... took him about ninety minutes.
He had been seen by a psychiatrist months before, and expressed a desire
to "climb a tower and start shooting people." So much for no warning signs.
In fact, some studies here in the United States have found that about
70-80% of murderers are people with known, violent histories against
people around them. Workplace massacres are often committed by people
who fit a certain psychological profile, and have many warning signs...
hence some campaigns to educate employers and employees about these signs.
People that "just snap" are rarer than you might think, and a
"high-capacity semiauto firearm" is not required.
Just my $.02 worth.
KWK
Julius Chang
In article <4mo3ub$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>You can kill six people with a revolver without reloading. You hardly
>can do that with a single shot from a shotgun.
Dead is dead, whether from a single shot firearm or
not.
Small solice to the person killed by that single shotgun
blast. Have you considered the reverse situation -- the
lawful defender facing multiple attackers?
A moderately skilled person can reload a pump shotgun in
a second or two (grab a round from a shell carrier of
some sort, either magazine load or chamber load, cycle
the action). Since the shooter in this massacre apparently
shot more slowly than this, I fail to see why your advice
is meaningful. As if the regular person can identify a
single shot firearm from something else anyway.
Do you also propose to somehow build a wall around each
country to prevent illegal high-capacity arms from entering?
-Julius
Julius Chang
In article <4mo441$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
#In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
#>In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
writes:
#>
#>#In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
#>#Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
#>#>
#>#>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
#>#Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
#>#just by more rifles at will.
#>
#>
#>Sure worked for the nut in Tasmania, didn't it? He was ineligible to
#>own firearms, due to diagnosed mental illness, yet the police did nothing
#>about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally firing
the
#>guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
#>
#
#Shows that the laws were too lax.
It shows that the existing laws were not enforced.
If you wish to live in a totalitarian society where
the government controls everything to keep you safe,
go right ahead. But don't force your personal beliefs
on others who value their freedoms.
#>#>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
#>#>
#>
#>#Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
#>#collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
#>
#>And what is the point of gun control?
#>
#
#To make the society safe.
So how does disarming the law-abiding keep them safe
from criminals who by definition disobey the written
laws?
How can you magically remove every firearm in the
world and ensure that no new firearm can ever be
made and then used in some violent attack?
Keep dreaming Alice and you might get to Wonderland.
-Julius
Julius Chang
In article <4mlq83$r...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>There is a difference. First those guns that are owned for self-defense
Any firearm can be stolen.
>guns the criminals need. Here the idea of someone killing the victim
>during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
The idea of killing a victim during a robbery appears
to be rare or non-existent where I am too -- right here
in the U.S. I've lived in several areas in the U.S. where
murder is extremely rare, although gun ownership was
very high.
>Guns kill, seatbelts save lives. IMO there is a huge difference.
If a good guy uses a firearm to protect his family and
kills an armed attacker in the process, haven't lives been
saved? Or would you rather that family remain defenseless
and perhaps dead instead?
-Julius
Mark Addinall
Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: In article <4mik0f$l...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
: Jeffrey Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
: >In article <4mi99c$1...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
: >Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
: >>>>I do not believe in banning guns. I think they should be controlled. If
: >>>>you can show a valid reason for a certain type of gun, then you should
: >>>>have a right to get one. (Self defense is not a valid reason).
: >>>You are a lunatic. If self-defense is not "valid," then what the hell is?
: >>
: >>Lunatic? Then the legislators here are also lunatic? Please do do assume
: >>that someone is insane just because he has different opinions.
: >Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not.
: How so? We are a democratic country. Our constitution says: "Sovereign
: power in Finland shall belong to the people, represented by Parliament
: convened in session." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/law/fi00001_.html)
: We have democratically decided that our safety is better protected it
: guns are not freely available. The fact that some Americans may not like
: that does not really bother me.
: >Once your
: >wacked-out definition of "valid" becomes a law, the "just my opinion"
: >excuse is no longer valid because you are forcing it on everyone else.
: It has been a law here for a long time. Our current gun law is from 1933
: (though it has been amended since). It is not my wacked-out definition.
: >
: >>Valid reasons for having a gun? Well how about hunting, shooting as a
: >>hobby or in competition.
: >
: >Both are fine by me, but I fail to see how anyone in their right mind could
: >consider either to be more important that protection human life. Very odd
: >set of values there.
: Because those guns that are used for "protection of human life" are
: actually used against human life. The more guns there are in the society
: the violent the society (which includes criminals) becomes. I do not
: think we need arms race against criminals. Nobody benefits from that,
: >
: >>We just do nor accept the idea that shooting other people is a valid
: >>reason to have a gun. People here do not need guns for self-defense,
: >>partially because they are so much controlled.
: >
: >Nice, so either women with deranged ex-boyfriends who threaten them either
: >don't need to live (the logical conclusion of your claim) or are really,
: >really tough. Or do you wish to claim that such things never happen
: >there?
: Of course there are criminals here, but average person has no need to
: fear for his life because of them.
: We have to view issues as a whole. While having guns might in some cases
: save someone, the net effect of them is negative.
: >Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
: >guns, or anything else, for self-defense.
: NO. We have decided democratically that free access to guns is a bad
: thing.
: >If there is ONE valid reason
: >for doing anything, it is to stay alive.
: >
: But we do not need guns to stay alive.
: Osmo
But you will explain why your country has one of the highest
gun related suicides in the world, will you not?
Mark.
Mark Addinall
CAVIM (ca...@aol.com) wrote:
: What are the current laws in Australia concerning possesion of
: semi-auto's? As far as I know, the psycho who killed all those innocent
: people was armed with a high capacity semi-auto, which I believed to be
: iilegal to own. Someone in Australia did tell me however that Chiniese
: and Indonesian pirates will sell these weapons to whoever has the money.
: Does anyone know what was the specific make of the weapon used?
: Also, in my opiniom, the Aussie gov't has it all wrong. If they would
: have issued CCW's to its citizens, this situation could have been tamed.
: IF ONE PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ARMED FOR SELF-DEFENSE THAT DAY, THE KILLER
: WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED!!!! But he knew he was in no danger.....calmly
: walking about, executing innocent people.
: Regards, and my deepest sympathies.
: Edward
Thanks. The gun laws in this country are already a lot more strict than
yours. It doesn't seem to stop the crazies of the criminals though.
Funny about that. So we are to make the gun laws more restrictive,
just in case a law abiding citizen can be accidently armed during
a massacre.
Mark (who thinks he lives in a land full of idiots at the moment)
:(
Jim Wray
On Tuesday, May 07, 1996, Osmo Ronkanen wrote...
SNIP
> >And what is the point of gun control?
> >
>
> To make the society safe.
Then don't you really mean people control? How is "controlling" some
things without controlling all things that can be misused going to
accomplish this. Is it not the murderous intent of the "sane" career
criminal or the latent nutcase erupting to work his evil deed the reason
society is unsafe?
William Gray
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>In article <4mlgnn$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>In <4mf6i1$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>>
>>#In article <4macsc$o...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>>#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>...
>>#Who said people should freely get pump or semi-auto shotguns?
>>
>>Well, from the article you snipped, the argument was to ban everything except
>>shotguns. No differentiation was made between pump and single shot shotguns.
>>And a practiced shooter can reload a single shot shotgun pretty quick, too...
>>And each shot is equivalent to an entire cylinderful from a revolver, or half
>>a magazine from a 9mm( or a full magazine from the SIG 225 I used to carry).
>You can kill six people with a revolver without reloading. You hardly
>can do that with a single shot from a shotgun.
You are very unlikely to kill six people with a revolver. You may shoot
them, but handgun wounds are fatal about 10% of the time. You might kill
one.
Shotguns wounds are fatal five times as often. And shotguns of some designs
can be reloaded indefinitely--you never have to run out of ammo. And while
most of these maniacs get too close to use a shotgun effectively, at least
one notorious one (Patrick Purdy) would have been FAR more gruesome and
had a much higher death toll if he had used #0 or maybe #4 buckshot in
an ordinary double-barreled shotgun instead of his "evil" AKS-47.
Happy now? By arguing in your studied ignorance and fear, you set up a
false case that can only be rebutted by posting information that many people
did not know. Maybe there will be a mass killing using a shotgun now.
Will you feel better then?
What you gun grabbing slavers don't understand is that you cannot make a
world safe enough to let madmen run around in. That is doubly true of a
technilogical society; the information on how to be dangerous is too
widely disseminated and too easily obtained. No matter how you soil
your shorts over a gun-related killing, you will never be able to stop
the mad from madness.
If anything, you should be glad they still gravitate to firearms. When you
close that off, they may move to nerve gas, like they have done in Japan.
And won't that be special for you then? Won't you be so proud that you
helped force a maniac to use a method that can kill tens of thousands at
a crack instead of one or two?
You idiots won't be happy till your lips are sewn to some government teat
and your teeth are removed by force. Then you'll go whining impotently
when you discover that the nipple you suckle is attached to Eva Braun
instead of Mother Teresa.
Bill
--
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!" The ghost of Thomas Jefferson on reading the Brady Law.
gr...@winternet.com
Trevor Calder
In article <4meibu$q...@news.bu.edu>, jdwe...@bu.edu (A Traveler of the
Orion Spiral Arm) told us all the following....
<snip>
>By this argument, you shouldn't let the police have guns either.
Of some interest:
In Australia, over the last 15 years, of all people killed by firearms
approximately two thirds have been killed by police.
No politician has, yet, called for the police to be disarmed..............
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor
--------------------------------------------------------------
keba...@cc.memphis.edu
tre...@iinet.net.au (Trevor Calder) writes:
> Of some interest:
>
> In Australia, over the last 15 years, of all people killed by firearms
> approximately two thirds have been killed by police.
>
> No politician has, yet, called for the police to be disarmed..............
But, did they get shot because they_deserved_it (i.e. were
the shootings by the police legally justifiable instances
of self- or other-defence), or were they just killing people
in abuse of their lawful authority? Big difference...
The argument for civilian armament rests in part on the
concept that police should have no extraordinary powers
that aren't (at least under dire circumstances) available
to the civilian population. You may not be able to arrest
someone, but you may be legally justified in holding a
criminal suspect for the police until they arrive. (Not
that doing so isn't a dangerous business...) Likewise,
the police should have no more authority to use deadly
force than would a civilian, namely in defence against
an immmediate threat of serious harm to themselves or
another person. In a society which places value on the
equality of all citizens before the law, it is essential
that citizens not be considered criminals for doing what
the police are permitted to get away with in a similar
circumstance. If the law demands that the citizens,
for example, stop at the red traffic lights, the police
(at least when not rushing to an emergency, or in active
pursuit of a suspect) must do so also. Yet, in some
cases, police are known to briefly flip on their lightbar
and siren just to get through an intersection, when they
aren't responding to an emergency, but just don't want
to be briefly delayed waiting for the traffic light to
change. This erodes public respect for the law.
Cases like Ruby Ridge, in which FBI agents exceeded their
constitutional authority (but have not yet been subject
to prosecution), and incidents like the "Good O' Boys
Roundup" at which officers of the law were engaged in
racist activities, also erode public respect for the law.
If law enforcement cannot be held accountable to the same
laws which bind everyone else, then we have a government
of men, and not of laws.
--
**x*dna Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. The University Of Memphis
*(==) * <keba...@cc.memphis.edu> Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.
* \' * NRA/JPFO/ASM/GOP/U-U [Clinton Beats Clinton!]
*(=)*** t.p.g.FAQ: http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
"I believe this... the strongest Government on earth.
I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of
the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet
invasions of the public order as his own personal concern."
--Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 1st Inaugural Address, 3/4/1801
.._. .._ _._. _._ . _.._ ___ _.
46 75 63 6B 20 45 78 6F 6E 21
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mo1ce$c...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>,
John Simutis <sim...@ccnet.com> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
...
>
>: Full power cartridge is not that much more effective in killing. The main
>: reason why bullets used by military wound more often than kill is that
>: they are FMJ. Any nutcase using these guns is naturally not bind by the
>: Hague convention.
>
>True.
>
>"Florida A.W. Commission - Exec Summary Part 2
>
> STOCKTON -- THE FACTS by Martin L. Fackler, MD
>
> Madman shoots 35 in Stockton schoolyard; 30 of those hit survive.
>That would have been the appropriate headline. Why did the media
>dwell almost exclusively on the five that did not survive?
>
Because that is what makes the news.
I doubt if so small kill ratio is typical if one talks about well aimed
shots. Of course if the gun was actually AK-47 and automatic fire was
used that could be very likely.
> A military type AK-47 rifle was used. Full-metal-jacketed
>military type bullets were used. That 86% of those children recovered
>from their wounds comes as no surprise to those who understand this
>particular bullet's wounding potential . Those familiar with the
>international laws governing warfare recognize that the military
>full-metal-jacketed bullet is specifically designed to limit tissue
>disruption -- to wound rather than to kill.
I thought that it was designed to allow small calibre (<8mm) high speed
bullets.
> Purportedly mandated for
>"humanitarian" reasons by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, this
>type of bullet actually proves to be more effective for most warfare.
Why humanitarian in quotes?
...
As I said FMJ is the property of the bullet not of the weapon. One an
buy other sorts of bullets or just remove the tip from FMJ bullets is
one wants to maximize the damage.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mnph2$7...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4mlq83$r...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>In article <4mjdl9$b...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>>Please provide evidence for this. Owning guns for self-defense does
>>>not make a society more dangerous, any more than seatbelts cause
>>>accidents.
>>
>>can be stolen.
>
>be stolen?!
Of course they can be stolen, but those guns at least are for a valid
reason. Also criminals prefer small guns.
>
>>Second the more guns there are in the society, the more
>>guns the criminals need.
>
>Oh, that makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Maybe not to you. But to me it makes much sense.
> I should turn in my guns so
>that any criminal who attacks me will have an easier job.
I was not talking about individual persons giving their guns. I was
talking about the total effect of arming people.
>Sorry, but
>I'm more interested in making his job harder rather than easier.
>
And you do not care what that does to the society in general? While
getting a gun may increase the safety of the person who gets it, the
total effect of people getting guns is that the safety in the society
decreases as criminals need to get guns as well. So we have a situation
where individual efforts to increase the safety does not lead to safety
in general. This calls for government control.
>>Here the idea of someone killing the victim
>>during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
>
>Here it is far from unknown, and it usually happens when the victim
>provides little or no resistance.
Bingo! That is just because the criminals think they need to use guns.
>I'll bet murder and rape *arent'*
>unknown over there, but for victims to kill their would-be murders
>is unknown over there too.
Murder is rare here, about 10 cases annually. Manslaughter is more
common, about 100-150 cases annually. A typical manslaughter here is
that two people drink together end in an argument and one stabs the
another. I really do not think guns increase safety in these cases.
>But since we've already established that
>you want society to shape their behavior around criminals so that those
>poor misunderstood souls can break into your house but get no guns, and
>so they don't "need" them in the first place, I guess you are just as
>happy to make sure no would-be rapist or murderer gets hurt either.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mp16s$a...@news.whidbey.com>,
Julius Chang <jch...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>In article <4mo441$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>#In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>#>In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
>writes:
>#>
>#>#In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
>#>#Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
>#>#>
>#>#>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>
>#>#Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
>#>#just by more rifles at will.
>#>
>#>
>#>Sure worked for the nut in Tasmania, didn't it? He was ineligible to
>#>own firearms, due to diagnosed mental illness, yet the police did nothing
>#>about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally firing
>the
>#>guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
>#>
>#
>#Shows that the laws were too lax.
>
> It shows that the existing laws were not enforced.
Law is the sum of what is in the books and how it is enforced.
> If you wish to live in a totalitarian society where
> the government controls everything to keep you safe,
> go right ahead. But don't force your personal beliefs
> on others who value their freedoms.
>
I do not live in a totalitarian society.
This discussion is over.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mp0rh$a...@news.whidbey.com>,
Julius Chang <jch...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>In article <4mo3ub$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
>>You can kill six people with a revolver without reloading. You hardly
>>can do that with a single shot from a shotgun.
>
> not.
Nice unmarked deletion. What was said was:
In article <4mlgnn$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>And each shot is equivalent to an entire cylinderful from a revolver, or half
>a magazine from a 9mm( or a full magazine from the SIG 225 I used to carry).
>
I clearly pointed that this is not the case.
>
> Small solice to the person killed by that single shotgun
> blast. Have you considered the reverse situation -- the
> lawful defender facing multiple attackers?
>
Why should I consider that? There is no such need here.
> A moderately skilled person can reload a pump shotgun in
> a second or two (grab a round from a shell carrier of
> some sort, either magazine load or chamber load, cycle
> the action). Since the shooter in this massacre apparently
> shot more slowly than this, I fail to see why your advice
> is meaningful. As if the regular person can identify a
> single shot firearm from something else anyway.
Well a regular man here could do that.
>
> Do you also propose to somehow build a wall around each
> country to prevent illegal high-capacity arms from entering?
>
No, do you have some point?
> -Julius
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mnq65$8...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4mlpgf$q...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>>Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not.
>>
>>How so? We are a democratic country.
>
Weimar republic did not have the democratic tradition that we have. It
collapsed on the first major crisis. Our constitution on th other hand
is the only one of the constitutions enacted after WWI that is still in
force.
Comparing Finland to Weimar republic makes no sense whatsoever.
>Democracy is no justification for bad
>laws, whether it is Finland treating gun owners like criminals,
We do not treat gun owners as criminals, there are hundreds of
thousands of gun owners here and they are not treated as criminals.
> Ireland
>(until recently) forcing couples to stay married, or any other nosy
>law.
>
>>We have democratically decided that our safety is better protected it
>>guns are not freely available.
>
>You could democratically decide that gravity was a myth, too. Wouldn't
>make it so. At least my suggestion wouldn't get anyone hurt or killed.
How so? Increasing the number of guns will kill people.
>Yours does, but lucky for you, anyone killed in cold blood without the
>means to defend himself won't be around to vote next time anyway.
>
>>The fact that some Americans may not like that does not really bother me.
>
>The fact that you value your unquestioned dogma more than empirical
>research does bother me.
>
What empirical research? Something done in the US and therefore not
applicable here?
>>It has been a law here for a long time. Our current gun law is from 1933
>>(though it has been amended since). It is not my wacked-out definition.
>
>It most certainly is your wacked-out definition. I never claimed that
>you had a monopoly on wacked-out definitions, nor that you invented them.
>In any case, I can forgive the parliament of 1933, since no real data
>on guns and crime was available at that time. Today there is no excuse.
>
Interestingly the president who signed the law was an eager shooter. The
m/39 rifle was nick named as "Ukko-Pekka" after him. Maybe he was
treating himself as a criminal when he singed the law :-)
>>Because those guns that are used for "protection of human life" are
>>actually used against human life.
>
>Nonsense. In the vast majority of cases, brandishing is all it takes and
>the criminal flees. In a few cases, shooting is necessary, but if it
>comes down to a life for a life, I don't value the life of a criminal
>anywhere near as much as I value the life of an innocent person.
>
Tell that to the parents of Hatori.
>>Of course there are criminals here, but average person has no need to
>>fear for his life because of them.
>
>So only the average person counts. Sick.
No, I did not mean that only average person counts.
>>
>>>Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
>>>guns, or anything else, for self-defense.
>>
>>NO. We have decided democratically that free access to guns is a bad
>>thing.
>
>And you were wrong.
No, it is you who is wrong.
>Contrary to your myopic claims, some people DO
>need a gun to stay alive, and just because you decided "democratically"
>to make them into sitting ducks does not justify the idiotic practice.
Some people might need my kidney to stay alive. Needs do not create
rights.
>Only invididuals can know which category they fall into.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mpkka$k...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkanen (ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
...
>
>
>: Osmo
>
>But you will explain why your country has one of the highest
>gun related suicides in the world, will you not?
>
Do you have a point? We have here many gun owners and the suicide rate
is high so run related suicide rates are also high. However, the guns
used here are typically hunting weapons, not something used for personal
defense.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <gray.83...@winternet.com>,
William Gray <gr...@subzero.winternet.com> wrote:
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>
>>In article <4mlgnn$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>>Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>#In article <4macsc$o...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>>>#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>...
>
>>>#Who said people should freely get pump or semi-auto shotguns?
>>>
>>>Well, from the article you snipped, the argument was to ban everything except
>>>shotguns. No differentiation was made between pump and single shot shotguns.
>>>And a practiced shooter can reload a single shot shotgun pretty quick, too...
>>>a magazine from a 9mm( or a full magazine from the SIG 225 I used to carry).
>
>>can do that with a single shot from a shotgun.
>
>them, but handgun wounds are fatal about 10% of the time. You might kill
>one.
>
At close range and if aimed, they are more fatal than that.
>Shotguns wounds are fatal five times as often. And shotguns of some designs
>can be reloaded indefinitely--you never have to run out of ammo.
As I said shotguns need to be controlled as well.
...
Osmo
Bertil Jonell
In article <gray.83...@winternet.com>,
William Gray <gr...@subzero.winternet.com> wrote to ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi
(Osmo Ronkanen):
>If anything, you should be glad they still gravitate to firearms. When you
>close that off, they may move to nerve gas, like they have done in Japan.
According to several sources (Janes Defence Weekly amongst others),
the Aum Shinrikyo cult had set up a production line for AK-clones, and
had produced a number of prototypes.
Apparently even the Japanese gun laws arn't enough to prevent determined
wackos from getting guns.
>Bill
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Nosy
<In article <4mo441$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
< In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
< Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
< >In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
< >
< >#In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
< >
< >#>>>
, >#>>
< >#>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
< >#>>
< >#>>Osmo
< >#>
< >#>
< >#>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
< >#>nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
< >#>volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
< >#>restrictions, too.
< >
< >#Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
< >
< >
< >
< Shows that the laws were too lax.
Shows that the laws were not enforced.
It is moot whether the laws are too lax or not, if they
are not enforced, now isn't it?
Nosy
<In article <4mo3ub$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
< In article <4mlgnn$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
< Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
< >In <4mf6i1$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
< >
< >#In article <4macsc$o...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
< >#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
< ...
< >#Who said people should freely get pump or semi-auto shotguns?
< >
< >Well, from the article you snipped, the argument was to ban everything except
< >shotguns. No differentiation was made between pump and single shot shotguns.
< >And a practiced shooter can reload a single shot shotgun pretty quick, too...
< >And each shot is equivalent to an entire cylinderful from a revolver, or half
< >a magazine from a 9mm( or a full magazine from the SIG 225 I used to carry).
< You can kill six people with a revolver without reloading. You hardly
< can do that with a single shot from a shotgun.
Document or retract!
Tim Lambert
>In Australia, over the last 15 years, of all people killed by firearms
>approximately two thirds have been killed by police.
Absolutely false.
Care to tell us how many people you think the police have killed?
Tim
Mark Addinall
Trevor Calder (tre...@iinet.net.au) wrote:
: In article <4meibu$q...@news.bu.edu>, jdwe...@bu.edu (A Traveler of the
: <snip>
: >By this argument, you shouldn't let the police have guns either.
: Of some interest:
: In Australia, over the last 15 years, of all people killed by firearms
: approximately two thirds have been killed by police.
Blatently untrue.
Lets have a look at 1994
Accidental 20
Suicide 420
Homicide 76
Police 7
Undetermined 6
All the way back to 1979
Accidental 65
Suicide 523
Homicide 97
Police 3
Undetermined 20
Seven and three justifiable shootings in an entire fucking nation.
If you don't like those odds, I suggest you go and live somewhere else.
: No politician has, yet, called for the police to be disarmed..............
Yes they did. Some fucking democrat nut suggested that
the police be disarmed after some officer offed a loony
in Victoria a while ago. Remember. Some fucking idiot
took to a police officer with an axe and got shot for his
trouble. What do you suggest we do. Ask the criminals before
hand what is their weapon of choice? Then we can arm our
police force accordingly, just to make it fair.
Our police force is well trained and responsible in its'
use of deadly force.
: --------------------------------------------------------------
: Trevor
: --------------------------------------------------------------
Mark.
Wolf
#In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
#>In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
#>
#>#In article <4mhfud$2...@news-e2b.gnn.com>,
#>#Bruce Erickson <BEr...@gnn.com> wrote:
#>#>
#>#>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
#>#...
#>
#>#>>>
#>#>>
#>#>>The solution is obvious, require that the guns are slow to reload. In
#>#>>anyway handguns should be strictly controlled.
#>#>>
#>#>>Osmo
#>#>
#>#>
#>#>The reaction to slow reloads is for the nut to carry more guns. This
#>#>nut had two rifles. A few minutes with a saw reduce the weight and
#>#>volume to make several guns easy to carry. This circumvents handgun
#>#>restrictions, too.
#>#>
#>
#>#Maybe the nut does not have more rifles. With gun control he cannot
#>#just by more rifles at will.
#>
#>
#>Sure worked for the nut in Tasmania, didn't it? He was ineligible to
#>own firearms, due to diagnosed mental illness, yet the police did nothing
#>about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally firing the
#>guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
#>
#Shows that the laws were too lax.
No, if his possession of the guns, and the uses he were putting them to, were
illegal, it shows that ENFORCEMENT was too lax. Unless you think the laws
governing the police were too lax, and that they should be criminally liable
for failure to act on complaints?
#>#>Why should self-defense be disallowed as a reason for owning a gun?
#>#>
#>
#>#Because that makes a dangerous society. The whole point of gun control
#>#collapses if one allows self-defense as a reason to have a gun.
#>
#>And what is the point of gun control?
#>
#To make the society safe.
But it hasn't been proven that gun control will make a dangerous society safe,
or keep a safe society from becoming more dangerous...
James
#Osmo
Frank Silbermann
Osmo Ronkanen
>
>> Here (in Finland) the idea of someone killing the victim
>> during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
Then instead of banning guns, why not simply pass a law
_requiring_ citizens to obey robbers' demands.
If a citizen refuses to give money to a robber, the robber may report him.
Not only would the courts have to forgive the robber, but the citizen
who ignored the robber's demands would be sentenced to two years in prison.
With the power of the state backing robbers' demands, robbers would
no longer need to use violence (or the threat of violence) to take
people's money. They'd no longer have to risk accidently killing a victim.
Everyone involved in the robbery (both robber and victim) would be safer.
What do you think of this idea?
Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <4mtag0$h...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
}Murder is rare here, about 10 cases annually. Manslaughter is more
}common, about 100-150 cases annually. A typical manslaughter here is
}that two people drink together end in an argument and one stabs the
}another. I really do not think guns increase safety in these cases.
The figures often quoted as "murder rates" for the US are "murder and
non-negligent homicide" -- which includes manslaughter.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
John Payson
In article <4mtak8$h...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>In article <4mp16s$a...@news.whidbey.com>,
>Julius Chang <jch...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>>In article <4mo441$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>>#In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
>>#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>#>
>>#>own firearms, due to diagnosed mental illness, yet the police did nothing
>>#>about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally firing
>>the
>>#>guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
>>#
>>#Shows that the laws were too lax.
>>
>
>Law is the sum of what is in the books and how it is enforced.
Perhaps; even if this is so, however, there is still the question of what
scribblings in the law-books will produce the most effective 'law'? One
problem firearms owners have complained about for a long time in the U.S.
is that government agents (whether those dealing with firearms or other
things) tend to spend more time going after "easy" arrests than after
difficult arrests. As a consequence of this, the truly dangerous people
(who would often be harder to arrests than the generally-law-abiding citi-
zens who get nailed for paperwork violations) often can go about their
business unmolested.
Unfortunately, adding more 'minor violations' to the law-books merely has
the consequence that police--being too busy chasing down minor violations--
are unable to deal with the real dangerous criminals. While a common
reaction to this is to fill the law-books with even more 'minor violations',
doing so just makes the problem worse.
If you saw a wolf in your sheep-fold 150 yards away, a 30-06 rifle might
be a good idea. You might not always hit, but you would be able to aim
at the specific target and would have a good chance of hitting. Unfor-
tunately, government seems to prefer a shotgun and with every miss they
decide to improve their chances by widening the pattern. While there may
be an occasional hit on the wolf, the wider pattern sacrifices a whole lot
of sheep in exchange for lousy performance on the wolf.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal aussi beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )
Trevor Calder
In article <4mv9ic$s...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, addi...@powerup.com.au
(Mark Addinall) told us all the following....
>Lets have a look at 1994
>Police 7
>All the way back to 1979
>Police 3
I notice you picked the years _very_ carefully.
And why not include _all_ Australian states?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denes S. Varady
You are seemingly against guns...
DO YOU REMEMBER "The Winter War"??
Are you REALLY Finnish?
--
Denes S. Varady, N3NV
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mvupr$9...@wanda.phl.pond.com>,
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com> wrote:
>In article <4mtag0$h...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>}Murder is rare here, about 10 cases annually. Manslaughter is more
>}common, about 100-150 cases annually. A typical manslaughter here is
>}that two people drink together end in an argument and one stabs the
>}another. I really do not think guns increase safety in these cases.
>
>The figures often quoted as "murder rates" for the US are "murder and
>non-negligent homicide" -- which includes manslaughter.
>
What is the exact definition of manslaughter in the US? Does it vary
between the states? Here manslaughter means intentional killing. If you
kill someone unintentionally, like during an assault, it is involuntary
manslaughter (at least on crime stats, in causes of death it would
probably be classified in the group murder, manslaughter and other
assault.
The requirement for murder is very strict here, it requires careful
consideration, danger to general public, killing a civil servant (police
officer) or extreme cruelty and the act also has to be gross as a whole.
In general one should use stats on causes of death to compare "murder
rates"
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mvk4n$d...@rs10.tcs.tulane.edu>,
Frank Silbermann <f...@cs.tulane.edu> wrote:
>
>Osmo Ronkanen
>>
>>> Here (in Finland) the idea of someone killing the victim
>>> during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
>
>Then instead of banning guns, why not simply pass a law
>_requiring_ citizens to obey robbers' demands.
>
Do you have any point?
>If a citizen refuses to give money to a robber, the robber may report him.
>Not only would the courts have to forgive the robber, but the citizen
>who ignored the robber's demands would be sentenced to two years in prison.
>
No, I do not think crime should be forgiven. Here two wrongs do not make
it right.
>With the power of the state backing robbers' demands, robbers would
>no longer need to use violence (or the threat of violence) to take
>people's money. They'd no longer have to risk accidently killing a victim.
>Everyone involved in the robbery (both robber and victim) would be safer.
>
>What do you think of this idea?
Please in the future never send be any carbonļ copies.
>
>Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
>
Osmo
Julius Chang
In article <4mtak8$h...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
#In article <4mp16s$a...@news.whidbey.com>,
#Julius Chang <jch...@whidbey.net> wrote:
#>In article <4mo441$b...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
#> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
#>#In article <4mlh7k$9...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>,
#>#Wolf <gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
#>#>In <4mj9v8$1...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
#>writes:
#>#>
#>#>#>
#>#>#>In article <4mf6q6$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
#>
#>#>
#>#>
#>#>Sure worked for the nut in Tasmania, didn't it? He was ineligible to
#>#>about complaints that he was threatening his neighbors and illegally
firing
#>the
#>#>guns he illegally possessed in his yard.
#>#>
#>#
#>#Shows that the laws were too lax.
#> It shows that the existing laws were not enforced.
#
#Law is the sum of what is in the books and how it is enforced.
Well then no law existed to stop this madman since
the written words on paper were not enforced. How will
adding yet more written words on paper be any more
effective without enforcement?
#> If you wish to live in a totalitarian society where
#> the government controls everything to keep you safe,
#> go right ahead. But don't force your personal beliefs
#> on others who value their freedoms.
#>
#I do not live in a totalitarian society.
But you certainly suggest one. You want stringent
laws that must be enforced to have any effect. That
is, oppressive gov't intrusion and police action.
No thanks.
>This discussion is over.
What's the matter, your idealistic bubble get burst?
-Julius
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4mt0gs$6...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>In article <gray.83...@winternet.com>,
>William Gray <gr...@subzero.winternet.com> wrote to ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi
>(Osmo Ronkanen):
>>If anything, you should be glad they still gravitate to firearms. When you
>>close that off, they may move to nerve gas, like they have done in Japan.
>
> According to several sources (Janes Defence Weekly amongst others),
>the Aum Shinrikyo cult had set up a production line for AK-clones, and
>had produced a number of prototypes.
>
> Apparently even the Japanese gun laws arn't enough to prevent determined
>wackos from getting guns.
>
Of course no prevention is foolproof. Nobody claims that they are.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4n3s8h$q...@guava.epix.net>,
As I said in my E-mail reply, I am not against guns per se. I am against
free availability of guns.
>
>DO YOU REMEMBER "The Winter War"??
>
Not personally, but I have read about it. I also know of the
Continuation War? Have you heard about it?
Do you think Soviets were stopped with privately owned handguns?
However, they nearly succeeded because the state had so few arms
and our trained reserves were so small. Since then we have had universal
conscription for all men. That is something that I totally support.
>Are you REALLY Finnish?
>
No, I am from Burkina Faso, for some reason I have a name directly from
Kalevala though.
>--
>
>Denes S. Varady, N3NV
>
>
Osmo
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <4n49kr$l...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
}In article <4mvupr$9...@wanda.phl.pond.com>,
}Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com> wrote:
}>In article <4mtag0$h...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
}>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
}>
}>}Murder is rare here, about 10 cases annually. Manslaughter is more
}>}common, about 100-150 cases annually. A typical manslaughter here is
}>}that two people drink together end in an argument and one stabs the
}>}another. I really do not think guns increase safety in these cases.
}>
}>The figures often quoted as "murder rates" for the US are "murder and
}>non-negligent homicide" -- which includes manslaughter.
}What is the exact definition of manslaughter in the US? Does it vary
}between the states?
}Here manslaughter means intentional killing. If you
}kill someone unintentionally, like during an assault, it is involuntary
}manslaughter (at least on crime stats, in causes of death it would
}probably be classified in the group murder, manslaughter and other
}assault.
Yes, it does vary. First degree murder is pretty much the same, I
believe, but the various lesser offenses vary quite a bit.
}The requirement for murder is very strict here, it requires careful
}consideration, danger to general public, killing a civil servant (police
}officer) or extreme cruelty and the act also has to be gross as a whole.
Generally, 1st degree murder here requires premeditation and intent,
but none of the extra circumstances you mention.
Jim Wray
On Friday, May 10, 1996, Frank Silbermann wrote...
>
> Osmo Ronkanen
> >
> >> Here (in Finland) the idea of someone killing the victim
> >> during robbery is almost unknown and I want to keep it so.
>
> Then instead of banning guns, why not simply pass a law
> _requiring_ citizens to obey robbers' demands.
>
him.
> Not only would the courts have to forgive the robber, but the citizen
> who ignored the robber's demands would be sentenced to two years in
prison.
>
> no longer need to use violence (or the threat of violence) to take
> people's money. They'd no longer have to risk accidently killing a
victim.
> Everyone involved in the robbery (both robber and victim) would be
safer.
>
> What do you think of this idea?
I'd be *very* cautious of putting such ideas in the heads of the
antis...judging from some of their posts, this is exactly the sort of idea
that would make sense to some of them...
Jerome Bigge
>>>>>all over the place. A semi-automatic rifle is still far more
dangerous
>>>>>than using a normal rifle, as the gun is stocked with a large
number of
>>>>>bullets, there is no need for reloading.
>>>>
Magazine capacity doesn't have much to do with it. One can reload.
Even if you limited everyone to single shot breech loading arms, it is
still possible to fire 12 to 15 rounds a minute depending upon skill.
If the victims are disarmed, terrified, they are "sheep" waiting to be
slaughtered. You don't need semi-auto, or even bolt action repeaters.
A single barrel 12 gauge will do just fine. Fire, open the action,
the gun ejects the empty shell, reload with a fresh round. All this
takes about three seconds if you've practiced doing it a bit. True,
if you were facing trained soldiers, they might be willing to charge
your gun, but civilians as a rule aren't likely to try to fight back.
So in order to prevent things like this, we not only have to outlaw
guns, but we'd better start looking into outlawing bows, swords, and
any other sort of weapon that gives one person an advantage over those
who are unarmed. Ought to be fun seeing governments trying to do it!
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@vixa.voyager.net) NRA Life Member
"GUN CONTROL": IS IT NOW THE "GATEWAY" TO TYRANNY?
***************************************************
My Warlady novels are available by email.
(they are "zipped" and about 300K each)
A total of 9 are available to read...
Tales of adventure in a future dark age.
Wolf
#Law is the sum of what is in the books and how it is enforced.
What good are more laws if the police don't enforce the existing laws? If the
problem is police non-enforcement of existing laws, why not get police who WILL
enforce the laws in question?
#> If you wish to live in a totalitarian society where
#> the government controls everything to keep you safe,
#> go right ahead. But don't force your personal beliefs
#> on others who value their freedoms.
#>
#I do not live in a totalitarian society.
That hasn't been proved.
#This discussion is over.
Yeah, lack of facts does seem to be a failing you have.
James
#Osmo
Chris Morton
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>In article <4mnq65$8...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4mlpgf$q...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>>>Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not.
>>>
>>>How so? We are a democratic country.
>>
>>Cool. So was Weimar Germany.
>Weimar republic did not have the democratic tradition that we have. It
Chile did.
>collapsed on the first major crisis. Our constitution on th other hand
FIRST major crisis? Don't quit your day job bagging groceries to
teach history.
>is the only one of the constitutions enacted after WWI that is still in
>force.
>Comparing Finland to Weimar republic makes no sense whatsoever.
...until circumstances change.
>>>We have democratically decided that our safety is better protected it
>>>guns are not freely available.
>>
>>You could democratically decide that gravity was a myth, too. Wouldn't
>>make it so. At least my suggestion wouldn't get anyone hurt or killed.
>How so? Increasing the number of guns will kill people.
Really? How, will they sneak out of the house and kill people on
their own?
>>Yours does, but lucky for you, anyone killed in cold blood without the
>>means to defend himself won't be around to vote next time anyway.
>>
>>>The fact that some Americans may not like that does not really bother me.
>>
>>The fact that you value your unquestioned dogma more than empirical
>>research does bother me.
>>
>What empirical research? Something done in the US and therefore not
>applicable here?
So than claims for the efficacy of gun control elsewhere don't apply
to the United States?
Thanks for the admission.
>>>It has been a law here for a long time. Our current gun law is from 1933
>>>(though it has been amended since). It is not my wacked-out definition.
>>
>>It most certainly is your wacked-out definition. I never claimed that
>>you had a monopoly on wacked-out definitions, nor that you invented them.
>>In any case, I can forgive the parliament of 1933, since no real data
>>on guns and crime was available at that time. Today there is no excuse.
>>
>Interestingly the president who signed the law was an eager shooter. The
>m/39 rifle was nick named as "Ukko-Pekka" after him. Maybe he was
>treating himself as a criminal when he singed the law :-)
And one of the greatest condemnators of pornography in this country,
Jimmy Swaggart, was an enthusiastic consumer of same.
>>Nonsense. In the vast majority of cases, brandishing is all it takes and
>>the criminal flees. In a few cases, shooting is necessary, but if it
>>comes down to a life for a life, I don't value the life of a criminal
>>anywhere near as much as I value the life of an innocent person.
>>
>Tell that to the parents of Hatori.
Some people are just stupid. Sometimes they pay for their stupidity
with their lives.
Of course you could also tell that to the dumbass who kept trying to
run a friend and I off of the road late one night... until I showed
him the H&K semiautomatic rifle that we had in the car. For some
reason, a guy who'd tried to run at least two other vehicles off of an
interstate highway that night, suddenly felt compelled to exit stage
right without any shots being fired.
Of course you would have preferred that he turn out to be serial
killer Alton Coleman who was prowling the same highways at the time.
Obviously you think it would have been better that he kill an innocent
person and take their vehicle (which he did) rather than be scared off
without any shots being fired.
>>>Of course there are criminals here, but average person has no need to
>>>fear for his life because of them.
>>
>>So only the average person counts. Sick.
>No, I did not mean that only average person counts.
Then what DID you mean? That's the only obvious meaning.
>>>
>>>>Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
>>>>guns, or anything else, for self-defense.
>>>
>>>NO. We have decided democratically that free access to guns is a bad
>>>thing.
>>
>>And you were wrong.
>No, it is you who is wrong.
No, you're wrong, but then those who argue for authoritarianism are
always wrong.
>>Contrary to your myopic claims, some people DO
>>need a gun to stay alive, and just because you decided "democratically"
>>to make them into sitting ducks does not justify the idiotic practice.
>Some people might need my kidney to stay alive. Needs do not create
>rights.
I don't need to take anything FROM you to own a gun. You by necessity
take something from ME by preventing me from owning one.
*** Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Chris Morton
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>>And what is the point of gun control?
>>
>To make the society safe.
To make the GOVERNMENT safe.
Hitler and Stalin had the same goals.
Chris Morton
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>I do not live in a totalitarian society.
Some consider an authoritarian one sufficient.
>This discussion is over.
Your concession is duly noted.
Tom Davies
ca...@aol.com (CAVIM) wrote:
> Someone in Australia did tell me however that Chiniese
>and Indonesian pirates will sell these weapons to whoever has the money.
Absolutely, just pop into one of the waterfront bars at Darling
Harbour in Sydney.
Tom Davies
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4n8f90$e...@paper.toledolink.com>,
Chris Morton <cm...@nwohio.com> wrote:
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
>>In article <4mnq65$8...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Jeff Bishop <jbi...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <4mlpgf$q...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
>>>Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>Having your own opinion is fine, but legislating it is not.
>>>>
>>>>How so? We are a democratic country.
>>>
>>>Cool. So was Weimar Germany.
>
>>Weimar republic did not have the democratic tradition that we have. It
>
>Chile did.
>
Did it have similar tradition? Did it have an army based almost
entirely on conscription. Here the idea of army taking powers is so
absurd that there is no point even considering it.
>>collapsed on the first major crisis. Our constitution on the other hand
>
>FIRST major crisis? Don't quit your day job bagging groceries to
>teach history.
Well considering the inflation it was not the very first, however, the
republic did not live for even 15 years.
>
>>is the only one of the constitutions enacted after WWI that is still in
>>force.
>
>>Comparing Finland to Weimar republic makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>...until circumstances change.
>
That change is not something that is going to happen. We have survived
two wars against Soviet Union (In fact our constitution is only one that
has survived losing a world war). Our constitution survived post war
treats of Communist take-over. I am not worried about "circumstances
changing"
>>>>We have democratically decided that our safety is better protected it
>>>>guns are not freely available.
>>>
>>>You could democratically decide that gravity was a myth, too. Wouldn't
>>>make it so. At least my suggestion wouldn't get anyone hurt or killed.
>
>>How so? Increasing the number of guns will kill people.
>
>Really? How, will they sneak out of the house and kill people on
>their own?
>
No, they can be stoles, the owners can use them in crime, they can make
the criminals arm more and be more willing to use guns.
...
>>What empirical research? Something done in the US and therefore not
>>applicable here?
>
>So than claims for the efficacy of gun control elsewhere don't apply
>to the United States?
>
Maybe so. I am not particularly interested in changing the gun laws in
the US. I am not those who think that one could solve the crime problem
in the US simply by banning guns, one needs more radical changes to the
society.
...
>
>>Interestingly the president who signed the law was an eager shooter. The
>>m/39 rifle was nick named as "Ukko-Pekka" after him. Maybe he was
>>treating himself as a criminal when he singed the law :-)
>
>And one of the greatest condemnators of pornography in this country,
>Jimmy Swaggart, was an enthusiastic consumer of same.
>
Comparing president Svinhufvud to Swaggart is an insult. You are
implying that he was some kind of hypocrite. That is not true. He knew
what oppression by a foreign state was, he was fired from the appellant
court at Turku because he refused to comply the illegal orders by the
Imperial Senate, later he was fired from the position of judge
altogether and when he did not obey he was deported to Siberia. He was
one of the strongest supporter so Constitutionalism during the Russian
oppression (1899-1905 and 1909-1917) After the fall of the Czarist
regime he could return and was appointed to lead so called Independence
Senate. After the independence he saw what the lack of sting central
powers and independent militias and the thought that people can
overthrow a government they think caused. The country was taken into a
brutal civil war that cost total of some 25,000 lives most of which not
in actual battles. Later as a president he saw an attempted rebellion by
right wing, anti-communist Lapua's movement. He managed to break that
off with his authority. We are clearly not talking about some hypocrite
like Swaggart.
Also he was not anti-gun, he was clearly pro-gun, that just does not
mean here that anyone could get a gun for self-defense. He was not
someone who was secretly using his gun like Swaggart was.
>>>Nonsense. In the vast majority of cases, brandishing is all it takes and
>>>the criminal flees. In a few cases, shooting is necessary, but if it
>>>comes down to a life for a life, I don't value the life of a criminal
>>>anywhere near as much as I value the life of an innocent person.
>>>
>
>>Tell that to the parents of Hatori.
>
>Some people are just stupid. Sometimes they pay for their stupidity
>with their lives.
>
I do not think Stupidity is a capital offense. Here they shooter would
have been convicted for manslaughter (intentional killing).
>Of course you could also tell that to the dumbass who kept trying to
>run a friend and I off of the road late one night... until I showed
>him the H&K semiautomatic rifle that we had in the car. For some
>reason, a guy who'd tried to run at least two other vehicles off of an
>interstate highway that night, suddenly felt compelled to exit stage
>right without any shots being fired.
Why would anyone try that. There seems something greatly wrong in your
country. Here one does not have to fear for being run off the road.
>
>Of course you would have preferred that he turn out to be serial
>killer Alton Coleman who was prowling the same highways at the time.
>Obviously you think it would have been better that he kill an innocent
>person and take their vehicle (which he did) rather than be scared off
>without any shots being fired.
>
>>>>Of course there are criminals here, but average person has no need to
>>>>fear for his life because of them.
>>>
>>>So only the average person counts. Sick.
>
>>No, I did not mean that only average person counts.
>
>Then what DID you mean? That's the only obvious meaning.
I meant one has to consider mostly average situations, but that is not
the only thing that matters. Here people who have professions where
they really need a gun can get a license.
>
>>>>
>>>>>Better to let the people decide for themselves whether or not they "need"
>>>>>guns, or anything else, for self-defense.
>>>>
>>>>NO. We have decided democratically that free access to guns is a bad
>>>>thing.
>>>
>>>And you were wrong.
>
>>No, it is you who is wrong.
>
>No, you're wrong, but then those who argue for authoritarianism are
>always wrong.
Gun control is no more authoritarianism than punishing criminals is.
Please try to view the situation with an open mind and not with your
preconceptions of right to carry arms.
>
>>>Contrary to your myopic claims, some people DO
>>>need a gun to stay alive, and just because you decided "democratically"
>>>to make them into sitting ducks does not justify the idiotic practice.
>
>>Some people might need my kidney to stay alive. Needs do not create
>>rights.
>
>I don't need to take anything FROM you to own a gun.
Well since you live in the other side of the ocean, then that is true.
However, having more guns for self defense in the society increases the
violence in the society as I have explained above.
>You by necessity
>take something from ME by preventing me from owning one.
>
Yes, the right to kill.
>
>
>*** Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
> better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
>
Osmo
DAVID CPU
In article <4m99dg$b...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, OFWAT1
<OFW...@student.monash.edu.au> writes:
>People may kill people, but with a gun at least you can predict when it
>is going kill people. You cannot tell if someone is at breaking-point,
>and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out.
>Guns kill people and that's all there is to it.
>Olly
>
>
Oh great Karnack. You claim that " with a gun at least you can predict
when it
is going kill people." Please, tell us all how you can predict when a gun
is going to kill people? By your own words "You cannot tell if someone is
at breaking-point,
and you cannot predict when they are going to flip out." Guns don't
animate themselves. Guns are like any inanimate object, they require a
person (or some other animal) to do anything but immitate a paperweight.
When have you ever seen a gun load itself, go find someone to shoot at,
and pull its own trigger after carefully aiming itself at its intended
victim.
If you plan to say that a gun, by its mere existence is enough to predict
that it will be used to kill a person... you're wrong. In the last
hundred years or so BILLIONS of people have owned guns without those guns
EVER being used to kill anybody. In fact, excluding the use of guns in
wars, only a tiny fraction of all guns are ever used to kill people, and
even then only when used by criminals, crazy people, or the POLICE. Yes,
I said the POLICE kill people with their guns. Most, but not all of the
time, the police kill criminals with their guns, but criminals are PEOPLE
too.
If you believe that not even the government should have guns, then you're
one of an extremely tiny minority of the anti-gun crowd. Even the vast
majority of the anti-gun crowd only wants to take guns away from
civilians, NOT the government. You're also deluding yourself if you think
that guns COULD be taken out of the hands of all civilians in the U.S.,
it's an IMPOSSIBLE task, even if it were Constitutional (which it isn't).
You also assert that "Guns kill people and that's all there is to it."
What dream world are you living in? Guns have many uses and killing
people is only one of them. For example, guns can be used to kill animals
for food, guns can be used for target practice, guns can even be used to
DETER CRIME. That's right, I said that guns can be used to deter crime.
For example, how likely is it that anyone but a lunatic would try to break
into Fort Knox when they have to get through hundreds of men armed with
automatic (real automatic, not semi-automatic immitations) weapons? Even
regular, reasonably sane criminals are deterred from attacking people they
know are armed with a gun. Surveys of criminals in prisons prove that
most, if not all criminals would MUCH rather victimize UNARMED people.
In conclusion, your opinions about guns are just plain WRONG. I recommend
you rethink them or seek help from the nearest mental health provider.
DAVID CPU
In article <4mbcr7$c...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>, ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo
Ronkanen) writes:
>But he would probably have shot lesser amount of people. Also people can
>survive even after being hit by shotgun. If I was 200 meters away from a
>mad man I sure hope he'd have a shotgun than a rifle.
>
>
>Osmo
>
>
>
Why would he have "probable shot lesser amount of people?" A single shot
rifle, handgun, shotgun only takes a second or two to reload. Judging
from the accounts of the incident, the gunman didn't fire his guns more
rapidly than that.
People can also survive being hit by pistol rounds, rifle rounds, cannon
rounds, mortar rounds, and nuclear weapons. They can also be killed by
much smaller objects being inserted into their bodies. It all depends
upon where the object enters your body and how fast you can get medical
treatment for the wound. Heck, the object doesn't even have to enter your
body to kill you. The rock was the weapon of choice for mankind for
thousands of years. What's your point?
Don't get the idea that shotguns are inherently inaccurate either. I've
killed whitetail deer with a shotgun at nearly 200 yards using single ball
ammunition. In addition, with a pump-action (5-round tubular magazine)
shotgun, firing offhand (that's standing in the open without supporting
the gun on a tree branch) I've killed deer at nearly 80 yards with three
rounds that hit within 2 inches of each other. So don't think you would
be safe from a lunatic with a shotgun even at 200 meters.