What Butthole Denney *DIDN'T tell you about the sniper shooting in St Joseph, Mo.
Ray Ledford
>You certainly seem to be giving me a lot of credit, Steve. I am really nothing
>more or less then a spokesperson for millions and millions of Americans who
>want an end to gun-violence and firmly believe that further, tougher
>gun-control legislation and harsher sentences for misuse of firearms, is the
>way to achieve it.
The spokesman? When were you elected to that spot?
You speak only for yourself. That's all.
And please cite your source for your numbers above. Since half the
homes in the US own at least one firearm, I rather doubt that you've
got the numbers behind you.
>You, of course disagree,as is your right, yet your kind would silence me if you
>could.
And who has tried to do that? Who has tried to limit or altogether
remove your right to free speech?
Who?
>I will remind you that millions of your fellow Americans' feel as I do,Steve.
Just as millions of Steve's fellow Americans feel as he does.
With half of US homes owning one or more firearms, I'd think that
Steve's got the numbers on HIS side.
>May I remind you that California just voted in a Governor who made the new
>Assault Weapon ban a part of his campaign platform,and YET he was voted into
>office by a 20% margin over his closest challenger.
What else did he promise them?
>What do these people know that you don't ?
Nothing. You ARE talking about California.
>Guns are dangerous, and assault-weapons even more so then most, thats what.
I have an SKS, boob, and it's no more dangerous than a car -- and it
needs far less maintenance.
>That is why next year, ALL assault-weapons will be illegal to own in California
>with many other states following suit.
Name 'em.
>You cannot in good conscience,lay the "blame" of "banning" firearms solely on
>myself as you are trying to do. If I were gone tomorrow, the gun-control
>legislation movement in this country would continue along just fine without
>me, I can assured you.
You haven't yet dropped anything into the gene pool, have you?
>Coming from a "defender" of gun-"rights" like yourself; someone who tries to
>cover-up the bloody cost of private gunownership, like a cat covering up the
>mess in a sand-box, while all the while attempting to silence anyone who
>critizes the CULT-ture of gun-worship, I can only shake my head in disgust.
There is no bloody cost of gun ownership. The assets of gun ownership
far outweigh any liabilities, real or imagined. There is also no
"cult" of gun ownership. If any object is "worshipped" in this
country, it is the state, a thing to which I will NOT bend my knee.
The state is my servant, not the reverse.
>It is YOU who should be hanging your head in shame, not I.
Possibly. It seems he forgot that your mother named the afterbirth
Roger Denney and ignored the baby.
Ray Ledford
http://www.mindspring.com/~rledford
to email remove "nospam" from address
For the best news go to http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Steve Fischer
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:19:13 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>You want to blame someone, blame the on-line news wires, not me.
>>>Of course, a "small" detail like that wont stop a hypocrite like
>>>you from trying to take a cheap shot at me, will it Steve ?
>> Roger, you deserve all the calumny people heap upon you. In
>>the long run, you are a greater danger to society than guns. You
>>are a destroyer of rights.
>You certainly seem to be giving me a lot of credit, Steve. I am
>really nothing more or less then a spokesperson for millions and
>millions of Americans who want an end to gun-violence and firmly
>believe that further, tougher gun-control legislation and harsher
>sentences for misuse of firearms, is the way to achieve it.
Do you know the meaning of the word megalomaniac? Look it
up. You are a spokesperson for no one but yourself, unless you
are speaking for an established group like HCI and IN THEIR NAME!
Nobody asked you to speak for them.
Second, millions an millions of people DO want some form of
UNSPECIFIED gun control. This is what they answer to in generic
polls, but when you ask SPECIFIC questions like "should handguns
be banned," the overwhelming response is NO! You close your
letters with "have an unarmed day." You closed your last response
to me with "have an unarmed day - FOREVER!" You are not a gun
controller, you're a gun BANNER! That puts you in a distinct
minority.
The NRA has always supported harsher laws for those who
MISUSE guns. I agree with that.
>You, of course disagree,as is your right, yet your kind would
>silence me if you could.
No, what I would FORCE you to do, if I could, is tell the
truth - first about your ultimate goals (ban all guns) and second,
to tell the other side of the story - gun self defenses. You lack
balance. You only print the bad things, never the good. I on the
other hand, have routinely talked about both sides of the issue
for years.
>Why, if you have nothing to hide, would you want to do that ?
Right back at you! If you have nothing to hide, why not
present a more balanced approach?
>>You want to ban something that has twice saved
>>my life. You have the nerve to call my righteous indignation a "cheap
>>shot." How dare you. Hundreds of thousands of people have defended
>>themselves just like me - with GUNS, and you could care less. Well
>>damn you to Hell for the self-centered bastard you are.
>
>I will remind you that millions of your fellow Americans' feel as
>I do,Steve.
I will remind you, Roger, that millions of your fellow Americans
think people should be arrested for burning the flag. Does that make
it right? The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect people
from things like tyrannical majorities (fortunately, you're not in
the majority - yet).
>May I remind you that California just voted in a Governor who made
>the new Assault Weapon ban a part of his campaign platform,and YET he was
>voted into office by a 20% margin over his closest challenger.
So what? He stood for a great many things. I doubt that anyone
who voted for him had assault weapons in mind when they cast their
vote for him. His opponent was no friend of assault weapons either,
you know.
>What do these people know that you don't ?
Wrong question. The right question is how do YOU know WHAT
the voters were thinking when they voted for Davis? You don't.
>Guns are dangerous, and assault-weapons even more so then most, thats what.
Semi-automatic rifles are NOT assault weapons. Only a left wing
loon would use such a definition. No military person would ever call
such a weapon an assault weapon because it is incapable of fully automatic
fire!
>That is why next year, ALL assault-weapons will be illegal to own
>in California with many other states following suit.
That may be true, but I'll bet you less than half the people who
own them will turn them in. You've just created an entire class of
lawbreakers who do no one any harm. That puts Californians in the
same league with people who want to arrest people for having oral sex.
>You cannot in good conscience,lay the "blame" of "banning"
>firearms solely on myself as you are trying to do. If I were
>gone tomorrow, the gun-control legislation movement in this
>country would continue along just fine without me, I can
>assured you.
I don't blame just you. I blame you because you are here
and in my face. I blame others who hold your point of view
equally. I just don't have them here to talk to. People like
you are what I call "feel good" liberals. You do what you do
because it makes you feel good. You don't think, you react.
You're like the welfare pushers who created an entire class of
sub-citizens with no skills and no work ethic - people who have
babies that make little or no contribution to anything but the
crime rate. They think that by throwing money at problems amounts
to a cure.
You think that by eliminating guns, you can eliminate violence.
Well if you do nothing to eliminate the reasons for that violence,
how the hell will removing the legal right to own guns by law
abiding citizens cure that? Do you really thing that eliminating
the right to own a gun will prevent people from getting them? You
can't be THAT naive, can you? Cocaine is illegal in all 50 states,
yet any school kid can get it. The same will be true of guns. The
bad guys will always get them. All you will be doing is disarming
the public and eliminating all self-defense uses for them. The
criminals, knowing the public is disarmed, will have free reign to
do anything they want in public. This is a prescription for disaster.
The fact of the matter is that when the People through their
elected leaders decide to do something about the causes of violence
then violent behavior will subside, and people who own guns will find
fewer and fewer reasons to WANT to arm themselves. They will leave
their guns home, locked up of their own volition. The "problem" will
take care of itself.
> >>When you've
>>exhausted all methods for trying to eliminate the conditions that
>>breed violent crime (and none of them have to do with weapons - they
>>have to do with mindset), then come talk to me about keeping my guns
>>locked up. Until then your babbling using the word "free" or "freedom"
>>just sounds like filth to me.
>
>Coming from a "defender" of gun-"rights" like yourself; someone who tries to
>cover-up the bloody cost of private gunownership, like a cat covering up the
>mess in a sand-box, while all the while attempting to silence anyone who
>critizes the CULT-ture of gun-worship, I can only shake my head in disgust.
I am only responsible for my own conduct with a gun, and that
conduct has been above reproach. The law demands that others be
responsible too, and when they are not, they belong in jail.
>It is YOU who should be hanging your head in shame, not I.
No one believes that but you.
>Have an Unarmed day...For Life !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Proof that what Denney really wants is a total gun ban.
Steve
>
>
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
M. Eglestone
> Sorry, Steve, but I NEVER edit the content of the stories I post here. That
> would be unfair to the contributors, and it would quickly be found out by any
>of you gunowners who cared to check on it, and you people DO check out anyone
> you wish to silence, like myself, to your eternal discredit.
=====================================================================
Actually, Roger, you do GRAVE DAMAGE to both sides of the issue when
you only present articles with obvious prejudice and high emotional
value. Tactics like that don't help people make up their minds
objectively.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the MEDIA uses those low life
tactics to get people to watch and read their material. But, is this
in the public interest? Not hardly. Their only interest is a large
share of the public attention and the MONEY it will generate for their
various employers. TRUTH has very little to do with reporting these
days.
When WE, who are interested in the TRUTH (not sensationalism) look to
people with a handle on certain situations, we expect Complete Factual
Stories which are the result of exhaustive research. Anything less is
not acceptable. Emotional stories are not acceptable either. Complete
FACTS are the only thing that should interest any of us; yourself
included (IF you're serious about this subject).
Too many people think this Gun Issue is a GAME. It is far from a
game, Roger. This is a deadly serious issue that can (and will) effect
our entire nation and the future of our society. The wrong choice will
be a disaster that we may NEVER recover from!
I would suggest that the next time you find some delightful story
that demonstrates the tragic use of a gun, that you take the time to
follow up on that story and find out MORE than what the MEDIA had to
say on "day one." That, is responsible reporting, Roger. Anything less
is not!
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either.
Steve Fischer
>On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:36:24 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer) wrote:
>
>>In article <364eae9e...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) writes:
>>>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:19:13 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>You want to blame someone, blame the on-line news wires, not me.
>>>>>Of course, a "small" detail like that wont stop a hypocrite like
>>>>>you from trying to take a cheap shot at me, will it Steve ?
>>
>>>> Roger, you deserve all the calumny people heap upon you. In
>>>>the long run, you are a greater danger to society than guns. You
>>>>are a destroyer of rights.
>>
>>>You certainly seem to be giving me a lot of credit, Steve. I am
>>>really nothing more or less then a spokesperson for millions and
>>>millions of Americans who want an end to gun-violence and firmly
>>>believe that further, tougher gun-control legislation and harsher
>>>sentences for misuse of firearms, is the way to achieve it.
>>
>> Do you know the meaning of the word megalomaniac? Look it
>>up. You are a spokesperson for no one but yourself, unless you
>>are speaking for an established group like HCI and IN THEIR NAME!
>>Nobody asked you to speak for them.
>
>gun-"rights" organizations, and come to your insane conclusions
>about what people want IRT gun laws, all the time.
I get my info from real opinion polls unlike you, who apparently
simply assumes that people think like you.
I never speak for anyone but myself. I sometimes refer people to
official NRA statements or cite NRA sources when they slander the NRA,
but I never speak FOR the NRA. I cite other, scientific sources that
I actually read, unlike you, who seem to merely pull propaganda off the
HCI web server.
>You are simply being disingenuous here, Steve
No, I'm being truthful. You're being a a megalomaniac.
..... snip ...
>> No, what I would FORCE you to do, if I could, is tell the
>>truth - first about your ultimate goals (ban all guns) and second,
>>to tell the other side of the story - gun self defenses. You lack
>>balance. You only print the bad things, never the good. I on the
>>other hand, have routinely talked about both sides of the issue
>>for years.
>And YOU people never post anything untoward about guns, even though, as my
>stories prove, there are so-called law-abiding citizens using guns to commit
>crimes quite frequently, it would seem.
No, we don't generally post ANECDOTES. We quote statistics.
As any medical researcher will tell you, anecdotes have limited
inferential value. It is people like you, specifically, who post
anecdotes. I have posted anecdotes that are anti-antigun merely to
offset your bias from time to time. I never post them for any other
reason.
>>>Why, if you have nothing to hide, would you want to do that ?
>> Right back at you! If you have nothing to hide, why not
>>present a more balanced approach?
>I AM balancing it, by posting gun tragedies. The ones you people would have had
>never seen the light of day, if it were not for our efforts to show people what
>harm guns can really do, in the wrong hands.
You are so far OUT OF BALANCE you can't be corrected.
About 50 million people own guns. That's 50 M-I-L-L-I-O-N !!
It is a simple, unassailable fact that the vast, overwhelming
majority never misuse them in any way. Some are used for
hunting. Some are used for target shooting. Some simply
remain in drawers or gun cases for decades and are never used
for ANYTHING.
Anywhere from 100,000 to 2.5 million people use guns in
self-defense every year. The vast majority of those who misuse
guns are people with long, pre-existing criminal records.
Statistically, those who commit murder are not your mild
mannered, well-adjusted types who just go berserk one day.
They build up to it. They are substance abusers, spouse abusers,
people who victimize others in less permanent ways before they
take the final plunge into murder.
>The problem is, we really don't know WHOSE hands will be the next to pull a
>trigger in a fit of rage, or an act of cowardice, do we Steve ?
Untrue. We have a pretty good idea who is at risk. We simply
choose not to do anything about it. Read the preceding paragraphs.
>If it were up to you folks we would NEVER hear about many of
>the gun-crimes I and the other gun-control advocates have exposed
>for all to see here.
That is utter bullshit. Everyone who posts here is cognizant
of the crime STATISTICS. Statistics represent the sum total "bad
side" of the equation. How you can ignore this is beyond me?????
We simply don't turn those statistics into an emotional wallow like
you do. Decisions should be based on rationality not emotionality.
You present anecdotes because you want people to base their decisions
on emotion.
>
>>>>You want to ban something that has twice saved
>>>>my life. You have the nerve to call my righteous indignation a "cheap
>>>>shot." How dare you. Hundreds of thousands of people have defended
>>>>themselves just like me - with GUNS, and you could care less. Well
>>>>damn you to Hell for the self-centered bastard you are.
>>>
>>>I will remind you that millions of your fellow Americans' feel as
>>>I do,Steve.
>> I will remind you, Roger, that millions of your fellow Americans
>>think people should be arrested for burning the flag. Does that make
>>it right? The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect people
>>from things like tyrannical majorities (fortunately, you're not in
>>the majority - yet).
>
>The bill of rights doesn't protect your right to own a weapon.
Then why does the amendment refer to the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and bear arms. It's the same PEOPLE referred to in the
other amendments, and in those amendments refer to individuals.
Does the militia have the right to free speech? Does the militia
have the right to practice group religion? Of course not. Then
why should "the militia" have the right to bear arms only? Do
you really think the founding fathers, who worried about the power
of an unchecked central government intended to leave the power
of arms to a huge, standing army? It's fatuous liberals who try
to divine new meanings for the same word used in other amendments.
>BTW, I don't
>agree with this flag-burning amendment, but I will obey it if it passes:
>Because that will be the LAW, just as you people will have to obey gun-control
>laws, if you want a civilized society, not a lawless state of anarchy.
I agree. If guns are banned, I will obey them by surrendering my
American citizenship and moving to a country where people are not treated
like children. I'll take my money and talent with me too. Your loss.
>>>May I remind you that California just voted in a Governor who made
>>>the new Assault Weapon ban a part of his campaign platform,and YET he was
>>>voted into office by a 20% margin over his closest challenger.
>>
>> So what? He stood for a great many things. I doubt that anyone
>>who voted for him had assault weapons in mind when they cast their
>>vote for him. His opponent was no friend of assault weapons either,
>>you know.
>Yes, I did. Why did many of you gunners vote for Lungren, if he was really so
>much set against your cause ?
Oh, so if YOU did, then everyone else must have, too? There's that
megalomania poking its ugly head up again. I didn't vote in the California
election. I live in Georgia.
>>>What do these people know that you don't ?
>> Wrong question. The right question is how do YOU know WHAT
>>the voters were thinking when they voted for Davis? You don't.
>>>Guns are dangerous, and assault-weapons even more so then most, thats what.
>> Semi-automatic rifles are NOT assault weapons. Only a left wing
>>loon would use such a definition. No military person would ever call
>>such a weapon an assault weapon because it is incapable of fully automatic
>>fire!
>It doesn't matter what you call these weapons, really, it is what havoc they
>can cause on the streets of America that DOES matter.
Semi-auto rifles are used in a miniscule number of illegal actions.
To me, this is a non-problem.
>>>That is why next year, ALL assault-weapons will be illegal to own
>>>in California with many other states following suit.
>> That may be true, but I'll bet you less than half the people who
>>own them will turn them in. You've just created an entire class of
>>lawbreakers who do no one any harm. That puts Californians in the
>>same league with people who want to arrest people for having oral sex.
>
>Well, not really since guns make lots of noise when they are used. You will
>have a lot of trouble finding a place to use it, with out being found out,, if
>you are a law-abiding citizen. Why not just turn it in and buy another, less,
>murderous weapon instead ?
Most people who own guns for self-protection have a saying: better
to be judged by 12 (jurors) than carried out by 6 (pall bearers). They'd
rather USE the weapon in self-defense and worry about being prosecuted
later. Their life is more important to them than a dumb, poorly justified
law.
... And where did you get the idea that a semi-auto weapon was more
"murderous" than other legal weapons? A deer rifle slug packs a more
powerful wallop than the slug from most "assault weapons" and they're
more accurate. It was likely a hunting rifle that killed the abortion
doctors in Canada and New York, not an assault weapon.
>>>You cannot in good conscience,lay the "blame" of "banning"
>>>firearms solely on myself as you are trying to do. If I were
>>>gone tomorrow, the gun-control legislation movement in this
>>>country would continue along just fine without me, I can
>>>assured you.
>>
>> I don't blame just you. I blame you because you are here
>>and in my face. I blame others who hold your point of view
>>equally. I just don't have them here to talk to. People like
>>you are what I call "feel good" liberals. You do what you do
>>because it makes you feel good. You don't think, you react.
>>You're like the welfare pushers who created an entire class of
>>sub-citizens with no skills and no work ethic - people who have
>>babies that make little or no contribution to anything but the
>>crime rate. They think that by throwing money at problems amounts
>>to a cure.
>
>That is not true. Anyone who looks at England will see a country where gun
>violence rate is _MUCH_ less common then the USA.
Gun violence was less common in England BEFORE the gun laws, you
ignorant lout! You can't simply compare society A with society B and
expect anything meaningful to come of it.
>> You think that by eliminating guns, you can eliminate violence.
>>Well if you do nothing to eliminate the reasons for that violence,
>>how the hell will removing the legal right to own guns by law
>>abiding citizens cure that? Do you really thing that eliminating
>>the right to own a gun will prevent people from getting them? You
>>can't be THAT naive, can you? Cocaine is illegal in all 50 states,
>>yet any school kid can get it. The same will be true of guns. The
>>bad guys will always get them. All you will be doing is disarming
>>the public and eliminating all self-defense uses for them. The
>>criminals, knowing the public is disarmed, will have free reign to
>>do anything they want in public. This is a prescription for disaster.
>
>Nope. The criminals will be spending their time, cooling their heels in prison
>for a good long time, when we are done.
Why not do that NOW! Instead of punishing the law abiding by
removing their right to self-defense, push for more stringent laws
against those who MISUSE guns. That is the NRA position.
>> The fact of the matter is that when the People through their
>>elected leaders decide to do something about the causes of violence
>>then violent behavior will subside, and people who own guns will find
>>fewer and fewer reasons to WANT to arm themselves. They will leave
>>their guns home, locked up of their own volition. The "problem" will
>>take care of itself.
>
>Sounds like it might be reasonable, but we do nOT have the time to waste on
>solving the problems of violent behavior. Too many people are dying from those
>who, for what ever reason, decided to shoot someone.,more often then not,
>someone they already know.
You have it exactly backwards. People arm themselves because
of the violence. Reduce the violence and people will disarm.
>>> >>When you've
>>>>exhausted all methods for trying to eliminate the conditions that
>>>>breed violent crime (and none of them have to do with weapons - they
>>>>have to do with mindset), then come talk to me about keeping my guns
>>>>locked up. Until then your babbling using the word "free" or "freedom"
>>>>just sounds like filth to me.
>>>
>>>Coming from a "defender" of gun-"rights" like yourself; someone who tries to
>>>cover-up the bloody cost of private gunownership, like a cat covering up the
>>>mess in a sand-box, while all the while attempting to silence anyone who
>>>critizes the CULT-ture of gun-worship, I can only shake my head in disgust.
>>
>> I am only responsible for my own conduct with a gun, and that
>>conduct has been above reproach. The law demands that others be
>>responsible too, and when they are not, they belong in jail.
>
>This doesn't account for those who are not so responsible and unimpeachable as
>you believe yourself to be, Steve.
So? Put them in jail. I don't see your point?
>>>It is YOU who should be hanging your head in shame, not I.
>>
>> No one believes that but you.
>>
>>>Have an Unarmed day...For Life !
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Proof that what Denney really wants is a total gun ban.
>
>I _NEVER_ said I didn't, Steve.
Then never use the word gun control in the future. NEVER. It's
hypocrisy when YOU use it. USe the word BAN from now on.
>I have said time and again here that I believe that ONLY a total ban on guns
>will really work to substantially reduce crime.
and that's why people hate you. You are a destroyer of rights.
Expect harrassment. You deserve it.
Have an armed day, forever.
Steve Fischer
>On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:33:58 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer) wrote:
The two players are Roger Denney (anti-gun) and Steve Fischer
(progun). We begin with a past statement from Mr Denney:
>>>You people seem to think you can speak for the NRA and other
>>>gun-"rights" organizations, and come to your insane conclusions
>>>about what people want IRT gun laws, all the time.
>> I get my info from real opinion polls unlike you, who apparently
>>simply assumes that people think like you.
>> I never speak for anyone but myself. I sometimes refer people to
>>official NRA statements or cite NRA sources when they slander the NRA,
>>but I never speak FOR the NRA. I cite other, scientific sources that
>>I actually read, unlike you, who seem to merely pull propaganda off the
>>HCI web server.
>As I have already indicated, perhaps my using the word "spokes-
>person" was a mistake on my part. To rephrase it, perhaps the
>word "representative" would be a better word.
No, that's no better. That implies that I've been granted official
status by the NRA. I'm merely a dues-paying member who agrees with the
general goals of the organization, even if I disagree with specific
statements of policy initiatives. I am simply an individual speaking
for myself IN AGREEMENT WITH the NRA from time to time.
>Regardless, you people seem to have some strange ideas about what
>people like myself believe in. Why all the terms you people use
>such as "liberal", "communist" , "socialist" ,"collectivist" , not
>to mention all the derogatory name-calling ??
I claim credit for using the word liberal rather freely. You
always seem to include alt.society.liberalism in your postings. Your
gun ban idea is certainly NOT a libertarian, conservative or moderate
position. It's not Republican or Democrat (Democrats own guns too).
It's not really socialist or communist, since they are generally
radical reformers who have no qualms about resorting to violent
revolution, and that requires guns. It's really an elitist (as
opposed to egalitarian) liberal position.
>FYI, I am an individual, just like you, not a hive creature or
>some such as your kind is wont to portray anyone who is in the
>opposite camp as yourselves.
For someone who claims to be an individual, you often make
claim to have this mystical "overwhelming support" of your
fellow citizens. An individual wouldn't care if he had such
support. An individual would care only that his position is
correct even if he is the only who defends it.
>So is everyone else I am familiar with.
See what I mean! You assert yourself to be part of "the
masses."
>>>You are simply being disingenuous here, Steve
>>
>> No, I'm being truthful. You're being a a megalomaniac.
>>
>>..... snip ...
>
>Nope. You are resorting the cunning use of inflammatory language in an attempt
>to slander me, that is the truth.
I explained the inflammatory language, and anyone with a brain
can understand WHY I used it. I claim that you intend to destroy an
important existing right. An egalitarian liberal usually seeks to
expand people's rights. An elitist liberal often does the exact
opposite.
As a rights-destroyer, you deserve the ignominy heaped upon
you. This is not slander. This is merely a forthright presentation
of your actual position. You make no attempt to hide the fact that
you intend to take my guns away from me, by force if necessary. I
have used those guns to defend my life. Therefore, I have every
right to be mean to you. In fact, I would be a fool if I didn't
oppose you as forcefully as possible.
......
>>>And YOU people never post anything untoward about guns, even
>>>though, as my stories prove, there are so-called law-abiding
>>>citizens using guns to commit crimes quite frequently, it would
>>>seem.
>> No, we don't generally post ANECDOTES. We quote statistics.
>>As any medical researcher will tell you, anecdotes have limited
>>inferential value. It is people like you, specifically, who post
>>anecdotes. I have posted anecdotes that are anti-antigun merely to
>>offset your bias from time to time. I never post them for any other
>>reason.
>False statistics, yes.
You of all people would have no way of knowing if any statistic
were false, because you never read the primary source material. I
have bookshelves full of original source material, most of which I've
read thoroughly. You pull Kellerman "factoids" off the HCI web site,
but you've never read any of Kellerman's actual papers in which he
lays out the method he used to reach his conclusions. I don't think
you even fully understand that statistical methods that are being
used. You have yet to demonstrate it. Most of the pro-gun posters
here are just like me - we've read the actual source material. We
have the right to take pot shots at the articles. You don't.
>Your stories of crimes thwarted with guns are more
>believable to me and I would presume most people, Steve.
I get my ANECDOTES from the same place you do - AP, UPI, CNN,
etc. The NRA also gives anecdotes in its publications, and they
always give the source - a newspaper.
>Most people I know in 3D laugh at your gun protection "studies",
>usually preformed by lap dogs of the gun-proliferation industry.
Which study is this? I don't know of a single important
study which was done by "lap dogs of the gun-proliferation
industry." You're making this up. You can't cite a single
study. I know the work and who performed it. You're going to
lose your ass on this one. You can't win. The HCI tried this
and lost. Come on, we're waiting. Cite a study and get your
ass handed to you on a platter ......
>>>>>Why, if you have nothing to hide, would you want to do that ?
.....
>> You are so far OUT OF BALANCE you can't be corrected.
>>About 50 million people own guns. That's 50 M-I-L-L-I-O-N !!
>>It is a simple, unassailable fact that the vast, overwhelming
>>majority never misuse them in any way. Some are used for
>>hunting. Some are used for target shooting. Some simply
>>remain in drawers or gun cases for decades and are never used
>>for ANYTHING.
>And many guns ARE _pulled_ out of the drawer come divorce time
>in a fit of anger or other act domestic violence , not to mention
>the children who kill one another when finding Daddy' handgun
>in the drawer.
The number of such cases is VANISHINGLY SMALL in comparison
to the number of guns in circulation in private hands. There are
over 235 million (Cumulative) firearms in circulation, 85 million
of which are handguns. About 45% of all homes contain at least
one gun. About 50 million individual own guns.
Trends of Fatal Gun Accidents Involving Young Victims
(Table 9.3, Kleck: "Targeting guns ....", pg 324)
Year ages 0-14 ages 0-19 all ages
1974 532 1008 2513
1976 428 790 2059
1978 392 782 1982
1980 316 689 1955
1982 279 550 1756
1984 287 552 1668
1986 234 472 1452
1988 277 543 1501
1990 236 541 1416
1991 227 551 1441
1992 216 501 1409
1993 205 526 1521
1994 185 --- 1356
The number of fatal gun accidents among "children" (0-14) dropped
by nearly 300% from 1974 to 1994. The trend has been consistently
downward. Clearly this is a problem that will eventually solve itself
as more people start keeping their guns away from children.
In 1995 there were 0.47 fatal gun accidents (all age
groups) per 100,000 population. The rate for gun homicies
was 6.0/100,000. During that same year, there were 90,500
firearms owned per 100,000 population. That's 1 homicide
gun per 15,083 guns.
Even the stingiest study of gun self-defenses (the NCVS)
in 1995 shows that there were 6.3 (100,000/15,835) times more
firearms self-defenses than firearms homicides.
>More rhetoric, from the pro-gun side of the isle ,of course.
See above facts. No rhetoric there.
>> Then why does the amendment refer to the right of THE PEOPLE
>>to keep and bear arms. It's the same PEOPLE referred to in the
>>other amendments, and in those amendments refer to individuals.
>>Does the militia have the right to free speech? Does the militia
>>have the right to practice group religion? Of course not. Then
>>why should "the militia" have the right to bear arms only? Do
>>you really think the founding fathers, who worried about the power
>>of an unchecked central government intended to leave the power
>>of arms to a huge, standing army? It's fatuous liberals who try
>>to divine new meanings for the same word used in other amendments.
>Then why did the framers modify the language used in the 2nd
>amendment to use the term "militia" ? Why not leave that out
>and just proclaim that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and
>bear arms.
There were two forms of fighting entities - the standing army
(and Navy), and the militia. The founders did not believe in a
permanent, large standing army, for obvious reasons. They believed
in lots of citizen militia units which could be organized into larger,
well-disciplined fighting units when necessary. The militia, however,
were expected to muster BRINGING THEIR OWN WEAPONS WITH THEM - weapons
guaranteed to them in the Constitution - weapons they were expected
to possess because it was customary.
If our current day government were to truly honor the Constitution,
they would demand universal basic training of all able bodied citizens
then issue them whatever weapon (M-16 for instance) was the standard
weapon used by the infantry at the time, like they do in Switzerland.
The least the government can do is allow the citizenry to own military-
quality rifles and pistols.
>CLUE: The "Militia" does NOT equal the "People", Steve.
Exactly, which supports MY view, not yours.
>Besides, when was the last time there was a REAL militia under
>the command of the state governor, (Not the present day National
>Guard) not some wacko, hate-mongering neo-militia "general" in
>combat fatigues, as these cretins we see parading around with
>their assault-guns, in this country ?
A true, Constitutional militia is not hard to form. Just
re-institute some form of basic military training in each State.
It could be done on a staggered basis throughout the year and
refresher training could be given every 4 years or so. It would
apply to all able bodied men and women above the age of 18. We
used to have a peacetime draft. We did away with it because of
the unpopularity of the War in Vietnam.
>CLUE#2: The real militia *IS* the National Guard, not anyone who
>wants a gun and goes to a gunshop to buy one, no training or
>volunteer service involved at all.
I agree. The Guard is what the militia evolved into. If
we reinstitute universal military training, then every citizen
could bring his/her own M-16 with him/her to train with. If you
couldn't afford your own, one would be provided for you to take
home with you after training. Viola, Switzerland.
.....
>It should be crystal clear by now that many Republicans politicians
>DO believe in the cause of further gun-control laws, as well they should.
.... but they vehemently disagree with YOU about gun bans. The
kind of gun control that Republicans might back wouldn't satisfy your
cravings even slightly.
.....
>> Semi-auto rifles are used in a miniscule number of illegal actions.
>>To me, this is a non-problem.
>No, they are very common with the gangbangers, and dope-runners,
>for instance.
This is simply not true. This is a canard that you have somehow
picked up from your gun ban pals, but none of you has bothered to
actually get the facts on the matter. Go to the library, or buy a
copy of "Targeting guns: Firearms and their control" (Gary Kleck,
Lib call number HV7436.K54, 1997). Read pages 110- 128 on assault
weapons. The facts are documented in the huge bibliography. Here
is the concluding paragraph to that section:
"To summarize, 'assault rifles' and assault weapons are
RARELY USED by criminals in general or by drug dealers
or youth gang members in particular, are almost NEVER
used to kill police officers, and are not readily conver-
ted to fully automatic fire. 'ARs are generally less
lethal than ordinary hunting rifles, while AW pistols
are no more lethal than non-AW handguns. Semiautomatic
guns in general offer a rate of fire slightly higher
than revolvers and can be used with magazines holding
large numbers of cartridges, but there is at present
no evidence that either attribute has affected the
number of persons killed or wounded in any known gun
crime."
Now, unless you've done your own independent research on this
matter, like Kleck, you're going to have to admit that your know-
ledge is faulty.
.....
>> ... And where did you get the idea that a semi-auto weapon was more
>>"murderous" than other legal weapons? A deer rifle slug packs a more
>>powerful wallop than the slug from most "assault weapons" and they're
>>more accurate. It was likely a hunting rifle that killed the abortion
>>doctors in Canada and New York, not an assault weapon.
>Well, then you have just given us a good reason to consider the
>restriction of such weapons from easy access, then, haven't you ?
Let me see if I understand your bizarre logic. I've just
said that assault weapons are less dangerous than deer rifles,
and you say that means we should ban them. To be logical, you
should be asking for a gan on deer rifles .... but then, so many
people who want to ban handguns make a specific exception for
hunting rifles.
>Why do you need an assault-weapon if a hunting gun is more deadly ?
I don't own one. I have several friends who do, and that
doesn't scare me one bit. They're all well adjusted adults.
I trust law abiding people who no past history of violence.
>>>That is not true. Anyone who looks at England will see a country where gun
>>>violence rate is _MUCH_ less common then the USA.
>
>> Gun violence was less common in England BEFORE the gun laws, you
>>ignorant lout! You can't simply compare society A with society B and
>>expect anything meaningful to come of it.
>Sure, we can. The English are similar to Americans' in many ways, and they
>turned their guns in when the law demanded it. Most Americans' will do the
>same, if the penalties are high enough if they do not , of course.
You missed the point. Grrrrrrr! I just told you that murder
in England was low BEFORE AND AFTER their gun restrictions were put
in place. Therefore our societies are basically VERY DIFFERENT.
Therefore you can't compare them. Use your brain, dammit.
>This is all moot really. Next year, when California drafts and
>passes the new Assault-Weapon law there, we will see who turn
>their weapon in and who does not. Those that do not are law-
>breakers and will go to jail when found out or turned in by their
>neighbors and landlords.
You would put people in jail who have done nothing wrong and
bother no one. What kind of monster are you. Have you no shame?
>Many will probably try to bury them, is my best guess. They
>wont be going to the shooters' range or anywhere else with them
>any longer, that is for sure.
And just why is it that you wish to create an entire new
class of citizen who disrespects the law and who are angry at
people like you? Are you trying to start a civil war or are
you that ignorant? Why not try something even more fun? Find
a nice Fortune 500 Company and fire 5000 white employees. Then
arbitrarily replace them with Afro-American employees. Stand
back and watch the fun you've created. Better still, split
the city of New York in half. Prosecute everyone who uses
illegal drugs on the West Side but don't prosecute anyone
East of the line. Won't that be fun? Watch respect for the law
go straight down the tubes. [HINT: You can't simply start
prosecuting people who have done no wrong and expect no reaction
from them or others. You'll merely create widespread disrespect
for the law.]
....
>> Instead of punishing the law abiding by removing their right
>>to self-defense, push for more stringent laws against those who
>>MISUSE guns. That is the NRA position.
>A good point, but when someone is suicidal, the law doesn't really
>mean very much, does it ? You cant punish those who are dead. That
>is why so many firearms murders are followed by the suicide of the
>perpetrator.
I don't understand that at all. What the shooter has done,
in effect, is the same as if a jury had convicted him of murder
and the court had sentenced him to death! All the shooter has
done is save the State 10 years worth of money to imprison him
plus court costs. I'm satisfied with that outcome.
....
>> You have it exactly backwards. People arm themselves because
>>of the violence. Reduce the violence and people will disarm.
>So you are claiming that you gunners will disarm if violence decreases ?
Yes, they won't feel the need to carry guns. They will simply
leave them locked up for the most part. There will be fewer new
buyers as well. I'd sure stop carrying if I felt safe.
>Somehow I am having difficulty believing that, after all the threats
>I have seen gunowners post about how they will never disarm themselves
>and how anyone that trys to do so will be gunned down on the spot .
You haven't been paying attention. They resist attempts to
force them to disarm at a time when they feel endagered by crime.
That says nothing about the behavior they would follow if they felt
society had become a safer place.
>>>> I am only responsible for my own conduct with a gun, and that
>>>>conduct has been above reproach. The law demands that others be
>>>>responsible too, and when they are not, they belong in jail.
>>>This doesn't account for those who are not so responsible
>>>and unimpeachable as you believe yourself to be, Steve.
>> So? Put them in jail. I don't see your point?
>Only the ones who are law-breakers,including gun-laws, of course,
>Anything else would be anarchy. But that seems to be what some
>of you people really want, considering the posts I have seen.
Some people have a more libertarian inclination than others.
None of the regular posters whom I know are anarchists, however.
I would obey any sane gun law that allowed me to carry a weapon
if that was my choice. A gun ban, however, is not sane.
....
>>>I have said time and again here that I believe that ONLY a total
>>>ban on guns will really work to substantially reduce crime.
>> and that's why people hate you. You are a destroyer of rights.
>>Expect harrassment. You deserve it.
>No , I don't, but I have come to expect it here.
The hatred you feel here is the same hatred that anyone
would feel if he or she wanted to remove an existing right.
What do you think would happen if you got on a pro-choice
newsgroup and started telling the people there that abortion
is murder and that it should be abolished and those who have
them belong in jail. Well wake up, those people are there
now. How do you think pro-choice people feel towards those
posters? I'll bet they FLAME. I'll bet they use dirty
language. I'll bet they threaten retribution. Imagine how
you would feel if I tried to abolish some right YOU cherish?
Would you act any diffently than people here react to you? I
don't think so. You have no reason to expect good treatment
here.
>I do understand
>that many of you actually believer what you claim here IRT to
>your so-called "gun-rights". I just think you are mistaken,
>plain and simple. So do millions and millions of your fellow
>countrymen. Many people KNOW that guns make murder way to easy
>and we mean to put an end to that.
But you go way beyond disagreement. You want to take
something away from us. That puts your disagreement on
a whole new level. We can have a civil discussion about
"gun control" but we will NEVER have a civil discussion
about a gun BAN!
>As for the "destroyer of rights", that is what guns do best.
A gun can't destroy anything. It must be aimed and the
trigger must be pulled. That requires a conscious act by
a human being who knows right from wrong. Only people can
create rights, and only people can destroy them.
<One doesn't have or need _Rights_ when one has had their life
>taken by a mad-person armed with a gun.
Life is often not fair. Does that justify your making it
even unfairer? I think not. One doesn't need a gun to take a
life. The gun is not the enemy. The person holding it - with
murder on his mind - is.
>What happened to a murdered persons' right to *LIVE*, Steve ?
It was violated by someone who should give up his own life
as compensation to society. Most people agree with this.
Freddo VA3FD
says...
> COALITION FOR GUN CONTROL
>
> National Office, Sydney Australia.
>
[big snip]
How can anyone take this group seriously when their web page
is so rife with errors?
http://www.health.su.oz.au/cgc/comptble.htm
SEVERAL errors regarding Canadian laws, which is posted as
a comparison to Australian laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freddo VA3FD - UIN 1562286
fre...@magi.com
http://www.magi.com/~freddo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HerrGlock
> Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
>
> Established in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago,
> The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to
> reducing gun violence.
This is a really unbiased source, eh? They're not dedicated to reducing
violence, just "gun violence".
Come back when you find a source who is neutral. Oh yeah, every one of those
tends to end up looking like Lott, Kleck, etc.
Johns Hopkins as a reference about guns <snicker> What's next? Kellerman as
an independant source?
HerrGlock
Ray Ledford
>Perhaps, that was the wrong word to use, considering that the vast majority of
>people who want more gun-control laws enacted are not in favor of a total ban.
"Vast majority?" Oh yeah, there's a "vast majority" all right -- and
it keeps voting DOWN gun control measures.
>>You speak only for yourself. That's all.
>
>Then why do you people always speak as if you are all in total agreement when
>reciting a "story" about how you "protected" yourself with a gun ?
Try for a little clarity, okay? I've been in this group for quite a
while, and yes, we all (gun owners) DO seem to be in agreement about
protecting ourselves with firearms. However, you were probably trying
to say something else. I know you're handicapped, but try to restate
it.
>>And who has tried to do that? Who has tried to limit or altogether
>>remove your right to free speech?
I'm still waiting. NAME SOMEONE.
>>I have an SKS, boob, and it's no more dangerous than a car -- and it
>>needs far less maintenance.
>
>It is a gun designed for one purpose: to kill people, period. Civilian assault
>weapons are patterned after military machine guns used on battlefields in time
>of war.
That's not it's only purpose. If it were, it'd be far more accurate
and at a greater range than it has now. And the SKS is not a
"military machine gun." It wouldn't be worth a crap as an automatic
weapon.
>Basically any semi-automatic military style rifle. I don't know all the names
>and characteristics of the models to be banned, but it will be far more then
>those included in the 1989 AW ban, to be certain.
You don't know anything.
>>You haven't yet dropped anything into the gene pool, have you?
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact I have. Why should that matter ?
You've ruined the gene pool, that's why.
>>There is no bloody cost of gun ownership. The assets of gun ownership
>>far outweigh any liabilities, real or imagined. There is also no
>>"cult" of gun ownership. If any object is "worshipped" in this
>>country, it is the state, a thing to which I will NOT bend my knee.
>
>John Ross, the author of that book you gun-fanatics are so fired up about,
>"Unintended Consequences" seems to be in disagreement with you. He himself
>calls people like you members of the" American Gun-Culture". You people are so
>close to your dangerous toys you cant see the forest for the trees.
I've heard of the title, but I've never read the book.
There is no "cult" which "worships" firearms. That's nothing more
than an attempt to demonize both gun owners and religious groups by
people are disdainful of others possessing rights and liberty.
Christopher Morton
Ledford) wrote:
>>Then why do you people always speak as if you are all in total agreement when
>>reciting a "story" about how you "protected" yourself with a gun ?
>
>Try for a little clarity, okay? I've been in this group for quite a
>while, and yes, we all (gun owners) DO seem to be in agreement about
>protecting ourselves with firearms. However, you were probably trying
>to say something else. I know you're handicapped, but try to restate
>it.
You have to understand, Roger the Retard is just fundamentally
incapable of believing that the proletariat would actually defend
themselves from the criminals he worships.
---
Social prophylaxis with a human face....
Ray Ledford
>I AM posting truth. I was falsely accused of editing the contents of the
[snip]
No, that's just your medication causing you to THINK you're posting
the truth.
>It is not a game, no, I agree with that. That is one reason why gun-control
>laws have been slowly adopted in the United States Of America, a country with
>a long and bloody history, filled with stories involving the glorification of
>firearms as some sort of an "equalizer", in one manner or another.
That "long and bloody history" belongs to the government of the United
States of America. The U.S. government has killed far more people
than the the individual citizens of the US have.
Jim Alder
Roger Denney wrote in message <3652ae38...@news.inreach.com>...
>Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
>
Another egghead study setting out to prove what they want to believe in the
first place. No matter how many instances where a concealed weapon stops a
crime, they won't believe it is significant. But one gun death is a
headline.
>The strongest deterrent effects estimated were for rape, aggravated
>assault, and murder. But most rapes and aggravated assaults are
>committed by someone known to the victim -- a situation in which
>carrying a concealed gun in public is less relevant.
Says who? It doesn't say that these 'known assaulters' did so in the
person's home. This kind of random baseless opinion has no place in a
'study' or a critique. Just because I 'know' someone does not mean they have
access to my house. They could still try to rob me on the street.
>Lott and Mustard argue that criminals, in response to "shall issue"
>laws, are substituting property crime for crimes likely to involve
>contact with victims, but the observed "substitutions" make little
>sense. No credible criminologic theory can explain why a criminal would
>steal a car because he felt deterred from assaulting someone.
They make little sense if you don't want to make sense of them. Let's see,
I'm a criminal, and robbing people is getting me shot at. Stealing cars is
less likely to, as is breaking into unoccupied houses. Or, I could get a
job! Nah.....
>The study does not account for the effects of other important gun laws.
>
>In some of the states that passed "shall issue" laws, other gun laws
>were also enacted during Lott and Mustard's study period. ...These
>other laws may substantially affect homicide and other crime rates, yet
>Lott and Mustard fail to consider their effects.
Then again, they MAY not. Johns Hopkins ALSO failed to prove any connection,
but apparently that's okay.
>The study does not consistently define what it is evaluating.
> ...This means Lott and Mustard may mix together states with
>quite different rules for granting a permit.
And they may not. Again, Hopkins assumes that something is being done wrong
without proving anything, or even looking into it.
>Established in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago,
>The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to
>reducing gun violence.
An antigun operation funded by an antigun foundation. Who could have
guessed the outcome!
m...@aussi.net
wrote:
>COALITION FOR GUN CONTROL
>
>National Office, Sydney Australia.
>
>This site provides evidence-based information with full references and
>regular updates for Australians and New Zealanders concerned to reduce
>gun violence in their communities. Additional information (please
>provide data sources), constructive criticism and comments are welcome
>at: http://www.health.su.oz.au/cgc/
>
>
>Before you disagree with gun control laws,
>consider BOTH sides of the story.
And before you agree with gun control laws, take a serious look at the
information used to justify those laws, the effect, and cost, of
enforcement, and whether any instance of public safety or reducing
crime will result from them. The Canadian dept. o' Justice has
misconstrued information about crime, withheld information about
research showing their legislation is ineffective, and cannot tell us
how the "new" legislation will reduce crime and increase public
safety.
>New Book: OVER OUR DEAD BODIES: Port Arthur and the fight for gun
>control. By Simon Chapman from the Dept Public Health, University of
>Sydney. In Australian bookshops or order here
Read "Point Blank" by Gary Kleck, a researcher who does consider "both
sides of the story" and debunks arguments of both the pro and anti
postions on firearms control.
>
>Gun Control FAQs: Countering the Myths About Guns & Gun Owners.
Countering Myths or Creating and propogating Myths?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#2.
>
>Q: If 80% of gun deaths are suicides, what difference will gun control
>make?
Not much, the method of suicide is not the cause. Suicide is a
personal choice, once suicide has been set as a personal goal, then
tan available method is chosen. If one method is not available,
another is.
There has been no VALID research correlating firearms availability to
cause of suicide. In Canada, the most common method of suicide is
"hanging", the rope is certainly not the cause, the second common
method is CO2 poisoning, and we don't list automobiles or garages as
a "cause".
>A: A gun is an extremely effective means of suicide. Unlike slower acting
>methods such as drug overdoses and gassing, suicide attempts with guns
>are generally successful. Many suicide attempts are known to be
>impulsive, precipitated by temporary adverse circumstances or mental
>states and influenced by intoxication. A gun within easy reach
>frequently translates such attempts into fatalities, whereas attempts
>using some other methods can often result in the person being found and
>revived before they die.
This is pure hogwash, very few successful suicide attempts are
"impulsive". They are planned to be successful.
The most recent successful suicides in our community did not use
firearms as a method. All were planned so there would be no
intervention as the individuals chose a location where the chances of
intervention would be very remote.
And the majority had a history of previous suicide attempts.
>Many people who have attempted suicide and who
>have been found before they die are intensely grateful that they did not
>succeed in their attempt.
This is not immediate and only after support from family, friends,
and councilors, and the individual accepts alternative solutions,
other than suicide, to their problems .
Remember some suicide attempts are not ment to be successful but are a
"cry for help" or attention of some sort.
BRAD PARMAN
Dan Z wrote:
> In <3652ae38...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger
> Denney) writes:
> >
> >Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
> >
> >Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
> >Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
> >624 North Broadway
> >Baltimore, MD 21205-1996
> >8/8/96
> >
>
> Yes, doctors are certainly experts on crime, firearms and concealed
> carry... Now as to the specific points by Teret:
>
> John Lott's Response to Stephen Teret's Critical Commentary on a Paper
> by Lott and Mustard
>
> Claim #1: "The Study uses incorrect and discredited methology"
>
> a) The use of the arrest rates in explaining crime rates
> Teret provides a very biased reading of the National Academy of
> Sciences report. For example, Vanaele (p. 281) concluded that: "the
> negative relationship between the crime rate and the probability of
> imprisonment and between the crime rate and the time served is not
> spurious." The sociologists on the panel were more cautious but still
> concluded (pp. 4 and 7) that, "Taken as a whole, the evidence
> consistently finds a negative association between crime rates and the
> risks of apprehension, conviction or imprisonment. . . . the
> evidence certainly favors a proposition supporting deterrence more than
> it favors one asserting that deterrence is absent."
>
>
This is how scientific papers are critiqued. People write papers to refute the findings of an
original study. The original authors write papers to defend their papers. The only real crucible is
time and further studies to look for similar or dissimilar results.
I've been hoping that this issue would get some unbiased study for years. I've been sick of counting
suicides the same as homicides. I've been sick of people counting 18-21 year olds as children. I've
been sick of studies treating drug dealer on drug dealer crime the same as crimes against lawabiding
people.
Keep it on target,
Brad
Freddo VA3FD
sheppard@*NOSPAM*atea.mat.army.defence.gov.au says...
> Freddo VA3FD <fre...@magi.com> wrote in article
> <MPG.10b97772c...@news.istar.ca>...
> > >
> > > National Office, Sydney Australia.
> > >
> >
> > How can anyone take this group seriously when their web page
> > is so rife with errors?
>
>
>
> I doubt whether THEY take themselves seriously.
>
> Nobody else does...well except for the intellectually and morally
> challenged here anyway.
Hee-hee, I've posted here (a year or so ago) that these people
out-and-out lie about Kanada on their web site... look, we surely
don't have good laws here, far too restrictive. BUT the CGC site
says it is even MORE restrictive that it actually is, in a lame
attempt to tell readers "See there, what these other countries
have done, we should do it too!" Four of their eleven criteria
about Canada is wrong.
What a bunch of buffoons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freddo - VA3FD - UIN 1562286
fre...@magi.com
http://magi.com/~freddo/guns.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sheldon Scott
: COALITION FOR GUN CONTROL
: National Office, Sydney Australia.
: This site provides evidence-based information with full references
:
As opposed to the hearsay based assertions usually associated with "gun
control experts", I suppose.
: Q:1. Isn't most gun violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill?
: A register of those known to be dangerous should be set up.
:
:
: A:Many opposed to the Police Ministers' proposals are preoccupied with one
: theme: that ordinary, law-abiding, responsible shooters must not take
: the blame for Port Arthur and other gun violence. These are people who,
: according to Broken Hill National Party member Mark Kersten, "have never
: done anything in their life, who have never broken the law." The people
: Tim Fischer says are being "unfairly besmirched".
:
: This notion that there are two types of gun owners -- the crazy, evil
: and dangerous, and the law-abiding, peaceful types who wouldn't harm a
: fly and should have free access to weapons, is perhaps the greatest
: furphy that has emerged to dominate gun lobby rhetoric. It provides the
: debate with a powerful sub-text of unfairness, with no shortage of
: avuncular, salt of the earth farmers to voice it. But the argument that
: it is "them" who are dangerous is utter nonsense. Most gun killers are
: in fact licensed sporting shooters with no history of mental illness or
: violent crime.
:
: In mass shootings, more victims are shot by licensed gun
: owners than by mentally ill killers, unlicensed offenders and violent
: criminals combined.
:
:
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
: copyrighted work in this message is distributed under "Fair Use" without
: profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
: receiving the included information for non-profit research and
: educational purposes only.
: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
: =================================================================
--
)-: "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think." :-(
(-: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net. :-)
sheppard
<MPG.10b97772c...@news.istar.ca>...
> In article <36518889...@news.inreach.com>, rgde...@yahoo.com
> says...
> >
> > National Office, Sydney Australia.
> >
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Roger Denney wrote:
: > Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
: >
: > Established in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago,
: > The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to
: > reducing gun violence.
: This is a really unbiased source, eh? They're not dedicated to reducing
: violence, just "gun violence".
Are you offering to fund them to include the study of other types of
violence? I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige if you come up with the
bucks.
Why doesn't the NRA promote knives, clubs and all weapons?
: Come back when you find a source who is neutral.
I.e., when you post the findings of another gunnut, HerrBlockedColon will
declare the source to be neutral.
: Oh yeah, every one of those
: tends to end up looking like Lott, Kleck, etc.
The NRA's running dogs.
: Johns Hopkins as a reference about guns <snicker> What's next? Kellerman as
: an independant source?
He's at least as independent as the NRA's lackeys.
--
Buddy K
apriori
KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>
>: Johns Hopkins as a reference about guns <snicker> What's next? Kellerman as
>: an independant source?
>
>He's at least as independent as the NRA's lackeys.
Bullshit. Kellerman derives funding from stated anti-gun sources like
the CDC. Lott and Kleck receive no funding from the NRA.
apriori
Lone_Wolf
#HerrGlock (herr...@usa.net) wrote:
#: Roger Denney wrote:
#: > Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
#: >
#: > Established in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago,
#: > The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to
#: > reducing gun violence.
#: This is a really unbiased source, eh? They're not dedicated to reducing
#: violence, just "gun violence".
#Are you offering to fund them to include the study of other types of
#violence? I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige if you come up with the
#bucks.
Why do they concentrate on firearm's violence when the evidence is pretty
strong that the problem is largely of a culture of violence, often within
particular subsets of certain minority populations, often tied to illicit
activities?
#Why doesn't the NRA promote knives, clubs and all weapons?
Because the NRA is the National RIFLE Association. Not the National Armaments
Association, not the National Weaponry Assocation.
#: Come back when you find a source who is neutral.
#I.e., when you post the findings of another gunnut, HerrBlockedColon will
#declare the source to be neutral.
How mature. Last I checked, you seem to write off anybody who posts anything
vaguely pro-firearm as being a gunnut, even when they are not a member of
any firearm's organizations, receive no funding from such, and in fact are
card-carrying members of the ACLU, while accepting the 'research' of groups
that require you to have an anti-gun bias before giving you money (as the
Joyce Foundation does, their grant application paperwork has been posted here
numerous times).
#: Oh yeah, every one of those
#: tends to end up looking like Lott, Kleck, etc.
#The NRA's running dogs.
Proof for this assertion? Or do you just dislike that they disagree with you,
so assume that they are a member of some massive gun industry conspiracy?
Does the NRA provide helicopters for them to fly around in? Black ones,
perchance?
#: Johns Hopkins as a reference about guns <snicker> What's next? Kellerman as
#: an independant source?
#He's at least as independent as the NRA's lackeys.
Proof for this?
James
#--
#Buddy K
John Johnson
In <365ab532...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com
(Roger Denney) writes:
> Wednesday November 18 1998
>
> Cops Say Wis. Teens Had Gun Access
>
> BURLINGTON, Wis. (AP) - Five boys accused of planning a bloodbath at
> their school in revenge for being teased had access to an unlocked
> box of guns owned by one their fathers, police said.
>
> The boys, all 15 or 16, planned the plot in detail, down to snipping
> phone lines and taking top administrators hostage, investigators
> said. They had intended to carry out the attack on Monday at
> Burlington High School, but an informant tipped police, and one of
> the students said it was all a joke.
>
> Neither police nor the town of 9,500 was laughing in light of a
> series of school shootings in other states.
>
> Three of the boys were charged in juvenile court today with three
> counts of conspiracy to commit first-degree intentional homicide.
> A judge made no decision on a prosecutor's request to charge the
> boys as adults and for psychological evaluations.
>
> All five were rounded up Sunday night, though two who sought to back
> out of the plot were turned over to their parents, including the boy
> whose father had the guns, police said.
>
> ``The human tragedy right now is the mother and the father,'' Gerald
> Boyle, an attorney for one of the three boys charged, said today.
> ``They're just beside themselves with fear and anxiety.''
>
> Each of the five boys had singled out people they intended to shoot,
> said Gary Large, assistant police chief.
>
> The boys told investigators they were going to use 9mm, .357-caliber
> and .44-caliber guns kept by one of their fathers in an unlocked box,
> Large said.
>
> ``Initially, when they first made this plan they knew exactly what
> guns they wanted and where they were and in fact how to get them,''
> Large said.
>
> Some of the boys also told police they had another source for
> weapons, Large said.
>
> None of the boys was identified because of their ages. One of the
> youths said the five are picked on by schoolmates because they wear
> black clothes and listen to heavy-metal music.
>
> ``If something was said by the most popular kids in school, it would
> have been taken as if they're just messing around,'' he said. ``But
> we're looked down upon because we're dressed in black and we listen
> to Marilyn Manson.''
>
> The school suspended the boys pending an expulsion hearing, increased
> police patrols and held a community meeting attended by about 1,000
> people.
>
> The plot comes after a round of school violence that shocked the
> nation this year and last.
>
> Three girls were killed when a fellow student opened fire on their
> high school prayer circle in West Paducah, Ky. Two students were
> killed in Pearl, Miss., and four students and a teacher died in
> an ambush in Jonesboro, Ark.
>
> A teacher was killed at a school dance in Edinboro, Pa., and two
> students were shot to death in Springfield, Ore.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
> without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving the included information for non-profit
> research and educational purposes only.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> ====================================================================
Machts nicht, Roger: Associated Press _specifically_ told you "No"!
C O P Y R I G H T R E M I N D E R [just to *remind* Roger Denney]
This article is Copyright 1998 by The Associated Press.
"Associated Press news material shall not be published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly
or indirectly in any medium."
and:
"Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in
the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press."
Care to _post_ that "written authority", Roger? I thought not!
[Archiving Roger Denney's copyright-violating messages: one posting
at a time]
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved
Michael Cidras
Roger Denney wrote in message <3659b361...@news.inreach.com>...
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:55:45 GMT, rled...@mindspring.com ("ray"
ledford) wrote
>this garbage:
>
>>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps, that was the wrong word to use, considering that the vast
majority of
>>>people who want more gun-control laws enacted are not in favor of a
total ban.
>>
>>"Vast majority?" Oh yeah, there's a "vast majority" all right --
and
>>it keeps voting DOWN gun control measures.
>
are sick and
>tired of the gun-violence in this country, especially when they see
how low it
>is in Japan, England, Canada, ect...
Since you mentioned Japan, may I ask when the last time you were there
living for more than say a few weeks? I just came back from there at
the beginning of this year (Okinawa specifically) after living there
for 6 years. Yes, Japan doesn't provide for private ownership of
firearms that shoot anything .22 or over (air guns and pellet guns are
sold incidently).
However, take a look at some other interesting things that go on in
that country. The nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway comes to mind
easily (just as much damage as a person using a firearm). Last year
there was some kook running around chopping kids heads off (that had
lots of parents worried, knives kill just as well as firearms). The
primary and secondary school system is so competitive that quite a few
kids end up committing suicide when they are denied admittance to a
prestigious university. Bullying in secondary schools have caused the
deaths of quite a few children in the last few years (just as easily
as some tweaked kids using guns). Oh, and there were several
published accounts of criminals gaining firearms illegally (even on an
island like Okinawa, and not from military bases). Crime, criminals
and violence (regardless if it's committed with a firearm, a knife or
nerve gas) happen in every society, even one that is as homogenous and
supposedly honor bound as Japan.
>
>>>>You speak only for yourself. That's all.
>>>
>>>Then why do you people always speak as if you are all in total
agreement when
>>>reciting a "story" about how you "protected" yourself with a gun ?
>>
>>Try for a little clarity, okay? I've been in this group for quite a
>>while, and yes, we all (gun owners) DO seem to be in agreement about
>>protecting ourselves with firearms. However, you were probably
trying
>>to say something else. I know you're handicapped, but try to
restate
>>it.
>
>
>I realize that all those mind-altering chemicals you constantly
ingest and
>inhale are having a profoundly hallucinogenic effect on your already
>damaged-in-utero brain, "ray-ray", but if you cant keep up with my
fast paced
>mind, I will simply have to relegate your incoherent missives off as
the
>discontented rumblings of an insane person, which they, of course,
truly
>are<bfg>.
>
>
>>>>And who has tried to do that? Who has tried to limit or
altogether
>>>>remove your right to free speech?
>>
>>I'm still waiting. NAME SOMEONE.
>
>Pick anyone here who has used subterfuge, false insinuations and even
going
>so far as to fraudulently represent themselves to be law-enforcement
officers
>who have demanded that I cease posting here (No, not you John) to
attempt to
>frighten me into leaving this forum, "ray", thats who.
>
>You people dont seem to like free speech too much when it comes from
someone
>you diagree with, do you ?
>
>Too bad.
>
>>>>I have an SKS, boob, and it's no more dangerous than a car -- and
it
>>>>needs far less maintenance.
>>>
>>>It is a gun designed for one purpose: to kill people, period.
Civilian assault
>>>weapons are patterned after military machine guns used on
battlefields in time
>>>of war.
>>
>>That's not it's only purpose. If it were, it'd be far more accurate
>>and at a greater range than it has now. And the SKS is not a
>>"military machine gun." It wouldn't be worth a crap as an automatic
>>weapon.
>
>The new assault-weapons bans that are being proposed, by the
definition of you
>gunowners, is directed towards SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, not
FULL-AUTOMATIC
>weapons, so what is your point here ?
>
>>>Basically any semi-automatic military style rifle. I don't know all
the names
>>>and characteristics of the models to be banned, but it will be far
more then
>>>those included in the 1989 AW ban, to be certain.
>>
>>You don't know anything.
>
>Do you know _exactly_ how every device you use or come into contact
with works,
>the characteristics and models available ?
>
>No ?
>
>It figures !
>
>Another Gun-Hypocrite !
>
>>>>You haven't yet dropped anything into the gene pool, have you?
>>>
>>>Yes, as a matter of fact I have. Why should that matter ?
>>
>>You've ruined the gene pool, that's why.
>
>At least MY family tree has branches <bfg>
>
>>>>There is no bloody cost of gun ownership. The assets of gun
ownership
>>>>far outweigh any liabilities, real or imagined. There is also no
>>>>"cult" of gun ownership. If any object is "worshipped" in this
>>>>country, it is the state, a thing to which I will NOT bend my
knee.
>>>
>>>John Ross, the author of that book you gun-fanatics are so fired up
about,
>>>"Unintended Consequences" seems to be in disagreement with you. He
himself
>>>calls people like you members of the" American Gun-Culture". You
people are so
>>>close to your dangerous toys you cant see the forest for the trees.
>>
>
>>I've heard of the title, but I've never read the book.
>
>That cant' be right, "ray". You just implied that you know everything
there is
>to know about gun ownership, didn't you ?
>
>Oops, I forgot.....you have to be able to actually READ a real BOOK
(I know it
>hurts your head to do so, but you MUST try <g>) to understand where a
fruitcake
>like Ross is coming from. Leading people like you to oblivion is
where he takes
>you, in that piece of trash he calls a book.
>
>Course, you already know about fruitcakes already, you being one and
all <bg>.
>
>>
>>There is no "cult" which "worships" firearms. That's nothing more
>>than an attempt to demonize both gun owners and religious groups by
>>people are disdainful of others possessing rights and liberty.
>
>You cant really comment about what Ross did or didn't write in his
book,
>"Unintended Consequences", until you actually READ it, "ray".
>
>Until then you are only speculating. That clear enough for you ?
>
>Clue: It is not online <g>
>
>Roger
>
>Have an Unarmed Day.....For Life !
>
Hertel
>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
>
>Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed by a
>friend in 1994, was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her Monday
>in the product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp. But
>she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting for
>safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
>
>"It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous and
>designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after the
>verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought and the
>person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true. But the
>gun manufacturer has a responsibility too. If there were safety
>mechanisms, they could have prevented it."
The untrained idiots are the ones who are dangerous. The firearm has a
safety
mechanism already.
>Kenzo Dix was killed four years ago by a 14-year-old friend, who fired
>his father's unlocked 9mm semi-automatic handgun in play, thinking it
>was empty.
>
Thinking? Not a chance!
>The friend had removed a loaded clip from the pistol before he pulled
>the trigger, but a bullet remained in the gun's chamber and killed the
>Berkeley High freshman.
It's not a clip...it's a magazine. All firearms should be considered loaded
if you haven't checked the chamber.
>
>Lynn and Griffin Dix had been seeking $7.5 million in compensatory
>damages from Beretta, claiming the company's failure to install an
>internal lock on its guns made it liable for Kenzo's death. In a
>separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father, Clarence
>Soe, for $100,000.
>
The weapon won't fire untill you pull the trigger.
>But Monday morning, after a three-week trial and three days of
>deliberation, the Alameda County Superior Court jury sided in favor of
>Beretta. The decision in the landmark case could herald an uphill battle
>for a spate of pending lawsuits against gun makers.
>
>"It was a tragic accident," said Robert Gebhardt of Bronson, Bronson and
>McKinnon, lead counsel for Beretta. "Everybody, including myself, was
>upset about what happened to this boy and his family. But given the
>evidence, and the law as presented by the judge, I think the jury did
>the right thing."
>
>Edward Bell, a member of the jury and a retired Oakland pastor, said the
>plaintiffs just hadn't made a compelling enough case.
>
>"Clarence Soe left a loaded gun ready to fire in an unlocked case in an
>open bedroom with no lock on the door. That was gross negligence," he
>said. "I don't think there's anything a company can do if the owner is
>negligent. There's a mood in the country that we'd like corporations to
>protect us from ourselves, but they can't."
>
>Live round in the chamber
>
The safety WAS ON!
>The Dixes had argued the gun should have been designed with a built-in
>safety device that would have prevented unauthorized users from firing
>it, or alerted a user that a live round was in the chamber.
>
>Gebhardt argued that external locking devices are cheap and easily
>available and that it was Soe's responsibility to install one.
>
>Bell said the jury was convinced that, in this case, even a built-in
>lock would not have saved Kenzo Dix because there was a bullet in the
>chamber.
>
>Plaintiff's attorney Eric Gorovitz, who is legal director for the Trauma
>Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, acknowledged most external
>locks couldn't be activated with a bullet in the chamber.
>
>Instead, Gorovitz argued, Beretta should have built its guns with
>locking devices that worked even with a round in the chamber.
>
>"People like this gun owner want the thing chamber-loaded, and that's
>why they don't use other locks," he said. "Our point is you need to
>design locks for the way people actually use their guns. If we didn't
>make that clear to the jury, that's probably why they didn't rule in our
>favor. I'm very distressed to hear that."
>
>Gorovitz said he and his colleagues would look carefully at the
>possibility of appealing the decision. And he said he doubted the
>verdict would put a damper on lawsuits being brought elsewhere.
>
>Similar lawsuits pending
>
>City officials in both New Orleans and Chicago recently filed similar
>product liability suits against handgun manufacturers.
>
>"There will be many more lawsuits because the industry is quite clear
>that they're not going to do anything until it hits them in the
>pocketbook, and meanwhile kids keep dying," he said. "Gun manufacturers
>make the only consumer product not subject to any safety regulation,
>because the National Rifle Association has succeeded in prohibiting the
>Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating weapons. They have
>jurisdiction over toy guns, teddy bears and toasters, but they're not
>allowed to say anything about how guns are made."
>
>But Rudolph Pino of Pino and Associates, Beretta's national legal
>counsel, called Monday's decision a triumph.
>
>"We're hoping it gives some of these municipalities a good dose of
>reality," Pino said. "I don't know if it will stop them, but if they're
>thinking this is like tobacco litigation where they're going to be
>getting hundreds of million of dollars, they'd better think again."
>
>Though she didn't win, Dix said she believed her lawsuit had helped
>increase public awareness of the dangers of handguns.
>
Untrained fools with any weapon is dangerous.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
>copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
>profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
>receiving the included information for non-profit research and
>educational purposes only.
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
>========================================================================
Hertel
Roger Denney wrote in message <3659e092...@news.inreach.com>...
>Why Kenzo's Dad Is Angry
>
>By Adair Lara
>
>(SFC)-Thursday, November 19, 1998
>
>
>I HAVE A student named Griffin Dix, a father, who lives in Berkeley and
>is trying to write a book urging tighter controls on guns.
>
>As his teacher, my job is to urge him not to be so angry. He can't
>describe the downtown office of a handgun-control organization without
>adding, ``The bare-bones decor of an office like this makes you realize
>there's not much money to be made in public safety. We know there's a
>lot to be made in selling guns.''
>
>His son Kenzo, 15, was killed four years ago in a friend's bedroom when
>the friend playfully pointed his father's gun at him and pulled the
>trigger. The father kept the gun, loaded, in a camera bag next to his
>bed. The son took the clip out of the gun, but didn't know there was a
>bullet still in the chamber.
The son is stupid and so is Dad for not teaching son about firearms.
>The bullet plowed into Kenzo's shoulder and then into his heart.
>
>Now his father, this mild man, sits before hearings in Sacramento,
>trembling with anger, trying to help get laws passed.
>
>``In a society that values its children,'' says Griffin, ``an angry kid
>should not be able to buy a gun on the street for $50.''
Did the sun buy the gun on the dtreet for $50.00? NO
>Griffin, who has one son left, has immersed himself in gun statistics.
>He can tell you that in California your child is more likely to die from
>being shot than from anything else. People buy guns for protection, then
>use them to impulsively kill themselves in a despondent moment -- more
>people use guns to kill themselves than to kill other people.
What a pile. This can't be true.
>He can tell you that 40 percent of homes have guns in them, many of them
>lying in drawers, loaded.
>
>Griffin and Kenzo's mother, Lynn Dix, sued Beretta, the maker of the
>gun, in the first product-liability lawsuit against a gun manufacturer.
>But Beretta's lawyers argued that the 14-year-old shooter had ignored
>safety warnings in the gun's owner's manual, and despite a shouting
>match among the jury, the suit failed.
The 14 year old shooter was stupid.
>THE GUN LOBBY is powerful. NRA sportsmen, in defending their own rights,
>defend the right of homicidal maniacs to possess guns. The rest of us
>are perplexed. We don't know why assault rifles have to be banned
>because we don't know why they're legal.
So the son is a homicidal maniacs. What do assault rifles have to do with
this?
>Griffin will write his book with its mild demand, asking manufacturers
>to build locks onto guns, locks that make it impossible to fire someone
>else's gun. Locks that make it impossible for a kid to show off for
>another kid by getting his father's gun, pointing it and pulling the
>trigger. Locks that Beretta could have included.
Once more....son is stupid. So they'll build locks into the firearms. Is
that all firearms?
While someone is fumbleing with the lock the intruder breaks in and
shoots...........
>He'll do what he can to save other people's children.
>
>But his anger is here to stay. He is angry not at the poor kid who shot
>his friend or at the father who left the gun there, but at the way
>things are.
That's right we don't want to hold the shooter or Dad responsible for thier
actions.
That woul be to Right Wing wouldn't it?
>He's angry that there are guns lying loaded, right now, in bedroom
>drawers and under the stack of towels in the bathroom, under the
>mattress or lying in plain sight beside a handful of change and some car
>keys.
>
>Guns that will be lifted by a hand shaking with rage, or with drink, or
>a small hand still grimy from playing out in the back yard, and will
>have their triggers pressed, sending a bullet flying into soft flesh and
>bone, ending a life, devastating a family.
>
>KENZO NOW LIES on top of a hill in El Cerrito, just north of Berkeley.
>Letters from school friends flutter from the gray polished granite
>marker. A metal flower container is stuffed with notes from his friends:
>``Kenzo how are you? I still am hella missing you, bro. You must not be
>too lonely with all your friends coming by, visiting you. I think of you
>everyday. Anyway, I go with Wendy now. Sam goes with Susie, and Jimmy
>with . . .''
Robert Frenchu
>Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
>
>Nov. 17, 1998
>
>San Francisco- (SFE)
>
>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
>
>Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed by a
>friend in 1994, was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her Monday
>in the product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp. But
>she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting for
>safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
>
>"It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous and
>designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after the
>verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought and the
>person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true.
This is where the story should have stopped.
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Dan Cloutier
>But on Jan. 6, Charles Ellis Schumer takes on a whole new world when he
>is sworn in as a U.S. senator.
And when he says the words, "...to uphold the constitution of the United
States..." we'll all have a good, long, rolling-on-the-floor laugh.
John Johnson
`Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist for Southern
"Peoples Socialist Republik of Kalifornia"; Roger G. Denney
<rgde...@yahoo.com>; writes:
> Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
>
> Nov. 17, 1998
>
> San Francisco- (SFE)
^^^--{San Francisco Examiner}
> In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager
> who was unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their
> bid to force a gun company to install safety locks on all future
> weapons.
>
> Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed
> by a friend in 1994,...
Pointing a loaded gun at another person and pulling the trigger
is _NOT_ "unintentional"!!!
> ...was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her Monday in the
> product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp. But
> she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting
> for safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
>
> "It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous
> and designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after
> the verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought
> and the person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's
> true.
They _WHY_ didn't you and Handgun Control Incorporated's
Dennis "Little Denney" Henigan file suit against the OWNER and
the SHOOTER for the "Big Bucks" then?!?
> But the gun manufacturer has a responsibility too. If there were
> safety mechanisms, they could have prevented it."
In place: and unused/unidentified by the SHOOTER!:
---- Begin Inserted Press Release ----
November 17, 1998
The following press release was distributed by Beretta U.S.A.
Corp. this week following the dismissal of a lawsuit against
them that was sponsored in part by Handgun Control, Inc.
NRA-ILA
----------------
Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
17601 Beretta Drive - Accokeek - Maryland 20607
For Immediate Release
BERETTA DEFEATS HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. IN CALIFORNIA LAWSUIT
An Alameda County, California jury today dismissed a lawsuit
filed against the firearms manufacturer Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (Dix
v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.), which was sponsored in part by Handgun
Control, Inc. The suit involved the 1994 shooting of fourteen
year old Kenzo Dix by a fifteen year old friend in Alameda
County, California. Dix was killed when his friend took a
Beretta handgun, which was kept loaded and unlocked by the
friend's father in an open camera bag, pointed the gun at Kenzo
Dix, disengaged the safety lever and pulled the trigger, firing
the weapon.
The suit, which was also brought by the parents of the deceased
youth, alleged that the firearm in question should have had a
device which warned that the firing chamber was loaded. Beretta
U.S.A. Corp. defended by pointing out that the firearm in
question had such a device and that the accident occurred because
of the failure of the shooter and his father to follow basic
safety instructions included with the pistol.
The suit further alleged that Beretta should have built a lock
into the firearm in question so that only an authorized person
could use the gun.
"There is no gun made that cannot be locked," commented Jeff Reh,
General Counsel for Beretta U.S.A. "The parent who owned the
firearm in question knew that trigger locks and lockable gun
cases exist and he chose not to use one. He purposefully left
the gun loaded and available to his son. His son knew that he
should never point a firearm at another person. He knew that he
should not disengage the safety on the gun unless he intended to
shoot it. He knew that he should never touch the trigger unless
he intended to shoot the gun. He knew how to pull back on the
slide of the pistol and check to make sure that the chamber was
unloaded. He knew all of these things but did not do them. His
carelessness and that of his father led to the death of Kenzo
Dix, not the design of the pistol."
In testimony, Beretta U.S.A. also questioned whether locks built
into firearms might actually prove dangerous by encouraging
parents to leave loaded guns where they are accessible to
children, believing that the gun was now "childproof."
"Beretta U.S.A is concerned about the safety of using internal
locks for storage of guns around children," Reh noted. "The
internal locks that we have seen are not obviously 'locked'
or 'unlocked'. What if the parent loads the gun but does not
realize they have not activated the lock? We believe it is safer
to use external locks which are obviously on the gun. We also
state in our product manual that guns be stored unloaded and
inaccessible to children, with the ammunition stored in a
separate location."
Beretta U.S.A. also cited National Institute of Justice
statistics which show that the firearm fatal accident rate in
the U.S. is at its lowest point since 1903 and has declined 36
percent in the past 15 years. Most accidents which have occurred
include hunting accidents and other shootings which could not be
prevented by gun locks.
Beretta U.S.A. also expressed concern that locking mechanisms
built into a firearm might inadvertently prevent use of a firearm
in a life-threatening situation. "Even the police, for whom some
have attempted to develop these devices, have rejected them for
fear that the mechanism will mistakenly prevent use of a firearm
in an emergency," Reh said. "Any child's death is a horrendous
tragedy. What we are trying to do is avoid more childhood
accidents caused by ill-conceived locking mechanisms, as well as
maintain the lifesaving use of a firearm by an adult in an
emergency."
Beretta was one of several firearms manufacturers who agreed last
year to begin shipping security devices with their products by
the end of 1998. On October 29, 1998, Beretta signed a contract
with Masterlock to provide a cable lock for Beretta firearms
which would require that the gun be unloaded in order for the
lock to be applied.
-30-
---- End Inserted Press Release ----
> Kenzo Dix was killed four years ago by a 14-year-old friend, who
> fired his father's unlocked 9mm semi-automatic handgun in play,
> thinking it was empty.
Rule #1 of Safe Gun Handling: "ALL guns are _ALWAYS_ _LOADED_:
even "unloaded" guns!"
> The friend had removed a loaded clip from the pistol before he pulled
> the trigger, but a bullet remained in the gun's chamber and killed
> the Berkeley High freshman.
See: the "unloaded gun" _WASN'T_ _UNLOADED_!!!
> Lynn and Griffin Dix had been seeking $7.5 million in compensatory
> damages from Beretta, claiming the company's failure to install an
> internal lock on its guns made it liable for Kenzo's death. In a
> separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father,
> Clarence Soe, for $100,000.
>
> But Monday morning, after a three-week trial and three days of
> deliberation, the Alameda County Superior Court jury sided in favor
> of Beretta. The decision in the landmark case could herald an uphill
> battle for a spate of pending lawsuits against gun makers.
>
> "It was a tragic accident," said Robert Gebhardt of Bronson, Bronson
> and McKinnon, lead counsel for Beretta. "Everybody, including myself,
> was upset about what happened to this boy and his family. But given
> the evidence, and the law as presented by the judge, I think the jury
> did the right thing."
>
> Edward Bell, a member of the jury and a retired Oakland pastor, said
> the plaintiffs just hadn't made a compelling enough case.
>
> "Clarence Soe left a loaded gun ready to fire in an unlocked case in
> an open bedroom with no lock on the door. That was gross negligence,"
> he said. "I don't think there's anything a company can do if the
> owner is negligent. There's a mood in the country that we'd like
> corporations to protect us from ourselves, but they can't."
>
> Live round in the chamber
>
> The Dixes had argued the gun should have been designed with a
> built-in safety device that would have prevented unauthorized
> users from firing it, or alerted a user that a live round was
> in the chamber.
The Beretta 92S _IS_ equipped with a "Chamber Loaded Indicator":
an integral part of the cartridge case extractor. Doesn't do a
_bit_ of good if you _DON'T_ _LOOK_ _AT_ _IT_!!!
> Gebhardt argued that external locking devices are cheap and easily
> available and that it was Soe's responsibility to install one.
>
> Bell said the jury was convinced that, in this case, even a built-in
> lock would not have saved Kenzo Dix because there was a bullet in the
> chamber.
>
> Plaintiff's attorney Eric Gorovitz, who is legal director for the
> Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, acknowledged
> most external locks couldn't be activated with a bullet in the
> chamber.
>
> Instead, Gorovitz argued, Beretta should have built its guns with
> locking devices that worked even with a round in the chamber.
>
> "People like this gun owner want the thing chamber-loaded, and that's
> why they don't use other locks," he said. "Our point is you need to
> design locks for the way people actually use their guns. If we didn't
> make that clear to the jury, that's probably why they didn't rule in
> our favor. I'm very distressed to hear that."
>
> Gorovitz said he and his colleagues would look carefully at the
> possibility of appealing the decision. And he said he doubted the
> verdict would put a damper on lawsuits being brought elsewhere.
>
> Similar lawsuits pending
>
> City officials in both New Orleans and Chicago recently filed similar
> product liability suits against handgun manufacturers.
And they'll most likely _LOSE_ _TOO_!
> "There will be many more lawsuits because the industry is quite
> clear that they're not going to do anything until it hits them in
> the pocketbook, and meanwhile kids keep dying," he said. "Gun
> manufacturers make the only consumer product not subject to any
> safety regulation, because the National Rifle Association has
> succeeded in prohibiting the Consumer Product Safety Commission
> from regulating weapons. They have jurisdiction over toy guns,
> teddy bears and toasters, but they're not allowed to say anything
> about how guns are made."
>
> But Rudolph Pino of Pino and Associates, Beretta's national legal
> counsel, called Monday's decision a triumph.
>
> "We're hoping it gives some of these municipalities a good dose of
> reality," Pino said. "I don't know if it will stop them, but if
> they're thinking this is like tobacco litigation where they're going
> to be getting hundreds of million of dollars, they'd better think
> again."
>
> Though she didn't win, Dix said she believed her lawsuit had helped
> increase public awareness of the dangers of handguns.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
> without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving the included information for non-profit
> research and educational purposes only.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> ====================================================================
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (16+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"Handgun Control Inc., the lobbying group that helped push through
the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons and the Brady law on gun
purchases, is said to be worried that it is losing the public
relations war to the National Rifle Association. . . . It is also
considering a name change because, among other reasons, polls and
focus groups show that many Americans are uncomfortable with the
word *control*." --US News and World Report, August 19, 1996
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything
you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
--Col. David Crockett; member of the Tennessee legislature
(1821-1822/1823-1824); member U.S. House of Representatives
(1827-1831/1833-1835); and Texas Hero of the Alamo (1836)
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and
everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their
one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious
diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt
endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere
suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin
searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
"Liberals have many tails and chase them all."
-- H.L. Mencken
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem --
neat, plausible, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary."
-- H.L. Mencken
"As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.
But what will deter liberals? Certainly not the facts.
They have too much invested in their vision of themselves
as the saviors of us all."
-- Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
©1998 - All rights reserved
GLC1173
>Though she didn't win, Dix said she >believed her lawsuit had helped
>increase public awareness of the dangers of >handguns.
How about asking whether Diamond Match should be sued if a parent leaves a
book of matches on a coffee table in the room her toddler plays in - and the
kid dies playing with matches?
=======================================================
Was your boss, neighbor, or employer caught hiring illegal aliens?
Check them out FREE on www.cis.org/search.html
Anton Sherwood
: > by a friend in 1994,...
John Johnson <txjo...@ix.netcom.com> writes
: Pointing a loaded gun at another person and pulling the trigger
: is _NOT_ "unintentional"!!!
Wow, thanks for catching that.
: > .... "The jury saw that the person who bought
: > and the person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's
: > true.
: They _WHY_ didn't you and Handgun Control Incorporated's
: Dennis "Little Denney" Henigan file suit against the OWNER and
: the SHOOTER for the "Big Bucks" then?!?
Did, as you quoted further on:
: > [...] In a
: > separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father,
: > Clarence Soe, for $100,000.
The shooter was convicted of manslaughter, iirc.
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
John Johnson
In <3655dddb...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com
(Roger Denney) violates Associated Press' copyrights when he
reposted WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION the following article:
> Thursday, November 19, 1998
>
> Schumer to promote a law to squeeze gun-runners by
> limiting gun purchases to 12 a year.^^^
^^^
Interesting choice of titles here: the _whole_ _thing_ only
uses the word "gun" five times: _TWO_OF_THOSE_ are in the TITLE!
Both Roger Denney _and_ the Associated Press are "reaching" here!
> NEW YORK (AP) -- As a congressman, Chuck Schumer's constituency is
> as familiar to him as the block in Brooklyn where he was born and
> raised, a place where middle-class families live in modest homes,
> take the subway into Manhattan, ride their bikes in the park.
>
> As a kid, Schumer was one of them. As an adult, he represented them,
> first in the state Assembly, now in the House of Representatives.
> As a parent, he has chosen to raise his own two daughters among them.
>
> But on Jan. 6, Charles Ellis Schumer takes on a whole new world when
> he is sworn in as a U.S. senator. Overnight, his turf will be
> transformed, from a strip of New York City you could drive through
> in an hour, population 600,000, to a constituency of 18 million
> people almost as diverse as the globe, spread over 50,000 square
> miles, living in everything from farmhouses to skyscrapers.
>
> And that poses a daunting challenge. Although Schumer triumphed over
> Republican incumbent Alfonse D'Amato by 54 percent to 45 percent, he
> lost in 47 of New York's 52 upstate counties.
>
> His new constituency covers New York City neighborhoods where nothing
> but Spanish, Russian or Chinese is spoken; suburban Long Island, home
> to descendants of the first Dutch settlers in America; buildings in
> Harlem where everyone is from Senegal; and villages upstate where
> saunas built by Finnish immigrants are as common as Italian
> restaurants.
>
> He must cater to the inner-city poor and to suburban multi-
> millionaires, dairy farmers and Broadway theater-owners. His is
> a state that stretches from the Statue of Liberty to Canada and
> two Great Lakes, from Wall Street to blue-collar Cheektowaga near
> Niagara Falls.
>
> ``I know I have to prove myself upstate,'' Schumer said as he toured
> his new realm in a tiny propeller plane a few days after the Nov. 3
> election. ``I know there's some skepticism about how is this new
> person from New York City going to help us.''
>
> One such skeptic is Kevin Kieff, who runs a bed-and-breakfast inn
> in Watertown.
>
> ``Sen. D'Amato has done a great job for the folks in the North
> Country,'' he said, using the regional nickname for the state's
> northernmost area. Schumer, on the other hand, ``is a liberal,
> New York City-based guy.''
>
> The campaign trail gave Schumer a closeup of the divide between a
> downstate that has thrived on the Wall Street boom and an upstate
> stricken by industrial decay and the exodus of its young people.
>
> He saw an old Westinghouse factory in Buffalo with a sign that said,
> ``Will lease. Will sell. Will do almost anything.'' Schumer read it
> as ``a plea for someone to take over that factory and restore the
> kinds of good paying jobs Western New York is known for.''
>
> He met people who told him that of their 10 fellow high school
> graduates, 7 had left town because they couldn't find jobs.
>
> Schumer has already come up with three ways to revitalize the
> economy: Deregulate utility companies to cut power rates, apply
> New York's share of the tobacco settlement to cutting property
> taxes, and create new slots at major airports for discount airlines
> serving upstate.
>
> But for all their differences, he believes, north and south have much
> in common. ``When a family sits down in Queens Friday night and tries
> to figure out how to pay the bills, it's no different than when a
> family sits down in Cheektowaga,'' he says.
>
> ``The dreams and aspirations we have for our children and
> grandchildren are the same.''
>
> Ironically, his parents' aspirations for him had nothing to do
> with politics. They thought he'd make a fine scientist, or maybe
> a corporate lawyer. Young Chuck loved maps, excelled at chemistry,
> and got a perfect 1600 on his SATs. He was a nerd with chutzpah,
> a teen-age champion of the TV quiz show ``It's Academic,''
> valedictorian of his high school, a Harvard freshman at age 16.
>
> ``When he was a little boy, he never said hello to anyone ... He
> just wasn't an outgoing child,'' recalled his mother, Selma Schumer.
> ``We never thought he would go into politics.''
>
> As it turned out, Chuck (``I love to legislate!'') Schumer has never
> held a real job outside of politics. The oldest of three children in
> a middle-class Jewish family, he ran for the state Assembly at age
> 23, straight out of Harvard Law School.
>
> That was despite ``marvelous job offers from very good law firms,''
> his mother recalled. ``When he told us he was going to run for the
> state Assembly, we thought he was crazy. But we thought, 'Well, he'll
> lose and get it out of his system'.''
>
> Instead he won. From there he went to Congress, where he served nine
> terms before beating D'Amato.
>
> On Capitol Hill, he developed a reputation for working hard on
> both legislation and public relations. Bob Dole once said the most
> dangerous place in Washington was the space between Chuck Schumer
> and a TV camera.
>
> Schumer can claim some real accomplishments. A crusader for gun
> control, he authored the Brady Bill, sponsored the assault weapons
> ban and pushed through funding for 100,000 more cops nationwide.
> Now he wants to promote a law to squeeze gun-runners by limiting
> gun purchases to 12 a year.
>
> ``We have the lowest crime rate in 25 years, and no congressman in
> America is more responsible for that than Chuck Schumer,'' President
> Clinton said in October.
>
> Schumer also authored legislation providing federal protection for
> battered women and abortion clinics.
>
> But for all his accomplishments and savvy, the man he replaces is a
> tough act to follow. The flamboyant D'Amato kept a pair of boxing
> gloves in his office, called himself a ``pit bull dog,'' and used
> the music from ``Rocky'' as his theme song.
>
> Schumer is drab by comparison, yet comes across in an earnest, humble
> way that can be disarming. His suits come from a downtown discount
> place called Gorsart's. His favorite snack at the end of a 14-hour
> day is cold cereal. His favorite game is FreeCell, a computerized
> Solitaire. In Washington, he shares a house with three other members
> of Congress.
>
> And when he breaks out of geek mode, he can speak with powerful
> poignancy. During a televised debate with d'Amato, the issue of
> abortion elicited a rare personal reflection from Schumer. When
> his pregnant wife had a sonogram, he said, ``the little fetus put
> her thumb in her mouth, and we decided that if God was good enough
> to give us a third child we would not want an abortion.
>
> ``But that's how it should be determined -- by people talking among
> themselves, families talking with ministers, priests, rabbis and
> their doctor. Not by the government imposing a solution.''
>
> It was a strong pitch to an electorate that is overwhelmingly
> pro-abortion, and it worked. Female voters picked him 3 to 2 over
> D'Amato.
>
> Michael McNulty, Albany's congressman, is certain Schumer will
> fulfill his promise: ``Chuck Schumer not only has the intellect
> -- he has the vision and the drive to make it happen.''
>
> McNulty already thinks of him as White House material. ``When our
> national party starts looking around in the years ahead for somebody
> to run nationwide, that's the man I'm going to suggest,'' he said.
>
> Schumer grinned sheepishly, then said: ``I want to focus all my
> efforts on being a good senator first.''
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
> without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving the included information for non-profit
> research and educational purposes only.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> ====================================================================
Machts nicht, Roger: Associated Press has already told you "NO"!
C O P Y R I G H T R E M I N D E R [just to *remind* Roger Denney]
This article is Copyright 1998 by The Associated Press.
"Associated Press news material shall not be published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly
or indirectly in any medium."
and:
"Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in
the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press."
[Archiving Roger Denney's copyright violating messages: one posting
at a time]
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
Š1998 - All rights reserved
John Johnson
(Anton Sherwood) writes:
>: Roger G. Denney <rgde...@yahoo.com> writes:
>:
>:> Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally
>:> killed by a friend in 1994,...
>
> John Johnson <txjo...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>: Pointing a loaded gun at another person and pulling the
>: trigger is _NOT_ "unintentional"!!!
>
> Wow, thanks for catching that.
>
>:> .... "The jury saw that the person who bought and the person
>:> who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true.
>
>: They _WHY_ didn't you and Handgun Control Incorporated's
>: Dennis "Little Denney" Henigan file suit against the OWNER and
>: the SHOOTER for the "Big Bucks" then?!?
>
> Did, as you quoted further on:
>
>:> [...] In a separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the
>:> friend's father, Clarence Soe, for $100,000.
Since the first part of this same paragraph reads: "Lynn and
Griffin Dix had been seeking $7.5 million in compensatory damages
from Beretta..."; $100,000 doesn't _qualify_ as "Big Bucks".
> The shooter was convicted of manslaughter, iirc.
As an "adult"; or as a "Juvenile Delinquent"?
> --
> "How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?"
> --Porky Pine 70.6.19
> Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Anton Sherwood
: > The shooter was convicted of manslaughter, iirc.
John Johnson <txjo...@ix.netcom.com> writes
: As an "adult"; or as a "Juvenile Delinquent"?
As a child, I guess, since I haven't seen his name.
Wayne M.
>Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
While it's tragic, I think the parents lost their common sense long
ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
Wayne M.
"Sometimes the gene pool could use a little chlorine"
>
>Nov. 17, 1998
>
>San Francisco- (SFE)
>
>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
>
>Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed by a
>friend in 1994, was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her Monday
>in the product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp. But
>she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting for
>safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
>
>"It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous and
>designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after the
>verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought and the
>person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true. But the
>gun manufacturer has a responsibility too. If there were safety
>mechanisms, they could have prevented it."
>
>Kenzo Dix was killed four years ago by a 14-year-old friend, who fired
>his father's unlocked 9mm semi-automatic handgun in play, thinking it
>was empty.
>
>The friend had removed a loaded clip from the pistol before he pulled
>the trigger, but a bullet remained in the gun's chamber and killed the
>Berkeley High freshman.
>
>Lynn and Griffin Dix had been seeking $7.5 million in compensatory
>damages from Beretta, claiming the company's failure to install an
>internal lock on its guns made it liable for Kenzo's death. In a
>separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father, Clarence
>Soe, for $100,000.
>
>But Monday morning, after a three-week trial and three days of
>deliberation, the Alameda County Superior Court jury sided in favor of
>Beretta. The decision in the landmark case could herald an uphill battle
>for a spate of pending lawsuits against gun makers.
>
>"It was a tragic accident," said Robert Gebhardt of Bronson, Bronson and
>McKinnon, lead counsel for Beretta. "Everybody, including myself, was
>upset about what happened to this boy and his family. But given the
>evidence, and the law as presented by the judge, I think the jury did
>the right thing."
>
>Edward Bell, a member of the jury and a retired Oakland pastor, said the
>plaintiffs just hadn't made a compelling enough case.
>
>"Clarence Soe left a loaded gun ready to fire in an unlocked case in an
>open bedroom with no lock on the door. That was gross negligence," he
>said. "I don't think there's anything a company can do if the owner is
>negligent. There's a mood in the country that we'd like corporations to
>protect us from ourselves, but they can't."
>
>Live round in the chamber
>
>The Dixes had argued the gun should have been designed with a built-in
>safety device that would have prevented unauthorized users from firing
>it, or alerted a user that a live round was in the chamber.
>
>Gebhardt argued that external locking devices are cheap and easily
>available and that it was Soe's responsibility to install one.
>
>Bell said the jury was convinced that, in this case, even a built-in
>lock would not have saved Kenzo Dix because there was a bullet in the
>chamber.
>
>Plaintiff's attorney Eric Gorovitz, who is legal director for the Trauma
>Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, acknowledged most external
>locks couldn't be activated with a bullet in the chamber.
>
>Instead, Gorovitz argued, Beretta should have built its guns with
>locking devices that worked even with a round in the chamber.
>
>"People like this gun owner want the thing chamber-loaded, and that's
>why they don't use other locks," he said. "Our point is you need to
>design locks for the way people actually use their guns. If we didn't
>make that clear to the jury, that's probably why they didn't rule in our
>favor. I'm very distressed to hear that."
>
>Gorovitz said he and his colleagues would look carefully at the
>possibility of appealing the decision. And he said he doubted the
>verdict would put a damper on lawsuits being brought elsewhere.
>
>Similar lawsuits pending
>
>City officials in both New Orleans and Chicago recently filed similar
>product liability suits against handgun manufacturers.
>
>"There will be many more lawsuits because the industry is quite clear
>that they're not going to do anything until it hits them in the
>pocketbook, and meanwhile kids keep dying," he said. "Gun manufacturers
>make the only consumer product not subject to any safety regulation,
>because the National Rifle Association has succeeded in prohibiting the
>Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating weapons. They have
>jurisdiction over toy guns, teddy bears and toasters, but they're not
>allowed to say anything about how guns are made."
>
>But Rudolph Pino of Pino and Associates, Beretta's national legal
>counsel, called Monday's decision a triumph.
>
>"We're hoping it gives some of these municipalities a good dose of
>reality," Pino said. "I don't know if it will stop them, but if they're
>thinking this is like tobacco litigation where they're going to be
>getting hundreds of million of dollars, they'd better think again."
>
>Though she didn't win, Dix said she believed her lawsuit had helped
>increase public awareness of the dangers of handguns.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
>copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
>profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
>receiving the included information for non-profit research and
>educational purposes only.
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
>========================================================================
Ronald C Bloom ii
>Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
>
>
>San Francisco- (SFE)
>
>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
So if the kid drove his mother's car over the other kid, he would have been
killed by the car, not the kid?
Ronald C Bloom ii
Aren't there laws on the books now forbidding "gun-running" Yes. Are they
enforced? NO!!
Mary E Knadler
White House Material! I say Yuck, Yuck, Yuck, I think he is
the most opinioned, trying to impose everything (except) abortion
down our throats.
No one can have a gun because the people in Brooklyn (or where
ever in NYC they say so). Give me a break. Oh Gosh, where can I move
to to avoid people like him.
I feel sorry for the poor people in upstate NY who have to live with
THAT.
yasmin2
David Voth
era must have forced wayn...@mindspring.com (Wayne M.) to write:
<snip>
>While it's tragic, I think the parents lost their common sense long
>ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
It took THREE people to make this "accident" happen (careless owner,
careless owner's child, and the victim). Educating any one of them
would very likely have saved the day. As someone else pointed out on
t.p.g, the only real "safety" is the one between your ears.
David Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and SHOT!
Charlemagne
Wayne M. wrote in message <36556c4c...@news.mindspring.com>...
|rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
|
|>Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
|
|While it's tragic, I think the parents lost their common sense long
|ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
|
|Wayne M.
|
|"Sometimes the gene pool could use a little chlorine"
|
|>
|>Nov. 17, 1998
|>
|>San Francisco- (SFE)
|>
|>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
|>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
|>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
|>
|>Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed by a
|>friend in 1994, was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her Monday
|>in the product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp. But
|>she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting for
|>safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
|>
|>"It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous and
|>designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after the
|>verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought and the
|>person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true. But the
|>gun manufacturer has a responsibility too. If there were safety
|>mechanisms, they could have prevented it."
|>
It's called natural selection. People of inferior intelligence just
can't make it and those who use their heads live longer. Anyone who points
a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger in "play" is an idiot. So you
then blame the gun manufacturer? It is your responsibility to educate your
own kids about guns. Morons and totally negligent as the intelligent jury
found. This is another simple case of people not taking responsibility for
their own actions. That's the problem these days in America. Lawsuits will
not save the idiots. I can't believe this case even got to trial. Greedy b
astards trying to capitalize on their kid's death. Sad....
And what happens when the safety locks up when you are being attacked
and you can't get a shot off. You would then die because of this idiot
woman's lawsuit. There is no such thing as a "safe" gun. The only way you
can stop all these vacuous imbeciles from killing themselves is to make
signature weapons. By that I mean a gun that can actually read your
fingerprint or some other biological trait. It is programmed to only fire
when operated by that person. This would stop gangviolence and needless
death with alacrity. And the technology is here to do it. Except no one
wants to pay for it. Make up your minds people. You can't have your cake
and eat it too. That would be a constructive and proactive approach to the
gun problem in America. Unlike people trying to extort monies from
corporations conducting legal business. Guns are not like tobacco. Gun
manufacturers did not lie to us saying guns were innocuous. Everyone knows
guns, if used properly, will kill. So get off your ass and teach your kids
before it is too late.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
>Subject: Re: Senator-Elect Schumers' New Gun-Control Law: Putting A Stop To
>Gunrunners
>Date: 20 Nov 1998 14:55:15 GMT
>White House Material! I say Yuck, Yuck, Yuck, I think he is
>the most opinioned, trying to impose everything (except) abortion
>down our throats.
>No one can have a gun because the people in Brooklyn (or where
>ever in NYC) they say so. Give me a break. Oh Gosh, where can I move
>to to avoid people like him.
Unfortunately, "Cultural war" laws are quite common. Other
examples include the drug laws, alcohol prohibition, etc..
Most commonly, they arise from simple pig ignorance and bigotry.
This is sometimes tinged with a bit of Ayatolla-type religous fervor. " Got
to root out heresy and enforce cultural norms, ya understand ". In really
extreme cases, they can result in stuff like the Holocaust. In their
lessor forms, they are major causes of social disorder, as the drug laws
prove abundantly..
Dr P
Steve Fischer
The parents of the 14 year old boy should have taught their kid
how to properly check to see if the chamber was empty when they decided
to leave the gun lying about unlocked. The manufacturer had nothing
to do with this decision. The lawsuit was frivolous and the parents
should pay some monetary penalty for having wasted the court's time.
I would suggest 5% of their gross income.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
>
>Nov. 17, 1998
>
>San Francisco- (SFE)
>
>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
>
>Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed by a
>friend in 1994, was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her Monday
>in the product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp. But
>she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting for
>safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
>
>"It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous and
>designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after the
>verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought and the
>person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true. But the
>gun manufacturer has a responsibility too. If there were safety
>mechanisms, they could have prevented it."
>
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
Steve Fischer
>On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:20:28 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
>era must have forced wayn...@mindspring.com (Wayne M.) to write:
>
><snip>
>
>>ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
>
>careless owner's child, and the victim). Educating any one of them
>would very likely have saved the day. As someone else pointed out on
>t.p.g, the only real "safety" is the one between your ears.
>
>David Voth
>San Diego, California
>USA
>
(1) 14 year old child ignorant of how to verify that chamber
is really empty.
(2) 14 year old points gun at another person and pulls trigger.
(3) Victim does not yell out "don't point that me you idiot,"
then ducks.
Who's responsible:
(1) Parents, for not showing child the proper way to check
the gun, given that they intended to leave the gun
unlocked and available to their young adult.
(2) Parents, for not instilling in the child that you NEVER
point a gun at anyone, unloaded or not, unless you intend
to kill that person.
(3) The victim.
Who's not responsible:
(1) The gun dealer.
(2) The gun manufacturer.
(3) American society.
(4) Television
Steve
Stephen Posivak
Wayne M. wrote:
> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>
> >Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
>
> While it's tragic, I think the parents lost their common sense long
> ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
>
> Wayne M.
>
This is an excellent point. If organizations and individuals are truly
interested in preventing accidental deaths from firearm incidents, they should
lobby that firearm safety training be made a mandatory part of the public
school curriculum. This could save children whose parents own a firearm, but
fail to provide them with this training. Is it not more than likely that the
shooter would not have handled the firearm in question in such an irresponsible
and deadly manner had he been trained on its operation and proper handling?
But anti-gun organizations and individuals will never advocate this. Despite
their claims, their goal is not to save lives, but to ban private ownership of
firearms.
-Steve P
Hertel
un-enforced laws to the ones already in place so it looks like you're
actually doing something.
Liberal lawyer politician claptrap.
John Simutis
In talk.politics.guns Steve Fischer <str...@netcom.com> wrote:
: In article <3654db25...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) writes:
: The parents of the 14 year old boy should have taught their kid
: how to properly check to see if the chamber was empty when they decided
: to leave the gun lying about unlocked.
In among the rest of the articles was a statement from the gun owner that
he had, in fact, shown his son how to load, unload, and check; the kid
didn't do the last one (and shouldn't have been messing with it anyway -
Kenzo Dix was not an intruder.) The gun was left available so it could
be used defensively by the whole family.
: The manufacturer had nothing
: to do with this decision. The lawsuit was frivolous and the parents
: should pay some monetary penalty for having wasted the court's time.
: I would suggest 5% of their gross income.
: Steve
--
John Simutis sim...@ccnet.com
122 degrees West Longitude, 38 degrees North Latitude
-- unless the North American Plate slips bigtime ...
HerrGlock
> In article <3654db25...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) writes:
>
> The parents of the 14 year old boy should have taught their kid
> how to properly check to see if the chamber was empty when they decided
> to leave the gun lying about unlocked.
Better yet, teach them to leave the darned thing ALONE. "Stop, Don't Touch, Tell an
Adult." Hmm that sounds familiar...
> The manufacturer had nothing
> to do with this decision. The lawsuit was frivolous and the parents
> should pay some monetary penalty for having wasted the court's time.
> I would suggest 5% of their gross income.
Paid to the school system for gun safety classes to be taught as mandatory training.
Obviously, the parents do not take the time.
HerrGlock
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
band on the end to bring it back - safely - to the gun without hurting
anyone.
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
Steve Fischer
>Steve Fischer wrote:
>
>> In article <3654db25...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) writes:
>>
>> The parents of the 14 year old boy should have taught their kid
>> how to properly check to see if the chamber was empty when they decided
>> to leave the gun lying about unlocked.
>
>Don't Touch, Tell an Adult." Hmm that sounds familiar...
Normally, I would agree with that 100%. I just feel that a
14 year old is sufficiently smart to be taught how to check a gun
out properly. He is also smart enough, however, to understand
that you NEVER point a gun at anyone else, loaded or not, unless
you INTEND to (justifiably) shoot him. Since I've seen adults
foolishly do this, I can't blame the stupidity simply on the 14
year old's age.
>> The manufacturer had nothing
>> to do with this decision. The lawsuit was frivolous and the parents
>> should pay some monetary penalty for having wasted the court's time.
>> I would suggest 5% of their gross income.
>Paid to the school system for gun safety classes to be taught as
>mandatory training.
Right! Unfortunately, if the school system is being run by
"pointy-headed liberals" who hate guns .... it's not likely they'll
ask for such programs. They'd rather kids never SEE a gun until
they're able to get firearms banned.
>Obviously, the parents do not take the time.
Either that, or the lesson was ignored.
Steve
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "Hertel" <ca...@apci.net>
>Subject: Re: Senator-Elect Schumers' New Gun-Control Law: Putting A Stop To
>Gunrunners
>Liberal lawyer politician claptrap.
The conservatives pander to people's irrational fears and prejudices
too. Look at the drug laws, for example. The best historic example is
alcohol prohibition. Some social historians have related this promarily to
Protestant rural America's attempt to force its "standards" on the Catholic
urban hordes.
Similarly, the Marijuana laws were originally directed at Hispanics,
the narcotics laws against the perceived danger of drug-crazed orientals and
blacks, etc.. All inflamed by politicians, etc. pursuing some agenda.
And yes, you can still a little of this "white mans' burden" crap in the
attempts to prohibit "cheap guns", Saturday night specials, etc.
So now we gunners bear the brunt of the city folks similar
misconceptions about firearm use, aided and abetted by politicians looking
for an inflammatory issue that won't mean spending a lot of tax money. I
really don't think Bill Clinton cares very much about gun safety, etc..
He just saw that all you need to win in the electoral college is the 12 main
urban areas and an issue that would play well among the ignorant and bigoted
urbanites.
Dr P
Eric Williams
: : Roger G. Denney <rgde...@yahoo.com> writes:
: : > [...] In a
: : > separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father,
: : > Clarence Soe, for $100,000.
: The shooter was convicted of manslaughter, iirc.
The shooter's father should have also been convicted of violation of
California's safe storage law, which puts criminal responsibility on
any gun owner who doesn't secure his firearm and a minor gets hold of
it as a result and injures or kills himself or someone else.
But in the anti-gun city of Berkeley, the father wasn't even charged.
--
Arrest rate for Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate for New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate for Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
Which one should we disarm?
Eric Williams
: Wayne M. wrote:
: > rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
: >
: > >Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
: >
: > While it's tragic, I think the parents lost their common sense long
: > ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
: >
: > Wayne M.
: >
: This is an excellent point. If organizations and individuals are truly
: interested in preventing accidental deaths from firearm incidents, they should
: lobby that firearm safety training be made a mandatory part of the public
: school curriculum. This could save children whose parents own a firearm, but
: fail to provide them with this training. Is it not more than likely that the
: shooter would not have handled the firearm in question in such an irresponsible
: and deadly manner had he been trained on its operation and proper handling?
: But anti-gun organizations and individuals will never advocate this. Despite
: their claims, their goal is not to save lives, but to ban private ownership of
: firearms.
In fact, they fight tooth and nail to keep proven gun safety programs
out of schools. (See Violence Policy Center paper "Eddie Eagle --
Joe Camel With Feathers")
David R. Voth
>In a previous post, Anton Sherwood (das...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: : Roger G. Denney <rgde...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>: : > [...] In a
>: : > separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father,
>: : > Clarence Soe, for $100,000.
>
>: The shooter was convicted of manslaughter, iirc.
>
>The shooter's father should have also been convicted of violation of
>California's safe storage law, which puts criminal responsibility on
>any gun owner who doesn't secure his firearm and a minor gets hold of
>it as a result and injures or kills himself or someone else.
>
>But in the anti-gun city of Berkeley, the father wasn't even charged.
As I recall the California safe-storage law was not yet in effect in
1994 when the Dix shooting took place. He certainly would be charged
if the shooting happened today.
David Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Hang up that cell phone and DRIVE THE #$%^&{} CAR!
Eric Williams
: Thursday, November 19, 1998
: Schumer to promote a law to squeeze gun-runners
: by limiting gun purchases to 12 a year.
: But for all their differences, he believes, north and south have much in
: common. ``When a family sits down in Queens Friday night and tries to
: figure out how to pay the bills, it's no different than when a family
: sits down in Cheektowaga,'' he says.
Schumer desperately wants you to believe this. It would mean that there
are no regional differences to be accomodated by regional laws, that
everyone is the same and therefore should live under the same law --
the Federal Law, that Schumer gets to write. He is pedling the lie that
the New York City lifestyle should determine the laws for the Kansas
farmer or the Alaskan fisherman, and the 10th Amendment be damned.
John Johnson
(Dan Z) writes:
> In <733vsj$s...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com
> (Mary E Knadler) writes:
>
>> In <732rqr$d...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> txjo...@ix.netcom.com
>> White House Material! I say Yuck, Yuck, Yuck, I think he is
>> the most opinioned, trying to impose everything (except) abortion
>> down our throats.
>>
>> No one can have a gun because the people in Brooklyn (or where
>> ever in NYC they say so). Give me a break. Oh Gosh, where can
>> I move to to avoid people like him.
>>
>> I feel sorry for the poor people in upstate NY who have to live
>> with THAT.
>
> Unfortunately, we intelligent upstaters will probably get to tell
> the rest: "We told you so!"
The part (which has been "snipped" by now) I found interesting
is that Chuckie "The Cereal Killer" Schumer has _NEVER_ held a
"real job"; having done like "His Hero" `The First Prevaricator'
and gone straight from law school to the public trough. No _wonder_
he hasn't a _clue_ about the _real_ world!
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (16+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"Government exists to protect us from each other.
Where government has gone beyond its limits is in
deciding to protect us from ourselves."
--Ronald Reagan, NY Times, April 13, 1980
"Five years after permitting law-abiding citizens to carry guns,
10 states found that their murder rates dropped by an average of
15 percent, rape by 9 percent, and robberies by 11 percent.
The likelihood of a mass shooting in those states dropped from
75% to zero. ... It's hard to be enthusiastic about a weapon of
death, but facts are facts: Guns save lives."
--Gazette; Schenectady, NY 7/13/98
"I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought
it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened.
All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.
No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good
things about the citizens who have permits. I am a convert.",
--Glenn.White, President of the 2,350-member Dallas Police Association
in a Dallas Morning News interview 12/23/97
"(I'm) eating a lot of crow on this issue. It isn't something
I necessarily like to do, but I am doing it on this."
--John Holmes, Harris County District Attorney on the success
of the TxCHL program
"...I haven't seen an instance of persons with permits causing
violent crimes, and I'm constantly on the lookout."
--John Fuller, general counsel for the Florida Sheriffs Association
on Florida's successful Concealed Handgun Licensing program
"As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.
But what will deter liberals? Certainly not the facts.
They have too much invested in their vision of themselves
as the saviors of us all."
--Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
Š 1998 All rights reserved
Tom Wootton
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>
> The conservatives pander to people's irrational fears and prejudices
> too. Look at the drug laws, for example.
This conservative believes that the War on Drugs is a colossal failure,
but then, perhaps I have been reading William F. Buckley too much.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
and kill him."
----Mark Twain
Jay Buie
John Johnson wrote:
<Other Stuff Snipped>
> The part (which has been "snipped" by now) I found interesting
> is that Chuckie "The Cereal Killer" Schumer has _NEVER_ held a
> "real job"; having done like "His Hero" `The First Prevaricator'
> and gone straight from law school to the public trough. No _wonder_
> he hasn't a _clue_ about the _real_ world!
<Signature Snipped>
BRAVO! The esteemed Mr. Johnson summed up Chuck Schumer quite nicely
and succinctly. The man went from high school geek straight to Harvard,
and then straight to elected office. A 1600 on the SAT, straight A's in
high school chemistry and a law degree aren't enough to make anyone
qualified to tell us how to run our lives.
I was also a high school geek. Today, I still try hard to avoid the
real world (being a programmer in the Internet industry makes it easy).
The difference between me and someone like Chuck Schumer is that I have
accepted that I can barely run my own life, much less the rest of the
worlds'.
--Jay Buie
Use <my first name> at <my last name> dot com to e-mail me
Eric Williams
: I was also a high school geek. Today, I still try hard to avoid the
: real world (being a programmer in the Internet industry makes it easy).
: The difference between me and someone like Chuck Schumer is that I have
: accepted that I can barely run my own life, much less the rest of the
: worlds'.
Like the song says: "He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned
if he'll run mine."
Michael Cidras
>
>
>San Francisco- (SFE)
>
>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who
was
>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force
a
>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
>
>Lynn Dix, whose 15-year-old son, Kenzo, was unintentionally killed by
a
>friend in 1994, was crestfallen when the jury ruled against her
Monday
>in the product liability suit she brought against Beretta USA Corp.
But
>she said she wasn't surprised and that her will to continue fighting
for
>safety locks on guns had only been strengthened.
>
>"It's a new concept for people that guns - which are so dangerous and
>designed to kill - can actually be made safer," she said after the
Can you say "oxymoron"? I knew you could.
>verdict was announced. "The jury saw that the person who bought and
the
>person who used the gun were totally negligent, and that's true. But
the
>gun manufacturer has a responsibility too. If there were safety
>mechanisms, they could have prevented it."
Here's a problem with America today. A manufacturer does everything
in their power to make a product safe yet still usable. Then someone
comes along and because of a lack of education about the product, or
just plain stupidity, gets hurt or killed. Instead of focusing on the
person or persons directly involved, they drag the deep pockets into
the litigation.
>
>Kenzo Dix was killed four years ago by a 14-year-old friend, who
fired
>his father's unlocked 9mm semi-automatic handgun in play, thinking it
>was empty.
>
>The friend had removed a loaded clip from the pistol before he pulled
>the trigger, but a bullet remained in the gun's chamber and killed
the
>Berkeley High freshman.
>
>Lynn and Griffin Dix had been seeking $7.5 million in compensatory
>damages from Beretta, claiming the company's failure to install an
>internal lock on its guns made it liable for Kenzo's death. In a
>separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father,
Clarence
>Soe, for $100,000.
The Dixes settled with the owner of the firearm, but took the
manufacturer to a jury trial. The scent of money must have been
overwhelming.
The weapon already had safety devices built into it, including a
firing pin block and decocker, trigger bar disconnect and rotating
firing pin block. It also has a chamber loaded indicator built into
the extractor.
It did. If the Soe's had taught their son about gun safety, this
wouldn't have happened. All the mechanisms were there in the firearm,
it was the uneducated human that caused this tragedy.
>
>Gebhardt argued that external locking devices are cheap and easily
>available and that it was Soe's responsibility to install one.
>
>Bell said the jury was convinced that, in this case, even a built-in
>lock would not have saved Kenzo Dix because there was a bullet in the
>chamber.
>
>Plaintiff's attorney Eric Gorovitz, who is legal director for the
Trauma
>Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, acknowledged most
external
>locks couldn't be activated with a bullet in the chamber.
Here we have a catch-22. Of all the trigger locks I've seen, each one
says "Do not install on a loaded weapon".
>
>Instead, Gorovitz argued, Beretta should have built its guns with
>locking devices that worked even with a round in the chamber.
It does, as long as the person doesn't disengage the safety and put
the weapon into firing mode.
The question that should have been asked is why didn't the Soe kid's
father teach his son:
1) You NEVER point a firearm at anything you don't intend to actually
shoot.
2) Always assume a firearm is LOADED until you have removed all rounds
and cleared the chamber.
Beretta's owner's manual is very thorough about safety items and
warnings. But, this is typical lawyer bullshit, blame an object's
manufacturer (deep pockets) if you think you can get away with it.
Eric Williams
: wd6...@netcom.com (Eric Williams) wrote:
: >In a previous post, Anton Sherwood (das...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: : Roger G. Denney <rgde...@yahoo.com> writes:
: >
: >: : > [...] In a
: >: : > separate lawsuit, the Dixes settled with the friend's father,
: >: : > Clarence Soe, for $100,000.
: >
: >: The shooter was convicted of manslaughter, iirc.
: >
: >The shooter's father should have also been convicted of violation of
: >California's safe storage law, which puts criminal responsibility on
: >any gun owner who doesn't secure his firearm and a minor gets hold of
: >it as a result and injures or kills himself or someone else.
: >
: >But in the anti-gun city of Berkeley, the father wasn't even charged.
: As I recall the California safe-storage law was not yet in effect in
: 1994 when the Dix shooting took place. He certainly would be charged
: if the shooting happened today.
I don't think that's correct. I bought my first handgun just after
the AW ban was passed in the House, which was in 94. I had to pass
a handgun safety exam to legally buy it, and the exam was full of the
law about safe storage and what would happen if your gun fell into the
wrong hands.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Tom Wootton <tw...@mail.wsu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Senator-Elect Schumers' New Gun-Control Law: Putting A Stop To
>Gunrunners
>On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>>
>> The conservatives pander to people's irrational fears and prejudices
>> too. Look at the drug laws, for example.
>
>This conservative believes that the War on Drugs is a colossal failure,
>but then, perhaps I have been reading William F. Buckley too much.
For years, I have been wondering when Political Right as a whole is
going to figure out that the "War on Drugs" is primarily a "War on Property
Rights". Not just guys like Bill Buckley and Milton Freedman. Really
chaps me to see nominal small gummit conservatives like Hatch have such a
blind spot for this issue.
Hell, if you look at the constitutional background for the
expansion of federal powers the right is always whining about, it stems
partially from some supreme court decisions affirming the Harrison Narcotics
act. There was a reason alcohol prohibition took a constitutional
amendment in more fastidious times.
Dr P
Zoey & Daniel
Ronald C Bloom ii wrote in message
<733tq9$hrfe$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Roger Denney wrote in message <3654db25...@news.inreach.com>...
>>Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
>>
>>Nov. 17, 1998
>>
>>San Francisco- (SFE)
>>
>>In a closely watched lawsuit, the parents of a Berkeley teenager who was
>>unintentionally killed by a friend's handgun lost their bid to force a
>>gun company to install safety locks on all future weapons.
>
>
>killed by the car, not the kid?
>
>
So if the kid drove his mother's car over the other kid, would they have
sued the auto manufacturer?
Zoey & Daniel
Roger Denney wrote in message <3659e092...@news.inreach.com>...
>Why Kenzo's Dad Is Angry
>
>By Adair Lara
>
>(SFC)-Thursday, November 19, 1998
>
>
>Griffin, who has one son left, has immersed himself in gun statistics.
>He can tell you that in California your child is more likely to die from
>being shot than from anything else. People buy guns for protection, then
>use them to impulsively kill themselves in a despondent moment -- more
>people use guns to kill themselves than to kill other people.
>\
Would it be better if people stabbed themselves to death? Let's face it, if
someone wants to die, it doesn't matter if they can get a gun or not. Under
my sink, I have, as many people do, a bunch of poison in the form of
cleaning supplies. Should those get banned too? How about banning cars--
people die in automobile accidents everyday, maybe even more than by guns (I
don't have any statistics, so don't berate me if I'm wrong).
Next, let's ban electricity because AC will kill. Why don't we just redo
society back to medeval times. Everybody knows that nobody died back then.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hertel
Peter H. Proctor wrote in message ...
>In article <3655a...@queeg.apci.net> "Hertel" <ca...@apci.net> writes:
>>From: "Hertel" <ca...@apci.net>
>>Subject: Re: Senator-Elect Schumers' New Gun-Control Law: Putting A Stop
To
>>Gunrunners
>>Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:21:24 -0600
>
>>If your a typical, do nothing, career politician, lawyer, then you add
more
>>un-enforced laws to the ones already in place so it looks like you're
>>actually doing something.
>
>>Liberal lawyer politician claptrap.
>
> The conservatives pander to people's irrational fears and prejudices
g...@execpc.com
Stephen Posivak wrote in message <3655A560...@gunet.georgetown.edu>...
>>
>> ago. Educating the kid on gun safety could have saved the day.
>>
>> Wayne M.
>>
>
>This is an excellent point. If organizations and individuals are truly
>interested in preventing accidental deaths from firearm incidents, they
should
>lobby that firearm safety training be made a mandatory part of the public
>school curriculum. This could save children whose parents own a firearm,
but
>fail to provide them with this training. Is it not more than likely that
the
>shooter would not have handled the firearm in question in such an
irresponsible
>and deadly manner had he been trained on its operation and proper handling?
>
>But anti-gun organizations and individuals will never advocate this.
Despite
>their claims, their goal is not to save lives, but to ban private ownership
of
>firearms.
>
AMEN! In Wisconsin, if you were born after January 1, 1993, you can't even
get a hunting license without proof of successful completion of a hunters'
safety course. In fact, Hunting in Wisconsin has now become the safest
sport. Anti-gunners will of course deny that, but facts are facts!
no one of consequence
Peter H. Proctor <ppro...@neosoft.com> wrote:
]In article <733vsj$s...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com
](Mary E Knadler) writes:
]>From: yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
]>Subject: Re: Senator-Elect Schumers' New Gun-Control Law: Putting A Stop To
]>Gunrunners
]>Date: 20 Nov 1998 14:55:15 GMT
]
]
]>White House Material! I say Yuck, Yuck, Yuck, I think he is
]>the most opinioned, trying to impose everything (except) abortion
]>down our throats.
]
]>No one can have a gun because the people in Brooklyn (or where
]>to to avoid people like him.
] Unfortunately, "Cultural war" laws are quite common. Other
]examples include the drug laws, alcohol prohibition, etc..
]
] Most commonly, they arise from simple pig ignorance and bigotry.
]This is sometimes tinged with a bit of Ayatolla-type religous fervor. " Got
]to root out heresy and enforce cultural norms, ya understand ". In really
]extreme cases, they can result in stuff like the Holocaust. In their
]lessor forms, they are major causes of social disorder, as the drug laws
]prove abundantly..
...and that disorder is used as an excuse for more stringent measures.
Feh. :/
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Anton Sherwood
: ]This is sometimes tinged with a bit of Ayatolla-type religous fervor.
: ]In really extreme cases, they can result in stuff like the Holocaust.
: ]In their lessor forms, they are major causes of social disorder,
: ]as the drug laws prove abundantly..
no one of consequence <wol...@dillinger.io.com> writes
: ...and that disorder is used as an excuse for more stringent measures.
: Feh. :/
The alternative is intolerable: to admit error.
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Anton Sherwood
: : 1994 when the Dix shooting took place. He certainly would be charged
: : if the shooting happened today.
Eric Williams <wd6...@netcom.com> writes
: I don't think that's correct. I bought my first handgun just after
: the AW ban was passed in the House, which was in 94. I had to pass
: a handgun safety exam to legally buy it, and the exam was full of the
: law about safe storage and what would happen if your gun fell into the
: wrong hands.
That's strange. When I did the BFSC quiz in February 1996,
there were no such questions.
John Johnson
In <36570715...@news.inreach.com> Roger "the Violator" Denney
<rgde...@yahoo.com> (Roger Denney); the Handgun Control Incorporated
`Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist for Southern
California; illegally reproduced copyrighted materials when he posted:
> Friday November 20 1998
>
> Reuters -Illinois
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Daley Defends Gun Proposals -(CHICAGO)-- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley
> will discuss his proposed state gun-control package when he testifies
> before the Illinois House Judiciary Committee today. The mayor's
> package includes requirements for state licensing of gun shops.
> Another measure would make it illegal for shop owners to sell guns
> to residents in Chicago... where gun ownership by the general public
> is illegal.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under "Fair Use"
> without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving the included information for non-profit
> research and educational purposes only.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> ===============================================================
Machts Nicht, Roger: Reuters has _already_ _TOLD_ you "NO!"
C O P Y R I G H T R E M I N D E R [just to *remind* Roger Denney]
© 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar
means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent
of Reuters. <http://www.reuters.com/news/>
[Archiving Roger Denney's copyright violating messages:
one posting at a time]
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
® 1998 All rights reserved
John Johnson
In <365908f8...@news.inreach.com> Roger "the Violator" Denney
<rgde...@yahoo.com> (Roger Denney); the Handgun Control Incorporated
`Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist for Southern
California; illegally reproduced copyrighted materials when he posted:
> Reuters - Missouri
>
> Monday November 16 1998
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Police Detain Man Sighting Gun - (ST. JOSEPH) -- Saint Joseph police
> officers swoop in on two men sighting a rifle just two days after a
> police officer was gunned down in the line of duty. Police surrounded
> a building in downtown Saint Jo when an officer reported seeing two
> men sighting a high-powered rifle. Two men were handcuffed inside
> the business... until one of them proved the gun was his deer hunting
> rifle. Firearms deer season began Saturday. The two men were
> released... but not until they were lectured by police about using
> poor judgment.
"Can you say `False Arrest'? I knew you could!" (with apologies to
Fred Rogers)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
> without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving the included information for non-profit
> research and educational purposes only.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> ====================================================================
Machts Nichts, Roger: Reuters has _already_ _TOLD_ you "NO!"
C O P Y R I G H T R E M I N D E R [just to *remind* Roger Denney]
© 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar
means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent
of Reuters. <http://www.reuters.com/news/>
Care to post that _written_ consent, Roger? Thought not!
HerrGlock
> Friday November 20 1998
>
> Man Opens Fire in K.C. Office
>
> KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A man opened fire inside an office building
> today, slightly wounding one person, and then stayed in the building
> holding his gun while nearby workers cowered behind filing cabinets.
Hey look, the only defense against crime approved by both Roger and Sarah Brady. It's called, "The sit and
cower." A one count exercise that lasts until the governmentally approved people who can actually DO something
about it arrive.
Too bad that no one had a firearm on them and stopped him earlier.
HerrGlock
Michael Zarlenga
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Daley Defends Gun Proposals - (CHICAGO) -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley
: before the Illinois House Judiciary Committee today. The mayor's package
: includes requirements for state licensing of gun shops. Another measure
: would make it illegal for shop owners to sell guns to residents in
: Chicago... where gun ownership by the general public is illegal.
Maybe he can explain why Chicago has so many shootings at the
same time ...
I guess it must be the non-general public doing all the shooting.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Michael Zarlenga
: Man Opens Fire in K.C. Office
: KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A man opened fire inside an office building
: today, slightly wounding one person, and then stayed in the building
: holding his gun while nearby workers cowered behind filing cabinets.
He could have done more damage with a pointy pencil.
Ronald C Bloom ii
again Roger for showing us that Gun Control does not work.
Roger Denney wrote in message
>School Shooting Plot Exposed - (YORK) -- Police say a Rock Hill teen
>took a gun to school and plotted to kill students.
Anthony Stephen Szopa
Roger Denney wrote:
> On 21 Nov 1998 19:42:04 GMT, > John "The Copyright Master" Johnson
> txjo...@ix.netcom.com(John Johnson); The National Rifle Association
> "Operation Intimidate", Law-Enforcement Officer and Gun "rights" Violence
> Apologist from the Outlaw Nation of Texas, once again posts his propaganda:
>
> txjo...@ix.netcom.com(John Johnson) wrote:
>
> > [Followup posted primarily for DejaNews Archival purposes]
> >
> > In <365908f8...@news.inreach.com> Roger "the Violator" Denney
> > <rgde...@yahoo.com> (Roger Denney); the Handgun Control Incorporated
> > `Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist for Southern
> > California; illegally reproduced copyrighted materials when he posted:
> >
> >> Reuters - Missouri
> >>
> >> Monday November 16 1998
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Police Detain Man Sighting Gun - (ST. JOSEPH) -- Saint Joseph police
> >> officers swoop in on two men sighting a rifle just two days after a
> >> police officer was gunned down in the line of duty. Police surrounded
> >> a building in downtown Saint Jo when an officer reported seeing two
> >> men sighting a high-powered rifle. Two men were handcuffed inside
> >> the business... until one of them proved the gun was his deer hunting
> >> rifle. Firearms deer season began Saturday. The two men were
> >> released... but not until they were lectured by police about using
> >> poor judgment.
> >
> > "Can you say `False Arrest'? I knew you could!" (with apologies to
> > Fred Rogers)
>
> Doesn't say they were arrested, does it John ?
>
> Heck, John, even in the Peoples' Republic of California,, as you call it, the
> cops rarely have to deal with false arrest charges, much less have to pay
> the piper.
>
> BTW, can you say " 'cuff em' and stuf' em'" , John ?
>
> I knew you could <bg>.
>
> Yes, things really ARE different in your state, arent they ? <bg>
>
> But it just goes to figure though, coming from a right-wing, bible-belt state
> where people minding thier own business arent even secure from the prying eyes
> (The Eyes Of Texas Are Upon You <g>) of the law while living their homes.
>
> But then, of course, you people really have a weird sense of "justice" there,
> where people who kill each other with CCW permits are "no-billed" all the time,
> it seems.
>
> Regular 007 "license to kill", isnt it ?
>
> BTW, have you finally figured out that Texas CHL permits are not valid in CA ?
>
> Clue: They aren't, John.
>
> Roger
>
> Have an Unarmed Day.....For Life !
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> General George Washington (1732-1799):
>
> "To place any dependence upon the militia is, assuredly, resting upon a
> broken staff."
>
> --Letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem -
> September 24, 1776
>
> ------------------------
>
> "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
>
> --President Thomas Jefferson
In Tustin California it is apparently against the law to take a photograph in a
public park. And I was even accosted by a old lady for looking through binoculars
from my car.
So, get ready liberals: here is another pressing issue you can get behind - the
camera & binocular control initiative coming soon to a California ballot near you.
Only in California!
PLMerite
Roger Denney wrote in message <365997d0...@news.inreach.com>...
>On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:39:45 -0500, "Ronald C Bloom ii"
<RBL...@prodigy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Gee, the banning of guns on school grounds should have stopped this,
thanks
>>again Roger for showing us that Gun Control does not work.
>
as
>it doesn't do "any" good, right ?
>
>Wrong.
What's the matter, Regina, pissed that you don't have some more innocent
blood to wallow around in?
>Roger
Regards, PLMerite
RAY
>
> Gee, the banning of guns on school grounds should have stopped this, thanks
> again Roger for showing us that Gun Control does not work.
RR: No telling how many similar crimes HAVE been prevented
by the law. But in reality, all laws are the result of
compromise. It's the American way. And unfortunately, when
decent, intelligence legislators have to compromise with
NRA-funded Billy-Bobs, then you wind up with laws which
sometimes also compromise public safety.
What S. Carolina should have done was require all guns
to be secured by their owners against theft. But some
chinless Rufus with a constituency of rustics probably got
up in the legislature, and read from the NRA Bible that it's
a sin to punish everyone when all they really need to do is
keep guns out of schools. So as a result, you get a school
gun law that doesn't address the core problem of the
over-supply of unsecured guns.
David Voth
era must have forced rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) to write:
<snip>
>Doesn't say they were arrested, does it John ?
Any time the police detain and handcuff someone, that qualifies
legally as an arrest. A traffic cop pulling someone over is also
technically making an arrest. If you try to drive away you can be
charged with "resisting arrest". You don't have to be taken to jail
to be arrested.
David Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and SHOT!
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<36580957...@Interaccess.com>...
> Ronald C Bloom ii wrote:
> >
> > Gee, the banning of guns on school grounds should have stopped this,
thanks
> > again Roger for showing us that Gun Control does not work.
>
> RR: No telling how many similar crimes HAVE been prevented
> by the law.
ROFL.
RIght a criminal willing to commit a FELONY is going to be detered by the
addition of a MISDEAMOR.
Bubba
*Friday November 20 1998
*
*Daley Defends Gun Proposals -- Chicago's Mayor Daley will discuss his proposed state gun-control package before the Illinois House Judiciary *Committee today. It includes requirements for state licensing of gun shops. Another measure would make it illegal for shop owners to sell guns *to residents in Chicago... where gun ownership by the general public is illegal.
Like his father before him, "little Dick" is also a facist.
BRAD PARMAN
> RR: No telling how many similar crimes HAVE been prevented
> by the law. But in reality, all laws are the result of
> compromise. It's the American way. And unfortunately, when
> decent, intelligence legislators have to compromise with
> NRA-funded Billy-Bobs, then you wind up with laws which
> sometimes also compromise public safety.
>
Compromise?? Do you have any idea how many stupid laws HCI and the like try to
get enacted every year? I've seen proposals for bans on toy guns, taxes on
people who keep more than 1000 rounds of ammunition (Would only affect
law-abiding competitive shooters.) or have a collection of more than 20
firearms. It is already illegal to knowingly give a minor a handgun. It is
already illegal for convicted felons to even touch a firearm much less try to
purchase one. It is already illegal for minors to carry firearms (you have to be
21 to get a carry permit in virtually every state). There are plenty of laws on
the purchase, sale, and transfer of firearms, and the people who follow those
laws are not the people who commit crimes.
The problem lies with enforcement. Firearms charges are bargained away in plea
bargains or simply ignored. If the Brady law stopped a half a million felons
from buying guns, then a half a million people ought to be in jail. If this were
the case perhaps crime would go away and the NRA would compromise on the excess
hassles.
> What S. Carolina should have done was require all guns
> to be secured by their owners against theft. But some
> chinless Rufus with a constituency of rustics probably got
> up in the legislature, and read from the NRA Bible that it's
> a sin to punish everyone when all they really need to do is
> keep guns out of schools. So as a result, you get a school
> gun law that doesn't address the core problem of the
> over-supply of unsecured guns.
Since Roger puts three or four of these on the group everyday, the details blur
and I can't argue specifics of this case. However, according to HCI 40% of all
children have a gun in the home and yet these school shootings are very rare and
some are even caught in the planning stages. Why on earth should we change
public policy for millions of people based on the disturbed behavior of a
handfull of teenagers?
Keep it on target,
Brad
James F Cornwall
Hey Yahoo Denney, nice story about the cops over-reacting to someone
who was NOT violating any laws!!!!
: Reuters - Missouri
: Monday November 16 1998
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Police Detain Man Sighting Gun - (ST. JOSEPH) -- Saint Joseph police
: officers swoop in on two men sighting a rifle just two days after a
: police officer was gunned down in the line of duty. Police surrounded a
: building in downtown Saint Jo when an officer reported seeing two men
: sighting a high-powered rifle. Two men were handcuffed inside the
: business... until one of them proved the gun was his deer hunting rifle.
: Firearms deer season began Saturday. The two men were released... but
: not until they were lectured by police about using poor judgment.
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
: copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
: profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
: receiving the included information for non-profit research and
: educational purposes only.
: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
: ============================================================
Tim Darling
> On 22 Nov 1998 08:03:33 PST, dr...@concentric.net (David Voth) wrote: > >
>On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:22:17 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War >
>era must have forced rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) to write: > > >
><snip> > > > >>Doesn't say they were arrested, does it John ? > > >
>Any time the police detain and handcuff someone, that qualifies >
>legally as an arrest. A traffic cop pulling someone over is also >
>technically making an arrest. If you try to drive away you can be >
>charged with "resisting arrest". You don't have to be taken to jail >
>to be arrested. > > Bullpucky ! > > Even a civilian like myself knows
that you are under arrest when the > law-enforcement officer says "you
are under arrest " and reads you > your Miranda rights. Anything else
falls merely under the heading of > simply being detained. > > You are
correct that one does not have to be hauled to jail to be arrested, but
> that clearly is NOT what happened in this case. They were being DETAINED
until > the police could determine wether a crime had or was about to be
committed by > these gentlemen, period. > > > Nice try, but no see-gar,
David. > > Roger >
You don't have to be told you are under arrest, and
then given your Miranda rights. Once your ability to leave is taken
away, you are under arrest. I usually tell people they are under arrest,
because most seem to understand that when the cuffs come out. As far as
a Miranda Warning goes, has nothing to do with being placed under arrest
or taken into custody. As far as being "detained" in the above, that was
probably for the media's benefit. I don't recall anything being said
about being handcuffed, just detained.
John Johnson
In <365fd499...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com
(Roger Denney) writes:
> November 18, 1998
>
> Texas- Houston Family Sues City Over Death
>
> HOUSTON (RNS) -- A botched drug raid by Houston police in July...
> in which an unarmed man was killed... has led to a federal lawsuit
> against the city. The family of 22-year-old Pedro Oregon claims his
> civil rights were violated. The victim was shot 12 times after the
> task force burst into his apartment in search of drugs. Police Chief
> C-O Bradford has terminated all six officers involved.
>
> The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
> without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving the included information for non-profit
> research and educational purposes only.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> ===================================================================
Machts Nicht, Roger: Reuters News Service (RNS) has already told you
"NO!":
C O P Y R I G H T R E M I N D E R [just to *remind* Roger Denney]
© 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar
means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent
of Reuters. <http://www.reuters.com/news/>
Care to post the "prior written consent" you obtained from Reuters
_before_ posting this? Thought not!
[Archiving Roger Denney's copyright violating messages: one posting
at a time]
--
John Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
™1998 - All rights reserved
John Johnson
`Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist for Southern
<rgde...@inreach.com>; writes:
> On 22 Nov 1998 08:03:33 PST, dr...@concentric.net (David Voth) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:22:17 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
>> era must have forced rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) to write:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Doesn't say they were arrested, does it John ?
>>
>> Any time the police detain and handcuff someone, that qualifies
>> legally as an arrest. A traffic cop pulling someone over is also
>> technically making an arrest. If you try to drive away you can be
>> charged with "resisting arrest". You don't have to be taken to jail
>> to be arrested.
>
> Bullpucky !
Nope, Roger: _all_ true!
> Even a civilian like myself knows that you are under arrest when the
> law-enforcement officer says "you are under arrest" and reads you
> your Miranda rights. Anything else falls merely under the heading of
> simply being detained.
You watch too many "Cop" shows on TV, Roger: the SCOTUS long ago
established that a person is "under arrest" _WHEN_ _HE_ _BELIEVES_
himself to be under arrest. Obviously: your Missouri men _THOUGHT_
they were under arrest when the officers drew down on them and
handcuffed them. (Most especially since they "weren't free to leave"
until they "unarrested" them.)
> You are correct that one does not have to be hauled to jail to be
> arrested, but that clearly is NOT what happened in this case. They
> were being DETAINED until the police could determine wether a crime
> had or was about to be committed by these gentlemen, period.
Yea, Roger: I'd say the _same_thing_ if I "screwed the pooch"
and it got out; like it did here. <g>
> Nice try, but no see-gar, David.
_WHY_ do you hoplophobic Gun-Hating Liberals _always_ bring
"sexual things" into your Gun-Control propaganda, Roger? <vbg>
> Roger
>
> Have an Unarmed Day.....For Life !
Having a _GREAT_ day, Roger! Armed for LIFE! <g> :-D
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (16+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything
you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
--Col. David Crockett; member of the Tennessee legislature
(1821-1822/1823-1824); member U.S. House of Representatives
(1827-1831/1833-1835); and Texas Hero of the Alamo (1836)
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and
everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their
one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious
diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt
endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere
suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin
searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
"As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.
But what will deter liberals? Certainly not the facts.
They have too much invested in their vision of themselves
as the saviors of us all."
-- Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
HerrGlock
> On 22 Nov 1998 08:03:33 PST, dr...@concentric.net (David Voth) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:22:17 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
> >era must have forced rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) to write:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>Doesn't say they were arrested, does it John ?
> >
> >Any time the police detain and handcuff someone, that qualifies
> >legally as an arrest. A traffic cop pulling someone over is also
> >technically making an arrest. If you try to drive away you can be
> >charged with "resisting arrest". You don't have to be taken to jail
> >to be arrested.
>
> Bullpucky !
>
> Even a civilian like myself knows that you are under arrest when the
> law-enforcement officer says "you are under arrest " and reads you
> your Miranda rights. Anything else falls merely under the heading of
> simply being detained.
Want to flout your lack of knowledge on a subject other than guns, then? Okay.
If you do not have the right to move about freely, or away from the officer(s)
involved, you ARE under arrest. Arrest is exactly that, you're freedom of
movement is arrested.
> You are correct that one does not have to be hauled to jail to be arrested, but
> that clearly is NOT what happened in this case. They were being DETAINED until
> the police could determine wether a crime had or was about to be committed by
> these gentlemen, period.
They were arrested. Do you agree that it's no problem for a cop to see you on the
street and DETAIN you until they can figure out whether a crime had or was about
to be committed?
When do the police have the right to do anything about a crime "about to be
committed"? If there is no crime committed... minor annoyances like "innocent
until proven guilty" tend to get in the way.
> Nice try, but no see-gar, David.
yeah, right.
HerrGlock
Hertel
case a lack of it. Shooting any suspect armed or not, twelve times tell me
the whole department needs a training review. How in the hell did the
police get a wrong address? What the hell happened to police "work"? Now I
know that the police everywhere have a tough job to do but they cannot take
the easy way and cut corners which is what they must have done. Another
felon informant looking for favors or a couple of bucks? Maybe I'll start
informing on the people I don't like.
Roger Denney wrote in message <365fd499...@news.inreach.com>...
>November 18, 1998
>
>Texas- Houston Family Sues City Over Death
>
>HOUSTON (RNS) -- A botched drug raid by Houston police in July... in which
an
>unarmed man was killed... has led to a federal lawsuit against the city.
The
>family of 22-year-old Pedro Oregon claims his civil rights were violated.
The
>victim was shot 12 times after the task force burst into his apartment in
>search of drugs. Police Chief C-O Bradford has terminated all six officers
>involved.
>
>The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "Hertel" <ca...@apci.net>
>Drug-Raid
>Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:57:51 -0600
>More dumb asses with guns. It's training, training, training or in this
>case a lack of it. Shooting any suspect armed or not, twelve times tell me
>the whole department needs a training review. How in the hell did the
>police get a wrong address? What the hell happened to police "work"? Now I
>know that the police everywhere have a tough job to do but they cannot take
>the easy way and cut corners which is what they must have done. Another
>felon informant looking for favors or a couple of bucks? Maybe I'll start
>informing on the people I don't like.
From reports here in Houston, the cops involved were perfectly
well-trained and were operating under a strict set of guidelines. They just
flat ignored them. In a "war" , the normal rules get relaxed.
Dr P
Dan Day
>November 18, 1998
>
>Texas- Houston Family Sues City Over Death
>
>HOUSTON (RNS) -- A botched drug raid by Houston police in July... in which an
>unarmed man was killed... has led to a federal lawsuit against the city. The
>family of 22-year-old Pedro Oregon claims his civil rights were violated. The
>victim was shot 12 times after the task force burst into his apartment in
>search of drugs. Police Chief C-O Bradford has terminated all six officers
>involved.
...and without a warrant.
No drugs were found. Police hit Oregon's apartment on the unsubstantiated
word of a drug user they had nabbed earlier, and told that they wouldn't
put him in jail if he told police anyone who was selling drugs. Predictably
to anyone but the police, the informant was reluctant to face death by
fingering a *real* drug dealer.
--
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
-- Richard M. Nixon, interview with David Frost, May 19, 1977
Michael Ejercito
Denney) wrote:
> Friday November 20 1998
>
> Reuters -Illinois
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Daley Defends Gun Proposals - (CHICAGO) -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley
> will discuss his proposed state gun-control package when he testifies
> before the Illinois House Judiciary Committee today. The mayor's package
> includes requirements for state licensing of gun shops. Another measure
> would make it illegal for shop owners to sell guns to residents in
> Chicago... where gun ownership by the general public is illegal.
If the general public in Chicago is prohibited from owning guns,who is
doing the shooting?
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Q: How do you separate the men from the boys in the National Alliance?
A: Use a crowbar.
uspc...@my-dejanews.com
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
> Ronald C Bloom ii wrote:
> >
> > Gee, the banning of guns on school grounds should have stopped this, thanks
> > again Roger for showing us that Gun Control does not work.
>
> by the law. But in reality, all laws are the result of
> compromise. It's the American way. And unfortunately, when
> decent, intelligence legislators have to compromise with
> NRA-funded Billy-Bobs, then you wind up with laws which
> sometimes also compromise public safety.
> to be secured by their owners against theft. But some
> chinless Rufus with a constituency of rustics probably got
> up in the legislature, and read from the NRA Bible that it's
> a sin to punish everyone when all they really need to do is
> keep guns out of schools. So as a result, you get a school
> gun law that doesn't address the core problem of the
> over-supply of unsecured guns.
Gee, and I thought useless gun free school zone laws failed to address the
root of the problem - why there is violence in the schools. And to think,
all along the reason there is violence in the schools is because of an
over-supply of unsecured guns. My oh my, I guess that without the guns, all
the little children would be loving caring human beings that help old ladies
cross the street. Yep, that must be it, guns cause crime. I guess guns do
give off Evil Mind Controlling Rays. You'd think the government would
develop a transmitter that jams the EMCRs of guns - that'll solve the whole
crime issue. Yep. Thanks for the insight Ray, and to think we thought
violence was caused by something a little more complex than a simple metal
object.
Jim
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jay Buie
RAY wrote:
<some stuff snipped>
> And unfortunately, when
> decent, intelligence legislators have to compromise with
> NRA-funded Billy-Bobs, then you wind up with laws which
> sometimes also compromise public safety.
> What S. Carolina should have done was require all guns
> to be secured by their owners against theft. But some
> chinless Rufus with a constituency of rustics probably got
> up in the legislature, and read from the NRA Bible that it's
> a sin to punish everyone when all they really need to do is
> keep guns out of schools.
<more stuff snipped>
Hi from one of those NRA-funded rustic Billy-Bobs. By the way, you misspelled
"intelligent" in your post. I may be some dumb-ass redneck from South Carolina,
but I do know how to spell.
If an intellectual is a person who says and thinks the kinds of things you
wrote in your post, I hope I never become one. Be careful. Your prejudices are
showing.
--Yee-haw,
Jay Buie
use <my first name> at <my last name> dot com to e-mail me
Mike Moran
"Peter H. Proctor" wrote:
>
> In article <36596...@queeg.apci.net> "Hertel" <ca...@apci.net> writes:
> >From: "Hertel" <ca...@apci.net>
> >Subject: Re: Houston Family Sues City Over Death Of Man During A Police
> >Drug-Raid
> >Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:57:51 -0600
>
> >More dumb asses with guns. It's training, training, training or in this
> >case a lack of it. Shooting any suspect armed or not, twelve times tell me
> >the whole department needs a training review. How in the hell did the
> >police get a wrong address? What the hell happened to police "work"? Now I
> >know that the police everywhere have a tough job to do but they cannot take
> >the easy way and cut corners which is what they must have done. Another
> >felon informant looking for favors or a couple of bucks? Maybe I'll start
> >informing on the people I don't like.
Gee, makes you hope for the day when only cops have guns, doesn't it?
THEN we'll be safe.
> From reports here in Houston, the cops involved were perfectly
> well-trained and were operating under a strict set of guidelines. They just
> flat ignored them. In a "war" , the normal rules get relaxed.
>
> Dr P
One more innocent person dead, "collateral damage" in the Selective War
on Some People Who Use Some Drugs.
Mike Moran
mmo...@internetwis.com
Jim
wrote:
>Even a civilian like myself knows that you are under arrest when the
>law-enforcement officer says "you are under arrest " and reads you
>your Miranda rights. Anything else falls merely under the heading of
>simply being detained.
>
>You are correct that one does not have to be hauled to jail to be arrested, but
>that clearly is NOT what happened in this case. They were being DETAINED until
>the police could determine wether a crime had or was about to be committed by
>these gentlemen, period.
>
Detention without the freedom to move at will (ie. leave) IS arrest.
Jim
Frank Ney
cor...@bicnet.net (Dan Cloutier) to write:
>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) cawed:
>>But on Jan. 6, Charles Ellis Schumer takes on a whole new world when he
>>is sworn in as a U.S. senator.
>
>And when he says the words, "...to uphold the constitution of the United
>States..." we'll all have a good, long, rolling-on-the-floor laugh.
Yeah, too bad Clinton managed to get away with perjury. . .
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
- --
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uhh, I think so, Brain, but how are we going to get all of the computers to
fail all at the same time?"
Scout
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:03:29 GMT, an orbiting mind control laser caused
>cor...@bicnet.net (Dan Cloutier) to write:
>
>>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) cawed:
>>>But on Jan. 6, Charles Ellis Schumer takes on a whole new world when he
>>>is sworn in as a U.S. senator.
>>
>>And when he says the words, "...to uphold the constitution of the United
>>States..." we'll all have a good, long, rolling-on-the-floor laugh.
>
>Yeah, too bad Clinton managed to get away with perjury. . .
It's legal to lie about stuff that doesn't much matter. Monica was not
in the room with Paula, was not harassed, so her life doesn't much
matter.
Perjury means a lie about stuff which matters.
>
>
>Frank Ney WV/EMT-B N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
>Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
>West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
>Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
>- --
>"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
>"Uhh, I think so, Brain, but how are we going to get all of the computers to
>fail all at the same time?"
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
Bubba
*Parents say they lost gun safety battle but not war
*Nov. 17, 1998
*
*San Francisco- (SFE)
A sad incident. However, 15 is a little old to consider the boy a "child".
I'm sure HCI had counted on the terminology to work it's magic.
The parents are to blame for his death.
Jay Buie
Roger Denney wrote:
<most of copyrighted article snipped>
> We urge Texas legislators to note the voters’ action in Florida
> and enact measures to protect all Texans, and especially our children,
> from illegal guns."
I guess that this is as opposed to protecting your children from legal
guns, like those wielded by over-zealous, jack-booted cops in places like
Houston. So, it is not okay if your three-year old is accidentally killed
by a drive-by shooter; bit it is all right if a Houstong police officer,
acting on a bogus unsubstantiated tip bursts into your home and in the
melee, kills your three-year old. I just want to clear things up.
--Jay Buie
Steve Fischer
>Texans Against Gun Violence (TAGV)
>
>November 8, 1998
>
>Florida Referendum to Close the Gunshow Loophole and Allow Local Control
>Passes 72% to 28%.
>
>(Basis: Handgun Control Incorporated press release, 11/4/98).
>
>Florida’s Revision 12, a referendum that will allow counties to require
>background checks and a waiting period on sales of guns by unlicensed
>dealers at gunshows , passed by a landslide margin of 72-28%,
>statewide, in Tuesday’s voting.
>
>Passage of the referendum was strongly contested by the NRA who spent
>some $400,000 in efforts to defeat it. The NRA ran controversal ads
>featuring Carlton Heston throughout Florida in futile efforts to defeat
>the referendum.
>
>Dave Smith, President Texans Against Gun Violence/Houston said "We’re
>delighted that the referendum which will permit some control over Gun
>Shows passed in Florida. Florida has many of the same problems of gun
>violence that are seen in Texas. Sales of guns by unlicensed dealers to
>almost anyone with no background checks, no questions asked, are a major
>source of guns in the hands of juveniles, felons, and drug addicts in
>Texas. We urge Texas legislators to note the voters’ action in Florida
>from illegal guns."
I agree. Heston and the NRA are on the wrong side of that issue.
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:24:38 GMT, tyre...@writeme.com (George Leroy
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:19:32 GMT, cro...@access.digex.net (Frank Ney)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:03:29 GMT, an orbiting mind control laser caused
>>>cor...@bicnet.net (Dan Cloutier) to write:
>>>
>>>>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) cawed:
>>>>>But on Jan. 6, Charles Ellis Schumer takes on a whole new world when he
>>>>>is sworn in as a U.S. senator.
>>>>
>>>>And when he says the words, "...to uphold the constitution of the United
>>>>States..." we'll all have a good, long, rolling-on-the-floor laugh.
>>>
>>>Yeah, too bad Clinton managed to get away with perjury. . .
>>
>>It's legal to lie about stuff that doesn't much matter. Monica was not
>>in the room with Paula, was not harassed, so her life doesn't much
>>matter.
>>
>>Perjury means a lie about stuff which matters.
>
>Let's start with Webster's definition of perjury:
>
>"the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what
>is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath:
>false swearing"
>
>In your view, is your statement, "Perjury means a lie about stuff
>which matters," consistent with Webster's definition?
No. But if you will look at the law - 18 USC 1621 - you will see that
it is legal to lie about stuff which does not matter.
>
>
>>George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>. . .
>>
>>It's legal to lie about stuff that doesn't much matter. Monica was not
>>in the room with Paula, was not harassed, so her life doesn't much
>>matter.
>>
>>Perjury means a lie about stuff which matters.
>>
>
>
>Now THERE's a rationalization for you!
It's the law. Has been for many centuries. Look it up - 18 USC 1621.
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.