Re: More fake news

[Jonathan Ball]

On 22 Jan 2023, !Jones <x...@y.com> posted some
>
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:46:12 -0800 (PST), in talk.politics.guns
bigdog
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There is no gun show loophole. All firearms laws apply to gunshow
sales as they do everwhere
>>else.
>
> Are you a complete moron, sir? The reason it's commonly known as
"the
> gunshow loophole" isn't because it has a damn thing to do with gun
> shows. The law was written to require background checks on *all*
gun
> sales. The gun lobby had it ammended such that it only applied to
> licensed gun dealers.
>
> Yes, "All firearms laws apply to gunshow sales as they do
everwhere
> sic", but only to licensed retail outlets.
>
> The "Santa Claus" loophole has nothing to do with Santa Claus. It
> says a person may give or receive guns as a gift.
>
> The "Charleston Loophole" has nothing to do with Charleston. It
says
> that the system fails in an open state.
>
> Apply a background check to *every* gun transfer and we'll make a
> difference. Until then, wring your hands and ask "how can it
> happen"... I think you know.

Why are you so bent on punishing honest gun owners because of the
actions of criminals who don't comply with or give a fuck about
laws?

If everyone (Mainly Democrats...) obeyed the law, we wouldn't have
criminals.

law·less
/ˈlôləs,ˈläləs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
not governed by or obedient to laws; characterized by a lack of
civic order.
"a lawless region where peace never really took hold

crim·i·nal
/ˈkrimənl,ˈkrimn(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who has committed a crime.
"these men are dangerous criminals"
Similar:
lawbreaker
offender
villain
delinquent
malefactor
culprit

habitual criminal
noun

[!Jones]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 04:10:21 +0100, in talk.politics.guns Jonathan
Ball <econ...@spectrum.com> wrote:

>Why are you so bent on punishing honest gun owners because of the
>actions of criminals who don't comply with or give a fuck about
>laws?

I don't want to "punish" anyone. It's just a fact that unrestricted
gun propagation facilitates mass shootings and does no social good.
It won't hurt "honest gun owners" a bit to take up a new, less
destructive hobby. They could collect knives or learn lapidary;
however, when we outlaw guns, you'll just have to find another hobby.
I don't see how that'll hurt you.

I *do* see how our national gun fetish is hurting everyone. I'm
getting tired of running our flags to half staff and sending "thoughts
and prayers" to the victims of mass shootings. Roughly 120 people
each day die by gunfire in the US... once in a blue moon we *might*
hear about some altruistic act of self defense... and that's always a
self-reported anecdote that may or may not be so; the 120 dead bodies
are real.

Get yourself a new hobby besides guns. Buy a telescope and take up
astronomy... read a book... learn Spanish... get a life!

[Ken]

Right!! I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down. I
guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
with it. Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
someone." A gun has greater reach.

As for hobbies: You might concentrate on teaching those who commit
crime to get an education or skill so that they do not feel the need to
rob or kill someone. Can you imagine how that effort could bring down
the murder rate among blacks? (Which by the way is currently nine times
that of whites.) Would you like to know what the education level
difference between blacks ans whites is?? Look it up, it is not hard to
find.

[Ken]

Right!! I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down. I
guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
with it. Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
someone." A gun has greater reach.

As for hobbies: You might concentrate on teaching those who commit
crime to get an education or skill so that they do not feel the need to
rob or kill someone. Can you imagine how that effort could bring down
the murder rate among blacks? (Which by the way is currently nine times
that of whites.) Would you like to know what the education level

difference between blacks and whites is?? Look it up, it is not hard to
find.

[!Jones]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
<K...@invalid.com> wrote:

>Right!! I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
>Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down. I
>guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
>with it. Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
>someone." A gun has greater reach.

Well, you're repeating the old "self defense" myth. If guns really
*were* used thus, the US would have a much lower crime rate than
comparable societies, and we simply do not. A true act of self
defence is an extremely rare event.

While there might exist a few anomalies, it is just a fact that a well
armed society is not a well behaved one. Gun proliferation tends to
correlate with a high rate of gun crimes.

People tend to point to Switzerland in rebuttal. I argue that this is
only one society and that the Swiss have extremely strict gun laws
including registration and universal background checks. Also, the
Swiss people are disgustingly law-abiding and generally peaceful
(compared to the US, anyway).

[Ken]

!Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
> <K...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Right!! I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
>> Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down. I
>> guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
>> with it. Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
>> someone." A gun has greater reach.
>
> Well, you're repeating the old "self defense" myth. If guns really
> *were* used thus, the US would have a much lower crime rate than
> comparable societies, and we simply do not. A true act of self
> defence is an extremely rare event.

I have had a weapon for decades, and I only used it once, and then
without firing it. A guy with which I had a verbal altercation, said he
was going to enter my house and attack me. You would be surprised at
how rapidly he changed his plan when I pointed the gun at him and told
him he he was one step away from dying. Would my experience qualify as
an instance where a gun stopped an act of violence??

>
> While there might exist a few anomalies, it is just a fact that a well
> armed society is not a well behaved one. Gun proliferation tends to
> correlate with a high rate of gun crimes.

Gun proliferation is not the problem. Criminals are the problem. The
overwhelming number of gun owners are like me, they have it to protect
themselves and their family. Criminals will still acquire guns even if
they are prohibited from doing so by law.

Finally, people have many items that they may never use. I have three
fire extinguishers and have not yet used any of them. Still I think you
would agree that it is wise to have them. One never knows when it might
be needed and save the home or life. Guns are the same way.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 26/01/2023 3:53 am, Ken wrote:
> !Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
>> <K...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Right!!  I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
>>> Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down.  I
>>> guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
>>> with it.  Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
>>> someone."  A gun has greater reach.
>>
>> Well, you're repeating the old "self defense" myth.  If guns really
>> *were* used thus, the US would have a much lower crime rate than
>> comparable societies, and we simply do not.  A true act of self
>> defence is an extremely rare event.
>
> I have had a weapon for decades, and I only used it once, and then
> without firing it.  A guy with which I had a verbal altercation, said he
> was going to enter my house and attack me.  You would be surprised at
> how rapidly he changed his plan when I pointed the gun at him and told
> him he he was one step away from dying.  Would my experience qualify as
> an instance where a gun stopped an act of violence??

**Where I live, such an action constitutes a violation of the law. At
the very minimum, you would:

* Be charged with assault.
* Lose your gun licence.
* Lose your guns.
* Be placed under a good behaviour bond. Which means jail time, if you
act violently towards another person within a specified time.

Funnily enough, there are VASTLY fewer people shot to death and VASTLY
less gun crime where I live.

Gun crimes (ANY gun crimes) are treated very seriously by the police.

>
>>
>> While there might exist a few anomalies, it is just a fact that a well
>> armed society is not a well behaved one.  Gun proliferation tends to
>> correlate with a high rate of gun crimes.
>
> Gun proliferation is not the problem.  Criminals are the problem.

**The guy who recently shot up the nightclub and the guy who killed his
work mates, were they criminals prior to their murderous actions? Was
Stephen Paddock (the guy who murdered 60 People in Las Vegas in 2017) a
criminal, prior to his murderous rampage?

  The
> overwhelming number of gun owners are like me, they have it to protect
> themselves and their family.

**Which is both a fallacy and makes you more likely to kill your own
family members.

  Criminals will still acquire guns even if
> they are prohibited from doing so by law.

**SOME will. However, the vast majority of criminals will not, because
they are too difficult to obtain, provided suitable legal strictures are
put in place. Like they are here in Australia.

>
> Finally, people have many items that they may never use.  I have three
> fire extinguishers and have not yet used any of them.  Still I think you
> would agree that it is wise to have them.  One never knows when it might
> be needed and save the home or life.  Guns are the same way.

**Fire extinguishers are hardly ever used as instruments of
intimidation, injury and homicide. Guns are regularly used for such
activities.

Are fire extinguishers used to murder 10,000 Americans each year?

Fire extinguishers are useful implements. Guns are, for the most part,
toys. Dangerous ones, at that.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Ken]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 26/01/2023 3:53 am, Ken wrote:
>> !Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
>>> <K...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right!!  I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
>>>> Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down.  I
>>>> guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
>>>> with it.  Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
>>>> someone."  A gun has greater reach.
>>>
>>> Well, you're repeating the old "self defense" myth.  If guns really
>>> *were* used thus, the US would have a much lower crime rate than
>>> comparable societies, and we simply do not.  A true act of self
>>> defence is an extremely rare event.
>>
>> I have had a weapon for decades, and I only used it once, and then
>> without firing it.  A guy with which I had a verbal altercation, said
>> he was going to enter my house and attack me.  You would be surprised
>> at how rapidly he changed his plan when I pointed the gun at him and
>> told him he he was one step away from dying.  Would my experience
>> qualify as an instance where a gun stopped an act of violence??
>
> **Where I live, such an action constitutes a violation of the law. At
> the very minimum, you would:

You are apparently living in the wrong location. I would move.

>
> * Be charged with assault.
> * Lose your gun licence.
> * Lose your guns.
> * Be placed under a good behaviour bond. Which means jail time, if you
> act violently towards another person within a specified time.
>
> Funnily enough, there are VASTLY fewer people shot to death and VASTLY
> less gun crime where I live.

That is good to hear.

>
> Gun crimes (ANY gun crimes) are treated very seriously by the police.
>
>>
>>>
>>> While there might exist a few anomalies, it is just a fact that a well
>>> armed society is not a well behaved one.  Gun proliferation tends to
>>> correlate with a high rate of gun crimes.
>>
>> Gun proliferation is not the problem.  Criminals are the problem.
>
> **The guy who recently shot up the nightclub and the guy who killed his
> work mates, were they criminals prior to their murderous actions? Was
> Stephen Paddock (the guy who murdered 60 People in Las Vegas in 2017) a
> criminal, prior to his murderous rampage?

One does not need to have been a criminal prior to committing a crime.
Just the action of random killing for the first time is enough to make a
person a criminal. It is however a fact that most criminals don't stop
at one crime, they use it as a way of gaining assets rather than getting
a job. By the way, self defense is NOT a crime. It is a right.

>
>
>   The
>> overwhelming number of gun owners are like me, they have it to protect
>> themselves and their family.
>
> **Which is both a fallacy and makes you more likely to kill your own
> family members.

Likely to kill my family members??? That is like saying owning and
driving a car is likely to result in an accident and hurt family
members. That car could equally be the means by which one takes a
family member to the hospital and saves their life. You are getting
carried away.

>
>
>   Criminals will still acquire guns even if
>> they are prohibited from doing so by law.
>
> **SOME will. However, the vast majority of criminals will not, because
> they are too difficult to obtain, provided suitable legal strictures are
> put in place. Like they are here in Australia.

Well I do not live in Australia, and here the criminals acquire guns
regardless of the laws. Pour yourself a Fosters and consider yourself
lucky.

>
>>
>> Finally, people have many items that they may never use.  I have three
>> fire extinguishers and have not yet used any of them.  Still I think
>> you would agree that it is wise to have them.  One never knows when it
>> might be needed and save the home or life.  Guns are the same way.
>
> **Fire extinguishers are hardly ever used as instruments of
> intimidation, injury and homicide. Guns are regularly used for such
> activities.
>
> Are fire extinguishers used to murder 10,000 Americans each year?

One could argue that if not for fire extinguishers and fire departments,
there would be tens of thousands of deaths annually. Using your logic,
I need not have a fire extinguisher since I already have a fire
department to call. So guns are not necessary since I have a police
department.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 26/01/2023 5:48 am, Ken wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 26/01/2023 3:53 am, Ken wrote:
>>> !Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
>>>> <K...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Right!!  I can see where astronomy would help someone when one of
>>>>> Biden's "Racism victims" tries to kill you or burn your house down.  I
>>>>> guess you could take the telescope and hit the attacker over the head
>>>>> with it.  Than might work, but I prefer to "Reach out and touch
>>>>> someone."  A gun has greater reach.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you're repeating the old "self defense" myth.  If guns really
>>>> *were* used thus, the US would have a much lower crime rate than
>>>> comparable societies, and we simply do not.  A true act of self
>>>> defence is an extremely rare event.
>>>
>>> I have had a weapon for decades, and I only used it once, and then
>>> without firing it.  A guy with which I had a verbal altercation, said
>>> he was going to enter my house and attack me.  You would be surprised
>>> at how rapidly he changed his plan when I pointed the gun at him and
>>> told him he he was one step away from dying.  Would my experience
>>> qualify as an instance where a gun stopped an act of violence??
>>
>> **Where I live, such an action constitutes a violation of the law. At
>> the very minimum, you would:
>
> You are apparently living in the wrong location.  I would move.

**Why would I move from a place where I am TWENTY TIMES less likely to
be shot to death?

>
>>
>> * Be charged with assault.
>> * Lose your gun licence.
>> * Lose your guns.
>> * Be placed under a good behaviour bond. Which means jail time, if you
>> act violently towards another person within a specified time.
>>
>> Funnily enough, there are VASTLY fewer people shot to death and VASTLY
>> less gun crime where I live.
>
> That is good to hear.

**Indeed.

>
>>
>> Gun crimes (ANY gun crimes) are treated very seriously by the police.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While there might exist a few anomalies, it is just a fact that a well
>>>> armed society is not a well behaved one.  Gun proliferation tends to
>>>> correlate with a high rate of gun crimes.
>>>
>>> Gun proliferation is not the problem.  Criminals are the problem.
>>
>> **The guy who recently shot up the nightclub and the guy who killed
>> his work mates, were they criminals prior to their murderous actions?
>> Was Stephen Paddock (the guy who murdered 60 People in Las Vegas in
>> 2017) a criminal, prior to his murderous rampage?
>
> One does not need to have been a criminal prior to committing a crime.

**And THAT is precisely the problem.

> Just the action of random killing for the first time is enough to make a
> person a criminal.  It is however a fact that most criminals don't stop
> at one crime, they use it as a way of gaining assets rather than getting
> a job.  By the way, self defense is NOT a crime.  It is a right.

**Of course. No one has ever suggested that self defence should be a crime.

>
>>
>>
>>    The
>>> overwhelming number of gun owners are like me, they have it to
>>> protect themselves and their family.
>>
>> **Which is both a fallacy and makes you more likely to kill your own
>> family members.
>
> Likely to kill my family members???

**Correct.

  That is like saying owning and
> driving a car is likely to result in an accident and hurt family
> members.

**No. It's like saying that owning a firearm makes it more likely that
it will be used against family members than against criminals.

  That car could equally be the means by which one takes a
> family member to the hospital and saves their life.  You are getting
> carried away.

**10,000 Americans are killed by gunshot each year.

>
>>
>>
>>    Criminals will still acquire guns even if
>>> they are prohibited from doing so by law.
>>
>> **SOME will. However, the vast majority of criminals will not, because
>> they are too difficult to obtain, provided suitable legal strictures
>> are put in place. Like they are here in Australia.
>
> Well I do not live in Australia, and here the criminals acquire guns
> regardless of the laws.

**Which is why gun laws must be changed in the US.

  Pour yourself a Fosters and consider yourself
> lucky.

**That shit is just for idiots and tourists.

>>
>>>
>>> Finally, people have many items that they may never use.  I have
>>> three fire extinguishers and have not yet used any of them.  Still I
>>> think you would agree that it is wise to have them.  One never knows
>>> when it might be needed and save the home or life.  Guns are the same
>>> way.
>>
>> **Fire extinguishers are hardly ever used as instruments of
>> intimidation, injury and homicide. Guns are regularly used for such
>> activities.
>>
>> Are fire extinguishers used to murder 10,000 Americans each year?
>
> One could argue that if not for fire extinguishers and fire departments,
> there would be tens of thousands of deaths annually.

**Maybe. I don't know the stats.

Using your logic,
> I need not have a fire extinguisher since I already have a fire
> department to call.

**Nope. My logic is far more simple:

Fire extinguishers (of which I own several) are potentially useful
implements which are hardly ever used to kill or maim humans.

Guns are, almost uniquely, regularly used to kill and/or maim humans.
10,000 deaths each year in the US from gunshot.

How many are killed and/or maimed via the use of fire extinguishers?

One, two? None?

  So guns are not necessary since I have a police
> department.

**Guns are not necessary. They are just dangerous toys.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

That's why no sane person wants to live in Australia, where it's
apparently against the law to defend yourself.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Yet another lie, promulgated by NRA morons. On many levels.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 07:57:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Come To Australia!
Where 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists!â„¢

[%]

come to canada a case like this would send everyone to jail ,
that also stops the violence

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

er, no.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
Australia.

The BIG difference lies in how many Americans are shot and maimed (by
gunshot) each year. The US stands head and shoulders above all the other
Western, developed Democratic nations.

Face it: Your delusion that owning guns acts as some kind of safety
measure is just that: A delusion.

[%]

good , you'd only get shot

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

How? I thought Canadians didn't have guns

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 08:20:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson

<crickets>

>**Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
>different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
>Australia.
>
>The BIG difference lies in how many Americans are shot and maimed (by
>gunshot) each year.

Sorry, but we've ALWAYS been more violent than Australia. That's why
we had to come rescue you.

But it's good to know you think 100# women should have to fist fight
210# rapists.

[max headroom]

In news:ov13th1esas4dad23...@4ax.com, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> typed:

In Oz, you must have every family member sign an affidavit stating, "I identify
as a sheep." Then it's legal.

[Trevor Wilson]

Australia. Which, of course, means that all those gun totin' women in
the US are no safer than Aussie women.

>
>> **Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
>> different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
>> Australia.
>>
>> The BIG difference lies in how many Americans are shot and maimed (by
>> gunshot) each year.
>
> Sorry, but we've ALWAYS been more violent than Australia.

**So, you're trying to say that Americans are inherently more violent
than Aussies, so you need to be equipped with high power firearms, so
you can kill more of your fellow Americans.

Points:

* I don't believe that Americans are inherently more violent than
Australians. You're just making shit up.
* Yes, your history is slightly different to ours, but that's history.

That's why
> we had to come rescue you.

**Umm, not quite. Americans and Australians fought side by side against
the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis and
others, because that's the pact made by our politicians. Obviously, the
US has a far larger military and makes a much larger impact than
Australia's does.

>
> But it's good to know you think 100# women should have to fist fight
> 210# rapists.

**Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
Australia.

IF your easy availability of guns keeps women safe, then why is the
incidence of rape in the US similar to that of every other Western,
developed Democratic nation?

Maybe easy availability of guns doesn't make women any safer. Maybe more
are killed.

[!Jones]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:53:25 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
<K...@invalid.com> wrote:

>I have had a weapon for decades, and I only used it once, and then
>without firing it. A guy with which I had a verbal altercation, said he
>was going to enter my house and attack me. You would be surprised at
>how rapidly he changed his plan when I pointed the gun at him and told
>him he he was one step away from dying. Would my experience qualify as
>an instance where a gun stopped an act of violence??
>

>Gun proliferation is not the problem. Criminals are the problem. The
>overwhelming number of gun owners are like me, they have it to protect
>themselves and their family. Criminals will still acquire guns even if
>they are prohibited from doing so by law.
>
>Finally, people have many items that they may never use. I have three
>fire extinguishers and have not yet used any of them. Still I think you
>would agree that it is wise to have them. One never knows when it might
>be needed and save the home or life. Guns are the same way.

Re: Paragraph One: There is insufficient evidence to support a finding
of self defense. I'm sure that *you* have certain beliefs about it;
however, all I have is your anecdotal recollection of the event.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a liar; I just have a higher
standard of proof than self reporting, that's all. Therein lies my
issue with Gary Kleck (et. al.) and the survey studies that find
something like 2.5 million (or whatever number it was) instances of
DGUs (aka: "defensive gun uses") nationwide. My problem is that a
"DGU" is operationally defined (see: chapter two: "Operational
Definitions") as a positive answer to an item on an anonymous
telephone survey. I agree with Kleck's prediction that, should the
survey be run nationally, 2.5 million [sic] people might answer the
survey thus; however, that, standing alone, is meaningless.

Re: Paragraph Two: The majority of shootings are self inflicted. The
*overwhelming* majority of shootings take place in the home with a gun
owned in the home, by a family member or person well known, and injure
a family member or person well known therein. There are a handful of
dopers shooting each other over dope deals gone south, but the
scenario of the caricatures of distilled evil breaking down people's
doors to rape their families only exists in Bronson movies... and
"Dirty Harry", of course. More people are killed in their homes by
random gunfire from blocks away.

Re: Paragraph Three: I have no problem with you having a gun so long
as you accept legal responsibility for it... and that implies
registration. If you transfer that gun without registering the sale,
you remain liable for its use later. You know, those 'R'-words cut
both ways: With the idea of *Rights* goes the concept of
*Responsibility*. In the US, we have the former out the gazoo, but we
balk on the second idea, and they *must* travel as a pair.

[!Jones]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 05:15:43 +1100, in talk.politics.guns Trevor
Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**Where I live, such an action constitutes a violation of the law.

Well, in the US, we're pretty lax about gun waiving.

A few years ago, I was on my way to a sunrise Easter Sunday service.
It was dark and I was on my bicycle passing by the local large
university... ahead of me was a woman dancing down the sidewalk, and
she was *jammin'* out to her ear buds!

"In her ears the phones are tight and the music's playing LOUD!"

We were passing a park and it was darker than usual there... I was
doing everything besides shooting off pop-flares to get her attention
so that she'd let me pass.

Finally, I cut off the sidewalk and passed in the grass. As I did so,
she screamed, ripped open her fanny pack, and drew a gun. Was that a
valid defensive gun use?

*******************************************************

I was in a "big box" hardware store once about ten years ago. The
person well ahead of me in the checkout line was buying a lawn
mower... or something in a large box, anyway. The checker picked up
her microphone and said: "I need an associate with a handgun to
register six, please," (meaning a hand-held UPC scanning device).
Three or four gun loons came running from various directions across
the store with their guns drawn. Were these valid defensive gun uses.

*******************************************************

In each case, the person pulling the gun probably thought that there
was a good reason; however, in no case was there *any* threat to the
gun waiver. There was very real danger in both cases; however, the
danger was precipitated by the gun carrier.

[!Jones]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:48:47 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Ken
<K...@invalid.com> wrote:

>By the way, self defense is NOT a crime. It is a right.

I agree that it is covered in common law; however, it isn't written in
most places... a few have codified it. It exists in *every*
society... which is one of the requirements of something being a
right, BTW.

Legal systems differ in the way it's implemented, though. Under US
law, if you claim self defense, the state has the burden of showing it
wasn't. (For this reason, I can say that there has never been a
*proven* case of self defense in the US... we have to prove it
*wasn't*.) Many systems require that the person claiming self defense
prove it... or, at least, provide some affirmative evidence to support
the claim.

[!Jones]

Talking to Klaus is like trying to reason with a meth-head.

[%]

i got a black belt in .38 special

[Trevor Wilson]

On 26/01/2023 2:00 pm, !Jones wrote:
> Talking to Klaus is like trying to reason with a meth-head.
>

**It appears so. He has still not explained why the prevalence of rape
is not lower than any other Western, developed nation (including
Australia), despite the fact that so many women are packing heat all the
time.

[Trevor Wilson]

**YIKES! The woman in your first anecdote would have been in VERY
serious trouble here in Australia had she been arrested. She would
likely lose her rights to own a firearm forever. Particularly, if that
weapon had been loaded (it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm in
public, outside of a shooting range).

[max headroom]

In news:k3e0h3...@mid.individual.net, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> typed:

>>>> Where 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists!T

>> <crickets>

> **Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
> different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
> Australia. Which, of course, means that all those gun totin' women in
> the US are no safer than Aussie women.

Hasty conclusion. Unless you know the numbers of attempted rapes, you're just
speculating.

>>> **Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
>>> different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
>>> Australia.

>>> The BIG difference lies in how many Americans are shot and maimed (by
>>> gunshot) each year.

>> Sorry, but we've ALWAYS been more violent than Australia.

> **So, you're trying to say that Americans are inherently more violent
> than Aussies, so you need to be equipped with high power firearms, so
> you can kill more of your fellow Americans.

They don't need to be high power.

> Points:

> * I don't believe that Americans are inherently more violent than
> Australians. You're just making shit up.

When the number of aussies of European descent drops below 60%, get back to us.

> * Yes, your history is slightly different to ours, but that's history.

True. Aussies meekly begged the Brits for independence (and accepted fealty to
the British Royals and the Governor General); we fought and won ours.

> That's why
>> we had to come rescue you.

> **Umm, not quite....

Damn close. If the Japs had attacked Oz before Pearl Harbor, your history would
have been quite different.

> ... Americans and Australians fought side by side against

> the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis and
> others, because that's the pact made by our politicians. Obviously, the
> US has a far larger military and makes a much larger impact than
> Australia's does.

>> But it's good to know you think 100# women should have to fist fight
>> 210# rapists.

> **Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
> different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
> Australia.

Among "Western, developed Democratic nations," Oz is 2nd only to Sweden in the
rate of rapes per capita.

[Trevor Wilson]

**True enough and unless you can supply those numbers, I'm sticking with
my comments. REPORTED rapes amongst all Western, developed Democratic
societies is equal within error limits.

>
>>>> **Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
>>>> different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
>>>> Australia.
>
>>>> The BIG difference lies in how many Americans are shot and maimed (by
>>>> gunshot) each year.
>
>>> Sorry, but we've ALWAYS been more violent than Australia.
>
>> **So, you're trying to say that Americans are inherently more violent
>> than Aussies, so you need to be equipped with high power firearms, so
>> you can kill more of your fellow Americans.
>
> They don't need to be high power.

**They sure don't. Americans kill Americans at appallingly high rates.

>
>> Points:
>
>> * I don't believe that Americans are inherently more violent than
>> Australians. You're just making shit up.
>
> When the number of aussies of European descent drops below 60%, get back to us.

**Irrelevant. We're all Australians, regardless of ethnicity.

>
>> * Yes, your history is slightly different to ours, but that's history.
>
> True. Aussies meekly begged the Brits for independence (and accepted fealty to
> the British Royals and the Governor General); we fought and won ours.

**"Meekly"? Nope. In any case, irrelevant. It's HISTORY. We've moved on.
There are no Australians alive who were around prior to 1901. There are
no Americans who can recall the English rule of America. You guys have
moved on. Or should have. Thing is this: The US has the biggest, most
capable military on the planet. It no longer has to fear English rule.
Or anyone else's. Your highly professional and very capable military
force will keep you safe.

>
>> That's why
>>> we had to come rescue you.
>
>> **Umm, not quite....
>
> Damn close. If the Japs had attacked Oz before Pearl Harbor, your history would
> have been quite different.

**Your pitiful attempt at revisionist history is duly noted. I readily
acknowledge that, without the US involvement in WWII, that Australia
would not have survived against the Japanese military. Nor would the UK
and Europe. However, let's get real here: Had the Japanese not invaded
Peal Harbor, the US would likely have remained neutral and I would not
be alive. My parents would have been murdered by the Japanese.

Both Britain and the US were quite prepared to sacrifice Australia to
Japan in the early days of WWII. Pearl Harbor changed US attitudes to
the Japanese. Clearly, it was a tactical blunder of epic proportions by
the Japanese:

https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

>
>> ... Americans and Australians fought side by side against
>> the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis and
>> others, because that's the pact made by our politicians. Obviously, the
>> US has a far larger military and makes a much larger impact than
>> Australia's does.
>
>>> But it's good to know you think 100# women should have to fist fight
>>> 210# rapists.
>
>> **Except that the statistics demonstrate the rate of rapes is not very
>> different in most Western, developed Democratic nations. Including
>> Australia.
>
> Among "Western, developed Democratic nations," Oz is 2nd only to Sweden in the
> rate of rapes per capita.

**The rates of REPORTED rapes from all the Western, developed,
Democratic nations is very close.

The one glaring difference is that US doesn't seem to care about the
murder epidemic sweeping the US.

[Michael McLean]

On 26/01/2023 1:50 pm, !Jones wrote:

I think it is a forgone conclusion. Get rid of all guns and there will
be a huge reduction in death by gun. End of story.

There is always excuses for why people think otherwise.

Same as with abortion...there is a human life in there. End of story.






Mike


--
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance of God."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do, it is what you are."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."

"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."

"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that you could play God."

"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."

"The Bible cannot baptize. No one was ever saved by reading the Bible.
Mechanical or methodical salvation is just more Pharisee bureaucracy.
Men are saved after their conviction, death sentence, and resurrection
in baptism--the baptism of the Holy Spirit." - Nightbulb

"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."

"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."