It's the GUNS, stupid!
!Jones
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:38:32 +0100, "none" <no...@all.com> was kind
>enough to write:
>
>>
>>"David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
>>news:3b71281f.182743606@news...
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:06:46 +0100, "none" <no...@all.com> was kind
>>> enough to write:
>>>
>>> >"David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
>>> >news:3b661bc9.114039425@news...
>>> >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:35:12 +0100, "none" <no...@all.com> was
kind
>>> >> enough to write:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >> >I am interested in the net suffering caused by guns. Yes,
they do
>>> >prevent
>>> >> >some crimes, but they result in increased casualties overall.
>>> >>
>>> >> Please show some concrete data to back up this conjecture.
>>> >
>>> >Try my first post in this thread.
>>>
>>> Correlational data, insufficient to establish a causal link.
>>True, but a strong enough to suspect that there is a problem.
Certainly
>>strong enough to make the word "dingbat" inappropriate.
>>
>>> Also, no
>>> effort to account for lives saved, crimes prevented, etc. by
lawfully
>>> owned guns. Comparing Country A's present net suffering to
Country
>>> B's present net suffering is meaningless - There are many other
>>> differences between any two countries besides their gun laws or
rates
>>> of gun ownership that contribute to suffering.
>>Yep, I'd agree with that. You could reasonably hope to average
those
>>effects out by taking a large enough statistical sample, though.
Table 2 of
>>http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/cdic/cdic191/cd191d_e.html
tries to
>>do this. Even if you exclude outliers with exceptionally high
levels of
>>gun-homicide (one of which is the US) which you could argue were
freak
>>cases, you still get a general trend of increasing homicides with
increasing
>>gun access.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Changes in suffering within one country across a time span during
>>> which gun laws changed significantly would be good evidence for
the
>>> efficacy of gun control or lack thereof.
>>Only if you could isolate them from other social changes, as you
pointed out
>>in your comments on inter-country comparisons.
>>
>>> I've asked people to present
>>> it on many occasions, but nobody has ever shown convincing
evidence
>>> that IMPLEMENTING gun controls in a country that already has
>>> widespread gun ownership and a problem with criminal misuse of
guns
>>> has any positive effect.
>>Most of the comparisons that I'm aware of have been fairly
short-term, where
>>the legacy of pre-ban guns would mean that rapid changes would be
unlikely.
>>Are you aware of any longer-term studies ?
>
>No. It seems to me that there should be enough information to do
such
>a study, as the UK had no gun bans prior to the 1920s IIRC. Canada
>once upon a time had no gun control, as did the USA. The UK
certainly
>has been keeping crime statistics long enough to see a trend if one
>existed. However, either nobody has bothered to do the research, or
>they did and never published it because they didn't like the results.
>
>It seems to me that if there was a clear-cut connection between
>increases in gun control and decreases in murder rates (or whatever),
>pro-control people would jump at the chance to get the word out.
Obviously, if all of the guns could be collected, then all gun deaths
would be eliminated; however, history and human behavior show this to
be overly simplistic. On the other hand, it's utterly incomprehensible
to me that someone could argue that guns don't kill people; that
person would probably argue that gravity doesn't exist. I don't need
a study to convince me of gravity's existence and no amount of numbers
would get me to conclude that it doesn't exist. I have read both sides
of the argument; I have evaluated the merits of Lott, Kellremann, and
Kleck, I have reflected on both sides and have come to the independent
conclusion that people frequently use guns to kill other people.
Duuuuh-Bubba!
Yet, amazingly, some will argue with that simple fact.
Every month, the *American Rifleman* finds a story of a defensive gun
use for their "Armed Citizen" column; yet every day the newspaper in
any major city is full of gun-related carnage the preponderance of
which stems from personal conflict such as group rivalry or domestic
disputes... victim shootings are comparatively rare when you filter
out all of the dope deals gone bad and the like. The typical
non-accidental shooting happens in a fit of rage. Of the 18 shootings
this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one significant
other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a result
of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar. During
the same time period, there were no defensive shootings reported. So,
for the year the score is: bad guys: 1; good guys: 0; other guys: 17
Thus, in terms of probability, I've got a much better chance of
getting caught in the crossfire when a neighbor starts shooting at
another neighbor over the dog pooping in the wrong yard than I have of
being a crime victim... 5 times greater by my informal tally.
I seriously doubt that any form of gun control would work in the US.
First of all, you'd never get it passed... 1) guns are *very* popular
and anyone who even suggests that the paradigm might need evaluation
will face massive opposition. 2) The weapons industry (represented by
the National Rifle Association) is a multi billion dollar segment of
the economy. Domestic sales account for a significant part of their
profits. 3) The people who do suggest a reasonable gun control are
poorly funded and loosely organized. The "Million Mom March" drew,
what?... 40,000 by the most liberal estimates? Compare them to the
massively funded NRA who could draw that many people from Washington
DC alone.
Second: if it passed, it probably wouldn't have any significant effect
one way or the other unless it was coupled with a basic philosophical
change in our predisposition to solve our problems with a firearm. A
researcher from Florida State University found (statistically
extrapolating) that over two million people would report being
involved in a deadly force incident in the past year. Now, obviously,
a self report doesn't mean that all of these people actually used
deadly force; however, the study is significant in that it points to
the social desirability of "slapping leather".
Jones
Alan
> this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
> related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one significant
> other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a result
> of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar.
Just a point here. I live most of the time in a country where guns are
tightly controlled (Japan). Now the population of the city where I live is
approx. 350,000 (comparable to the above city,mentioned by Jones). Now,last
year, in the city where I live,there were 0 shootings (zero,none,nada).
Soooo how does this get explained away by the pro-gun twits ?
Alan
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:05:32 GMT, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth)
>wrote:
>
>>increases in gun control and decreases in murder rates (or whatever),
>>pro-control people would jump at the chance to get the word out.
>
>Obviously, if all of the guns could be collected, then all gun deaths
>would be eliminated;
Only if we could someone prevent new guns from being manufactured.
>however, history and human behavior show this to
>be overly simplistic. On the other hand, it's utterly incomprehensible
>to me that someone could argue that guns don't kill people;
And it's utterly incomprehensible to me that someone could willfully
ignore the individual who is committing the crime and focus all his
energy on hating an inanimate object.
>Every month, the *American Rifleman* finds a story of a defensive gun
>use for their "Armed Citizen" column; yet every day the newspaper in
>any major city is full of gun-related carnage the preponderance of
>which stems from personal conflict such as group rivalry or domestic
>disputes... victim shootings are comparatively rare when you filter
>out all of the dope deals gone bad and the like. The typical
>non-accidental shooting happens in a fit of rage.
By someone with a long criminal record, a history of violence, and drug
and alcohol abuse, and with an illegally owned gun.
>Of the 18 shootings
>this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
>related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one significant
>other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a result
>of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar. During
>the same time period, there were no defensive shootings reported. So,
>for the year the score is: bad guys: 1; good guys: 0; other guys: 17
>
>Thus, in terms of probability, I've got a much better chance of
>getting caught in the crossfire when a neighbor starts shooting at
>another neighbor over the dog pooping in the wrong yard than I have of
>being a crime victim... 5 times greater by my informal tally.
Only if you assume that the behavior of the gang-bangers and drug dealers
are representative of your neighbors. They aren't of mine.
>I seriously doubt that any form of gun control would work in the US.
True enough. They've never worked anywhere else.
>First of all, you'd never get it passed... 1) guns are *very* popular
>and anyone who even suggests that the paradigm might need evaluation
>will face massive opposition.
As they should.
>2) The weapons industry (represented by
>the National Rifle Association) is a multi billion dollar segment of
>the economy. Domestic sales account for a significant part of their
>profits.
The NRA represents gun owners, not gun manufacturers. What we did to
S&W should have made that clear.
3) The people who do suggest a reasonable gun control are
>poorly funded and loosely organized.
Actually, they are very well funded, both from large donations from a
few wealthy, often anonymous donors, and support from various non-profit
and governmental organizations, and they are very well organized.
Their biggest problem (aside from the fact that they are wrong on every
one of their basic premises) is that there aren't very many of them.
>The "Million Mom March" drew,
>what?... 40,000 by the most liberal estimates? Compare them to the
>massively funded NRA who could draw that many people from Washington
>DC alone.
If you've been to many of these, you'll find the MMMers made up of
retired folks, stay-at-home moms, teachers and government workers taking
time off with pay, and various "professional protesters", arriving in
church-group buses. And the pro-gunners are folks taking time off work
and paying their own way.
Ask anyone in Congress. The NRA's power isn't in its money - it's in
its numbers.
>Second: if it passed, it probably wouldn't have any significant effect
>one way or the other unless it was coupled with a basic philosophical
>change in our predisposition to solve our problems with a firearm.
Unless and until you can find some way to make criminals and gangsters
less predisposed to reach for a gun, changes in "our" predispositions
won't matter.
And if you _can_ figure out a way to eliminate crime and violence, well,
then there wouldn't be a need to ban guns, would there?
>A
>researcher from Florida State University found (statistically
>extrapolating) that over two million people would report being
>involved in a deadly force incident in the past year. Now, obviously,
>a self report doesn't mean that all of these people actually used
>deadly force; however, the study is significant in that it points to
>the social desirability of "slapping leather".
There's a significant social desirability of having a population that
is capable and self-reliant. An unnecessary dependency on government
is not a good thing.
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to
be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they
can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the
HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
Jeffrey C. Dege
How many assaults? Rapes? Suicides?
Don't forget to count police beatings.
--
For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken
Alan
> How many assaults? Rapes? Suicides?
>
> Don't forget to count police beatings.
>
> --
Compared to the US, the numbers are miniscule.
Alan
Pontiff Maximus
How many suicides, deaths by drowning, deaths by blade, deaths by gas attack in
the subway, and so on. The Japs aren't croaking off fast enough for their own
good but they're sure kicking the bucket in droves.
--
Veritas vos liberabit
Anti-Commie Club LLC ©®
Pontiff Maximus is dedicated to a return
to true Constitutional Rule Of Law, to the
protection of our Constitutionally guaranteed
rights granted by God, and the education
of all Americans of their true heritage in
and birthright of liberty and freedom.
Chief
> >Soooo how does this get explained away by the pro-gun twits ?
>
> How many assaults? Rapes? Suicides?
>
> Don't forget to count police beatings.
Absolutely, there is always internalized "violence". If not physical,
mental. Japan is basically an ant farm. But in all fairness I don't know.
If the people are happy then great. The turnover rate in leadership
suggests otherwise though.
Alan
> How many suicides, deaths by drowning, deaths by blade, deaths by gas
attack in
> the subway, and so on. The Japs aren't croaking off fast enough for their
own
> good but they're sure kicking the bucket in droves.
>
> --
What's that got to do with guns ? Excuse me,but I'm trying to have a
meaningful debate on the pros and cons of gun ownership.I don't give a
rattlin' fart how quick the Japs are dying,personally,I wish they'd commit
suicide a lot more, but that's all bye the bye.Would you please try and keep
the subject on topic, and if it's within your ability, educate me and stop
all this nonsensical trolling.. Thank you.
Alan
Jeffrey C. Dege
>>
>> How many assaults? Rapes? Suicides?
>>
>> Don't forget to count police beatings.
>
Rapes? Bullshit.
Suicides? Bullshit.
Police brutality? Bullshit.
--
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people
constituting a government; and government without a constitution is
power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have
some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are
not other sources. all delegated power is trust, and all assumed power
is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.
- Thomas Paine
Verne
"Alan" <dogsdan...@fishfeeds.com> wrote in message
news:9jqg6q$15si2$1...@ID-91163.news.dfncis.de...
Well Alan Japanese Americans have about a zero crime rate here as well.
Shocking the Japanese people tend to be utterly law abiding. Of course their
suicide rate is astronomical and they do that without guns. There are many
things different about the Japanese and gun availability is insignificant
among them
Verne
>
>
Jeffrey C. Dege
>>
>> How many suicides, deaths by drowning, deaths by blade, deaths by gas
>attack in
>> the subway, and so on. The Japs aren't croaking off fast enough for their
>own
>> good but they're sure kicking the bucket in droves.
>
>meaningful debate on the pros and cons of gun ownership.
Rather you are trying to limit the discussion to one of gun violence
rather than violent crime in general, so that you can carefully ignore
the possibility of means substitution, and thus pretend that reducing
gun violence is in and of itself a social good.
If you wanted to have a meaningful debate, you'd be discussing the effects
of gun ownership on crime levels, and considering both the positive and
negative possibilities.
By trying to limit the discussion solely to violent crime committed with
guns, you are demonstrating that you have no intention of engaging in
a meaningful debate.
Chief
> S&W should have made that clear.
Really. I bet there are a bunch of people hurting and hating based on that
decision.
> Actually, they are very well funded, both from large donations from a
> few wealthy, often anonymous donors, and support from various non-profit
> and governmental organizations, and they are very well organized.
The only people who would fund gun control are those with financial power,
pure and simple. Though the "anonymous" donors always put up good
front-ends to try and mask themselves.
> Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has
to
> be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if
they
> can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up
the
> HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
Ya know whatever happened to the brown and orange traditional kickass HP
calculators. A geek's delight. The remaining calcs are all fruity looking,
just like our society. What I'd love to see and something that would sell
great is an ultra mini-notebook traditional type looking HP calc with
traditional last forever buttons, a large color organic screen, and built in
symbolic and graphing capability.
Chief
Actually from what little I've seen, since much really doesn't get out, it's
a very repressive society. A lot of these things happen silently.
Alan
> Well Alan Japanese Americans have about a zero crime rate here as well.
>
> Shocking the Japanese people tend to be utterly law abiding. Of course
their
> suicide rate is astronomical and they do that without guns. There are many
> things different about the Japanese and gun availability is insignificant
> among them
>
> Verne
> >
> >
Verne, please, you know very well the reason I'm participating in this
thread,an' it's got sod all to do with guns or Japs. (G)
How you been anyway ?
Alan
Scout
Care to present your numbers Alan. Last I heard from the home office your
violent crime rates were higher than those of the US. In fact according to
some sources, the UK has the highest victimization rate in the world.
Alan
> rather than violent crime in general, so that you can carefully ignore
> the possibility of means substitution, and thus pretend that reducing
> gun violence is in and of itself a social good.
>
I thought that gun violence and violent crime would be very closely
related. As for 'pretending that reducing gun violence' is 'a social
good'....... Well come on, who wouldn't agree that reducing gun violence is
a social good ?
Alan
Alan
> violent crime rates were higher than those of the US. In fact according to
> some sources, the UK has the highest victimization rate in the world.
>
>
>
Twit. I just said I live in Japan, or can't you read ?
Alan
Chief
their
> suicide rate is astronomical and they do that without guns. There are many
> things different about the Japanese and gun availability is insignificant
> among them
http://detnews.com/1999/biz/9907/03/07030079.htm
If lefties are counting on suicide to control population they've
miscalculated. I suppose even the Japanese can become only so robotic
before the human spirit fights back.
Aron Bert
<9jqhmn$1379q$1...@ID-91163.news.dfncis.de>, Alan stated...
Tough shit! If you want to have a meaningful debate on the pros and cons of gun
ownership, while linking guns to violent crimes, you're going to have to
consider the overall death rate, and the causes. Shit happens and people die of
all sorts of things, considering the plight of the world if everybody lived to
be 95, we would soon be overwhelmed.
--
Aron Bert
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
-Benjamin Franklin
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>>Obviously, if all of the guns could be collected, then all gun
deaths
>>would be eliminated;
>
>Only if we could someone prevent new guns from being manufactured.
OK... I said that it wasn't realistic so, while I'm wishing for a
million dollars, I may as well wish a million or so for you too.
>>however, history and human behavior show this to
>>be overly simplistic. On the other hand, it's utterly
incomprehensible
>>to me that someone could argue that guns don't kill people;
>
>And it's utterly incomprehensible to me that someone could willfully
>ignore the individual who is committing the crime and focus all his
>energy on hating an inanimate object.
>>Of the 18 shootings
>>this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
>>related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one
significant
>>other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a
result
>>of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar.
During
>>the same time period, there were no defensive shootings reported.
So,
>>for the year the score is: bad guys: 1; good guys: 0; other guys: 17
>>
>>Thus, in terms of probability, I've got a much better chance of
>>getting caught in the crossfire when a neighbor starts shooting at
>>another neighbor over the dog pooping in the wrong yard than I have
of
>>being a crime victim... 5 times greater by my informal tally.
>
>Only if you assume that the behavior of the gang-bangers and drug
dealers
>are representative of your neighbors. They aren't of mine.
I threw out the gang-bangers. No law has much effect on them anyway.
>
>>I seriously doubt that any form of gun control would work in the US.
>
>True enough. They've never worked anywhere else.
It's fairly effective in Scandinavia and reasonably difficult to get a
gun in Mexico... although they still see a high murder rate, so I
guess it depends on the definition of "works".
>>First of all, you'd never get it passed... 1) guns are *very*
popular
>>and anyone who even suggests that the paradigm might need evaluation
>>will face massive opposition.
>
>As they should.
>
>>2) The weapons industry (represented by
>>the National Rifle Association) is a multi billion dollar segment of
>>the economy. Domestic sales account for a significant part of their
>>profits.
>
>The NRA represents gun owners, not gun manufacturers. What we did to
>S&W should have made that clear.
>
>3) The people who do suggest a reasonable gun control are
>>poorly funded and loosely organized.
>
>Actually, they are very well funded, both from large donations from a
>few wealthy, often anonymous donors, and support from various
non-profit
>and governmental organizations, and they are very well organized.
Bah! The NRA's political action fund dwarfs all of them. NRA buys an
hour of national air time and spends three times their opponents
yearly budget... and if you think that the weapons industry isn't
funding them, well... you probably believe in Santa Claus.
>
>Their biggest problem (aside from the fact that they are wrong on
every
>one of their basic premises) is that there aren't very many of them.
>
>>The "Million Mom March" drew,
>>what?... 40,000 by the most liberal estimates? Compare them to the
>>massively funded NRA who could draw that many people from Washington
>>DC alone.
>
>If you've been to many of these, you'll find the MMMers made up of
>retired folks, stay-at-home moms, teachers and government workers
taking
>time off with pay, and various "professional protesters", arriving in
>church-group buses. And the pro-gunners are folks taking time off
work
>and paying their own way.
Maybe so, but you haven't convinced me that this is true yet.
>Ask anyone in Congress. The NRA's power isn't in its money - it's in
>its numbers.
It's both... if I've got numbers, I can get money and visa versa.
>>Second: if it passed, it probably wouldn't have any significant
effect
>>one way or the other unless it was coupled with a basic
philosophical
>>change in our predisposition to solve our problems with a firearm.
>
>Unless and until you can find some way to make criminals and
gangsters
>less predisposed to reach for a gun, changes in "our" predispositions
>won't matter.
>
>And if you _can_ figure out a way to eliminate crime and violence,
well,
>then there wouldn't be a need to ban guns, would there?
True, nor would there be any need for a gun. In a perfect world, it
would be moot. The point being that (in our imperfect world)
criminals shooting randomly selected innocent victims, while not
unheard of, doesn't account for the bulk of the shootings. Like I
say, we've had one out of eighteen of those... and its location
suggests that the victim probably wasn't entirely random. I generally
don't hang out in titty bars because they're dangerous places...
that's part of it anyway.
When you look at it, most victims contribute in some way to the
crime... no, not all, but most do. The guy leaving the tit bar
certainly did by his location if by nothing else. Someone cruising
for sex or dope is an easy target. Heck, I drove cab for years and
only got held up twice. Both times, I was guilty of complacency (and
probably stupidity as well... should'a seen it a mile away!)
One of the guys left his military 201 file in the cab... I think we
could call that a clue, perhaps? ... and his photo album. So, if he's
*that* stupid, he needed quite a bit of cooperation from me.
>There's a significant social desirability of having a population that
>is capable and self-reliant. An unnecessary dependency on government
>is not a good thing.
I think that I won't argue with that statement... you forgot "Mom" and
"apple pie" though.
Jones
Alan
> ownership, while linking guns to violent crimes,
Again, I think it's only fair and natural to link guns to violent crimes,
or could you suggest another category to place 'homicide' in ?
Alan
JELink
>Of the 18 shootings
>> this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
>> related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one significant
>> other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a result
>> of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar.
I see...gang-related shootings aren't crimes....a road-rage shooting isn't a
crime...murdering your husband for insurance isn't a crime....domestic
disturbances involving gun deaths aren't crimes....
That's a pretty lenient jurisdiction, I'd say!!
Or do we have here a person who doesn't know what a crime IS?
> Just a point here. I live most of the time in a country where guns are
>tightly controlled (Japan). Now the population of the city where I live is
>approx. 350,000 (comparable to the above city,mentioned by Jones). Now,last
>year, in the city where I live,there were 0 shootings (zero,none,nada).
>Soooo how does this get explained away by the pro-gun twits ?
It doesn't need to be explained away, only explained. You may have noticed
that Japanese use other methods to kill people.
You may have also noticed that handgun crime among the Yakuza is hardly unknown
-- you just might live in a city where they aren't active.
Japan has people who deal in drugs and commit murder with guns too ----and
they <do> use guns. Just go down to Osaka and pop into any police "koban" and
ask about the Yamaguchigumi's activities..
In any event, what does a one city to one city comparison "prove", anyway?
There were no gun crimes in my town last year, and in many of the surrounding
towns...
Then there's Switzerland, where all men are required to keep and own guns.
Seen the gun death stats from there? Very low indeed. What does it prove?
Only that countries WITH guns and low criminality don't have problems with
them.
You've done nothing but muddy the waters here..........
Verne
Shit you won't let me bite? I feel left out. It doesn't don't look like you
need any help getting a response on this one.
What happened with the Philippines?
Verne
>
>
!Jones
wrote:
>Care to present your numbers Alan. Last I heard from the home office
your
>violent crime rates were higher than those of the US. In fact
according to
>some sources, the UK has the highest victimization rate in the world.
The social fabrics are quite comparable. Crime rates are cyclical...
they tend to follow something like a 20 year rise and ebb... we're low
right now. Some social scientists are predicting a rise in crime in
the US... at the end of the '80s, we were leading England and even
Mexico. When you average over a century, there's hardly a difference.
Jones
!Jones
wrote:
So, go suck on a loaded .38 and do us all a favor, asshole!
Jones
Scout
> > Rather you are trying to limit the discussion to one of gun violence
> > rather than violent crime in general, so that you can carefully ignore
> > the possibility of means substitution, and thus pretend that reducing
> > gun violence is in and of itself a social good.
> >
>
>
> I thought that gun violence and violent crime would be very closely
> related.
Not necessarily. Depends on the instrumentality choice of the criminal.
The US has a lot of gun violence, the UK has less gun violence. The UK has a
lot of violent crime, the US has less violent crime. Seems the "closely
related" exists only in your mind.
>As for 'pretending that reducing gun violence' is 'a social
> good'....... Well come on, who wouldn't agree that reducing gun violence
is
> a social good ?
I would disagree. Reducing gun violence harms society if it results in a
higher violent crime rate, leaves the people of a nation defenseless before
an attacker or aggressor, or opens the people of a nation up to government
imposed tyranny.
Scout
Ok. So are you saying the UK has such a high violent crime rate because they
don't have guns?
Or are you going to try to dodge the issue because you live someplace other
than where I thought you did?
Alan
> What happened with the Philippines?
>
>
> Verne
> >
> >
>
>
Not quite sure what you mean here. Just as a coincidence,or maybe I've told
you before, I spend half me time in one country with strict gun controls,
and the rest of me time in a country with fuck all gun controls and
everyone's armed to the friggin' teeth. While I don't feel particulary
threatened in the Philipines,I do feel 'safer' in Japan. I also carry
weapons when I'm in PI, but never in Japan. (except sometimes a baseball
bat,but don't tell that silly twat Geeze about it,or he'll be given
instruction on how to clobber cows with it)
Alan
Scout
Well as long as you count it like the Japanese you could place it in
suicide. After all a man comes home, kills his wife and two children then
himself, Japan records 4 suicides.
Scout
"!Jones" <lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1k1mt8h4sn3sebgo...@4ax.com...
Hmmmmm...
And since the '30s and particularly the '60s we have seen massive increasing
in gun control...
Looks to me as if gun control isn't the answer to violent crime.
So Johns, why exactly are you against gun ownership?
Alan
> > Twit. I just said I live in Japan, or can't you read ?
>
> Ok. So are you saying the UK has such a high violent crime rate because
they
> don't have guns?
>
I said bugger all about the UK ? Where in Christs name did you get that
from ?
Alan
Alan
> > good'....... Well come on, who wouldn't agree that reducing gun violence
> is
> > a social good ?
>
> I would disagree. Reducing gun violence harms society if it results in a
> higher violent crime rate, leaves the people of a nation defenseless
before
> an attacker or aggressor, or opens the people of a nation up to government
> imposed tyranny.
>
>
Awwww for Gods sakes, Surely reducing ANY kind of violence,be it gun
violence, baseball bat violence, screwdriver violence, domsetic violence
would be a social good, or are you suggesting that a 'particular' kind of
violence is good for society ?
Alan
Aron Bert
<9jqj9h$16np0$1...@ID-91163.news.dfncis.de>, Alan stated...
I'm not arguing that a death from a bullet isn't a violent event. Guns are a
tool like a knife or your hand, and an extension of the person wielding it...no
more.
A homicide can be quite humane, just ask Timothy McVeigh.
Alan
> >
> > Again, I think it's only fair and natural to link guns to violent
> crimes,
> > or could you suggest another category to place 'homicide' in ?
>
> Well as long as you count it like the Japanese you could place it in
> suicide. After all a man comes home, kills his wife and two children then
> himself, Japan records 4 suicides.
>
>
>
Sorry, but that is not true at all. You're pretty stupid aren't you ?
Alan
!Jones
wrote:
>And since the '30s and particularly the '60s we have seen massive
increasing
>in gun control...
Nonsense. We have more guns per capita than ever. Something like 70%
of the households have a gun... not quite that; 60-something.
>Looks to me as if gun control isn't the answer to violent crime.
I never said that it was.
>So Johns,
Jones
>why exactly are you against gun ownership?
I'm not. I own a gun. It's my position that guns aren't the answer
to everything, that's all. I wouldn't support abolition, but I argue
against the "pry it from my cold, dead fingers" mentality.
That and I'm a troll.
Jones
Alan
a
> tool like a knife or your hand, and an extension of the person wielding
it...no
> more.
>
I'm not arguing the point that guns are not tools,I'm saying that guns
and violent crimes are closely related. That famous study carried out last
year proved that point conclusively.
Alan
FNG
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:05:32 GMT, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth)
> wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, if all of the guns could be collected, then all gun deaths
> would be eliminated; however, history and human behavior show this to
> be overly simplistic. On the other hand, it's utterly incomprehensible
> to me that someone could argue that guns don't kill people; that
> person would probably argue that gravity doesn't exist. I don't need
> a study to convince me of gravity's existence and no amount of numbers
> would get me to conclude that it doesn't exist. I have read both sides
> of the argument; I have evaluated the merits of Lott, Kellremann, and
> Kleck, I have reflected on both sides and have come to the independent
> conclusion that people frequently use guns to kill other people.
Let's skip studys then and look at simple numbers...
1993 - 39,595 Firearm Related Deaths <CDC>
1998 - 30,708 Firearm Related Deaths <CDC>
During the same period ownership of personal firearms increased by 37
million <BATF>
Right to Carry states increased from 17-31 <any source you prefer>
Duuuuuh-Bubba - What conclusion do you draw?
> Duuuuh-Bubba!
>
> Yet, amazingly, some will argue with that simple fact.
>
> Every month, the *American Rifleman* finds a story of a defensive gun
> use for their "Armed Citizen" column; yet every day the newspaper in
> any major city is full of gun-related carnage the preponderance of
> which stems from personal conflict such as group rivalry or domestic
> disputes... victim shootings are comparatively rare when you filter
> out all of the dope deals gone bad and the like. The typical
> non-accidental shooting happens in a fit of rage. Of the 18 shootings
> this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
> related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one significant
> other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a result
> of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar. During
> the same time period, there were no defensive shootings reported. So,
> for the year the score is: bad guys: 1; good guys: 0; other guys: 17
The operative word is "reported". Do you mean reported to the police or
reported by the media. As you have taken the time to educate yourself on
the subject at hand, you are probably aware of the results of Lott's study.
You should also be aware that (according to Lott's study) most defensive
uses of guns are not reported to the police. Those that are are seldom
reported by the media. <opinion on> It should be blatantly obvious to the
most casual of observers that there is an extreme anti-gun bias in the media
<opinion off>.
One URL that lists research on this topic is:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105b.html
Note: As this web site has a conservative bias I am sure you will question
the validity of any findings posted, just as I question the findings of
"investigative journalism" in the mass media.
>
> Thus, in terms of probability, I've got a much better chance of
> getting caught in the crossfire when a neighbor starts shooting at
> another neighbor over the dog pooping in the wrong yard than I have of
> being a crime victim... 5 times greater by my informal tally.
What can I say...you live in a shitty neighborhood (pun intended). We need
more leash laws.
>
> I seriously doubt that any form of gun control would work in the US.
> First of all, you'd never get it passed... 1) guns are *very* popular
> and anyone who even suggests that the paradigm might need evaluation
> will face massive opposition. 2) The weapons industry (represented by
> the National Rifle Association) is a multi billion dollar segment of
> the economy. Domestic sales account for a significant part of their
> profits. 3) The people who do suggest a reasonable gun control are
> poorly funded and loosely organized. The "Million Mom March" drew,
> what?... 40,000 by the most liberal estimates? Compare them to the
> massively funded NRA who could draw that many people from Washington
> DC alone.
What is the NRA compared to NBC, ABC, CBS, BATF,CDC, etc.
>
> Second: if it passed, it probably wouldn't have any significant effect
> one way or the other unless it was coupled with a basic philosophical
> change in our predisposition to solve our problems with a firearm. A
> researcher from Florida State University found (statistically
> extrapolating) that over two million people would report being
> involved in a deadly force incident in the past year. Now, obviously,
> a self report doesn't mean that all of these people actually used
> deadly force; however, the study is significant in that it points to
> the social desirability of "slapping leather".
>
> Jones
Verne
You may have told me already that your being in the Philipines was only a
fifty fifty arraignment. I just remembered it as your new home.
Shit those countryman of yours [Japs] are thick as flies around here ever
sense Seattle picked up Ichiro Suzuki. We get Big buses full of them
everyone of them with a camera. Japan is a nation full of a bunch of
baseball fanatics
Verne
>
>
Aron Bert
<9jqkj9$14pda$1...@ID-91163.news.dfncis.de>, Alan stated...
Famous study, huh? Why not just stick to real numbers and a little common
sense?
Here's a few for you to consider:
Table 2.10
Murder Victims
Types of Weapons Used, 1995-1999
Weapons 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Total 20,232 16,967 15,837 14,276 12,658
Total fireams 13,790 11,453 10,729 9,257 8,259
Handguns 11,282 9,266 8,441 7,430 6,498
Rifles 654 561 638 548 387
Shotguns 929 685 643 633 503
Other guns 29 20 35 16 90
Firearms, 896 921 972 630 781
not stated
Knives or cutting
instruments 2,557 2,324 2,055 1,899 1,667
Blunt objects (clubs,
hammers, etc.) 918 792 724 755 736
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
1 1,201 1,037 1,010 964 855
Poison 14 8 6 6 11
Explosives 192 15 8 10 -
Fire 166 170 140 132 125
Narcotics 22 33 37 35 23
Drowning 30 24 34 28 26
Strangulation 237 248 224 213 190
Asphyxiation 137 92 88 101 103
Other weapons or weapons not stated
968 771 782 876 663
1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/w99tbl2-10.xls
Maybe you could explain why gun ownership is on the rise, concealed carry
permits are "must issue" in nearly two tirds of the States, and yet the number
of violent crimes related to guns are on the decline and have been for five
years?
FNG
How about 'homicide'?
'Course it's fair to link guns to violent crimes. Same thing applies to any
other item used to commit a violent crime. I recently read where a fellow
blugeoned to death a mate of his with a spiget. We should probably link
those to violent crimes as well.
What is most unfair, however, is to imply that guns cause violent crimes.
I've seen nothing to suggest that that is other than the rerest occurence
and data from the CDC and BATF (both inarguably anti-gun organizations)
suggest otherwise.
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
Jeffrey C. Dege
>> Rather you are trying to limit the discussion to one of gun violence
>> rather than violent crime in general, so that you can carefully ignore
>> the possibility of means substitution, and thus pretend that reducing
>> gun violence is in and of itself a social good.
>
> I thought that gun violence and violent crime would be very closely
>related.
Violence is a problem, regardless of means.
>As for 'pretending that reducing gun violence' is 'a social
>good'....... Well come on, who wouldn't agree that reducing gun violence is
>a social good ?
If reducing gun violence led to a greater increase in non-gun violence,
is that a social good?
If reducing gun violence led to a greater degree of state control over
individual lives, to a increase in dependency and a general reduction
in personal liberty, is that a social good?
--
Believe me, the real romantic person is him who ain't done anything
but imagine. If you have actually participated in disasters, like me,
you get conservative.
-- Thomas Berger, "Little Big Man"
Chief
> violence, baseball bat violence, screwdriver violence, domsetic violence
> would be a social good, or are you suggesting that a 'particular' kind of
> violence is good for society ?
My god, your leaving out so many other types of violence though. Political
or State violence, economic violence, social violence, psychological
violence. Based on experience thus far I pretty certain that when you sum
those all together there's LESS violence in the US than ANYWHERE else in the
world. Although it has been on the rise lately and I'd say there is a dam
good chance for mini-civil wars if we don't enact criminal offenses for
information crimes. Not to be confused with "thought" crimes. Isn't
amazing how backwards the left is. They put on a good facade and do exactly
the opposite of what should be done.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:36:45 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>Only if you assume that the behavior of the gang-bangers and drug dealers
>>are representative of your neighbors. They aren't of mine.
>
>I threw out the gang-bangers. No law has much effect on them anyway.
If you throw out the gang-bangers, the drug dealers, and the crimnally
abusive, there are hardly any homicides left.
>>>I seriously doubt that any form of gun control would work in the US.
>>
>>True enough. They've never worked anywhere else.
>
>It's fairly effective in Scandinavia and reasonably difficult to get a
>gun in Mexico... although they still see a high murder rate, so I
>guess it depends on the definition of "works".
Well, my definition of "works" is "made things noticably better".
So listing places that were perfectly peaceful before gun control was
imposed and were perfectly peaceful after gun control doesn't impress
me much. (Besides, gun ownership is quite common in Norway and Finland.)
And listing places that were horrors before gun control that remain
horrors after gun control don't impress me much, either. (Mexico and
Jamaica, for example.)
Has anybody ever found a single example where gun control measures were
put in place and violent crime decreased significantly and stayed down?
>>>First of all, you'd never get it passed... 1) guns are *very*
>popular
>>>and anyone who even suggests that the paradigm might need evaluation
>>>will face massive opposition.
>>
>>As they should.
>>
>>>2) The weapons industry (represented by
>>>the National Rifle Association) is a multi billion dollar segment of
>>>the economy. Domestic sales account for a significant part of their
>>>profits.
>>
>>The NRA represents gun owners, not gun manufacturers. What we did to
>>S&W should have made that clear.
>>
>>3) The people who do suggest a reasonable gun control are
>>>poorly funded and loosely organized.
>>
>>Actually, they are very well funded, both from large donations from a
>>few wealthy, often anonymous donors, and support from various
>non-profit
>>and governmental organizations, and they are very well organized.
>
>Bah! The NRA's political action fund dwarfs all of them. NRA buys an
>hour of national air time and spends three times their opponents
>yearly budget... and if you think that the weapons industry isn't
>funding them, well... you probably believe in Santa Claus.
Smith and Wesson was our largest manufacturer of handguns - they _grossed_
$240 million a year - slightly less than Ben&Jerry's Ice Cream.
The "gun industry" isn't big tobacco - there isn't that much money in it.
The NRA's PAC and the NRA-ILA have money because there are millions of
us contributing to them.
>>Their biggest problem (aside from the fact that they are wrong on every
>>one of their basic premises) is that there aren't very many of them.
>>
>>>The "Million Mom March" drew,
>>>what?... 40,000 by the most liberal estimates? Compare them to the
>>>massively funded NRA who could draw that many people from Washington
>>>DC alone.
>>
>>If you've been to many of these, you'll find the MMMers made up of
>>retired folks, stay-at-home moms, teachers and government workers taking
>>time off with pay, and various "professional protesters", arriving in
>>church-group buses. And the pro-gunners are folks taking time off work
>>and paying their own way.
>
>Maybe so, but you haven't convinced me that this is true yet.
When we're both of us sitting there in the state capital senate hearings,
I know which one is represented by professional suits billing $hundreds
per hour.
>>Ask anyone in Congress. The NRA's power isn't in its money - it's in
>>its numbers.
>
>It's both... if I've got numbers, I can get money and visa versa.
The Million Moms had money - they couldn't turn it into numbers.
>>>Second: if it passed, it probably wouldn't have any significant effect
>>>one way or the other unless it was coupled with a basic philosophical
>>>change in our predisposition to solve our problems with a firearm.
>>
>>Unless and until you can find some way to make criminals and gangsters
>>less predisposed to reach for a gun, changes in "our" predispositions
>>won't matter.
>>
>And if you _can_ figure out a way to eliminate crime and violence, >well,
>>then there wouldn't be a need to ban guns, would there?
>
>True, nor would there be any need for a gun. In a perfect world, it
>would be moot.
Need is irrelevent. If there was no harm in it, why should a Cowboy
Action Shoot bother anyone?
>The point being that (in our imperfect world)
>criminals shooting randomly selected innocent victims, while not
>unheard of, doesn't account for the bulk of the shootings. Like I
>say, we've had one out of eighteen of those... and its location
>suggests that the victim probably wasn't entirely random. I generally
>don't hang out in titty bars because they're dangerous places...
>that's part of it anyway.
Nope. The major part of shootings is criminals shooting other criminals.
>When you look at it, most victims contribute in some way to the
>crime... no, not all, but most do. The guy leaving the tit bar
>certainly did by his location if by nothing else. Someone cruising
>for sex or dope is an easy target. Heck, I drove cab for years and
>only got held up twice. Both times, I was guilty of complacency (and
>probably stupidity as well... should'a seen it a mile away!)
>
>One of the guys left his military 201 file in the cab... I think we
>could call that a clue, perhaps? ... and his photo album. So, if he's
>*that* stupid, he needed quite a bit of cooperation from me.
>
>>There's a significant social desirability of having a population that
>>is capable and self-reliant. An unnecessary dependency on government
>>is not a good thing.
>
>I think that I won't argue with that statement... you forgot "Mom" and
>"apple pie" though.
--
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>Has anybody ever found a single example where gun control measures
were
>put in place and violent crime decreased significantly and stayed
down?
Nope. Guns don't appear to have much to do with violent crime.
*Shootings* have certainly decreased in Austrailia, but they're as
violent as ever. But then, they've never *increased*, either... at
least not as a result. Nor have they declined as a result of CCW...
there really isn't much predictable about it, what?
>>It's both... if I've got numbers, I can get money and visa versa.
>
>The Million Moms had money - they couldn't turn it into numbers.
I really don't know what their funding was... I wasn't real interested
in them. I'm sure that they didn't have the NRA's kind of money...
few lobbies do. If they'd had big bucks and used it well, they could
have generated impressive numbers. Hell, you create such a party,
everyone shows up. Not *just* the NRA does it that way... well, they
buy lots of air time.
Jones
!Jones
< YAWN > Run your numbers from 1980 and see how they look. We're
back about where we were then. There was a spurt in violence in the
late '80s that declined throughout the '90s. The conclusion I draw is
that a period of increasing violence was followed by a period of
decreasing violence. If you take an even longer time period, you see
the cycle... but, since that doesn't fit your knee-jerk mode, you
probably won't.
Yeah, well... both Lott and Kleck did quantitative studies. The issue
here is:"What constitutes a defensive use?" Kleck didn't even try to
define it and I haven't finished Lott yet. I would have prefered a
qualitative study, but how can you interview all of those people?
I'd like to see a follow-up study... in fact, if anyone can find
funding, I'll write it... where we duplicate Kleck's methodology but
alter the question to say: "Have you been the subject of a defensive
gun use in the past year... i.e. has anyone defended themselves
against you?" Now, I would expect the number of people who *used* a
gun to be pretty similar to the number of people against whom the
weapons were used... within reason. But the social desirability
factor of the positive answer is removed! If the numbers were 20% of
Kleck's, then I'd call that pretty significant. On the other hand, if
the study had (as I suspect) near null results, then Kleck's numbers
would stand non-validated... he wasn't measuring what he thought he
was measuring.
Just an aside: if you apply his method to UFOs, then you have to
conclude that we're about up to our asses in space aliens.
Those that are are seldom
>reported by the media. <opinion on> It should be blatantly obvious to
the
>most casual of observers that there is an extreme anti-gun bias in
the media
><opinion off>.
Oh! I'd call the media generally *very* pro NRA. They like people
who buy air time.
>One URL that lists research on this topic is:
>http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105b.html
>Note: As this web site has a conservative bias I am sure you will
question
>the validity of any findings posted, just as I question the findings
of
>"investigative journalism" in the mass media.
I'm on a slow connection so I don't follow web pages. I suspect that
most DGUs unfold like: someone cuts someone off on the freeway; one or
both wave guns... presto! DGU!
Back in '76... Sept??? I was a cabby in San Antonio, TX. We had a
crazy cab driver who had been fired. Anyway, he came in drunk on his
ass with a sawed-off in a rolled up newspaper looking for this other
guy who had done him dirty somehow... yeah, bad scene.
The company also ran an armored car service out of the same office and
the guy that the drunk was seeking was such a driver (hence, armed)
and due in shortly. The dispatcher got on the radio and warned him
saying, "Dan Esparza is here, drunk and armed." (You could hear the
police sirens approaching... we'd all run outside and were watching
from a block away.) So, Steve Solis drives in, gets out of his
armored car, Esparza throws down on him with the shotgun (which turned
out not to be loaded... important only to Darwinists, of course) and
Solis killed him.
The American Rifelman did a piece on it... it may have been "The Armed
Citizen". I recall seeing the piece about Nov of 76 if anyone has old
issues... it circulated about the cab lot.
My point is that this wasn't self defense... not by a country mile.
It may not have been murder either. I'd have called it whatever the
legal term is when two people can't get along so they meet at high
noon and shoot it out. That's a crime of some kind.
NRA is a political lobbying group. The first three are broadcast
networks, BATF is a federal agency and "Center for Disease Control"?
I wouldn't have a clue how to start a comparison... you'll have to
help me out here.
Jones
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:47:59 GMT, "FNG" <F...@newbie.net> wrote:
>>
>>1993 - 39,595 Firearm Related Deaths <CDC>
>>1998 - 30,708 Firearm Related Deaths <CDC>
>>During the same period ownership of personal firearms increased by 37
>>million <BATF>
>>Right to Carry states increased from 17-31 <any source you prefer>
>>
>>Duuuuuh-Bubba - What conclusion do you draw?
>
>< YAWN > Run your numbers from 1980 and see how they look. We're
>back about where we were then. There was a spurt in violence in the
>late '80s that declined throughout the '90s. The conclusion I draw is
>that a period of increasing violence was followed by a period of
>decreasing violence. If you take an even longer time period, you see
>the cycle... but, since that doesn't fit your knee-jerk mode, you
>probably won't.
Actually, we're back to about where we were in 1960.
When I look at the homicide rate over this century, the one thing that
jumps out is the massive increase during prohibition, the subsequent
decline, and the second massive increase at the beginning of the War
on Drugs.
The only question is, why is crime declining now? Drug prohibition is
still with us.
--
The Windows API has done more to retard skill development
than anything since COBOL maintenance.
--Larry O'Brien
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>>reported by the media. <opinion on> It should be blatantly obvious to the
>>most casual of observers that there is an extreme anti-gun bias in the media
>
>who buy air time.
Which is why you see NRA commercials so often on network prime-time.
--
Our ability to imagine complex applications will always exceed our
ability to develop them.
-- Grady Booch
!Jones
I'd not throw out the null hypothesis. They could be simply
coincidental. Everything has to happen *some*time... you only get
cause-effect when you pick a point of observation.
I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW stampede
than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
happened otherwise. I predicted lots of them. By and large, the CCW
people have been reasonably well behaved. I still think that the risk
factors outweigh any possible benefit, though.
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:29:10 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:47:59 GMT, "FNG" <F...@newbie.net> wrote:
>>
>>>reported by the media. <opinion on> It should be blatantly obvious
to the
>>>most casual of observers that there is an extreme anti-gun bias in
the media
>>
>>Oh! I'd call the media generally *very* pro NRA. They like people
>>who buy air time.
>
>Which is why you see NRA commercials so often on network prime-time.
I've seen them buy a 30 minute or hour block on Sunday afternoon to
"rally the troops".
I'm skeptical of this "anti-gun bias" in the media. Every group has
to get the old solidarity number down and shared victim-hood is a
typical method... it worked for Hitler. (There's the requisite
comparison with Hitler... what Usenet discussion would be complete
without at least one?)
Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
Jones
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW stampede
>than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
>fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
>happened otherwise.
True enough. If the carry permit holder hadn't been armed, he'd probably
have been dead. The statistics wouldn't have changed.
>I predicted lots of them. By and large, the CCW
>people have been reasonably well behaved. I still think that the risk
>factors outweigh any possible benefit, though.
How long a study period will you require before you admit that your
estimate of risk is unfounded? It's been 15 years, so far. Will you
require 30?
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:53:49 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:29:10 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:47:59 GMT, "FNG" <F...@newbie.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>reported by the media. <opinion on> It should be blatantly obvious
>to the
>>>>most casual of observers that there is an extreme anti-gun bias in
>the media
>>>
>>>Oh! I'd call the media generally *very* pro NRA. They like people
>>>who buy air time.
>>
>>Which is why you see NRA commercials so often on network prime-time.
>
>I've seen them buy a 30 minute or hour block on Sunday afternoon to
>"rally the troops".
On the cable channels - not on the networks.
>I'm skeptical of this "anti-gun bias" in the media. Every group has
>to get the old solidarity number down and shared victim-hood is a
>typical method... it worked for Hitler. (There's the requisite
>comparison with Hitler... what Usenet discussion would be complete
>without at least one?)
>
>Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
When was the last time you saw a defensive gun use covered in the
national news?
When was the last time you saw a discussion of "assault weapons"
accompanied by video of full-auto fire?
When was the last time you saw a news report on a knifing accompanied
by a graphic of a handgun?
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that worked ...A complex system designed from scratch never
works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over,
beginning with a working simple system.
-- Grady Booch
Nigel Brooks
> Of the 18 shootings
> > this year in the city (pop: 265,000) where I live, 10 were gang
> > related, 1 case of road rage, 5 domestic disturbances, one significant
> > other wasted hubby for insurance money and one (only one) was a result
> > of a crime and that happened in the parking lot of a tit bar.
>
> tightly controlled (Japan). Now the population of the city where I live is
> approx. 350,000 (comparable to the above city,mentioned by Jones).
Now,last
> year, in the city where I live,there were 0 shootings (zero,none,nada).
> Soooo how does this get explained away by the pro-gun twits ?
>
>
> Alan
Yeah but how many of those buggers top themselves by sebuku (or is it Harry
Carey)?
Take away all them knives and blades - problem solved.
Brooks
Nigel Brooks
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
news:6o487.2095$ym4....@iad-read.news.verio.net...> news:9jqih4$16fje$1...@ID-91163.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Rather you are trying to limit the discussion to one of gun violence
> > > rather than violent crime in general, so that you can carefully ignore
> > > the possibility of means substitution, and thus pretend that reducing
> > > gun violence is in and of itself a social good.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I thought that gun violence and violent crime would be very closely
> > related.
>
>
> The US has a lot of gun violence, the UK has less gun violence. The UK has
a
> lot of violent crime, the US has less violent crime. Seems the "closely
> related" exists only in your mind.
>
>
>
> >As for 'pretending that reducing gun violence' is 'a social
> > good'....... Well come on, who wouldn't agree that reducing gun violence
> is
> > a social good ?
>
> higher violent crime rate, leaves the people of a nation defenseless
before
> an attacker or aggressor, or opens the people of a nation up to government
> imposed tyranny.
What total crap. You are far safer walking the street of a British city or
town than an American one.
Brooks
"The One" and only Neo
Thank you Prof.......
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
>news:6o487.2095$ym4....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>>
>> higher violent crime rate, leaves the people of a nation defenseless before
>> an attacker or aggressor, or opens the people of a nation up to government
>> imposed tyranny.
>
>What total crap. You are far safer walking the street of a British city or
>town than an American one.
Actually, that's not even close to true.
--
Bicameralism is [...] conducive to gridlock. But there are 6 billion people
on this planet and about 5.7 billion of them would be better off if they
lived under governments more susceptible to gridlock. Gridlock is not
an American problem, it is an American achievement.
- George Will
Scout
No, reducing ANY kind of violence is worthless, in fact less than worthless,
if it results in overall violence to INCREASE.
I don't care in the least if you can reduce gun violence by 25% if overall
violent crime remains the same or increases.
Because you have NOT improved the situation. You have only changed
instrumentality and/or exposed people to a greater risk because they are
defenseless.
Scout
> That and I'm a troll.
Then I don't need to bother myself with you.
<Plonk>
Bruce Mills
> I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW stampede
> than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
> fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
> happened otherwise. I predicted lots of them. By and large, the CCW
> people have been reasonably well behaved.
Bweaks youw widdle heawt, doesn't it?
> I still think that the risk factors outweigh any possible benefit,
> though.
In spite of evidence to the contrary.
No open minds here, folks.
Bruce
--
"Molon Labe" (ancient Greek for "Come and get them")
- Leonidas, King of Sparta to Xerxes, King of Persia,
battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC.
Bruce Mills
> Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
How about the coverage of the "Million Mom March", which didn't bring
anywhere close to even 100,000 people. And yet figures of 750,000 were
routinely reported in the media.
Or how about this:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105.html
January 5, 2000
Outgunned: How The Network News
Media Are Spinning the Gun Control Debate
Executive Summary
Over the last two years, network TV news viewers have been inundated
with tragic images of students running away from gunfire. With every
new incident, the networks have blamed guns, and wonder if more gun
control laws aren’t an obvious solution. In a study of 653 morning and
evening news stories on ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC from July 1, 1997 to
June 30, 1999, MRC Senior Media Analyst Geoffrey Dickens documents
how:
1. TV News Has Chosen Sides. Stories advocating more gun
control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 357 to
36, or a ratio of almost 10 to 1. (Another 260 were neutral.)
2. Evening News Shows Favored the Anti-Gun Position by 8
to 1. Almost 60 percent of stories (184) favored one side. While
89 percent of those (164) pushed the liberal, anti-gun position,
only 11 percent (20) promoted the pro-gun position. ABC’s
World News Tonight (43 anti-gun stories to three pro-gun) and
CNN’s The World Today (50 to 7) were the most slanted
evening shows.
3. Morning News Shows Favored the Anti-Gun Position by
13 to 1. More than half of morning news gun policy segments
(208) tilted away from balance. Of those segments, 93 percent
(193) pushed the liberal, anti-gun position, while only six
percent (15) promoted the pro-gun position. ABC’s Good
Morning America (92 to 1) was the most biased morning show.
4. News Programs Are Twice as Likely to Use Anti-Gun
Soundbites. Anti-gun soundbites were twice as frequent as
pro-gun ones—412 to 209. (Another 471 were neutral.)
5. News Programs Are Twice as Likely to Feature Anti-Gun
Guests. In morning show interview segments, gun control
advocates appeared as guests on 82 occasions, compared to
just 37 for gun-rights activists and 58 neutral spokesmen.
6. Pro-Gun Themes Were Barely Covered. Themes like the
decline in federal gun prosecutions under the Clinton
administration, the positive use of guns in self-defense, and
successful pilot prosecution programs like Project Exile in
Richmond, Virginia, drew tiny story counts in the single
digits in the 653-story sample.
Or you could take a look at these:
http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/MediaBias.htm
http://www.fedupcanada.org/Media/media_196.htm
http://www.fedupcanada.org/Media/media_197.htm
HTH. HAND. FOAD.
Bruce Mills
: On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:39:12 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >I predicted lots of them. By and large, the CCW
: >people have been reasonably well behaved. I still think that the risk
: >factors outweigh any possible benefit, though.
: How long a study period will you require before you admit that your
: estimate of risk is unfounded? It's been 15 years, so far. Will you
: require 30?
It's the typical statist mentality: if only. If only we throw more
money at it, it will work; if only we give it more time, it will work; if
only we pass enough laws, it will work.
The only thing that doesn't work is empirical evidence.
Alan
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA
Plonked again, Jones
Alan
!Jones
wrote:
Damn! That one was too easy.
Gimme 10... and splash another non-hacker, not? Shit, Alan, what are
we teaching kids these days? It just seems like there's little
critical thinking in evidence with this current bunch. You can either
agree with anything they say or they get mad and start screaming
"liar".
Jones
Alan
> we teaching kids these days? It just seems like there's little
> critical thinking in evidence with this current bunch. You can either
> agree with anything they say or they get mad and start screaming
> "liar".
>
> Jones
I think it's called 'The Gentle Art of Debate'.
Alan
!Jones
I like weeding out the intellectual chaff right away. Hey! If he
hasn't any more backbone than that, then he isn't going to last very
long anyway.
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:39:12 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW
stampede
>>than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
>>fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
>>happened otherwise.
>
>True enough. If the carry permit holder hadn't been armed, he'd
probably
>have been dead. The statistics wouldn't have changed.
Not in the one of which I'm speaking. The shooter got punched in the
chops but he was the only one with a gun... my guess is that he was a
contributor, but I wasn't there. I've been in *lots* of fist fights,
but never one where there weren't two willing participants.
>>I predicted lots of them. By and large, the CCW
>>people have been reasonably well behaved. I still think that the
risk
>>factors outweigh any possible benefit, though.
>
>How long a study period will you require before you admit that your
>estimate of risk is unfounded? It's been 15 years, so far. Will you
>require 30?
We've only had significant numbers for the past 5 or 6 years. My
initial predictions haven't held so far... How many people killed
would be too many? We've got at least one.
Jones
!Jones
Mills) wrote:
>Jeffrey C. Dege (jd...@jdege.visi.com) wrote:
>: On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:39:12 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>: >I predicted lots of them. By and large, the CCW
>: >people have been reasonably well behaved. I still think that the
risk
>: >factors outweigh any possible benefit, though.
>
>: How long a study period will you require before you admit that your
>: estimate of risk is unfounded? It's been 15 years, so far. Will
you
>: require 30?
>
>It's the typical statist mentality: if only. If only we throw more
>money at it, it will work; if only we give it more time, it will
work; if
>only we pass enough laws, it will work.
>
>The only thing that doesn't work is empirical evidence.
>
>Bruce
Oh it works well for some things, but, I agree, this isn't one of
them. It's a much more emotional issue... it's not *really* about the
guns. The whole argument speaks to human mortality and the desire to
control our environment... it's about power.
And that doesn't lend itself to a quantitative analysis. You'll never
get any two people to agree on the definition of self-defense, so how
do we propose to count instances? Descartes is fine as far as he
goes, but not everything is empirical.
Jones
!Jones
<N...@theMatrix.com> wrote:
>> I'd not throw out the null hypothesis.
>
>Thank you Prof.......
Bless you, my child.
Jones
!Jones
Mills) wrote:
>!Jones (lbj...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>> I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW
stampede
>> than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
>> fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
>> happened otherwise. I predicted lots of them. By and large, the
CCW
>> people have been reasonably well behaved.
>
>Bweaks youw widdle heawt, doesn't it?
What does? You aren't writing clearly, sir.
>> I still think that the risk factors outweigh any possible benefit,
>> though.
>
>In spite of evidence to the contrary.
>
>No open minds here, folks.
I would tend to agree based on what I've seen herein. Were you
planning to make a point of some kind? Not every posting has to, you
know. It's just that you acted like you wanted to say something.
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>>I've seen them buy a 30 minute or hour block on Sunday afternoon to
>>"rally the troops".
>
>On the cable channels - not on the networks.
If *I* have seen it, then it had to be network because I don't have
cable... I'm too cheap.
>>I'm skeptical of this "anti-gun bias" in the media. Every group has
>>to get the old solidarity number down and shared victim-hood is a
>>typical method... it worked for Hitler. (There's the requisite
>>comparison with Hitler... what Usenet discussion would be complete
>>without at least one?)
>>
>>Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
>
>When was the last time you saw a defensive gun use covered in the
>national news?
Well, that's central to my thesis. It seldom ever happens. Kleck is
flatly wrong. You don't see them because they don't happen. The
fantasy of the armed citizen defending his home's threshold against
gangs of armed thugs intent on rapine is simply that... a fantasy.
Come on... if AR could find more, they'd certainly print them. They
really have to stretch to get one a month and some of them are poorly
documented and highly apocryphal.
>When was the last time you saw a discussion of "assault weapons"
>accompanied by video of full-auto fire?
OK... is that bias in your opinion? I guess it could be. Isn't that
what they do? When they show a sports car, it's zooming along; when
they show a pickup truck, some moron is trying to tear up half the
state with it. What would *you* show someone doing with one? ...
using it as a school crossing guard flag?
>When was the last time you saw a news report on a knifing accompanied
>by a graphic of a handgun?
I haven't... not that I noticed. I suppose that could be bias. I'd
have to see it,,, I'll watch for it.
!Jones
Mills) wrote:
>!Jones (lbj...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
>
>How about the coverage of the "Million Mom March", which didn't bring
>anywhere close to even 100,000 people. And yet figures of 750,000
were
>routinely reported in the media.
Not the coverage I saw. It was mentioned, but not much and only
once... maybe twice. Brokaw (sp?) said "up to 60,000" as I recall.
>Or how about this:
>
>http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105.html
Give me a break. I'm on a slow connection. I don't know who wrote it
nor where (or even *if*) it was published. If you propose to debate
with me, then I'll at least expect you to do your own writing.
>Or you could take a look at these:
>
>http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/MediaBias.htm
>http://www.fedupcanada.org/Media/media_196.htm
>http://www.fedupcanada.org/Media/media_197.htm
>
>HTH. HAND. FOAD.
That's the most intelligent thing you've said yet, son.
Jones
!Jones
Forensics wasn't particularly "gentle" where I took it. I've seen
several leave the podium in tears.
Jones
Jeffrey C. Dege
http://ajr.newslink.org/ajrbanejul01.html
Targeting the Media's Anti-gun Bias
One journalist teaches his colleagues about guns by taking them to the
shooting range.
By Michael Bane
>From AJR, July/August 2001
SO I'M DOING WHAT magazine writers are always doing -- pitching articles
-- this time to one of my regular clients, a top men's magazine.
I'd finished pitching and was winding up the conversation when the
editor interrupted.
"There's one thing I'd like for you to explain to me," the editor said.
"We send you to cool places and pay you a lot of money. You're one of
our guys, one of us..."
I warily agreed.
"Can you explain to me about the guns?" he said.
Ah, I thought, the guns. Since this was one of the largest outdoor sports
magazines in the country, I'd suggested a story on sport shooters. I'd
also mentioned that I'd been a competitive pistol shooter for 15 years.
"I'm a competitor," I told my editor. "I race bicycles, do triathlons,
climb mountains. I'm also a shooter. I shoot because it's fun."
"Bullshit," he replied.
Which is how I came to have what is laughingly referred to as "the most
nightmarish job in the gun culture."
I'm the guy who deals with the national media. I teach reporters,
editors and correspondents to shoot. And in the year-and-a-half since,
with the backing of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF),
I've been running media seminars. I've come to some very unsettling
conclusions about the relationship between reporters and guns. In fact,
I believe the media -- print and electronic -- may be the single biggest
casualty in the three decades of this "shooting war."
First, the seminars. NSSF brings together journalists and shooting sports
champions for one-on-one instruction. The seminars are not specifically
political, but, as I make clear to potential participants, no subjects
are off-limits. In our first five seminars, we've had reporters from the
Wall Street Journal and other national dailies, top writers for such
publications as Newsweek, Outside, Men's Fitness and other magazines
and electronic journalists of various stripe.
For people who are part of the gun culture, the results have been amazing.
At the beginning of the seminars, almost all the journalists are anti-gun,
to one degree or another, some virulently so. By the end there's a huge
turnaround. How huge? Several of our participants have actually purchased
guns and started competitive shooting.
"You're not the Michigan Militia," said one reporter for a national daily.
"You're the kind of people I'd hang out with. Heck, you're the kind of
people I'd date."
You're thinking, "That's great -- they're breaking down stereotypes
on both sides of the fence." But a-year-and-a-half of seminars has
confirmed a simple truth -- there is an overwhelming anti-gun bias among
journalists, a bias that has spread from opinion to factual coverage of
the issue.
Let me throw some numbers out.
A study by the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group,
found that during a two-year period (July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1999),
ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN ran 357 stories in favor of gun control, compared
with 36 against, a ratio of almost 10 to one. The biggest "offender"
was ABC's "Good Morning America," which ran 92 anti-gun stories and one
pro-gun story.
A study by University of Michigan doctoral candidate Brian A. Patrick,
released in June 1999, found that the National Rifle Association was
portrayed negatively in editorial and op-ed pieces 87 percent of the time
(as opposed to 52 percent negative collectively for four other citizens'
lobbying groups, including the NAACP and ACLU). More ominously, Patrick's
study documented a clear anti-gun bias in the news coverage of the NRA
by comparing things such as use of descriptive language, use of quotes
and use of photos.
Most telling to me are the journalists who are not allowed to attend
the NSSF seminars. In one case, a journalist had agreed to come. He
said he had argued with his producers that there was a need to balance
their coverage of firearms. Later in the week, he called to cancel,
and after extracting a promise to never reveal his name or media outlet,
said that his producers had nixed his visit on the grounds that they were
"unwilling to present any positive firearms stories," and the best way
to do that was just not assign any journalists to stories that could
turn out to have a pro-gun spin. We talked for a long time, because he
clearly felt he had walked into an ethical dilemma -- which, of course,
he had. Substitute "Hispanic" or "Democrat" for "firearms" in the above
quote and try to imagine the political firestorm that would result.
In the end, he didn't attend: "They made it clear to me that my job was
on the line," he said. A newbie reporter at a metropolitan daily? Nope
-- a veteran national political correspondent, whose name you would
recognize, working for one of the most prestigious national news outlets
in the country. And his is not an isolated case.
What is going on here? Do the time-honored rules of journalistic
objectivity apply in every case except firearms? Have we, as journalists,
reached such an overwhelming consensus that "guns are bad" that we're
willing to look the other way while a journalistic tradition that's
taken more than a hundred years to build is methodically disassembled?
After one of the seminars, a writer for a national newsweekly asked for
a few minutes of my time. He had, coincidentally, covered the Columbine
tragedy and had approached the seminar with open skepticism.
"I now understand why you guys hate us so much," he told me. "We get
everything wrong, don't we?"
--
Want to understand why politicians do what they do? Simple: when you're
a big, gray, greasy rat, walking around on two hind legs, you have a
lot to gain by turning the world into a garbage heap.
-- Memoirs of Lucille G. Kropotkin
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 27 Jul 2001 23:04:58 GMT, aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce
>Mills) wrote:
>
>>!Jones (lbj...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
>>
>>How about the coverage of the "Million Mom March", which didn't bring
>>anywhere close to even 100,000 people. And yet figures of 750,000
>were
>>routinely reported in the media.
>
>Not the coverage I saw. It was mentioned, but not much and only
>once... maybe twice. Brokaw (sp?) said "up to 60,000" as I recall.
I was seeing reports of 500,000 at the time, and I've seen reports of
750,000 this year. I guess they figure we don't remember last year's
lies.
Delbert McCord
The only suffering my guns have caused is the brused shoulder after my
son and I have gone out and shot at clay pigions for a couple of
hours.
The good guns have done should also be looked at:
Without guns in Private hands this Great Country would not be here, we
would not enjoy the freedom to talk this over in a free society.
Guns are a tool, nothing more, I would not give a young child a power
saw any more than I would give them a gun. Power tools need to have
someone teach a child how to and when to use them and its the same
thing for guns. Please do not place more restrictions on me and other
honest responsible parents to help guide the unresponsible parents out
there. They do not teach their children to respect the laws we have
so why pass more laws?
Why not take the same aproach with guns we do with sex, teach it in
schools. If the person teaching a child about guns and showing them
how to use them has any brains they are teaching them how dangerous a
gun can be and how much damage can be done with it if not used
correctley.
Should we get rid of all the power tools because someone could get
hurt with it, or how about banning electricity because if used
carelessely someone can get killed. We can not heat our homes with
natural gas because people are killed with that also, lets park all
our vehicles, peole are killed daily in car, truck, and other
transportation acidents.
Lets look at this world we are building, we will be cold, starving,
thirsty, and we will all smell bad. Now that sounds like a lot of fun
to me. Lets do it, YOU FIRST.........
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> >> >I am interested in the net suffering caused by guns. Yes,
>they do
>>>> >prevent
>>>> >> >some crimes, but they result in increased casualties overall.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Please show some concrete data to back up this conjecture.
>>>> >
>>>> >Try my first post in this thread.
>>>>
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:40:34 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>>I've seen them buy a 30 minute or hour block on Sunday afternoon to
>>>"rally the troops".
>>
>>On the cable channels - not on the networks.
>
>If *I* have seen it, then it had to be network because I don't have
>cable... I'm too cheap.
If _you've_ seen it, it was on a late-night, during non-network coverage.
>>>I'm skeptical of this "anti-gun bias" in the media. Every group has
>>>to get the old solidarity number down and shared victim-hood is a
>>>typical method... it worked for Hitler. (There's the requisite
>>>comparison with Hitler... what Usenet discussion would be complete
>>>without at least one?)
>>>
>>>Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
>>
>>When was the last time you saw a defensive gun use covered in the
>>national news?
>
>Well, that's central to my thesis. It seldom ever happens. Kleck is
>flatly wrong. You don't see them because they don't happen. The
>fantasy of the armed citizen defending his home's threshold against
>gangs of armed thugs intent on rapine is simply that... a fantasy.
>
>Come on... if AR could find more, they'd certainly print them. They
>really have to stretch to get one a month and some of them are poorly
>documented and highly apocryphal.
One a month?
How about twenty in the last week?
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/01/04/06981013.shtml?Element_ID=6981013
http://www.charleston.net/pub/news/local/drv0727.htm
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/072701/met_MNS-7872.001.shtml
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/35986.htm
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/072601/met_174-5876.001.shtml
http://www.goupstate.com/hj/news/0725shooting.asp
http://www.redding.com/top_stories/local/20010725toplo007.shtml
http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S=412608
http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=412650&nav=1ugB
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/copbriefs/tuesday.html
http://www.stjoenews-press.com/Main.asp?SectionID=81&SubSectionID=272&ArticleID=18147
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/live/07_23-15/TOP
http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAFP0XMHPC.html
http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/22/loc_robber_forgot.html
http://www.charleston.net/pub/archive/news/lost0722.htm
http://www.sunone.com/articles/2001-07-22c.shtml
http://ktvb.com/news/newstory.html?StoryID=7937
http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/stories/424097_crown_21met.AR.html
>>When was the last time you saw a discussion of "assault weapons"
>>accompanied by video of full-auto fire?
>
>OK... is that bias in your opinion? I guess it could be. Isn't that
>what they do? When they show a sports car, it's zooming along; when
>they show a pickup truck, some moron is trying to tear up half the
>state with it. What would *you* show someone doing with one? ...
>using it as a school crossing guard flag?
Assault weapons are not capable of full-automatic fire. That's the
whole point - and the foundation of the lie.
>>When was the last time you saw a news report on a knifing accompanied
>>by a graphic of a handgun?
>
>I haven't... not that I noticed. I suppose that could be bias. I'd
>have to see it,,, I'll watch for it.
--
The function of government is to provide us with service; the function
of the media is to supply the Vaseline.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:36:58 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:39:12 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW
>stampede
>>>than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
>>>fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
>>>happened otherwise.
>>
>>True enough. If the carry permit holder hadn't been armed, he'd
>probably
>>have been dead. The statistics wouldn't have changed.
>
>Not in the one of which I'm speaking. The shooter got punched in the
>chops but he was the only one with a gun... my guess is that he was a
>contributor, but I wasn't there.
No, that's the one.
None of the witnesses considered him a contributor.
And the thug who was punching him had already broken his jaw and the
orbit of his eye.
>I've been in *lots* of fist fights,
>but never one where there weren't two willing participants.
When you're trapped in traffic, sitting in your car with your seatbelt on,
and someone has grabbed you by the neck and is punching you in the face,
there isn't a lot you can do to participate, even if you are willing.
>>How long a study period will you require before you admit that your
>>estimate of risk is unfounded? It's been 15 years, so far. Will you
>>require 30?
>
>We've only had significant numbers for the past 5 or 6 years. My
>initial predictions haven't held so far... How many people killed
>would be too many? We've got at least one.
If it's the right people being killed, it's not too many, no matter how
many there are.
--
FORTRAN, "the infantile disorder", by now nearly 20 years old, is hopelessly
inadequate for whatever computer application you have in mind today: it is
too clumsy, too risky, and too expensive to use.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:32:34 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:40:34 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>>Dege) wrote:
>>
>>>>I've seen them buy a 30 minute or hour block on Sunday afternoon
to
>>>>"rally the troops".
>>>
>>>On the cable channels - not on the networks.
>>
>>If *I* have seen it, then it had to be network because I don't have
>>cable... I'm too cheap.
>
>If _you've_ seen it, it was on a late-night, during non-network
coverage.
It was a Sunday afternoon. Charlton Heston talked for a solid hour.
I recall it being after football season.
>>>When was the last time you saw a defensive gun use covered in the
>>>national news?
>>
>>Well, that's central to my thesis. It seldom ever happens. Kleck
is
>>flatly wrong. You don't see them because they don't happen. The
>>fantasy of the armed citizen defending his home's threshold against
>>gangs of armed thugs intent on rapine is simply that... a fantasy.
>>
>>Come on... if AR could find more, they'd certainly print them. They
>>really have to stretch to get one a month and some of them are
poorly
>>documented and highly apocryphal.
>
>One a month?
>
>How about twenty in the last week?
Oh, phooey! Do your own writing or give a primary source citation in
an accepted style. I never follow hyperlinks unless you can first
convince me they're authoritative. You can paste hyperlinks a lot
faster than I can load them. I'm running a 300 baud acoustic
coupling.
>>>When was the last time you saw a discussion of "assault weapons"
>>>accompanied by video of full-auto fire?
>>
>>OK... is that bias in your opinion? I guess it could be. Isn't
that
>>what they do? When they show a sports car, it's zooming along; when
>>they show a pickup truck, some moron is trying to tear up half the
>>state with it. What would *you* show someone doing with one? ...
>>using it as a school crossing guard flag?
>
>Assault weapons are not capable of full-automatic fire. That's the
>whole point - and the foundation of the lie.
Oh. OK. The one I had could do the "twist and shout" thing. You
fliped the little thingy bopper and ... I thought that they all had
them. I mean, isn't that the license that costs $250 from the Fed.
Nigel, help me out. You can buy a full auto if you want to jump
through a few hoops.
Jones
Jeffrey C. Dege
That's an assault rifle - and yes, they require prior approval from DOJ,
extensive background checks, a hell-of-a-lot of paperwork, and $200
transfer fees.
That's a whole different thing.
The firearms covered under the various "assault weapons" bans, and
the weapons that have been so demonized by the anti-gun groups are
exclusively semi-automatic.
Read the laws, sometime. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle
or pistol with a lot of scary black plastic.
--
Many companies that have made themselves dependent on [the equipment of a
certain major manufacturer] (and in doing so have sold their soul to the
devil) will collapse under the sheer weight of the unmastered complexity of
their data processing systems.
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>>Can you suggest a clear example of "anti-gun bias" in the media?
>
>
>http://ajr.newslink.org/ajrbanejul01.html
>
>Targeting the Media's Anti-gun Bias
The author is writing *about* media anti-gun bias. He is a member of
the media and his thesis is that there exists anti-gun bias.
I hope that you don't think I'm pettifogging, but that wasn't what I
asked for. I don't have any particular right to expect that you'll
provide examples nor are you under any obligation to do so, but you do
understand the difference between an expository essay about anti-gun
bias and an example of the same.
I propose that we first agree on what it would look like if we found
any. Let's make something up that would clearly be an example of
anti-gun bias and see if we can tease out its essential properties.
Jones
!Jones
McCord) wrote:
>Should we get rid of all the power tools because someone could get
>hurt with it, or how about banning electricity because if used
>carelessely someone can get killed.
Calm down. Nobody has suggested banning guns.
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:02:01 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:36:58 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>>Dege) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:39:12 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I expected that we would see far more shootings from the CCW
>>stampede
>>>>than actually materialized. We've only had one killing in Texas (a
>>>>fender-bender turned deadly in Dallas) that clearly wouldn't have
>>>>happened otherwise.
>>>
>>>True enough. If the carry permit holder hadn't been armed, he'd
>>probably
>>>have been dead. The statistics wouldn't have changed.
>>
>>Not in the one of which I'm speaking. The shooter got punched in
the
>>chops but he was the only one with a gun... my guess is that he was
a
>>contributor, but I wasn't there.
>
>No, that's the one.
>
>None of the witnesses considered him a contributor.
>
>And the thug who was punching him had already broken his jaw and the
>orbit of his eye.
That's not what I recall. I recall a torn shirt and a claim of having
been punched. Witnesses saw the punch. Wonder if we can find the
story. When was that? It may, in fact, turn out that he had suffered
facial bone fractures, but that's not how I remember it.
I have to go to the library tomorrow, so I'll see if I can find the
transcript. 1996??? Dallas? It was the first CCW killing in Texas, I
know.
>>I've been in *lots* of fist fights,
>>but never one where there weren't two willing participants.
>
>When you're trapped in traffic, sitting in your car with your
seatbelt on,
>and someone has grabbed you by the neck and is punching you in the
face,
>there isn't a lot you can do to participate, even if you are willing.
You're suggesting that I can't start a fight with a seatbelt on?
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>>Oh. OK. The one I had could do the "twist and shout" thing. You
>>fliped the little thingy bopper and ... I thought that they all had
>>them. I mean, isn't that the license that costs $250 from the Fed.
>>Nigel, help me out. You can buy a full auto if you want to jump
>>through a few hoops.
>
>That's an assault rifle - and yes, they require prior approval from
DOJ,
>extensive background checks, a hell-of-a-lot of paperwork, and $200
>transfer fees.
>
>That's a whole different thing.
>
>The firearms covered under the various "assault weapons" bans, and
>the weapons that have been so demonized by the anti-gun groups are
>exclusively semi-automatic.
>
>Read the laws, sometime. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle
>or pistol with a lot of scary black plastic.
Hoo-Kay. Hey! I just learned something on the Internet, Daddy!
Really. I didn't have a clue that there was a significant difference
between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon". Further, I would
suggest that the 6:00 news producers probably don't either. They
might say one and mean the other as a perfectly honest mistake. It
seems asking much for that to stand as an example of media bias. A
machine gun just grabs the viewer's attention... *that's* what they're
trying to do.
Am I the only person in the world who didn't know that?
Jones
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 04:01:43 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:32:34 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:40:34 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>>>Dege) wrote:
>
>>>>When was the last time you saw a defensive gun use covered in the
>>>>national news?
>>>
>>>Well, that's central to my thesis. It seldom ever happens. Kleck is
>>>flatly wrong. You don't see them because they don't happen. The
>>>fantasy of the armed citizen defending his home's threshold against
>>>gangs of armed thugs intent on rapine is simply that... a fantasy.
>>>
>>>Come on... if AR could find more, they'd certainly print them. They
>>>really have to stretch to get one a month and some of them are poorly
>>>documented and highly apocryphal.
>>
>>One a month?
>>
>>How about twenty in the last week?
>
>Oh, phooey! Do your own writing or give a primary source citation in
>an accepted style. I never follow hyperlinks unless you can first
>convince me they're authoritative. You can paste hyperlinks a lot
>faster than I can load them. I'm running a 300 baud acoustic
>coupling.
Typical.
If you refuse to look at the evidence, you'll never have to admit that
you are wrong.
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/01/04/06981013.shtml?Element_ID=6981013
I-40 shooting involved robbery attempt -
Friday, 07/27/01
The Nashville Tennessean
By SHEILA BURKE<BR>
Staff Writer
Wednesday night's shooting on an exit ramp on Interstate 40 east was
the result of road rage that turned into a botched robbery attempt,
police said.
Chaz Ellis, 24, was shot after he pulled a gun on a driver who was
stopped at a red light on the I-40/Old Hickory Boulevard off- ramp in
Hermitage, police said. The driver of the other car, Anthony Palazolo,
24, Hermitage, grabbed the gun away from Ellis. Palazolo then produced
his own gun and shot Ellis.
http://www.charleston.net/pub/news/local/drv0727.htm
Charleston Post and Courier
Man shot by driver faces carjack charge
Friday, July 27, 2001
BY GLENN SMITH
Of The Post and Courier staff
A 40-year-old Line Street man was charged Thursday with trying to carjack
a man who then shot him on the East Side last weekend.
Police say Vincent Clark and several others jumped in the man's Nissan
Xterra after he stopped to ask directions at Sheppard and Nassau
streets. Clark is accused of punching the motorist, Ryan Smith, in the
face, Charleston police said.
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/072701/met_MNS-7872.001.shtml
Augusta Georgia Chronical
07/27/01
Boy recovers after otter attack
7-year-old gets 14 stitches, undergoes treatment for rabies exposure
after animal chased down, bit him
By Paula Reed Ward
SAVANNAH - A 7-year-old boy was attacked by an otter this week at a
Tybee Island dock.
The boy suffered one serious bite and has begun treatment for potential
rabies exposure, according to the Chatham County Health Department.
Steven Rousakis, the grandson of former Savannah Mayor John Rousakis, was
fishing with friends on a dock in the Back River about 8 p.m. Tuesday when
they noticed an otter swimming in the river. The otter went up on the dock
and stole bait fish out of a bucket, said Diane Rousakis, Steven's mom.
''Everybody thought it was neat and started taking pictures,'' she
said.
A few minutes later, Steven walked past the bucket, and the female
otter attacked. She chased the boy down the dock and grabbed his leg,
causing a 3-inch gash that needed 14 stitches.
''My son was getting ready to jump into the river,'' Ms. Rousakis
said. ''Thank goodness he didn't.''
Bennett Bacon, 14, who was on the dock at the same time, kicked the
otter, grabbed Steven and swung him around to get the animal off. The
otter went back in the water but returned, Bennett said. He then hit it
with a casting net, sending it into the river again.
''This otter was particularly vicious,'' said Sharon Varn, a
rabies-prevention specialist at the health department. ''It chased the
boy, retreated and attacked again.''
About 30 minutes after the attack, the otter chased more people off the
dock, including the Bacons' dog, Sticks, a Boykin spaniel. At that point,
Bennett's dad shot the otter. Its head was also cut off, Ms. Rousakis
said.
Chicago Tribune Death of intruder labeled self-defense Published July
26, 2001
An off-duty security guard who fatally shot an intruder in the basement
of his West Side home will not face criminal charges, authorities said
Wednesday.
The 57-year-old guard shot Tyrone Nelson, 37, after Nelson broke into
the basement of a two-flat building Monday in the 200 block of North
Waller Avenue, where the guard lives.
Prosecutors declined to bring charges against the guard, saying he acted
in self-defense when he fired one bullet at Nelson, which struck Nelson
in the abdomen, according to a spokeswoman for the Cook County state's
attorney office.
Nelson, of the 100 block of North Parkside Avenue, died in Mt. Sinai
Hospital Medical Center about four hours after the shooting, the Cook
County medical examiner's office said.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/35986.htm
New York Post
MAN SMITES DOG
By BRAD HUNTER and PHILIP MESSING
Gun-toting dad Ernest Regent, 69, gets a hug from son Robert, 19, after
shooting a vicious dog that was attacking the young man in Queens Village.
July 26, 2001
A quick-thinking Korean War vet shot and killed a crazed pit bull
attacking his teenage son on a Queens street.
"The dog . . . looked at me and then charged," said Ernest Regent of
the attack.
"I stepped back, pulled the gun and fired. Got him right in the eye."
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/072601/met_174-5876.001.shtml
Augusta Georgia Chronical
Woman kills former boyfriend
Man gains entry to home by breaking window, gets shot in confrontation;
no charges are filed
Thursday, July 26, 2001
Updated Friday, July 27, 2001 8:05 a.m.
By Greg Rickabaugh
An Augusta woman shot and killed her ex-boyfriend early Wednesday after
he shattered a window at her home and confronted her with pieces of
concrete in each hand, authorities said.
Gregory Leroy Brown was killed instantly when Tammie Renee Thompson
fired a .38-caliber revolver, Richmond County Coroner Leroy Sims said.
The district attorney's office reviewed the case and decided not to
charge the woman, sheriff's Maj. Ken Autry said.
Mr. Brown, 38, of Oakland Avenue, was charged in February with assaulting
and pointing a weapon at Ms. Thompson while at her home in the 700 block
of Fawn Drive. He was released from jail after posting a $16,250 bond
and was awaiting trial. On Wednesday, he returned to his ex-girlfriend's
home just after 5 a.m., police said.
http://www.goupstate.com/hj/news/0725shooting.asp
GoUpstate News
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Man who shot intruder faces no charges
From staff reports
A man who shot and killed a home invader Monday night will not likely
face criminal charges, according to authorities.
The Solicitor's and Sheriff's offices have "decided at this point not to
charge him. It looks like self-defense," Sheriff's Lt. Ron Gahagan said.
Charles Lies intended to return to his home on Stewart Road briefly Monday
evening to change clothes when he saw a man standing in his kitchen,
Gahagan said. The intruder had several firearms that belonged to Lies.
Lies pulled out a pistol he was carrying and shot the intruder twice,
Gahagan said.
The victim of the shooting was identified as Robert Michael Cannon. He
was 28.
According to Gahagan, Cannon was wanted by authorities. "He had an
outstanding criminal domestic violence charge," Gahagan said. "This
fellow had a history of taking things that did not belong to him."
http://www.redding.com/top_stories/local/20010725toplo007.shtml
Redding Record Searchlite
Redding, California
Shooter cleared in fatal attack
Friday, July 27, 2001
Shingletown man defended himself, authorities decide
Kimberly Bolander
Record Searchlight
A Shingletown man acted in self-defense when he fatally shot an
18-year-old man outside an Anderson Burger King, officials said Tuesday.
Reed Vincent Ash, 38, shot Jason Robert Terrick of Anderson on Jan. 12
outside the fast-food restaurant on North Street.
Terrick, with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the limit for
driving, began beating Ash as Ash tried to drive away, said Anderson
police Sgt. Glenn Tuschen said. Ash didn't feel he had any other option
but to shoot him, Tuschen said.
http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S=412608
WTVR-TV
Deadly Home Invasion
July 25, 2001
Petersburg Police say a homeowner shot and killed a burglar last night.
Authorities are having difficulty identifying the body. Police say a
masked man dressed all in black burst into a home on Summit Street,
waving a gun just before ten last night. Somebody inside had a gun too
and shot him dead. The man had no identification, so police have a body
without a name. They will try to identify him using fingerprints. No
one else in the home was hurt.
Chicago Tribune
An off-duty guard kills home intruder
By Rick Hepp
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 25, 2001
An off-duty security guard whose West Side home was burglarized twice in
the last week fatally shot an intruder who broke into his basement Monday.
Tyrone Nelson, 37, allegedly broke into the basement of a two-flat
apartment building at 4:25 p.m. Monday in the 200 block of North Waller
Avenue, police said.
That set off a security alarm, said the 57-year-old guard, who owns
the building and was sitting in his second-floor apartment at the
time. Grabbing his handgun, he walked down the back stairs to the basement
and found an intruder inside.
"He started saying somebody chased him into the basement," the guard
said. "I'm trying to give him a chance to run. I've caught other people
and let them go. I just wanted to scare him off."
But rather than leave, according to the homeowner, the intruder retreated
farther into the basement. When the homeowner followed, with his gun drawn
and pulled tight to his right side, the intruder began to grab at him,
he said.
http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=412650&nav=1ugB
WKRN-TV
Woman Fatally Shoots Intruder
Reporter: Lilla Marigza
A man is dead after police say he tried to sexually assault a woman in
her own home. It happened on Russell Street in East Nashville.
The shooting happened before Midnight on Tuesday. Police were in and
out of the home all night and are still on the scene investigating the
shooting. They waited for daylight to allow them to take more photos of
the scene for the investigation.
According to police, a woman called 911 and told dispatchers that an
intruder had come into her home and attacked her. She defended herself
with a handgun. The alleged intruder was taken to Vanderbilt Hospital
where he was pronounced dead.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/copbriefs/tuesday.html
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Shooting suspect arrested in Rex
A suspect in the fatal shooting last week of a Conyers Radio Shack
employee was arrested Monday in Rex, Conyers police said. Fred Sennauth
was seen hanging around in the Radio Shack store on Ga. 138 Friday
evening until all the other customers had left, according to Conyers
police spokeswoman Jennifer Bexley. He then drew a gun and tried to rob
the store, she said.
Matthew James Danko, 26, of Covington, a store employee, produced
another gun and shots were exchanged, Bexley said. Danko was hit and
died Saturday morning. Sennauth's car was seen in Rex in Clayton County
early Monday morning by agents of the Metro Fugitive Squad, according
to a press release issued by Bexley. He was arrested and taken to the
Clayton County Jail before being returned to Rockdale County.
http://www.stjoenews-press.com/Main.asp?SectionID=81&SubSectionID=272&ArticleID=18147
St. Joseph News-Press
Inquest clears shooter
By JULIE BELSCHNER
BETHANY, Mo.
James Jennings died July 15, but his actions lived on into a
standing-room-only courtroom Monday evening.
In a rare coroner's inquest, six Bethany jurors concluded the Bethany
man died by his own actions, shot by Steven Parkhurst during an act
of self-defense.
During more than two hours of testimony, the full story of what happened
just past midnight near Ridgeway, Mo., emerged. The gunfight that night
left one man dead and one man in jail.
Winona Jennings was separated from her husband and had filed a protection
order against him on July 9.
"We would have been married 25 years," she said softly Monday night.
Her friend, Mr. Parkhurst, said Mrs. Jennings told him several times that
Mr. Jennings had said that if he saw her and Mr. Parkhurst together,
that Mr. Jennings would shoot them. Though she said she didn't know
it, Mr. Parkhurst testified that he then began taking a gun with him
everywhere.
On the night of July 14, Mr. Parkhurst and Mrs. Jennings headed to
the racetrack in Bethany. They returned to Mr. Parkhurst's residence
at 26748 E. 305 Ave. near Ridgeway about 12:30 a.m. July 15. As they
climbed out of Mr. Parkhurst's pickup, Mrs. Jennings leaned back in to
get her purse. Mr. Parkhurst took with him the gun that had been his
companion for the past two weeks.
As they began to walk toward the house, the couple said Mr. Jennings
appeared from around the west corner, aiming a gun at them and yelling,
"Just hold it right there. Winona, what did I say I was going to do if
I saw you two together?"
As he raised his gun, a .22-caliber Luger, Mr. Parkhurst unsnapped the
holster of his .38-caliber Colt. He said as Mr. Jennings fired at him and
missed, he pulled the Colt and returned fire. His shot hit Mr. Jennings
in the head.
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/live/07_23-15/TOP
Hometown Annapolis
Family pet attacks baby-sitter
By MARGOT MOHSBERG, Staff Writer
A large pet dog attacked a baby-sitter and the Kent Island fire chief
Saturday, sending both to the hospital with severe lacerations.
Jody Shulz, owner of the 2-year-old male Akita named Casper, shot the
100-plus pound animal several times in an attempt to kill him after
the attack at his home. A state trooper finally killed Casper with
his shotgun, according to Queen Anne's County Animal Control Officer
Chris Hatch.
http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAFP0XMHPC.html
The Tampa Tribune
Teens' Crime Spree Halted By Shooting, Police Say
By BEN FELLER
Jul 23, 2001
Marcus Stewart, left, and Maurice Thomas each face three counts of armed
carjacking and armed robbery.
Two 16-year-olds went on a carjacking and robbery rampage in northeast
Tampa early Sunday, seriously injuring one man before a botched holdup
ended their spree, police say.
For more than four hours, they robbed people in their cars and threatened
others, police said. One man was hospitalized Sunday after being hit in
the head with a rock.
This was the second burst of car thefts and armed robberies in Tampa by
youths in four days, but police are unsure if they are connected.
Maurice Antwan Thomas, 8203 N. Klondike St., Apt. B, Tampa, and Marcus
Antonio Stewart, no address given, who has been a fugitive since failing
to appear at a hearing on burglary charges, were arrested.
Each faces three counts of armed carjacking and armed robbery. Thomas is
charged with aggravated battery for throwing the rock that injured Jacob
Plummer of Blanton, police said. More charges are pending against both.
According to police, Thomas and Stewart:
* Stole the car driven by Plummer after injuring him and threatening
him and his passenger on N. Florida Avenue.
* Robbed a Riverview man while he was in his truck at 6013 Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard. A third suspect in this robbery is at large.
* Tried to rob a clerk at Red Roof Inn, 5001 U.S. 301 N. She refused
to unlock the door.
* Threatened a woman and her children while she was dropping them off
on Nebraska Avenue. Thomas and Stewart stole purses, cash, medicine and
the car.
* Tried to rob Hungry Howie's restaurant at 2001 E. Hillsborough
Ave. Thomas approached the counter with a shotgun.
The owner fired three shots from a handgun. He hit Stewart twice. Police
found Stewart and Thomas at 1310 E. 19th Ave.
Stewart was treated at a hospital before being turned over to police. Both
teenagers are in juvenile custody.
http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/22/loc_robber_forgot.html
Sunday, July 22, 2001
Jim Hannah
The Cincinnati Enquirer
A 36-year-old Price Hill taxi driver feels lucky to be alive after a
Bible-carrying, scripture-quoting passenger stole his cab at gunpoint.
Rodney Jones said he plans to start carrying two guns to work as a driver
for Skyline Taxi and is considering getting out of the business. He has
never carried a weapon at work before.
"I'm never getting in a situation like that again," said the father of
five. "It wasn't too good."
Mr. Jones, who has been driving a cab for about a year, said he has felt
unsafe picking up pas sengers in downtown since the April riots. He said
he wishes the city would allow cages to protect cab drivers.
Mr. Jones said he didn't feel threatened when he picked up a man after
1 a.m. Saturday at 12th and Main streets.
The man had a Bible in hand and said, "We are all brothers in God's eye,"
said Mr. Jones. "I thought he was a priest."
Police say the passenger put a choke hold on Mr. Jones while he held a
gun to his right cheek.
When Mr. Jones handed over $150, the passenger punched him in the ribs
and told him to get out of his cab. Police said the passenger drove off,
only to crash into a parked car on Vaughn Street in Corryville. He ran
to another cab and tried to pull the driver out and steal that one.
But that cab driver was armed, shooting a warning shot into the air. The
passenger ran, was cornered by police at 217 E. University Ave. and was
arrested after being sprayed with a chemical irritant.
http://www.charleston.net/pub/archive/news/lost0722.htm
Charleston Post and Courier
LOST MOTORIST SHOOTS ATTACKER
Alleged assailant is also suspected in robbery on Monday afternoon
Sunday, July 22, 2001
BY TYRONE WALKER
Of The Post and Courier staff
A motorist who stopped and asked for directions shot a stranger who
assaulted him Saturday on the East Side, Charleston police said.
The wounded man, police said, is also suspected of robbing a lost motorist
seeking directions in the same area Monday.
In the incident Saturday, Ryan Lee Smith told police the assault took
place shortly before 8 a.m. when he took a wrong turn off the Cooper
River Bridge exit and ended up on Sheppard Street.
Smith said when he stopped his Nissan Exterra at Sheppard and Hanover
streets to ask for directions, a man punched him and tried get into his
vehicle, according to the police report.
At the same time, five other men approached the stopped sport utility
vehicle. One of the men reached into the vehicle, put it in park and
pulled the keys out of the ignition.
Smith told police that about that time, he pulled a .25-caliber pistol
from his glove compartment and fired a shot at the man near the driver's
side door.
http://www.sunone.com/articles/2001-07-22c.shtml
The Gainesville Sun
Sunday, July 22, 2001
Newspaper carrier shoots, injures man
By CATHI CARR and KATHY CIOTOLA
Sun staff writers
In the second such incident this week, a Gainesville resident with a
concealed weapon feared for his life and shot an attacker.
Derek Messer, a newspaper carrier for the Florida Times-Union, shot and
wounded a 20-year-old Gainesville man early Saturday morning, after the
man, along with four other suspects, dragged Messer from his car and
beat him, according to Gainesville Police.
Messer was driving in the 3800 block of NW 39th Avenue at 3:15 a.m. when
he noticed a car being driven erratically.
After calling police, Messer pursued the car for about seven blocks
while police units were en route. Once the driver - who is unidentified -
realized he was being followed by Messer, he pulled over, said Gainesville
Police Cpl. Keith Kameg.
Messer tried to put his car in reverse to get away, but it stalled.
"Five guys get out and start running toward Messer," Kameg said. "All five
guys converged on him, breaking the windshield and beating up his car."
As the suspects continued their attack, they pulled Messer from the car,
which is when Messer pulled his gun and shot, Kameg said.
http://ktvb.com/news/newstory.html?StoryID=7937
KTVB-TV
Sheriff: Strong case for self-defense in killing
A Gooding man who killed an old friend yesterday was released hours
later by authorities who say it appeared a clear-cut case of self-defense.
No charges were filed against Vince Markham in the shooting death of
David Bay.
Gooding County Sheriff Shaun Gough says the recording of a phone call
Markham made to emergency dispatchers suggests Bay was trying to strangle
him with a rope. Markham shot him in the chest with a shotgun.
http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/stories/424097_crown_21met.AR.html
Dallas man kills attacker with gun in whiskey bag
Pool hall owner carried weapon after earlier robbery
07/21/2001
By Connie Piloto
The Dallas Morning News
Six months after being robbed on the front steps of his east Oak Cliff
house, Lee Brown started carrying a gun inside a Crown Royal whiskey bag.
The bag provided easy access to the weapon and may have saved the lives
of Mr. Brown and his wife early Friday, he said.
When his wife told him a man carrying a gun was standing behind them,
Mr. Brown turned around and fatally shot his attacker.
"I just shot through the bag," Mr. Brown, 63, said after the attack. "I
was trying to save my family and myself, too."
Police had not identified the would-be robber Friday. He was not carrying
any identification.
The couple, owners of a South Dallas pool hall, Minnie's Place, closed
the business and drove to their home in the 3200 block of Sunnyvale
Street early Friday.
Mr. Brown was unlocking the front door about 2:15 a.m. when his wife,
Roy Mae Brown, 50, saw a man walking toward them.
"When I turned around, all I could see then was a gun," Mrs. Brown said.
"It was a big one."
Police said the man was carrying a loaded 6-inch revolver. The weapon
was recovered from the scene.
--
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the
technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 04:29:01 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>The firearms covered under the various "assault weapons" bans, and
>>the weapons that have been so demonized by the anti-gun groups are
>>exclusively semi-automatic.
>>
>>Read the laws, sometime. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle
>>or pistol with a lot of scary black plastic.
>
>Hoo-Kay. Hey! I just learned something on the Internet, Daddy!
>
>Really. I didn't have a clue that there was a significant difference
>between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon". Further, I would
>suggest that the 6:00 news producers probably don't either. They
>might say one and mean the other as a perfectly honest mistake.
It may be an honest mistake on your part, and it may even be an honest
mistake on the part of the news producers, but the misconception taht
lead to that honest mistake was a result of intentional and admitted
deception by the Violence Policy Center.
>It
>seems asking much for that to stand as an example of media bias. A
>machine gun just grabs the viewer's attention... *that's* what they're
>trying to do.
Some of us still expect them to show some mild interest in the truth.
--
"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb. "Necessity
is the mother of futile dodges" is much nearer the truth.
-- Alfred North Whitehead
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 04:08:12 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:02:01 -0500, !Jones <lbj...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:36:58 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>>>Dege) wrote:
>>>
>>None of the witnesses considered him a contributor.
>>
>>And the thug who was punching him had already broken his jaw and the
>>orbit of his eye.
>
>That's not what I recall. I recall a torn shirt and a claim of having
>been punched. Witnesses saw the punch. Wonder if we can find the
>story. When was that? It may, in fact, turn out that he had suffered
>facial bone fractures, but that's not how I remember it.
>
>I have to go to the library tomorrow, so I'll see if I can find the
>transcript. 1996??? Dallas? It was the first CCW killing in Texas, I
>know.
Kenny Tavai and Gordon Hale, February 21, 1996.
>>>I've been in *lots* of fist fights,
>>>but never one where there weren't two willing participants.
>>
>>When you're trapped in traffic, sitting in your car with your
>seatbelt on,
>>and someone has grabbed you by the neck and is punching you in the
>face,
>>there isn't a lot you can do to participate, even if you are willing.
>
>You're suggesting that I can't start a fight with a seatbelt on?
Generally speaking, when one person walks over to a car, and reaches into
the window, and starts beating on a guy who hasn't taken his seatbelt off,
you consider him the one who started the fight.
Assuming that you can call it a fight. In my world, we call it aggravated
assault.
Mike
was the New York Post-I am not sure- ran a page three story with interviews
and photos of a man who used a licensed handgun(which NYCity would only
allow him to purchase on the pretext of being a recreational target
shooting gun) to kill a pit bull stray dog which was attacking his adult
son. While the New York papers might not be the 'national media' they do
have a readership of over a million persons each.That was the last time I
saw an incident such as you described reported. Mike.
Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9m4kk5...@jdege.visi.com...
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>>That's not what I recall. I recall a torn shirt and a claim of
having
>>been punched. Witnesses saw the punch. Wonder if we can find the
>>story. When was that? It may, in fact, turn out that he had
suffered
>>facial bone fractures, but that's not how I remember it.
>Kenny Tavai and Gordon Hale, February 21, 1996.
Let's see, Hale was the shooter and Tavai stopped the slug as I read.
I'm reading a Houston Chronicle article
(http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/96/03/21/nobill.html)
about the grand jury's action... Hey! I think I went to Univ. of
Houston with the author, Jim Schutze; if he's the same guy, then he
definitely doesn't have any "anti-gun bias".
None of the articles I see mentions that the shooter suffered any
injury whatsoever, let alone broken bones. I think it's a "fish
story" where the size of the assailant, the viciousness of the attack,
the innocence of the shooter and the bodily injury suffered by same
all tend to grow with each telling.
I don't ascribe to the style of debate that demands documentation for
every detail, but if you want me to accept smashed facial bones in
this one, then you'll need to accept the burden of proof. It looks
like a couple of truck drivers got into a fight in a road rage
incident and one shot the other. There was a torn shirt and at least
one punch. Where I come from, they don't call that a "beating".
Since "road rage" is suggested, I'd point out that, if typical, the
incident began several exits back and probably involved more than just
those two drivers. If it's one of these, and it certainly fits the
profile well, then you probably can't trust what any of the
participants say... and one can definitely choose to participate or
not without getting out of the vehicle. So, we just don't know
whether Hale was wearing a seat belt or not. Everyone will grab for
the mantle of "victimhood".
Now, given Tavai's actions, you'd never get a murder charge to stick
and I really have no further comment on that. My point boils down to
this: was it safer on that crowded Dallas freeway because Mr. Hale was
armed? I say not so. I say that the shot could have easily gone wild
and killed the little girl (or the homeless kitten... or the baby
duck) in the car three lanes over. I further assert that Mr. Hale was
not in a life threatening situation... at least not based on what I've
read so far. He had help all around him; instead of yelling for help,
he chose to grab a gun and to open fire in a crowd. Hardly the
actions of a responsible person, IMHO.
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>>It
>>seems asking much for that to stand as an example of media bias. A
>>machine gun just grabs the viewer's attention... *that's* what
they're
>>trying to do.
>
>Some of us still expect them to show some mild interest in the truth.
On what basis do you hold that expectation? The media definitely have
an agenda and that's selling products that people pay to advertise...
truth has absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't doubt that they'd
lie about or misrepresent anything... but I don't think that they're
particularly disposed one way or the other wrt guns.
Jones
!Jones
Dege) wrote:
>Typical.
>
>If you refuse to look at the evidence, you'll never have to admit
that
>you are wrong.
I'm saying that I don't consider pasting a page full of URLs and
writing "QED" after it a very impressive argument. Let's take them
one at a time in the order of importance to whatever point you wish to
make.
Now:
1) which one do you want me to look at.?
2) why is that one important... i.e. what am I looking for?
3) why is this an exemplar of "anti-gun media bias"
The bottom line is that you've got to make your own points. You can
certainly support them with web-based data, but to expect your reader
to follow a plethora of links is asking much, don't you think?
Jones
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters "Mike"
<mik...@home.com> wrote:
>Two days ago (approximately 26 Jul01) the new York Daily News, or perhaps it
>was the New York Post-I am not sure- ran a page three story with interviews
>and photos of a man who used a licensed handgun(which NYCity would only
>allow him to purchase on the pretext of being a recreational target
>shooting gun) to kill a pit bull stray dog which was attacking his adult
>son. While the New York papers might not be the 'national media' they do
>have a readership of over a million persons each.That was the last time I
>saw an incident such as you described reported. Mike.
I'd certainly call that a "defensive gun use". I think most people
would.
Jones
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 05:50:06 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>
>>Typical.
>>
>>If you refuse to look at the evidence, you'll never have to admit
>that
>>you are wrong.
>
>I'm saying that I don't consider pasting a page full of URLs and
>writing "QED" after it a very impressive argument. Let's take them
>one at a time in the order of importance to whatever point you wish to
>make.
>
>Now:
>
>1) which one do you want me to look at.?
>
>2) why is that one important... i.e. what am I looking for?
>
>3) why is this an exemplar of "anti-gun media bias"
Which _one_ is important?
This started when you claimed that such events were rare. You wrote:
>> Come on... if AR could find more, they'd certainly print them. They
>> really have to stretch to get one a month and some of them are poorly
>> documented and highly apocryphal.
I've posted twenty from one week.
These events are quite common - but if they are reported at all, it's
on an inside page in the local paper. Report of defensive gun uses are
_never_ picked up by the national media. Which is why people like you
find it so easy to believe that they rarely happen.
But if you want to look at just one, consider:
> http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAFP0XMHPC.html
>
> The Tampa Tribune
>
> Teens' Crime Spree Halted By Shooting, Police Say
> By BEN FELLER
> Jul 23, 2001
>
> Marcus Stewart, left, and Maurice Thomas each face three counts of armed
> carjacking and armed robbery.
>
> Two 16-year-olds went on a carjacking and robbery rampage in northeast
> Tampa early Sunday, seriously injuring one man before a botched holdup
> ended their spree, police say.
>
> For more than four hours, they robbed people in their cars and threatened
> others, police said. One man was hospitalized Sunday after being hit in
>
> This was the second burst of car thefts and armed robberies in Tampa by
> youths in four days, but police are unsure if they are connected.
>
> Maurice Antwan Thomas, 8203 N. Klondike St., Apt. B, Tampa, and Marcus
> Antonio Stewart, no address given, who has been a fugitive since failing
> to appear at a hearing on burglary charges, were arrested.
>
> Each faces three counts of armed carjacking and armed robbery. Thomas is
> charged with aggravated battery for throwing the rock that injured Jacob
> Plummer of Blanton, police said. More charges are pending against both.
>
> According to police, Thomas and Stewart:
>
> * Stole the car driven by Plummer after injuring him and threatening
> him and his passenger on N. Florida Avenue.
>
> * Robbed a Riverview man while he was in his truck at 6013 Dr. Martin
> Luther King Jr. Boulevard. A third suspect in this robbery is at large.
>
> * Tried to rob a clerk at Red Roof Inn, 5001 U.S. 301 N. She refused
> to unlock the door.
>
> * Threatened a woman and her children while she was dropping them off
> on Nebraska Avenue. Thomas and Stewart stole purses, cash, medicine and
> the car.
>
> * Tried to rob Hungry Howie's restaurant at 2001 E. Hillsborough
> Ave. Thomas approached the counter with a shotgun.
>
> The owner fired three shots from a handgun. He hit Stewart twice. Police
> found Stewart and Thomas at 1310 E. 19th Ave.
>
> Stewart was treated at a hospital before being turned over to police. Both
> teenagers are in juvenile custody.
How many more had these two victimized that we don't know about?
How many more would they have victimized if they hadn't been stopped?
How many fewer would they have victimized if more people carried, and
they had been stopped by one of their earlier victims?
Would the world really be a better place if these thugs were still
wandering loose?
--
Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.
!Jones
>http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/01/04/06981013.shtml?Element_ID=6981013
This is a reasonably balanced story about a freeway shooting quoting
police attributing it to "road rage". It's a pure news story; I can't
find the writer's opinion anyplace in it, can you?
>http://www.charleston.net/pub/news/local/drv0727.htm
Broken link.
>http://augustachronicle.com/stories/072701/met_MNS-7872.001.shtml
An otter bit some people. Later, somebody shot the otter. "Ms. Varn,
who expects to have the results of the rabies test back today, said
this otter was aggressive." And this is "evidence" of what?
Aggressive otters?
"The 57-year-old guard shot Tyrone Nelson, 37, after Nelson broke into
the basement of a two-flat building Monday in the 200 block of North
Waller Avenue..." Security guard shoots a burglar... good for him.
Where's the "anti-gun bias" in the story? Actually, they call it
"self defense", although I see nothing that would allow me to say one
way or the other. So, if there is any bias, then it's in favor of the
shooter.
>http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/35986.htm
"A quick-thinking Korean War vet shot and killed a crazed pit bull
attacking his teenage son on a Queens street." Hardly an example of
"media anti-gun bias" I'd say. That one is probably a good example of
a defensive gun use, though.
>http://augustachronicle.com/stories/072601/met_174-5876.001.shtml
Domestic disturbance. This one is as typical as they get.
"Authorities said Ms. Thompson was in the home with another man when
Mr. Brown [ former boyfriend ] tapped on the bedroom window."
>http://www.goupstate.com/hj/news/0725shooting.asp
Man comes home, catches burglar, wastes same. One less burglar, IMHO.
Point of "media bias", please? It was possible self defense, although
burglars don't usually attack. I'd need more than the shooter's story
to count it, though.
>http://www.redding.com/top_stories/local/20010725toplo007.shtml
Fist fight outside a fast food restaurant. Someone is shot. Shooter
claims self defense. "The Shasta County district attorney's office
has decided not to file charges against [the shooter]" BTW, not
filing charges simply means that the state can't meet its burden of
proof; it's not the same thing as an assertion of self defense.
>http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S=412608
"Petersburg Police say a homeowner shot and killed a burglar last
night. Authorities are having difficulty identifying the body."
Duplicate link.
>http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=412650&nav=1ugB
Possible intruder; possible domestic event. Some evidence points to
domestic event. Shooter claims it was an intruder. There's not
enough information to make an intelligent call one way or the other.
>http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/copbriefs/tuesday.html
Man drowns trying to save boat????
>http://www.stjoenews-press.com/Main.asp?SectionID=81&SubSectionID=272&ArticleID=18147
Another domestic shooting.
>http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/live/07_23-15/TOP
Dog bites babysitter. Dog owner shoots dog several times. DPS
trooper finally kills dog w/shotgun. I wonder if its name was
"Timex"? Lots of dog shootings in these. So much for "man's best
friend", what?
>http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAFP0XMHPC.html
Looks like a pretty clear cut case of a criminal shot by his victim.
There's one for your tally.
>http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/22/loc_robber_forgot.html
Cab driver robbed by someone who quoted the Bible.
>http://www.charleston.net/pub/archive/news/lost0722.htm
It's self defense if it's true. All you have here is the shooter's
story. Remember, self defense is a *positive* legal defense... the
prosecution has to show that it wasn't SD.
>http://www.sunone.com/articles/2001-07-22c.shtml
"Messer was driving in the 3800 block of NW 39th Avenue at 3:15 a.m.
when he noticed a car being driven erratically. [...] Messer pursued
the car for about seven blocks..." ( he was not a law enforcement
officer) Someone was shot in the ensuing confrontation. Sounds like
another "road rage" deal to me. Again, all we have is the shooter's
version of events.
>http://ktvb.com/news/newstory.html?StoryID=7937
"The two men reportedly had long been friends, but they may have been
fighting over a woman." Another domestic fight.
>http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/stories/424097_crown_21met.AR.html
That one takes me to a login page
So, out of all of those, I see one
(http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAFP0XMHPC.html) possibly two
(I'll count the pit bull in Queens) that are clearly defensive.
Forget all of that "boyfriend/girlfriend" stuff... it may be
defensive, but you'll *never* sort it out. Is 3,000 shootings *way*
off base for the month of July? I count two defensives and six
possibles... let's say ten true defensives. Thus, about 1 out of 300
shootings is defensive. I'd call that pretty rare.
Jones
Nigel Brooks
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:54:23 -0500, Nigel Brooks <0...@nospammsn.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
> >news:6o487.2095$ym4....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> >>
> >> I would disagree. Reducing gun violence harms society if it results in
a
> >> higher violent crime rate, leaves the people of a nation defenseless
before
> >> an attacker or aggressor, or opens the people of a nation up to
government
> >> imposed tyranny.
> >
> >What total crap. You are far safer walking the street of a British city
or
> >town than an American one.
>
> Actually, that's not even close to true.
Is too!
Brooks
!Jones
alt.sports.soccer.manchester.united.scum-haters jd...@jdege.visi.com
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>This started when you claimed that such events were rare. You wrote:
>
>>> Come on... if AR could find more, they'd certainly print them. They
>>> really have to stretch to get one a month and some of them are poorly
>>> documented and highly apocryphal.
Sorry. I thought we were talking about "anti-gun bias in the media".
>I've posted twenty from one week.
>
>These events are quite common
Shootings are quite common. That people will claim self-defense after
the fact is quite common. In a domestic event, that there will be no
witnesses to contradict that claim is also quite common.
> - but if they are reported at all, it's
>on an inside page in the local paper. Report of defensive gun uses are
>_never_ picked up by the national media. Which is why people like you
>find it so easy to believe that they rarely happen.
Shootings are of local interest only unless it's in a school or the
like... these also are quite rare, believe it or not. I don't think
much of that particular anti-gun argument.
>
>But if you want to look at just one, consider:
>
>> http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAFP0XMHPC.html
Yeah... that's a good example of self defense. It *does* happen. I
think that the "crazed pit bull" is also pretty good. But for each of
those, there exist literally hundreds of "road rage" and domestic
shootings... in all of which the shooter will claim to be the victim
of an unprovoked attack. Maybe and maybe not.
Jones
Nigel Brooks
Assault weapons most certainly are capable of full auto with a minor
modification. But that is not the foundation of what you characterize as a
lie. The foundation is that an assault rifle is a military firearm and
therefore should not be available to the general population. Right or
wrong - the Govt banned the importation and manufacture of those kinds of
firearms a couple of years ago. You can still legally purchase and possess
"pre-ban" weapons.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn9m4e94...@jdege.visi.com...
>>
>> whole point - and the foundation of the lie.
>
>Assault weapons most certainly are capable of full auto with a minor
>modification.
Bullshit. Every semi-automatic weapon on the market in the US has
been certified by the BATF as not being easily converted to full-auto.
If BATF determines that a firearm is easily convertible to full-auto,
then all of the full-auto regulations apply.
>But that is not the foundation of what you characterize as a
>lie. The foundation is that an assault rifle is a military firearm and
>therefore should not be available to the general population.
The foundation of the lie is that the so-called "assault weapons"
are not assault rifles, they are not capable of fully-automatic fire,
and that they are not military firearms.
They are perfectly ordinary semi-automatic rifles, with some functionless
cosmetic features that the hoplophobes think are "scary-looking".
As for whether civilian population should retain ownership of military
weapons, well we'll just have to disagree on that.
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another:
"What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
--C.S. Lewis
Chief
> modification. But that is not the foundation of what you characterize as
a
> lie. The foundation is that an assault rifle is a military firearm and
> therefore should not be available to the general population. Right or
> wrong - the Govt banned the importation and manufacture of those kinds of
> firearms a couple of years ago. You can still legally purchase and possess
> "pre-ban" weapons.
Um, wrong. The term assault rifle is completely bogus, used by politicians
and people who either don't understand firearms or wish to scare people so
that they can slowly whittle away the rights of gun ownership. An "assault"
rifle is simply a rifle, no more or less dangerous since it shoots the same
or similar ammo. Same thing for "assault" handguns. Most of those cheap
"assault" rifles would burn up and explode if someone modified them for full
auto and went on a shooting spree. How do they categorize "assault" rifles,
by their mean badass looks? Seems that way. Perhaps if the gun makers had
put them out in more pastelish colors and painted flowers or rainbows on
them there would never have been an "assault" weapons ban which was mostly
useless.
Chief
> weapons, well we'll just have to disagree on that.
Any handgun or rifle, limited to 3 round bursts maybe. No rockets,
bazookas, grenades, or land mines. Seems like a reasonable middle ground.
And some type of minimum age restrictions. Minimum intelligence would be
nice but that's unworkable.
Verne
"Nigel Brooks" <0...@nospammsn.com> wrote in message
news:b8B87.326$jf6....@eagle.america.net...
Depends on the city but truthfully its "was too" in all things other than
murder
Verne
>
>
Verne
Come on that's bull shit. I have an old friends with a machine shop that can
"easily" modify a piece of bar steel into a fully automatic weapon, so what
is your point? Given a screwdriver you are not able to modify a civilian
semi automatic into a selective fire weapon. You can butcher it and make it
an uncontrollable fully automatic, but who the hell wants a gun the self
empties itself every time you pull the trigger?
Verne