Are there any *female* doomers out there?
Jodi Giannini
Hi,
Reading through the posts, I noticed that all the names I've seen
belong to guys. Are there any ladies out there who play? Drop me
a line!
Thanks!
Jodi G.
--
Jodi Giannini (gian...@nova.umd.edu)
"This parrot is DEAD!"
"No 'e's not...'e's pining for the fjords..."
(ask me about the rec.pets.birds faq)
Anne Sullivan
Hi all,
I'm female and have enjoyed Doom enough to download enough wads to fill up my
C drive... *grin* I've yet to miss any midterms for it, but it has more than
often taken the place of homework.
The idea of having a female doom character is a great idea.. Out of all the
action games I've played, I've run across only one that I can remember that
the character was female. (That being, Epic's Jill of the Jungle) However,
none of IDs games I've played have had the female in the main character role.
Has anyone tried sending email to there suggestion box? (I think they have
one, at least that's what I've heard)...
If not, does anyone know the address and I'll mail them. *grin*
Blessed be
Anne
jy...@cats.ucsc.edu
Ricardo Lopez
CHRISTOPHER M. ACKNEY
about that :) (Gotcha Neil)
But our other roommate is, and she's a Doomaholic.
"Hi Kristin."
"I'm a doomer, and I am proud of it."
At any rate, she's a bit maniacal when it comes to playing doom. i.e.
Randoom with tons o' Cyberdemons. She also enjoys blowing up those rabbits.
Anyway, we (Neil and I) were wondering as well as to why there was no female
Doomer option. With Wolfenstein it was understandable, you were playing a
character. But in doom YOU are the doomer, at least that's the way I see
it, there is no name to the player as it's supposed to be you. That's why
there is no name for the NewType in my stories.
A friend of ours (female) says that this option would be perhaps the best
modification that can be made. Not all doomers are men, and just think,
we'll be able to show the Doom experience to so many more people.
If someone has the skill, time and knowledge, could we perhaps get a patch
that would replace the little picture at the bottom of the player's head?
I'm not sure of the feasiblility (actually, I think that's it's pretty darn
near impossible, but then I'm not that big a programmer.) But could we
replace the player's soldier graphic with females (like the drones and
such). Just some thoughts.
Let's show the world Doom, and blow them away :)
Chris
Richard Silkebakken
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Reading through the posts, I noticed that all the names I've seen
> belong to guys. Are there any ladies out there who play? Drop me
> a line!
>
I would love to see a "female commando" version of DOOM! I love that
chainsaw!
-- Char*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
______ _ _ Richard & Charity _ _ | rich...@esl.com
/ ____/ | | | | | | | | | | | csil...@gupta.com
/ /___ * |/ |/__ _ |/ __ |/__ |/__ +-------------------
/____ / / / /__/ / / / R_/ | /__/ /__/ / / / |/ |
____/ / / /| /|\ |/ /| | | /| /|\ /|\ |/ / / /
/_____/ _/\_/ \_// \__/\_/ \/ \_/ \_// \_// \__/\_/ / \_/
A.J. Peterson
-> fill up my C drive... *grin* I've yet to miss any midterms for it,
-> but it has more than often taken the place of homework.
Good for you! Most females I've shown the game to are repulsed. IT'S
ONLY A GAME.
-> action games I've played, I've run across only one that I can
-> remember that the character was female. (That being, Epic's Jill of
-> the Jungle)
Well, there was that Gretta Grosse in Wolfenstein, but your'e right.
Maybe they're worried it'll be viewed as anti fem. Matter of fact that's
probably exactly why. Oh, well.. as far as I'm concerned they could be
eunics, as long as it looks cool and sounds spooky. Anyway , go for it
girl....
----
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| The File Bank BBS - 619-728-7307 - PCBoard v.15.0/E10 - USR DS 16.8K |
| 9 nodes / RIME / Internet / Planet Connect / Clipper / Adult |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Karl Lui Barrus
> action games I've played, I've run across only one that I can remember that
> the character was female. (That being, Epic's Jill of the Jungle) However,
Well, there's that new CD-ROM game, Critical Mass (? or something like
that). I don't know if it counts since the game seems to boil down to
two choices every few minutes: choose correctly and you continue,
choose incorrectly and you die. ;)
As for a suggestion box... I don't know. I think there is a help
address he...@idsoftware.com.
--
Karl L. Barrus: klba...@owlnet.rice.edu
keyID: 5AD633 hash: D1 59 9D 48 72 E9 19 D5 3D F3 93 7E 81 B5 CC 32
"One man's mnemonic is another man's cryptography"
- my compilers prof discussing file naming in public directories
Richard Krehbiel
> Hi,
>
> Reading through the posts, I noticed that all the names I've seen
> belong to guys. Are there any ladies out there who play? Drop me
> a line!
(Potentially controversial opinion follows, but I think it's correct)
There are no (or at least, a statistically insignificant number of)
female Doom players.
Doom is fun to people who like to attack and be aggressive. Men are
aggressive because of testosterone. Women have none.
--
Richard Krehbiel ri...@netcom.com
Picture a clever one-liner here...
Xavi Boix Marcos
I'm not a female Doomer, nor a female, but I think it will be
a good idea to have a female player.
Somw of you wondered if it was feasible. Well, it is!
You only need an utility for including and extracting graphs
(DMGRAPH.EXE does the work very well), and the name of the graphs
you must replace (all the PLAYA1.. PLAYA2... etc) and a good artist
that can draw the bitmaps for the player and the face.
...Xavi
Ian CR Mapleson
ri...@netcom6.netcom.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
> (Potentially controversial opinion follows, but I think it's correct)
Contraversial? Yoobetchya. Correct? Nope.
> There are no (or at least, a statistically insignificant number of)
> female Doom players.
Complete hogwash, bunkum and general poppycock (I'll think up a few
more Brit type expressions if you like).
> Doom is fun to people who like to attack and be aggressive. Men are
> aggressive because of testosterone. Women have none.
And why can't women be aggresice if they want to? No one is immune to the
pressures of modern living or just wanting to have fun.
Hmmm... mayhaps you should have a little chat with Myra Hindley... :)
(and a zillion apologies to her if I spelled that wrong!).
There are plenty of female players out there. I know because I'm doing a
survey on the effects of Doom and I've had plenty of replies from female
players. Indeed, the oldest player in the survey is female (52 vs. 46), and
I hope to have a reply from a 62 year old female player soon.
The main problem as I see it is access to the game.
The Uni I'm at is a typical example. There are a pathetically small number of
female students on the Comp Sci course anyway (mostly due to a biased
school system), so even fewer have the opportunity to use the free net
access, etc, find out about the game and play it.
In my survey, quite a few guys said their girlfriends played it, and a while
back there was a thread about how female players appeared to be suprisingly
vicious players (ever read Dune?) contrary to silly stereotypes.
Many female players post here without including anything that could give away
their gender, because they think they would be treated differently if they
did include an obviously female name in their sign off, etc.. Unfortunately,
judging by what you say, I think they're probably right.
I have a good friend who says she likes to blow off steam after work by
playing Doom (she prefers the chainsaw), and I bet you she flames ya! I'll
eat my console if she doesn't. :)
What _is_ true is that I got far more replies for the survey from males
playing the game, but I put this down to accessibility. How many females are
playing it but can't email, or are using a boyfriend's/friend's pc, etc?
Loads I bet.
Give 100 males and 100 females a Doom setup and I reckon you wouldn't find
too much of a difference in enjoyment levels.
Humans have no natural predators anymore (except themselves, wherein they
seem to be doing a fine job) so Doom is a good substitute for blowing off
steam, male or female.
Ian.
The Doom Help Service.
The Doom Effects Survey.
Eric Birnie
R>> Hi,
R>> Reading through the posts, I noticed that all the names I've seen
R>> belong to guys. Are there any ladies out there who play? Drop
R>> me a line!
R>(Potentially controversial opinion follows, but I think it's correct)
R>There are no (or at least, a statistically insignificant number of)
R>female Doom players.
R>Doom is fun to people who like to attack and be aggressive. Men are
R>aggressive because of testosterone. Women have none.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
R>--
R>Richard Krehbiel ri...@netcom.com
R>Picture a clever one-liner here...
Au contre mon frere, they do, just not as much.
---
* CmpQwk #UNREG* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Craig Bates
>Newsgroups: alt.games.doom
>Path: news1.cac.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!netcom6!richk
>From: ri...@netcom6.netcom.com (Richard Krehbiel)
>Subject: Re: Are there any *female* doomers out there?
>In-Reply-To: gian...@nova.umd.edu's message of 30 Apr 1994 10:53:17 -0400
>Message-ID: <RICHK.94M...@netcom6.netcom.com>
>Sender: ri...@netcom.com (Richard Krehbiel)
>Organization: NETCOM On-line services
>References: <2ptrct$b...@nova.umd.edu>
>Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 11:47:28 GMT
>Lines: 18
Maybe you should have taken some more biology classes. Women DO have
testosterone, just quite a bit less than men. In fact, men have trace amounts
of estrogen. The two hormones are very similar in chemical composition.
Besides, men are not aggressive because of testosterone alone. Women can
exhibit the same characteristics without having high amounts of testosterone,
and they do fairly often. I know many women who enjoy Doom for the same
reason I do -- it provides a stress relieving departure from everyday life. I
don't enjoy it because I "like to attack and be aggressive".
Craig Bates
cgb...@psu.edu
Go Nittany Lions!
John Reinhold
> Reading through the posts, I noticed that all the names I've seen
> belong to guys. Are there any ladies out there who play? Drop me
> a line!
My girlfriend:
Candice Quist.
She really kicks butt too. She even likes to edit DOOM levels!
I knew there was a reason I loved her....
Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge.
--
--------------------------<>---------------------------
"GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
John Reinhold Portales, New Mexico (USA)
Richard Mitchell 1026
|>
|> "GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
|>
|> It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
|> Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
|>
|> IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
|>
|> Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
|>
Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
...I assume that we all have rather healthy views toward
weaponry as John does... :-)
--
----------------------------+-----------------------------------
Richard Mitchell | Learning to Do Doing to Learn
mitc...@aol14.wff.nasa.gov | Earning to Live Living to Serve
N3LNK |
A.J. Peterson
-> a good idea to have a female player.
-> Somw of you wondered if it was feasible. Well, it is!
-> You only need an utility for including and extracting graphs
-> (DMGRAPH.EXE does the work very well), and the name of the graphs you
-> must replace (all the PLAYA1.. PLAYA2... etc) and a good artist that
-> can draw the bitmaps for the player and the face.
The face? The Players are all wearing helmets. The grafics are of such
low detail they just vaguely look human. About all you could do is make
the chest aera look like there are breasts there. And, of course, the
suit would be pink.
John Reinhold
> The Uni I'm at is a typical example. There are a pathetically small number of
> female students on the Comp Sci course anyway (mostly due to a biased
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> school system), so even fewer have the opportunity to use the free net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh come on, quit blaming the system.
> access, etc, find out about the game and play it.
Blaming the system is really getting old. It is not perfect, but
it is not the root of all evil either.
My girlfriend plays DOOM, a lot, very well. She edits levels.
She plays MoDOOM.
She Has an E-Mail account, and I invite all to discuss
females and DOOM (especially mr. "no testosterone" himself)
with her. Her address is:
qui...@ziavms.enmu.edu
Now, I think that it is rediculous to blame the school that
more males are CS majors than females.
I think that, true, females generally have less access to the
net. At our school, the number of males to females goes up and
down drastically. I believe that (being a male) females are less
attracted to the CS genre. CS is a kind of a Power, or a Whole
new world. Males generally appreciate this more. Females (from
what I have seen) generally are more attracted to maternal, or social
genres. This is NOT a global statement. It is just what seems to
be the case.
Whatever the case may be, I feel it is wrong to blame the system
for every bad stastistic. TRUE, the system can be a factor, but
passing the blame is STUPID. Maybe there are no female students
at your school who like CS. Maybe there are, I don't know. But
look a little deeper that, Biased is a big word to throw around.
--
--------------------------<>---------------------------
"GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
John Reinhold Portales, New Mexico (USA)
Ian CR Mapleson
(BTW, I have a horrible suspicion that you may have misinterpreted my use
of the word 'school'. I mean that to be those institutions one attends below
the age of 17 or 18, ie. _before_ University/College. Most especially, the
learning age of around 12 to 18. However, I shall assume, for the moment,
that you DO realise I am talking about the 12 to 18 age range).
No I wont quit blaming the system. I've been to two very different
secondary schools in Scotland, one quite large, the other with under 500
kids in it.
Both schools have ridiculously biased education structures, full stop.
I see you're in the USA?
Well, I live in class-ridden sexist UK and the school system here STINKS. If
you don't believe me, try coming and looking first, THEN you can counter my
statements.
I said what I said through _experience_. I've _seen_ girls being ousted to
the back of the class, with no encouragement to join in, just because the
teacher either couldn't be bothered, or didn't know how, to stop the males
hogging the machines.
A female computer/mathematics teacher arrived at the second, smaller school
I went to. She got so sick of the setup there she left inside six months.
> Blaming the system is really getting old. It is not perfect, but
> it is not the root of all evil either.
YOUR system may be fabby and fine, but the one here is NOT and is a long way
from even remotely fair.
At the second school I was at, girls AUTOMATICALLY did home economics (aka
cooking and cleaning skills), boys AUTOMATICALLY did woodwork and metalwork.
(as I read over this, a class mate reading what I have said tells me that
the school he was at, far from mine but still in Scotland, did EXACTLY the
same thing: H.E. was compulsory for girls and metalwork+woodwork was
compulsory for boys)
Are you seriously telling me that that is a fair system?
There was just one girl that had the guts to fight it at my school, she took
many a job for which she got heavy criticism (like working as a lumber jack).
Today, she is a successful business woman working here in Edinburgh.
> Now, I think that it is rediculous to blame the school that
> more males are CS majors than females.
No it isn't. Schools suck. They are NOT designed to encourage pupils to
explore their abilities and interests; they are designed to brainwash kids
into a particular mode of thinking as embodied in the subjects they teach
which are decided upon by the society in which they live.
You can say what you like about this one, but as far as UK schools go, at
least when I was at school (I left in 1987), boys had far greater
opportunities to enter the fields of science and technology. The pressure
on girls to do secretarial work, etc was (is?) enormous.
The secretarial class had 20+ pupils in it. Not ONE was male. Considering
that its main aim was to teach typing skills, this would have been useful
for budding male computer enthusiasts, but none took up the subject because
it was 'sissy', etc. (I didn't BTW as my typing skills were fairly advanced
anyway. I used to sit in the teachers office using his BBC micro whilst
the rest of the class would do their stuff).
> passing the blame is STUPID. Maybe there are no female students
Passing the blame? Don't make me laugh. I have been to seven different
schools in the UK, 4 in England and 3 in Scotland. It's only in the primary
schools that the bias is small because career issues don't exist when
you're 10 years old.
> at your school who like CS. Maybe there are, I don't know. But
If you mean the University I'm at just now, then yes there are a few, but
far too few. I have spoken to many members of staff on the subject and they
ALL agree that it is almost entirely due to lack of encouragement at school
(by school I mean _before_ University, ie. before the age of 17 or 18).
I shall leave you with some research data. Some years ago, a classic study
was undertaken whereby about 40 odd teachers, careers advisors, etc were
asked to recommend a future career for a fictional pupil.
The people involved were split into 2 groups of 20 and separated.
Each was given a written description of this fictional pupil, both of which
were identical expect for one crucial item: one piece of paper said the
pupil's name was 'Denise' (female), whilst the other said 'Dennis' (male).
Neither group had any idea that the purpose of the excercise was to examine
any biases that might be present in their thinking regarding gender roles.
They all thought it was an excercise to test the consistency of their
careers guidance strategies.
The written descriptions they were given included details such as
qualifications, interests, hobbies, work experience, likes, dislikes, and
so on.
Both groups were filmed, revealing _how_ they made their various decisions
about what the pupil should go for in life (what interested me at this
point watching this was that none of them considered the idea of actually
asking the _pupil_ what they wanted to do. They were all oh so willing to
recommend this and that).
And their recommendations?
Dennis: become an mechanical engineer.
Denise: become a hair dresser.
After they had made these decissions, the two groups were brought back
together and the videos were played back, revealing for all to see the
assumptions and biases they all held about what a female or male pupil
should or shouldn't do in life.
I tell you, John, you have never seen a more embarassed group of so called
professionals in all your life!
This program was broadcast by the BBC on the BBC2 channel as part of the
Open University broadcasting service, in the late 1980's (about '89 I think).
Much of what I saw in that program was very evident at the school I had been
at two years before.
It probably still is.
Ian.
The DHS.
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In article <1994May2.2...@math.enmu.edu>, rein...@enmu.edu (John Reinhold) writes:
> |>
> |> Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
> |>
>
> Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
> out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>
> ...I assume that we all have rather healthy views toward
> weaponry as John does... :-)
I hardly think the US attitude towards guns is healthy when gunfire is the
leading cause of death for young men in the country, and is fast approaching
the rate of deaths due to car accidents.
Doom is fantasy and has nothing to do with attitudes in real life.
And in case you didn't notice, I would be 'anti-gun' if I lived in the US.
(Time to don my asbestos suit!)
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain...
================================================================================
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Ian CR Mapleson (mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>
>> The Uni I'm at is a typical example. There are a pathetically small number of
>> female students on the Comp Sci course anyway (mostly due to a biased
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> school system), so even fewer have the opportunity to use the free net
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Oh come on, quit blaming the system.
>
>
> I think that, true, females generally have less access to the
> net. At our school, the number of males to females goes up and
> down drastically. I believe that (being a male) females are less
> attracted to the CS genre. CS is a kind of a Power, or a Whole
> new world. Males generally appreciate this more. Females (from
> what I have seen) generally are more attracted to maternal, or social
> genres. This is NOT a global statement. It is just what seems to
> be the case.
The education system has something to do with it, but the social programming of
females into 'caring nurturing supportive' roles starts much earlier. On
numerous trips to the US I have been, frankly, apalled by the degree of gender
stereotyping that appears in childrens TV and commercials. Now I'm not an
expert on UK childrens TV, but what I see occasionally has much less of the
Barbie doll mentality than the US brand.
Also, isn't it strange how US females are discouraged from taking part in
school team sports like baseball and football? The only role for women in these
areas seems to be as cheerleaders (yuck!). When there are challenges to this
status quo it seems to be such news that CNN reports on it (female american
football player) or make movies about it (A LEague of their Own).
In summary, the college system isn't to blame - the problem, if it is such
(lets see what Mr. No-Testosterone has to say about it) goes much deeper.
bar...@hope.cit.hope.edu
In article <1994May2.2...@math.enmu.edu>, rein...@enmu.edu (John Reinhold) writes:
|>
|> "GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
|>
|> It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
|> Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
|>
|> IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
|>
Typical NRA stupid slogan mentality. These are not
mutually exclusive nor will either work as a singular
solution.
|>
|Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
|out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
Depends on what you call anti-gun. Someone tells me
(a law abiding mentally stable person) that I can't have
a gun, they're wrong. Tell me I can not have a "Street
Sweeper" and I say, ok. If it is "anti-gun" to favor
some restrictions, then count me on the wagon.
I think stop signs and red lights at intersections are
a good idea. Does this make me anti-automobile?
|....I assume that we all have rather healthy views toward
|weaponry as John does... :-)
You assume that John's view is healthy. You may be wrong.
Just remember that there are a lot of Generation X'ers out
here playing Doom and if you try to catagorize us you
may be wrong.
Sorry for the tie-raid but the NRA thinks they speak for
everyone who owns a gun. Well, I own and use a gun and the
NRA does NOT speak for ME!
[grabbing holy armour, cause I know it's coming.]
-Steve
HWI...@kentvm.kent.edu
BFG 9000 and the chain-saw. I love to watch the blood spatter as I
grind through those big pink beasties. I have a female friend who
feels the same. Why use a clean long shot when you can get really
bloody with the chain-saw! I also like to shoot the barrels to watch
the guys standing next to them spatter against the wall. Why, you males
ask, is this woman so violent? Because - I am a grad student (as is
my friend). Each imp I blow up is representative of my thesis
advisor. The marines are my committee members. All other creatures
represent miscellaneous thesis setbacks and problem people. Nothing
is better for relieving the frustrations in my life than blowing up
a few hundred imps. When I'm feeling really mad, I make myself immortal
and just go through all the episodes killing everything in my path! :-)
I know many other folks, male and female, who feel the same. Personally
I don't think Doom is truly a gender-specific game. It is a war-like game
and was created by men, so it makes sense (though weak) that the characters
are male. I would LOVE to have a female player choice for the screen
character (though no pink please!). I think that would be quite appropriate.
(anybody here ever see any of the "Alien" films?)
Now, why are there more men talking about Doom on this net-group?
Probably because men care about discussing doom. Personally, I'd
rather play the game. I don't have much time to spare, so I'd rather
spend it playing Doom than talking about it. And please don't tell
me that the lack of female players is due to societal gender roles.
I'm an anthropologist by trade and I know that any society will adjust to
conditions as the need arises. Since our society is currently headed
towards the eradication of gender-oriented roles, you can stop arguing
about girls-and-dolls and boys-and-trucks theories and start designing
female players for Doom!
As for the education thing, you'll find that the discriminations
we suffered as children are becoming fewer and fewer in number. Yes
it still happens, but not nearly as often. The sciences are still
still dominated by men, but that trend is reversing. Anthropology
is now almost 50-50 and it was (and still can be) one of the most
sexist sciences in Academia. Geology is following and so is
chemistry, biology and all the other sciences. Departments are starting
to look for female faculty. There's still a long way to go before
you have an equal chance of having a female science instructor, but
we're a lot closer to that end than we were even 10 years ago!
And that is my .02 cents worth!
**************************************************
* Heather M. Wilcox: Hwi...@kentvm.kent.edu *
* -----------------------------------------------*
* "Oh my God...it's full of stars.............." *
* *
* -Captain Dave Bowman *
**************************************************
Dave Stafford
>In article <1994May2.2...@math.enmu.edu>, rein...@enmu.edu (John Reinhold) writes:
>|>
>|> "GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
>|>
>|>
>
>Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
>out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>
>weaponry as John does... :-)
>Richard Mitchell | Learning to Do Doing to Learn
|
Nope, you assume incorrectly. I think you'll find that most Europeans find
your gun laws absolutely crazy, and the death (carnage) in America sickening.
And before the NRA nutters jump up and down, I was brought up in Northern
Ireland, and have seen the effects of a breakdown in law and order at first
hand. Statistically, Belfast is a thousand times safer than Washington or
Los Angeles, but how many Americans would live in Belfast? And you live/work
work in the Washington area? A deffo "couple of rounds short of a clip" case
to me.
Doom is a game (and a flippin' excellent one at that), but only a game. It
doesn't make me want to "tool up" and blow away the next door neighbour.
Dave
PS. I am not mad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Stafford Tel: (31) 1719 84437
Cray Systems Ltd Fax: (31) 1719 85426
European Space Research & Technology Centre
Noordwijk, Opinions: My OWN!
Holland Email: da...@bccsun1.estec.esa.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Weber
tension relief, but I don't see any reason for 'normal' (non-law
enforcement agency types) to have full automatic weapons or
semi-automatic pistols. Until we can brand each and every crimanal to
prevent them from getting weapons, and until every business person get's
a concience, yes, I think that we need a whole hell of a lot of gun
control. There is never enough when someone wants to have the advantage
over someone else. And to those who 'need' their M-16's and MAC-10's,
guys and gals, the cold war is over and I doubt your neighbor is a
Russian spy. Put down the guns. The war is over.
--
Later
Rich Weber
(Avatar)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'...I wanna kill 100 of them coppers!'|'Life is full of choices especially
'But, there's only 50 of them.' |those of life and death. Some days the
'So I'll shoot them all TWICE!' |choice to live is an easy choice. Other
|days, I flip a coin. Maybe I'm lucky'
--From the movie "Tough Guys" | -Me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian CR Mapleson
Yeeks! Am I the ONLY person who can see that Richard was being SARCASTIC?
There have been about 4 posts now saying that Richard's views are screwy.
He had a smiley after what he said. What more do you want???
Incidentally, I agree with Richard and the rest of you. I left the piece below
out of my first follow-up to what John said, but here it is:
"PS. I really didn't want to comment on your sig, but I can't resist...
> It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
> Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
US homicide rate p.a.: 30000 (Washington alone: 400).
UK homicide rate p.a.: (scaling for population difference): 150.
We have no widespread gun culture here. Yet. I hope we never do. I can walk
through the center of town here at night without fear of getting blown away.
Can you? Thanks to the kind of sentiments as espoused by your sig, I fear
the UK will eventually become just as gun-infested as America."
Comments?
Flames? :)
Ian.
Brad Isley
>In article <2q43u1$1...@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> mitc...@aol14.wff.nasa.gov (Richard Mitchell 1026) writes:
>In article <1994May2.2...@math.enmu.edu>, rein...@enmu.edu (John Reinhold) writes:
>|>
>|> "GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
>|>
>|> It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
>|> Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
>|>
>|> IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
>|>
>|> Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
>
>Typical NRA stupid slogan mentality. These are not
>mutually exclusive nor will either work as a singular
>solution.
So what's your point? I completely missed it. Who is
claiming that any of these are mutually exclusive or
the ultimate lone solution?
>Sorry for the tie-raid but the NRA thinks they speak for
>everyone who owns a gun. Well, I own and use a gun and the
>NRA does NOT speak for ME!
The NRA is not this confused. If you would take the time to listen
to what they say, rather than listen to the media's interpretation of
it, you might be surprised. If it were not for the NRA, you would
probably not be able to buy a gun at all in the U.S. by now. When
that comes true (it's just a matter of time regardless of what's in
the Constitution), it will be too late to join the NRA.
--
br...@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) +1 404 925-9663(H) 493-2484(W)
bar...@hope.cit.hope.edu
:>
:>Typical NRA stupid slogan mentality. These are not
:>mutually exclusive nor will either work as a singular
:>solution.
:So what's your point? I completely missed it. Who is
:claiming that any of these are mutually exclusive or
:the ultimate lone solution?
The NRA membership touts this silly slogan wherever they
go. It's on their lips, it's in their literature, and on
their friggin car bumpers. I can't see how you missed it.
Perhaps your scope is out of focus pal.
:>Sorry for the tie-raid but the NRA thinks they speak for
:>everyone who owns a gun. Well, I own and use a gun and the
:>NRA does NOT speak for ME!
:The NRA is not this confused. If you would take the time to listen
:to what they say, rather than listen to the media's interpretation of
:it, you might be surprised. If it were not for the NRA, you would
What a load of shit! I know that the media often misrepresents
issues, but the basis for this comment is what I've heard
from the mouths of NRA leadership, THEIR membership drive propaganda,
their members, and so on.
:probably not be able to buy a gun at all in the U.S. by now. When
yeah, right. <bitter sarcasm>
:that comes true (it's just a matter of time regardless of what's in
:the Constitution), it will be too late to join the NRA.
Since the NRA has gone way too long against any sensible controls
on weapons the general public is beginning to open their eyes and
see what fools the NRA are being. Therefore, the popularity of the
group is heading right down the drain fast approaching the approval
rating of cigarette smoking. The only reason it may be "too late"
to join is because they are gonna fade away if they don't get
more reasonable.
[To the poster of this]
Anyway, this message of yours was appropriate when you e-mailed
it to me. (I deleted it because I am pretty sure you're just
spreading NRA propaganda and not really listening) It really
doesn't belong on alt.games.doom. This is the last of
my posts on the topic and you are already in my kill file.
(for e-mail and news that is...)
John Reinhold
> see what fools the NRA are being. Therefore, the popularity of the
> group is heading right down the drain fast approaching the approval
> rating of cigarette smoking. The only reason it may be "too late"
> to join is because they are gonna fade away if they don't get
> more reasonable.
Then why is NRA membership on the Rise? And why is the number one
new member of the NRA a female between the ages of 18 and 25?
The NRA is not Evil. Gun Control is not Evil. But after the
government starts imposing strict laws controlling everything
what will we have left?
No one should ever be killed by a gun. Any type. But I own
guns and never have or will kill anyone. But what about a person
who is willing to kill someone (which is against the law)? Do
you think a stupid gun law will stop them?
And what ever happened to responsible gun ownership? Why don't
we make laws requiring Gun training? That would at least help
to prevent accidental gun deaths. Why don't we enforce the
death penalty, so that criminals don't get a second chance to kill?
Why don't we make prison such a terrible experience that no one
would want to go there? Instead we give them cable T.V. , money
for college, weight lifting, jobs, AND when did the criminals
start having more rights than our children?
While we are outlawing guns, lets outlaw rap music, rated R movies,
and Video games. These are all on governments agenda's.
I apologize to those who are from other nations than the U.S.
But this means a lot to us here in the states. People keep saying
they want their freedom, but don't care about any one elses.
Maybe I don't want to smoke, but I don't think that smoking should
be against the law.
This (contrary to many peoples shouts) does have much to do with DOOM
(at least in the US). As we speak, government is trying to censor
and rate video games. Morality is GOOD, but who defines what is moral?
Who is to tell me how to raise my children?
As far as I know there is not a "NRA" for video games. But at least
the NRA supports freedom and the American Constitution.
NO ONE SHOULD EVER DIE FROM A BULLET. That is stupid. But
it is also stupid to think that more laws are going to help the
problem. I will probably end up in jail some day for refusing
to give up my Guns. While people who kill people, will be
free - with unknown and illegal guns, still killing people.
While law abiding, innocent people will be in jail for something
that is in the Constitution.
If we give the government an inch, they will take a mile.
That is what I am saying. Do not go and mis-quote me saying
that gun control is stupid. It is a good Idea, but I dis-
agree with it. I am not a brainless NRA follower. But I
have thought this through and through. The best way I can stick
up with my freedom, is to unite with others in one front.
My name is now in a hundred kill files, and I apologize.
Just remember, that in the U.S. a freedom is a freedom.
Whether that is to have a gory DOOM on my monitor, or a Gun
in my cabinet. They will not take those away from me.
(remembering scene from Red Dawn - "They can have my gun
when they pry it from my cold, dead hands")
--
--------------------------<>---------------------------
"GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
John Reinhold Portales, New Mexico (USA)
Jeremiah Weiner
: I use guns for hunting, and maybe the occaisional target practice for
: enforcement agency types) to have full automatic weapons or
: semi-automatic pistols. Until we can brand each and every crimanal to
: prevent them from getting weapons, and until every business person get's
: a concience, yes, I think that we need a whole hell of a lot of gun
: control. There is never enough when someone wants to have the advantage
: over someone else. And to those who 'need' their M-16's and MAC-10's,
: guys and gals, the cold war is over and I doubt your neighbor is a
: Russian spy. Put down the guns. The war is over.
To paraphrase, those who trade liberty for safety end up with
neither. Hey, I don't see any need for 'normal' types to have a car
that can do 150 mph. Let's outlaw these cars! After all, until we can brand
each and every crimInal and irresponsible person, no one should be allowed
to have them, right?
To get serious for a moment, why the hell do you think the Second
Amendment was put into the Constitution? So you could have fun shooting
ducks? So you could defend yourself from thugs on the street? Remember
your American history? Remember just how this nation broke free from
Britain? I'm starting to think that what the government is trying to do
to gun ownership is actually unconstitutional. If you look very carefully,
it says the people retain the right to bear arms. It doesn't say, "except
whichever ones we happen to decide they shouldn't have."
And if you think that the availability of guns has anything to do
with the amount of crime committed with them, I feel sorry for you. Guns
were far more easily available in America in the 1960s, yet the number
of crimes involving guns was much lower. Please remember that cocaine is
illegal too, yet criminals don't seem to have any trouble getting _that_.
As for your last few sentences...wake up, Richard. It's not
the war that's over, it's the war that's yet to begin. The Second
Amendment was created so that the people of America would have the
ability to rise up against the government should it ever become necessary.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of people who are willing to throw away
that power because, hey, no law-abiding person would ever need a fully
automatic weapon...
JD
My apologies for the off-topic nature of this post. Followups should
probably go to talk.politics.guns or whatever the appropriate place is.
Jim Pitts
>mitc...@aol14.wff.nasa.gov (Richard Mitchell 1026) writes:
>
>>out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>
>pretty non-violent guy. I am against guns, but like my religion,
>I dont force that it other peoples faces. I dont like guns, but
>that doesnt mean I have to force my opinions on others.
[snip]
Oh, I can't resist the chance to toot my horn ... I'll never post on
this thread again, I promise! :)
Sad, but if things continue the way they go you won't have the right to
own a gun ... choice will have nothing to do with it.
The recent wave of gun ban legislation has been based on a total lack of
knowledge of the facts. It places so called 'assault' weapons in a class
on their own as highly destructive tools of criminals ... a totally lie
plain and simple. Built into the ban are several classes of rifles used
by hunters and alot of open ended wording to allow the BATF to go after
others not stated in the bill.
'Assault weapons' are -not- the weapon of choice of criminals. Anyone who
tells you this is a flat out liar or a fool. The truth is that the weapon
of choice of criminals in this country are zinc-composite handguns (9mm
typically) made in bulk here in the US. They are cheap (and unsafe).
They are -very- popular, and -not- with non-criminal types.
A Browning Hi-Power (a -very- nice 9mm handgun) costs ~$410. An AR-15 rifle
(an 'assault' rifle) will sell for ~$1000-$1500. These sleezy guns common
to drug dealers the nation over go for under ~100 bucks. These are the
weapons of choice.
The truth... according to the FBI less than 3% of the firearm crimes committed
in this country are committed with rifles. Of these, some small fraction
were committed with 'assault' rifles. There has only been 1 murder
from a legally owned -fully automatic- since the introduction of the class
III firearms permit.
Just the other day Clinton said that it was importaint to him that Americans
'right to hunt' was preserved. A noble thing, especially considering
the fact that he likes to hunt.
Funny, but I don't remember going over the 'right to hunt' in my civics
course ... Perhaps Willie should read some of those fundamental documents
that make the core of our country again.
What I read was the right to bear arms which was build into this nation as a
means for its citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. It is the right
to protect your family, your property, and yourself from abuse from other
people and your government.
So I ask you this, do you think you have the right to protect your family?
It would seem that the Clinton's don't think so. Sit back, relax, and
watch your rights slip down the tube.
--
- pi...@mimosa.astro.indiana.edu ^ | James J. Pitts -
- Most people are sheep. /@\ | IU Physics Dept -
- Only a select few are fit to rule. / \ | Voice: 812-855-8247 -
- We are The Bavarian Illuminati. /_____\ | FAX : 812-855-5533 -
azog
>Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
>out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
I like Doom (I dream in Doom, I play too much :-) And I am a
pretty non-violent guy. I am against guns, but like my religion,
I dont force that it other peoples faces. I dont like guns, but
that doesnt mean I have to force my opinions on others.
I wouldnt join any group that protests stuff like this. Take
a look at the Pro-Lifers, the guys who protest abortion. They claim
that life is sacred, but feel no remorse in killing the
abortion doctor! (sorry, I digress)
I got in an arguement the other day, just about this. I dont
belive violence is an answer for ANYTHING, but when prompted
why I like Doom, I just answered that I guess its a way of
taking frustrations out, or perhaps simply fantasising (sp?).
Or maybe its an even deeper psycological reason?
Who cares, ITS ONLY A GAME!
--
Billy D'Augustine az...@world.std.com
Mr. Programmer, I got my hammer
Gonna smash my smash my radiO!
Jason E Levine
record as of late, the BFG-9000 could be banned within MONTHS, the plasma gun
in about a year... and the chaingun is probably included in the current
congressional bill. Soon, all that you'll be able to take into E2L8 and E3L8
will be a PISTOL! Damn them.... :)
Jason
--
Jason Levine +---------------------------+ GO SPURS GO SPURS GO S
318 Schapiro Hall | Send electronic mail to: | PURS GO SPURS GO SPURS
605-15 West 115th Street | Jason....@columbia.edu | GO SPURS GO SPURS GO S
NY NY USA 10025 +---------------------------+ PURS GO SPURS GO SPURS
David Hulac
: out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
Well actually, I am one. In fact, I wouldn't let my kid brother play
this game. But, when you have something this good.....
--
David Hulac-The VICE-president: "I've got my country's 500th anniversary
Lafayette College -Kirby House: to plan, my wedding to plan, my wife to
hul...@lafcol.lafayette.edu : murder and Guilder to frame for it.
Easton, PA 18042 : I'm swamped!
John Reinhold
> (BTW, I have a horrible suspicion that you may have misinterpreted my use
> of the word 'school'. I mean that to be those institutions one attends below
> the age of 17 or 18, ie. _before_ University/College. Most especially, the
> learning age of around 12 to 18. However, I shall assume, for the moment,
> that you DO realise I am talking about the 12 to 18 age range).
I did not. I apologize.
> No I wont quit blaming the system. I've been to two very different
> secondary schools in Scotland, one quite large, the other with under 500
> kids in it.
> Both schools have ridiculously biased education structures, full stop.
> I see you're in the USA?
I failed to notice that you were in the UK. Again I apologize.
> Well, I live in class-ridden sexist UK and the school system here STINKS. If
> you don't believe me, try coming and looking first, THEN you can counter my
> statements.
<deletia>
> YOUR system may be fabby and fine, but the one here is NOT and is a long way
> from even remotely fair.
I never said our system was fair, just that it was not an excuse.
> You can say what you like about this one, but as far as UK schools go, at
> least when I was at school (I left in 1987), boys had far greater
> opportunities to enter the fields of science and technology. The pressure
> on girls to do secretarial work, etc was (is?) enormous.
1. 1987 <> 1994
2. In my school, I graduated in 1991, we did not even HAVE computers.
Business Math was as close as we came to CS. Yet, there is a student
that graduated in 1993, who was already re-writing computer software
for the cancer studies at Los Alamos National Laboratories. He is a
He. But, he was also in FHA (Future Homemakers of America) and in
and FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America).
> I shall leave you with some research data. Some years ago, a classic study
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some Years Ago, in the U.S. women couldn't even vote. Things change.
Again, I apologize for mis-understanding your intentions. But my point
stands.
LETS GET BACK TO DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brad Isley
>I use guns for hunting, and maybe the occaisional target practice for
>tension relief, but I don't see any reason for 'normal' (non-law
>enforcement agency types) to have full automatic weapons or
>semi-automatic pistols. Until we can brand each and every crimanal to
>prevent them from getting weapons, and until every business person get's
>a concience, yes, I think that we need a whole hell of a lot of gun
>control. There is never enough when someone wants to have the advantage
>over someone else. And to those who 'need' their M-16's and MAC-10's,
>guys and gals, the cold war is over and I doubt your neighbor is a
>Russian spy. Put down the guns. The war is over.
>
>--
>Later
> Rich Weber
> (Avatar)
The right to life is a basic human right. The right to defend your own life
against those who would kill you is inherent in that right. A gun is a very
effective way to prevent would-be murders from killing you. And they are
used MOST OFTEN WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED. Your so-called semi-automatic
pistol includes revolvers. If a rapist was in your home making a move on
your wife, would you want a single-shot pistol? I think not. Or would you
rather sit there and watch? The police will not help you. They can't get
there in time. You're on your own, pal. The police come by and carry off
the bodies after it's all over. I would prefer that they not carry mine
or my families bodies off.
Some quotes for you to ponder:
1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full
gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the
world will follow our lead to the future!
--- Adolf Hitler
What do you mean 'wait fifteen days'? This is America!
--- California citizen attempting to purchace a firearm for
self-defense during rioting in Los Angelas, week of 30 April 1992
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the
peoples' liberty's teeth.
--- George Washington
... History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples
to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
--- Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent
law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the
decent people will loose.
--- James Earl Jones
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
--- United States Constitution, Second Amendment, 1789
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as
a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which
our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence.
--- C. A. Beard
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise
the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness,
enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others
of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the
mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally
raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their
fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second
Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
--- Trence Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the
Federal Constitution", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in
the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789
Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these
altogether respect personal liberty...
--- Senator William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the
militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
--- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750,
17 August 1789
Banning gun shows to reduce violent crime will work about as well as banning
auto shows to reduce drunken driving.
--- Bill McIntire, Spokesman for the National Rifle Association, on
Norfolk, Va. council's vote to cancel four gun shows, 1992
If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government
was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not free.
--- Pol Anderson
Are gun buy-back programs like offering cut rate prostitutes in the hope of
reducing rape?
It's the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under a unhappy
necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition of their
Governors, and to fight for what's their own. If those in government are
headless of reason, the people must patiently submit to Bondage, or stand upon
their own Defence; which if they are enabled to do, they shall never be put
upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in their hands; for that Nation is
surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that
hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it.
--- John Trenchard and Walter Moyle
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials.
--- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
It is because the people are civilized, that they are with safety armed.
--- Joel Barlow
The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the
military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
democracy... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only
the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers.
Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.
--- Edward Abbey
Let therefore every man, that, appealing to his own heart, feels the least
spark of virtue or freedom there, think that it is an honor which he owes
himself, and a duty which he owes his country, to bear arms.
--- Thomas Pownall
The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood: The person
who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it to the first
scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that person's liberty! Are
you free?
--- Andrew Ford
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
--- Richard Henry Lee writing in letters from the Federal Farmer to
the Republic (1787-1788)
On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which
it was passed.
--- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches the jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitable ruined.
--- Patrick Henry
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--- Thomas Jefferson
Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the
first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do
something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first
and then the rest of our freedoms.
--- Andrew Ford
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good
--- George Washington
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any
pretense, raised in the United States
--- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the
Federal Constitution
To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
--- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither
liberty or safety.
--- Benjamin Franklin
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our country men.
--- Samuel Adams
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we
fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic military giant to step
the ocean and crush us with a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and
Africa combined with a Bonaparte at their head and disposing of all the
treasure of the earth, our own excepted, could not by force make a track on
the Blue Ridge or take a drink from the Ohio in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it
ever reach us it must spring up from amongst us. It cannot come from abroad.
If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a
nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide.
--- Abraham Lincoln, 1838
The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and
patriots alike. It is its natural manure.
--- Thomas Jefferson
Gun Control: The assumption that everyone is a potential criminal.
The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.
--- van Gogt
The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A
well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms,
is the best and most natural defense of a free country...
--- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and
include all men capable of bearing arms.
--- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to
prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?
--- Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention
rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail
... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitible to the liberties of
the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior
to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...
--- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist
Paper 29
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as
the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people
with arms.
--- James Madison in Fedralist Paper 46
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands
of the people.
--- Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the
General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the
military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always
distinguished the free citizens of these states... Such men form the best
barrier to the liberties of America.
--- Gazette of the United States, 14 October 1789
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other
hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe,
and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be
preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but
since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would
ensue were one half deprived the use of them...
--- Thomas Paine
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full
possession of them.
--- Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
A free people ought... to be armed...
--- George Washington, speech of 7 January 1790
The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have
a gun.
--- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of
the Constitution
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference
between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them
under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having
those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal
safety to us, as in our own hands?
--- Patrick Henry
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed.
--- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to
prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms...
--- Samuel Adams
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
--- Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776,
1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334
Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discression... in
private self-defense...
--- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of
the UAS, 471 (1788)
... the ultimate authority... resides in the people alone.
--- James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 46
The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people
at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the
individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to
deprive them of.
--- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 7 October 1789
... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...
--- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being
murdered by criminals or madmen.
--- Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982)
I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
--- Sen. Howard Metzenbaum
Brad Isley
If you're of the gun-control crowd, I ask that you take a deep breath,
calm down, and read this carefully. I'm not yelling, calling anyone
stupid, or anything like that. I'm just sharing a few facts and quotes.
>:>|> Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
>:>
>:>Typical NRA stupid slogan mentality. These are not
>:>mutually exclusive nor will either work as a singular
>:>solution.
>
>:So what's your point? I completely missed it. Who is
>:claiming that any of these are mutually exclusive or
>:the ultimate lone solution?
>
>The NRA membership touts this silly slogan wherever they
>go. It's on their lips, it's in their literature, and on
>their friggin car bumpers. I can't see how you missed it.
>Perhaps your scope is out of focus pal.
Huh? Care to respond to what I typed? Read it again - slowly
this time. I'll wait. Are you suggesting that we should continue
to allow criminals convicted of multiple violent offenses to roam
free and do it over and over? That's what is happening now. If
you'll remember (How old are you?) that in the 60's, guns were
much more available than they are now. Yet the crime rate was
much lower. Also, the criminal justice system was working a lot
better back then. Criminals were punished, rather than being
released early to make room for drug users.
Can you explain why this slogan is silly? It appears that you would
prefer to disarm law-abiding citizens and allow violent criminals
a free hand. The "slogan" suggests that we do the opposite.
Perhaps my scope is in much better focus than yours.
... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...
--- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
>:>Sorry for the tie-raid but the NRA thinks they speak for
>:>everyone who owns a gun. Well, I own and use a gun and the
>:>NRA does NOT speak for ME!
>
>:The NRA is not this confused. If you would take the time to listen
>:to what they say, rather than listen to the media's interpretation of
>:it, you might be surprised. If it were not for the NRA, you would
>
>What a load of shit! I know that the media often misrepresents
>issues, but the basis for this comment is what I've heard
>from the mouths of NRA leadership, THEIR membership drive propaganda,
>their members, and so on.
Gee, dood. Calm down. You're going to scare people into taking my side.
Ok, so you heard this from the NRA. Have you heard the gun-control
propoganda? "Please take those evil baby-killing assault weapons away
from the people." Never mind that they're using the term "assault
weapon" incorrectly and that the guns they are referring to are used
in about 0.3% of all gun-related crime. (Gary Kleck - _Guns and Violence
in America_) The so-called "assault weapons" aren't nearly so deadly
as a plain-old shotgun. They're targeting them because the look like
military weapons.
>:probably not be able to buy a gun at all in the U.S. by now. When
>
>yeah, right. <bitter sarcasm>
Wake up. How many of our "esteemed" elected officials want to take
away ALL privately owned guns and tax ammo at 1000%? More than you
might guess.
I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
--- Sen. Howard Metzenbaum
Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty;
the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us
to do something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed
by the first and then the rest of our freedoms.
--- Andrew Ford
>:that comes true (it's just a matter of time regardless of what's in
>:the Constitution), it will be too late to join the NRA.
>
>Since the NRA has gone way too long against any sensible controls
>on weapons the general public is beginning to open their eyes and
>see what fools the NRA are being. Therefore, the popularity of the
>group is heading right down the drain fast approaching the approval
>rating of cigarette smoking. The only reason it may be "too late"
>to join is because they are gonna fade away if they don't get
>more reasonable.
Uh. Sorry. But since you're being so nice, I'll correct some more of
your mistakes. The membership level of the NRA has been growing quite
rapidly and consistently for the last two years. It is not shrinking.
It's growth rate is directly proportional to the anti-gun efforts.
If you'll do a little homework, you'll see that the NRA proposed and
lobbyed for a nationwide instant background check INSTEAD of the
5-day waiting period, which even Sarah Brady herself admitted was
practically useless. The gun-control lobby has been trying to get
a nationwide instant background check for years, but since the NRA
backed it, the gun-crontrol crowd started claiming it was useless and
decided that they did not want it. For your homework - it was the
Staeggers(sp?) amendment. I can also name several gun-control bills
that the NRA has backed here in GA in the last 2 years that really
pissed off a lot of NRA members.
In 1984, A Congressional committee conducted a study into the flagrant
lack of respect that the media, judicial system, and congress itself was
showing for the second amendment. The report that this study produced is
available at a popular ftp site (ask and I'll look it up). The summary
of the report was that the committee was quite surprised at the current
attituded (i.e. ignore it) shared by the media and Congress when it
comes to the 2nd amendment. It was also concluded, after much study
of the writings of the times (Federalists papers, etc.) that the 2nd
amendment was included specifically to enable the citizens to rise up
and overthrow a tyrannical government. The founding fathers feared
that the US Gov't would someday become so currupt and overbearing that
the people would eventually have yet another revolution. I don't know
about you, but if I was Big Brother and wanted to really be in control,
taking away the guns is the first step I would take.
>[To the poster of this]
>
>Anyway, this message of yours was appropriate when you e-mailed
>it to me. (I deleted it because I am pretty sure you're just
>spreading NRA propaganda and not really listening) It really
>doesn't belong on alt.games.doom. This is the last of
>my posts on the topic and you are already in my kill file.
>(for e-mail and news that is...)
>
Now that's intelligent.
"Don't confuse me with the facts - my mind is made up."
When you're ready to examine facts and stop the tirade, let me know.
Then we can have a reasonable calm discussion.
Can't remember if I sent this before, but you'll find these interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right to life is a basic human right. The right to defend your own life
against those who would kill you is inherent in that right. A gun is a very
effective way to prevent would-be murders from killing you MOST OFTEN WITHOUT
A SHOT BEING FIRED.
-me
Some quotes for you to ponder:
1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full
gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the
world will follow our lead to the future!
--- Adolf Hitler
... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...
--- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being
murdered by criminals or madmen.
--- Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982)
I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
--- Sen. Howard Metzenbaum
What do you mean 'wait fifteen days'? This is America!
--- California citizen attempting to purchace a firearm for
self-defense during rioting in Los Angelas, week of 30 April 1992
Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the
first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do
something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first
and then the rest of our freedoms.
--- Andrew Ford
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good
--- George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the
If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
--
dkrowlan
>(Potentially controversial opinion follows, but I think it's correct)
>
>There are no (or at least, a statistically insignificant number of)
>female Doom players.
>
>Doom is fun to people who like to attack and be aggressive. Men are
>aggressive because of testosterone. Women have none.
>--
>Richard Krehbiel ri...@netcom.com
Eh? Your suggestion is that women, lacking testosterone, lack
aggressiveness and the inclination to attack? Clearly you've never
known one well..... ;)
(Just ask John Bobbit.... :) )
--
>Picture a clever one-liner here...
hmmmm....nope, can't do it.
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
< dkro...@vela.acs.oakland.edu "Whaaaaaa...?" -me >
< -.-. .... ..- -.-. -.- -.-- --- ..- ..-. .- .-. .-.. .. . >
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Jason Fleischer
: ri...@netcom6.netcom.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
: > (Potentially controversial opinion follows, but I think it's correct)
: Contraversial? Yoobetchya. Correct? Nope.
: > There are no (or at least, a statistically insignificant number of)
: > female Doom players.
: Complete hogwash, bunkum and general poppycock (I'll think up a few
: more Brit type expressions if you like).
I being a female DOOMer agree with Ian.......and please NO PINK UNIFORMS!
***Berri (not Jason)
aka Froglet
be...@lamar.colostate.edu
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CHRISTOPHER M. ACKNEY
N.
John Reinhold
Washington D.C. has the highest murder rate in America.
It Also has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in america.
Along with other cities, such as New York.
Gun control, after >200 years with none, will not work.
--------------------------<>---------------------------
"GUN CONTROL" IS USING BOTH HANDS!
It is Better to HAVE a gun and not NEED one,
Than to NEED a gun and not HAVE one.
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
Criminal control, NOT Gun Control.
John Reinhold Portales, New Mexico (USA)
Zac Thompson
> : guys and gals, the cold war is over and I doubt your neighbor is a
> : Russian spy. Put down the guns. The war is over.
>
> To paraphrase, those who trade liberty for safety end up with
> neither. Hey, I don't see any need for 'normal' types to have a car
The number of people in England (with strong gun control) who
died from handguns last year was something like 1000 times less than
that in the states. I don't think they ended up with "neither".
> To get serious for a moment, why the hell do you think the Second
> Amendment was put into the Constitution? So you could have fun shooting
> ducks? So you could defend yourself from thugs on the street? Remember
> your American history? Remember just how this nation broke free from
> Britain? I'm starting to think that what the government is trying to do
> to gun ownership is actually unconstitutional. If you look very carefully,
> it says the people retain the right to bear arms. It doesn't say, "except
> whichever ones we happen to decide they shouldn't have."
It IS unconstitutional, without question. Doesn't make it bad.
People worship the word of the Bible with that same kind of single-
mindedness and it really messes them up sometimes. Don't forget, the
US constitution is over 200 years old.
> And if you think that the availability of guns has anything to do
> with the amount of crime committed with them, I feel sorry for you. Guns
See above. A factor of 1000. No correspondence? Yeah, sure.
Maybe the US is going to hell in a handbasket without guns too, but I
think it's worth chacking out. I know I don't feel comfortable living
a few hundred kilometres away from 250 million people who can get a gun
within 24 hours, no questions asked.
> were far more easily available in America in the 1960s, yet the number
> of crimes involving guns was much lower. Please remember that cocaine is
> illegal too, yet criminals don't seem to have any trouble getting _that_.
Actually, they have a lot of trouble getting it. That's why it's
so expensive.
> As for your last few sentences...wake up, Richard. It's not
> the war that's over, it's the war that's yet to begin. The Second
> Amendment was created so that the people of America would have the
> ability to rise up against the government should it ever become necessary.
> Unfortunately, there's a lot of people who are willing to throw away
> that power because, hey, no law-abiding person would ever need a fully
> automatic weapon...
Well, if you ever decide to rise up against the government, are
you really that concerned with whether you can get your guns legally?
Seems to me if you "rise up" and fail, you're going to have a lot more
charges laid against you than just having a gun when it was illegal to do
so. Charges like treason. Keeping M-16s in their saddlebags is NOT how
the colonists won the war.
> JD
> My apologies for the off-topic nature of this post. Followups should
> probably go to talk.politics.guns or whatever the appropriate place is.
>
Yeah, that's where I directed them. |->
Alan Hart
: Sad, but if things continue the way they go you won't have the right to
: own a gun ... choice will have nothing to do with it.
[snip]
: The truth... according to the FBI less than 3% of the firearm crimes committed
: in this country are committed with rifles. Of these, some small fraction
: were committed with 'assault' rifles. There has only been 1 murder
: from a legally owned -fully automatic- since the introduction of the class
: III firearms permit.
: Just the other day Clinton said that it was importaint to him that Americans
: 'right to hunt' was preserved.
[more stuff about erosion of rights deleted]
[flame suit on]
To an outsider, from the UK, the USA seems to be going completely crazy. We
hear about schools where there are guards with metal detectors at the
entrance because the kids take guns. Guns being available across the counter
is completely alien to me. I'm not saying that the UK is a bed of roses, but
here, even the ordinary police still don't carry guns. Because you cannot buy
a gun over the counter. It is as simple as that. Here, guns are carried in
the main by criminals who obtain them illegally. And there are far fewer
guns.
It's all very well banging your constitutional drum and saying you've got the
right to carry a gun, but just because it's legal, that doesn't make it
right. It just leads to an escalation until everyone has a gun.
What's wrong with forcing a delay before guns are handed over? What's wrong
with requiring proof of ID? What's wrong with having to have a licence to own
a gun? How does that impair your precious "rights"? You could still own one,
couldn't you, if you were really intent on it?
Alan
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | am...@cus.cam.ac.uk --- Work Tel: +44 223 337493 |
| Alan | Fax: +44 223 337706 --- Home Tel: +44 223 244595 |
| Hart | Microelectronics Research Centre, Cavendish Lab, |
| | Madingley Road, Cambridge, ENGLAND. CB3 0HE |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reto Lichtensteiger
>Humans have no natural predators anymore (except themselves, wherein they
>seem to be doing a fine job) so Doom is a good substitute for blowing off
>steam, male or female.
Here, here!
---
R A Lichtensteiger
System Administrator ra...@hri.com
Horizon Research Inc (617) 466-8304
1960-1994 Ayrton Senna RIP
Russ Kepler
>
>Anyway, this message of yours was appropriate when you e-mailed
>it to me. (I deleted it because I am pretty sure you're just
>spreading NRA propaganda and not really listening) It really
>doesn't belong on alt.games.doom. This is the last of
>my posts on the topic and you are already in my kill file.
>(for e-mail and news that is...)
Another fine example of an open mind....
--
Russ Kepler, Basis International Ltd. ru...@bbx.basis.com phone: 505-345-5232
Do not throw rocks at this signature
Ian CR Mapleson
No it isn't.
The ONLY so called 'right' that ANY lifeform has, be it carbon based,
silicon, quantum, whatever, is the right to _try_ and survive. NOTE! Not:
the right _to_ survive, no, just the right to TRY and survive.
It's not even a right. It's just life, the way things are and will always be.
All other 'rights' are merely social constructs of a lifeforms' society.
Which is why you are then correct in saying:
> ... The right to defend your own life ...
In the UK, until recently, people who were attacked and ended up killing
their attacker(s) in the process of defending themselves received very
little sympathy from the courts. Recent cases have been changing things.
Actually, I'm really referring to Scotland here, as I think England's law
courts are still pretty unforgiving in this area.
The example I know of is that of a man who was mugged by two men. He shot
one of his attackers and killed him. The other got away. I think this was in
Edinburgh about 18 months ago.
The courts ruled self defense and he was freed. Such a ruling would have
been unheard of here just a few months before.
It is the biggest sham of all that the one thing one does not have legal
control over is the right to decide the fate of one's own life (be it in
self defense of it, or to end it if you're mega ill or something. Euthanasia
is beginning to be a big issue in the UK).
> used MOST OFTEN WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED. ...
This can be true. An aquaintance of my brother's was attacked. He pulled out a
replica magnum and had the two attackers on the ground in tears and pleading
for their lives. He then said to them somethig like, 'This is a fake gun.
Next time, you might pick someone who has a real one, so don't do it
again.'. He then walked away. The attackers just stayed where they were,
whimpering.
That guy was a martial arts type, and so probably had the mental control to
stay calm. Even without the gun, he could have killed them with his skills.
Many folk might not be able to stay that calm if they had a real gun. I
don't know if I could.
Which goes back to what you were saying a coupla days ago, namely that
people who have guns ought to be properly trained in their use and
responsibilities entailed therein. But in the heat of the moment...
In the UK, it's basically illegal to have most kinds of guns anway (there
are licence arrangements and such like for some, of course. Mostly shotguns,
I think). But having a AK47 in your house is, I suspect, not legal. It's
certainly illegal, I think, to carry a gun here (always meant to visit a
cop station to have a natter about this, but I've never gotten round to it).
> your wife, would you want a single-shot pistol? I think not. Or would you
I'm curious: what are the various laws, etc in the US governing how much
force one 'can use' in situations like this?
The UK has this 'reasonable force' concept.
But I, like you I suspect, would splat the rapist. Toast. No mercy.
Afterwards, in the UK anyway, I'd probably end up in jail from a
manslaughter charge.
I lot of people are criticising you for the things you have said, but I
think most of them would also use extreme force in such a situation.
When it comes to basic survival and defense of the family, home, etc., I
think social constructs like 'reasonable force' would be forgotten. I have
been attacked just once. Luckily for me, he was not heavily armed, just a
slightly drunk dork who was looking for someone to beat up. In this city,
thugs tend to carry knives, especially double bladed Stanly knives. My
brother was attacked by two such 'casuals' as they're called here. He's a
martial arts type, and 5 minutes after the event, he and his fellow m.a.
friends were out in the graveyards with their swords searching for the
attackers. If they had actually found them? chop chop probably! They were in
no mood to be merciful, I can tell you.
At some point, I may construct a laser weapon for self defense purposes. I
suspect that it would be classed as an offensive weapon, but that it would
actually not be covered my the firearms act overall, since it does not emit
any kind of projectile via an explosive propulsion system. Very grey area
this.
If you want, Brad, I can send you some info on the idea. The basic design
would be able to punch holes through steel plate, and would give around 20
minutes of continuous fire at 10 pulses per second, each pulse being in the
order of a 50Joule blast Q-switched to give a megwatt pulse. Nasty.
No way will I make this for some years to come, as it would cost a lot to
make. If society doesn't get worse here, I won't make it at all. Depends on
whether the s**t slowly begins to hit the fan. Due to our naff political
system here, most people I know who've thought about it reckon there'll be
civil unrest here inside 3 years. We shall see. I'd rather not make it as
I think it would be a final admission for me that the society I live in has
failed.
I think the reason you're getting criticised so much is that you come
across as being way too overboard on the issue. Your list of quotes is HUGE.
How many do you think read it all? I didn't. Not even the first few. If you
want people to understand what you're getting at, is it wise to include
quotes from Hitler? I think not. You're better off discussing things calmly
and in your own words, rather than quoting, shall we say, dubious sources
such as Mr. King Nazi himself.
I think peoples' main gripes are centered around the _availability_ of
totally OTT firearms in the US; that is, weaponry for which one would have
no legitimate use (I don't know what kind of firearms in this category are
available over there. Can you get a 9mm Oozi off the shelf? How easy is
it?). I saw a video shown on a TV show here which had various
female models touting automatic weapons whilst wearing various bikini suit
type outfits. They were firing the guns whilst nattering about how they
loved the guns so much. What the hell is that all about?? Why would one
actually want to have an automatic weapon? And what's with using the girls?
Very bizarre if you ask me. It seemed like some kind of crazed male power
trip, kinda like gun porn. Yeuch.
(for you Brits out there, the TV show was 'Sunday Night Clive').
In most societies, _perceived_ risk has a far greater impact on public
behaviour that _actual_ risk.
In the UK, for example, the elderly (according to surveys) greatly fear
being mugged, when, in fact, young people in the age range 16 to 25 are 24
times more likely to be attacked in a city than an elderly person (simply
because young folk are outdoors more often).
A post or two ago, you mentioned that guns were more easily available in
the 60's than now, yet crime was less. What, then, do you think is the
cause of the crime increase? (a half rhetorical question that one. For me,
crime is up because of a) greed, b) poverty, c) the existence of so many
people who just don't give a damn).
I don't live in the US, so a lot of the issues are difficult to grasp
without actually being there. All I know is that the US homicide rate is
waaaaaaaaay higher proportionally than here (by population, it's 20 times
higher). If guns were more freely available in the UK than they are now, do
you think the UK homicide rate would stay the same? It would take a LOT to
convince me that it wouldn't rise sharply.
Lastly, I keep remembering the clip from the L.A. riots of those two
desparate Asian shop keepers defending their stores with pistols. I don't
want such a thing to happen here. Although I agree with some of your
sentiments about the right to self defense, I'm not convinced that having
freely available weaponry is the way to make our world a safer place to live
in.
I sincerely hope you never have to use any weapon in defense of your life.
Nowadays, my no. 1 rule is to just stay away from dangerous/risky areas.
Just my 2p worth (3c :).
Ian.
PS. What say we end this discussion via the group, eh? It's a bit of a waste
of space and some posters are starting to rev up the flame throwers.
Personally, I wouldn't mind chatting to you via email about this, as long as
you're not going to just throw huge quote lists at me.
PPS. In summary, and answering the subject line, I'm not anti-gun as such.
I'm anti-UNNECESSARY-gun. I don't need one, so I don't want one. If you
really think you need one, I am saddened that you live in such a
neighbourhood. May you never have to use it.
Brad Isley
>Jim Pitts (pi...@mimosa.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Sad, but if things continue the way they go you won't have the right to
>: own a gun ... choice will have nothing to do with it.
>
>[snip]
>
>: The truth... according to the FBI less than 3% of the firearm crimes committed
>: in this country are committed with rifles. Of these, some small fraction
>: were committed with 'assault' rifles. There has only been 1 murder
>: from a legally owned -fully automatic- since the introduction of the class
>: III firearms permit.
>
>: Just the other day Clinton said that it was importaint to him that Americans
>: 'right to hunt' was preserved.
>
>[more stuff about erosion of rights deleted]
>
>
>[flame suit on]
>
>To an outsider, from the UK, the USA seems to be going completely crazy. We
>hear about schools where there are guards with metal detectors at the
>entrance because the kids take guns. Guns being available across the counter
It seems that the USA is going crazy because the criminals are not usually
going to jail and staying there. In the rare cases in which they actually
go to jail, they have cable-TV, weight rooms, saunas, and early release.
Do you know why kids take guns to school? Kids take guns to school because
they fear for their lives in school. Did you fear for your life when you
were in school? I did not. There never was a story of kids with guns in
school when I was a kid. But when I was a kid, bad kids were punished and/or
suspended. Now, teachers can go to jail for spanking a kid, regardless of
what the kid did to deserve it, and the kids do whatever the hell they please.
>is completely alien to me. I'm not saying that the UK is a bed of roses, but
>here, even the ordinary police still don't carry guns. Because you cannot buy
>a gun over the counter. It is as simple as that. Here, guns are carried in
>the main by criminals who obtain them illegally. And there are far fewer
>guns.
There are far fewer guns because your government doesn't trust you.
>It's all very well banging your constitutional drum and saying you've got the
>right to carry a gun, but just because it's legal, that doesn't make it
>right. It just leads to an escalation until everyone has a gun.
It's a basic human right to be able to defend youeself regardless of whether
the constitution says it is or not. In societies where everyone is armed,
criminals are not common because they fear the lawful gun-owner.
>What's wrong with forcing a delay before guns are handed over? What's wrong
Because if you are an estranged woman being stalked by a violent ex-husband
who wants to kill you, it means he probably will kill you. It happens all
the time in the US where waiting periods are in effect. Yes, women waiting
for a gun to defend themselves from violent ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends
die while waiting. I hear of a new one, or read about it in the paper quite
often.
>with requiring proof of ID? What's wrong with having to have a licence to own
Proof of ID is required.
Licenses are required in many places. Licenses imply that you need the
govt's permission to own a gun. I don't need anyone's "permission" to own
a gun.
Here's a quote from the original gun registration lobbyist:
1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full
gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the
world will follow our lead to the future!
--- Adolf Hitler
Here's a court decision that basically says you are responsible for your
own self-defense. Can you explain how we're supposed to do this without
guns?
... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...
--- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being
murdered by criminals or madmen.
--- Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982)
Here's the real story from the gun-grabbers in our government:
I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
--- Sen. Howard Metzenbaum
>a gun? How does that impair your precious "rights"? You could still own one,
>couldn't you, if you were really intent on it?
Registration impairs our rights, because gun owner lists lead to
confiscation. It is happening today in New York and Washington DC.
It was happening only six months after those governments promised that it
never would happen.
>Alan
Any other points you want covered?
Brad Isley
>Ian CR Mapleson (mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
>> US homicide rate p.a.: 30000 (Washington alone: 400).
>
>Washington D.C. has the highest murder rate in America.
>
>It Also has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in america.
Those dramatic increases in the murder rate followed the strict
gun-control legislation step-by-step. Every gun-control law passed
in DC was followed by an increase in the murder rate. Every single one.
In Arizona, where it is legal to openly carry guns almost anywhere, the
crime rate is among the lowest in the country.
J Greely
In article <2q66a1$m...@jake.esu.edu> ava...@esu.edu (Richard Weber) writes:
>but I don't see any reason for 'normal' (non-law
>enforcement agency types) to have full automatic weapons
...then you'll be pleased to know that automatic weapons have been
very tightly controlled by federal law since 1934, and are not
generally available to private citizens. Acquiring one legally
involves fingerprints, background checks, waiting periods, living in
the right state, and having the goodwill of your local chief of
police. Oh, did I forget to mention the $200 transfer tax and the
nationwide freeze on the number of automatic weapons available to
private citizens?
Never mind that automatic weapons have never been a serious crime
problem, even in the '30s, and are mind-bogglingly rare in crime today
(as are "assault weapons", which is a fancy media phrase meaning "ugly
guns").
Don't bother bringing up the "semi-automatics which can be easily
converted to full-auto" myth; all such weapons are automatically (and
even retroactively) classified as if they had already been converted,
and cannot be imported or sold to the civilian market. The BATF has a
well-equipped lab that tests for this "feature".
>or semi-automatic pistols.
A repeater is a repeater; there is nothing about a semi-automatic
pistol that makes it any less reasonable than a revolver, and a lot of
things that make it more appropriate to common uses. This includes
sport and recreation, which are far more common than armed robbery.
>Until we can brand each and every crimanal to prevent them from
>getting weapons,
Since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders (>80%),
punishing them the first time they're caught could do wonders for
their future behavior. Never mind that criminals rarely buy guns
through the same channels as law-abiding citizens...
Side note: I dislike the terms "anti-gun" and "pro-gun". I
personally am not terribly interested in debating the moral attributes
of inanimate objects, and these terms tend to muddle the issue. Yes,
there are people who demonize firearms into active agents of evil,
where just picking one up can warp your mind; these people are
actually fairly rare, and mostly belong in therapy. More common are
people who base their opinions on complex social issues on simplistic
emotional arguments ("if it saves just one life, it's worth it", an
argument that falls flat when you consider that several people die
every year by pulling vending machines on top of themselves, an action
that is still legal).
The truth is, if the justification for your opinion on an issue like
gun control or abortion fits onto a bumper sticker, then you don't
know what you're talking about. Just in case anyone is actually
interested in exploring all the sides of the gun-control issue, I will
recommend the book, _The Gun Control Debate: you decide_, which was
put together based on recommendations from the leading activist
organizations in the major camps. ISBN 0-87975-618-7
Fun facts:
10% of the violent crime in the
US happens in New York City.
--
J Greely (jgr...@synopsys.com)
John Reinhold
> To an outsider, from the UK, the USA seems to be going completely crazy. We
^^^^^^^^
exactly. I do not tell you how to run your country, we do not ask
for help with ours. Last time I looked, our country rebelled and
broke free from your government because we did not like the way
things were run. If we had wanted your gun laws, we would still be
a british colony. (many other places would also).
> hear about schools where there are guards with metal detectors at the
> entrance because the kids take guns. Guns being available across the counter
> is completely alien to me. I'm not saying that the UK is a bed of roses, but
> here, even the ordinary police still don't carry guns. Because you cannot buy
> a gun over the counter. It is as simple as that. Here, guns are carried in
> the main by criminals who obtain them illegally. And there are far fewer
^^^^^^^^^
BOY, I sure want to live in a place where the criminals carry guns,
but I can't. Thats really fair. "Hey, I am Mr. Policeman. Stop, or
I'll blow my whistle and call you dirty names!!" BANG.
Scotland Yard - 0
Criminals - 1
> guns.
--
Tor Bahus
Don't play it (:
Christer Enkvist
|> Gun control, after >200 years with none, will not work.
This conclusion is errorenous, what gun control causes is a
drain of the number of guns on the ILLEGAL market, thus minimizing
the number of guns available to criminals which will eventually
lower the abusrd rate of murders/shooting accidents caused by
criminals in combination with guns.
|> IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
And by the same line of absudizing the discussion - outlaw money
and nobody will be poor.
/christer enkvist
Brad Isley
(Follow-ups redirected)
>
>br...@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) writes:
>> The right to life is a basic human right.
>
>No it isn't.
>
>The ONLY so called 'right' that ANY lifeform has, be it carbon based,
>silicon, quantum, whatever, is the right to _try_ and survive. NOTE! Not:
>the right _to_ survive, no, just the right to TRY and survive.
Huh? I find this attitude amusing and sad at the same time.
>In the UK, until recently, people who were attacked and ended up killing
>their attacker(s) in the process of defending themselves received very
>little sympathy from the courts. Recent cases have been changing things.
That sounds very encouraging.
>Actually, I'm really referring to Scotland here, as I think England's law
>courts are still pretty unforgiving in this area.
So, if I lived in England and someone was in my house trying to kill me,
you say that if he died because of my attempt at self-defense, I go to
jail? This is ludicrous! The risk of death comes with the act of attacking.
>The example I know of is that of a man who was mugged by two men. He shot
>one of his attackers and killed him. The other got away. I think this was in
>Edinburgh about 18 months ago.
>
>The courts ruled self defense and he was freed. Such a ruling would have
>been unheard of here just a few months before.
That's very encouraging.
>It is the biggest sham of all that the one thing one does not have legal
>control over is the right to decide the fate of one's own life (be it in
Agreed.
>I'm curious: what are the various laws, etc in the US governing how much
>force one 'can use' in situations like this?
You can use lethal force to stop an assailant who is in the process of, or
has the capability and intent to cause you or someone else grave bodily
harm. After the attack stops, the defender's permission to use lethal force
ends, unless the defender has a "reasonable suspicion" that the perpetrator
will continue to be a danger to society.
>The UK has this 'reasonable force' concept.
Reasonable force is losing to lethal force in many Eurpoean countries.
Reasonable force often gets the defender killed.
Some people tell me that it's better to be unarmed and not defend yourself.
They say that is the job of the Police. I say that the police never get
there in time to be useful. The police agree with me. I'd rather not be
the one that gets toted off in a body bag after a perp starts a violent
attack against me or mine in my own home.
>I lot of people are criticising you for the things you have said, but I
>think most of them would also use extreme force in such a situation.
Thank you. Many people never realise the utility of guns in self-defense
until they are the victims of a violent attack. Being attacked usually
"turns on the lightbulb" and the first thing they want to do is go buy
a gun.
>When it comes to basic survival and defense of the family, home, etc., I
>think social constructs like 'reasonable force' would be forgotten. I have
>been attacked just once. Luckily for me, he was not heavily armed, just a
>slightly drunk dork who was looking for someone to beat up. In this city,
>thugs tend to carry knives, especially double bladed Stanly knives. My
>brother was attacked by two such 'casuals' as they're called here. He's a
>martial arts type, and 5 minutes after the event, he and his fellow m.a.
>friends were out in the graveyards with their swords searching for the
>attackers. If they had actually found them? chop chop probably! They were in
>no mood to be merciful, I can tell you.
My own story: Two hoodlums murdered my father. The next day they came back
to terrorize my mother and the rest of my family. Naturally the guilty
ones were NOT in jail. They arranged for some poor schmuck to take the
wrap. If we were unarmed, myself and two of my brothers would likewise
be dead. No shots were fired. But the hoodlums never came back.
>At some point, I may construct a laser weapon for self defense purposes. I
>suspect that it would be classed as an offensive weapon, but that it would
>actually not be covered my the firearms act overall, since it does not emit
>any kind of projectile via an explosive propulsion system. Very grey area
>this.
Likely to get you into lots of trouble.
>If you want, Brad, I can send you some info on the idea. The basic design
>would be able to punch holes through steel plate, and would give around 20
>minutes of continuous fire at 10 pulses per second, each pulse being in the
>order of a 50Joule blast Q-switched to give a megwatt pulse. Nasty.
Nyah. Sounds too much like an "assault laser" and would land me in jail. :)
>I think the reason you're getting criticised so much is that you come
>across as being way too overboard on the issue. Your list of quotes is HUGE.
>How many do you think read it all? I didn't. Not even the first few. If you
I read them all. Why not read them? Studying history will prevent making
the same mistakes over and over.
>want people to understand what you're getting at, is it wise to include
>quotes from Hitler? I think not. You're better off discussing things calmly
>and in your own words, rather than quoting, shall we say, dubious sources
>such as Mr. King Nazi himself.
I can't understand why people misunderstand this Hitler quote. Hitler was
smart enough to realize that his people might rise up against his power
if they were armed. So he proceeded to disarm them, just like the US
govt is doing today. That quote was a "wake up call" to people who want
to disarm the public. The fact that they're saying something that Hitler
said disturbs them should get their attention and make them think again.
>I think peoples' main gripes are centered around the _availability_ of
>totally OTT firearms in the US; that is, weaponry for which one would have
>no legitimate use (I don't know what kind of firearms in this category are
>available over there. Can you get a 9mm Oozi off the shelf? How easy is
That's an intersting thing you say there - "No legitimate use"
Consider that, according to the US constitution and several Supreme
Court decisions (many are recent), the men of the US have the duty to
be members of the militia and defend the country with their own "arms
comparable to those in common military use".
People forget the the citizens of the US are members of the militia and
are responsible for the defense of the country (re US Constitution backed
up by several Supreme Court dedcisions). The citizens are also the rulers
of this country and the government has no business taking away all the
liberties that we have here. Government in this country is supposed to
serve us, not rule us.
You were lucky enough to avoid the LA riots. I was, too. If I was caught
in the middle of it, I would want no less than a semi-auto rifle with
several large capacity magazines. That's my way of "trying to survive."
I'd probably never have to fire it, but without it I would have probably
been dead.
>it?). I saw a video shown on a TV show here which had various
>female models touting automatic weapons whilst wearing various bikini suit
>type outfits. They were firing the guns whilst nattering about how they
>loved the guns so much. What the hell is that all about?? Why would one
>actually want to have an automatic weapon? And what's with using the girls?
I saw the same thing and I also thought it was stupid. Anyone who
actually enjoyed that miserable flick worries me.
>Very bizarre if you ask me. It seemed like some kind of crazed male power
>trip, kinda like gun porn. Yeuch.
Yup - I agree. Nothing like hot babes in bikinis toting machine guns. Yuk.
>A post or two ago, you mentioned that guns were more easily available in
>the 60's than now, yet crime was less. What, then, do you think is the
>cause of the crime increase? (a half rhetorical question that one. For me,
>crime is up because of a) greed, b) poverty, c) the existence of so many
>people who just don't give a damn).
I would suggest the recent changes in Hollywood violence, the failure of
the judicial system, and the demise of the nuclear family.
I never saw violence in TV or in the movies until _Jaws_. Hollywood
figured out that people would pay for this, so now you can't watch TV for
an evening without seeing several people being blown away.
Criminals almost never go to jail anymore. When they do, it's "easy time"
and early release.
It is much more common in the US to find families where parents expect
the school system to teach everything, including morals. Kids raised
in this environment are more likely to be trouble-makers.
>I don't live in the US, so a lot of the issues are difficult to grasp
>without actually being there. All I know is that the US homicide rate is
>waaaaaaaaay higher proportionally than here (by population, it's 20 times
>higher). If guns were more freely available in the UK than they are now, do
>you think the UK homicide rate would stay the same? It would take a LOT to
>convince me that it wouldn't rise sharply.
I don't expect it would change much. I can't say. It's a different culture.
People are typically more friendly with neighbors in the UK from what I
have seen. Just don't let people carry guns to sporting events!
Perhaps the facts I sent about the relationship between gun laws and
violent crime in the US. (I'll tell you again) -
(this is all well documented by the FBI and is available)
With very few exceptions, for the past twenty years in the US, every time a
city, county, or state (or especially DC) passes a strict gun-control law
there is an immediate sharp corresponding increase in violent crime. It's
like a criminal magnet. It's the net result of disarming the public, while
there is no effect on the criminals.
>Lastly, I keep remembering the clip from the L.A. riots of those two
>desparate Asian shop keepers defending their stores with pistols. I don't
>want such a thing to happen here. Although I agree with some of your
>sentiments about the right to self defense, I'm not convinced that having
>freely available weaponry is the way to make our world a safer place to live
>in.
Neither do I believe that "freely available" weapons are the solution.
But I'm leaning further that way than some other people.
Consider that criminals always have and always will be able to obtain
weapons. If the victims are not similarly armed, the criminals win.
Stating that owning guns turns people into criminals is unbased and silly.
>I sincerely hope you never have to use any weapon in defense of your life.
Too late. Already have. No shots fired. Thanks, though.
>Nowadays, my no. 1 rule is to just stay away from dangerous/risky areas.
Hear, Hear!
>Just my 2p worth (3c :).
>
>Ian.
>
>PS. What say we end this discussion via the group, eh? It's a bit of a waste
>of space and some posters are starting to rev up the flame throwers.
>Personally, I wouldn't mind chatting to you via email about this, as long as
>you're not going to just throw huge quote lists at me.
OK. Follow-ups to TPG (again)
>PPS. In summary, and answering the subject line, I'm not anti-gun as such.
>I'm anti-UNNECESSARY-gun. I don't need one, so I don't want one. If you
>really think you need one, I am saddened that you live in such a
>neighbourhood. May you never have to use it.
An attitude to live by. If it weren't for the crime I have been exposed to,
I would not feel the need to own guns either. There have been three serial
rapists working within one mile of my house in the past two years. My wife
refuses to be a victim, so she keeps a gun in the house. I pity the rapist
that attacks her here. But I would pity her more for the experience.
Alan Hart
quotes. I wonder if he just piped a fortune cookie program into his mailer?
You can quote as many famous and reputable people as you like on freedom to
buy guns being important, and as many disreputable people as you like on the
importance of arms control. This does not make a lack of gun control right.
It's like the old argument, "Christianity must be right, how can n million
people all be wrong?". It simply does not stand up. In the case of religion,
there are a number of major religions in the world, all disagreeing with each
other on major points. They can't all be right, therefore millions if not
billions of them must be wrong.
I realise that the people quoted were mostly highly respected historical
figures, but I wonder what their opinions were on sexual equality, rights for
homosexuals, prostitution, religious tolerance, racial equality, capital
punishment, and so on. I think you'd find that today, some of their views
would be pretty repugnant. Just because it seemed right once doesn't mean
that it's still appropriate today. In George Washington's day you didn't get
schoolkids taking loaded guns to school and shooting other kids so they can
have their sneakers.
Further, the idea of quoting Adolf Hitler is laughable. "Adolf Hitler was a
bad man. He thought X, therefore X must be wrong.". I bet Adolf Hitler
thought that the Earth is round. Does that make it wrong?
Finally, people keep talking about erosion of their rights. Look at South
Africa. The whites enforced their constitutional rights for a long time, at
the expense of the social and political health of the nation as a whole, and
in particular at the expense of the blacks. Just because it's in your
constitution doesn't make it right.
I realise that the danger of living in the US makes carrying a gun seem
necessary. But look at America today. Forget about the problems you
_personally_ would have to put up with without a gun. Do you think, overall,
it is a better place for the availability of guns? I suggest you compare the
US to other nations, particularly Europe.
Mr Jonathan M Hill
to arm bears or whatever. I'm happy with my chainsaw...
:O)
As for American gun laws... it just goes to show how stupid
people can be and how detrimental it can be to have a written
constitution. Especially since the constitution in question
was primarily written to satisfy the gripes Americans had with
the British at the time and has nothing whatsoever to do with
the modern world of homeowners shooting someone purely because
they are knocking on the door at an unusual hour. And none of
this has ANYTHING to do with Doom, which, and I'm sorry to have
to break it to you, is JUST A GAME.... Santa Claus does not
exist either. Sorry, but there it is.
Jon
Russ Kepler
>with requiring proof of ID? What's wrong with having to have a licence to own
>a gun? How does that impair your precious "rights"? You could still own one,
>couldn't you, if you were really intent on it?
It's all a matter of trusting or not trusting your government. After
the Teapot Dome scandal, Prohibition, WWII and German/Japanese
trading, Nuclear testing, Johnson and his "Great Society", Nixon and
his "Vietnam", Reagan and his "Drug War" and not Clinton and his war
on the Bill of Rights I don't trust the government. Maybe you trust
yours, maybe you even have reason to do so. I've got no reason to
trust mine, and some very good reasons not to do so. When I see
members of the government deliberately lying I get more than a little
nervous... and on this issue I've seen a lot of it.
Let's get back to doom playing.
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In article <1994May4.2...@math.enmu.edu> rein...@enmu.edu (John Reinhold) writes:
>>Ian CR Mapleson (mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
>>> US homicide rate p.a.: 30000 (Washington alone: 400).
>
> crime rate is among the lowest in the country.
Arizona also has one of the lowest population densities in the country, whilst
DC has one of the highest. Perhaps this has something to do with it too?
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain...
================================================================================
<Solomon White>
out of the woodwork (grin), I have started on makeing a patch to
run doom with a female pic in the status bar. (This may
not be completed very soon, due to finals next week, etc...)
Solomon
<Solomon White>
walk
> through the center of town here at night without fear of getting blown
away.
> Can you? Thanks to the kind of sentiments as espoused by your sig, I fear
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the UK will eventually become just as gun-infested as America."
Yep, I can.
Solomon
Piers Cawley
In article <Cp8v...@world.std.com>, azog <az...@world.std.com> wrote:
>mitc...@aol14.wff.nasa.gov (Richard Mitchell 1026) writes:
>
>>Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
>>out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>
>I like Doom (I dream in Doom, I play too much :-) And I am a
>pretty non-violent guy. I am against guns, but like my religion,
>I dont force that it other peoples faces. I dont like guns, but
>that doesnt mean I have to force my opinions on others.
[snip]
What I read was the right to bear arms which was build into this nation as a
means for its citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. It is the right
to protect your family, your property, and yourself from abuse from other
people and your government.
Um.. does that include the right to shoot some poor innocent (albeity
slightly drunken) Scotsman who comes knocking on your back door
without even trying to find out what he wanted?
--
--Piers Cawley <pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk>
John Major's vision of Britain -- the sound of a cricket bat hitting old ladies
as they cycle home after dark.
--- Terry Pratchett
John Reinhold
> In article <CpBBL...@slammer.atl.ga.us>, br...@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) writes:
> > In article <1994May4.2...@math.enmu.edu> rein...@enmu.edu (John Reinhold) writes:
> >>Ian CR Mapleson (mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
> >>> US homicide rate p.a.: 30000 (Washington alone: 400).
> >
> > In Arizona, where it is legal to openly carry guns almost anywhere, the
> > crime rate is among the lowest in the country.
> Arizona also has one of the lowest population densities in the country, whilst
> DC has one of the highest. Perhaps this has something to do with it too?
Ever heard of per-capita? It was already adjusted for population. AND
Arizona is home to some fairly large cities. The city of Phoenix alone
has more people than my home state, New Mexico. BUT both states are
approx. the same size. Albuquerque alone has more people that the state
of Wyoming. etc.. etc..
--
--------------------------<>---------------------------
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a
civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets
will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world
will follow our lead in the future."
---Adolph Hitler
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed."
---Second Ammendment to the Constitution
of the United States of America.
David Sawford
shot. If gun control means there are less guns, then less people will be
killed.
<Asbestos underpants on>
Naich.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
-=| <<<<(((( THE SHED BBS ))))>>>> | Dave Sawford |=-
-=| Graphics * Sound * Demos * Games | Tel. 0223 337349 |=-
-=| 1200-14400 * 300Megs On-line! | Fax. 0223 354599 |=-
-=| 0223 563468 open 6pm - 8am UK | E-Mail d...@ras.phy.cam.ac.uk |=-
------------------------------------------------------------------
Finger d...@cads.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk for PGP Key
flet...@moho.uwyo.edu
chri...@duck.Kvac.UU.SE> write:
This conclusion is errorenous, what gun control causes is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>drain of the number of guns on the ILLEGAL market, thus minimizing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the number of guns available to criminals which will eventually
This doesn't hold up. Drugs are outlawed and enforcement of drug
laws is pursued with every bit as much zeal as gun-control laws
would be if not more. In my 40 years, I've only observed the drug-law
enforcement problem get worse. Now I expect to see people with a
dope-dealer type of disposition make a move into the illegal
arms market to satisfy a demand that isn't going to go away. It will
supply a basically criminal market with criminalized weapons. After
all, UZIs are manufactured legally as are many other assault weapons in
large plants of which the locations are well known. Drugs are typically
produced in labs in secret locations. An illegal-automatic-arms-dealer
has suppliers (many of them not located in the U.S.) that are in and of
themselves legitimate. How will gun-control work any better than
drug-control?
Reid
Casey Barton
>[...]
>Here's a quote from the original gun registration lobbyist:
Whoops! Brad loses the argument by default, under Usenet rule #132: the
Hitler exception.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Casey Barton (a guy) cba...@clark.dgim.doc.ca |
| http://pctcp132.dgcp.doc.ca/personal/index.html |
mike wright
>In article <1994May4.2...@math.enmu.edu>, you write:
>
>|> Gun control, after >200 years with none, will not work.
>
>This conclusion is errorenous, what gun control causes is a
>drain of the number of guns on the ILLEGAL market, thus minimizing
>the number of guns available to criminals which will eventually
>lower the abusrd rate of murders/shooting accidents caused by
>criminals in combination with guns.
Nonsense. Gun control only reduces the number of LEGALLY owned guns, since
only honest folk will comply with the law. Criminals will, as always, get
their guns illegally since criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.
Since guns are an important tool for the criminal, he will go to great
lengths to get them. Even if guns are banned, the criminals will get them
smuggled in, if necessary, disguised as cocaine.
If gun bans work, why is Washington D.C., which banned guns in 1976, the
murder capitol of the US? The pat answer is that the crooks get their guns
from neighboring states. If this is true, then why do these same neighboring
states not exhibit a similar rise in gun crimes?
The number (both absolute and per capita) of accidental gun deaths has
been dropping steadily in the US since 1930.
The idea that guns cause crime is as ridiculous as saying that gasoline
causes arson.
Gun bans have never reduced crime anywhere they have been enacted. They have,
however, disarmed the honest citizen, making him more vulnerable to the
lawless thug.
-----------------------+ My opinions, not my employer's.
Mike Wright |---------------------------------------------------
wri...@lds.loral.com | "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to
-----------------------+ prevent the people of the United States who are
The 2nd Amendment: | peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
void where prohibited. | -- Alexander Hamilton
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Travis Eric Lyne
>mitc...@aol14.wff.nasa.gov (Richard Mitchell 1026) writes:
>> Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
>> out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>> ...I assume that we all have rather healthy views toward
>> weaponry as John does... :-)
>Think again. I'm all for gun control. If you want to debate that, however,
>this is not the group to do it. There is a -big- difference between playing
>a game and having good legislation. In other words, lets keep the use of
>firearms in Doom. I play wargames too, but it doesn't make me into a hawk.
>Same with Doom.
I guess I am somewhat anti-gun.
The chainsaw is MUCH better.
Up close and personal, you get the detailed gore and see your
victims eyes roll as it dies...much more satisfying....:)
Have fun,
-Travis
Brad Isley
>Brad Isley (br...@slammer.atl.ga.us) gave us a rather excessive number of
>quotes. I wonder if he just piped a fortune cookie program into his mailer?
Nope. Didn't/
>You can quote as many famous and reputable people as you like on freedom to
>buy guns being important, and as many disreputable people as you like on the
>importance of arms control. This does not make a lack of gun control right.
I never sad gun control of any type was bad.
People who ignore history are doomed to relive it. It's that simple.
Hitler had the sense to realize that a disarmed populace would be much easier
to control. The Brits knew that a long time ago. The Socialists in the US
who are calling themselves the Democratic Party are figuring it out.
John Reinhold
United States Citezens what is good for them?
I live here, you don't. I believe in our way of life,
You don't. I don't care what you think is better for me.
I do not tell the UK how to run their government, I would
request the same from you.
IF you are from the U.S. and you would like to discuss
the Gun Issue in the U.S. (either side, pro or con)
than fine. E-mail me if you want to keep it off of
this group.
Otherwise, it makes you look stupid to do this:
"Gee, the 1979 Camaro has a known problem in the transmission."
-American
"Oh yeah? The Triumph has no problems with it's transmission"
-British (how do you say person from Britan?)
The two have no _relevent_ connection. If I had wanted to
worry about the Triumph, I would have bought one.
bra...@netcom.com
>In article <1994May4.2...@math.enmu.edu>, you write:
>
>|> Gun control, after >200 years with none, will not work.
>
>This conclusion is errorenous, what gun control causes is a
>drain of the number of guns on the ILLEGAL market, thus minimizing
>the number of guns available to criminals which will eventually
>lower the abusrd rate of murders/shooting accidents caused by
>criminals in combination with guns.
>
Right. Just like cocaine, right? Just like alcohol during prohibition,
right? Last time I checked, we still had quite a healthy black market
in illegal drugs.
This is simply the laws of supply and demand at work. If there's a demand,
there will _always_ be a supply. Guns don't cause crime, people do.
Why don't we address the REAL causes of crime?
>|> IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
>
>And by the same line of absudizing the discussion - outlaw money
>and nobody will be poor.
If you think about it long enough, I'm sure you'll see the error
in your logic.
--
bra...@netcom.com | "Electricity is made up of very small particles called
Portland, OR | electrons, which you cannot see unless you have been
| drinking."
--- This message printed with 100% recycled electrons ---
Brad Isley
>
>Surely the best way of opposing a goverment you don't like is staying alive to
>be able to do it. With the widespread availability of guns in the US, all a
>hypothetical secret policeman has to do to justify killing you rather than
>taking you away for your day in court, is to say 'He pulled a gun, so I killed
>him'. Nobody will even think that this was strange.
And it happens.
>A defence against an untrustworthy givernment is a free press, an idependent
>impartial judiciary and an educated populace, not the right to have weapons
>and use deadly force against people you don't agree with.
You left out one important point. A free press also needs to have either
no agenda, or a trustworthy one. Our press is 99% Socialist. Funny how
the Soviets are tossing Socialism aside while the USA is embracing it.
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>
> It's all a matter of trusting or not trusting your government. After
> the Teapot Dome scandal, Prohibition, WWII and German/Japanese
> trading, Nuclear testing, Johnson and his "Great Society", Nixon and
> his "Vietnam", Reagan and his "Drug War" and not Clinton and his war
> on the Bill of Rights I don't trust the government. Maybe you trust
> yours, maybe you even have reason to do so. I've got no reason to
> trust mine, and some very good reasons not to do so. When I see
> members of the government deliberately lying I get more than a little
> nervous... and on this issue I've seen a lot of it.
Surely the best way of opposing a goverment you don't like is staying alive to
be able to do it. With the widespread availability of guns in the US, all a
hypothetical secret policeman has to do to justify killing you rather than
taking you away for your day in court, is to say 'He pulled a gun, so I killed
him'. Nobody will even think that this was strange.
A defence against an untrustworthy givernment is a free press, an idependent
impartial judiciary and an educated populace, not the right to have weapons
and use deadly force against people you don't agree with.
When the constitution was written the US was a very different place. Like any
similar document it needs occasional updating. The upkeep of a militia was
necessary for a society with low population density, which was primarily rural,
had no police forces and which faced the prospect of invasion at any time. The
US is not like this now, and its time to replace measures devised for that
society that are no longer valid.
Dave
Alan Hart
: Would people from other countries please stop telling
: United States Citezens what is good for them?
Look, this thread started by asking for opinions. That is what the poster
got. If you don't like, it, press 'K'.
: I live here, you don't. I believe in our way of life,
: You don't. I don't care what you think is better for me.
: I do not tell the UK how to run their government, I would
: request the same from you.
1. Usenet is international. Everyone is entitled to post. This is not the
USA, this is the world.
2. The discussion was about the relative benefits or otherwise of being able
to carry guns. The only concrete way we can talk about it is in the
context of 'this country has guns and look what happens, compare it to
this country which doesn't'.
3. The purpose of argument is to determine a conclusion by exchanging
information. You do not tell the people you disagree with to go away.
4. I am not telling you how to run your country, we are discussing how a
country should be run with some concrete examples. In any case, your
nation's culture is permeating that of every other nation through the
media, so it is of considerable interest to everyone.
: Otherwise, it makes you look stupid to do this:
: "Gee, the 1979 Camaro has a known problem in the transmission."
: "Oh yeah? The Triumph has no problems with it's transmission"
: The two have no _relevent_ connection. If I had wanted to
: worry about the Triumph, I would have bought one.
I would have said it was more like:
American:
"Gee, my automatic transmission car is really troublesome. Do you think I
should get a manual next time?"
European:
"That's interesting. I drove an automatic a few years ago, and it was OK, but
I had heard they were problematic. I've driven a range of manuals and I've
never had any problems with them, maybe you should try one."
There is no point in replacing the original argument with a stupid one that
is supposed to be the same, and then saying "So you see, your argument is
stupid.". That is what you do when you make your Camaro-Triumph example
above. It makes _you_ look stupid to trivialise the argument so.
mcki...@cobra.uni.edu
> Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
> out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>
> ...I assume that we all have rather healthy views toward
> weaponry as John does... :-)
Think again. I'm all for gun control. If you want to debate that, however,
this is not the group to do it. There is a -big- difference between playing
a game and having good legislation. In other words, lets keep the use of
firearms in Doom. I play wargames too, but it doesn't make me into a hawk.
Same with Doom.
-Brent McKibbin-
-mck...@cobra.uni.edu-
mcki...@cobra.uni.edu
[a big debate on gun control deleted]
Ummm... can we take this to talk.politics.guns please? I just want to
play Doom, talk to other Doom players about Doom, and get the latest
news about Doom. If I wanted to argue gun control, I'd do it in the
appropriate forum, which I believe, is talk.politics.guns.
-Brent McKibbin-
-mck...@cobra.uni.edu-
Eddie Edwards
: A defence against an untrustworthy givernment is a free press, an idependent
: impartial judiciary and an educated populace, not the right to have weapons
: and use deadly force against people you don't agree with.
I agree entirely. There are plenty of people in this world who are willing to
get into fights over nothing. When it happens here, no-one is going to get
killed.
And, since this is the Internet, we have *every* right to tell you how to run
your country, just as you have every right to disagree and say "Yeah, I'm
happy with the state of the US nation". You can even say it with a straight
face if you like :-)
--
Eddie xxx
================================================================================
"In our song we have our banner : This .sig is brought to you with the help
And the colours always shine." : of the letters D and C and the number 69.
- The Green Inspiration Band :==============================================
=================================: e...@datcon.co.uk - Eddie Edwards
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> : Which brings up the next question, are there any doomers
> : out there who are also on the anti-gun bandwagon?
>
> this game. But, when you have something this good.....
Heh, me too. I mean, assault guns and such are fine when you have three
zillion Impies chucking fireballs at you, but does that really happen to you in
reality? ;>
Keith N.l.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
"BFG 9000? Brain Frying Ginzu?"
P.S. If by any chance you answered yes to the last question, please for your
own sake, turn yourself in!
Stile
: Jim Pitts (pi...@mimosa.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:
: : Sad, but if things continue the way they go you won't have the right to
: : own a gun ... choice will have nothing to do with it.
: [snip]
: It's all very well banging your constitutional drum and saying you've got the
: right to carry a gun, but just because it's legal, that doesn't make it
: right. It just leads to an escalation until everyone has a gun.
I don't care about other people owning guns. *I* want to own a gun.
: What's wrong with forcing a delay before guns are handed over? What's wrong
: with requiring proof of ID? What's wrong with having to have a licence to own
: a gun? How does that impair your precious "rights"? You could still own one,
: couldn't you, if you were really intent on it?
[oversized sig deleted]
There's nothing wrong (to me) with a waiting period during gun purchases,
proof of ID, etc. A gun license would be fine, as would regitering a gun,
except for one thing:
When you register a gun, then there's a record of you owning a
gun, which is the whole point of registering it. Ok, but then, when the
government (ie people voting) decides to take away your gun, guess what?
The know just who you are and where you are. On the same vein, What if
the government decides to let you keep your gun, as long as you
re-register it every year (like a car). For, say $500.00 or more in
registration fees. They could make it *real* expensive (therefore
difficult) to legally own a gun.
Who decided that semi-automatic weapons were assault weapons? I don't
care if the "AR" in AR-15 stands for assault rifle, that doesn't make it
so. To me, an assault weapon is a SELECT FIRE weapon capable of being
selected to, yes, SEMI automatic, *as well as* FULLY automatic, and in
newer weapons, THREE ROUND BURST. Now, a wepon meeting that specification
to me is an assault weapon. A semi-auto rifle does not meet that
specification.
Let me ask you this: How would you feel about a SINGLE SHOT bolt
action rifle, say .308 (7.62x57mm) in caliber, with a really nice varmint
scope on it. (Varmint scopes to my knowledge have certain characteristics
different from regular scopes). Anyway, as I said, it's a single shot
bolt-action rifle. Is it a hunting rifle? It sounds like one, right? And
yead, you could probably hunt with it. But what I just described to you
could be called a SNIPER RIFLE. Sniper rifles are meant to kill someone,
period.
Did you know that the US military uses .223 (5.56mm) caliber for
the most deisred (actually more desirable than killing) purpose of
WOUNDING AN ENEMY? The idea is that if you kill an enemy soldier, you've
removed him from the field. If you wound an enemy soldier, you remove him
and at least one other guy to help him.
Anyhow, to sum all this up, I agree with those of you who've said that
the idea behind the 2nd amendmant to the US constitution is to provide
the nation's citizens with the means to overthrow the government.
Although I don't wish to overthrow the government at this time, it's nice
to know that the citizens are supposed to have that right protected by
the right to keep and bear arms. Or at least, we *used* to. I think I'll
go buy a hunting rifle....
<Solomon White>
writes:
{stuff deleted}
> 2. The discussion was about the relative benefits or otherwise of being
able
> to carry guns. The only concrete way we can talk about it is in the
> context of 'this country has guns and look what happens, compare it to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> this country which doesn't'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
{more stuff deleted}
> is supposed to be the same, and then saying "So you see, your argument is
> stupid.". That is what you do when you make your Camaro-Triumph example
> above. It makes _you_ look stupid to trivialise the argument so.
>
> Alan
And, sir, it makes *you* look stupid when you ignore the arguments stating
"these states in the US have gun-control laws, these do not, look at the
difference between them.
Just a thought,
Solomon
<Solomon White>
> Let's face it. If there are more guns around, more people are going to be
> shot. If gun control means there are less guns, then less people will be
> killed.
>
> <Asbestos underpants on>
>
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the BIG if! Obviously, gun control does
not mean the removal or lessening of availability of guns for criminals.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again--look at the US system of
"drug control", and its' effectiveness. Look at prohibition and how it
took all the evil alcohol away. Then look again at gun control and what
actually happens.
Solomon
Will Coppola
>In Arizona, where it is legal to openly carry guns almost anywhere, the
>crime rate is among the lowest in the country.
Spot the gaping flaw! Perhaps we should all move to Arizona.
At what level are you prepared to not counter-escalate? Would you perhaps not
be happier when we all have our own H-bomb.
I would suggest a little historical and economic study to discover how to live
peacefully, and perhaps use Ghandi rather than Scwartzeneger as a role model
Keep guns off the streets, and in doom instead
____________________________________________________________________
Will Coppola __O
Department of Public Health _ \<,_
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine (_)/ (_)
Tel 071-794-0500 X4753 Fax 071-794-1224 --- --- --- ---
____________________________________________________________________
Piers Cawley
they are knocking on the door at an unusual hour. And none of
this has ANYTHING to do with Doom, which, and I'm sorry to have
to break it to you, is JUST A GAME.... Santa Claus does not
exist either. Sorry, but there it is.
Now there's an idea for a WAD! You are Scrooge before the unfortunate
incident with the ghosts. Wander round the North Pole taking out Elves
and Reindeer and the like. Even more fun, they're only armed with toy
weapons :) Santa Claus *is* the CyberDemon, Rudolf *is* the Spider
jobby. Coming soon to the computer screen of a curmudgeon near you.
Santa is DOOMed: For whom the bell jingles.
Piers Cawley
{stuff deleted}
{more stuff deleted}
Why is it that once people start calling each other sir you know that
the argument has gone out beyond the bounds of mere reason and is
about to degenerate into namecalling?
What makes you think that he's ignoring this argument? All he was
doing was explaining why he felt justified in adding his two pence
worth to the argument. Now, admittedly his reasoning as to why it's
justified may be a little flawed because he didn't take into account
the fact that some States have more gun control than others, but,
since that particular line of argument doesn't seem to have cropped up
in this discussion until now that isn't really all that surprising is
it?
D.J.S. Damerell
>
>I live here, you don't. I believe in our way of life,
>You don't. I don't care what you think is better for me.
>I do not tell the UK how to run their government, I would
>request the same from you.
>
>IF you are from the U.S. and you would like to discuss
>the Gun Issue in the U.S. (either side, pro or con)
>than fine. E-mail me if you want to keep it off of
>this group.
>
>Otherwise, it makes you look stupid to do this:
>
>"Gee, the 1979 Camaro has a known problem in the transmission."
>-American
>"Oh yeah? The Triumph has no problems with it's transmission"
>-British (how do you say person from Britan?)
>
>The two have no _relevent_ connection. If I had wanted to
>worry about the Triumph, I would have bought one.
Sheesh. Maybe the Camaro transmission should be built the way the Triumph
transmission is... Maybe US gun laws should be like UK gun laws...
3im8ha...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>I realise that the people quoted were mostly highly respected historical
>figures, but I wonder what their opinions were on sexual equality, rights for
>homosexuals, prostitution, religious tolerance, racial equality, capital
>punishment, and so on. I think you'd find that today, some of their views
>would be pretty repugnant. Just because it seemed right once doesn't mean
>that it's still appropriate today. In George Washington's day you didn't get
>schoolkids taking loaded guns to school and shooting other kids so they can
>have their sneakers.
>
If you're going to bring in the subject of Europe (where I will agree, there is
a far lesser incidence of violent and armed crime) do we not need to compare
the two societies as a whole. Comparing just one aspect of Europe to America
is a little narrow. Europe did not suffer the growing pains that America did,
and consequently had a different approach to dealing with modernization.
America has always desired freedom ("land of the free...") and will hopefully
never lose it's Yankee doodle-dandy spirit.
What we need to do is to take a look at foreign countries and see what
they are doing right. We then need to see if that is something America
ideologically agrees with. (look at the issue of Singapore and Michael Fay.
Singapore has a VERY low crime rate. But then they also beat the living snot
out of any offender.... (( Personally, if he did commit the crimes then the
punishment was just. If he was coerced by the Singapore police, well, we get
to come up with all sorts of unsavory inneundos )) do we wish to become like
Singapore??)
America has got a long way to go. Gun control MAY be a step that leads
in the right direction. Then again, maybe not. Personally, I enjoy shredding
the snot out of the creatures of Doom. I also enjoy target archery. I'm not
going to go out and kill someone with my bow. (And yes it is a practical means
of killing someone. Flame me personally and I'll explain =) )
----------
Strong words often indicate a weak argument!!!
Glen Hattrup
3im8ha...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>In article <2qd8hb$q...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> d...@ras.phy.cam.ac.uk (David
>Sawford) writes:
>> Let's face it. If there are more guns around, more people are going to be
>> shot. If gun control means there are less guns, then less people will be
>
>This, ladies and gentlemen, is the BIG if! Obviously, gun control does
>not mean the removal or lessening of availability of guns for criminals.
>It's been said before, but I'll say it again--look at the US system of
>"drug control", and its' effectiveness. Look at prohibition and how it
>took all the evil alcohol away. Then look again at gun control and what
>actually happens.
>
>Solomon
Well, no sh*t it's a big if. I don't mean to be crass but it is a big
if and a lot of people are scared about the future either way. I'll be the
first to admit that there are parts of cities that I wouldn't want to walk
through at night.
This whole debate (at least on the American side, I don't know how the
Brit's tie in... =) ) was started by fear. One group of people was afraid to
walk into a part of the city without having some heavy firepower. Another
group was afraid of the same part of town and wanted to take the guns away from
the people in that nasty little part of town... Then the NRA came in and
wanted to still be able to hunt squirels with assault rifles (kinda like doom
players in my opinion). The prissy stuck-a-thumb-up-somewhere club got
involved and started counter-lobbying. Then we got some wacked out postal
workers (no offense to the sane ones, I truly appreciate the hard work you do!)
who decided to show what could REALLY be done with some serious firepower.
What the whole issue needs is large scale support for one side or the
other and a some time. Prohibition was never supported in reality. Otherwise
why were there all the speak-easies? (sp? sorry..) Drug use is actually
beginning to decline (although I'm on a college campus and sometimes wonder....
=) ). Time would be nice but America is also tied up in an instant
gratification "thang"...
Speaking of gun control specifically though, what do you mean by "gun
control"? Do you mean controlling LAWs and Stingers? Do you mean controlling
are objects capable of propelling an object are relatively high velocities?
Are we talking pistols, rifles, rubber-band guns or what? Although I am being
slightly fescious, I am also serious; what are we specifically talking about?
--------
Strong words often indicate a weak argument.
The empty can rattles the most -Metallica
Glen
Michel Moreaux
This debate is by no way related to this newsgroup => clear off ...
--
----------------------
Michel Moreaux, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
phone: ++ (21) 693.46.72 Laboratoire d'Informatique Technique
e-mail: mor...@litsun.epfl.ch IN-Ecublens, CH-1015 Lausanne
P.J. Rounce
Have you ever met any real women? You certainly haven't met me. - Fay
---------------------------
On behalf of a friend - PJR
---------------------------
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
This does actually all beg the question of just how criminals obtain their
guns. What information is there out there? Are they smuggled into the country
hidden in packing cases with coffee to cover up the smell? Are there illegal
ballistics labs manufacturing the things from sheet metal? I think not, and if
this is so, then the comparisson with illegal drugs and alcohol during
prohibition isn't as valid as you're making out. In addition, you don't tend to
use up a gun as quickly as you would a shot of heroin, nor are they addictive
(though the evidence from the US might contradict this), so the market will be
much smaller.
So the question remains: how do criminals obtain guns, and how would this be
affected by tightening controls on legal access to firearms?
Douglas Young
-=> Quoting Rein...@enmu.edu to All <=-
Re> exactly. I do not tell you how to run your country, we do not
Re> ask for help with ours. Last time I looked, our country
Re> rebelled and broke free from your government because we did
Re> not like the way things were run. If we had wanted your gun
Re> laws, we would still be a british colony. (many other places
Re> would also).
Yeah, those British pansies are just pissed 'cause we kicked their
ass in our Revolutionary War and we had to save their ass in WWII.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Douglas Young
-=> Quoting Am...@cus.cam.ac.uk to All <=-
Am> I suggest you compare the US to other nations, particularly
Am> Europe.
Come on man, there wouldn't be a Europe if it weren't for the USA.
It would all be Germany and some heir to Hitler may well be sitting
in Buckingham Palace right now!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
bra...@netcom.com
>In article <1994May6.1...@math.enmu.edu>, <Solomon White> whit...@math.ENMU.EDU writes:
>> In article <2qd8hb$q...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> d...@ras.phy.cam.ac.uk (David
>> Sawford) writes:
>>> Let's face it. If there are more guns around, more people are going to be
>>> shot. If gun control means there are less guns, then less people will be
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> killed.
>>>
>>> <Asbestos underpants on>
>>>
>>
>>
>> This, ladies and gentlemen, is the BIG if! Obviously, gun control does
>> not mean the removal or lessening of availability of guns for criminals.
>> It's been said before, but I'll say it again--look at the US system of
>> "drug control", and its' effectiveness. Look at prohibition and how it
>> took all the evil alcohol away. Then look again at gun control and what
>> actually happens.
>
>This does actually all beg the question of just how criminals obtain their
>guns. What information is there out there? Are they smuggled into the country
>hidden in packing cases with coffee to cover up the smell? Are there illegal
>ballistics labs manufacturing the things from sheet metal? I think not, and if
>this is so, then the comparisson with illegal drugs and alcohol during
>prohibition isn't as valid as you're making out. In addition, you don't tend to
>use up a gun as quickly as you would a shot of heroin, nor are they addictive
>(though the evidence from the US might contradict this), so the market will be
>much smaller.
>
[Once again, followups directed to talk.politics.guns. Please take it there,
this has long since ceased to have anything to do with DOOM whatsoever.]
I beleive that criminals obtain firearms in a number of ways:
* Theft
* "Black market" purchase of illegally imported/stolen firearms.
* Legal purchase prior to existance of criminal record.
I'll address these points one at a time:
Theft: My opinion is that unless firearms are banned completely, they
will certainly continue to fall into the hands of criminals in this way.
Further, I don't beleive that this is justification for an outright ban.
Black Market: Interdiction would be just as ineffective as drug interdiction
has been in the U.S.: A complete waste of taxpayer money and law enforcement
assets.
Legal purchase: Gun control would certainly prevent potential perps
from legally purchasing firearms, at the cost of preventing EVERYONE from
doing so. IMO, a price that is too high to pay.
What we REALLY should be looking at here is the cause of CRIME. Here's a
clue: it ain't guns.
Chris Owen
Is this a troll? It's got to be a troll. Nobody's stupid enough to _believe_
that, surely?
--
/ Chris Owen, Trinity College, Oxford | tr9...@black.ox.ac.uk \
|---------------------------------------------------------------
| Canter and Siegel's criminal Armenian grandparents have |
\ committed net.genocide on 2.5 million Green Cards... /
pet...@meena.cc.uregina.ca
I tried to let this one go, really I did. "Save their ass" - you guys didn't
even pick sides 'till you figured out who was going to win! How much oil did
you folks ship Hitler's way, anyhow?
Brook
Eddie Edwards
: Yeah, those British pansies are just pissed 'cause we kicked their
: ass in our Revolutionary War and we had to save their ass in WWII.
Do you really think that we didn't *let* you win the war of independence?
djs...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
>
>Come on man, there wouldn't be a Europe if it weren't for the USA.
>It would all be Germany and some heir to Hitler may well be sitting
>in Buckingham Palace right now!
>___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
There certainly wouldn't be a Europe if we'd waited as long as you did
before joining in WWII. Remember, the USA only started to fight when they
were attacked...
David Damerell, Gorn Confederation Academy. djs...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
Real Life: Trinity College, Cambridge. |These opinions are mine alone.
Green Card flames to cs...@lcanter.win.net | Who else would want them?
Books: Niven, Eddings | RPGs: AD&D, Cthulhu | Computer games: Elitist
TV: Any Star Trek | WARG: Star Fleet Battles | Music: Queen & classical
Paul Stout
: In article <b7.8696.15...@swcbbs.com> dougla...@swcbbs.com (Douglas Young) writes:
: >
: >Come on man, there wouldn't be a Europe if it weren't for the USA.
: >It would all be Germany and some heir to Hitler may well be sitting
: >in Buckingham Palace right now!
: There certainly wouldn't be a Europe if we'd waited as long as you did
: before joining in WWII. Remember, the USA only started to fight when they
: were attacked...
I think it fair to say, judging by the content of that paragraph from
Douglas and one or two of the other somewhat myopic posts, that some people
need a refresher course on the history of WWII in Europe.
It would have been one hell of a lot more correct to say if it wasn't for
the Russians (who bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe), instead of the
Americans.
But the viewpoint expressed was understandable in light of the fact that
U.S. (and probably Canadian and English as well) history books used in our
school systems tend to downplay the effect, combat and otherwise, of Russia
in WWII.
Having said that......
What in the heck has this to do with Doom?
King Tutankhamun
: Re> laws, we would still be a british colony. (many other places
Actually, in the mid 18th century, the British government
required all able-bodied men in the colonies to own a gun.
In fact, they sold us most of the guns with which we used
aginst them during the Revolutionary War.
Jim Pitts
18 must own a rifle in case a militia must be formed.
Obviously it is not enforced ... :)
In article <1994May10....@tyrell.net>,
--
- pi...@mimosa.astro.indiana.edu ^ | James J. Pitts -
- Most people are sheep. /@\ | IU Physics Dept -
- Only a select few are fit to rule. / \ | Voice: 812-855-8247 -
- We are The Bavarian Illuminati. /_____\ | FAX : 812-855-5533 -
3im8ha...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Why is it that once people start calling each other sir you know that
>the argument has gone out beyond the bounds of mere reason and is
>about to degenerate into namecalling?
Sorry to everyone for not adding fuel to the fire. But our friend here
has a great point. Isn't this supposed to be a collection of intellectuals?
Okay, I don't qualify, but aren't we trying to discuss something civilly?
Let's leave out the name calling and get to the good flaming: shooting down
other's ideas!!!
Now let's all be good boys and girls andbjects and stick to arguing
about ideologies, not neurologies! (Hey, I couldn't come up with anything
better that rhymed. It's finals week and everyone has my sincerest apologies
whomever may have been offended. Take out your aggression and kill some Imps.
Get one for me too, I don't ha enough time to play lately.)
Glen
mike wright
>In article <b7.8696.15...@swcbbs.com> dougla...@swcbbs.com (Douglas Young) writes:
>>
>>Come on man, there wouldn't be a Europe if it weren't for the USA.
>>It would all be Germany and some heir to Hitler may well be sitting
>>in Buckingham Palace right now!
>>___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
>
>There certainly wouldn't be a Europe if we'd waited as long as you did
>before joining in WWII. Remember, the USA only started to fight when they
>were attacked...
You guys had years to squash Hitler before he got too strong. His intentions
were clear. But your clown Chamberlain decided that the way to stop a
greedy dictator was to give him everything he wants. When this failed, the
US had to fix your screw-up. Again. You ungrateful jerk, if it wasn't for
the US, your roadsigns would all be in German and you would be spending
Reichmarks, not Pounds. So we didn't fight until we were attacked. Maybe
the mothers and fathers of US soldiers weren't anxious to send their sons
off to die for someone else's mistakes like they did in WWI.
-----------------------+ My opinions, not my employer's.
Mike Wright |---------------------------------------------------
wri...@lds.loral.com | "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to
-----------------------+ prevent the people of the United States who are
The 2nd Amendment: | peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
void where prohibited. | -- Alexander Hamilton
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
P F Mahoney
|> In article <djsd100.44...@hermes.cam.ac.uk>, djs...@hermes.cam.ac.uk writes:
|> >In article <b7.8696.15...@swcbbs.com> dougla...@swcbbs.com (Douglas Young) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Come on man, there wouldn't be a Europe if it weren't for the USA.
|> >>It would all be Germany and some heir to Hitler may well be sitting
|> >>in Buckingham Palace right now!
|> >>___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
|> >
|> >There certainly wouldn't be a Europe if we'd waited as long as you did
|> >before joining in WWII. Remember, the USA only started to fight when they
|> >were attacked...
|>
|> You guys had years to squash Hitler before he got too strong. His intentions
|> were clear. But your clown Chamberlain decided that the way to stop a
|> greedy dictator was to give him everything he wants. When this failed, the
|> US had to fix your screw-up. Again. You ungrateful jerk, if it wasn't for
|> the US, your roadsigns would all be in German and you would be spending
|> Reichmarks, not Pounds. So we didn't fight until we were attacked. Maybe
|> the mothers and fathers of US soldiers weren't anxious to send their sons
|> off to die for someone else's mistakes like they did in WWI.
This has got to be one of the silliest discussions, I've read in a long time
(both UK and US). You don't just "squash" countries like you go and trounce
a bully in the schoolyard! Besides the US and the UK were both absolutely
sick of war (WWI caused that) and were trying to avoid it at all costs, so,
of course the UK "gave into" Hitler.
Meanwhile, of course, it wasn't like the US didn't have any interest in
stopping Germany (other than to save the British from German roadsigns).
I mean, Hitler declared war on the US, sank a few ships and was in
with the Japanese on the Pearl Harbour attack - what more excuse do you
need.
Anyway, simplifying things down to "we helped you out and you owe us"
doesn't work for things like world wars.
Finally, there must be a group like alt.history to take this conversation
to - what on earth does this have to do with Doom, anyway?
David Reeve Sward
any.. by P F Mah...@durham.ac.uk
> to - what on earth does this have to do with Doom, anyway?
Try soc.history.war.world-war-ii
--
David Sward swa...@cmu.edu