Newt G.'s stand on NPR
Mark Bauer
>
> <Question about NPR funding deleted>
> >
> > Other Mike's sarcastic remark about dumping NPR deleted
>
> I understand your's and other's points of view questioning the
> justification of what the Constitution had in mind for our individual needs.
> Things have changed just a tiny bit since 1789. I feel that NPR provides
> many other services to small communities besides playing Classical music.
> Why can't you and other address these issues without being such a smart-ass?
>
And things have changed a tiny bit since the rise of NPR/CPB etc.
I can get classical music through my cable TV hookup - with no
commercials. Do you REALLY think there is a big groundswell of
NPR support in small town America? The real listener is the average
urban/suburban type who can and should pay for the service. Payment
can be direct (or donation a la PBS), or tolerance of commercials.
John G. Otto
>> In article 8...@nntp.Stanford.EDU,
>> wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU (William B. Vogt) writes:
>>> In article <borsomD0...@netcom.com>,
>>> Douglas Borsom <bor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>>>> Slight? SLIGHT!? They make an art of being unobjective.
>>>> Do you call Daniel Shore objective?
No, I call him Daniel "whiney mush-mouth" Shore.
>>> Bad example.
Yep, I agree with you there. He's a bad example for every one.
>>> Shore's commentray is always labeled as such. It's the radio
>>> equivalent of the Op-Ed section of your newspaper, and NPR tries
>>> hard to make sure that listeners understand that. (Personally,
>>> I find Shore boring, long winded, and largely irrelevant.)
>> This is false. Shore is described as an analyst.
> Also, how many conservative counterparts to Shore do they have on
> as regularly as he? I can't think of any.
There's more to it than just to whom they provide a forum.
There's the way they have their little bits scheduled so that one
bolsters the next's flaming radical leftist propaganda punch.
They wait for that one extreme incident of illegitimate use of a
firearm (ignore all of the legitimate uses in the mean time) and
then scream bloody murder. They interview 2 researchers who have
come to differing conclusions regarding the merits of firearms
ownership (so they can claim to be balanced), then are obsequious
to the gun banner and belligerent to the one who discovered &
reported that, contrary to his own preconceptions, firearms are
much, MUCH, more likely to be used in legitimate defense (fired,
drawn, or neither), than to harm an innocent.
When an infamous radical leftist thug dies (e.g. Clod "the Red"
Pepper), they sing long eulogies in praise.
They rail against effective measures to reduce air pollution,
because they're not statist enough to please them.
Speaking of rail, they sing the praises of collectivist travel,
collectivist entertainment, collectivist & mystic writings &
emotionalism (i.e. the preeminence of feelings), and denigrate
individuality, independence, and reason.
They don't want children to learn; they want them to BE socialized.
They don't want to see justice; only (false) compassion.
So, of course they want the gov't to use force (taxation)
& fraud (paper funny money) to fund them.
But my real question is: How do they cultivate and maximize that
irritating combination whine & sneer in all of their voices?
Do they all get sent to E,N&T specialists to surgically alter
them? Is it something in the wine & croissants? Is it just
a trick of the electronics? And where DOES Very Gross get her
supply of pre-show ludes?
--
jgo ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
John G. Otto
> bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
>> In article <1994Dec16.1...@chemabs.uucp>,
>> rb...@cas.org (Brad Andrews) writes:
>>> In article i...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu,
>>> bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) writes:
>>>> "Liberal" media?
>>> They are very market-driven. They want those ratings.
>>> Except for NPR, the least of those reporters/producers/etc.
>>> have spent more time in a hyper-competitive market than
>>> Newt Gingrich/Bob Dole/Bill Bennett/just about any big-time
>>> Republican politician/pundit, except for Rush Limbaugh.
>>> "Liberal" media? The same people who have been giving Rush
>>> as much airtime as the market will justify.
>> Then why aren't there more shows with "conservative spins" on the
>> three major networks? Why is Rush's show only shown after midnight
>> most places?
>> Certainly they want money, but many, especially those in the news
>> area, see themselves as on a mission, which includes forming public
>> opinion.
>> They are also far more liberal than the general public when you
>> compare their core values with those of the country. Even if they
>> try not to, their core beliefs will effect their work.
>> Conservatives admit this, most liberals won't
>> The other problem is that many of those who claim an unbiased media
>> are so far left that they [think every]thing is to the right of them,
>> and inherently must be balanced even if quite liberal.
All of the above assertions are supported by the surveys of media
people. (See Lichter, Lichter & Rothman _Watching America_ & _The
Media Elite_; Ben Bagdikian presents a slightly more leftist case in
_The Media Monopoly_; just for the heck of it Douglas Davis _The 5
Myths of Television Power_ which merely states that, despite all of
the effort, their manipulations aren't all completely successful;
and Mark Gitenstein shows some of the conscious radical leftist
political & media manipulations in _Matters of Principle_)
> Since the market allocates resources with near-perfect efficiency
> (to quote another frequent contributor to this group), it must be
> because the market does not demand it.
Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the gov't
controlling who could get the broadcasting licenses for the last 60
odd years. (Did you catch that little bit of political sleight of
hand covered with a thin veneer of self-righteousness Teddy used to
get Murdoch off his case?)
--
jgo ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
Weed Eater (munch munch)
: In <1994Dec15...@wkuvx2.wku.edu> camp...@wkuvx1.wku.edu writes:
: >
: >In article <3cht60$s...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>, mh...@moe.coe.uga.edu (Mike
: Hall) writes:
: >> In article <3cb6gj$7...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Mike Powell
: <mi...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> <Question about NPR funding deleted>
: >>>
: >>> Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
: >>> classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
: >>> the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
: >>> Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
: >>> classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
: >>> forget it) ("BHR" for short).
: >>>
: >>> Yea... that's what government should be doing!
: >>>
: >>> -Mike-
: >>
: >> Gee, now I see it all so clearly. Thanks, Mike, for your biting
: >> wit and emmense understanding of all things in the smart-assed sense.
: >>
: >> Why don't you consider for a second that news and information in some
: >> communities of this country will not be served in a mostly unbiased
: way by
: >> any other form than NPR? Network news from Macon, Ga. or CNN is all
: that
: >> some folks in Georgia can get. You'd think that Newt himself would
: have
: >> understood that coming from his own background.
: >>
: >> I for one, would rather have a choice of many different mediums to
: obtain
: >> my news and information from. Not just commercial sources. And, I'd
: >> be willing to pay for these services, but that's not the real issue
: here.
: >> They're already funded, and without their Fed. funding, they would
: not
: >> be the useful information sources that they are today. (notice I
: didn't
: >> say they were perfect news sources)
: >>
: >> I understand your's and other's points of view questioning the
: >> justification of what the Constitution had in mind for our individual
: needs.
: >> Things have changed just a tiny bit since 1789. I feel that NPR
: provides
: >> many other services to small communities besides playing Classical
: music.
: >> Why can't you and other address these issues without being such a
: smart-ass?
: >
: >Well, then change the Constitution if it's that important to you.
: >Until that time, though, it is still unconstitutional.
: >
: >And as for services to rural areas, you still need to explain to me
: >why in the world you have ANY right to come and steal money from me to
: >provide a non-protective service for anyone. Nobody NEEDS NPR at all.
: >I mean, people DO need food, but the government should not be
: >providing everyone with food either.
: >
: >Troy Camplin
: >
: Troy,
: Ok, let's get rid of NPR, while we are at it, let's cut rural farm
: subsidies, tabbaco subsidies, and last but not least Sesseme Street
Deal! Let's do it. As a resident of NC< I would be glad to see
everything you list cut.
Andrew MacFarlane
sbi...@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) wrote:
> > Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
> > classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
> > the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
> > Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
> > classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
> > forget it) ("BHR" for short).
It is no less important than nonstop rap and metal on dozens of other
bands across the airwaves. Trouble is, there are rarely any commercial
alternatives (none in the metro area where I now live), so I couldn't hear
it with interruptions either.
> Actually, if all that's desired is interruption-free classical music,
> there's Cable Radio. You can get it most places where Cable TV is
> available, piggy-backed onto the CTV service.
That's dandy, except that incredibly enough not everyone gets Cable TV.
According to a pundit on C-Span this morning, 38% of US households don't
get cable. That't the beauty of radio, for Pete's sake, anyone with $5.00
for a transistor radio can listen.
Andrew MacFarlane
> NPR may only cost me a nickel a year, true. But if you look through the
> Federal Budget you will find thousands of items like NPR which only cost
> each of us a nickel (more or less) a year. Add them up and they become
> several hundreds of dollars (at least) I have to pay for all kinds of
> things I don't care about.
We call it citizenship.
ja...@austin.ibm.com
In article <sbieser-1112...@psbieser.deltanet.com>, sbi...@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) writes:
> In article <3cb6gj$7...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) wrote:
>
> > Andrew MacFarlane (macf...@servax.fiu.edu) wrote:
> > : In article <Karni06-0912941242210001@mac_rbk_3.chem.ucla.edu>,
> > : Kar...@aol.com (Karni06) wrote:
> >
> > : > > Somone want to explain to me what the hell is wrong with National
> > : > > Public Radio that makes Newt want to cancel its Federal Funding.
> > : >
> > : > Why does it need to be publically funded?
> >
> > : So there can be one station on the air that plays classical music, for one
> > : thing, and without commercial interruptions. It's a little variety in the
> > : airwaves, as horrible as that may sound, that might cost you, the
> > : non-contributing listener, maybe a nickel a year.
> >
> >
> > Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
> > classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
> > the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
> > Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
> > classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
> > forget it) ("BHR" for short).
> >
> >
> > -Mike-
>
> there's Cable Radio. You can get it most places where Cable TV is
> available, piggy-backed onto the CTV service.
>
Or still another Another private-enterprise solution might be a station
funded entirely via donations. As in Austin, 26 years and doing quite well.
And unlike all the NPR station I've heard, not affilited with a university.
Makes them very responsive to what their listeners want, and not what they
might be inclined to give their listeners. Course all of the above requires
folks to make a deliberate decision on how to spend their money. What a
radical concept.
Jack
Alan Bomberger
>Karni06 (Kar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <3cia5j$d...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>: de...@wrjva2.dhmc.dartmouth.edu (Derek Bruzewicz) wrote:
>: > Karni06 (Kar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: > I don't care whether
>: > you listen or not -- I just want my right to.
>: Oh, sure you can... just not on *my* dime.
>I can pay for myself. By removing government aid, however,
>you deny this service to many others.
Are you crazy? In no way is Newt proposing to stop left wing
fascists from continuing to support NPR so that all those
disadvantages little leftists can listen to it. If you want
to make sure NPR is available for the poor, then send in you
subscription money to your local public station. They set no
upper limit so you can pay the subscription for as many of the
poor as you like.
Just because something is a good idea does not mean that it
should be funded with tax dollars and thus controlled by the
congressional staff via "rules" and "regulations". I like
some public radio and send them money. Do you?
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
John Birge
> Heard on NPR this morning that Newt is pulling for a withdrawl of
>Federal funding for Public Radio.
> Somone want to explain to me what the hell is wrong with National
>not talking about welfare here, we're talking about one of the last non-
>commercial arenas left in the media. I almost have stopped watching PBS
>because of all the damn pledge requests. They used to do it once and
>a while, now it seems like every weekend or something.
>
> I have to admit a slight leaning towards the left on this one, but
>why in the world would an educated person want to do away with the badly
>needed Federal funding for NPR?
>
>Newt needs to pick on something else.
>
>Opinions?
Well I've got one.....
I listen to around 20 hours a week of NPR. I enjoy it but frankly
it is far out of the Federal Gov'ments purvue. Gut it, cut it, and
move on to the NEA.....
John
James G. Weston
: In article 787425438@access4, lhe...@access4.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
: ]
: ]Well, actually the biggest line item in the budget is debt repayment -
: ]28% of federal expenditures. And most of this debt was incurred under
: ]Reagan and Bush as taxes were cut and the defense budget ballooned. So,
: ]it seems to me that it would be fairer and wiser to make the recipents of
: ]all of this borrowed money pay off the debt, then we can cut taxes 28%
: ]_with no change in current programs_!
: LIBERAL LIE ALERT! LIBERAL LIE ALERT!
: The deficit didn't come about because of cutting taxes. Cutting tax rates
: actually raised more revenue. The deficit came about because we drastically
: increased SOCIAL spending during that period. Though a few minor programs
: were cut, most blossomed and sucked up more and more funds.
: You can blame Reagan and Bush for going along with the Democrat's increased
: spending if you want, but the tax cuts were not the reason, and defense spending
: was only a small portion.
Brad, you're at it again. Stop your ideological posturing long enough to
check things out once in a while. During the 80s defense spending
increased by over 1.7 TRILLION Dollars. You may think that 1.7 TRILLION
is only a small portion of the 3 trillion that the debt increased, but my
archaic arithmetic puts it at over half.
And your assertion that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit is
based on the theory built on the infamous Laffer Curve. It is a theory
that only some people still take seriously. You are not stating anything
factual, you are stating an opinion based on an unproven economic theory.
Will you ever discover that sometimes cause and effect is not on your side?
Gary
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> aha...@clark.net (Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew) wrote:
> > In my market, NPR provides a combination of jazz/news/talk/country/etc,
> > all easily available from other radio stations. Their quality (as I
> > pointed out in another post) is not much better than that of other
> > comparable sources.
> Well, in the UK, the BBC1 radio (not funded by advertising) is
> miles better than anything I hear when I go to the US;
Again, we need to define what "better" means in this context. When I say
that NPR is not better than its commercial competitors, I am talking about
*comparable* programs of such nature that objective criteria are useful.
E.g., when they missed the boat on Czechoslovakia, they were clearly not
doing a good job, or even a "better" job than their competitors.
But if the BBC1 guys decide to cover Rwanda and some American station
decides to spend 3 hours covering O.J. Simpson, then you can hardly say
that one is "better" than the other. They have different audiences and
they have to comply with their audiences' wishes. Are you sure that your
perception of American broadcasting was not influenced by your
expectations?
> and the
> commercial stations feel they have to keep their levels high
> to compete with it. So if we got rid of Radio 1 (and 3 and 4,
> for other kinds of markets), then everything would fall to the
> US standard; and I think the country would be the poorer for it. [snip]
You seem to be saying that commercial stations *are* keeping up, right?
Your only concern seems to be that were public radio to be eliminated,
commercial stations would start doing a bad job, right? Why? After all,
there would still be competition between commercial stations and lowering
your standards would still be liable to affect your ratings and revenue.
Am I a missing something?
> > We seem to be back to the underlying politico-philosophical issues of this
> > debate: who is to decide what is "significant". *If* there were an
> > "objective" way of determining what is "significant" and what is not, and
> > *if* a panel of experts could be appointed that could make such decisions,
> > then you would be right. Few people would have argued about it 30 years
> > ago. I would have even (sort of) agreed with you in the late 70's. These
> > days, however, many of us have come to believe that this proposition is
> > inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
> > market.
> Do you mean that because the implementation recently has been so
> bad, you don't believe that a good implementation can exist?
Not quite. Our experience with public broadcasting is only one of the
relevant data points. My approach is a bit more general in nature. Many
people in the US - granted, not all, maybe even not most - believe that
giving the federal government control over pretty much anything that is
not patently a federal matter (armed forces, immigration, foreign affairs,
etc) is an inherently Bad Thing and should be eliminated wherever
possible.
Budget deficits of the past 20 years attracted more attention to this
debate, but it has been going on for (at least) the last 25 years.
> If you want to look at evidence, see what has happened in every
> country that has left the media purely up to the market, and tell
> us if you like the results...
What countries are you referring to and what were the results? I am quite
happy with the state of the US market as far as other media are concerned,
e.g. magazines, movies, videos, even newspapers. Whenever the federal
government interfered with these areas in the past, the results were less
than satisfactory. For example, they are wasting huge amounts of money at
the American Film Institute, my very own pork barrel project :)
--
Ahasuerus
Version 0.0.1 of the Heinlein FAQ is now available:
ftp.clark.net:/pub/ahasuer/heinlein.faq
http://www.interport.net/~regulus/heinlein/hei-int.html
William B. Vogt
>William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: On guns, they (& the popular media generally)
>: are even worse than you describe. When a child gets
>: shot accidently, for example, they do just as you describe.
>: But when a child is killed in an auto accident or poisoned
>: in his home, there is no comment at all (presumably and
>: frighteningly because these events are _more_ common).
>Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
>own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
>auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
>their daily lives. But letting a child have access to a loaded gun is
>criminal, and should be brought to the public's attention until those who
>are supposed tto be "responsible" get the message.
Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
treatment in the media?
-- Bill
William B. Vogt
John G. Otto <ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us> wrote:
>There's more to it than just to whom they provide a forum.
>There's the way they have their little bits scheduled so that one
>bolsters the next's flaming radical leftist propaganda punch.
>
>They wait for that one extreme incident of illegitimate use of a
>firearm (ignore all of the legitimate uses in the mean time) and
>then scream bloody murder.
On guns, they (& the popular media generally)
are even worse than you describe. When a child gets
shot accidently, for example, they do just as you describe.
But when a child is killed in an auto accident or poisoned
in his home, there is no comment at all (presumably and
frighteningly because these events are _more_ common).
-- Bill
Derek Bruzewicz
: We seem to be back to the underlying politico-philosophical issues of this
: debate: who is to decide what is "significant". *If* there were an
: "objective" way of determining what is "significant" and what is not, and
: *if* a panel of experts could be appointed that could make such decisions,
: then you would be right. Few people would have argued about it 30 years
: ago. I would have even (sort of) agreed with you in the late 70's. These
: days, however, many of us have come to believe that this proposition is
: inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
: market.
Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
entertainment, but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
media: pandering. NPR's need to do that is either lessened, or falls
on a different group (so different that one may scarcely call it
pandering), which is why it is "necessary" -- majority rule, minority
rights.
-derek, on-line with his new modem
glindahl
: >There's more to it than just to whom they provide a forum.
: >There's the way they have their little bits scheduled so that one
: >bolsters the next's flaming radical leftist propaganda punch.
: >
: >They wait for that one extreme incident of illegitimate use of a
: >firearm (ignore all of the legitimate uses in the mean time) and
: >then scream bloody murder.
: On guns, they (& the popular media generally)
: are even worse than you describe. When a child gets
: shot accidently, for example, they do just as you describe.
: But when a child is killed in an auto accident or poisoned
: in his home, there is no comment at all (presumably and
: frighteningly because these events are _more_ common).
Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
Alan Bomberger
>And your assertion that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit is
>based on the theory built on the infamous Laffer Curve. It is a theory
>that only some people still take seriously. You are not stating anything
>factual, you are stating an opinion based on an unproven economic theory.
>Will you ever discover that sometimes cause and effect is not on your side?
People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM. That is there is an optimum
tax rate that is LESS THAN 100%. IF the current rate is HIGHER THAN
the rate which yields the maximum income lowering the rate will
increase the income.
It baffles me how anyone can possibly argue with this very simple
mostly mathematical principle.
The only possible (and stupid) arguments I can think of are
A: at 100% tax rate people will work just as hard and
quietly give the entire GDP over to the government.
B: Income only falls off between 99.99999% and 100% otherwise
income is a direct relationship with tax rate.
You may argue whether the maximum rate comes at 20% or 80% and
if you make these arguments, people will listen to you and maybe
there is some value to come from such arguments. To say that
the Laffer Curve is discredited because we ran deficits is plainly
stupid and completely discredits your ideas about taxes to any
rational thoughtful individual.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew (aha...@clark.net) wrote:
> : We seem to be back to the underlying politico-philosophical issues of this
> : debate: who is to decide what is "significant". *If* there were an
> : "objective" way of determining what is "significant" and what is not, and
> : *if* a panel of experts could be appointed that could make such decisions,
> : then you would be right. Few people would have argued about it 30 years
> : ago. I would have even (sort of) agreed with you in the late 70's. These
> : days, however, many of us have come to believe that this proposition is
> : inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
> : market.
> Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
> gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
> gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
> WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
> entertainment
I am afraid I can only point out that we are back to the original problem:
who is to decide what counts as "satisfactory entertainment" (I already
mentioned that NPR is as bad at reporting "real news" as commercial
stations). For example, I collect pulp magazines and watch lots of silent
movies. And *nobody* ever talks about these topics on the radio! When was
the last time you heard a comprehensive discussion of "Super Science
Stories" or Arbuckle on NPR? :)
The reason is fairly simple: very few people actually care about most
things that I care about. Analogously, *you* don't like listening to their
coverage of O.J. Simpson, but other people just can't get enough of it.
Consider yourself economically outvoted :)
Thankfully, in a big market (and the US is a very big market), there is
enough money to be made addressing niche audiences. Hence, there are
magazines for pulp/video collectors, there are places where you can
buy/rent pulps/silent movies and there are radio stations that broadcast
"alternative" music. Don't worry, if there is a market, somebody is going
to take care of it. If not - why, then it's all yours to make a fortune!:)
> but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
> media: pandering. NPR's need to do that is either lessened, or falls
> on a different group (so different that one may scarcely call it
> pandering)
Hmm, so it's only pandering when one doesn't like it, right? :)
> which is why it is "necessary" -- majority rule, minority rights.
Minority "rights" are best protected by the market which is best suited to
establish a reasonable equilibrium between those who need a particular
product and those who can provide it. Governments are also capable of
performing this function, but they are usually much less efficient and
substitute public choice for private choice with predictable consequences.
Oh well, just my $0.02...
Peter Nelson
: People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
: Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
: 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
: inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
^^^^^^^^^
Wrongo!
There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
unpredictable maxima.
: It baffles me how anyone can possibly argue with this very simple
: mostly mathematical principle.
Probably because we've studied some economics or some mathematics
and realize that the world is not as idiotically simplistic as you
imply.
---peter
Alan Bomberger
>In article <alan.78...@amdahl.com>, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:
>|> jld...@cs.rit.edu (James L D'Angelo) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article <RLM.94De...@netcom3.netcom.com> r...@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
>|> >>On 11 Dec 1994 06:16:38 PDT, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com (Ed Redondo) said:
>|> >>
>|> >>> Newt can pick on NPR because it's *not* big business. It doesn't
>|> >>> make big contributions to Republican coffers. So he can safely say
>|> >>> that he's saving tax dollars. This is typical Republican Right
>|> >>> thinking.
>|> >>
>|> >>And damned good thinking it is, too. Pray, how are we to cut the
>|> >>budget unless by cutting government programs?
>|> > CUT DEFENSE SPENDING!
>|> > If you want to cut programs, start at the biggest one!
>|>
>|> Of course you have just suggested cutting funding for the only
>|> function properly belonging to the Federal Government. Look
>|> carefully at the described role of the Federal Government in the
>|> Constitution and then cut everything but the Judicial branch
>|> and the Defence Department. Ought to balance up real quick like.
>|> --
>|>
>|> Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
>|> Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
>|> It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
>It was not the original intent of the Founders that we should maintain
>the "foreign entanglements" which we do.
Huh? Defense (I can spell it correctly now) is not Foreign Entanglements.
Stupid foreign policy of the State Department isn't funded by DOD. Protect
the borders and be prepared to fend of the most agressive invasion.
Peter Nelson
: : inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
: : market.
: Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
: gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
: gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
: WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
: entertainment, but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
: media: pandering. NPR's need to do that is either lessened, or falls
: on a different group (so different that one may scarcely call it
: pandering), which is why it is "necessary" -- majority rule, minority
: rights.
I can't stand commercial broadcasting; I think it sucks mightily.
I don't watch TV at all and 90+% of my radio-listening is on the
public broadcasting end of the dial, where i think things are
generally more intelligent and civilized.
But so what? Why should I expect the taxpayers to indulge
me in such matters? I don't expect to have my taxes pay for
Rush Limbaugh or QVC, why should they have to pay for Thistle
and Shamrock or Morning Edition?
---peter
Vernon R Imrich
|> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
|> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
|> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
|> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
|> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
|> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
|> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
|> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
For all but the smallest children (who probably can be kept out of
the gun area as easily as from the kitchen cabnets) education on
basic saftey is possible.
One method to store a loaded handgun more safely is to keep the
chamber empty. A quick click and you'd be ready for intruders, but
much less chance of accident. There are, I am sure many more methods.
I hear palm ID technology may be coming out soon. Perhaps even
simpler would be a small electric codepad with a two or three
number code to push before the gun could be fired and the same code
to lock it out again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (the Exchange) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
glindahl
: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glindahl <glin...@panix.com> wrote:
: >Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
: >chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
: >children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
: >storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
: >ready in case it's needed.
: Actually there are several metal cases with simplex-style locks that can allow
: you to get fairly rapid access to a handgun while still being child
: proof. One of these boxes has a slot for your hand which
: auto-positions your fingers over the buttons so it can be opened even
: in the dark.
And it costs ... ?
: By the time your child is at the simplex lock picking age, it is time
: to take him or her to the range and teach them about firearm safety.
Right.
Doug MacIntyre
> Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
>
> : People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
> : Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
> : 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
> : inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
^^^^^^^^^
> Wrongo!
> There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
> or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
> unpredictable maxima.
You're picking nits. The real point is that even if there are
multiple maxima, the theory still holds that there must exist some
tax rates which, when lowered, result in an increase in revenues.
These are found to the "right" (on the tax rate axis) of a local
maximum.
Doug
James Jones
>Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
>gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
>gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
>WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
>entertainment, but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
>media: pandering.
*Somebody* must think it's satisfactory entertainment--if nobody listened,
then advertisers wouldn't foot the bill.
James Jones
Opinions herein are those of their respective authors, and not necessarily
those of any organization.
glindahl
: >Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
: >own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
: >auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
: >their daily lives. But letting a child have access to a loaded gun is
: >criminal, and should be brought to the public's attention until those who
: >are supposed tto be "responsible" get the message.
: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
: treatment in the media?
Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
Thomas Grant Edwards
>Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
>chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
>storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>ready in case it's needed.
Actually there are several metal cases with simplex-style locks that can allow
you to get fairly rapid access to a handgun while still being child
proof. One of these boxes has a slot for your hand which
auto-positions your fingers over the buttons so it can be opened even
in the dark.
By the time your child is at the simplex lock picking age, it is time
to take him or her to the range and teach them about firearm safety.
-Thomas
glindahl
: |> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
: |> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
: |> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
: |> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
: |> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
: |> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
: |> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
: |> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
: ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
: them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
: argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
: then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
around the house. Along with most Americans, I don't accept that
practice as "normal" , and don't want my children to have any contact
with guns at all!
Finally, because this is so off topic here in alt.radio.npr, I just want
to express my sadness that you (and many others) dismiss this as a
"liberal" attitude, as though the death of children could take on any
crass political meaning! Is that it then? Being against guns in the
hands of children makes me one of those "liberals?" Could it be that
simple?
Michael Edward Chastain
> Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
> and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
> around the house.
Sure is in my house, along with the houses of tens of millions of other
gun owners. If you want to make a majoritarian case, think about the
100,000,000 guns in America, and that lots and lots of people own them.
Are you willing to suppress every 25% minority in this country, hmmm?
> ... and don't want my children to have any contact with guns at all!
Fine -- if you don't want a gun, don't have one.
Michael Chastain
m...@shell.portal.com
William B. Vogt
>: >Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
>: >own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
>: >auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
>: >their daily lives.
>: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant.
This clearly has nothing to do with it. The instantness of
death doesn't have any appreciable impact on its coverage in
the media, as far as I can tell. Also, I doubt that the assertion
is even true.
>With
>chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases.
This is irrelevant. Kids die because chemicals are improperly
stored. It is covered far less often than are gun-related
accidental deaths. What does the ability to treat some cases
of poisoning have to do with it?
>"Proper
>storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>ready in case it's needed.
Only if you assume that the only use of a household handgun is
defense against unexpected home invasion. There are lots of
other potential uses, the most obvious being target shooting.
Even if your statement is true, however, it undermines your position,
which is that gun-related accidental deaths of children are
somehow more preventable than poisoning deaths.
-- Bill
Keith Hamburger
: to express my sadness that you (and many others) dismiss this as a
: "liberal" attitude, as though the death of children could take on any
: crass political meaning! Is that it then? Being against guns in the
: hands of children makes me one of those "liberals?" Could it be that
: simple?
Are my posts getting out of here? Or am I just being ignored?
Keith
ssatchell on BIX
You know, every time I see one of those stories on TV, the implied
message I get is that the gun shouldn't be in the home, period. When I
read these stories in the newspaper, though, I don't get that message from
reading the entire article.
Sarah Brady harps on guns not being in citizen's hands. The thing is,
if you *really* want to save the lives of the kids, just require the
gun dealers to provide a proper trigger lock with every handgun sold as part
of the package. If the gun is locked, kids can't pull the trigger -- if you
can't pull the trigger, it takes a *lot* more work to make that gun fire.
(i It's too bad the trigger guards are so easy to remove; otherwise
Carey
Jeffrey Salzberg <salz...@menudo.uh.edu> wrote:
>William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>
>*constructive* purpose.
>
There we go. Right to the heart of the matter. Defending yourself,
defending your home is *not* constructive.
Boy, it sure seems pretty constructive to me.
ssatchell on BIX
>Vernon R Imrich (vim...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glin...@panix.com (glindahl) writes:
>: |> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
>: |> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>: |> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
>: |> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>: |> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
>: |> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
>: |> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
>: |> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
>: ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
>: them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
>: argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
>: then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
>Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
>and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
>around the house. Along with most Americans, I don't accept that
>practice as "normal" , and don't want my children to have any contact
>with guns at all!
I take exception to the statement that "[a]long with most Americans, I
don't accept that practice as 'normal'."
You are free to hold your own opinion, but until you hold a comprehensive
poll (which means that I get called, too) which show that the majority
of Americans (please state whether you are talking a majority of voters,
citizens, or residents) hold the view, *don't* make a claim you can't
prove.
My personal feeling: children should be taught by our schools how to
avoid harm. Harm from poison. Harm from automobiles. Harm from
strangers. And yes, harm from guns.
Without that, how can the kids keep themselves safe?
Jeffrey Salzberg
: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
: treatment in the media?
...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
*constructive* purpose.
Steve Kao
> Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
> above. They were designed to kill, period.
One thing puzzles me. People who make the above statement will often
make the following statement.
> If you do not intend
> to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
> someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
> perform those functions.
Do people who make such statements really think it is OK to kill people
who think differently? Not everyone agrees with people who make such
statements. Some people disagree strongly enough that killing them will
be the only way to enforce gun bans. Do people who dislike guns really
want to kill people who disagree with them?
- Steve Kao
Lee C. Brink
I know I'm going to hate myself for jumping into an "endless" thread,
but here we go.
I find my firearms very CONSTRUCTIVE; specifically:
Improves my hand-eye co-ordination
Makes me calm down more than usual (To make better shots)
Gets me out of the house and meet people
whom otherwise I would never meet
I guess it comes down to who feels what is constructive.
Note followups.
Lee
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC |
| l...@nova.npac.syr.edu Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
| 315-443-1722 |
| |
| Please send email to the above address and not to "mailbox.syr.edu" |
| I check that account at most once a week |
| |
| Note: I will post email if appropriate and/or offensive. |
| You have been warned |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Keith Marchington
: Well, now you've dragged me into it :>)
: Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
: above. They were designed to kill, period.
While on the face of it, this statement is untrue, it does have some
kernel of truth in it. Guns were designed for the waging of war.
As time passed, other very interesting, and VERY useful tasks were
also assigned to them.
But let's look at the original premise: guns were made to kill.
Now for the real question - is killing always bad?
If your answer is yes, then you must be a perfect pacifist. You must
loathe all of the actions that allow this contry to exist. You must
detest the stopping of the Axis in WWII and all of the other wars that
this country has engaged in. Is this the case?
Do you feel that when a criminal is about to kill a victim, that the
victim's correct course of action is to simply be killed? Or that the
correct course of action for an onlooker is to simply allow the murder
to take place?
Tough questions. I'd be bery interested in your answers.
: The fact that you are
: resourceful and creative enough to find another use for them does not
: change this. The fact that a percentage of gun owners (whatever that
: percentage may be) does not use them for their designed purpose (ie
: target shooting, sitting in a drawer) is irrelevant. If you do not intend
: to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
: someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
: perform those functions.
Could you please list some of those items that were specifically
designed for self-defense that have a reliability and effectiveness
remotely approaching a firearm? Just curious if you have any good
suggestions. In particular, I'd like to hear your suggestions for
those folk who are relatively frail. We have seen in many instances
that a firearm has allowed folk of this nature to successfully defend
themselves against significantly more powerful attackers, such as that
92 year old woman in Chicago who managed to thwart the attack of the
two young punks who invaded her home.
I eagerly await your suggestions.
--
Keith
Larry Hewitt
>Jeffrey Salzberg (salz...@menudo.uh.edu) wrote:
>: William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: : Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
>: : are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: : storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: : treatment in the media?
>: ...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
>: *constructive* purpose.
>I know I'm going to hate myself for jumping into an "endless" thread,
>but here we go.
>I find my firearms very CONSTRUCTIVE; specifically:
> Improves my hand-eye co-ordination
> Makes me calm down more than usual (To make better shots)
> Gets me out of the house and meet people
> whom otherwise I would never meet
>
>I guess it comes down to who feels what is constructive.
>Note followups.
Well, now you've dragged me into it :>)
Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
above. They were designed to kill, period. The fact that you are
resourceful and creative enough to find another use for them does not
change this. The fact that a percentage of gun owners (whatever that
percentage may be) does not use them for their designed purpose (ie
target shooting, sitting in a drawer) is irrelevant. If you do not intend
to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
perform those functions.
My car does all of the things you describe above, and it was designed to
do the third.
Larry
Karni
> Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
>
> : People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
> : Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
> : 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
> : inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
>
> Wrongo!
>
> There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
> or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
> unpredictable maxima.
There could be multiple maxima peaks, but the odds of them being equal
heights (i.e. drawing in the same amount of revenue at two different tax
rates) is probably vanishingly small.
> : It baffles me how anyone can possibly argue with this very simple
> : mostly mathematical principle.
>
> Probably because we've studied some economics or some mathematics
> and realize that the world is not as idiotically simplistic as you
> imply.
It's obviously not as simple as you imply either, Bucko.
--
Kar...@aol.com l "People like Karni don't die!
Individuality Hall l They live forever...
Institute for International l ... and bug you!"
Electoral Analysis l
Alan Bomberger
>Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
>: People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
>: Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
>: 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
>: inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Wrongo!
There may be a two identical maximum values. So what. How does this
impact the overall conclusion that there is a rate between 0 and 100
(or more than one) that yields a maximum revenue that may be
greater for lower rates than current rates.
> There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
> or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
> unpredictable maxima.
You throw in some nitpicky shit that does not refute the general
principle that at some rate between 0 and 100, lowering the rate
will increase revenue.
>: It baffles me how anyone can possibly argue with this very simple
>: mostly mathematical principle.
> Probably because we've studied some economics or some mathematics
> and realize that the world is not as idiotically simplistic as you
> imply.
For one who has done NOTHING do refute the basic argument of the
laffer curve you use really smart ass words to show that you
probably can't. Too bad.
You don't have to explain the reasons why the curve has a peak (or
peaks) one must only open one's mind to the idea that at some rate
between 0 and 100 the revenue will increase by lowering the rate.
>---peter
Bruce Baugh
:Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
:above. They were designed to kill, period.
Have you ever talked to a gunsmith? While there's historical truth
to what you say, many modern guns are _not_ designed as killing tools,
but as tools for shooting. You've heard of target shooting, I hope?
In addition, arguments against gun use almost always overlook a
class of people to which I belong: the disabled. Disabled people
are, as a group, poorer than the surrounding society, and hence
tend to live in areas more prone to crime than the average for their
area. This is most true for those who have subsidized housing. In
addition, depending on the nature of their disability, they are
in many cases much less capable of defending themselves physically
than their neighbors. Police response times to poor neighborhoods
are notoriously longer than those to wealthier neighborhoods.
So. We have people in crime-prone areas, largely abandoned in
practical terms by the police, unable to use the alternatives.
I have friends with cerebral palsy and muscular dystrophy who've
repelled burglars and rapists with firearms. (In each case where
the criminal was caught later, he was found to have an extensive
record; my friends are not being hysterical or exaggerating.)
None of them could have used a knife, or a baseball bat, or
martial arts, or any other alternative I've heard proposed.
What do you suggest they do? You take on a moral burden here -
if you tell me and my friends that we cannot defend ourselves
with the only tool found to be effective, you assume responsibility
for what happens to us. What do you suggest?
I should also note that many doctors who work with MD and other
such conditions are much in favor of regular firearm pratice,
particularly with small- to medium-caliber handguns. They're
light, so that even weak people can lift them, and good
marksmanship combines fine motor control with a certain amount
of gross muscle strength that is more or less unique. And the
satisfaction of marksmanship can play an important part in
the psychological well-being of people who are, basically,
waiting to die. It was a major force in keeping the late husband
of a dear friend of mine engaged in the world and fighting off
despair as his body collapsed around him.
This question may belong in somebody's FAQ. In the years I've
been asking it, I have never gotten an answer.
bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
"Lacquered frog bands are no longer popular with America's trendsetters,
Max. We'd be hosed." - Steve Purcell, SAM AND MAX: FREELANCE POLICE
CLAYTON BUTLER MAUGANS
Knives were originally designed to hunt down and kill other savage cavemen.
The fact that they are now used for other purposes is irrelevent.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What something is used for now is TOTALLY RELEVENT!!!!!
Nuclear power was designed to kill Japanize. It is now used to power homes!!
Lee C. Brink
: lcb...@mailbox.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink) writes:
: >Jeffrey Salzberg (salz...@menudo.uh.edu) wrote:
: >: William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >: : Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
: >: : are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
: >: : storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
: >: : treatment in the media?
: >: ...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
: >: *constructive* purpose.
: >I know I'm going to hate myself for jumping into an "endless" thread,
: >but here we go.
: >I find my firearms very CONSTRUCTIVE; specifically:
: > Improves my hand-eye co-ordination
: > Makes me calm down more than usual (To make better shots)
: > Gets me out of the house and meet people
: > whom otherwise I would never meet
: >
: >I guess it comes down to who feels what is constructive.
: Well, now you've dragged me into it :>)
Sorry about that (In standard Maxwell Smart tone of voice :-)
: Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
: above. They were designed to kill, period.
Actually, as you will see from other posts, that guns are NOT designed
to kill. They are designed to aim a small but powerful explosion
towards a ball of metal (lead or copper usually) to accelerate that
ball of metal to high rates of speed. That's it. What happens when
that ball of metal hits something is not the design of the gun.
Also, please note that many guns (If we accept your definition,
bullets if we don't) are NOT designed to kill, but to wound. The
current philosophy of warfare is to drain the enemy's resources so
that he is unable to fight, not to hopefully wipe out the enemy
utterly before he does the same to you.
: The fact that a percentage of gun owners (whatever that
: percentage may be) does not use them for their designed purpose (ie
: target shooting, sitting in a drawer) is irrelevant.
Why is that irrelevent? I find a use for an item, and just because it
doesn't fit YOUR definition it's irrelevent? OK; why is it
irrelevent?
: If you do not intend
: to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
: someone) then you should not own one.
Why? I shoot paper targets; therefore I should not own one? I own a
screwdriver, which is designed to apply torque to screws. I use them
also to break tape on boxes. By your reasoning I should not own
screwdrivers because I do use them for their designed purpose. Mighty
white of you to tell me that I can't own something because you feel I
don't use an item for your definition of its designed purpose.
Erich Burton
:William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
:: Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
:: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
:: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
:: treatment in the media?
:
:...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
:*constructive* purpose.
Let me see if I have this straight:
Cleaning supplies and pesticides found in the home, when used as intended
clean and disinfect, ridding the house of unwanted and destructive pests,
and are therefore *constructive*.
Antibiotics found in the medicine cabinet, when used as intended kill
bacteria, ridding the body of unwanted and destructive pests and are
therefore *constructive*.
A firearm found in the home, when used as intended, can threaten or kill
a home invader, ridding the home of an unwanted and destructive pest, and
is therefore...
__
Erich Burton "Maybe Newsweek will do a cover story about the victims
of disinfectant proliferation some time soon"
William B. Vogt
I agree. The basis for the asymmetric treatment is basically: "Me
and my buddies don't enjoy using firearms; firearms are dangerous;
therefore, firearms should be illegal"
The problem with this argument is that it only works to convince
people who a) don't use firearms and b) have the mentality that
anything they don't enjoy is worthless. If all of the gun-grabbers
were as honest as you are the RKBA people would have no problems.
-- Bill
Steve Podleski
>... If you do not intend
>to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
>someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>perform those functions.
>
>My car does all of the things you describe above, and it was designed to
>do the third.
I was told that the auto mobile was designed by a French artillery engineer
to tow artillery pieces. Do you use your car for its originally intended
purpose, i.e. tow artillery :-)
Larry Hewitt
What total, absolute unadulterated BULL. Such replies frmm obvously
ignorant (can't even spell) posters does nothing to advance a thesis.
Knives were developed as a hunting tool and to aid in the dismemberment
of caught prey.
Nuclear _bombs_ were developed to counter a perceived threat from the
_Germans_, nuclear _power_ was developed to generate electricity, steam,
etc. And nuclear bombs just go to prove my point. As much as people have
tried to find another use for them ( mining, canal digging, etc.) they
_never_ perform as well as things developed specifically for that purpose
and have myriad unpleasant side effects.
I did not say that there are no legitmate uses for guns - hunting and
target shooting are two. I did say that most of the guns out there today
are being bought for purposes _for which they are not intended_. ( And an
UZI is not a target or hunting gun)
Larry
Larry Hewitt
>- Steve Kao
Ok, my last dip into this thread.
The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
Why is it that gun advocates lose any sense of logic on this topic? I
did not even intimate that ownership of guns for use as they were
designed ( hunting, target shooting, etc.) should be restricted in any
way. What I did say was that the huge number of guns out there being used
for purposes other than they were intended leads to unpleasant side
effects.
Larry
Greg Mitchell
>Well, now you've dragged me into it :>)
>
>Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
>above. They were designed to kill, period. The fact that you are
You show your ignorance here. There are many guns designed solely
for the target shooting sport. They make terrible weapons.
>resourceful and creative enough to find another use for them does not
>change this. The fact that a percentage of gun owners (whatever that
>percentage may be) does not use them for their designed purpose (ie
>target shooting, sitting in a drawer) is irrelevant. If you do not intend
>to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What a euphemism !! The essense of "Law Enforcement" is the ability
to enforce one's will over another's through physical coercion.
This is the very point of the argument of checking the powers of
the state vs. the People.
>someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>perform those functions.
>
>My car does all of the things you describe above, and it was designed to
>do the third.
Really. I'll bet you anything that if you go back far enough in
human history that vehicles were originally designed for the
purposes of battle and hunting.
>Larry
-- Greg (g...@ssd.intel.com) Opinions expressed here are in no way
intended to represent those of Intel Corp.
Larry Hewitt
>Larry Hewitt (lhe...@access3.digex.net) wrote:
>: Well, now you've dragged me into it :>)
>: Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
>: above. They were designed to kill, period.
>While on the face of it, this statement is untrue, it does have some
>kernel of truth in it. Guns were designed for the waging of war.
>As time passed, other very interesting, and VERY useful tasks were
>also assigned to them.
>But let's look at the original premise: guns were made to kill.
>Now for the real question - is killing always bad?
>If your answer is yes, then you must be a perfect pacifist. You must
>loathe all of the actions that allow this contry to exist. You must
>detest the stopping of the Axis in WWII and all of the other wars that
>this country has engaged in. Is this the case?
>Do you feel that when a criminal is about to kill a victim, that the
>victim's correct course of action is to simply be killed? Or that the
>correct course of action for an onlooker is to simply allow the murder
>to take place?
>Tough questions. I'd be bery interested in your answers.
Well, I would assert that the proliferation of lethal instruments has
increased the probability that an encounter with a criminal could be
lethal. It is a chicken or the egg issue. I have little but anecdotal
eveidence to back this up, but I will present it. When I was growing up
there were a lot of schoolyard brawls. We lived on the edge of a tough
part of town. Sure, a lot of bones were broken, and there were even a few
stab wounds, but few fatalities. About 10 years ago guns started showing
up. And who brought the first one? Not the criminals ( the bullies or the
kids extortingmoney etc. ). No, it was brought by one of the kids who
kept getting beat up and a bully was the first to die. Now there are
metal detectors at the school entrance.
My assertion is that the top dogs ( bullies, theives, criminals, etc. )
had no need to move to guns because they were already in control. But
when the victims started packing heat then they had to to resume their
position as top dog. So we are back to the status quo, only now
confrontations are much more likely to be fatal.
>: The fact that you are
>: resourceful and creative enough to find another use for them does not
>: change this. The fact that a percentage of gun owners (whatever that
>: percentage may be) does not use them for their designed purpose (ie
>: target shooting, sitting in a drawer) is irrelevant. If you do not intend
>: to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
>: someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>: perform those functions.
>Could you please list some of those items that were specifically
>designed for self-defense that have a reliability and effectiveness
>remotely approaching a firearm? Just curious if you have any good
>suggestions. In particular, I'd like to hear your suggestions for
>those folk who are relatively frail. We have seen in many instances
>that a firearm has allowed folk of this nature to successfully defend
>themselves against significantly more powerful attackers, such as that
>92 year old woman in Chicago who managed to thwart the attack of the
>two young punks who invaded her home.
>I eagerly await your suggestions.
No, i don't advocate a position of meekly being consigned to your fate.
There are a number of products on the market that will provide adequate
self defense that are MUCH more effective for the elderly and frail than
a gun. Take what we provide for my grandmother. She is 94 years old and
weighs 89 pounds. Even if she could lift, aim, and accurately shoot a gun
the recoil would probably break her arm. And if she tried and failed ( as
is likely) then her attacker certainly would kill her.
So our solution. How about first of all reducing your risk. Never travel
alone. Avoid areas that invite an attack. Sure, this may be difficult and
restrictive, and cannot be 100% effective but it helps. My grandmother
lived in a poor, high crime community. Instead of going to the store
alone groups of seniors went together. Stuff like this.
For when the bad stuff happens, how about pepper spray and an air horn.
Worked for my grandmother. For the cost of a decent gun and lessons you
can fortify your doors and windows against entry. Ther are many other
options available using non-lethal technology and a little creative thought.
Larry
>-- >Keith
tad
>k...@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:
>>Larry Hewitt (lhe...@access3.digex.net) wrote:
>>> Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
>>> above. They were designed to kill, period.
First they are designed to kill, period.
>>One thing puzzles me. People who make the above statement will often
>>make the following statement.
>>> If you do not intend
>>> to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
>>> someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>>> perform those functions.
Then they suddenly have other purposes? Huh?
<snip>
>>- Steve Kao
> Ok, my last dip into this thread.
>The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
>use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
Well, as you said yourself, unless they plan to enforce laws, hunt or
kill someone. The first statement makes a claim that the only use for
guns is killing. If it is true, the second cannot follow. If the
second statement is true, the first is shown to be faulty. The only
logical link involved is that of the two statements negating each other.
>Why is it that gun advocates lose any sense of logic on this topic? I
How is saying that guns are just for killing and then following up
that they aren't just for killing logical?
>did not even intimate that ownership of guns for use as they were
>designed ( hunting, target shooting, etc.) should be restricted in any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Damn, there's another use! Just to save time, would you write out a
comprehensive list of the uses for guns?
>way. What I did say was that the huge number of guns out there being used
>for purposes other than they were intended leads to unpleasant side
>effects.
Then they were designed not just for killing after all. Which is it?
Are they designed only for killing or are there other uses too?
BTW: If one of the "uses" of a gun is killing, are you then saying
that these unpleasant side effects caused by guns not being used for
their intended purpose do not include death? ;)
>Larry
Keith Marchington
: k...@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:
: >> If you do not intend
: >> to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
: >> someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
: >> perform those functions.
: >Do people who make such statements really think it is OK to kill people
: >who think differently? Not everyone agrees with people who make such
: >statements. Some people disagree strongly enough that killing them will
: >be the only way to enforce gun bans. Do people who dislike guns really
: >want to kill people who disagree with them?
: >- Steve Kao
: Ok, my last dip into this thread.
Chicken! :-)
: The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
: use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
Again, you have shown no particularly strong argument for this
statement. As weapons of self-defense, handguns have been shown time
and again to be the most effective means. Even the FBI's UCR show
that resistance with a handgun is the most successful way to deal with
assault.
: Why is it that gun advocates lose any sense of logic on this topic?
From where I'm sitting, it appears that you are the one lacking logic.
Just MHO.
: I did not even intimate that ownership of guns for use as they were
: designed ( hunting, target shooting, etc.) should be restricted in any
: way. What I did say was that the huge number of guns out there being used
: for purposes other than they were intended leads to unpleasant side
: effects.
"...huge number of guns out there being used for purposes other than
they were intended..." Could you explain that statement? What is a
huge number? Ten percent? Five percent? What number is it that
you think is huge, and where did you come up with that number?
BTW, did you see that recent little tidbit about D.C. Seems that
about 400 of the murders committed last year were traced to thirteen
guns. Just thirteen! Amazing. Seems some individuals are wreaking
a lot of havoc.
--
Keith
Greg Mitchell
>William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>: >auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
>: >their daily lives. But letting a child have access to a loaded gun is
>: >criminal, and should be brought to the public's attention until those who
>: >are supposed tto be "responsible" get the message.
>
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>
>chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
Prove it. How do you figure this ? Its just plain nonsense.
You are being biggoted. What is the ratio of treatable poisonings
to treatable gunshot wounds ?
>storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
That's just not true. A trigger lock can be unlocked in seconds, less
time than it takes to fetch the gun.
>ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
>they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
>supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
>should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
Keeping a swimming pool irresponsibly filled around a child should,
in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
Why don't you say what you really mean instead of being deliberately
vague ? Define a child. What is "irresponsible" ? Are you purposely
using the adjective unconditionally to make it seam as if anything
haveing to do with firearms is irresponsible ?
kenn...@phoenix.phoenix.net
> : to express my sadness that you (and many others) dismiss this as a
>
control of Congress but they don't have a sense of humor!!!
Jim
Peter Nelson
: pne...@world.std.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: >Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
: >: People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
: >: Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
: >: 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
: >: inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
: > ^^^^^^^^^
: > There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
: > or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
: > unpredictable maxima.
: You throw in some nitpicky shit that does not refute the general
: principle that at some rate between 0 and 100, lowering the rate
: will increase revenue.
And lowering if further would decrease it again. As I said,
the other problem is that we have no models or tools to let us
predict with any reliablity at all WHAT the tax rate or tax
type is optimum. There is simply no way, given that our
current rate is X and revenue is f(X), to predict, if the new
rate is Y, what the value of f(Y) will be. If you think
otherwise you have entirely too much faith in economics as
a predictive science.
N.B., this cuts both ways: the GOP claiming that tax cuts
will not reduce revenues are playing the same shell game as
Democrats claiming tax increases will boost revenues.
---peter
Lizard
>
>Vernon R Imrich (vim...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glin...@panix.com (glindahl)
writes:
>
With
>: |> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>: |> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases.
"Proper
be
>: |> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how
resourceful
>: |> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
>: |> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a
child
>: |> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
>
>: them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the
liberal
>: argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
>: then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
>
>Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
>and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
>around the house. Along with most Americans, I don't accept that
>practice as "normal" , and don't want my children to have any contact
>with guns at all!
>
And if you don't wish your children to have contact with guns, perhaps
you should tell that to the government, which has most of them and shows
no reticence in using them.
>Finally, because this is so off topic here in alt.radio.npr, I just want
>to express my sadness that you (and many others) dismiss this as a
>"liberal" attitude, as though the death of children could take on any
>crass political meaning!
The exploitation of the spectre of child death has been seized by
innumerable leftist causes:Socialised medicine, environmentalism, gun
control, and on and on. And the knee-jerk reaction of people like you --
"Eeek! You want to kill the HELPLESS LITTLE BABIES!!!!!" makes it very
effective propaganda indeed.
Well, the Emperor is naked, and children are going to die no matter what
laws are passed. Live with it.
>Is that it then? Being against guns in the
>hands of children makes me one of those "liberals?"
No, believing government regulation and the disarming of adults can be in
any way a 'good thing' makes you one of those liberals. I know many gun
owners with children;if you suggested their ownership of guns made them
poor parents, they would quite justifiably punch you in the snoot.
> Could it be that
>simple?
Evidently so.
--
Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners:Lizard
Democracy:The Crude Leading the Crud:Florence King
Misanthropology:The study of why so many people are so stupid, and why
most of them should die, soon!
Keith Marchington
: k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:
: >Larry Hewitt (lhe...@access3.digex.net) wrote:
: >: Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
: >: above. They were designed to kill, period.
: >While on the face of it, this statement is untrue, it does have some
: >kernel of truth in it. Guns were designed for the waging of war.
: >As time passed, other very interesting, and VERY useful tasks were
: >also assigned to them.
: >But let's look at the original premise: guns were made to kill.
: >Now for the real question - is killing always bad?
: >If your answer is yes, then you must be a perfect pacifist. You must
: >loathe all of the actions that allow this contry to exist. You must
: >detest the stopping of the Axis in WWII and all of the other wars that
: >this country has engaged in. Is this the case?
: >Do you feel that when a criminal is about to kill a victim, that the
: >victim's correct course of action is to simply be killed? Or that the
: >correct course of action for an onlooker is to simply allow the murder
: >to take place?
: >Tough questions. I'd be bery interested in your answers.
[anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertion deleted]
Larry, you didn't answer the questions. Were they too hard?
: >Could you please list some of those items that were specifically
: >designed for self-defense that have a reliability and effectiveness
: >remotely approaching a firearm? Just curious if you have any good
: >suggestions. In particular, I'd like to hear your suggestions for
: >those folk who are relatively frail. We have seen in many instances
: >that a firearm has allowed folk of this nature to successfully defend
: >themselves against significantly more powerful attackers, such as that
: >92 year old woman in Chicago who managed to thwart the attack of the
: >two young punks who invaded her home.
: >I eagerly await your suggestions.
: No, i don't advocate a position of meekly being consigned to your fate.
: There are a number of products on the market that will provide adequate
: self defense that are MUCH more effective for the elderly and frail than
: a gun.
Could you present your credentials in the area of self-defense that
qualifies you to make this assertion. All of the accredited self-defense
experts that I know of disagree with this statement. Perhaps you
should educate them.
: Take what we provide for my grandmother. She is 94 years old and
: weighs 89 pounds. Even if she could lift, aim, and accurately shoot a gun
: the recoil would probably break her arm. And if she tried and failed ( as
: is likely) then her attacker certainly would kill her.
If she is so frail that she is unable to lift even a light weapon, I
assume that she is not left unattended. That would be most horrible.
: So our solution. How about first of all reducing your risk. Never travel
: alone. Avoid areas that invite an attack. Sure, this may be difficult and
: restrictive, and cannot be 100% effective but it helps. My grandmother
: lived in a poor, high crime community. Instead of going to the store
: alone groups of seniors went together. Stuff like this.
All good tactics.
: For when the bad stuff happens, how about pepper spray and an air horn.
: Worked for my grandmother. For the cost of a decent gun and lessons you
: can fortify your doors and windows against entry. Ther are many other
: options available using non-lethal technology and a little creative thought.
While pepper spray can be effective, it is also prone to failure in a
very large number of ways (not to mention that it is illegal in more
places than handguns are!) If the attacker is too close, the spray
may take a number of seconds to become effective. It is only effective
once the propellant has evaporated. If the wind is blowing the wrong
way, it can be blown back at you. If the assailant is drunk or high,
or even pumped on adrenaline, it might not be effective at all.
This is not to argue that a handgun is foolproof, but in 98% of the
instances where a firearm is used for self-defense, the weapon is not
fired. Its effectiveness is based on intimidation for the most part.
This is not true of that little can hidden in your hand.
What it boils down to is that a handgun is the single most effective
means of self-defense available to the individual. It is not a
panacea. But it is the best.
--
Keith
Lizard
"constructive" than making your floors sparkly-new.
Greg Mitchell
Why is it that your argument is so illogical ?
You frame a false premise, draw false conclusions from it
and then accuse those who inquire of your errors of lacking
a sense of logic. Who are you lieing to, us or yourself ?
Larry, some people have no sense of respect for the lives of
others. They will take what they can get at your expense.
They only way that they will choose not to have their way
with you is if they believe that they will be harmed in
the attempt. To cause this harm to an aggressor is often
a required action of your self defense. For many aggressors
this harm must be massive and has a very good possibility of
killing the aggressor. Yes, sometimes there is a legitimate
need to kill or to harm to the point that killing is immanent.
Where your argument becomes dishonest is when you attempt
to proclaim that self defense is not a legitimate reason
to own a gun because those gun owners are not actively
hunting down people to kill them. The gun is there if it
is needed and then hopefully it will serve its intended purpose
of defense whether or not it is fired. Should I not own
a fire extinguisher because I don't intend to deliberately
set my house on fire ?
Brian McGarvey
> I did not say that there are no legitmate uses for guns - hunting and
> target shooting are two. I did say that most of the guns out there today
> are being bought for purposes _for which they are not intended_. ( And an
> UZI is not a target or hunting gun)
Larry just exactly do you think "an UZI" is?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Brian McGarvey
Citizen, Gun Owner
Registered Voter
NRA member
Veteran, 6yrs
Bill of Rights
(void where prohibited by law)
Steve Kao
> >Larry Hewitt (lhe...@access3.digex.net) wrote:
> >> Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
> >> above. They were designed to kill, period.
> >One thing puzzles me. People who make the above statement will often
> >make the following statement.
> >> If you do not intend
> >> to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
> >> someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
> >> perform those functions.
> >Do people who make such statements really think it is OK to kill people
> >who think differently? Not everyone agrees with people who make such
> >statements. Some people disagree strongly enough that killing them will
> >be the only way to enforce gun bans. Do people who dislike guns really
> >want to kill people who disagree with them?
> >- Steve Kao
> Ok, my last dip into this thread.
> The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
> use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
You missed the logic. Who will prevent gun owners from keeping their
guns after you succeed in making guns illegal? What will you do about
gun owners who resist your laws? Historically, people are killed for
disobeying laws. Logically, you are sanctioning the killing of gun
owners who keep their guns after you create laws that make guns
illegal.
I ignore the rest of your ad hominem and illogic.
- Steve Kao
ssatchell on BIX
>You missed the logic. Who will prevent gun owners from keeping their
>guns after you succeed in making guns illegal? What will you do about
>gun owners who resist your laws? Historically, people are killed for
>disobeying laws. Logically, you are sanctioning the killing of gun
>owners who keep their guns after you create laws that make guns
>illegal.
>I ignore the rest of your ad hominem and illogic.
This is one of the problems with prohibitions which are not broadly
supported by the population: they tend to foster a contempt for all
law. This is particularly true when the law is so skewed that it
makes no sense to the dullest observer. Witness the number of people
who point out that dangerous substances are handled inconsistantly.
(Detail: what is the difference between pot and tobacco? Between
alcohol and cocaine?)
Also, are you going to disarm law enforcement as well? Remember, we all
saw a cop shoot a homeless person -- using a weapon as the tool of first
resort instead of a tool of last resort. Yet I've yet to hear Sarah
Brady blast that use of a gun.
People who believe that the Second Amendment is more important than
any statutes will ignore the statutes. After all, one reason our
federal Government is trying to ban guns is to cripple a potential
citizen revolt. (And the NSA and FBI are also trying to take away
the "weapon" of secure communications as well.)
Greg Mitchell
>
>Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
>own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
>auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
>their daily lives. But letting a child have access to a loaded gun is
>criminal, and should be brought to the public's attention until those who
>are supposed tto be "responsible" get the message.
>
Paraphrasing ...
I can let my kids have access to poison and kill themselves
and its OK because it can happen to anyone so I'm not responsible.
And anyways its unavoidable.
I can make unnecessary trips and drive beyond my ability and
crash my car and kill my kids and its OK because it can happen
to anyone so I'm not responsible.
And anyways its unavoidable.
Your statement is so hypocritical it is nearly beyond belief
that you would utter it before anyone with half a working
brain cell and not expect them to notice it.
YES: Children/gun accidents should be prevented.
NO: Letting a child ( older than 8 years ) have access to a gun
is NOT criminal.
SOLUTION: Teach your kids about guns the same way you would
about poison, swimming pools, electricity, sharp objects,
any of the hundred other things kids can get hurt/killed
with.
( Obviously children too young to understand need to simply be
prevented from accessing dangerous objects. )
When are we going to have a national smear campaign against
swimming pools ? They kill *lots* of kids, completely avoidable.
Are you hysterical and therefore not using your capacity
to reason ?
Greg Mitchell
>Thomas Grant Edwards (tedw...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glindahl <glin...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>: >Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
>: >chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>: >children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
>: >storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>: >ready in case it's needed.
>
>: you to get fairly rapid access to a handgun while still being child
>: proof. One of these boxes has a slot for your hand which
>: auto-positions your fingers over the buttons so it can be opened even
>: in the dark.
>
>
>And it costs ... ?
Less then a gun.
>: By the time your child is at the simplex lock picking age, it is time
>: to take him or her to the range and teach them about firearm safety.
>
>Right.
Are you agreeing or being sarcastic ?
Greg Mitchell
>Vernon R Imrich (vim...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glin...@panix.com (glindahl) writes:
>
>: |> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
>: |> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>: |> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
>: |> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>: |> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
>: |> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
>: |> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
>
>: ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
>: them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
>: argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
>: then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
>
>Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
I want my kids to have sex ed. I certainly *DO NOT* expect them
to be "using their sex organs early and often".
>and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
>around the house. Along with most Americans, I don't accept that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Site your source please !
>practice as "normal" , and don't want my children to have any contact
>with guns at all!
So because you refuse to properly educate your children you
want to make it a criminal offense for me to have a firearm
anywhere besides locked up in a safe ?
If I don't teach my kids to swim and stay out when there is no
supervision can I have your swimming pool filled with dirt ?
Greg Mitchell
>William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>
>...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
>*constructive* purpose.
Self defense is a very *constructive* purpose. Without it we would
all be barbarians or slaves.
And the wonderful recreational aspects of firearms should not be
ignored either.
Actually, many household chemicals are unnecessary and only exist
so someone can make a profit.
Michael McClary
Larry Hewitt <lhe...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
>The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
>use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
>
>Why is it that gun advocates lose any sense of logic on this topic?
Perhaps they appear to you to have "lost any sense of logic" because you
don't understand their position.
For instance, you claim that the purpose of a gun is to kill. This is
demonstratably false, especially in the case of a self-defense handgun.
The purposes of different sorts of guns differ widely, as do the purposes
of the various clubs in a golfer's bag or the different vehicles on the
road.
The purpose of a self-defense handgun, for instance, is NOT to kill. It
is to stop an attack, thus protecting its user. The gun makers, sellers,
trainers, and owners will all tell you that. Their behavior makes it clear
they believe it, and that they use such guns in the way they claim. The
statistics on gun use show that their belief is justified. The law says
injuring or killing an attacker while stopping his attack is legitimate,
doing so once the attack has been stopped is not.
Now a handgun happens to stop attacks by threating and/or actually causing
enough damage to the attacker that he can't continue the attack. This is
so much damage that, if he happens to be shot, in perhaps one case in four
he will die. Fortunately he almost never needs to be shot - but on those
rare occasions when he does you've got to break him a LOT, very FAST, or
he'll get you before he drops.
For defending against a close-range attack, a handgun is the single best
tool for the job. Defense with a gun is the only form of defense that
significantly REDUCES the defender's risk of injury (which it cuts in HALF).
At the ranges and in the situations where most attacks take place, a
handgun is the only practical form of gun to use.
If you can ever come up with a replacement that does a better job, or even
one nearly as good, I'm sure many handgun owners will be happy to switch.
(On their own, of course. If you try to force or browbeat them into getting
rid of their guns, they'll start to wonder what you have planned for them
once they do.)
--
Why did the Democrats get creamed?
IT'S THE GUN BANS, STUPID!
Michael McClary mcc...@netcom.com
For faster response, address electronic mail to: mic...@node.com
Larry Hewitt
[much back and forth deleted]
>[anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertion deleted]
>Larry, you didn't answer the questions. Were they too hard?
I thought I did. If you don't like my answers, then that is your problem.
>: >Could you please list some of those items that were specifically
>: >designed for self-defense that have a reliability and effectiveness
>: >remotely approaching a firearm? Just curious if you have any good
>: >suggestions. In particular, I'd like to hear your suggestions for
>: >those folk who are relatively frail. We have seen in many instances
>: >that a firearm has allowed folk of this nature to successfully defend
>: >themselves against significantly more powerful attackers, such as that
>: >92 year old woman in Chicago who managed to thwart the attack of the
>: >two young punks who invaded her home.
>: >I eagerly await your suggestions.
>: No, i don't advocate a position of meekly being consigned to your fate.
>: There are a number of products on the market that will provide adequate
>: self defense that are MUCH more effective for the elderly and frail than
>: a gun.
>Could you present your credentials in the area of self-defense that
>qualifies you to make this assertion. All of the accredited self-defense
>experts that I know of disagree with this statement. Perhaps you
>should educate them.
Well, considering that most "self defense experts" are in the business of
selling, it doesn't surprise me that they recommend you but. What I
describe below WAS recommended by a self defense expert who came to a
senior center.
>: Take what we provide for my grandmother. She is 94 years old and
>: weighs 89 pounds. Even if she could lift, aim, and accurately shoot a gun
>: the recoil would probably break her arm. And if she tried and failed ( as
>: is likely) then her attacker certainly would kill her.
>If she is so frail that she is unable to lift even a light weapon, I
>assume that she is not left unattended. That would be most horrible.
AD HOMINEM ATTACK warning! DO NOT TRY to pass us of as uncaring! She is
perfectly capable of living alone AND WANTS TO. I don't know if she would
be able to pick up a light weapon and fire it with no damage. Would YOU
subject YOUR grandmother to an experiment that might result in physical
injury? And , as the self defense expert explained, if you don't at least
cripple the attacker the odds are that a gunshot will enrage him and
invite retaliation. Few elderly or disabled ( as the person I responded
to is) can escape unless the attacker is severely wounded. A 22 in the
shoulder won't help!
>: So our solution. How about first of all reducing your risk. Never travel
>: alone. Avoid areas that invite an attack. Sure, this may be difficult and
>: restrictive, and cannot be 100% effective but it helps. My grandmother
>: lived in a poor, high crime community. Instead of going to the store
>: alone groups of seniors went together. Stuff like this.
>All good tactics.
>: For when the bad stuff happens, how about pepper spray and an air horn.
>: Worked for my grandmother. For the cost of a decent gun and lessons you
>: can fortify your doors and windows against entry. Ther are many other
>: options available using non-lethal technology and a little creative thought.
>While pepper spray can be effective, it is also prone to failure in a
>very large number of ways (not to mention that it is illegal in more
>places than handguns are!) If the attacker is too close, the spray
>may take a number of seconds to become effective. It is only effective
>once the propellant has evaporated. If the wind is blowing the wrong
>way, it can be blown back at you. If the assailant is drunk or high,
>or even pumped on adrenaline, it might not be effective at all.
As you admit in your next paragraph, nothing is foolproof. But I did not
just say pepper spry, I also said an air horn. Little discourages crime
more than an audience. Again, not foolproof, but 2 chances are better than
1. And there are others. The stun guns advertised on tv. Besides, you
seem to intimate that the intent to do lethal harm is foremost on the
criminal's mind. This is rarely true. Murders are but a small portion of
the crime rate, and a large percentage of the murders are commited on
criminals - ie drug wars. Someone attempting to snatch a purse or steal a
watch isn't interested in a long, drawn out public event. As the defense
expert pointed out, it is important to leave your attacker an out. Most
often he will run, if he can. If he can't he will turn on YOU.
>This is not to argue that a handgun is foolproof, but in 98% of the
>instances where a firearm is used for self-defense, the weapon is not
>fired. Its effectiveness is based on intimidation for the most part.
>This is not true of that little can hidden in your hand.
>What it boils down to is that a handgun is the single most effective
>means of self-defense available to the individual. It is not a
>panacea. But it is the best.
I challenge you to support your statistics! I even question the FBI
report you mentioned. In a response to the recent attempted car jacking
in Detroit where the mother heroically stayed with the car, the FBI
recommended that you DO NOT ATTEMPT to intervene, that more often than
not intervention will result in retaliation from the attacker ( as
happened here in the case of the women who was dragged to her death).
They said that few hijackers want to risk a Federal kidnapping charge and
will release children as soon as they are clear.
Larry
>--
>Keith
Larry Hewitt
>> >- Steve Kao
What hyperbole! Historically, people are _jailed_ for breaking laws. And
isn't it the right wing and NRA that are pushing to make the death
penalty more common and execution faster, against us left-wing liberals
namby-pampies who are against the death penalty.
>I ignore the rest of your ad hominem and illogic.
Such grammer! Such vocabulary! ( FYI, that was an ad hominem attack, not
my previous post)
Larry
>- Steve Kao
Matthew Russotto
Larry Hewitt <lhe...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
}Well, I would assert that the proliferation of lethal instruments has
}increased the probability that an encounter with a criminal could be
}lethal.
So what's the matter with that, if it is the criminal who is killed?
}It is a chicken or the egg issue. I have little but anecdotal
}eveidence to back this up, but I will present it. When I was growing up
}there were a lot of schoolyard brawls. We lived on the edge of a tough
}part of town. Sure, a lot of bones were broken, and there were even a few
}stab wounds, but few fatalities. About 10 years ago guns started showing
}up. And who brought the first one? Not the criminals ( the bullies or the
}kids extortingmoney etc. ). No, it was brought by one of the kids who
}kept getting beat up and a bully was the first to die. Now there are
}metal detectors at the school entrance.
OK, I get it. The kids are forced to spend 6 1/2 hours in a place
where larger kids are able to beat up on them, break their bones, rob
them, and stab them without fear of retribution. And when one of them
finally does something about it, he's done a bad thing? Sorry-- if
the school was so out of control that bones were regularly broken
during fights, then there was nothing wrong with the victim bringing a
gun.
}My assertion is that the top dogs ( bullies, theives, criminals, etc. )
}had no need to move to guns because they were already in control. But
}when the victims started packing heat then they had to to resume their
}position as top dog. So we are back to the status quo, only now
}confrontations are much more likely to be fatal.
Why aren't the metal detectors stopping the guns and restoring the
status quo ante which you find acceptable? Are they stopping only
the victim's guns? When the victims started packing heat, they should
have assumed positions as "top dogs"-- there's more victims than
bullies, and bullies are really cowards-- beat one up, and you'll be
left alone. Furthermore, a bully who uses a gun is far more likely to
be removed from the situation than a bully who uses his fists or a
knife-- the gun just isn't as useful in maintaining terror, because
its use forces authority to step in.
Now, of course, the people who should be top dog at a school are the
administrators and teachers. But if they neglect their duties and
allow the school to be run like a prison, by the toughest inmates,
then I can't object to the victim's fighting back with a firearm.
nntp network news service
says...
>
>One method to store a loaded handgun more safely is to keep the
>chamber empty. A quick click and you'd be ready for intruders, but
>much less chance of accident. There are, I am sure many more methods.
>I hear palm ID technology may be coming out soon. Perhaps even
>simpler would be a small electric codepad with a two or three
>number code to push before the gun could be fired and the same code
>to lock it out again.
A number of years ago I read about a gun that several police departments
were experimenting with. The gun had a magnetic switch under the trigger.
The officer wore a ring with a magnet in it. When holding a gun normally,
the ring would be positioned over the switch, enabling the firing
mechanism.
I have no idea what happened to this experiment.
nntp network news service
>
>: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>
>...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
>*constructive* purpose.
The same is true for guns.
Michael Zarlenga
: supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
: should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
No.
The rub comes when you define "irresponsible."
Go ahead ...
--
--
Michael Zarlenga
For PGP public key : finger zarl...@world.std.com
Charlie McMillion
never posted. I'm tired of the BS, the talk of comprimise, and the soft
stance of the NRA.
Bruce Baugh (bru...@teleport.com)
wrote: : lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) wrote:
: :Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
: :above. They were designed to kill, period.
O.K. That's why I own them. I don't hunt, I don't shoot paper. EARTH
TO GUN GRABBERS: TRY TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THIS: I OWN FIREARMS FOR
ONE PURPOSE: TO KILL PEOPLE. Unfortunatly, it is sometimes necessary.
: Have you ever talked to a gunsmith? While there's historical truth
: to what you say, many modern guns are _not_ designed as killing tools,
: but as tools for shooting. You've heard of target shooting, I hope?
Careful here. This is quickly becoming the death of the RKBA effort.
To hell with the concept of being a sportsman or a target shooter. You
try using that as the basis for having firearms and you can kiss them
goodbye. The 2nd ammendment recognizes the RKBA as a means to control and
ultimatly overthrow the federal govmnt if, and when, it becomes necessary.
You have no right to own a firearm to go target shooting with.
All this crap about comprimises that allows the federal govmnt to
regulate firearms in any way makes me sick. Allowing the feds to regulate
firearms is the ultimate case of letting the fox into the henhouse. If
you truly believe in the 2nd ammendment and respect the words of the
great men who founded this country then you know that the feds are the
ones you, or your decendants, will ultimatly be aiming your firearms at.
: bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
: List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
: "Lacquered frog bands are no longer popular with America's trendsetters,
: Max. We'd be hosed." - Steve Purcell, SAM AND MAX: FREELANCE POLICE
--
Charlie McMillion "Never drop someone you might have to eat"
c...@clark.net
Bruce Baugh
:I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE! I have read this group for a year now and have
:never posted. I'm tired of the BS, the talk of comprimise, and the soft
:stance of the NRA.
Let me say this as politely as possible:
Piss off.
Since you chose to respond to my message, I presume you mean to include
me in the above. Bad choice. I'm a Bill of Rights absolutist. I was
responding to specific statements of others, including the old "guns
are designed only to kill" argument, a manifest untruth.
It wasn't the place to bring up historical or philosophical arguments,
so I didn't. I _did_ address - in a part of message you chose not to
quote - make what I think is a solid case for the very great utility
of arms ownership among the disabled. And the same argument applies,
with very little reduction of immediacy, to absolutely everyone in
the society. I would prefer that many more people own and be competent
in the use of firearms. I would prefer that the government confine its
attention to those who criminally misuse their firearms, and that it
leave the vast majority who do not well enough alone.
I am not your enemy. Posting under the assumption that I am only
hurts yourself and your argument.
Steve Kao
> While admitting that people are human ( including police), and that
> nothing is perfect, I will say this. There is a profound difference
> between an armed police force and an armed citizenry. Police are trained
> in and restricted by rules of engagement ( yes, they are human and
> sometimes go to far), and few citizens are. They routinely put themselves
> in dangerous situations ON PURPOSE, citizens don't.
Unfortunately, the first people at the scene of a violent crime are
the criminal and the victim, not the police. You want to disarm the
criminal. The means you're advocating will disarm the victim. Not
only will you disarm the victim, you intend to jail or kill the
victim if the victim arms herself despite your laws.
> And finally, the police are the designated protectors of the
> citizenry.
As has been pointed out, the police have no legal responsibility for
protecting anyone. If someone threatens you and you demand police
protection, the police are not obligated to provide it.
> Few are comfortable with armed vigilantes running loose.
Now you are presenting strawmen and/or engaging in ad hominems.
No one is advocating vigilantism. Self-defense is not vigilantism.
> And by the way, as you intimated with the FBI weapons change,
> police forces are _behind_ the citizenry in the arms race.
Full-auto is unavailable to ordinary citizens in California, yet
completely available to the local police. Perhaps you should do
some more research before presenting falsehoods as facts.
> >Let me ask the question again, since no
> >gun-control advocate has _ever_ answered it:
> > What use does a cop legally have for a gun that would not also be
> > a use that a civilian legally has for a gun ? When can a cop legally
> > shoot someone whan a civilian can not ? Why ?
> By definition, by god. A cop can shoot a fleeing suspect under certain
> circumstances, a civilian cannot. A cop can break a door down to a crack
> house and shoot a drug dealer resisting arrest. That is murder for a
> civilian to do. Civilians ARE NOT THE KEEPERS OF THE PEACE, police are.
Do you think it's OK to let the police to break down doors and shoot
people when lives are not immediately threatened? Perhaps you've heard
of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution that's supposed to protect
US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures? You scare me.
{ selective editing }
> More selective editing! I also included name callers in this list.
You implied above that pro-choice people are "vigilanties." Perhaps
you should not be so insulted when people call you names in return.
> The only circumstance where shooting one of these people is if your
> life is in jeopardy.
So is it OK for the police to do the same? From your drug bust example
above, I got the impression that you thought it was OK for the police to
break down doors and shoot people who try to resist. From your "rules
of engagement" stuff, I got the impression that you think it's OK for
the police to shoot someone in the back even though no life is in
immediate danger. Are my impressions wrong? Do you really want to
grant so much power to the police? You are very scary.
> That used to mena the perpetrator was armed, and almost
> always in your house. It is not legal to shoot someone knocking on your
> front door, walking accross your yard, or shouting at you from the
> street. Yet this happens frequently.
How frequently? You have demonstrated a complete lack of interest in
doing research among the government archives.
- Steve Kao
Larry Hewitt
>Larry Hewitt <lhe...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
>>... If you do not intend
>>to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
>>someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>>perform those functions.
>>
>>My car does all of the things you describe above, and it was designed to
>>do the third.
>
>I was told that the auto mobile was designed by a French artillery engineer
>to tow artillery pieces. Do you use your car for its originally intended
>purpose, i.e. tow artillery :-)
The first automobile was designed by a German I forget, one of the
founders of Mercedes Benz) as a passenger vehicle.
Larry
nntp network news service
>
>Brad, you're at it again. Stop your ideological posturing long enough
to
>check things out once in a while. During the 80s defense spending
>increased by over 1.7 TRILLION Dollars. You may think that 1.7 TRILLION
>is only a small portion of the 3 trillion that the debt increased, but
my
>archaic arithmetic puts it at over half.
James, your attempt to change the context is particuraly inept.
The you are comparing how much defense spending increased vs. how
much the deficit increased.
The point Brad raised was how much social spending increased vs.
how much defense spending increased.
You do have a minor point. Had defense spending not increased the
deficit would have been smaller. But you ignore the point brought up
by Brad, that had social spending not increased, the deficit would
have been even smaller.
>And your assertion that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit
is
>based on the theory built on the infamous Laffer Curve.
No, it is a theory based in looking at the actual results. Total tax
revenue increased. Dramatically.
>It is a theory
>that only some people still take seriously.
Most economists take the theory behind the Laffer curve quite seriously.
It is just the shape of the curve that is debated, and whether we are
currently below, at, or above the peak.
Do you even know what the Laffer Curve is, or is just another one of
those things that you have been taught to be reflexively against?
>Will you ever discover that sometimes cause and effect is not on your
side?
Well when cause and effect are demonstrateably on your side, it takes
more then exhortations to make me believe otherwise.
Larry Hewitt
>Larry Hewitt (lhe...@access3.digex.net) wrote:
>: k...@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:
>: >> If you do not intend
>: >> to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
>: >> someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>: >> perform those functions.
>: >Do people who make such statements really think it is OK to kill people
>: >who think differently? Not everyone agrees with people who make such
>: >statements. Some people disagree strongly enough that killing them will
>: >be the only way to enforce gun bans. Do people who dislike guns really
>: >want to kill people who disagree with them?
>: >- Steve Kao
>: Ok, my last dip into this thread.
>Chicken! :-)
>: The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
>: use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
>Again, you have shown no particularly strong argument for this
>statement. As weapons of self-defense, handguns have been shown time
>and again to be the most effective means. Even the FBI's UCR show
>that resistance with a handgun is the most successful way to deal with
>assault.
Well, you had to go and call me chicken :>)
One of the problems with this forum (USENET) is trying to keep verbiage
to a minimum, then having people pick nits at holes left open. ( No
compliant, just observation. I do it too.)
My major fault was a broad inclusion of guns into the topic. As I said,
target shooting and hunting are two legitmate uses for guns ( and I would
submit that hunting waepons are designed to kill). Howver, it is rare
that John Q. Public will have a target gun or a hunting rifle in his
night stand. I am not arguing against these guns, but FOR them! If you
use a target gun for target shooting, then more power to you. Hunt away!
But a Glock 9mm is designed and sold to kill people ( not wound, kill -
it is too powerful and the slug is too big to NOT be fatal in many chest,
belly, or head hits). Not having seen the FBI report you mention, I can't
respond to it, but I can say it is nowhere near accepted that a handgun
is the best defense against an assault. The State police and most local
police forces here disagree and lobby FOR handgun restrictions. And
unfortunately, handguns are being used for more than protection from
assault - they are being used against robbers, trespassers, and yes, even
the dangerous _name caller_.
>: Why is it that gun advocates lose any
sense of logic on this topic?
>From where I'm sitting, it appears that you are the one lacking logic.
>Just MHO.
>: I did not even intimate that ownership of guns for use as they were
>: designed ( hunting, target shooting, etc.) should be restricted in any
>: way. What I did say was that the huge number of guns out there being used
>: for purposes other than they were intended leads to unpleasant side
>: effects.
>"...huge number of guns out there being used for purposes other than
>they were intended..." Could you explain that statement? What is a
>huge number? Ten percent? Five percent? What number is it that
>you think is huge, and where did you come up with that number?
>BTW, did you see that recent little tidbit about D.C. Seems that
>about 400 of the murders committed last year were traced to thirteen
>guns. Just thirteen! Amazing. Seems some individuals are wreaking
>a lot of havoc.
Well I don't need to have a specific number. But the ones I'm counting
are EVERY gun carried to school, every gun left unlocked in a home, every
gun brandished by a fearful/drunk/high citizen, not to mention every gun
in the hands of a criminal.
Want the best evidence that guns are no good for protecting you? You know
what the Christmas gift rage was here before the authorities clamped down?
_Bullet proof vests_. A gun is no longer enough!
Larry
>--
>Keith
Larry Hewitt
>In article <lhewitt.788044451@access3>,
>Larry Hewitt <lhe...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
>>The logic link between those two statements IS NOT that gun owners should
>>use the gun, it is that they should not own the gun.
>>
>>Why is it that gun advocates lose any sense of logic on this topic?
>Perhaps they appear to you to have "lost any sense of logic" because you
>don't understand their position.
>For instance, you claim that the purpose of a gun is to kill. This is
>demonstratably false, especially in the case of a self-defense handgun.
>The purposes of different sorts of guns differ widely, as do the purposes
>of the various clubs in a golfer's bag or the different vehicles on the
>road.
>The purpose of a self-defense handgun, for instance, is NOT to kill. It
>is to stop an attack, thus protecting its user. The gun makers, sellers,
>trainers, and owners will all tell you that. Their behavior makes it clear
>they believe it, and that they use such guns in the way they claim. The
>statistics on gun use show that their belief is justified. The law says
>injuring or killing an attacker while stopping his attack is legitimate,
>doing so once the attack has been stopped is not.
The gun makers, sellers, etc. have a _personal, vested interest_ in your
owning that gun and will say _anything_ to encourage you to purchase it.
Their is _no difference_ between a self defense handgaun and an offensive
hand gun _ other than marketing_. They both propel a heavy weight at high
velocity at a target (a person) and both cause significant bodily damage
on impact. Lethality of the gun shot is determined more by impact area
than anything else ( virtually any shot to the throat is fatal, rarely is
a shot to the foot fatal). In point of fact, most self defense trainers
say to aim at the largest target - the chest. Even a 22 to the heart is
usually fatal.
>Now a handgun happens to stop attacks by threating and/or actually causing
>enough damage to the attacker that he can't continue the attack. This is
>so much damage that, if he happens to be shot, in perhaps one case in four
>he will die. Fortunately he almost never needs to be shot - but on those
>rare occasions when he does you've got to break him a LOT, very FAST, or
>he'll get you before he drops.
There is a logical disjunct here. At first you say that you at least have
the drop on the bad guy ( just brandishing the gun scares him off ), but
if you don't disable him your dead. Well, I can't imagine a situation
where not only do I get the drop on an attacker (a reversal of
definition, BTW) but after wounding him he now has the upper hand over
me. A second shot isn't feasable? He now has a gun and can shoot faster
than you? Again I submit that if just waving a gun in his face will scare
him off than non-lethal methods will work, too.
>For defending against a close-range attack, a handgun is the single best
>tool for the job. Defense with a gun is the only form of defense that
>significantly REDUCES the defender's risk of injury (which it cuts in HALF).
>At the ranges and in the situations where most attacks take place, a
>handgun is the only practical form of gun to use.
I disagree, and so do sellers, trainers, and self defense experts :>). At
least the ones on that repulsive late night infomertial selling stun guns.
First, we have to define risk. What are you defending against? What are
the odds of finding youself the victim of an attack causing grievious
bodily harm ( rape, beating, etc.) Not as great as the public perceives.
Most crimes DO NOT involve significant bodily harm - maybe a punch or
some such, but by the FBI's statistics most crimes are not violent. And
as to reducing the chance of injury, that is contrary to what most law
enforcement agancies say. Most say DO NOT RESIST. Resistance is the
quickest way to escalate the violence. Let him have your purse or watch.
If you resist he may break your arm taking it. Resist more ( or threaten
him ) and he WILL make a pre-emptive strike.
>If you can ever come up with a replacement that does a better job, or even
>one nearly as good, I'm sure many handgun owners will be happy to switch.
>(On their own, of course. If you try to force or browbeat them into getting
> rid of their guns, they'll start to wonder what you have planned for them
> once they do.)
Well, I doubt it. There seems to be something almost addictive about
owning a gun. I'm not pointing to anyone in particular. I used to be an
addictions counselor. Many of the same arguments used by gun owners
arguning against gun control are uncannily similar to arguments made by
addidts justifying their use!
Larry
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
] As you admit in your next paragraph, nothing is foolproof. But I did not
] just say pepper spry, I also said an air horn. Little discourages crime
] more than an audience. Again, not foolproof, but 2 chances are better than
] 1. And there are others.
Guns are more effective than pepper spray, and louder than air horns,
and less bulky than the two together, as well as only needing one hand
to use. They also don't rely on "the kindness of strangers" to come
rescue you, since they don't always do so, a lesson Kitty Genovese
learned the hard way.
Is it just that you don't want those poor criminals to be hurt, Larry ?
Believe me, they feel no such charity to their victems. OR is there
some other, more sinister reason you don't want people to have the
most effective self-defense tool yet developed ?
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
] But a Glock 9mm is designed and sold to kill people ( not wound, kill -
] it is too powerful and the slug is too big to NOT be fatal in many chest,
] belly, or head hits).
This is funny. Many people consider 9mm Parabellum vastly underpowered
for self-defense, and many many people have survived being shot in
the chest, belly or head with 9mm Parabellum bullets. Yet Larry Hewitt
claims it is "is too big to NOT be fatal". Sorry, not true.
Why do you think the FBI adopted the 10mm ? Because they thought
that 9mm wasn't effective enough. And that prompts one to ask,
why do police carry guns anyway, and what possible reason could
a policeman or policewoman have for using a gun or round that would
not also be a good reason for a civilian to use that gun or round ?
Or are you arguing that police should be disarmed, or at least armed
with less lethal guns than the 9mm Parabellum, 10mm, .40S&W and .45ACP
handguns they routinely carry ?
Let me ask the question again, since no gun-control advocate has
_ever_ answered it:
What use does a cop legally have for a gun that would not also be
a use that a civilian legally has for a gun ? When can a cop legally
shoot someone whan a civilian can not ? Why ?
] Not having seen the FBI report you mention, I can't respond to it,
] but I can say it is nowhere near accepted that a handgun is the
] best defense against an assault.
It's accepted by lots of people. It's backed by FBI statistics.
What makes you think differently ? Feelings ? Astrology ? What ?
] The State police and most local police forces here disagree and
] lobby FOR handgun restrictions.
Wrong. Politically-appointed police chiefs may, but every survey
of rank-and-file police officers to date shows overwhelming support
for law-abiding civilian handgun ownership.
] unfortunately, handguns are being used for more than protection from
] assault - they are being used against robbers, trespassers,
Are these activities legal or illegal ? Legal use of firearms
I assume you have no problem with. Illegal use is already illegal.
] >BTW, did you see that recent little tidbit about D.C. Seems that
] >about 400 of the murders committed last year were traced to thirteen
] >guns. Just thirteen! Amazing. Seems some individuals are wreaking
] >a lot of havoc.
]
] Well I don't need to have a specific number. But the ones I'm counting
] are EVERY gun carried to school,
Are you really counting these ? What count have you reached ?
] every gun left unlocked in a home,
Why ? Are they threatening anyone ? ALL my guns are unlocked at home
( most are loaded ) but they are also hidden and there are no minors.
Perhaps you labor under the delusion that locks will stop a theif :
NOT. A big safe welded to the floor might; have you priced those, tho ?
Or is disarming the poor and lower-middle class, but not the rich,
part of your agenda ?
] every gun brandished by a fearful/drunk/high citizen,
Wait a minute ... why do you have a problem with someone who
is "fearful" for their life having a gun ? When BETTER to have
and "brandish" a gun then when you are afraid you might be killed ?
And "brandishing" a gun without cause will get you jailed in
most states, regardless of your state of intoxication. Such
behavior is already illegal : hasn't that stopped it ?
] in the hands of a criminal.
That's already illegal too. Will making it illegal _again_ help ?
] Want the best evidence that guns are no good for protecting you? You know
] what the Christmas gift rage was here before the authorities clamped down?
]
] _Bullet proof vests_. A gun is no longer enough!
How does a bullet proff vest threaten anyone ? Who has _ever_ been
killed by one ? You anti-self-defense lunatics have gone to far.
Larry Hewitt
>In article <lhewitt.788033107@access3> lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
>>Well, now you've dragged me into it :>)
>>
>>Guns were never designed nor intended for the purposes you describe
>>above. They were designed to kill, period. The fact that you are
>You show your ignorance here. There are many guns designed solely
>for the target shooting sport. They make terrible weapons.
>>resourceful and creative enough to find another use for them does not
>>change this. The fact that a percentage of gun owners (whatever that
>>percentage may be) does not use them for their designed purpose (ie
>>target shooting, sitting in a drawer) is irrelevant. If you do not intend
>>to use a gun for its designed purpose (hunting, law enforcement, killing
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What a euphemism !! The essense of "Law Enforcement" is the ability
>to enforce one's will over another's through physical coercion.
>This is the very point of the argument of checking the powers of
>the state vs. the People.
Guns are not needed in this society to protect us from the government.
Sure, an occassional abuse occurs, BUT GUN OWNERSHIP NEVER PREVENTED THE
ABUSE. In fact, in many cases it triggered the abuse.
And while you may deny it, there is no indication that the framers of the
constitution foresaw, let alone approved of, the need to create an armed
citizenry protcting itself from government abuse.
>>someone) then you should not own one. Other items were designed to
>>perform those functions.
>>
>>My car does all of the things you describe above, and it was designed to
>>do the third.
>Really. I'll bet you anything that if you go back far enough in
>human history that vehicles were originally designed for the
>purposes of battle and hunting.
>>Larry
Well, actually the first known vehicles were ox drawn carts used to move
goods.
Larry
Andrew MacFarlane
Friedman) wrote:
> So why should I subsidize your listening pleasure? Are you going to
> subsidize the stations I like to listen to?
I'm sure he already does, by drinking Bud or driving a Chevy or buying
Purina Cat Chow or whatever.
Larry Hewitt
>In article <lhewitt.788044978@access3>,
>Larry Hewitt <lhe...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
>}Well, I would assert that the proliferation of lethal instruments has
>}increased the probability that an encounter with a criminal could be
>}lethal.
>So what's the matter with that, if it is the criminal who is killed?
Who said it was the criminal who died? Not me, or the MD state police. In
MD more often than not it is either an innocent victim ( like the young
girl who surprised her father and was killed) or the victim himself who
dies.
>}It is a chicken or the egg issue. I have little but anecdotal
>}eveidence to back this up, but I will present it. When I was growing up
>}there were a lot of schoolyard brawls. We lived on the edge of a tough
>}part of town. Sure, a lot of bones were broken, and there were even a few
>}stab wounds, but few fatalities. About 10 years ago guns started showing
>}up. And who brought the first one? Not the criminals ( the bullies or the
>}kids extortingmoney etc. ). No, it was brought by one of the kids who
>}kept getting beat up and a bully was the first to die. Now there are
>}metal detectors at the school entrance.
>OK, I get it. The kids are forced to spend 6 1/2 hours in a place
>where larger kids are able to beat up on them, break their bones, rob
>them, and stab them without fear of retribution. And when one of them
>finally does something about it, he's done a bad thing? Sorry-- if
>the school was so out of control that bones were regularly broken
>during fights, then there was nothing wrong with the victim bringing a
>gun.
Wait a minute! Did I _ever_ say that say that that we stood around and
took it? And did I say bones were regularly broken and people regularly
stabbed? Did I ever say that no punishment was meted out. Geez, are you
running out of logic to refute me with? I'm talking about 15 yr olds
fighting over a girl, for Christ's sake. Used to be 2 guys mano a mano
after school with 50 kids watching. A split lip, a couple of torn shirts,
3 days suspension, and it was over. Now, one kid ambushes the other or
gets a MAC 10 and sprays the school yard. Somebody wanted your jacket?
There might be a fight. At least you knew who did it and went to the
principal. Now, a 32 in the back and off go your tennies. A gang fight? Used
to be pipes and chains and baseball bats. A few broken bones, maybe
someone brought a knife so there is a stab wound. People knew who was
involved, and some spoke up. A little jail time, maybe probation,
certainly _some_ action, a couple of casts and some stitches, and its
over. Now, drive-bys, street corner shoot outs, kids being shot through
open windows. And the neighbors are too afraid to speak up. That's what
I'm talking about!
>}My assertion is that the top dogs ( bullies, theives, criminals, etc. )
>}had no need to move to guns because they were already in control. But
>}when the victims started packing heat then they had to to resume their
>}position as top dog. So we are back to the status quo, only now
>}confrontations are much more likely to be fatal.
>Why aren't the metal detectors stopping the guns and restoring the
>status quo ante which you find acceptable? Are they stopping only
>the victim's guns? When the victims started packing heat, they should
>have assumed positions as "top dogs"-- there's more victims than
>bullies, and bullies are really cowards-- beat one up, and you'll be
>left alone. Furthermore, a bully who uses a gun is far more likely to
>be removed from the situation than a bully who uses his fists or a
>knife-- the gun just isn't as useful in maintaining terror, because
>its use forces authority to step in.
Well, in the school buildings at least metal detectors are sugnificantly
reducing the number of guns. Unfortunatly, once a kid goes out the door
all bets are off. And as too the top dog argument you place, what
happened was an arms race. I get a 22. You get a 32. I get a 45. You get
a semi-automatic 9mm. And I agree about beating up a bully. But have you
tried to beat up a bully packing heat?
>Now, of course, the people who should be top dog at a school are the
>administrators and teachers. But if they neglect their duties and
>allow the school to be run like a prison, by the toughest inmates,
>then I can't object to the victim's fighting back with a firearm.
Again, I _never_ said that. The school was far safer and serene then. You
didn't watch your back. You didn't avoid certain hallways. And the
teachers and administration _could_ control things then. Not now. Last
year a teacher reprimanded a kid. He got a gun and watied for her to
leave school. He shot her as she was getting into her car. Do you think
someone will take that risk agin with another kid?
Larry
steve hix
wild newsgroups: list a lot easier.
In article 788132339@access3, lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
:
:Guns are not needed in this society to protect us from the government.
The people who designed the government certainly didn't think so.
Try reading what they had to say on the subject.
:Sure, an occassional abuse occurs, BUT GUN OWNERSHIP NEVER PREVENTED THE
:ABUSE.
Refresh your recollection of history. Start with the American Revolution.
Continue with the Civil War. Find out about he Battle of Athens...of 1946.
:In fact, in many cases it triggered the abuse.
The fact that the governments have guns certainly *has* made it easier for
various abuses to occur.
:And while you may deny it, there is no indication that the framers of the
:constitution foresaw, let alone approved of, the need to create an armed
:citizenry protcting itself from government abuse.
Read the Federalist Papers, for starters.
Or try some comments from the framers and their friends. After you have
read these, then let us know if you still believe that "there is no indication
that the framers of the constitution foresaw, let alone approved of, the
need to create an armed citizenry protcting itself from government abuse".
(You're right, at least, in asserting that they saw no need to *create* such
a body...they clearly wanted to protect that body's existence.)
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
agianst tyrany in government." (Thomas Jefferson)
"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, spoken during floor debate over the Second
Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)
"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way
to enslave them..." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"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 the people are armed, and constitute
a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on
any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in a
phamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification)[2]
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the
government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can
never be formitable 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 29.)
"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,
October 14, 1789)
"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 article in their
right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Cox in
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian"
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially
when young, how to use them..." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788,
Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the
first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)[5]
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are
not warned from time to time that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of
patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson)[6]
:Well, actually the first known vehicles were ox drawn carts used to move
:goods.
The first automobiles were designed and intended to be used to move
troops. (Cugnot, 18th century)
---
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
-----ke6bhy-----------------------------------------------------------
steve hix
In article 788130608@access3, lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
:mcc...@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes:
:
:>The purpose of a self-defense handgun, for instance, is NOT to kill. It
:>is to stop an attack, thus protecting its user. The gun makers, sellers,
:>trainers, and owners will all tell you that. Their behavior makes it clear
:>they believe it, and that they use such guns in the way they claim. The
:>statistics on gun use show that their belief is justified. The law says
:>injuring or killing an attacker while stopping his attack is legitimate,
:>doing so once the attack has been stopped is not.
:
:The gun makers, sellers, etc. have a _personal, vested interest_ in your
:owning that gun and will say _anything_ to encourage you to purchase it.
So you have proof that they lie? (Judging from your past record on the subject,
you're making more baseless assertions...don't stop now.)
:Their is _no difference_ between a self defense handgaun and an offensive
:hand gun _ other than marketing_.
Sorry, Larry. The difference is in the intent of the user, assuming that the
tool is capable of performing both roles. Which is most definitely the case.
: They both propel a heavy weight at high
:velocity at a target (a person) and both cause significant bodily damage
:on impact. Lethality of the gun shot is determined more by impact area
:than anything else ( virtually any shot to the throat is fatal,
Funny, I've spoken to more than one person shot in the neck...they seemed
downright sprightly to me.
:a shot to the foot fatal). In point of fact, most self defense trainers
:say to aim at the largest target - the chest. Even a 22 to the heart is
:usually fatal.
Speaking without knowledge of what you spout again, huh?
A .38 round to the torso is roughly as lethal as a single knife thrust to
the same area. Neither has lethality greater than 50%, they're closer to
about 1/3. A .22 is less immediately lethal than a .38.
There's more, but why bother? Larry won't do his homework anyway.
Steve Kao
> Guns are not needed in this society to protect us from the government.
> Sure, an occassional abuse occurs, BUT GUN OWNERSHIP NEVER PREVENTED THE
> ABUSE. In fact, in many cases it triggered the abuse.
This is not true. The Branch Davidian successfully resisted criminals
employed by the BATF in February 1992.
- Steve Kao
Rich Puchalsky
: Well, the Emperor is naked, and children are going to die no matter what
: laws are passed. Live with it.
Ah, yes, the usual right-wing attitude; "If rape is inevitable, just lie
back and enjoy it" (to paraphrase Clayton Williams).
Lizard is a closet utopian. His position seems to be that unless a law
will provide _perfect_ protection, you shouldn't bother with it. Well,
some of us have to live in a real world, unlike the Libertarian fantasists.
Larry Hewitt
>lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
>] But a Glock 9mm is designed and sold to kill people ( not wound, kill -
>] it is too powerful and the slug is too big to NOT be fatal in many chest,
>] belly, or head hits).
>This is funny. Many people consider 9mm Parabellum vastly underpowered
>for self-defense, and many many people have survived being shot in
>the chest, belly or head with 9mm Parabellum bullets. Yet Larry Hewitt
>claims it is "is too big to NOT be fatal". Sorry, not true.
Well, I don't know my brand names. All I know is the city police force
just upgraded to a Glock 9mm ( I don't even know if there is a model
name) _because_ it has more stopping power than their old model!
>Why do you think the FBI adopted the 10mm ? Because they thought
>that 9mm wasn't effective enough. And that prompts one to ask,
>why do police carry guns anyway, and what possible reason could
>a policeman or policewoman have for using a gun or round that would
>not also be a good reason for a civilian to use that gun or round ?
>Or are you arguing that police should be disarmed, or at least armed
>with less lethal guns than the 9mm Parabellum, 10mm, .40S&W and .45ACP
>handguns they routinely carry ?
While admitting that people are human ( including police), and that
nothing is perfect, I will say this. There is a profound difference
between an armed police force and an armed citizenry. Police are trained
in and restricted by rukes of engagement ( yes, they are human and
sometimes go to far), and few citizens are. They routinely put themselves
in dangerous situations ON PURPOSE, citizens don't. And finally, the
police are the designated protectors of the citizenry. Few are
comfortable with armed vigilantes running loose. And by the way, as you
intimated with the FBI weapons change, police forces are _behind_ the
citizenry in the arms race.
>Let me ask the question again, since no
gun-control advocate has >_ever_ answered it:
> What use does a cop legally have for a gun that would not also be
> a use that a civilian legally has for a gun ? When can a cop legally
> shoot someone whan a civilian can not ? Why ?
By definition, by god. A cop can shoot a fleeing suspect under certain
circumstances, a civilian cannot. A cop can break a door down to a crack
house and shoot a drug dealer resisting arrest. That is murder for a
civilian to do. Civilians ARE NOT THE KEEPERS OF THE PEACE, police are.
>] Not having seen the FBI report you mention, I can't respond to it,
>] but I can say it is nowhere near accepted that a handgun is the
>] best defense against an assault.
>It's accepted by lots of people. It's backed by FBI statistics.
>What makes you think differently ? Feelings ? Astrology ? What ?
I gave you my reasons and support, your editing separated this statement
out of context. See my next statement.
>] The State police and most local
police forces here disagree and >] lobby FOR handgun restrictions.
>Wrong. Politically-appointed police chiefs may, but every survey
>of rank-and-file police officers to date shows overwhelming support
>for law-abiding civilian handgun ownership.
Wrong! The surveys I have seen supporting your argument come from rural
police forces. I have seen many surveys from urban/suburban forces that
want the guns off of the streets. Life is getting too exciting - you
never know when the domestic dispute will turn into a gun battle. And
many police forces supported the Brady Bill.
>] unfortunately, handguns are being used for more than protection from
>] assault - they are being used against robbers, trespassers,
>Are these activities legal or illegal ? Legal use of firearms
>I assume you have no problem with. Illegal use is already illegal.
More selective editing! I also included name callers in this list. The
only circumstance where shooting one of these people is if your life is
in jeopardy. That used to mena the perpetrator was armed, and almost
always in your house. It is not legal to shoot someone knocking on your
front door, walking accross your yard, or shouting at you from the
street. Yet this happens frequently.
>]
>BTW, did you see that recent little tidbit about D.C. Seems that
>] >about 400 of the murders committed last year were traced to thirteen
>] >guns. Just thirteen! Amazing. Seems some individuals are wreaking
>] >a lot of havoc.
>]
>] Well I don't need to have a specific number. But the ones I'm counting
>] are EVERY gun carried to school,
>Are you really counting these ? What count have you reached ?
>] every gun left unlocked in a home,
>Why ? Are they threatening anyone ? ALL my guns are unlocked at home
>( most are loaded ) but they are also hidden and there are no minors.
>Perhaps you labor under the delusion that locks will stop a theif :
>NOT. A big safe welded to the floor might; have you priced those, tho ?
>Or is disarming the poor and lower-middle class, but not the rich,
>part of your agenda ?
>] every gun brandished by a fearful/drunk/high citizen,
>Wait a minute ... why do you have a problem with someone who
>is "fearful" for their life having a gun ? When BETTER to have
>and "brandish" a gun then when you are afraid you might be killed ?
Because more often than not the fear is unfounded and makes the person
irrational.
>And "brandishing" a gun without cause will get you jailed in
>most states, regardless of your state of intoxication. Such
>behavior is already illegal : hasn't that stopped it ?
>] in the hands of a criminal.
>That's already illegal too. Will making it illegal _again_ help ?
>] Want the best evidence that guns are no good for protecting you? You know
>] what the Christmas gift rage was here before the authorities clamped down?
>]
>] _Bullet proof vests_. A gun is no longer enough!
>How does a bullet proff vest threaten anyone ? Who has _ever_ been
>killed by one ? You anti-self-defense lunatics have gone to far.
Wait a minute, where did I say that a bullet proof vest was threatening?
I said that gun toters are _admitting_ that carying a gun no longer
provides enough safety, so they are wearing bullet proof vests.
Sheesh!
Larry
Larry Hewitt
>lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
>] As you admit in your next paragraph, nothing is foolproof. But I did not
>] just say pepper spry, I also said an air horn. Little discourages crime
>] more than an audience. Again, not foolproof, but 2 chances are better than
>] 1. And there are others.
>Guns are more effective than pepper spray, and louder than air horns,
>and less bulky than the two together, as well as only needing one hand
>to use. They also don't rely on "the kindness of strangers" to come
>rescue you, since they don't always do so, a lesson Kitty Genovese
>learned the hard way.
>Is it just that you don't want those poor criminals to be hurt, Larry ?
>Believe me, they feel no such charity to their victems. OR is there
>some other, more sinister reason you don't want people to have the
>most effective self-defense tool yet developed ?
Paranoia alert! I have never said that I am concerned for the criminal. I
am saying that guns invite violence and the widespread misuse of guns has
terrible side effects.
Well, this argument has now reached religious levels. I'm outta here.
Happy hollidays, all!
Steve Kao
> You missed the logic. Who will prevent gun owners from keeping their
> guns after you succeed in making guns illegal? What will you do about
> gun owners who resist your laws? Historically, people are killed for
> disobeying laws. Logically, you are sanctioning the killing of gun
> owners who keep their guns after you create laws that make guns
> illegal.
Larry Hewitt (lhe...@access3.digex.net) wrote:
> What hyperbole! Historically, people are _jailed_ for breaking laws. And
> isn't it the right wing and NRA that are pushing to make the death
> penalty more common and execution faster, against us left-wing liberals
> namby-pampies who are against the death penalty.
Perhaps you missed the little fracas caused the BATF attempting to
enforce the tax code in Waco, TX, in February, 1992? Perhaps you missed
the assassination of Vicky Weaver by the FBI at Ruby Ridge, ID? Perhaps
you missed the killing of a knife wielding man in front of the White
House a few days ago? People who resist the government are often
killed. Even people, such as the BD's and the Weavers, who are actually
not guilty.
- Steve Kao
Keith Hamburger
: lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
: ] But a Glock 9mm is designed and sold to kill people ( not wound, kill -
: ] it is too powerful and the slug is too big to NOT be fatal in many chest,
: ] belly, or head hits).
: This is funny. Many people consider 9mm Parabellum vastly underpowered
: for self-defense, and many many people have survived being shot in
: the chest, belly or head with 9mm Parabellum bullets. Yet Larry Hewitt
: claims it is "is too big to NOT be fatal". Sorry, not true.
Reminds me of two incidents about 3 years ago here in Colorado Springs.
Two different teenagers were shot in the face with 9mm handguns. Both
have survived and, although obviously quite mutilated, are in good
health. And these weren't "grazing" shots, either. One was shot square
in the upper lip.
This also ties in this thread into the violence that is a secondary effect
of our current drug war. Both of these shootings were gang related.
Keith
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
] doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) writes:
] >lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
] >] But a Glock 9mm is designed and sold to kill people ( not wound, kill -
] >] it is too powerful and the slug is too big to NOT be fatal in many chest,
] >] belly, or head hits).
]
] >This is funny. Many people consider 9mm Parabellum vastly underpowered
] >for self-defense, and many many people have survived being shot in
] >the chest, belly or head with 9mm Parabellum bullets. Yet Larry Hewitt
] >claims it is "is too big to NOT be fatal". Sorry, not true.
]
] Well, I don't know my brand names.
This is astounding. How can we quantify the enormous depth of
your firearms ignorance, Larry ? "9mm Parabellum" isn't
a "brand name", it's a cartridge designation. In fact ..
] All I know is the city police force
] just upgraded to a Glock 9mm ( I don't even know if there is a model
] name) _because_ it has more stopping power than their old model!
... Glock 9mm pistols use the 9mm Parabellum cartridge.
What were they using before, .22's ? .380 ? .38 Special ?
If all you can do is ignorantly parrot whatever you may have
read in the press, with no real understanding, what value do you
think you bring to the discussion ?
] >Why do you think the FBI adopted the 10mm ? Because they thought
] >that 9mm wasn't effective enough. And that prompts one to ask,
] >why do police carry guns anyway, and what possible reason could
] >a policeman or policewoman have for using a gun or round that would
] >not also be a good reason for a civilian to use that gun or round ?
] >Or are you arguing that police should be disarmed, or at least armed
] >with less lethal guns than the 9mm Parabellum, 10mm, .40S&W and .45ACP
] >handguns they routinely carry ?
]
] While admitting that people are human ( including police), and that
] nothing is perfect, I will say this. There is a profound difference
] between an armed police force and an armed citizenry.
You are correct. The former without the latter is a police state,
e.g. the USSR, Communist China and Nazi Germany. The latter without the
former is the way it was in the US up until the mid-19th Century.
] Police are trained in and restricted by rukes of engagement ( yes,
] they are human and sometimes go to far), and few citizens are.
Then why do police shoot the wrong person more often than citizens.
It's always cute to see a child's faith in the police, but the facts
don't bear it out. Legally armed citizens aquit themselves far better
than police do, according to the FBI statistics.
] They routinely put themselves in dangerous situations ON PURPOSE,
Stop watching TV and get real. There have been NUMEROUS cases
of police FAILING to intervene to stop a crime because they
were waiting for more police and a SWAT team to arrive. People
have died because police have failed to act.
] citizens don't.
No, with citizens, it happens AGAINST THEIR WILL. What's the difference ?
Should people _allow_ themsleves to be raped, killed, mugged, and
assualted just because they didn't get assaulted "ON PURPOSE" ?
] And finally, the police are the designated protectors of the citizenry.
BZZT. Wrong again. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have
consistantly held that the police are _not_ obliged or supposed
to protect the citizenry. Their job is to keep order and act as
a deterent to crime by catching criminals after the fact. That's
what the Supreme Court says : the police are NOT there to protect you.
] Few are comfortable with armed vigilantes running loose.
Oh, are private security guards "vigilantes", or does being
a Wells Farge or Brinks employee make on *special* ? Are
women with CCW permits carrying guns in their purse "vigilantes" ?
Where are these "viglantes", Larry ? On TV ? They sure don't
seem common in Arizona, a state with unrestricted open carry
of firearms and concealed carry as well.
] And by the way, as you intimated with the FBI weapons change,
] police forces are _behind_ the citizenry in the arms race.
Says who ? The police have MACHINE GUNS, you idiot. Full-auto
baby-killing assault rifles, right out of ther US Army inventory.
] >Let me ask the question again, since no
] gun-control advocate has >_ever_ answered it:
]
] > What use does a cop legally have for a gun that would not also be
] > a use that a civilian legally has for a gun ? When can a cop legally
] > shoot someone whan a civilian can not ? Why ?
]
] By definition, by god.
Oh, circular reasoning. How convincing.
] A cop can shoot a fleeing suspect under certain circumstances,
] a civilian cannot.
Not true in Arizona.
] A cop can break a door down to a crack house and shoot a drug dealer
] resisting arrest. That is murder for a civilian to do.
Ah, NOW we get to the problem : Larry thinks cops SHOULD be allowed
to commit acts that would be MURDER. Note that Larry isn't saying that
the cop was shooting in self-defense : he calims the cop MURDERED
the "drug dealer" and that it is OK. Larry, you have a problem.
Did you know that cops have many times broken down the door of
a house and killed a person inside, only to discover that they
had gone to the wrong house ? Did you know that the cops that fo
this aren't even FIRED, much less tried for their crime ? IS this
OKAY with YOU, Larry ?
] Civilians ARE NOT THE KEEPERS OF THE PEACE, police are.
Wrong. That's ALWAYS been wrong. There were no professional police
until the mid-19th Century. Citizens keep the peace. Compare
areas with "gun control" to areas without, you'll find that where
the people have guns, there is peace.
] >] Not having seen the FBI report you mention, I can't respond to it,
] >] but I can say it is nowhere near accepted that a handgun is the
] >] best defense against an assault.
]
] >It's accepted by lots of people. It's backed by FBI statistics.
] >What makes you think differently ? Feelings ? Astrology ? What ?
]
] I gave you my reasons and support
No you didn't.
] >] The State police and most local
] police forces here disagree and >] lobby FOR handgun restrictions.
]
] >Wrong. Politically-appointed police chiefs may, but every survey
] >of rank-and-file police officers to date shows overwhelming support
] >for law-abiding civilian handgun ownership.
]
] Wrong! The surveys I have seen supporting your argument come from rural
] police forces.
Bull.
] I have seen many surveys from urban/suburban forces that
] want the guns off of the streets.
Name one. And who conducted it ? HCI ?
] Life is getting too exciting
Bull. Violent crime rates haven't changed much in years.
] ... And many police forces supported the Brady Bill.
"Many" ? MOST opposed it as the useless piece of garbage that
it's CHEIF SUPPORTER, Sarah Brady, ADMITTED IT WAS the very
day AFTER IT PASSED.
] >] unfortunately, handguns are being used for more than protection from
] >] assault - they are being used against robbers, trespassers,
]
] >Are these activities legal or illegal ? Legal use of firearms
] >I assume you have no problem with. Illegal use is already illegal.
]
] More selective editing! I also included name callers in this list.
I'm not interested of your fairy tales about people being shot
because someone called them a geek : such actions are already illegal.
But did you have a SPECIFIC instance in mind ? Can you tell us how
often such incidents occur ?
] The only circumstance where shooting one of these people is if your life is
] in jeopardy.
Fortuenately, the State of Arizona is far more progressive than
a neanderthal like you : it allows lethal force to also be used
to prevent rape or sexual assault on a minor, for example. Primitive
unelnlightened males like you probably think it's okay to let
another male rape a woman rather than shooting the SOB. Well,
here in Arizona, we don't particularly mind shooting a rapist
to save some poor woman or child from the trauma of rape.
Besides, didn't you say it was OK for cops to murder fleeing suspects ?
Or are they somehow *special* ? And was it OK for an FBI sniper
to gun down an unarmed woman as she stood holding her baby in her
arms in a cabin on Ruby Ridge, Larry ?
] That used to mena the perpetrator was armed, and almost
] always in your house.
No, it never did. It has always depended on the "reasonable
person" test : would a reasonable person feel they were in danger
of grievous bodily harm. Or perhaps you'd rather let Mike Tyson
beat you to death, unarmed, rather than shoot him in self-defense.
Can't say that would be a loss to the gene pool.
] It is not legal to shoot someone knocking on your front door, walking
] accross your yard, or shouting at you from the street. Yet this happens
] frequently.
And are tried for it nearly as frequently. What's your point ?
] >BTW, did you see that recent little tidbit about D.C. Seems that
] >] >about 400 of the murders committed last year were traced to thirteen
] >] >guns. Just thirteen! Amazing. Seems some individuals are wreaking
] >] >a lot of havoc.
] >]
] >] Well I don't need to have a specific number. But the ones I'm counting
] >] are EVERY gun carried to school,
]
] >Are you really counting these ? What count have you reached ?
]
] >] every gun left unlocked in a home,
]
] >Why ? Are they threatening anyone ? ALL my guns are unlocked at home
] >( most are loaded ) but they are also hidden and there are no minors.
] >Perhaps you labor under the delusion that locks will stop a theif :
] >NOT. A big safe welded to the floor might; have you priced those, tho ?
] >Or is disarming the poor and lower-middle class, but not the rich,
] >part of your agenda ?
Note that Larry neglects to answer these questions ...
] >] every gun brandished by a fearful/drunk/high citizen,
]
] >Wait a minute ... why do you have a problem with someone who
] >is "fearful" for their life having a gun ? When BETTER to have
] >and "brandish" a gun then when you are afraid you might be killed ?
]
] Because more often than not the fear is unfounded and makes the person
] irrational.
Really ? Got any proof that "more often than not the fear is unfounded" ?
Any at all ? What DOES make you say that ? Your oen paranioa, perhaps ?
Is YOUR fear "more often than not the fear is unfounded", or are you
somehow better than other people ?
] >And "brandishing" a gun without cause will get you jailed in
] >most states, regardless of your state of intoxication. Such
] >behavior is already illegal : hasn't that stopped it ?
]
] >] in the hands of a criminal.
]
] >That's already illegal too. Will making it illegal _again_ help ?
]
] >] Want the best evidence that guns are no good for protecting you? You know
] >] what the Christmas gift rage was here before the authorities clamped down?
] >]
] >] _Bullet proof vests_. A gun is no longer enough!
]
] >How does a bullet proff vest threaten anyone ? Who has _ever_ been
] >killed by one ? You anti-self-defense lunatics have gone to far.
]
] Wait a minute, where did I say that a bullet proof vest was threatening?
] I said that gun toters are _admitting_ that carying a gun no longer
] provides enough safety, so they are wearing bullet proof vests.
What makes you think it's "gun toters' who are buying the vests ?
And do you rail agaisnt air bags since seat-belts work ?
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
] doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) writes:
] >lhe...@access3.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
] >] As you admit in your next paragraph, nothing is foolproof. But I did not
] >] just say pepper spry, I also said an air horn. Little discourages crime
] >] more than an audience. Again, not foolproof, but 2 chances are better than
] >] 1. And there are others.
]
] >Guns are more effective than pepper spray, and louder than air horns,
] >and less bulky than the two together, as well as only needing one hand
] >to use. They also don't rely on "the kindness of strangers" to come
] >rescue you, since they don't always do so, a lesson Kitty Genovese
] >learned the hard way.
Note that Larry doesn't reply to this point. I guess he concedes it.
] >Is it just that you don't want those poor criminals to be hurt, Larry ?
] >Believe me, they feel no such charity to their victems. OR is there
] >some other, more sinister reason you don't want people to have the
] >most effective self-defense tool yet developed ?
]
] Paranoia alert! I have never said that I am concerned for the criminal.
Then what is your motivation, Larry >
] I am saying that guns invite violence and the widespread misuse of guns has
] terrible side effects.
Ah, I see : you are deluded. Tell us Larry, how guns "invite" violence :
do they send outpostcards or call people on the phone ? And what about
the 2.4 MILLION defenseive uses of guns every year ?
] Well, this argument has now reached religious levels. I'm outo here.
Such a graceless admission of defeat. You are the one with the
gun-control religion, Larry. You are the one so ignorant you
don't even know what bullets a 9mm Glock 17 uses. Facts and science
are on _my_ side. Too bad you can't even consider that. Too bad
that conflicts with your deeply-felt religous beliefs. Too bad
just the idea that you maight be wrong frightens you.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",
Larry. That's the law. Get used to it, because now that's we've
kicked out you gun-grabbing buddies in Congress, that's the way
it's going to be.
Weed Eater (munch munch)
: In article <sbieser-1112...@psbieser.deltanet.com>,
: sbi...@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) wrote:
: > > Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
: > > classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
: > > the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
: > > Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
: > > classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
: > > forget it) ("BHR" for short).
: It is no less important than nonstop rap and metal on dozens of other
: bands across the airwaves. Trouble is, there are rarely any commercial
: alternatives (none in the metro area where I now live), so I couldn't hear
: it with interruptions either.
: > Actually, if all that's desired is interruption-free classical music,
: > there's Cable Radio. You can get it most places where Cable TV is
: > available, piggy-backed onto the CTV service.
: That's dandy, except that incredibly enough not everyone gets Cable TV.
: According to a pundit on C-Span this morning, 38% of US households don't
: get cable. That't the beauty of radio, for Pete's sake, anyone with $5.00
: for a transistor radio can listen.
So you want NPR af long as it is free, or spread across the 100million of
us who dont want it. But haven forbid you have to pay 1 cent.
Weed Eater (munch munch)
: In article <sbieser-1112...@psbieser.deltanet.com>,
: sbi...@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) wrote:
: > NPR may only cost me a nickel a year, true. But if you look through the
: > Federal Budget you will find thousands of items like NPR which only cost
: > each of us a nickel (more or less) a year. Add them up and they become
: > several hundreds of dollars (at least) I have to pay for all kinds of
: > things I don't care about.
: We call it citizenship.
I call it pork. What I am not a good citizen if I think my raxes are too
high??
Michael McClary
Larry Hewitt <lhe...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
>doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) writes:
>Well, I don't know my brand names. All I know is the city police force
>just upgraded to a Glock 9mm ( I don't even know if there is a model
>name) _because_ it has more stopping power than their old model!
What the hell were they using before? .22s? BB-guns?
The 9mm is an extremely weak round. The standard prescription for its
use is to "double-tap", i.e. to fire TWICE at your target. The reason
it was chosen for use in a handgun is because Glock could cram 17 to 19
of them into a double-column magazine in the handgrip and still get
reliable feeding, giving the policeman the equivalent of about 9 rounds
before he had to reload.
Later Glock and others discovered you could get reliable feeding of
.45ACP and other large rounds from a double-column magazine after all,
leading to the Glock 21 (13 or 15 rounds of .45 ACP) several other
high-cap .45s, the FBI's new 10mm round, and so on.
>>[] why do police carry guns anyway, and what possible reason could
>>a policeman or policewoman have for using a gun or round that would
>>not also be a good reason for a civilian to use that gun or round ?
>[] There is a profound difference
>between an armed police force and an armed citizenry.
There is NOT. Police are just people hired to do what any armed citizen
can do for free. They are paid to specialize and be available, because
"there's never an armed citizen around when you need one".
>Police are trained
>in and restricted by rukes of engagement ( yes, they are human and
>sometimes go to far), and few citizens are.
You are incorrect. In most states the police and the citizens are
restricted by exactly the same, or effectively identical, rules of
engagement. They are ONLY allowed to use deadly force to protect
themselves and those people they are allowed to defend. The only
differences:
- Police may (but are not required to) use deadly force to defend
virtually anyone. In some jurisdictions an ordinary citizen is
limited to defending himself and certain classes of other people.
- If both an armed citizen and a policeman are on-scene to solve a
deadly-force problem, the policeman outranks the armed citizen,
i.e. his decisions on tactics take precedence.
Most police receive negligible training with their guns, rarely use them,
and treat them as a minor-but-required part of their job (like the standard
haircut and outfit). Citizens who arm themselves legally, on the other
hand, have an EXCELLENT record of voluntarily learning the rules - to the
point that only 2% of the people they shoot are people they shouldn't have
shot, while with police the number is 11%.
>They routinely put themselves
>in dangerous situations ON PURPOSE, citizens don't.
Depends on the citizen - but this doesn't mean that the citizen doesn't
get into dangerous situations through no fault of his own.
This is closely related to two valid differences, though. The policeman
is often in a situation where he can't back down but an ordinary citizen
could. He also often arrives on a dispute-in-progress and has to figure
out who the bad-guy is, in an environment where both parties might turn on
him to escape their dispute with each other.
This may help to explain the 5-and-a-half-times higher bad-shoot rate
for police. But note that the (virtually identical) rules on who it is
OK to shoot take into account the knowlege available to the shooter.
>And finally, the
>police are the designated protectors of the citizenry.
They are NOT! They are the protectors of the general ORDER, and have
NO obligation to protect ANY of the citizenry.
They couldn't if they tried - there are too few of them and they are
usually too far away when anything happens. The best they can do is
try to keep things running smoothly in a general way, clean up and
report after problems, hunt down the worst troublemakers, catch the
sloppy, and hope this discourages the rest.
>Few are comfortable with armed vigilantes running loose.
Do you know what a vigilante IS? Let me enlighten you:
- If an armed citizen shoots someone who is attacking him, his spouse,
his kid, his guest, his neighbor, it is self-defense.
- If an armed citizen hunts down someone he THINKS attacked him, etc.
it is vigilantism.
We are talking about carrying a gun while going about our business, and
pulling it out only if someone tries to rob, rape, or kill us in the park,
the parking lot, the alley, the intersection, or our own home or store.
We are NOT talking about calling together a possee, chasing anyone who
looks vaugely like a mugger into the neighborhood across the tracks,
and stringing him up from a lamppost. THAT is reserved for those
authorized by the courts - normally only the police (the paid, OFFICIAL,
committee of vigilance), occasionally ordinary citizens designated by a
court or with power delegated by a police official.
>And by the way, as you
>intimated with the FBI weapons change, police forces are _behind_ the
>citizenry in the arms race.
When I routinely have a 19-round semi-pistol and two spare magazines
on my belt, a .357 in a shoulder-holster, a similarly-armed partner
at my side, a shotgun stuck to my dashboard, a machinegun in my trunk,
half a dozen similar units in radio contact nearby, a SWAT team in my
garage, and a teargas-spitting tank and an armed-and-armored helicopter
backing THEM up, I'll concede we may be aproaching parity. Right now, HAH!
>>Let me ask the question again, since no
>gun-control advocate has >_ever_ answered it:
>
>> What use does a cop legally have for a gun that would not also be
>> a use that a civilian legally has for a gun ? When can a cop legally
>> shoot someone whan a civilian can not ? Why ?
>
>By definition, by god. A cop can shoot a fleeing suspect under certain
>circumstances, a civilian cannot.
Wrong. Generally the police and the citizen can shoot a fleeing suspect
under exactly the same circumstances.
>A cop can break a door down to a crack
>house and shoot a drug dealer resisting arrest.
Wrong. Police can only shoot them for attacking the cop. Citizens can
serve warrants (though they are rarely called on to do so).
>That is murder for a civilian to do.
Right, but it's murder for the cop, too.
>Civilians ARE NOT THE KEEPERS OF THE PEACE, police are.
WRONG! They are BOTH keepers of the peace. The difference is that the
police are PAID to do it.
There is one more difference, though. Many states now disallow "citizen's
arrest" for traffic violations.
>>Wait a minute ... why do you have a problem with someone who
>>is "fearful" for their life having a gun ? When BETTER to have
>>and "brandish" a gun then when you are afraid you might be killed ?
> Because more often than not the fear is unfounded and makes the person
>irrational.
That's why the law has the "reasonable and prudent man" test. If a RaPM
would be in fear of death or major injury, it's OK to shoot. If not, not.
If you shoot when RaPM would not, expect to lose your right to a gun.
>>] Want the best evidence that guns are no good for protecting you? You know
>>] what the Christmas gift rage was here before the authorities clamped down?
>>]
>>] _Bullet proof vests_. A gun is no longer enough!
>
>>How does a bullet proff vest threaten anyone ? Who has _ever_ been
>>killed by one ? You anti-self-defense lunatics have gone to far.
>
>Wait a minute, where did I say that a bullet proof vest was threatening?
>I said that gun toters are _admitting_ that carying a gun no longer
>provides enough safety, so they are wearing bullet proof vests.
>Sheesh!
I think he was reacting to the authorities clamping down on sales of
bullet-proof vests. This is an usurpation, and you seemed to be agreeing
with it because you mentioned it without condemning it.
GREGG STEVEN MICHAEL
>sgr...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (GREGG STEVEN MICHAEL) writes:
>>It seems unwise to trust Bill Clinton. I'd like to see a balance sheet
>>on the social security "trust fund." It is being funded with accounting
>>tricks. Remember Clinton is the boy who wanted to call new taxes
>>"contributions." It is worthwhile to consider the Aviation Trust Fund.
>>Every time you buy an airline ticket, you pay a tax that goes into
>>the Aviation Trust Fund which is supposed to pay for the aviation
>>infrastructure. Billions have been paid into it and hardly any of it
>>buys new radars or radio beacons or raises for FAA employees. The
>>bulk of it has been stolen to pay off welfare benefits.
>>Trust is a four letter word when Clinton says it.
>Why do you guys insist on blaming Clinton for everything? The accounting
>tricks being used on the SS trust fund started in Congress years ago.
>They were accelerated to try to offset some of the huge deficits
>accumulating after trickle down economics failed to produce the expexted
>revenue increases.
>Larry
It illustrates the milieu which spawns Clinton and his dishonest
propositions. You should check the facts on taxes. Reagan's tax
cuts increased tax revenues. If you try to dispute it there are
plenty of guys in this newsgroup who have the tax stats preloaded in
their systems and will download them on your argument like a
sledgehammer on a gnat. The real reason for the shortfall in
social security funding is that Congress spent it. When the big
bulge of baby boomers moved through their peak earning years in
the 1960s and 1970s they contributed far in excess to what SS
paid out. Instead of socking the money away, Congress came up
with a whole new array of benefits and blew the money on them.
Essentially, they used the money to buy votes. Now when the baby
boomers are starting to retire, there is a shortfall. If you
are looking for someone to blame, point your finger at the
Democrats who ran Congress for the last forty years. They are
irresponsible.
--
********************************************************************
* Steve GREGG U of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA *
* sgr...@ponder.csci.unt.edu "Spotted owls taste like chicken!" *
********************************************************************
Mike Friedman
He is free to stop. I am not free to stop subsidizing NPR.
Mike