GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, STUPID PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

20 views
Skip to first unread message

Diehard Republican

unread,
Feb 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/19/96
to
Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.

The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
They prove true here as well.

If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.

So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.

How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a gun ban!!!!!!!!

Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their
guns by legal means.

We, the people of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!

Anyone that has children in the household and owns a gun and the child
accidentally gets shot with that gun by another child, the parents should be
shot for being so fucking stupid as to leave a gun within access of the
child. Get a fucking brain!!!!! Then get a quick access gun safe!!!!!

Well, thats my three cents on the issue

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/19/96
to
In article <4gah8v$u...@news.telebyte.net>, repu...@link.comp.com says...

>
>Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.
>
This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
friends and family.

>The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
>cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
>They prove true here as well.
>
>If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
>kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
>basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
>by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.
>
>So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.

Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.

>
>How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
>a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

The NRA has fought such legislation with every fibre of
their being.

>
>Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their
>guns by legal means.

Criminals who don't buy guns steal them, from gunowners!


>
>We, the people of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!
>
>Anyone that has children in the household and owns a gun and the child
>accidentally gets shot with that gun by another child, the parents should be
>shot for being so fucking stupid as to leave a gun within access of the
>child. Get a fucking brain!!!!! Then get a quick access gun safe!!!!!

A survey of gunowners shows that over 50% keep their guns
unlocked and loaded so as to be ready for that intruder who never
comes.

>
>Well, thats my three cents on the issue

--
============================================================
| | The GOP sez you MUST have |
| Dan Thornsberry | that child. |
|tbe...@computek.net | |
| | So they can starve it! |
============================================================
The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
weak. -Will Durant


Todd M. Venables

unread,
Feb 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/19/96
to
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> In article <4gah8v$u...@news.telebyte.net>, repu...@link.comp.com says...
> >
> >Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.
> >
> This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
> If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
> friends and family.

If afraid that YOU are at odds with the facts. I give you the following:

==============================================================
The following is an excerpt from J. Neil Schulman's book
SELF CONTROL Not Gun Control, to be published Nov. 30,
1995 by Synapse--Centurion. Reproduction in computer file
and message bases is permitted for informational purposes
only. Copyright (c) 1995 by J. Neil Schulman. All other
rights reserved.

Gary Kleck, Ph.D., professor in the School of Criminology
and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, is considered
the dean of criminologists on firearms issues by his colleagues
in the American Society of Criminology, who in 1993 awarded Kleck
its coveted Hindelang Award for his book _Point Blank: Guns and
Violence in America_ (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991). Kleck's
unimpeachable liberal credentials--he's a registered Democrat and
a member of Common Cause and Amnesty International, as
examples--precludes any possibility of pro-conservative or pro-
NRA bias. He takes no funding from any partisan in the gun-
control debate.

In _Point Blank_, Kleck had already analyzed a dozen
studies conducted by other researchers, and had concluded that
American gun owners used their firearms at least one million
times each year in defense against criminals. But Kleck wasn't
satisfied with the research methods used in some of these
studies, so in Spring, 1993 he and his colleague Marc Gertz,
Ph.D., conducted a National Self-Defense Survey of 4,978
households.

I interviewed Kleck about the not-yet-published results
of this survey for the September 19, 1993 _Orange County
Register_; it's also included in _Stopping Power_.

What Kleck's National Self-Defense Survey discovered is
that even excluding all uses of firearms by police, military, or
security personnel, an American gun owner uses a privately owned
firearm 2.45 million times each year in an actual defense against
a criminal. About 1.9 million of these defenses use handguns, the
rest some other firearm--a shotgun or a rifle.

In _Stopping Power_, I boil down the results of my
interview with Kleck as follows:

* Every 13 seconds, an American gun owner uses her or his
firearm in defense against a criminal. If you're only counting
handguns, it's every 16 seconds. Compare this to the "once every
two minutes" that the much-ballyhood Death Clock in New York
City's Times Square clicked off an incident of "gun violence."

* Women use handguns 416 times each day in defense
against rapists, which is a dozen times more often than rapists
use a gun in the course of a rape. Handguns are used 1145 times a
day against robbers. Handguns are used 1510 times a day in
defense against criminal assaults.

* A gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as
likely to be used in a defense against a criminal than it is to
cause the death of an innocent victim in that household--the
well-publicized Seattle study's 43-1 ratio of dead householders
to dead burglars notwithstanding.

================================================================

>
> >The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
> >cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
> >They prove true here as well.
> >
> >If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
> >kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
> >basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
> >by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.
> >
> >So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.
>
>Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.

I quote an Archie Bunker commercial I saw recently. Sally Struthers says to Archie, "Did you know that 37% of all the people
who were murdered last year were killed with handguns?". To which Archie correctly replied, "Would it make yous feel any
better little girl if theys was pushed out of windows?"


> >How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
> >a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
>
> The NRA has fought such legislation with every fibre of
> their being.

Wrong. The NRA is against waiting periods because they only work against law-abiding citizens who are not inclined to
commit crimes. They are in favor of an instant background check. The NRA is also an instrumental element in lobbying for
enforcement of laws against gun crime and keeping people who use guns inappropriately in PRISON, where they belong. Have you
ever heard the media praise their efforts for this? How about for their gun safety education, or their non-gun defense
courses? No. Not a peep. Millions of dollars were lost in the LA riots because law-abiding citizens could not buy guns to
protect themselves and their property. When I was younger, I thought the NRA was comprised of a bunch of "bubbas" who didn't
want to give up their guns even if they were bad for society. Do you know why I thought this? Because the media portrays
them this way. I entered the gun debate as a neutral party--willing to give up my gun if I thought it would be good for the
country. I began extensive research on both sides of the issue. I came out being pro pro pro gun. It would be just fine
with me if there were no weapons in the world and everybody just got along. It doesn't happen to be this way, though. You
cannot base this debate on emotion. You must use logic and facts. It is tragic that people are accidentally killed by guns,
but this number pales in comparison to the number of lives saved by the defensive use of guns every year. Every one of these
accidents is preventable! We don't ban matches when children set their houses on fire accidentally. We don't ban Drano when
children get it out from under the sink and eat it. What do we do? We put the matches and poisons out of reach! No
difference for guns! As for crime. Do matches cause arson?


> A survey of gunowners shows that over 50% keep their guns
> unlocked and loaded so as to be ready for that intruder who never
> comes.

What percentage of them have children in the house? I do not lock mine up, but there are never children in my apartment.
The day that one does come to my apartment, my gun will be locked away (in a quick-access safe, of course)! It is
irresponsible to do it any other way. People should keep their guns in quick-access safes. But child-proofing your gun is
not the only thing. Gun-proofing your child is even more important, because you can only control the guns at your house.

My hands are tired, gotta go

Todd

Ned Kelly

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to

Diehard Republican (repu...@link.comp.com) wrote:
: Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.

Guns don't kill people. Postal Workers do!

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
Todd M. Venables (vena...@airmail.net) wrote:

The problem is, if all of this were true, there would be some evidence somewhere in
the public domain. Newspapers would report lots of these cases. But you don't see
it. Look at your crime reports. It is rare that there is something about someone
chasing off a crook or a rapist with a gun. It happens, but it is rare.

I don't know what questions he asked, who he asked the questions to, or how he
tabluated the results. But it defies logic to believe that there is something
going on out there that the public is unaware of. I know lots of people who own
guns, including myself. But in my entire life, I have never known anyone who
stopped a crime with a gun other than those who were presumably excluded from the
survey. But I have known people who were shot accidentally, some of whom died.

I've seen enough academic studies to know that funny things can happen with
numbers.

--
Buddy K


titt...@telerama.lm.com

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
Diehard Republican <repu...@link.comp.com wrote:

>****Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.

>****The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
>****cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
>****They prove true here as well.

>****If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
>****kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
>****basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
>****by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.

>****So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.

>****How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
>****a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>****Not a gun ban!!!!!!!!

>****Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their
>****guns by legal means.

>****We, the people of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!

>****Anyone that has children in the household and owns a gun and the child
>****accidentally gets shot with that gun by another child, the parents should be
>****shot for being so fucking stupid as to leave a gun within access of the
>****child. Get a fucking brain!!!!! Then get a quick access gun safe!!!!!

>****Well, thats my three cents on the issue

I agree wholeheartidly I feel much safer with guns around
even if they are carried by other citizens and not myself.

Before my daughters birth I handled both revolvers
and semi-automatics. After her birth I got rid of all the
semiautos and kept only large frame revolvers with a
substantial trigger pull.

I have never tried to see if a young child could fire a revolver
for obvious reasons - but would venture to guess that most can't.

I would also venture to guess, and a point that the morons in the
media leave out, is that a large percentage of accidential child
shootings are done with semiautomatics.

Anybody know? I could be dead wrong and am curious if my reasoning
was correct.

TIA

Joe

--
MAY LIBERTY RETURN: 10 ways you can protest the CDA:
full text at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:s.652:
********************************
1.) Design a home page to state your opposition to CDA and explain your position.
http://www.lm.com/~tittiger
2.)**Do all posting anonymously from "he...@anon.penet.fi" to protest the CDA.
also see: alt.anonymous.messages alt.privacy.anon-server alt.anonymous
3.)**Cross post heavily all discussions about CDA to christian news groups,
congressional email address's and the media:i.e. CBS, CNN, TIME keep your eyes
open for "templates" to do the cross posting.
and the corollary: post a lot!!!
4.)**Take an oath to try to get on all CDA trial juries and then refuse to convict.
Check out FIJA for more information.
http://www.primenet.com/~slack/fija/fija.html
5.)**VIOLATE the CDA as a form of civil disobedience at every opportunity.
6.)Vote!!! But not for DemoPublicans.
7.)**State you position in your SIG
8.)Write congress- it's too easy!! There are sites designed just
for this purpose.
http://www.lm.com/~tittiger/house.html
http://www.lm.com/~tittiger/senate.html
9.)Organize economic boycotts of any company that supports the CDA
10.) ***** Attach this SIG to everything you can get your hands on!!!
and generally spread the word.
****************************************************************
In Liberty - Long live the Revolution!

PGP public key at http://www.lm.com/~tittiger


PGP public key at www.lm.com/~tittiger
*******************************************************
ObCivilDisobedience#1: Planned Parenthood of Pa.,
1031 Baker Rd., Monaca, PA 15061 412-775-8536
ObCivilDisobedience#2: Fuck Sen. James Exon and the horse he rode in on.



Voice of Liberty

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
titt...@telerama.lm.com writes:

>Diehard Republican <repu...@link.comp.com wrote:

>>****Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.

>>****The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
>>****cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
>>****They prove true here as well.

>>****If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
>>****kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
>>****basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
>>****by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.

>>****So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.

So far, I agree with Diehard for the most part.

>>****How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
>>****a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If something is a right, you don't need to pass an evaluation to exercise
it. You should only lose it if you are mentally incompetent or have
been convicted of a serious crime.

>>****Not a gun ban!!!!!!!!

>>****Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their
>>****guns by legal means.

>>****We, the people of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!

Well, that's more exclamation points that I would choose to use, but the
general idea is correct.

>>****Anyone that has children in the household and owns a gun and the child
>>****accidentally gets shot with that gun by another child, the parents should be
>>****shot for being so fucking stupid as to leave a gun within access of the
>>****child. Get a fucking brain!!!!! Then get a quick access gun safe!!!!!

>>****Well, thats my three cents on the issue

That's wrong. Leaving a loaded gun within reach of little kids who
know nothing about guns (except what they get from Hollywierd) is stupid.
But it is no more stupid than leaving them around a gas stove or open
electrical outlets or a car with its engine running or a swimming pool.
Some kids will always manage to kill themselves or bystanders by doing
stupid kid tricks. Their parents should do whatthey can to prevent them
from engaging in such harmful behavior, but accidents will still happen.
You want proof? Look at how many trained police officers are
responsible for accidental shootings.

>I agree wholeheartidly I feel much safer with guns around
>even if they are carried by other citizens and not myself.

So do I. The more citizens who are armed, the less I worry about
violent criminals.

> Before my daughters birth I handled both revolvers
>and semi-automatics. After her birth I got rid of all the
>semiautos and kept only large frame revolvers with a
>substantial trigger pull.

>I have never tried to see if a young child could fire a revolver
>for obvious reasons - but would venture to guess that most can't.

I think your assumption is mostly correct for large caliber, factory
issue revolvers. It doesn't hold true for several single-action
revolvers I've shot. (Read: Kid pulls back hammer and touches trigger--
*BANG*!!!) The best way to prevent kids from abusing guns is to teach
them the rules of gun safety at a very early age, and then teach them
how to safely shoot firearms once they are old enough to learn the basics.

>I would also venture to guess, and a point that the morons in the
>media leave out, is that a large percentage of accidential child
>shootings are done with semiautomatics.

Actually, a semiauto with no round in the chamber may be harder for
kids to fire than a revolver with a heavy double-action trigger pull.
YMMV. But the best way to prevent accidental shootings by kids is
to keep guns out of reach of children who don't know how to handle
them safely.

>Anybody know? I could be dead wrong and am curious if my reasoning
>was correct.

I think a lot depends on the gun and the kid.

>TIA

>Joe
[excellent but rather long .sig snipped]

--
<sig>
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." -- John Marshall

Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control! Annoy a Leftist: Think!

The Public School System: You can get better, but you can't pay more.
</sig>

Tyrantslyr

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
So ------------------ You must mean that taking away guns wouldn't help a
bit because we would still have people intent on killing other people.
This would be the logical side of the argument. I would agree 100% ---
--- which is easier to deal with,
people -------- or ALL the things on this plantet that could be used to
harm others ?

T.S.
------->
"Those who won't govern their own lives by Gods laws,
will have their lives ruled by tryrants"

WHAT'S IT GONNA BE ??? Gods laws ----- or TYRANTS ? And don't give me
any sniveling, let's comprimise crap about ------well ----neither !

Message has been deleted

Keith Marchington

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
Thornsberry writes

: In article <4gah8v$u...@news.telebyte.net>, repu...@link.comp.com says...
: >
: >Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.
:
: This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
: If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
: friends and family.

Really? Wow! None of mine have ever been used in this way.
Are they defective? Should I take them back and demand a
better model?

And of the 250,000,000 guns in the US, most of those must be
defective too. Else the death rate would be much higher!


: >The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
: >cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
: >They prove true here as well.
: >
: >If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
: >kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
: >basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
: >by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.
: >
: >So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.

: Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.

And smart people, and tall people, and short people, and women,
and men, and asians, and mexicans, and germans and ....

What was your point?

: >How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
: >a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: >

: The NRA has fought such legislation with every fibre of
: their being.

Only because tests of this nature have in the past been abused
to the point where they amount to gun bans. But that *is*
what you are after anyway, right?

: >Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their
: >guns by legal means.

: Criminals who don't buy guns steal them, from gunowners!

Thornsberry's ignorance is astonishing!

: >We, the people of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!
: >
: >Anyone that has children in the household and owns a gun and the child
: >accidentally gets shot with that gun by another child, the parents should be
: >shot for being so fucking stupid as to leave a gun within access of the
: >child. Get a fucking brain!!!!! Then get a quick access gun safe!!!!!

: A survey of gunowners shows that over 50% keep their guns


: unlocked and loaded so as to be ready for that intruder who never
: comes.


And many people keep their dogs unleashed. What's your point?

--
Keith

Gary Davidson

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
In choosing between pulling the trigger on a revolver, and pulling back
the slide AND THEN pulling the trigger on a semi-automatic pistol, I
would bet that the revolver is more complex and difficult for *YOUNG*
children, say 5 or under. Plus, the safety on the semi-automatic adds yet
another obstacle for children to overcome.

--
Gary... KJ6Q... I am the NRA | Annoy a Liberal - say NO to gun control!
============================ | Annoy a Democrat - say BYE BYE CLINTON!
"Did you come here to *LEARN*|==================================
or to nose around, make rude | "It's *EASY* to be a liberal, it's
noises & provide proof our | OTHER people's money you are giving
educational system stinks?" | away! (or living off of!)

Gary Davidson

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
That's what I get for typing faster than I think - I obviously meant that
the *Semi-automatic* pistol would be more difficult.....

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
> : This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
> : If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
> : friends and family.
>
> Really? Wow! None of mine have ever been used in this way.
> Are they defective? Should I take them back and demand a
> better model?

Mine neither. Gee, I guess I should get a new one, huh? I have a Walther
P-38 and it's never shot anything but targets on a range. I have two kids
too, by the way. Man, I better do something!?

Neal Feldman

unread,
Feb 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/20/96
to
If more guns means safer streets we in the US should have the safest
streets in the world... what? We don't? Hmmm.... maybe there is a flaw
in the NRA's argument?

--
Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
than...@cyberhighway.net

David Veal

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
In article <4gbhrl$p...@portal.gmu.edu>,

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. <hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>The problem is, if all of this were true, there would be some evidence somewhere in
>the public domain. Newspapers would report lots of these cases. But you don't see
>it. Look at your crime reports. It is rare that there is something about someone
>chasing off a crook or a rapist with a gun. It happens, but it is rare.

The issue involved is that self-defense may not be likely to be
reported, especially when it is successful. That is, people are more likely
to call the police (through whom the newspapers get most of their
information) when they get hurt or lose something. When they *don't*,
for whatever reason, they're not as enthused about reporting it. The
police are a hassle. And if you didn't actually shoot them there's not
a lot of incentive to do so. (Not a few jurisdictions seek indictments
against people who use guns in self-defense as a matter of course...)

>I don't know what questions he asked, who he asked the questions to, or how he
>tabluated the results. But it defies logic to believe that there is something
>going on out there that the public is unaware of. I know lots of people who own
>guns, including myself. But in my entire life, I have never known anyone who
>stopped a crime with a gun other than those who were presumably excluded from the
>survey. But I have known people who were shot accidentally, some of whom died.

I've known at least three people who claim to have done so. But
it's difficult to know circumstances, or whether others who did so would
volunteer the information.


--
David Veal lve...@utk.edu / ve...@web.ce.utk.edu
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." - Isaac Asimov

Neal I. Mitchell

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
In article <4gagq3$o...@news.computek.net>
tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) writes:

> >So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.
>
> Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.

Dan,

All we gotta do is give everyone an intelligence test while *en vitro*
to determine if they got the smarts and stability to own a gun, drive a
car, use a knife or any other "dangerous" activity. Once we seperate
the wheat from the chaff we could make all the non-eligible citizens
wear special patches on their clothing so the government could identify
them.

Sorry Dan. Last time I looked at the social contract (ie: Bill of
Rights: Constitution) I saw no provision excluding "stupid people" from
their right to own guns...

"The point of the journey is not to arrive; the point of departure is
not to return." Neil Peart & Robert Lewis Stephenson

Todd M. Venables

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to


Buddy,

Are you saying that if YOU didn't see it, it didn't happen? First of all, how is a newspaper to know when something like
this happens? Would you think to call them if something like this happened to you? Even if you did, do you think they would
care? The media only report stories that are out of the ordinary. And by the way. The general public is ignorant of almost
everything, other than what the media present to them. You can never expect the correct information to get to you via those
means. You really have to go do research on your own if you want to find out the truth about anything.

Whatever the case, Kleck is THE guy when it comes to firearms v. crime. It is his mission. He has impeccable credentials,
and his work is lauded by criminologists everywhere. Don't you think that his fellow criminologists would be the most
critical of his studies? They gave him an award for it! I agree that some people use numbers in funny ways sometimes to try
to prove their predetermined position. I'll give you a great example: the CDC study mentioned above. Where they touted a
probably-true, yet completely irrelevant statistic about guns in the home. They concluded that you are 43 times as likely to
kill a resident of your household as you are to KILL an intruder. That may be the case, but what they don't tell you is that
in the incidents in which an intruder is confronted with a gun-bearing resident, the residents kill the intruder in less than
one-tenth of one percent of the time. If you scare off an intruder, or apprehend him, or shoot (but not kill) him, then the
CDC doesn't consider your use of the gun to be successful. Kleck's study uses significant numbers--ones that indicate
success. Don't just write off the numbers. Do some research and see what others have come up with. Even better, try to find
some criticism for Kleck's study from criminologists.

Todd

Lance Voss

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
In article <4gbej4$e...@news.ais.net>, nedk...@eagle.ais.net says...

>
>
>Diehard Republican (repu...@link.comp.com) wrote:
>: Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer
place.
>
>Guns don't kill people. Postal Workers do!
----------------------
What's your point? Do you want to ban the Post Office?


Todd M. Venables

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> In article <312AA8...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...

>
> >> : This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
> >> : If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
> >> : friends and family.
> >>
> >> Really? Wow! None of mine have ever been used in this way.
> >> Are they defective? Should I take them back and demand a
> >> better model?
>
> >Mine neither. Gee, I guess I should get a new one, huh? I have a Walther
> >P-38 and it's never shot anything but targets on a range. I have two kids
> >too, by the way. Man, I better do something!?
>
> Hang in there. Odds are in favor of your luck changing.
>
> Play a little guessing game when you tuck your kids in at
> night. Figure out which one you will have to bury.

>
> --
> ============================================================
> | | The GOP sez you MUST have |
> | Dan Thornsberry | that child. |
> |tbe...@computek.net | |
> | | So they can starve it! |
> ============================================================
> The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
> but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
> means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
> weak. -Will Durant


[This appeared in the Sonoma State Star student newspaper,
so far back that I can't remember when]

Gun Accidents & Kids: Techniques For Prevention

Life is full of senseless accidents. In the last few
months, the news media have given considerable attention to
firearms accidents involving children. Nearly all of these
accidents are easily preventable. Forty percent of the
households in America have a gun -- which means even if you
don't have a gun in your house, this is still your concern,
since your child may visit a house where there is a gun.
It's important to put firearms accidents involving
children in perspective. In 1984, there were 287 accidental
firearms deaths of children under 15. By comparison, motor
vehicle accidents killed 3,401 children under 15; drowning
killed 1,170; fires and burns killed 1,208, and even choking
killed 316. In brief, your child is 11.9 times more likely
to be killed in a car crash, 4.1 times more likely to drown,
4.2 times more likely to die of fire, and even 10% more
likely to choke to death, than to be killed by a gun
accident. Even a bicycle is more dangerous to kids than a
gun accident. If you aren't putting your son or daughter in
a seat belt in the car, making sure that their food is cut
up, and eliminating fire and pool hazards, gun accidents
should be the least of your worries.
One approach to protecting kids is child-proofing your
gun -- making the gun secure from children. The other
approach is "gun-proofing" your child -- teaching him or her
to recognize that guns are only for responsible adults.
Both approaches are necessary. Child-proofing your gun
reduces the risk that someone else's child, who hasn't been
"gun-proofed", will cause a tragedy with your gun. Gun-
proofing your child reduces the risk that he or she will
cause a tragedy with someone else's gun.


Gun-Proofing Your Kids
Because children are naturally curious, hiding a gun is a
mistake. The dividing line between fantasy and reality is
vague for many small children, and violent cartoons, TV
shows, and movies, don't help. A child may not understand
the difference between toy and real guns, especially if the
parents haven't shown them a real gun -- and there are some
very realistic toy guns out there. Curiosity may also
encourage a child to "mess around" with a gun, trying to
figure out how it works. Satisfy that curiosity under adult
supervision.
If you own a gun, show your son or daughter that a gun is
not a toy for adults, but a serious matter. Using a
watermelon as a target will powerfully impress upon them how
dangerous a gun can be.


Child-Proofing Your Guns
The ideal solution is a gun safe. A gun safe not only
prevents unauthorized access by kids, it prevents a burglar
from stealing one of the easiest items to fence. (This is
the reason that background checks are so ineffective at
disarming criminals -- criminals don't buy at gun stores --
they buy stolen guns). For handguns, there are quite
adequate safes between $100 and $125.
But for a renter, a gun safe is usually not practical --
the landlord won't appreciate holes in the wall. A locking
handgun case prevents kids from getting in, and chaining the
case handle to a pipe under a sink will discourage theft.
Most gun stores sell such cases for less than $40.
The cheapest solution is a trigger lock. Inserted
through the trigger guard, it prevents firing of the gun,
though it won't prevent theft. A disturbing number of guns
aren't even secured with this, the cheapest of child-
proofing devices -- and since trigger locks can be bought in
most sporting goods stores for about $10, if you own a gun,
you have no excuse for leaving it unsecured.
If you do own a gun, do everything you can to make sure
that gun doesn't end up as an accident statistic. Sad to
say, not every gun owner is terribly knowledgeable about
guns; some people buy a handgun, take it to a shooting range
once, and never shoot it again. Others learned gun safety
many years ago, and that knowledge has become hazy with
time. The SSU Shooting Club is ready to help you learn or
relearn safe gun ownership.
If you don't own a gun, it's important to teach your
children enough about gun safety to prevent them from
becoming a statistic. Whether you like it or not, guns are
a part of American society, like pools and motor vehicles.
Children need to learn enough to not be a hazard to
themselves or others. To this end, the National Rifle
Association has produced a coloring book for children that
teaches what to do if kids find an unattended gun: don't
touch it, find a responsible adult at once, and inform them
about it. The SSU Shooting Club will have copies available
soon.
The risks of a child getting killed or injured with a gun
are quite small; the grief that will result is enormous. A
gun, like a car, or a pool, is a potentially dangerous item.
you own one, you need to be responsible. If you don't
own one, common sense says you should educate your children
about the risks.

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
In article <4gfqps$8...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Neal.I....@Dartmouth.EDU
says...

>In article <4gagq3$o...@news.computek.net>
>tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) writes:

>> >So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.

>> Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.

>Dan,

>Sorry Dan. Last time I looked at the social contract (ie: Bill of


>Rights: Constitution) I saw no provision excluding "stupid people" from
>their right to own guns...

My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is why so many of you bury your kids!!

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
In article <312ABB...@cyberhighway.net>, than...@cyberhighway.net says...

The NRA is a closet lobbyist for gun manufacturers and importers.
They prey on the fear of the right wingers to make it look
like they are second amendment champions. In reality, they want
maximum gun sales with minimum regulation and they could care
less how many children die.

They are the mirror image of the tobacco institute. The
tobacco institute just hasn't figured out how to cash in
on right wing paranoia.

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
In article <312AA8...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...

>> : This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
>> : If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
>> : friends and family.
>>
>> Really? Wow! None of mine have ever been used in this way.
>> Are they defective? Should I take them back and demand a
>> better model?

>Mine neither. Gee, I guess I should get a new one, huh? I have a Walther
>P-38 and it's never shot anything but targets on a range. I have two kids
>too, by the way. Man, I better do something!?


Hang in there. Odds are in favor of your luck changing.

Play a little guessing game when you tuck your kids in at
night. Figure out which one you will have to bury.

--

Keith Marchington

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
Feldman writes:

: If more guns means safer streets we in the US should have the safest

: streets in the world... what? We don't? Hmmm.... maybe there is a flaw
: in the NRA's argument?

If one were to assume that that was the NRA's argument, it would
be flawed. But it isn't the NRA's argument, is it Neal? It
is nothing more than the fabrication of Neal Feldman's rather
pathetic little brain. Now I know why it is flawed!


--
Keith

gary

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) wrote:
>The NRA is a closet lobbyist for gun manufacturers and importers.

Like all the rest of the gun haters, to put it politely, you are full of
shit!. You constantly attempt to demonize and portray the NRA as some
evil empire of nameless faces - and you are dead wrong! as my sig below
declares, *I AM THE NRA*, and their efforts are done at the urging of a
vast multitude of people just like me, not due to some closed boardroom
decision!

I value gun ownership for sport, collecting, predator control, and self
protection, in just that order. Since I also respect and obey the second
amendment, I will use every means at my disposal to resist efforts of
people like you to compromise my rights.

I will ask you the same question I have asked other gun haters: If faced
with the life threatening occassion of a home invasion, and even though
YOU are opposed to guns, there WAS one easily available to defend
yourself and your family, would you stand on your principal of no gun
involvement and trust your attackers for mercy, or would you resist by
use of the hated gun? Since your decision affects the well-being of those
depending on your choice, do they share your views? If your choice WOULD
be to resist your attackers with the maximum force available, how would
YOU feel if your "concerned" neighbors had removed your means of defense
from you, "for your own safety, and theirs"? As a law abiding citizen you
are MUCH easier to disarm than the criminals who would attack you.
I REALLY don't expect a rational response from you, past experience has
proven that gun haters faced with these types of questions usually weasel
around groping for nonexistant alternatives to a simple situation that
requires that they choose to either fight, or die. Many who have died
would have preferred the option of that choice - I would, and intend to
continue to keep it an alternative. YOU are free to do the same.


--
Gary.... *** I AM THE NRA! ***

"ONLY IN AMERICA: Veterans in shacks... a draft dodger in the White
House!"

"I love my country... it's my government that disgusts me."

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
Neal Feldman (than...@cyberhighway.net) wrote:
: If more guns means safer streets we in the US should have the safest
: streets in the world... what? We don't? Hmmm.... maybe there is a flaw
: in the NRA's argument?

No, there's a flaw in your interpetation of the NRA's argument.

More guns in the RIGHT HANDS mean safer streets.

If more guns ALWAYS meant more violence, police stations would
be the most dangerous places in the country.

Are they?

--
-- Mike Zarlenga

Vote ABC in 1996. Anybody But Clinton.
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
In article <4giehj$c...@miwok.nbn.com>, des...@thereporter.com says...

>
]tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) wrote:
]]The NRA is a closet lobbyist for gun manufacturers and importers.
]
]Like all the rest of the gun haters, to put it politely, you are full of
]shit!. You constantly attempt to demonize and portray the NRA as some
]evil empire of nameless faces - and you are dead wrong! as my sig below
]declares, *I AM THE NRA*, and their efforts are done at the urging of a
]vast multitude of people just like me, not due to some closed boardroom
]decision!

Timothy McVeigh also had a bumper sticker proudly proclaiming
"I am the NRA"

]
]I value gun ownership for sport, collecting, predator control, and self

]protection, in just that order. Since I also respect and obey the second
]amendment, I will use every means at my disposal to resist efforts of
]people like you to compromise my rights.
]
]I will ask you the same question I have asked other gun haters: If faced
]with the life threatening occassion of a home invasion, and even though
]YOU are opposed to guns, there WAS one easily available to defend
]yourself and your family, would you stand on your principal of no gun
]involvement and trust your attackers for mercy, or would you resist by
]use of the hated gun? Since your decision affects the well-being of those
]depending on your choice, do they share your views? If your choice WOULD
]be to resist your attackers with the maximum force available, how would
]YOU feel if your "concerned" neighbors had removed your means of defense
]from you, "for your own safety, and theirs"? As a law abiding citizen you
]are MUCH easier to disarm than the criminals who would attack you.
]I REALLY don't expect a rational response from you, past experience has
]proven that gun haters faced with these types of questions usually weasel
]around groping for nonexistant alternatives to a simple situation that
]requires that they choose to either fight, or die. Many who have died
]would have preferred the option of that choice - I would, and intend to
]continue to keep it an alternative. YOU are free to do the same.

]

Let me ask you this: If you were being chased through
the streets by space invaders, and all you had was
your single phaser which was stuck on stun, would you
still be sane?

]
]--

]Gary.... *** I AM THE NRA! ***
]
]"ONLY IN AMERICA: Veterans in shacks... a draft dodger in the White
]House!"
]
]"I love my country... it's my government that disgusts me."

]
]

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
David Veal (ve...@web.ce.utk.edu) wrote:
: In article <4gbhrl$p...@portal.gmu.edu>,

: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. <hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
: >The problem is, if all of this were true, there would be some evidence somewhere in

: >the public domain. Newspapers would report lots of these cases. But you don't see
: >it. Look at your crime reports. It is rare that there is something about someone
: >chasing off a crook or a rapist with a gun. It happens, but it is rare.

: The issue involved is that self-defense may not be likely to be


: reported, especially when it is successful. That is, people are more likely
: to call the police (through whom the newspapers get most of their
: information) when they get hurt or lose something. When they *don't*,
: for whatever reason, they're not as enthused about reporting it. The
: police are a hassle. And if you didn't actually shoot them there's not
: a lot of incentive to do so. (Not a few jurisdictions seek indictments
: against people who use guns in self-defense as a matter of course...)

This excuse doesn't get you very far. I am sure that a lot of what is
purported to be measured should include people in homes with guns who
point them at people purported to be burglars. Even in fairly liberal
Northern Virginia, I would have no qualms about trying to scare away a
burgler with my rifle & reporting it to the police. In fact, if at all
possible I would be trying to do both at the same time - assuming I was
able to which is not at all certain.

Now, if he's measuring outlaw vs outlaw that is another thing. I'm sure
there are drug ripoffs that didn't go down due to the intended victin's
being armed. But this is of little comfort to law abiding folks.

I really don't trust his numbers. They just don't smell right. If he had
some corroboration with reported statistics, I might believe them.

--
Buddy K

Walt Boyle

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) wrote:

>>Sorry Dan. Last time I looked at the social contract (ie: Bill of
>>Rights: Constitution) I saw no provision excluding "stupid people" from
>>their right to own guns...

>My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>That is why so many of you bury your kids!!

Dan, its gonna be okay! Nobody can make you own a gun.

And the thing with killin' your kids, nah, maybe you should take your
medication now, and go sleepy, sleep. Golly, you get so excitable.


>--
>============================================================
>| | The GOP sez you MUST |

>| Dan Thornsberry | show understanding for |
>|tbe...@computek.net | idiots that try to destroy the constitution |
>| | after all : They ARE socialists! |


>============================================================
>The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
>but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,

>means freedom from work and an unending sucking at the federal tit.


Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
Todd M. Venables wrote:

> > >Mine neither. Gee, I guess I should get a new one, huh? I have a Walther
> > >P-38 and it's never shot anything but targets on a range. I have two kids
> > >too, by the way. Man, I better do something!?
> >
> > Hang in there. Odds are in favor of your luck changing.

I'm not worried in the slightest. My gun is in a gun safe and my kids are
educated with respect to proper gun safety. They were taught how to use it
and how to respect it.

Cheers, Cy

David Reilley

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to

Won't work -- remember the disgruntled FedEx employee who hijacked one of
their planes and wanted to force the pilot to crash it into a city block. It
must have something to do with handling lots of letters.

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to gary
gary wrote:

>
> I value gun ownership for sport, collecting, predator control, and self
> protection, in just that order. Since I also respect and obey the second
> amendment, I will use every means at my disposal to resist efforts of
> people like you to compromise my rights.

Then you out to be thrilled at this proposal:

HJ 98 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H.J. RES 98

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify
the meaning of the second amendment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 27, 1995

Mr. OWENS(D) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary
----------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify
the meaning of the second amendment.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring
therin),That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislature of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its
submission for ratification:

ARTICLE--

"The right enumerated in the second article of amendment to the Constitution
of the United States shall be construed as a right of States and not of
individuals."

--END---

Mr Owen is the same guy we heard (only on Rush of course) say that 250
million slaves were thrown to the sharks during this country's slave trade.
(thats about the population of the entire US today). Scary that we have
people who think with this level of common sense representing us in this
Congress.

Cheers, Cy

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
Walt Boyle wrote:
>
> tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) wrote:
>
> >>Sorry Dan. Last time I looked at the social contract (ie: Bill of
> >>Rights: Constitution) I saw no provision excluding "stupid people" from
> >>their right to own guns...
>
> >My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >That is why so many of you bury your kids!!
>
> Dan, its gonna be okay! Nobody can make you own a gun.
>
> And the thing with killin' your kids, nah, maybe you should take your
> medication now, and go sleepy, sleep. Golly, you get so excitable.

Far more kids have been killed because their parents did not have enough
common sense to have them properly restrained. By the sam logic as some use,
we should ban cars.

Cheers, Cy

Joe Tittiger

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
On 20 Feb 1996 02:53:51 -0600, syn...@MCS.COM (Voice of Liberty)
wrote:

>titt...@telerama.lm.com writes:
>
>>Diehard Republican <repu...@link.comp.com wrote:
>
>>>****Banning hand guns will not work to make this society a better, safer place.
>
>>>****The biggest deterent from armed crime is armed resistance. Remember the
>>>****cold war antics.....equal nuclear arsenals is a deterent to nuclear war.
>>>****They prove true here as well.
>
>>>****If we use the illogical democratic reasoning for banning guns that guns
>>>****kill innocent people by mistake and accident, we see that the democrats
>>>****basically feel that people are ignorant and need to be helped and nurtured
>>>****by the government. Look at the pork in social programs to prove the point.
>
>>>****So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.
>
>So far, I agree with Diehard for the most part.
>
>>>****How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and
>>>****a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>If something is a right, you don't need to pass an evaluation to exercise
>it. You should only lose it if you are mentally incompetent or have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>been convicted of a serious crime.


Whooo!! Hold on cowboy!
You are on real shaky ground here!
First of all you are opening up a whole can of
worms due to the fact that the average moron in this country
can not distinguish between mental
illness and incompetent. More on that later.

Do you happen to remember how the Soviets dealt with
dissenters if they were not sent to a Gulag? That's right they were
put into psychiatric hospitals.
We have had the same type things in the West. Do you realize
that DSM categorized homosexuality as a mental illness not long ago?
Are you suggesting that homosexuals be barred from second amendment
rights?
How about the bullshit that says felons can't own guns? This type of
law is a --knee jerk, vote getting, scheme --for politicians. Since
when does some one that disagrees with government and smokes dope
(dopers are felons) not have the judgment to own a firearm? Isn't it
just a little too convenient to define anyone that disagrees with
government into a class of criminals that can't own guns? Do you think
a felon that wants to rob a bank will say to himself "I can't own a
gun so I guess I can't rob this bank" You are making criminals (by
defining them to be such) of people that have paid their time and debt
to society. You are denying them the basic human right of protecting
themselves and their family.


Are you going to count on the mass's being able to distinguish between
mental illness and incompetence? In this "Prozac Nation" of ours are
you going to believe that the politicians won't use this as an excuse
to violate the civil rights of yet millions more of American Citizens?
Here in Pa. the hysteria over guns has reached the point to where
those convicted of multiple DUI's are restricted in handgun purchases.


If you open the door and start saying that this class of people can't
own guns, you can bet just as assuredly as junior has short hairs,
that the list will grow exponentially. The constitution does not say
anything about a competency criteria.

For the sake of argument let's say that we agree that a said
individual should not own a gun. Consider the fact that this
judgement is not infallible and that you may actually cause a
violent reaction ( and justifiably so) from a person by denying their
right to protect both them selves and their loved ones.

Also consider that someone violent and criminally inclined will do so
whether they are legally allowed to do so or not. Do you someone
planning to go shoot up their work place and kill their boss would
actually say to themselves "Wait a minute it's illegal for me to own
a gun therefore I can't go kill my boss". This is fairy land reasoning
to say the least and (I hope) you know as well as I that such laws
*only* punish your average person as well as make him a criminal.

Is it constitutional to deny hundreds of thousands the right to bear
arms and protect themselves just because society "thinks" that they
*may* cause harm? How about the rights of those who die because
society denied them the "right" to protect themselves?
I see this as very similar to the reasoning for the CDA. A few, a very
few are doing wrong, therefor to combat this wrong let's
walk all over the civil rights of everyone - this sums up both
approaches in my view.

Respectfully,

Joe


>
>>>****Not a gun ban!!!!!!!!
>
>>>****Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their
>>>****guns by legal means.
>
>>>****We, the people of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!
>
>Well, that's more exclamation points that I would choose to use, but the
>general idea is correct.
>
>>>****Anyone that has children in the household and owns a gun and the child
>>>****accidentally gets shot with that gun by another child, the parents should be
>>>****shot for being so fucking stupid as to leave a gun within access of the
>>>****child. Get a fucking brain!!!!! Then get a quick access gun safe!!!!!
>
>>>****Well, thats my three cents on the issue
>
>That's wrong. Leaving a loaded gun within reach of little kids who
>know nothing about guns (except what they get from Hollywierd) is stupid.
>But it is no more stupid than leaving them around a gas stove or open
>electrical outlets or a car with its engine running or a swimming pool.
>Some kids will always manage to kill themselves or bystanders by doing
>stupid kid tricks. Their parents should do whatthey can to prevent them
>from engaging in such harmful behavior, but accidents will still happen.
>You want proof? Look at how many trained police officers are
>responsible for accidental shootings.
>
>>I agree wholeheartidly I feel much safer with guns around
>>even if they are carried by other citizens and not myself.
>
>So do I. The more citizens who are armed, the less I worry about
>violent criminals.
>
>> Before my daughters birth I handled both revolvers
>>and semi-automatics. After her birth I got rid of all the
>>semiautos and kept only large frame revolvers with a
>>substantial trigger pull.
>
>>I have never tried to see if a young child could fire a revolver
>>for obvious reasons - but would venture to guess that most can't.
>
>I think your assumption is mostly correct for large caliber, factory
>issue revolvers. It doesn't hold true for several single-action
>revolvers I've shot. (Read: Kid pulls back hammer and touches trigger--
>*BANG*!!!) The best way to prevent kids from abusing guns is to teach
>them the rules of gun safety at a very early age, and then teach them
>how to safely shoot firearms once they are old enough to learn the basics.
>
>>I would also venture to guess, and a point that the morons in the
>>media leave out, is that a large percentage of accidential child
>>shootings are done with semiautomatics.
>
>Actually, a semiauto with no round in the chamber may be harder for
>kids to fire than a revolver with a heavy double-action trigger pull.
>YMMV. But the best way to prevent accidental shootings by kids is
>to keep guns out of reach of children who don't know how to handle
>them safely.
>
>>Anybody know? I could be dead wrong and am curious if my reasoning
>>was correct.
>
>I think a lot depends on the gun and the kid.
>
>>TIA
>
>>Joe
>[excellent but rather long .sig snipped]
>
>--
><sig>
>"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
>the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
>
>"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." -- John Marshall
>
>Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control! Annoy a Leftist: Think!
>
>The Public School System: You can get better, but you can't pay more.
></sig>

--
MAY LIBERTY RETURN: 10 ways you can protest the CDA:
full text at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:s.652:
"Don't stop when we get congress on the run people.
That's when we go in for the kill."
********************************
1.) Design a home page to state your opposition to CDA and explain your position.
http://www.lm.com/~tittiger
2.)**Do all posting anonymously from "he...@anon.penet.fi" to protest the CDA.
also see: alt.anonymous.messages alt.privacy.anon-server alt.anonymous
3.)**Cross post heavily all discussions about CDA to relevant news groups,
and congressional email address's. The media: i.e. CBS, CNN, TIME should be
told to leave the Net for their complicity in the cyber porn hysteria.
and the corollary: post a lot!!!
4.)**Take an oath to try to get on all CDA trial juries and then refuse to convict.
Check out FIJA for more information.
http://www.primenet.com/~slack/fija/fija.html
5.)**VIOLATE the CDA as a form of civil disobedience at every opportunity.
6.)Vote!!! But not for DemoPublicans. http://www.lp.org/lp/lp.html
7.)**State you position in your SIG
8.)Write congress- it's too easy!! There are sites designed just
for this purpose.
http://www.lm.com/~tittiger/house.html
http://www.lm.com/~tittiger/senate.html
9.)Organize economic boycotts of any company that supports the CDAi.e. The major media.
10.) ***** Attach this SIG to everything you can get your hands on!!!
and generally spread the word.
****************************************************************
In Liberty - Long live the Revolution!
PGP public key at http://www.lm.com/~tittiger
ObCivilDisobedience#1: Planned Parenthood of Pa.,
1031 Baker Rd., Monaca, PA 15061 412-775-8536
ObCivilDisobedience#2: Fuck Sen. James Exon and the horse he rode in on.


BOBM5

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
If you have a gun in your home, it will be used on family and friends ?
Where did you get that one, that's pretty good.
At first I thought you were a moron, but I think IMBECILE fits you
much better !

Bob M

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
Keith Marchington wrote:
>
> Thornsberry spews:
>
> : In article <312AA8...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...

>
> : >> : This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
> : >> : If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
> : >> : friends and family.

> : >>
> : >> Really? Wow! None of mine have ever been used in this way.
> : >> Are they defective? Should I take them back and demand a
> : >> better model?
>
> : >Mine neither. Gee, I guess I should get a new one, huh? I have a Walther

> : >P-38 and it's never shot anything but targets on a range. I have two kids
> : >too, by the way. Man, I better do something!?
>
> : Hang in there. Odds are in favor of your luck changing.
>
> Really? Do you have any factual basis for this assertion, or
> are you just hoping?
>
> : Play a little guessing game when you tuck your kids in at

> : night. Figure out which one you will have to bury.
>
> My, but you are a blood-thirsty one, Dan!
>
> Could you explain, though, with this high likelihood of death why
> it is that there are so few firearms accidents every year? And
> why the number of accidents continues to decline even though the
> total number of firearms increases? Inquiring minds want to
> know!


My kids are far more likely to be injured or die in a car crash than by a
gun; my gun is in a gun-safe and my kids have been educated to respect it.
They know the gun is there and they know they can't touch it without my
supervision.

Cheers, Cy

David Levin

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) wrote:
[...]

> Could you explain, though, with this high likelihood of death why
> it is that there are so few firearms accidents every year? And
> why the number of accidents continues to decline even though the
> total number of firearms increases? Inquiring minds want to
> know!

I believe you are correct. The most fertile ground for reducing
serious injuries and accidental deaths is in making safer cars and in
making drivers education madatory for all new licenses.

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
In article <312DE9...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...


So, in effect, you are saying that the level of children
killed (because daddy needed to show his manhood) by guns
in the home is acceptable?

Spoken like a good NRA member.


--
============================================================


| | The GOP sez you MUST have |
| Dan Thornsberry | that child. |
|tbe...@computek.net | |
| | So they can starve it! |

============================================================
The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/24/96
to
In article <4gdcok$8...@miwok.nbn.com>, repo...@sparc1.castles.com says...
>
>That's what I get for typing faster than I think - I obviously meant that
>the *Semi-automatic* pistol would be more difficult.....
>
>--
>Gary... KJ6Q... I am the NRA | Annoy a Liberal - say NO to gun control!
>============================ | Annoy a Democrat - say BYE BYE CLINTON!
>"Did you come here to *LEARN*|==================================
>or to nose around, make rude | "It's *EASY* to be a liberal, it's
>noises & provide proof our | OTHER people's money you are giving
>educational system stinks?" | away! (or living off of!)
>
>


Must have taken you all day to type this then!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Walt Boyle

unread,
Feb 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/25/96
to

>>Walt Boyle wrote:

>>> >My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> >That is why so many of you bury your kids!!
>>>
>>> Dan, its gonna be okay! Nobody can make you own a gun.
>>>
>>> And the thing with killin' your kids, nah, maybe you should take your
>>> medication now, and go sleepy, sleep. Golly, you get so excitable.
>>
>>Far more kids have been killed because their parents did not have enough
>>common sense to have them properly restrained. By the sam logic as some use,
>>we should ban cars.
>>
>>Cheers, Cy


>So, in effect, you are saying that the level of children
>killed (because daddy needed to show his manhood) by guns
>in the home is acceptable?

>Spoken like a good NRA member.

Hey Dan, I'll let you in on a secret, buying or owning a gun doesn't
get your family killed.

Think of it, trying to convince your wife. Yeah Honey, I really want
that new gun, but one of the kids are probably gonna die.

Geeze Dan, get a grip

>============================================================
>| | The GOP sez you MUST have |

>| Dan Thornsberry | show understanding for |
>|tbe...@computek.net | that try to destroy the constitution |


>| | after all: They ARE socialists! |

>============================================================
>The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
>but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/25/96
to Dan Thornsberry
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> In article <312DE9...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...
> >
> >Walt Boyle wrote:
> >>
> >> tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Sorry Dan. Last time I looked at the social contract (ie: Bill of
> >> >>Rights: Constitution) I saw no provision excluding "stupid people" from
> >> >>their right to own guns...
> >>
> >> >My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> >That is why so many of you bury your kids!!
> >>
> >> Dan, its gonna be okay! Nobody can make you own a gun.
> >>
> >> And the thing with killin' your kids, nah, maybe you should take your
> >> medication now, and go sleepy, sleep. Golly, you get so excitable.
> >
> >Far more kids have been killed because their parents did not have enough
> >common sense to have them properly restrained. By the sam logic as some use,
> >we should ban cars.
> >
> >Cheers, Cy
>
> So, in effect, you are saying that the level of children
> killed (because daddy needed to show his manhood) by guns
> in the home is acceptable?
>
> Spoken like a good NRA member.

No sir,
That is not what I said. For the record I am not a member of the NRA and
I only own a gun because I inherited it from my father upon his death from a
hear attack. Now, if you want to have an intelligent conversation about this
I can do that. I wont engage in emotional appeals however.
My support for gun ownership is quite simple; it is my right as an
American; secured by both the second and ninth amendments to the
constitution. The simple fact is, our Constitution and the bill of rights
were established the secure individual rights and limit the power of
government. Because, tragically, some children are hurt or killed does not
diminish my right to own a gun. It is my individual responsibiltiy to be
responsible with that gun. It has nothing to do with manhood either. In
fact, more women that ever before are becomng gun owners.

Cheers, Cy

Ned Kelly

unread,
Feb 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/25/96
to

David Reilley (drei...@pinc.com) wrote:

: Won't work -- remember the disgruntled FedEx employee who hijacked one of

: their planes and wanted to force the pilot to crash it into a city block. It
: must have something to do with handling lots of letters.

Actually, it has to do with handling small packages, mate. CLUE: I'm
myself a White Postal Worker(tm). Just try working with the bloody abos
for a bit and see for yourself.

--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!

PGP Public Key coming to a keyserver near you. Now beta testing Strine
for Yanks, version 2.0 (with bug fixes for ver. 1.2).
.
I support Patrick Buchanan - becuse of the Vladamir Zirinowski Endorsement!

John Coleman Lienhart

unread,
Feb 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/25/96
to
In article <312C02...@airmail.net> "Todd M. Venables" <vena...@airmail.net> writes:
>From: "Todd M. Venables" <vena...@airmail.net>

>> : What Kleck's National Self-Defense Survey discovered is
>> : that even excluding all uses of firearms by police, military, or
>> : security personnel, an American gun owner uses a privately owned
>> : firearm 2.45 million times each year in an actual defense against
>> : a criminal. About 1.9 million of these defenses use handguns, the
>> : rest some other firearm--a shotgun or a rifle.

Todd-

What do these numbers really represent? When an American "uses
a...firearm...in an actual defense against a criminal," does this mean
actually shooting it? At the criminal or up in the air? Does it mean waving
the firearm around? Does it mean saying "I have a firearm?" What is a
criminal? Someone in the act of committing a crime? Someone with a criminal
record?

2.45 million means that about 1% of the U.S. population uses firearms every
year, and after 10 years, about 10% of the population would have used firearms
in that span of time, and in 20 years, 20%, or 1 out of 5. Call me sheltered,
but I don't know 1 person who has used a firearm against a criminal. The
closest instance I can think of was when I was crossing a farmer's field and
he fired a gun in the air and yelled "Get the hell off my land!" Is that one
of the 2.45 million times a firearm was used against a "criminal" in that
year? Sure made that farmer a hell of a lot safer.

Using that number, firearms would statistically be used about 500 times per
week here in the State of Oregon. I would think that I would hear about these
uses if they were so successful. Bottom line, I do not believe these numbers
without further explanation.

________________________________________________________________
These opinions are not my employer's. They might not even be mine.

David Hoeflein

unread,
Feb 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/25/96
to
>This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.
>If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
>friends and family.

What do you base this bit of lunacy on? There was a study done once
on hospital records that proved more criminals shot their victims that
the reverse but that's because the people defending themselves don't
often shoot their attackers. It isn't always necessary to shoot
someone to defend yourself with a gun.


>Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.

Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people don't own guns.

It's certainly easy to insult people isn't it.

>>
>>How about a gun test, psychological evaluation, background check and

>>a waiting period to people that want a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>

>The NRA has fought such legislation with every fibre of
>their being.

It serves no useful purpose.

>>
>>Remember, criminals will always have guns, they do not acquire their

>>guns by legal means.

>Criminals who don't buy guns steal them, from gunowners!

And your point is .....?


>A survey of gunowners shows that over 50% keep their guns
>unlocked and loaded so as to be ready for that intruder who never
>comes.

And again, your point is ....?

>>
>>Well, thats my three cents on the issue

>--

>============================================================
>| | The GOP sez you MUST have |

>| Dan Thornsberry | that child. |
>|tbe...@computek.net | |
>| | So they can starve it! |

>============================================================
>The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
>but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> In article <4gfqps$8...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Neal.I....@Dartmouth.EDU
> says...
>
> >In article <4gagq3$o...@news.computek.net>
> >tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) writes:
>
> >> >So.... guns do not kill people, stupid ignorant people kill people.
>
> >> Unfortunately, stupid ignorant people own guns.
>
> >Dan,

>
> >Sorry Dan. Last time I looked at the social contract (ie: Bill of
> >Rights: Constitution) I saw no provision excluding "stupid people" from
> >their right to own guns...
>
> My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> That is why so many of you bury your kids!!

I guess 20 exclaimation points means you really really mean it <g>. The law
also does not exclude stupid people from driving cars. Should we all turn
in our cars? Of course not. YOur arguments are based on emotional appeal,
not logic. The one thing that both sides of the issue argee on is that
people should have proper training if they are going to own a gun. TRaining
and education is the answer, not infringing on my freedom. That should never
happen.

Cheers, Cy

PS: before you ask...no it's not ok that kids get killed with guns. Its not
ok they get killed for any reason. The sensible answer is proper training
and education wrt firearms.

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> In article <312AA8...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...
>
> >> : This is a statement that is at odds with the facts.

> >> : If you have a gun in your home it will be used on
> >> : friends and family.
> >>
> >> Really? Wow! None of mine have ever been used in this way.
> >> Are they defective? Should I take them back and demand a
> >> better model?
>
> >Mine neither. Gee, I guess I should get a new one, huh? I have a Walther
> >P-38 and it's never shot anything but targets on a range. I have two kids
> >too, by the way. Man, I better do something!?
>
> Hang in there. Odds are in favor of your luck changing.
>
> Play a little guessing game when you tuck your kids in at
> night. Figure out which one you will have to bury.

Sir, I defy you to prove that, considering the number of guns in this
country vice the number of children killed, that the "odds are in favor of
your luck changing." That simply is not a statistical fact. In fact, the
odds are in my favor that just the opposite is true because I've had proper
training and so have my kids. The gun stays in a gun safe and they know not
to even try to get at it and couldn't anyway.
You are simply playing on peoples emotions without regard to common sense
or logic.

> The GOP sez you MUST have that child.

>
> So they can starve it!

Statements like this leave little room for meaningful discussion.

Cy Stanton

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to Todd M. Venables
Todd M. Venables wrote:

> Are you saying that if YOU didn't see it, it didn't happen? First of all, how is a newspaper to know when something like
> this happens? Would you think to call them if something like this happened to you? Even if you did, do you think they would
> care? The media only report stories that are out of the ordinary. And by the way. The general public is ignorant of almost
> everything, other than what the media present to them. You can never expect the correct information to get to you via those
> means. You really have to go do research on your own if you want to find out the truth about anything.
>
> Whatever the case, Kleck is THE guy when it comes to firearms v. crime. It is his mission. He has impeccable credentials,
> and his work is lauded by criminologists everywhere. Don't you think that his fellow criminologists would be the most
> critical of his studies? They gave him an award for it! I agree that some people use numbers in funny ways sometimes to try
> to prove their predetermined position. I'll give you a great example: the CDC study mentioned above. Where they touted a
> probably-true, yet completely irrelevant statistic about guns in the home. They concluded that you are 43 times as likely to
> kill a resident of your household as you are to KILL an intruder. That may be the case, but what they don't tell you is that
> in the incidents in which an intruder is confronted with a gun-bearing resident, the residents kill the intruder in less than
> one-tenth of one percent of the time. If you scare off an intruder, or apprehend him, or shoot (but not kill) him, then the
> CDC doesn't consider your use of the gun to be successful. Kleck's study uses significant numbers--ones that indicate
> success. Don't just write off the numbers. Do some research and see what others have come up with. Even better, try to find
> some criticism for Kleck's study from criminologists.
>
> Todd

I had the "opportunity" to scare of an intruder just a few weeks ago. We
recently moved into a new house out in the country (to get away from the high
crime in the city..ha). One night a couple weeks ago, there was a prowler
outside my son's window (we think they might have though we were not home
because one of our cars normally in the driveway was in the shop).
I ran outside and scared the guy off He ran into the woods behind my
house. Had the guy made it into my house he would have had a much higher
likelyhood of being shot. I would not allow anyone to ever take my right to
keep a gun away from me. Never.

Cheers, Cy

mark edward balcom

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
The reason that you don't read about successful self defense cases is
that you don't have access to the right press. The liberal press is not
going to publicize a case against itself. When they do they twist it.
Case in point; the Texan last weekend who had to shoot the assailant who
outweighed him by about 50% was presented by the TV news as an example of
a reason to disarm us instead of the example that it was (at least on the
surface) of a proper self defense. By the way, someone who finds himself
in one of these situations doesn't sleep well for quite some time. You
had better hope that you can continue to never find yourself in such a
situation.
Mark


John Coleman Lienhart

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
In article <4gt0no$k...@goodnews.wv.tek.com> mark edward balcom <mark.edwa...@tek.com> writes:
>From: mark edward balcom <mark.edwa...@tek.com>
>Subject: Re: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, STUPID GUNOWNERS KILL PEOPLE
>Date: 26 Feb 1996 19:12:56 GMT

Mark-

I am assuming that you are responding to my post, and if so, thanks. You've
made a pretty general statement regarding "the press that I have access to."
I, probably like you, have access to just about anything I want. The main
newspaper here has supported one democratic presidential candidate --- ever.
Not very liberal. There are also several local non-liberal (I classify them
as right wing) newspapers here, and they don't carry 500, or 50 or 5 or even 1
"successful defense" story per week as an average. The "liberal press"
strawman does not give me a satisfactory answer to my question.

Part of the rest of my post was that I should assume that
(extrapolating the original poster's statistics) 1 in 5 people I know has used
a firearm against a criminal. Yet no one has ever told me that they have had
to take that step, and I can guarantee that it is not the liberal press
preventing them from telling me.

I am just questioning the statistics quoted by a previous poster. They don't
ring true. I am just looking for him or someone else to justify the
statistics.

You are absolutely correct that I hope I don't find myself in the situation
where a firearm is the only answer.

Best Wishes

__________________________________________________________________
The opinions stated above are not my employer's. They might not even be mine.

David Veal

unread,
Feb 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/27/96
to
In article <4gnsfu$6...@news.computek.net>,

Dan Thornsberry <tbe...@computek.net> wrote:
>In article <312DE9...@rt66.com>, stan...@rt66.com says...
>>Far more kids have been killed because their parents did not have enough
>>common sense to have them properly restrained. By the sam logic as some use,
>>we should ban cars.
>
>So, in effect, you are saying that the level of children
>killed (because daddy needed to show his manhood) by guns
>in the home is acceptable?
>
>Spoken like a good NRA member.

More precisely, it is not out of line with dozens of other
potentially dangerous household objects.

It isn't acceptable, and the abose doesn't suggest that it is.
At most he's saying that you are holding firearms ownership to a
tremendously higher standard than other things which present equal
or greater risk.

No dangerous item should be kept within the reach of children.
--
David Veal lve...@utk.edu / ve...@web.ce.utk.edu
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." - Isaac Asimov

Todd M. Venables

unread,
Feb 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/27/96
to
John Coleman Lienhart wrote:
>
> In article <312C02...@airmail.net> "Todd M. Venables" <vena...@airmail.net> writes:
> >From: "Todd M. Venables" <vena...@airmail.net>
>
> >> : What Kleck's National Self-Defense Survey discovered is
> >> : that even excluding all uses of firearms by police, military, or
> >> : security personnel, an American gun owner uses a privately owned
> >> : firearm 2.45 million times each year in an actual defense against
> >> : a criminal. About 1.9 million of these defenses use handguns, the
> >> : rest some other firearm--a shotgun or a rifle.
>
> Todd-
>
> What do these numbers really represent? When an American "uses
> a...firearm...in an actual defense against a criminal," does this mean
> actually shooting it? At the criminal or up in the air? Does it mean waving
> the firearm around? Does it mean saying "I have a firearm?"

All of the above.

> What is a criminal? Someone in the act of committing a crime? Someone with a criminal
> record?

For the purpose of this discussion, someone in the act of committing a
crime.


>
> 2.45 million means that about 1% of the U.S. population uses firearms every
> year, and after 10 years, about 10% of the population would have used firearms
> in that span of time, and in 20 years, 20%, or 1 out of 5.

You are assuming 1 crime per victim. In high-crime neighborhoods, it is
not unusual for the same convenience store to be held up once a month.

Call me sheltered,
> but I don't know 1 person who has used a firearm against a criminal.

Then you and your friends are very lucky. My next door neighbor was
robbed at gunpoint by 5 youths in broad daylight in front of our houses,
and I live in a nice neighborhood.


The
> closest instance I can think of was when I was crossing a farmer's field and
> he fired a gun in the air and yelled "Get the hell off my land!" Is that one
> of the 2.45 million times a firearm was used against a "criminal" in that
> year?

Probably. You trespasser!

Sure made that farmer a hell of a lot safer.
>
> Using that number, firearms would statistically be used about 500
>times per week here in the State of Oregon. I would think that I would
>hear about these uses if they were so successful. Bottom line, I do not believe these numbers without further explanation.


Fine. Go analyze the study like all the other criminologists who didn't
believe him at first but then gave him an award. However, I would
venture to say that you don't live in a high-crime neighborhood.

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/27/96
to
In article <JOHN.C.LIENHAR...@tek.com>, JOHN.C....@tek.com
says...

>2.45 million means that about 1% of the U.S. population uses firearms every
>year, and after 10 years, about 10% of the population would have used
firearms

>in that span of time, and in 20 years, 20%, or 1 out of 5. Call me
sheltered,
>but I don't know 1 person who has used a firearm against a criminal. The

>closest instance I can think of was when I was crossing a farmer's field and
>he fired a gun in the air and yelled "Get the hell off my land!" Is that
one
>of the 2.45 million times a firearm was used against a "criminal" in that

>year? Sure made that farmer a hell of a lot safer.

>Using that number, firearms would statistically be used about 500 times per
>week here in the State of Oregon. I would think that I would hear about
these
>uses if they were so successful. Bottom line, I do not believe these
numbers
>without further explanation.

Maybe the figures included eveytime some drunk gun nut
waved his manhood, I mean pistol, at his wife and kids?

They probably include every time some dork hears a noise
and grabs his manhood, damn it happened again, to go look
for boogers.

I'm sure it must also include every time our brave
gunowner thought about plugging some rude person or
everytime he fantasized about rushing in a stopping
major crimes with superior intellect and tremendous
bravery!!!


--
============================================================


| | The GOP sez you MUST have |

| Dan Thornsberry | that child. |
|tbe...@computek.net | |

| | So they can starve it! |

gary

unread,
Feb 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/28/96
to
JOHN.C....@tek.com (John Coleman Lienhart) wrote:

>You are absolutely correct that I hope I don't find myself in the situation
>where a firearm is the only answer.

AMEN! Contrary to the *VASTLY* distorted view of gun owners held by gun
haters, I don't personally know of *ANY* gun owner, no matter HOW well
armed, who in the slightest looks forward to to "opportunity" to wound or
kill anyone in self defense!

While I, and most LIKE me, will do all in our power to retain our second
amendment rights, and own the private weapons of our choice for a
variety of individual reasons, this is not so we may have the option of
wantonly running around our neighborhoods knocking off our neighbors and
their children at the slightest provocation. This is contrary to the
radically slanted and distorted picture anti gun folks delight in
painting us. As difficult as it obviously is for our gun hating opponents
to accept, we actually are almost human...


--
Gary.... *** I AM THE NRA! ***

"ONLY IN AMERICA: Veterans in shacks... a draft dodger in the White
House!"

"I love my country... it's my government that disgusts me."

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
Feb 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/28/96
to
In article <4h27tb$6...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, k...@cv.hp.com says...
>
>Thornsberry writes:
>
>: In article <JOHN.C.LIENHAR...@tek.com>, JOHN.C....@tek.com
>: says...
>
>: >Using that number, firearms would statistically be used about 500 times per
>: >week here in the State of Oregon. I would think that I would hear about
>: these
>: >uses if they were so successful. Bottom line, I do not believe these
>: numbers
>: >without further explanation.
>
>: Maybe the figures included eveytime some drunk gun nut
>: waved his manhood, I mean pistol, at his wife and kids?
>
> Once again, Dan displays his obsession with genetalia.
>
>: They probably include every time some dork hears a noise

>: and grabs his manhood, damn it happened again, to go look
>: for boogers.
>
> Again? Dan, perhaps professional help could solve this little
> confusion problem you have.
>
>: I'm sure it must also include every time our brave

>: gunowner thought about plugging some rude person or
>: everytime he fantasized about rushing in a stopping
>: major crimes with superior intellect and tremendous
>: bravery!!!
>
> Wow, a whole sentence without a reference to male genetalia!
>
>
>--
>Keith Marchington
>WTC-Corvallis


Well Keith, if you gunloons weren't so insecure about your
manhood, you wouldn't need guns.

You do not feel adequate so you choose your big ol' gun
as an equalizer/compensator.

Your obsession with firearms is driven by fear. Fear
breeds hatred. Fear is brought on by a lack of
understanding/education. We do not fear that which we
understand.

I hope this helps to clarify why all of you wimps need
to arm yourselves. You are in reality stupid, uneducated,
emasculated little cowards!

Glad I could help.

Keith Marchington

unread,
Feb 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/29/96
to
Tberry writes:
: In article <4h27tb$6...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, k...@cv.hp.com says...
: >
: >: Maybe the figures included eveytime some drunk gun nut

: >: waved his manhood, I mean pistol, at his wife and kids?
: >
: > Once again, Dan displays his obsession with genetalia.
: >
: >: They probably include every time some dork hears a noise
: >: and grabs his manhood, damn it happened again, to go look
: >: for boogers.
: >
: > Again? Dan, perhaps professional help could solve this little
: > confusion problem you have.
: >
: >: I'm sure it must also include every time our brave
: >: gunowner thought about plugging some rude person or
: >: everytime he fantasized about rushing in a stopping
: >: major crimes with superior intellect and tremendous
: >: bravery!!!
: >
: > Wow, a whole sentence without a reference to male genetalia!


: Well Keith, if you gunloons weren't so insecure about your


: manhood, you wouldn't need guns.

Seems the only one talking about it is you. Freud believed
that fear of weapons was a sign of severely retarded sexual
development.

: You do not feel adequate so you choose your big ol' gun
: as an equalizer/compensator.

Sorry, Danny Boy, I don't happen to own a single firearm.
That couldn't be it!

: Your obsession with firearms is driven by fear. Fear

: breeds hatred. Fear is brought on by a lack of
: understanding/education. We do not fear that which we
: understand.

Seems that obsessed one is the hoplophobe present. That would
be you, Dan.

: I hope this helps to clarify why all of you wimps need


: to arm yourselves. You are in reality stupid, uneducated,
: emasculated little cowards!

Made it perfectly clear to me. And I still recommend that you
seek professional help for your phobia.


Keith

Moassn01

unread,
Mar 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/1/96
to
The problem is that we well armed Americans have to keep our guns at home.
It's very difficult (and usually illegal) to take them with us during our
daily travels. That's why burglaries of occupied homes in the USA are
committed at a significantly lower rate than in other countries, such as
Great Britain, and why the criminals prefer the safety of the streets.
Every armed sitizen is worth 100 uniformed police!!!

Paul Havemann

unread,
Mar 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/2/96
to
Dan Thornsberry (tbe...@computek.net) sez:


: Your obsession with firearms is driven by fear. Fear
: breeds hatred. Fear is brought on by a lack of
: understanding/education. We do not fear that which we
: understand.

It's too bad that you'll never, ever understand the irony inherent in
that statement: it's obviously _your_ fear of something you don't
understand that causes you to make asinine statements like this:

> Maybe the figures included eveytime some drunk gun nut
> waved his manhood, I mean pistol, at his wife and kids?

If you understood simple facts and statistics -- which have been
tossed at you over and over -- you might lose this irrational fear.

: I hope this helps to clarify why all of you wimps need
: to arm yourselves. You are in reality stupid, uneducated,
: emasculated little cowards!

: Glad I could help.

You know, it's difficult to decide if you're really that impossibly
ignorant, or whether you're just an especially incompetent troll.
Further research appears to be warranted, however.

=-=-=-=-=-=

Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)

<disclaimer> I don't speak for my employer. </disclaimer>

Here. Try this little government program. It'll ease your pain.
The first bag is free.
- mcc...@netcom.com (Michael McClary) in <mcclaryD...@netcom.com>

The Albanach

unread,
Mar 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/3/96
to
In article <4h268f$1...@news.computek.net>
tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) writes:

> You do not feel adequate so you choose your big ol' gun
> as an equalizer/compensator.
>

> Your obsession with firearms is driven by fear. Fear
> breeds hatred. Fear is brought on by a lack of
> understanding/education. We do not fear that which we
> understand.
>

> I hope this helps to clarify why all of you wimps need
> to arm yourselves. You are in reality stupid, uneducated,
> emasculated little cowards!

Dan,

I want to get this straight. Inferior people need guns to compensate
for their short comings. So are you telling me that using a gun in
defending myself or my family makes me inferior? (Potentially dead but
inferior ;-) Oh, and right, I need more education to make me less
inferior so then I can be liberated from my irrational need for
firearms. (I'm sure lot of highbrow criminals and psychopaths are just
eagerly awaiting for us to get re-educated out there...) But no matter,
I'm safe because I'm edjicated and gave up my gun.

Psychobabble 101.

Neal I. Mitchell

"The point of the journey is not to arrive; the point of departure is
not to return." Neil Peart & Robert Lewis Stephenson

Tyrantslyr

unread,
Mar 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/3/96
to
In article <4h4ouo$p...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, k...@cv.hp.com (Keith
Marchington) writes:

> I hope this helps to clarify why all of you wimps need
>: to arm yourselves. You are in reality stupid, uneducated,
>: emasculated little cowards!
>
>

DAN -------- -- If you have such a major problem with one of the MOST
IMPORTANT parts of our Constitution, perhaps you should try ANOTHER
COUNTRY ! ! !
Ignorant fools likes yourself understand NOTHING about human nature and
the concepts of true freedom throughout the history of the world.
You sound educated FAR beyond your intellegence !
GET A DAMN CLUE before some pissed off patriot shoves a dirty marching
sock in your mouth and leaves you behind for the tyrants.

T.S.

F. Cowart

unread,
Mar 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/6/96
to
Keith Wood (kei...@bctv.com) wrote:
: In article <3130A2...@rt66.com>, Cy Stanton <stan...@rt66.com> wrote:
: [Dan Thornsberry wrote:

: [> So, in effect, you are saying that the level of children


: [> killed (because daddy needed to show his manhood) by guns
: [> in the home is acceptable?

: [>

Is the number of children killed by guns greater or lesser than the
number of children stomped to death by there daddy's????


F. Cowart

unread,
Mar 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/6/96
to
The Albanach (Neal.I....@Dartmouth.EDU) wrote:
: In article <4h268f$1...@news.computek.net>
: