I'm going to New Jersey via Wisconsin to pick up some Snickers and Mars
Eric Takabayashi
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&u=/nm/20020214/od_nm/words_dc_1
Michael Cash
<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> muttered:
>You wouldn't believe the excuses some criminals use.
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&u=/nm/20020214/od_nm/words_dc_1
Being an ex-Navy guy, I half expected to see mention of Missouri and
Iowa in the post somewhere.
Having read the article, I can only conclude he must have once been a
truck driver who had to go to New Jersey one time too many. (The only
good thing about New Jersey is that it ain't New York).
--
Michael Cash
"The Japanese can take the fun out of anything; but only NHK can
take the fun out of everything."
Prof. Briscoe Darling
Mount Pilot College
Eric Takabayashi
> Having read the article, I can only conclude he must have once been a truck driver
> who had to go to New Jersey one time too many. (The only good thing about New Jersey
> is that it ain't New York).
Don't tell him that.
Jason Cormier
Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
This man is not a criminal; he has a disease and should get treatment. I
feel for him.
Eric Takabayashi
It does not excuse him from SHOOTING his girlfriend, and jurors have agreed.
The law and jurors say he's a criminal.
Jason Cormier wrote:
Jason Cormier
Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
> Perhaps he has a disease. If so, he definitely needs treatment.
>
> It does not excuse him from SHOOTING his girlfriend, and jurors have agreed.
>
> The law and jurors say he's a criminal.
They are wrong. As you have said, the law isn't perfect and, in this case,
they should have let him off. He needs to be understood, not condemned.
This poor man deserves our hugs, not our fists.
Eric Takabayashi
> > The law and jurors say he's a criminal.
>
> They are wrong.
That is not for someone who claims to uphold the law, such as people on this
group, to say.
> As you have said, the law isn't perfect
I say the law isn't perfect because I know it to be true, and do not pretend that
the law, a bunch of 12 people with too much time on their hands, or someone
sitting on high wearing funny clothes know best, unlike people on this group.
> and, in this case, they should have let him off.
For SHOOTING his girlfriend THREE TIMES, for THINKING she was GOING TO SAY "New
Jersey."
And she is now dead, of supposedly unrelated causes.
> He needs to be understood, not condemned.
Is that what her family said? Is that what you would say about your own loved
ones if SHOT by such a person?
> This poor man deserves our hugs, not our fists.
Are you even pretending to be serious?
Jason Cormier
Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
You certainly are. Remind me again who claims he isn't obsessed?
Eric Takabayashi
who SHOOTS his girlfriend THREE TIMES, for THINKING she was GOING TO SAY "New
Jersey," instead of claiming they need hugs and understanding, and should be let
off, like you?
>> Are you even pretending to be serious?
> You certainly are.
I am quite serious. Kill the fucker. If I cared about this woman, I'd be happy to
do it myself. Slowly.
> Remind me again who claims he isn't obsessed?
Did I?
And I'm still waiting for you or Ken to prove I ever claimed you ever took on
ANYONE alone or barehanded.
Jason Cormier
Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
> What does alleged obsession have to do, with thinking clearly about some
> fucker
> who SHOOTS his girlfriend THREE TIMES, for THINKING she was GOING TO SAY "New
> Jersey," instead of claiming they need hugs and understanding, and should be
> let
> off, like you?
Obsession is reading an obvious attempt to wind you up and going off on
another rant. Do you want a hug, too?
Eric Takabayashi
> Obsession is reading an obvious attempt to wind you up and going off on another rant.
Why is saying we should kill an obvious heinous criminal, a two liner,
a "rant" or representing obsession to you? And why even in jest do you
suggest he get off, or excuse him with his so called disease?
Scott Reynolds
> Perhaps he has a disease. If so, he definitely needs treatment.
> It does not excuse him from SHOOTING his girlfriend, and jurors have
> agreed.
> The law and jurors say he's a criminal.
Letting a loony like him have a gun was pretty criminal, if you ask me.
--
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
> I am quite serious. Kill the fucker. If I cared about this woman, I'd be happy to
> do it myself. Slowly.
You beast! You'd probably torture him, too. Bet you'd tie him up and
keep repeating "New Jersey, Wisconsin, Snickers, Mars" until he passed
out. Then you'd throw cold water in his face to revive him and start all
over again.
You are one sick obsessed guy, Eric.
Eric Takabayashi
> Letting a loony like him have a gun was pretty criminal, if you ask me.
Which is why I approve of background checks, gun registration, and
mandatory training, if one desires to legally own a gun.
Eric Takabayashi
was my day off), if some fucker who hurt my family were allowed to fall into my hands.
I decided that I'd like to tie his hands behind his back with braided stainless steel
cable, readily available at your local home center, perhaps 3 mm, so it could cut into
his wrists till they bled.
Then his hands should be forced up to his shoulder blades.
Then the steel cable should be looped around his throat and allowed to bite into the
flesh.
Then the cable from the arms and throat should be tied to his ankles, also forced up
to his ass, behind his back.
While the steel cable cuts off his wind and slices into his throat, he should be
kicked about the body with my 30 dollar genuine leather steel toe boots from PayLess
Shoes.
Take care not to allow him to pass out or strangle as he convulses.
Also place him under close watch, that he not choke himself to death deliberately or
by accident.
Tightly bind his jaws closed under his chin around the top of his head, and duct tape
his mouth around the back of his head, to prevent him from committing suicide by
biting his tongue.
Put heavy oven mittens on him and wrap the wrists with duct tape, to prevent him from
cutting his wrists with his nails.
I am certain that he would last a few days.
Scott Reynolds wrote:
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > I am quite serious. Kill the fucker. If I cared about this woman, I'd be happy to
> do it myself. Slowly.
>
> You beast! You'd probably torture him, too. Bet you'd tie him up and
> keep repeating "New Jersey, Wisconsin, Snickers, Mars" until he passed
> out. Then you'd throw cold water in his face to revive him and start all
> over again.
>
> You are one sick obsessed guy, Eric.
No, I believe in justice. Justice, as opposed to "law" as it is perceived or
practiced.
Law is shit.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
I presume you believe these should be necessary for anyone who desires
to own something as or more deadly than a gun, like automobiles and
swimming pools.
I approve only of the background checks.
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> >I approve of background checks, gun registration, and
> > mandatory training, if one desires to legally own a gun.
>
> I presume you believe these should be necessary for anyone who desires
> to own something as or more deadly than a gun, like automobiles and
> swimming pools.
Let them regulate cars and driving more, if they don't get as stupid as
Japan.
And more judgement could be used on who is allowed to build or own a
swimming pool. People who aren't also willing to put up fences with locked
gates, install splash detectors, or keep a closer watch on children,
probably shouldn't have a pool.
> I approve only of the background checks.
I am acquainted with more extreme right-to-bear-arms views, via Jeff Cooper
or Charleton Heston writings, or firearms periodicals.
They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
Jason Cormier
"Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
> Why is saying we should kill an obvious heinous criminal, a two liner,
> a "rant" or representing obsession to you?
It's an obsession because the wind up is way too obvious. Yet you still go
off on it. Any excuse, eh?
> And why even in jest do you
> suggest he get off, or excuse him with his so called disease?
Because you are so damn predictable yet so gosh darn fun.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
>
>>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I approve of background checks, gun registration, and
>>>mandatory training, if one desires to legally own a gun.
>>>
>>I presume you believe these should be necessary for anyone who desires
>>to own something as or more deadly than a gun, like automobiles and
>>swimming pools.
>>
>
> Let them regulate cars and driving more, if they don't get as stupid as
> Japan.
I never said anything about driving, just owning. There are no
regulations or registrations regarding the simple possession of an
automobile
> And more judgement could be used on who is allowed to build or own a
> swimming pool. People who aren't also willing to put up fences with locked
> gates, install splash detectors, or keep a closer watch on children,
> probably shouldn't have a pool.
Wonderful straw man. Do you support background checks, mandatory
training, and registration from swimming pools?
>>I approve only of the background checks.
>>
>
> I am acquainted with more extreme right-to-bear-arms views, via Jeff Cooper
> or Charleton Heston writings, or firearms periodicals.
How nice for you. However, this simple declarative sentence is not
responsive.
> They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
I have never seen any pro-gunner be against more enforcement. I have
only seen opposition to more regulation. I believe in more enforcement
and less regulation.
- Kevin
Scott Reynolds
Good for you. The NRA will fight you tooth and nail on the registration
part, though.
What do you think should be done about that?
Scott Reynolds
> I am acquainted with more extreme right-to-bear-arms views, via Jeff Cooper
> or Charleton Heston writings, or firearms periodicals.
>
> They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
And if they don't?
Eric Takabayashi
> It's an obsession because the wind up is way too obvious.
Until you pull shit like finally saying at the end of your second post that the
shooter "needs our hugs," I can't be sure you are not sincerely sympathetic to
his alleged mental condition or screwing around.
Eric Takabayashi
> I never said anything about driving, just owning. There are no
> regulations or registrations regarding the simple possession of an
> automobile
Perhaps you refer to the US, not Japan. Japanese bureaucracy sucks.
> > And more judgement could be used on who is allowed to build or own a
> > swimming pool. People who aren't also willing to put up fences with locked
> > gates, install splash detectors, or keep a closer watch on children,
> > probably shouldn't have a pool.
>
> Wonderful straw man.
Why is it a straw man argument? You present pools (I haven't seen data) as a
comparable danger. I know and agree that pools represent a danger without
responsibility. So work is needed there, as well.
> Do you support background checks, mandatory
> training, and registration from swimming pools?
However "more judgement" to ensure that more responsible people have pools, and
people are more responsible with their pools is executed, within reason. Aren't
fences around pools required by law in some places? Don't people get sued for or
charged with negligence when drownings occur?
> >>I approve only of the background checks.
> >
> > I am acquainted with more extreme right-to-bear-arms views, via Jeff Cooper
> > or Charleton Heston writings, or firearms periodicals.
>
> How nice for you. However, this simple declarative sentence is not
> responsive.
Responsive to what? "I approve only of the background checks" is not a question.
I accept that as your opinion and I like guns, so I'm not going to argue it.
> > They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
>
> I have never seen any pro-gunner be against more enforcement. I have
> only seen opposition to more regulation. I believe in more enforcement
> and less regulation.
We need both.
What would it take to take guns out of the hands of everyone not legally
permitted any, such as people who use them for crime? The military could conduct
door to door sweeps and intrusive searches of high risk areas, and still not
eliminate the gun problem. Shit, people can make their own guns out of pen
bodies and spare parts, while IN PRISON. In Japan last year, an elderly couple
committed suicide with guns made of bent, small diameter metal tubing.
Meanwhile, even legal gun owners with no previous record may later turn to
crime, relatively few as they may be. That man in Hawaii who shot up his office
killing nine? innocent coworkers and had maybe 17 guns at home - back when he
first got the bulk of his guns, he wasn't considered a problem, and they were
never taken away later. How can we take the guns away from someone who becomes a
potential danger, if we don't know what they have?
Eric Takabayashi
> > They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
>
> And if they don't?
Then if and when the laws change toward more control or restriction of guns,
they might end up criminals. I sure as hell am not happy with gun or weapons
laws in Hawaii or Japan. People and their situation should be judged on a case
by case basis instead of simply prohibiting concealed carry or "high capacity"
firearms and magazines in Hawaii. Law abiding Japanese should be allowed to have
handguns if they choose, and be allowed to use their legal guns in self defense.
But I live with these restrictions and make do without such weapons.
Eric Takabayashi
> > I approve of background checks, gun registration, and
> > mandatory training, if one desires to legally own a gun.
>
> Good for you. The NRA will fight you tooth and nail on the registration
> part, though.
>
> What do you think should be done about that?
Vote.
Jason Cormier
Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
The you are even less literate and more blinded by your anger than I
thought. Shame that.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric wrote:
>
> >> It's an obsession because the wind up is way too obvious.
> >
> > Until you pull shit like finally saying at the end of your second post that
> > the
> > shooter "needs our hugs," I can't be sure you are not sincerely sympathetic to
> > his alleged mental condition or screwing around.
>
> The you are even less literate and more blinded by your anger than I
> thought. Shame that.
Did you miss the part where I said that the man certainly needs treatment if he is
in fact, so mentally ill, that he shoots alleged loved ones he imagines are going
to say "New Jersey"?
Did you miss the part where I left open the possibility that your concern for his
mental health was sincere?
Jason Cormier
Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
So my point stands.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
>Scott Reynolds wrote:
>
>> > They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
>>
>> And if they don't?
>
>Then if and when the laws change toward more control or restriction of guns,
>they might end up criminals.
Yes, criminals jsut because they are exercising their rights.
> I sure as hell am not happy with gun or weapons
>laws in Hawaii or Japan. People and their situation should be judged on a case
>by case basis instead of simply prohibiting concealed carry or "high capacity"
>firearms and magazines in Hawaii.
Why need it be case by case? Why not issue permits on demand unless for some
reason (criminal record, drug abuse, etc) a permit should not be issued. The
burden should be on the state to prove that the citizen should not carry, than
on the citizen to prove that he should.
> Law abiding Japanese should be allowed to
> have
>handguns if they choose, and be allowed to use their legal guns in self
> defense.
>But I live with these restrictions and make do without such weapons.
Those restrictions didn't do you much good at Waikiki.
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>> Scott Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>>Letting a loony like him have a gun was pretty criminal, if you ask me.
>>
>> Which is why I approve of background checks, gun registration, and
>> mandatory training, if one desires to legally own a gun.
>
>Good for you. The NRA will fight you tooth and nail on the registration
>part, though.
Registration laws vary from state to state. Most don't require registration.
Currently, only seven states have both permit-to-purchase licensing and
registration of handgun purchases -- New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, and Hawaii. As far as long guns go,
Massachusetts is the only one that also requires their licensing and
registration
>What do you think should be done about that?
>
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
>"Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
>> I never said anything about driving, just owning. There are no
>> regulations or registrations regarding the simple possession of an
>> automobile
>
>Perhaps you refer to the US, not Japan. Japanese bureaucracy sucks.
Yes, i was referring to the US.
>> > And more judgement could be used on who is allowed to build or own a
>> > swimming pool. People who aren't also willing to put up fences with locked
>> > gates, install splash detectors, or keep a closer watch on children,
>> > probably shouldn't have a pool.
>>
>> Wonderful straw man.
>
>Why is it a straw man argument?
The bringing in of the negligent folks. since I don't know any, I can't answer
to straw man arguments involving them.
>You present pools (I haven't seen data) as a
>comparable danger.
Source: National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999
Accidental firearms deaths: 900
Drownings: 4,100
(all age groups)
>I know and agree that pools represent a danger without
>responsibility. So work is needed there, as well.
But what kind of work? The same legal work that you are calling for regarding
firearms? Pool registration?
>> Do you support background checks, mandatory
>> training, and registration from swimming pools?
>
>However "more judgement" to ensure that more responsible people have pools, and
>people are more responsible with their pools is executed, within reason. Aren't
>fences around pools required by law in some places?
I do not know.
>Don't people get sued for
> or
>charged with negligence when drownings occur?
People are not charged with negligence, as it is a civil offense. The fact
that one is sued for negligence means nothing. McDonalds was sued for
negligence for serving hot coffee, but this does not mean that they violated
any law.
>> >>I approve only of the background checks.
>> >
>> > I am acquainted with more extreme right-to-bear-arms views, via Jeff Cooper
>> > or Charleton Heston writings, or firearms periodicals.
>>
>> How nice for you. However, this simple declarative sentence is not
>> responsive.
>
>Responsive to what? "I approve only of the background checks" is not a
> question.
Correct, but you replied with a non sequitur. Your statement has absolutely
nothing to do with what I was saying. I don't even know who Jeff Cooper is.
>I accept that as your opinion and I like guns, so I'm not going to argue it.
>
>> > They will have to accept that more regulation AND enforcement is in order.
>>
>> I have never seen any pro-gunner be against more enforcement. I have
>> only seen opposition to more regulation. I believe in more enforcement
>> and less regulation.
>
>We need both.
Actaully, we don't. Read John Lott's and Gary Kleck's empirical studies on the
subject.
>What would it take to take guns out of the hands of everyone not legally
>permitted any, such as people who use them for crime?
An act of God.
> The military could
> conduct
>door to door sweeps and intrusive searches of high risk areas, and still not
>eliminate the gun problem. Shit, people can make their own guns out of pen
>bodies and spare parts, while IN PRISON. In Japan last year, an elderly couple
>committed suicide with guns made of bent, small diameter metal tubing.
>
>Meanwhile, even legal gun owners with no previous record may later turn to
>crime, relatively few as they may be. That man in Hawaii who shot up his office
>killing nine? innocent coworkers and had maybe 17 guns at home - back when he
>first got the bulk of his guns, he wasn't considered a problem, and they were
>never taken away later. How can we take the guns away from someone who becomes
> a
>potential danger, if we don't know what they have?
We can't, legally.
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> Why need it be case by case? Why not issue permits on demand unless for some
> reason (criminal record, drug abuse, etc) a permit should not be issued. The
> burden should be on the state to prove that the citizen should not carry, than
> on the citizen to prove that he should.
That would allow too many freaks to slip through the cracks, just like innocent
until proven guilty lets actual criminals go free.
If anyone here thinks Eric with a gun at all times would be scary, you should see
the people I know, maybe grew up with, whom *I* am afraid of, and imagine them
with legally obtained concealed firearms.
> > Law abiding Japanese should be allowed to
> > have
> >handguns if they choose, and be allowed to use their legal guns in self
> > defense.
> >But I live with these restrictions and make do without such weapons.
>
> Those restrictions didn't do you much good at Waikiki.
I lived, and personally, I'm over it. And I'll do my best to kill such a person
next time.
For the ladies: according to the defense "experts," an eyeball or testicle will go
like a crushed plum.
But that does not excuse it happening to anyone else.
Eric Takabayashi
> >Why is it a straw man argument?
>
> The bringing in of the negligent folks. since I don't know any, I can't answer
> to straw man arguments involving them.
I don't know any folks negligent with guns, either. That doesn't mean I agree with
everyone I know getting a gun.
> >You present pools (I haven't seen data) as a
> >comparable danger.
>
> Source: National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999
> Accidental firearms deaths: 900
> Drownings: 4,100
> (all age groups)
You are forgetting crime deaths, and not specifying pool deaths.
So you can see that pools are a problem. What would you have done about it, to deny
access to unwanted, unexpected or incompetent visitors, and try to ensure that
people are monitoring their guests or children at all times?
> >I know and agree that pools represent a danger without
> >responsibility. So work is needed there, as well.
>
> But what kind of work? The same legal work that you are calling for regarding
> firearms? Pool registration?
Background check and training. Mandatory insurance. Legal counseling. A fence with
lockable gate. Warning signs. Motion or splash alerts which sound when something
falls in.
> I don't even know who Jeff Cooper is.
He used to head Gunsite. Now he is a commentator. I like him.
http://freeweb.pdq.net/Keith.Reynolds/jeff/
> >>I believe in more enforcement
> >> and less regulation.
> >
> >We need both.
>
> Actaully, we don't. Read John Lott's and Gary Kleck's empirical studies on the
> subject.
I've read some of what's available online, including the books at pulpless.com.
I like what they write. I've even cited them here.
Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.
> > How can we take the guns away from someone who becomes a potential danger, if
> we don't know what they have?
>
> We can't, legally.
A person like that mass murderer in Hawaii, who legally owned guns then BECAME
mentally unstable, suddenly snapping because he allegedly was going to be fired,
being able to keep all his guns, perhaps even carry them concealed because he
checked out (only) when he bought them, if Hawaii permitted such a thing, wouldn't
bother you?
What would you do to prevent such a thing from recurring?
Do you agree with regular, periodic checks of gun owners, as in Japan?
Kevin R. Gowen, II
>"Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
>> Why need it be case by case? Why not issue permits on demand unless for some
>> reason (criminal record, drug abuse, etc) a permit should not be issued. The
>> burden should be on the state to prove that the citizen should not carry,
> than
>> on the citizen to prove that he should.
>
>That would allow too many freaks to slip through the cracks, just like innocent
>until proven guilty lets actual criminals go free.
How does it do that? For my concealed carry permit, I was fingerprinted so
that I will be run through state and FBI background checks, a process that
will take the better part of 90 days. What freaks will be slipping through the
cracks?
>If anyone here thinks Eric with a gun at all times would be scary, you should
> see
>the people I know, maybe grew up with, whom *I* am afraid of, and imagine them
>with legally obtained concealed firearms.
Why are you afraid of them?
>> > Law abiding Japanese should be allowed to
>> > have
>> >handguns if they choose, and be allowed to use their legal guns in self
>> > defense.
>> >But I live with these restrictions and make do without such weapons.
>>
>> Those restrictions didn't do you much good at Waikiki.
>
>I lived, and personally, I'm over it. And I'll do my best to kill such a person
>next time.
Good for you.
>For the ladies: according to the defense "experts," an eyeball or testicle will
> go
>like a crushed plum.
But you have to let the attacker get within contact range. A gun has no
such limitation. This is why I feel carrying a stun gun or mace is ridiculous.
>But that does not excuse it happening to anyone else.
>
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
>"Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
>> >Why is it a straw man argument?
>>
>> The bringing in of the negligent folks. since I don't know any, I can't
> answer
>> to straw man arguments involving them.
>
>I don't know any folks negligent with guns, either. That doesn't mean I agree
> with
>everyone I know getting a gun.
A lot of people I know do a lot of things I think they shouldn't do. However,
I don't think the law should criminalize these irresponsible acts.
>> >You present pools (I haven't seen data) as a
>> >comparable danger.
>>
>> Source: National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999
>> Accidental firearms deaths: 900
>> Drownings: 4,100
>> (all age groups)
>
>You are forgetting crime deaths, and not specifying pool deaths.
Would you be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the crime deaths are
the criminals themselves?
>So you can see that pools are a problem. What would you have done about it, to
> deny
>access to unwanted, unexpected or incompetent visitors, and try to ensure that
>people are monitoring their guests or children at all times?
Tort law and the attractive nuisance doctrine cover this nicely. No permits or
registration.
>> >I know and agree that pools represent a danger without
>> >responsibility. So work is needed there, as well.
>>
>> But what kind of work? The same legal work that you are calling for regarding
>> firearms? Pool registration?
>
>Background check and training. Mandatory insurance. Legal counseling. A fence
> with
>lockable gate. Warning signs. Motion or splash alerts which sound when
> something
>falls in.
Really? Does the same go for those who own bathtubs? They also pose a drowning
risk to small children. Same for buckets.
>> I don't even know who Jeff Cooper is.
>
>He used to head Gunsite. Now he is a commentator. I like him.
>
>http://freeweb.pdq.net/Keith.Reynolds/jeff/
I'll read up on him.
>> >>I believe in more enforcement
>> >> and less regulation.
>> >
>> >We need both.
>>
>> Actaully, we don't. Read John Lott's and Gary Kleck's empirical studies on
> the
>> subject.
>
>I've read some of what's available online, including the books at pulpless.com.
>
>I like what they write. I've even cited them here.
>
>Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.
What exactly do you disagree with? Their studies are empirically false?
>> > How can we take the guns away from someone who becomes a potential danger,
> if
>> we don't know what they have?
>>
>> We can't, legally.
>
>A person like that mass murderer in Hawaii, who legally owned guns then BECAME
>mentally unstable, suddenly snapping because he allegedly was going to be
> fired,
>being able to keep all his guns, perhaps even carry them concealed because he
>checked out (only) when he bought them, if Hawaii permitted such a thing,
> wouldn't
>bother you?
Nope, not one bit. I would no sooner seize a person's car just because they
might suddenly snap at some point in the future and commit vehicular homicide.
>What would you do to prevent such a thing from recurring?
By tring that murderer in a court of law and putting him in jail. We can't go
about seizing the property of law-abiding citizens just because the
possibility exists that they might use said property to commit a future
criminal act.
>Do you agree with regular, periodic checks of gun owners, as in Japan?
No.
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> A lot of people I know do a lot of things I think they shouldn't do. However,
> I don't think the law should criminalize these irresponsible acts.
I don't consider getting a gun in itself, an irresponsible act.
However, given a perfectly legally acquired firearm, or even the right to carry it
concealed, could end in trouble for some. Maybe they'll suffer a later mental
condition or emotional episode. Maybe they don't keep the gun secure or properly
train their children to handle guns safely.
Finding out AFTER the person commits some crime or tragedy occurs, is too late.
> Would you be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the crime deaths are
> the criminals themselves?
Yes, I am aware of Kleck, Lott, other proponents, The Nine Myths of Gun Control,
etc.
But innocent people are still shot by guns, even legal guns.
> >So you can see that pools are a problem. What would you have done about it, to
> > deny
> >access to unwanted, unexpected or incompetent visitors, and try to ensure that
> >people are monitoring their guests or children at all times?
>
> Tort law and the attractive nuisance doctrine cover this nicely. No permits or
> registration.
Those work AFTER tragedy occurs. More needs to occur to PREVENT tragedy. It is
small comfort to win a million dollars off a neighbor if my kid somehow dies in
their pool.
> >Background check and training. Mandatory insurance. Legal counseling. A fence
> > with
> >lockable gate. Warning signs. Motion or splash alerts which sound when
> > something
> >falls in.
>
> Really? Does the same go for those who own bathtubs? They also pose a drowning
> risk to small children. Same for buckets.
As a matter of fact, bath drownings are high on the list of causes of death for
small children in Japan. Yes, perhaps some legislation is necessary to scare
parents into being more responsible with their kids.
You may know that child seat laws were just enacted last year in Japan. Thank God.
Now even many parents who do not believe that restraints will keep their child
safer, may be forced by fear of the law or fine, to properly restrain their
children.
And a child seat, booster seat or seatbelt, are damned better than letting babies
stand on the front seat of a moving car.
> >> I don't even know who Jeff Cooper is.
> >
> >He used to head Gunsite. Now he is a commentator. I like him.
> >
> >http://freeweb.pdq.net/Keith.Reynolds/jeff/
>
> I'll read up on him.
Also check the monthly firearms publications. Guns and Ammo, maybe.
> What exactly do you disagree with? Their studies are empirically false?
Not that their studies are false. Just that they are not perfect. As statistically
few as they may be, there are perfectly legal gun owners who are a problem, become
a problem, or do not use or keep their guns responsibly. What to do about gun
owners who later suffer from mental disease? What about gun owners who leave
unsecured, loaded guns within reach of children? Even properly training your own
kid is no help when the NEIGHBOR'S kid walks in and plays with a loaded gun
unattended.
> >A person like that mass murderer in Hawaii, who legally owned guns then BECAME
> >mentally unstable, suddenly snapping because he allegedly was going to be
> > fired,
> >being able to keep all his guns, perhaps even carry them concealed because he
> >checked out (only) when he bought them, if Hawaii permitted such a thing,
> > wouldn't
> >bother you?
>
> Nope, not one bit. I would no sooner seize a person's car just because they
> might suddenly snap at some point in the future and commit vehicular homicide.
If even this is your attitude, do you understand the lack of sympathy or even
horror, on the part of the general, non gun owning public?
Am I getting this correctly? You would have people who check out, get guns as they
please, and we just mourn the losses later?
> >What would you do to prevent such a thing from recurring?
>
> By tring that murderer in a court of law and putting him in jail. We can't go
> about seizing the property of law-abiding citizens just because the
> possibility exists that they might use said property to commit a future
> criminal act.
>
> >Do you agree with regular, periodic checks of gun owners, as in Japan?
>
> No.
Ouch.
Eric Takabayashi
> For my concealed carry permit, I was fingerprinted so
> that I will be run through state and FBI background checks, a process that
> will take the better part of 90 days. What freaks will be slipping through the
> cracks?
People who have no criminal record.
But actually are criminals.
People who are diagnosed with no mental problems affecting initial purchase or
ownership of a gun.
But actually are dangerous people, or will be.
> >If anyone here thinks Eric with a gun at all times would be scary, you should
> > see
> >the people I know, maybe grew up with, whom *I* am afraid of, and imagine them
> >with legally obtained concealed firearms.
>
> Why are you afraid of them?
Because perhaps despite not having any criminal record, they may have a history of
problems such as physically assaulting people (or domestic violence) and actually
looking for trouble, even as adults.
Yes, indeed, if people here worry about what Eric would or could do with a gun, you
should see the people back home I worry about, such as a coworker who claimed that
he could be hired to kill for just one thousand dollars, or some of my own
relatives who beat their kids. Not a good idea to put guns in those situations.
> >For the ladies: according to the defense "experts," an eyeball or testicle will
> > go
> >like a crushed plum.
>
> But you have to let the attacker get within contact range. A gun has no
> such limitation.
This man, I guess like many practiced offenders, got me by inspiring my confidence
or trust. He did not present himself as someone I would pull a gun on or want to
kill, until I was sitting next to him and it was too damned late.
This is also the situation with many women who are raped by dates, relatives and
acquaintences. The offender is simply not someone you can see coming until it is
too damned late.
Such manipulative and conniving scum, deserve to go blind or become eunuchs before
any other punishment.
> This is why I feel carrying a stun gun or mace is ridiculous.
After reading reviews of people who actually tried stun guns on them damned selves
including holding the stun gun over the manufacturer recommended sensitive spot
such as the kidneys, with nothing more than irritation, and hearing more stories of
gan not working in actual situations, I would not put my trust in them.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:3C6FCDF3...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp...
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > A lot of people I know do a lot of things I think they shouldn't do.
However,
> > I don't think the law should criminalize these irresponsible acts.
>
> I don't consider getting a gun in itself, an irresponsible act.
>
> However, given a perfectly legally acquired firearm, or even the right to
carry it
> concealed, could end in trouble for some. Maybe they'll suffer a later
mental
> condition or emotional episode. Maybe they don't keep the gun secure or
properly
> train their children to handle guns safely.
In the above paragraph, replace "firearm" and "gun" with automobile, power
tools, lighter fluid, or any other number of objects. See how ridiculous it
sounds?
> Finding out AFTER the person commits some crime or tragedy occurs, is too
late.
Of course it is too late, but so what? We cannot preemptively depriv people
of their property.
> > Would you be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the crime
deaths are
> > the criminals themselves?
>
> Yes, I am aware of Kleck, Lott, other proponents, The Nine Myths of Gun
Control,
> etc.
>
> But innocent people are still shot by guns, even legal guns.
Of course they are. However, an innocent person is far less likely to be
killed by a gun than they are to be killed by a fall, an automobile crash,
or any number of other tragic occurences.
> > >So you can see that pools are a problem. What would you have done about
it, to
> > > deny
> > >access to unwanted, unexpected or incompetent visitors, and try to
ensure that
> > >people are monitoring their guests or children at all times?
> >
> > Tort law and the attractive nuisance doctrine cover this nicely. No
permits or
> > registration.
>
> Those work AFTER tragedy occurs. More needs to occur to PREVENT tragedy.
It is
> small comfort to win a million dollars off a neighbor if my kid somehow
dies in
> their pool.
Since neither every object in the world, from a gun to a car to a piece of
cheese can kill, what do you propse?
> > >Background check and training. Mandatory insurance. Legal counseling. A
fence
> > > with
> > >lockable gate. Warning signs. Motion or splash alerts which sound when
> > > something
> > >falls in.
> >
> > Really? Does the same go for those who own bathtubs? They also pose a
drowning
> > risk to small children. Same for buckets.
>
> As a matter of fact, bath drownings are high on the list of causes of
death for
> small children in Japan. Yes, perhaps some legislation is necessary to
scare
> parents into being more responsible with their kids.
So you support background checks, insurance, et cetera for everyone who owns
a bathtub? What would you have the state do if they believe that a given
person's bathtub might pose a threat to a child? How would the state arrive
at this decision? Anonymous tip from a neighbor, "Tanaka-san takes a lot of
baths"?
> You may know that child seat laws were just enacted last year in Japan.
Thank God.
> Now even many parents who do not believe that restraints will keep their
child
> safer, may be forced by fear of the law or fine, to properly restrain
their
> children.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I have seen no effect of parking laws on the
parking habits of the Japanese. At any rate, I would like to keep the
discussion focused on America.
> And a child seat, booster seat or seatbelt, are damned better than letting
babies
> stand on the front seat of a moving car.
Yes, that's true. However, no one proposing taking away the car or the child
because a parent might decide not to use a car seat.
> > >> I don't even know who Jeff Cooper is.
> > >
> > >He used to head Gunsite. Now he is a commentator. I like him.
> > >
> > >http://freeweb.pdq.net/Keith.Reynolds/jeff/
> >
> > I'll read up on him.
>
> Also check the monthly firearms publications. Guns and Ammo, maybe.
I don't like Gun and Ammo. I prefer Gun Tests.
> > What exactly do you disagree with? Their studies are empirically false?
>
> Not that their studies are false. Just that they are not perfect.
Specifically?
> statistically
> few as they may be, there are perfectly legal gun owners who are a
problem, become
> a problem, or do not use or keep their guns responsibly. What to do about
gun
> owners who later suffer from mental disease? What about gun owners who
leave
> unsecured, loaded guns within reach of children? Even properly training
your own
> kid is no help when the NEIGHBOR'S kid walks in and plays with a loaded
gun
> unattended.
I agree this is a shame, but so what? Florida law already compels gun owners
to keep guns unloaded and secured if they believe or have reason to believe
that a child could access them. Since I have no children and none ever have
occasion to come to my house, I keep a loaded 12 gauge right next to my bed.
(Mossberg 500A) However, there is no answer for your mental disease
scenario. Too bad. I doubt you are concerned about the stte taking away such
a person's car or power tools.
> > >A person like that mass murderer in Hawaii, who legally owned guns then
BECAME
> > >mentally unstable, suddenly snapping because he allegedly was going to
be
> > > fired,
> > >being able to keep all his guns, perhaps even carry them concealed
because he
> > >checked out (only) when he bought them, if Hawaii permitted such a
thing,
> > > wouldn't
> > >bother you?
> >
> > Nope, not one bit. I would no sooner seize a person's car just because
they
> > might suddenly snap at some point in the future and commit vehicular
homicide.
>
> If even this is your attitude, do you understand the lack of sympathy or
even
> horror, on the part of the general, non gun owning public?
Why does the nongun-owning public lack sympathy and horror?
> Am I getting this correctly? You would have people who check out, get guns
as they
> please, and we just mourn the losses later?
That's exactly right. Same way I feel about the use of automobiles. I mourn
the loss of life in a crash, but I don't blame automobiles.
> > >What would you do to prevent such a thing from recurring?
> >
> > By tring that murderer in a court of law and putting him in jail. We
can't go
> > about seizing the property of law-abiding citizens just because the
> > possibility exists that they might use said property to commit a future
> > criminal act.
> >
> > >Do you agree with regular, periodic checks of gun owners, as in Japan?
> >
> > No.
>
> Ouch.
It doesn't hurt at all.
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > For my concealed carry permit, I was fingerprinted so
> > that I will be run through state and FBI background checks, a process
that
> > will take the better part of 90 days. What freaks will be slipping
through the
> > cracks?
>
> People who have no criminal record.
>
> But actually are criminals.
If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
> People who are diagnosed with no mental problems affecting initial
purchase or
> ownership of a gun.
>
> But actually are dangerous people, or will be.
And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss Cleo?
> > >If anyone here thinks Eric with a gun at all times would be scary, you
should
> > > see
> > >the people I know, maybe grew up with, whom *I* am afraid of, and
imagine them
> > >with legally obtained concealed firearms.
> >
> > Why are you afraid of them?
>
> Because perhaps despite not having any criminal record, they may have a
history of
> problems such as physically assaulting people (or domestic violence) and
actually
> looking for trouble, even as adults.
A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a concealed
gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction. However, there
must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you know such people and
have not reported them, shame on you.
> Yes, indeed, if people here worry about what Eric would or could do with a
gun, you
> should see the people back home I worry about, such as a coworker who
claimed that
> he could be hired to kill for just one thousand dollars, or some of my own
> relatives who beat their kids. Not a good idea to put guns in those
situations.
I agree. However, as long as citizens like you fail to report things like
that child abuse, the state has no way of knowing.
> > >For the ladies: according to the defense "experts," an eyeball or
testicle will
> > > go
> > >like a crushed plum.
> >
> > But you have to let the attacker get within contact range. A gun has no
> > such limitation.
>
> This man, I guess like many practiced offenders, got me by inspiring my
confidence
> or trust. He did not present himself as someone I would pull a gun on or
want to
> kill, until I was sitting next to him and it was too damned late.
You never know.
> This is also the situation with many women who are raped by dates,
relatives and
> acquaintences. The offender is simply not someone you can see coming until
it is
> too damned late.
This is true.I am covering rape in my criminal law class right now. The
acquaintance rape cases are a lot more difficult to parse out than the
general aggravated rape. It should be kept in mind that there are varying
degrees of rape, with acquaintence rape tending to fall on the less severe
end. I believe that in some of the cases I have read, the standard of what
constitutes rape or sexual assault is too low.
> Such manipulative and conniving scum, deserve to go blind or become
eunuchs before
> any other punishment.
You would be surprised how many cases involve men who did not know a rape
had occured until after the police had slapped on the handcuffs.
> > This is why I feel carrying a stun gun or mace is ridiculous.
>
> After reading reviews of people who actually tried stun guns on them
damned selves
> including holding the stun gun over the manufacturer recommended sensitive
spot
> such as the kidneys, with nothing more than irritation, and hearing more
stories of
> gan not working in actual situations, I would not put my trust in them.
I agree.
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
>
> > For my concealed carry permit, I was fingerprinted so
> > that I will be run through state and FBI background checks, a process
that
> > will take the better part of 90 days. What freaks will be slipping
through the
> > cracks?
>
> People who have no criminal record.
>
> But actually are criminals.
If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
> People who are diagnosed with no mental problems affecting initial
purchase or
> ownership of a gun.
>
> But actually are dangerous people, or will be.
And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss Cleo?
> > >If anyone here thinks Eric with a gun at all times would be scary, you
should
> > > see
> > >the people I know, maybe grew up with, whom *I* am afraid of, and
imagine them
> > >with legally obtained concealed firearms.
> >
> > Why are you afraid of them?
>
> Because perhaps despite not having any criminal record, they may have a
history of
> problems such as physically assaulting people (or domestic violence) and
actually
> looking for trouble, even as adults.
A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a concealed
gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction. However, there
must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you know such people and
have not reported them, shame on you.
> Yes, indeed, if people here worry about what Eric would or could do with a
gun, you
> should see the people back home I worry about, such as a coworker who
claimed that
> he could be hired to kill for just one thousand dollars, or some of my own
> relatives who beat their kids. Not a good idea to put guns in those
situations.
I agree. However, as long as citizens like you fail to report things like
that child abuse, the state has no way of knowing.
> > >For the ladies: according to the defense "experts," an eyeball or
testicle will
> > > go
> > >like a crushed plum.
> >
> > But you have to let the attacker get within contact range. A gun has no
> > such limitation.
>
> This man, I guess like many practiced offenders, got me by inspiring my
confidence
> or trust. He did not present himself as someone I would pull a gun on or
want to
> kill, until I was sitting next to him and it was too damned late.
You never know.
> This is also the situation with many women who are raped by dates,
relatives and
> acquaintences. The offender is simply not someone you can see coming until
it is
> too damned late.
This is true.I am covering rape in my criminal law class right now. The
acquaintance rape cases are a lot more difficult to parse out than the
general aggravated rape. It should be kept in mind that there are varying
degrees of rape, with acquaintence rape tending to fall on the less severe
end. I believe that in some of the cases I have read, the standard of what
constitutes rape or sexual assault is too low.
> Such manipulative and conniving scum, deserve to go blind or become
eunuchs before
> any other punishment.
You would be surprised how many cases involve men who did not know a rape
had occured until after the police had slapped on the handcuffs.
BTW, women's raping of men is one of the fastest growning crimes in America.
> > This is why I feel carrying a stun gun or mace is ridiculous.
>
> After reading reviews of people who actually tried stun guns on them
damned selves
> including holding the stun gun over the manufacturer recommended sensitive
spot
> such as the kidneys, with nothing more than irritation, and hearing more
stories of
> gan not working in actual situations, I would not put my trust in them.
I agree.
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> In the above paragraph, replace "firearm" and "gun" with automobile, power
> tools, lighter fluid, or any other number of objects. See how ridiculous it
> sounds?
No. Because there are people who should not have automobiles, lighter fluid, or
other objects that they abuse.
> > Finding out AFTER the person commits some crime or tragedy occurs, is too
> late.
>
> Of course it is too late, but so what?
So what, is someone is fucking dead.
> We cannot preemptively depriv people of their property.
Should we allow simply anyone who wants to, to acquire a stockpile of nuclear
weapons in the name of their right to national defense? Should Kennedy have
allowed nuclear missiles to be based in Cuba?
> an innocent person is far less likely to be killed by a gun than they are to
> be killed by a fall, an automobile crash, or any number of other tragic
> occurences.
It still doesn't excuse it. I don't tell survivors of gun violence that the
victim most likely would likely have died of cancer, anyway.
> Since neither every object in the world, from a gun to a car to a piece of
> cheese can kill, what do you propse?
Making sure people are more responsible. Sometimes people need to be forced by
regulation or outright fear.
How serious is that cheese problem? How serious do you think a gun control
advocate, much less a survivor of gun violence, would take that argument?
> So you support background checks, insurance, et cetera for everyone who owns
> a bathtub?
Nope. But insurance in general is a damn fine idea.
> I have seen no effect of parking laws on the
> parking habits of the Japanese. At any rate, I would like to keep the
> discussion focused on America.
And this discussion is about guns, not deadly cheese.
> no one proposing taking away the car or the child
> because a parent might decide not to use a car seat.
If it is judged as abuse, the kid may damned well be taken away.
> > Not that their studies are false. Just that they are not perfect.
>
> Specifically?
You claim I set up straw men? Well who gives a fuck about deadly cheese,
automobiles or bathtubs when we are talking about guns, specific gun deaths and
crimes, and what to do about them? Gun owners in Florida have proven themselves
to be trustworthy? Good. Then give them some slack. People in Vermont behave
well with their guns despite their freedoms? Good. Let them continue as they
are.
Not every state, and not all gun owners, are like them.
> I agree this is a shame, but so what? Florida law already compels gun owners
> to keep guns unloaded and secured if they believe or have reason to believe
Do you agree with this law? I want a defense gun readily available. I want a
magnetic ring key or smartgun technology to keep my gun secure yet ready to
use. I don't want to unlock the safe and load my gun after an intruder wakes me
up.
> that a child could access them. Since I have no children and none ever have
> occasion to come to my house, I keep a loaded 12 gauge right next to my bed.
> (Mossberg 500A) However, there is no answer for your mental disease scenario.
Yes there is. Periodic checks on the owner and the guns, to make sure they are
secure.
Is psychological testing part of the 90 day background check to own a gun?
Do you believe it should be?
> Too bad. I doubt you are concerned about the stte taking away such a person's
> car or power tools.
There are people who surely should not drive. "Paper drivers" and at risk
drivers should be recertified. I do not know how large a problem deadly power
tools represents.
> > If even this is your attitude, do you understand the lack of sympathy or
> even horror, on the part of the general, non gun owning public?
>
> Why does the nongun-owning public lack sympathy and horror?
The non-gun owning public lacks sympathy for people who vigorously defend gun
rights, or feels horror at some of the attitudes expressed by some people in
support of guns particularly after tragedy strikes, and feels horror at the
aftermath of gun violence in general.
> > Am I getting this correctly? You would have people who check out, get guns
> as they please, and we just mourn the losses later?
>
> That's exactly right.
And do not be surprised at any lack of sympathy from the non-gun owning public
at loss of gun rights, because they do not agree with such an attitude.
> Same way I feel about the use of automobiles. I mourn the loss of life in a
> crash, but I don't blame automobiles.
Criminals can kill with knives, bludgeons or their bare fists.
But guns can make it too easy.
So some guy in America flipped out and killed and injured a number of people in
a crime spree with his car.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020216/ap_on_re_us/nyc_pedestrians_hit_17
What could he do if he wanted to cause the most mayhem with a gun instead?
Maybe his car is properly insured and registered, and he may be properly
licensed, with no previous record. But do you want this man to continue
driving?
What is wrong with checking up on gun owners later, or taking their guns away
later when they are judged unworthy? And how do we take their guns if we don't
know what they have?
> > > >Do you agree with regular, periodic checks of gun owners, as in Japan?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Ouch.
>
> It doesn't hurt at all.
Loss of your gun rights because extreme views or perceived lack of sensitivity
to tragedy make voters think people with guns are nuts, will surely hurt.
Why are you arguing with me, Kevin? I like guns. I want guns. I'd love to use
guns in self defense or on criminals.
But I am willing to make some compromises to reduce gun violence.
Eric Takabayashi
> If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
What is the technical term for people who have never been judged, nor even
caught for what they've done, and are thus eligible to purchase, possess,
perhaps even be allowed to carry a gun at all times, yet in fact would be
dangerous?
> > People who are diagnosed with no mental problems affecting initial purchase
> or ownership of a gun.
> >
> > But actually are dangerous people, or will be.
>
> And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss Cleo?
Periodic checks.
> A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a concealed
> gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction. However, there
> must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you know such people and
> have not reported them, shame on you.
How many of your relatives or friends' families have you put in jail, or how
many kids have you had taken away? Sending my relatives to jail or taking the
kids away was probably not the best solution.
And mind you, SOME of what we now call child abuse, used to be called
discipline.
> as long as citizens like you fail to report things like that child abuse, the
> state has no way of knowing.
There are other ways to avoid disrupting a family, and those families are
working it out themselves.
> I am covering rape in my criminal law class right now. The
> acquaintance rape cases are a lot more difficult to parse out than the
> general aggravated rape. It should be kept in mind that there are varying
> degrees of rape, with acquaintence rape tending to fall on the less severe
> end. I believe that in some of the cases I have read, the standard of what
> constitutes rape or sexual assault is too low.
What do you want rape to be?
> > Such manipulative and conniving scum, deserve to go blind or become eunuchs
> before any other punishment.
>
> You would be surprised how many cases involve men who did not know a rape had
> occured until after the police had slapped on the handcuffs.
I am quite sure that many rapists do not see a problem with what they did.
Otherwise they might not have done it.
But for now you will be an attorney, not a politician or vigilante, right?
Is your duty to uphold the law, or to shape it yourself?
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > In the above paragraph, replace "firearm" and "gun" with automobile,
power
> > tools, lighter fluid, or any other number of objects. See how ridiculous
it
> > sounds?
>
> No. Because there are people who should not have automobiles, lighter
fluid, or
> other objects that they abuse.
So how would you have the state go about making sure these people don't
possess lighter fluid?
> > > Finding out AFTER the person commits some crime or tragedy occurs, is
too
> > late.
> >
> > Of course it is too late, but so what?
>
> So what, is someone is fucking dead.
So? People die every day. It is not the job of the state to prevent death
except for when specifically provided by law.
> > We cannot preemptively depriv people of their property.
>
> Should we allow simply anyone who wants to, to acquire a stockpile of
nuclear
> weapons in the name of their right to national defense? Should Kennedy
have
> allowed nuclear missiles to be based in Cuba?
Ridiculous argument. Non-proliferation treaties already cover this. Try
again.
> > an innocent person is far less likely to be killed by a gun than they
are to
> > be killed by a fall, an automobile crash, or any number of other tragic
> > occurences.
>
> It still doesn't excuse it. I don't tell survivors of gun violence that
the
> victim most likely would likely have died of cancer, anyway.
Irrelevant.
> > Since neither every object in the world, from a gun to a car to a piece
of
> > cheese can kill, what do you propse?
>
> Making sure people are more responsible. Sometimes people need to be
forced by
> regulation or outright fear.
Give me specifics. *How* will the state make sure?
> How serious is that cheese problem? How serious do you think a gun control
> advocate, much less a survivor of gun violence, would take that argument?
Their opinion is irrelevant.
> > So you support background checks, insurance, et cetera for everyone who
owns
> > a bathtub?
>
> Nope. But insurance in general is a damn fine idea.
Why don't you support background checks? And why do you support insurance?
It is retroactive, and encourages less responsibility. This is why accident
rates go up in jurisdictions with no-fault insurance.
> > I have seen no effect of parking laws on the
> > parking habits of the Japanese. At any rate, I would like to keep the
> > discussion focused on America.
>
> And this discussion is about guns, not deadly cheese.
Tee hee. But cheese has killed. Nearly anything can kill. Where do you draw
the line regarding what objects the state should be able to require
background checks for or seize upon suspicion the possessor MIGHT go
bonkers?
> > no one proposing taking away the car or the child
> > because a parent might decide not to use a car seat.
>
> If it is judged as abuse, the kid may damned well be taken away.
But that is after the fact. Your big bugaboo is proactive measures. Tell me
how the state would do so in this case.
> > > Not that their studies are false. Just that they are not perfect.
> >
> > Specifically?
>
> You claim I set up straw men? Well who gives a fuck about deadly cheese,
> automobiles or bathtubs when we are talking about guns, specific gun
deaths and
> crimes, and what to do about them? Gun owners in Florida have proven
themselves
> to be trustworthy? Good. Then give them some slack. People in Vermont
behave
> well with their guns despite their freedoms? Good. Let them continue as
they
> are.
This is not responsible. What are the flaws of the Lott/Kleck studies?
> Not every state, and not all gun owners, are like them.
>
> > I agree this is a shame, but so what? Florida law already compels gun
owners
> > to keep guns unloaded and secured if they believe or have reason to
believe
>
> Do you agree with this law?
No.
> I want a defense gun readily available.
Then you should leave Japan.
> I want a
> magnetic ring key or smartgun technology to keep my gun secure yet ready
to
> use.
I don't.
> I don't want to unlock the safe and load my gun after an intruder wakes me
> up.
So don't. Since you live in Japan, this shouldn't be a problem.
> > that a child could access them. Since I have no children and none ever
have
> > occasion to come to my house, I keep a loaded 12 gauge right next to my
bed.
> > (Mossberg 500A) However, there is no answer for your mental disease
scenario.
>
> Yes there is.
No, they aren't.
> Periodic checks on the owner and the guns, to make sure they are
> secure.
Your proposal rests on the premise that a given person's irresponsible acts
can be predicted. They cannot. Also, Fourth Amendment issues prevent this.
> Is psychological testing part of the 90 day background check to own a gun?
There is no 90 days background check to own a gun.
> Do you believe it should be?
No. This would be covered in the standard background check of criminal
record and institutionalization.
> > Too bad. I doubt you are concerned about the stte taking away such a
person's
> > car or power tools.
>
> There are people who surely should not drive. "Paper drivers" and at risk
> drivers should be recertified. I do not know how large a problem deadly
power
> tools represents.
This is not responsive. Should the state take away the property of such
people? Can you give one good reason why the state should not take your
computer away? After all, you might decide to use it to commit a crime one
day.
> > > If even this is your attitude, do you understand the lack of sympathy
or
> > even horror, on the part of the general, non gun owning public?
> >
> > Why does the nongun-owning public lack sympathy and horror?
>
> The non-gun owning public lacks sympathy for people who vigorously defend
gun
> rights, or feels horror at some of the attitudes expressed by some people
in
> support of guns particularly after tragedy strikes, and feels horror at
the
> aftermath of gun violence in general.
This is of their own making, as they have so villified gun owners that many
gun owners take an extreme stance.
> > > Am I getting this correctly? You would have people who check out, get
guns
> > as they please, and we just mourn the losses later?
> >
> > That's exactly right.
>
> And do not be surprised at any lack of sympathy from the non-gun owning
public
> at loss of gun rights, because they do not agree with such an attitude.
So what? The Bill of Rights is there whether or not they agree.
> > Same way I feel about the use of automobiles. I mourn the loss of life
in a
> > crash, but I don't blame automobiles.
>
> Criminals can kill with knives, bludgeons or their bare fists.
That's true.
> But guns can make it too easy.
Or knives, or cars, or any number of other things.
> So some guy in America flipped out and killed and injured a number of
people in
> a crime spree with his car.
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020216/ap_on_re_us/nyc_p
edestrians_hit_17
>
> What could he do if he wanted to cause the most mayhem with a gun instead?
I don't know. How should the state have prevented this? Preemptively taken
away his car?
> Maybe his car is properly insured and registered, and he may be properly
> licensed, with no previous record. But do you want this man to continue
> driving?
Another straw man? I never said anything of the kind.Also, the premise here
is different. Driving a car on public roads is a privilege granted by the
state, in that a license is issued. The ownership of a firearm is not a
privilege. Try again.
> What is wrong with checking up on gun owners later, or taking their guns
away
> later when they are judged unworthy?
What is wrong with checking up on bathtub owners later, or taking their
bathtubs away
later when they are judged unworthy?
The Fourteenth Amendment. How would such people be judged unworthy?
> And how do we take their guns if we don't
> know what they have?
Exactly. Same goes for bathtubs. Why does the state need to know what a
citizen owns?
> > > > >Do you agree with regular, periodic checks of gun owners, as in
Japan?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Ouch.
> >
> > It doesn't hurt at all.
>
> Loss of your gun rights because extreme views or perceived lack of
sensitivity
> to tragedy make voters think people with guns are nuts, will surely hurt.
Let them try. Luckily, American is not a democracy, so the opinion of the
voters does not matter.
> Why are you arguing with me, Kevin?
Because you propose ridiculous things.
> I like guns. I want guns. I'd love to use
> guns in self defense or on criminals.
Then please leave Japan and move to a nation such as the USA, Switzerland,
or Israel.
> But I am willing to make some compromises to reduce gun violence.
Too bad those compromises would be unconstitutional.
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
>
> What is the technical term for people who have never been judged, nor even
> caught for what they've done, and are thus eligible to purchase, possess,
> perhaps even be allowed to carry a gun at all times, yet in fact would be
> dangerous?
People?
> > > People who are diagnosed with no mental problems affecting initial
purchase
> > or ownership of a gun.
> > >
> > > But actually are dangerous people, or will be.
> >
> > And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss Cleo?
>
> Periodic checks.
Of what?
> > A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a
concealed
> > gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction. However,
there
> > must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you know such people
and
> > have not reported them, shame on you.
>
> How many of your relatives or friends' families have you put in jail, or
how
> many kids have you had taken away?
What a marvelous ad hominem tu quoque.
> Sending my relatives to jail or taking the
> kids away was probably not the best solution.
That is not for you but the State to decide. Isn't that right? You're being
inconsistent.
> And mind you, SOME of what we now call child abuse, used to be called
> discipline.
Specifically?
> > as long as citizens like you fail to report things like that child
abuse, the
> > state has no way of knowing.
>
> There are other ways to avoid disrupting a family, and those families are
> working it out themselves.
This is quite a turn from your original position of "the state knows best".
> > I am covering rape in my criminal law class right now. The
> > acquaintance rape cases are a lot more difficult to parse out than the
> > general aggravated rape. It should be kept in mind that there are
varying
> > degrees of rape, with acquaintence rape tending to fall on the less
severe
> > end. I believe that in some of the cases I have read, the standard of
what
> > constitutes rape or sexual assault is too low.
>
> What do you want rape to be?
Rare.
> > > Such manipulative and conniving scum, deserve to go blind or become
eunuchs
> > before any other punishment.
> >
> > You would be surprised how many cases involve men who did not know a
rape had
> > occured until after the police had slapped on the handcuffs.
>
> I am quite sure that many rapists do not see a problem with what they did.
> Otherwise they might not have done it.
I agree. However, mens rea is very important if you want a criminal charge
to stick.
> But for now you will be an attorney, not a politician or vigilante, right?
Correct.
> Is your duty to uphold the law, or to shape it yourself?
Uphold. This does not bar criticism of the law.
- Kevin
Dale Hicks
kgo...@mail.law.fsu.edu says...
> "Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
> news:3C6FD4C4...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp...
> >
> > But actually are criminals.
>
> If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
You sound like a lawyer.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:MPG.16d9f30fc...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> In article <a4orlh$1nvvh$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>,
> kgo...@mail.law.fsu.edu says...
> > "Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
> > news:3C6FD4C4...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp...
> > >
> > > People who have no criminal record.
> > > But actually are criminals.
> >
> > If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
>
> You sound like a lawyer.
In that I actually know what the law says? Until a person has been convicted
of a crime, he is not a criminal.
> --
> Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> So how would you have the state go about making sure these people don't
> possess lighter fluid?
Who cares, as long as they do it.
> > > > Finding out AFTER the person commits some crime or tragedy occurs, is
> too late.
> > >
> > > Of course it is too late, but so what?
> >
> > So what, is someone is fucking dead.
>
> So? People die every day. It is not the job of the state to prevent death
> except for when specifically provided by law.
It should be if not.
The book Dial 911 and Die is one report on the lack of duty on the part of the
state to protect or defend its people.
> > > We cannot preemptively depriv people of their property.
> >
> > Should we allow simply anyone who wants to, to acquire a stockpile of
> nuclear weapons in the name of their right to national defense? Should
> Kennedy have allowed nuclear missiles to be based in Cuba?
>
> Ridiculous argument. Non-proliferation treaties already cover this. Try
> again.
Did the governments in question also sign?
And the laws of the US may already, or will dictate who can possess guns, and
how they may be used, for anyone who claims to uphold the law, if that is your
argument.
> > It still doesn't excuse it. I don't tell survivors of gun violence that the
> victim most likely would likely have died of cancer, anyway.
>
> Irrelevant.
I expected you to say so.
> > > Since neither every object in the world, from a gun to a car to a piece
> of cheese can kill, what do you propse?
> >
> > Making sure people are more responsible. Sometimes people need to be forced
> by regulation or outright fear.
>
> Give me specifics. *How* will the state make sure?
I already told you. You just don't want it to happen.
> > How serious is that cheese problem? How serious do you think a gun control
> advocate, much less a survivor of gun violence, would take that argument?
>
> Their opinion is irrelevant.
Then so is yours.
> > > So you support background checks, insurance, et cetera for everyone who
> owns a bathtub?
> >
> > Nope. But insurance in general is a damn fine idea.
>
> Why don't you support background checks?
Because checking up on every homeowner or tenant on their worthiness to own a
bathtub is dumb. That mother who drowned her kids is an obvious exception.
> And why do you support insurance?
It's nice to have money when people are injured or killed. It pays the bills.
> It is retroactive, and encourages less responsibility. This is why accident
> rates go up in jurisdictions with no-fault insurance.
What other kinds of insurance does your it encourages less responsibility
argument apply to?
> > > I have seen no effect of parking laws on the parking habits of the
> Japanese. At any rate, I would like to keep the discussion focused on
> America.
> >
> > And this discussion is about guns, not deadly cheese.
>
> Tee hee. But cheese has killed. Nearly anything can kill.
So why don't you defend yourself with cheese, instead of getting a gun?
> Where do you draw the line regarding what objects the state should be able to
> require background checks for or seize upon suspicion the possessor MIGHT go
> bonkers?
Me personally? One measure would be how much risk it represents to OTHER
people. Would I give a damn if every adult smoker on earth signed an insurance
and liability waiver, shut themselves up in a room, and puffed away?
Only if they were people I cared about.
> > > no one proposing taking away the car or the child
> > > because a parent might decide not to use a car seat.
> >
> > If it is judged as abuse, the kid may damned well be taken away.
>
> But that is after the fact. Your big bugaboo is proactive measures. Tell me
> how the state would do so in this case.
I just told you. "If it is judged as abuse." It could happen anytime.
> This is not responsible. What are the flaws of the Lott/Kleck studies?
Self reporting, for one.
> > Not every state, and not all gun owners, are like them.
> >
> > > I agree this is a shame, but so what? Florida law already compels gun
> owners to keep guns unloaded and secured if they believe or have reason to
> believe
> >
> > Do you agree with this law?
>
> No.
Yes, locking away an unloaded gun meant for defense is stupid.
How would you prefer to keep it out of the wrong hands?
> > I want a defense gun readily available.
>
> Then you should leave Japan.
I don't need a gun now.
> > I want a magnetic ring key or smartgun technology to keep my gun secure yet
> ready to use.
>
> I don't.
You have no children or young visitors now. What do you intend to do when the
situation changes?
> > I don't want to unlock the safe and load my gun after an intruder wakes me
> up.
>
> So don't. Since you live in Japan, this shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not talking about Japan.
> > > there is no answer for your mental disease
> scenario.
> >
> > Yes there is.
>
> No, they aren't.
Yes there is.
> > Periodic checks on the owner and the guns, to make sure they are
> > secure.
>
> Your proposal rests on the premise that a given person's irresponsible acts
> can be predicted. They cannot.
We are fortunate that you do not intend to practice criminal law.
> Also, Fourth Amendment issues prevent this.
I disagree with the misuse of the Constitution.
> > Is psychological testing part of the 90 day background check to own a gun?
>
> There is no 90 days background check to own a gun.
How long did you say you were waiting?
> > Do you believe it should be?
>
> No. This would be covered in the standard background check of criminal record
> and institutionalization.
So anyone who has avoided the police or had their record wiped clean, and
avoided institutionalization till now are A-OK by you.
> > There are people who surely should not drive. "Paper drivers" and at risk
> drivers should be recertified. I do not know how large a problem deadly power
> tools represents.
>
> This is not responsive. Should the state take away the property of such
> people?
Go for it.
> Can you give one good reason why the state should not take your computer
> away?
No, I don't.
> > The non-gun owning public lacks sympathy for people who vigorously defend
> gun rights, or feels horror at some of the attitudes expressed by some people
> in support of guns particularly after tragedy strikes, and feels horror at
> the aftermath of gun violence in general.
>
> This is of their own making, as they have so villified gun owners that many
> gun owners take an extreme stance.
No, the attitudes that gun advocates face due to their extremism is of their
own making.
> The Bill of Rights is there whether or not they agree.
I do not believe Bush will go the way of Stalin or Mao.
But the government seems to have its priorities on other than the Bill of
Rights.
> >> What could he do if he wanted to cause the most mayhem with a gun instead?
>
> I don't know. How should the state have prevented this?
Depends on his history.
> Preemptively taken away his car?
That would have been nice. He shouldn't have had a gun, either.
> > Maybe his car is properly insured and registered, and he may be properly
> licensed, with no previous record. But do you want this man to continue
> driving?
>
> Another straw man? I never said anything of the kind.
Do you see the question mark?
> Also, the premise here is different. Driving a car on public roads is a
> privilege granted by the state, in that a license is issued. The ownership of
> a firearm is not a privilege.
So why do even you support background checks, and undergo education or
training?
> > What is wrong with checking up on gun owners later, or taking their guns
> away later when they are judged unworthy?
>
> What is wrong with checking up on bathtub owners later, or taking their
> bathtubs away later when they are judged unworthy?
Nothing.
> The Fourteenth Amendment.
I expect such of a lawyer.
> How would such people be judged unworthy?
Drowning five kids is one measure.
> > And how do we take their guns if we don't
> > know what they have?
>
> Exactly. Same goes for bathtubs.
We don't need registration to assume someone has a bathtub.
> Why does the state need to know what a citizen owns?
Not everything.
> > Loss of your gun rights because extreme views or perceived lack of
> sensitivity to tragedy make voters think people with guns are nuts, will
> surely hurt.
>
> Let them try.
Funny Heston or the NRA are not as complacent as you.
> > Why are you arguing with me, Kevin?
>
> Because you propose ridiculous things.
And I admire your own sensitivity to victims of crime.
> > I like guns. I want guns. I'd love to use guns in self defense or on
> criminals.
>
> Then please leave Japan and move to a nation such as the USA, Switzerland, or
> Israel.
I don't need a gun right now.
> > But I am willing to make some compromises to reduce gun violence.
>
> Too bad those compromises would be unconstitutional.
There are things more important than a piece of paper written two centuries
ago.
Eric Takabayashi
> People?
No, criminals who have avoided detection or punishment are either lucky, or
smart criminals.
> > > And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss Cleo?
> >
> > Periodic checks.
>
> Of what?
Their mental health.
> > > A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a
> concealed gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction.
> However, there must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you know
> such people
> and have not reported them, shame on you.
One reason I did not report it was I was a child myself, and didn't know any
better.
The reason I do not report it now over a decade later, is the situation and the
people are changed. One family even sought professional counseling.
> > How many of your relatives or friends' families have you put in jail, or
> how many kids have you had taken away?
>
> What a marvelous ad hominem tu quoque.
Justice was not best served by jailing older relatives or having their kids
sent to a home. My relatives are not like the abusers in the news.
> > Sending my relatives to jail or taking the
> > kids away was probably not the best solution.
>
> That is not for you but the State to decide. Isn't that right?
Nope. I think the law is shit.
> You're being inconsistent.
No, I have my own opinion. But if you insist on hiding behind a bullshit law,
I'll apply the law to your argument, too. And considering that you are the
lawyer, you should live with whatever shit the law cooks up.
> > And mind you, SOME of what we now call child abuse, used to be called
> discipline.
>
> Specifically?
For example, hitting male children with the fists, getting into fistfights with
their own partners, or getting into fistfights with the children as they got
older. Fistfights among siblings.
Quite common perhaps. But having a gun within easy reach when tempers are high
are not a good idea.
> > There are other ways to avoid disrupting a family, and those families are
> working it out themselves.
>
> This is quite a turn from your original position of "the state knows best".
I do not believe the state knows best. The law is shit.
> > What do you want rape to be?
>
> Rare.
I wish men did not abuse women in the first place.
But I mean, how would you like rape defined, so more men could get away with it
and convictions become rare?
> > But for now you will be an attorney, not a politician or vigilante, right?
>
> Correct.
>
> > Is your duty to uphold the law, or to shape it yourself?
>
> Uphold.
Then your duty is upholding the law as it is at the time, not letting more
rapists get away.
> This does not bar criticism of the law.
Bitch about the law all you want.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > So how would you have the state go about making sure these people don't
> > possess lighter fluid?
>
> Who cares, as long as they do it.
If those methods are unconstitutional, I certainly care.
> > So? People die every day. It is not the job of the state to prevent
death
> > except for when specifically provided by law.
>
> It should be if not.
>
> The book Dial 911 and Die is one report on the lack of duty on the part of
the
> state to protect or defend its people.
Correct. This is why you cannot sue the police department for not being
there to prevent a crime to which you are a victim.
> > > > We cannot preemptively depriv people of their property.
> > >
> > > Should we allow simply anyone who wants to, to acquire a stockpile of
> > nuclear weapons in the name of their right to national defense? Should
> > Kennedy have allowed nuclear missiles to be based in Cuba?
> >
> > Ridiculous argument. Non-proliferation treaties already cover this. Try
> > again.
>
> Did the governments in question also sign?
Which governments are you talking about?
> And the laws of the US may already, or will dictate who can possess guns,
and
> how they may be used, for anyone who claims to uphold the law, if that is
your
> argument.
The meaning of this sentence is not clear to me.
> > > It still doesn't excuse it. I don't tell survivors of gun violence
that the
> > victim most likely would likely have died of cancer, anyway.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> I expected you to say so.
Because it is?
> > > > Since neither every object in the world, from a gun to a car to a
piece
> > of cheese can kill, what do you propse?
> > >
> > > Making sure people are more responsible. Sometimes people need to be
forced
> > by regulation or outright fear.
> >
> > Give me specifics. *How* will the state make sure?
>
> I already told you. You just don't want it to happen.
But you haven't. You jsut say, "They'll check". Well, by what means shall
this checking be acheived. The police ask you, "Are you going to go
bonkers?" and if you answer "yes", then they take away your property?
> > > How serious is that cheese problem? How serious do you think a gun
control
> > advocate, much less a survivor of gun violence, would take that
argument?
> >
> > Their opinion is irrelevant.
>
> Then so is yours.
How have you made this logical progression?
> > > > So you support background checks, insurance, et cetera for everyone
who
> > owns a bathtub?
> > >
> > > Nope. But insurance in general is a damn fine idea.
> >
> > Why don't you support background checks?
>
> Because checking up on every homeowner or tenant on their worthiness to
own a
> bathtub is dumb.
Why is this any more dumb than checking up (which you have never defined) on
gun-owning households? Over half the households in America possess at least
one gun.
> That mother who drowned her kids is an obvious exception.
So, how should the state have "checked" her for bathtub possession
worthiness?
> > And why do you support insurance?
>
> It's nice to have money when people are injured or killed. It pays the
bills.
Of course.
> > It is retroactive, and encourages less responsibility. This is why
accident
> > rates go up in jurisdictions with no-fault insurance.
>
> What other kinds of insurance does your it encourages less responsibility
> argument apply to?
Any form of strict liability insurance.
> > > > I have seen no effect of parking laws on the parking habits of the
> > Japanese. At any rate, I would like to keep the discussion focused on
> > America.
> > >
> > > And this discussion is about guns, not deadly cheese.
> >
> > Tee hee. But cheese has killed. Nearly anything can kill.
>
> So why don't you defend yourself with cheese, instead of getting a gun?
Guns have a deterrent effect that cheese does not. (unless you are Fellini)
> > Where do you draw the line regarding what objects the state should be
able to
> > require background checks for or seize upon suspicion the possessor
MIGHT go
> > bonkers?
>
> Me personally? One measure would be how much risk it represents to OTHER
> people.
How would you empirically measure this?
> Would I give a damn if every adult smoker on earth signed an insurance
> and liability waiver, shut themselves up in a room, and puffed away?
>
> Only if they were people I cared about.
I do not understand the purpose of this apparent non sequitur.
> > > > no one proposing taking away the car or the child
> > > > because a parent might decide not to use a car seat.
> > >
> > > If it is judged as abuse, the kid may damned well be taken away.
> >
> > But that is after the fact. Your big bugaboo is proactive measures. Tell
me
> > how the state would do so in this case.
>
> I just told you. "If it is judged as abuse." It could happen anytime.
But only actions which have already occured can be judged abuse, or judged
at all, for that matter. How will future actions, which have not occured, be
judged?
> > This is not responsible. What are the flaws of the Lott/Kleck studies?
>
> Self reporting, for one.
Specifically?
> > > Not every state, and not all gun owners, are like them.
> > >
> > > > I agree this is a shame, but so what? Florida law already compels
gun
> > owners to keep guns unloaded and secured if they believe or have reason
to
> > believe
> > >
> > > Do you agree with this law?
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes, locking away an unloaded gun meant for defense is stupid.
>
> How would you prefer to keep it out of the wrong hands?
By keeping it on my person.
> > > I want a defense gun readily available.
> >
> > Then you should leave Japan.
>
> I don't need a gun now.
Sure you do. Otherwise, why would you want a defensive gun?
> > > I want a magnetic ring key or smartgun technology to keep my gun
secure yet
> > ready to use.
> >
> > I don't.
>
> You have no children or young visitors now. What do you intend to do when
the
> situation changes?
Secure my firearms on my person and through other means. A key already
stands between my guns and others, just as one stands between my car and
others. Just as I have no need of a SmartCar, I have no need of a smart gun.
> > > I don't want to unlock the safe and load my gun after an intruder
wakes me
> > up.
> >
> > So don't. Since you live in Japan, this shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I'm not talking about Japan.
I see. Anyway, I have already stipulated that I keep a loaded firearm right
next to my bed. Sometimes more than one.(for the wife. She can't handle the
recoil on the Mossberg)
> > > > there is no answer for your mental disease
> > scenario.
> > >
> > > Yes there is.
> >
> > No, they aren't.
>
> Yes there is.
Then point to it.
> > > Periodic checks on the owner and the guns, to make sure they are
> > > secure.
> >
> > Your proposal rests on the premise that a given person's irresponsible
acts
> > can be predicted. They cannot.
>
> We are fortunate that you do not intend to practice criminal law.
Why?
> > Also, Fourth Amendment issues prevent this.
>
> I disagree with the misuse of the Constitution.
Where do you see misuse?
> > > Is psychological testing part of the 90 day background check to own a
gun?
> >
> > There is no 90 days background check to own a gun.
>
> How long did you say you were waiting?
It is up to 90 days for a carry permit, although most people seem to get
theirs in about 8 weeks. To purchase a gun in Florida, there is no waiting
period for long guns, and a maximum of three days for a handgun. This makes
no sense to me, as my shotgun is far deadlier than any handgun.
> > > Do you believe it should be?
> >
> > No. This would be covered in the standard background check of criminal
record
> > and institutionalization.
>
> So anyone who has avoided the police or had their record wiped clean, and
> avoided institutionalization till now are A-OK by you.
Legally, yes. Of course, a very good reason why such a person has avoided
the police and institutionalization is because they have never had occasion
to become involved with the police or an institution. You are coming
dangerously close to having people prove negative propositions, which is
logically impossible. Can you prove that you have never killed a person?
> > > There are people who surely should not drive. "Paper drivers" and at
risk
> > drivers should be recertified. I do not know how large a problem deadly
power
> > tools represents.
> >
> > This is not responsive. Should the state take away the property of such
> > people?
>
> Go for it.
Sorry, but the Eleventh Amendment prohibits this.
> > Can you give one good reason why the state should not take your computer
> > away?
>
> No, I don't.
Exactly.
> > > The non-gun owning public lacks sympathy for people who vigorously
defend
> > gun rights, or feels horror at some of the attitudes expressed by some
people
> > in support of guns particularly after tragedy strikes, and feels horror
at
> > the aftermath of gun violence in general.
> >
> > This is of their own making, as they have so villified gun owners that
many
> > gun owners take an extreme stance.
>
> No, the attitudes that gun advocates face due to their extremism is of
their
> own making.
It was anti-gun attitudes that have brought forth the extremism on the
pro-gun side. They anti-gunners are reaping what they have sown.
> > The Bill of Rights is there whether or not they agree.
>
> I do not believe Bush will go the way of Stalin or Mao.
I agree. However, we are not discussing the President.
> But the government seems to have its priorities on other than the Bill of
> Rights.
At least one-third of the government will be very surprised to learn this.
> > >> What could he do if he wanted to cause the most mayhem with a gun
instead?
> >
> > I don't know. How should the state have prevented this?
>
> Depends on his history.
What history, if he has no record of any kind?
> > Preemptively taken away his car?
>
> That would have been nice. He shouldn't have had a gun, either.
How would they have known to do this?
> > > Maybe his car is properly insured and registered, and he may be
properly
> > licensed, with no previous record. But do you want this man to continue
> > driving?
> >
> > Another straw man? I never said anything of the kind.
>
> Do you see the question mark?
I see. Since he now (presumably) has had the privilege of driving revoked,
of course I do not want him to continue driving. However, I have no problem
with his driving up until the moment of the accident.
> > Also, the premise here is different. Driving a car on public roads is a
> > privilege granted by the state, in that a license is issued. The
ownership of
> > a firearm is not a privilege.
>
> So why do even you support background checks, and undergo education or
> training?
I do not support legally mandated education or training. I support
background checks because they are necessary for the enforcement of 18 USC
§ 922(d).
> > > What is wrong with checking up on gun owners later, or taking their
guns
> > away later when they are judged unworthy?
> >
> > What is wrong with checking up on bathtub owners later, or taking their
> > bathtubs away later when they are judged unworthy?
>
> Nothing.
Actually, there is plenty wrong.
> > The Fourteenth Amendment.
>
> I expect such of a lawyer.
I expect better of an American.
> > How would such people be judged unworthy?
>
> Drowning five kids is one measure.
But that is retroactive. You are calling for proactive measures. Through
what precognition should the state have prevented this?
> > > And how do we take their guns if we don't
> > > know what they have?
> >
> > Exactly. Same goes for bathtubs.
>
> We don't need registration to assume someone has a bathtub.
You never need any facts to assume anything. However, you are not talking
about "assume", you are talking about "know". You said, "how do we take
their guns if we don't *know* what they have?" (emphasis mine) So, how will
you take away the bathtubs?
> > Why does the state need to know what a citizen owns?
>
> Not everything.
This is not responsive to my question.
> > > Loss of your gun rights because extreme views or perceived lack of
> > sensitivity to tragedy make voters think people with guns are nuts, will
> > surely hurt.
> >
> > Let them try.
>
> Funny Heston or the NRA are not as complacent as you.
Not really. I am a sporty, laid-back kind of guy.
> > > Why are you arguing with me, Kevin?
> >
> > Because you propose ridiculous things.
>
> And I admire your own sensitivity to victims of crime.
I propose the widespread ownership of guns precisely because of my
sensitivity to victims of crime.
> > > I like guns. I want guns. I'd love to use guns in self defense or on
> > criminals.
> >
> > Then please leave Japan and move to a nation such as the USA,
Switzerland, or
> > Israel.
>
> I don't need a gun right now.
There are no criminals in Japan? You don't need a bathtub either, but I bet
you own one.
> > > But I am willing to make some compromises to reduce gun violence.
> >
> > Too bad those compromises would be unconstitutional.
>
> There are things more important than a piece of paper written two
centuries
> ago.
Not in this country. Why do you say this? It is simply an argumentum ad
novitatem.
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > People?
>
> No, criminals who have avoided detection or punishment are either lucky,
or
> smart criminals.
Not legally.
> > > > And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss
Cleo?
> > >
> > > Periodic checks.
> >
> > Of what?
>
> Their mental health.
How would this be done? You have already made it clear that simply checking
records isn't enough, because a person could be mentally ill yet never have
been institutionalized.
> > > > A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a
> > concealed gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction.
> > However, there must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you
know
> > such people
> > and have not reported them, shame on you.
>
> One reason I did not report it was I was a child myself, and didn't know
any
> better.
Fair enough.
> The reason I do not report it now over a decade later, is the situation
and the
> people are changed. One family even sought professional counseling.
I suspect the statute of limitations would have long since run out, anyway.
> > > How many of your relatives or friends' families have you put in jail,
or
> > how many kids have you had taken away?
> >
> > What a marvelous ad hominem tu quoque.
>
> Justice was not best served by jailing older relatives or having their
kids
> sent to a home.
Why not?
> My relatives are not like the abusers in the news.
Whatever you say, sir.
> > > Sending my relatives to jail or taking the
> > > kids away was probably not the best solution.
> >
> > That is not for you but the State to decide. Isn't that right?
>
> Nope. I think the law is shit.
Then why are you calling for more? This is quite a shift from your previous
position.
> > You're being inconsistent.
>
> No, I have my own opinion.
An inconsistent opinion, yes.
> But if you insist on hiding behind a bullshit law,
> I'll apply the law to your argument, too. And considering that you are the
> lawyer, you should live with whatever shit the law cooks up.
Which bullshit law(s) am I hiding behind?
> > > And mind you, SOME of what we now call child abuse, used to be called
> > discipline.
> >
> > Specifically?
>
> For example, hitting male children with the fists, getting into fistfights
with
> their own partners, or getting into fistfights with the children as they
got
> older. Fistfights among siblings.
Really?
> Quite common perhaps. But having a gun within easy reach when tempers are
high
> are not a good idea.
Same for a candlestick, folding chair, or baseball bat (with or without
nails installed).
> > > There are other ways to avoid disrupting a family, and those families
are
> > working it out themselves.
> >
> > This is quite a turn from your original position of "the state knows
best".
>
> I do not believe the state knows best. The law is shit.
And yet you are calling for more.
> > > What do you want rape to be?
> >
> > Rare.
>
> I wish men did not abuse women in the first place.
Me too.
> But I mean, how would you like rape defined, so more men could get away
with it
> and convictions become rare?
Here, you have put words in my mouth.
I would prefer this definition of rape:
These elements:
1.) penetration
2.) lack of consent
3.) force and/or serious immediate threat
Or, as the MPC might put it: "A person who has sexual intercourse with
another person is guilty of rape if... he/she compels him/her to submit by
force or threat of force or threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury,
extreme pain, or kidnapping"
> > > But for now you will be an attorney, not a politician or vigilante,
right?
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > Is your duty to uphold the law, or to shape it yourself?
> >
> > Uphold.
>
> Then your duty is upholding the law as it is at the time, not letting more
> rapists get away.
Nice straw man.
> > This does not bar criticism of the law.
>
> Bitch about the law all you want.
I do (I notice you have as well). This is a very big part of jurisprudence.
- Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > For my concealed carry permit, I was fingerprinted so
> > that I will be run through state and FBI background checks, a process
that
> > will take the better part of 90 days. What freaks will be slipping
through the
> > cracks?
>
> People who have no criminal record.
>
> But actually are criminals.
If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
> People who are diagnosed with no mental problems affecting initial
purchase or
> ownership of a gun.
>
> But actually are dangerous people, or will be.
And how would this determination be made, short of a call to Miss Cleo?
> > >If anyone here thinks Eric with a gun at all times would be scary, you
should
> > > see
> > >the people I know, maybe grew up with, whom *I* am afraid of, and
imagine them
> > >with legally obtained concealed firearms.
> >
> > Why are you afraid of them?
>
> Because perhaps despite not having any criminal record, they may have a
history of
> problems such as physically assaulting people (or domestic violence) and
actually
> looking for trouble, even as adults.
A history of domestic violence will prohibit one from carrying a concealed
gun in Florida and most other concealed-carry jurisdiction. However, there
must be a record. General hearsay will not do. If you know such people and
have not reported them, shame on you.
> Yes, indeed, if people here worry about what Eric would or could do with a
gun, you
> should see the people back home I worry about, such as a coworker who
claimed that
> he could be hired to kill for just one thousand dollars, or some of my own
> relatives who beat their kids. Not a good idea to put guns in those
situations.
I agree. However, as long as citizens like you fail to report things like
that child abuse, the state has no way of knowing.
> > >For the ladies: according to the defense "experts," an eyeball or
testicle will
> > > go
> > >like a crushed plum.
> >
> > But you have to let the attacker get within contact range. A gun has no
> > such limitation.
>
> This man, I guess like many practiced offenders, got me by inspiring my
confidence
> or trust. He did not present himself as someone I would pull a gun on or
want to
> kill, until I was sitting next to him and it was too damned late.
You never know.
> This is also the situation with many women who are raped by dates,
relatives and
> acquaintences. The offender is simply not someone you can see coming until
it is
> too damned late.
This is true.I am covering rape in my criminal law class right now. The
acquaintance rape cases are a lot more difficult to parse out than the
general aggravated rape. It should be kept in mind that there are varying
degrees of rape, with acquaintence rape tending to fall on the less severe
end. I believe that in some of the cases I have read, the standard of what
constitutes rape or sexual assault is too low.
> Such manipulative and conniving scum, deserve to go blind or become
eunuchs before
> any other punishment.
You would be surprised how many cases involve men who did not know a rape
had occured until after the police had slapped on the handcuffs.
BTW, women's raping of men is one of the fastest growning crimes in America.
> > This is why I feel carrying a stun gun or mace is ridiculous.
>
> After reading reviews of people who actually tried stun guns on them
damned selves
> including holding the stun gun over the manufacturer recommended sensitive
spot
> such as the kidneys, with nothing more than irritation, and hearing more
stories of
> gan not working in actual situations, I would not put my trust in them.
I agree.
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> If those methods are unconstitutional, I certainly care.
Oh, another one who thinks the Constitution is more important than actual
people or common sense.
So tell me Kevin, just how well-regulated is that militia of yours? Are you all
properly organized to act in case of an unjust government gun grab or foreign
invasion? Where is the Second Amendment exemption for anyone including
convicted serial killers, mass murderers, or terrorists on American soil, from
legally acquiring guns?
> > The book Dial 911 and Die is one report on the lack of duty on the part of
> the state to protect or defend its people.
>
> Correct. This is why you cannot sue the police department for not being there
> to prevent a crime to which you are a victim.
I know. But it is worse than that. Despite police BEING ON THE SCENE, courts as
in DC may find that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to
provide public services, such as police protection, to protect any particular
individual citizen." (p. 56), or even "'the doctrine of sovereign immunity is
rigid.' The Arkansas state constitution expressly forbids a citizen from suing
the state government in state courts." (p. 39)
The law is shit.
And you profess or aspire to uphold it.
> >Non-proliferation treaties already cover this. Try again.
> >
> > Did the governments in question also sign?
>
> Which governments are you talking about?
North Korea, Iran, Iraq.
> > And the laws of the US may already, or will dictate who can possess guns,
> and how they may be used, for anyone who claims to uphold the law, if that is
> your argument.
>
> The meaning of this sentence is not clear to me.
The law already prevents you from acquiring, possessing, or using your guns as
freely as you may want to. Perhaps you missed your chance to buy your own full
auto Tec-9 or 100 round drum for your select fire M-16. And it may get worse.
But as a lawyer who claims to have a duty to uphold the law, you should obey
the law anyway, even if your guns get taken away, even if you are mistakenly
convicted of rape and punished.
> > > > It still doesn't excuse it. I don't tell survivors of gun violence that
> the victim most likely would likely have died of cancer, anyway.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > I expected you to say so.
>
> Because it is?
No, because you display an admirable sensitivity to victims or survivors of
crime.
> > > Give me specifics. *How* will the state make sure?
> >
> > I already told you. You just don't want it to happen.
>
> But you haven't. You jsut say, "They'll check". Well, by what means shall
> this checking be acheived. The police ask you, "Are you going to go bonkers?"
> and if you answer "yes", then they take away your property?
Are you pretending to be ignorant of how people are screened all the time for
security clearances or sensitive jobs, or to determine how much of a risk
someone is before being released on parole or discharged from a psychiatric
institution?
Does the Secret Service just hire anybody off the street to stand around the
President of the United States with a loaded gun, if they have the paper
qualifications and a clean criminal record?
No, they check them out.
> > > > How serious is that cheese problem? How serious do you think a gun
> control advocate, much less a survivor of gun violence, would take that
> argument?
> > >
> > > Their opinion is irrelevant.
> >
> > Then so is yours.
>
> How have you made this logical progression?
If you have no regard for the position or feeling of those other people with
valid concerns or actual pain, why should they give a damn about you with your
views? Simply because you claim the law is on your side?
> > Because checking up on every homeowner or tenant on their worthiness to own
> a bathtub is dumb.
>
> Why is this any more dumb than checking up (which you have never defined) on
> gun-owning households? Over half the households in America possess at least
> one gun.
Because criminals don't usually carry around bathtubs to suddenly open up on
innocent schoolchildren, rob banks, or shoot Presidents of the US.
> > That mother who drowned her kids is an obvious exception.
>
> So, how should the state have "checked" her for bathtub possession
> worthiness?
It would have been even simpler than that. She shouldn't even have had kids or
allowed continued custody of her kids, with her obvious, self described,
alleged condition.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml
[begin quote]
Following the birth of her fourth child, in June 1999, she tried to commit
suicide. According to the Houston Chronicle, “the attempt took place in her
parents’ southeast Houston house—and she tried to kill herself with an overdose
of her father’s Alzheimer’s medication.” Despite this, Yates became pregnant
again in early 2000 and gave birth to her fifth child in November. Her father
died in March.
Russell Yates has said that his wife had taken four drugs for her emotional
difficulties. One of them, Haldol (haloperidol) is particularly powerful,
utilized, according to a mental health monograph, “in the management of
manifestations of acute and chronic psychosis, including schizophrenia and
manic states.” Andrea started using the drug, often prescribed for people
hearing voices or thinking delusionally, after the birth of her fourth child.
At the time of the June 20 tragedy she was taking Effexor and Remeron, both
anti-depressants, and had been previously taking Wellbutrin, another
anti-depressant, as well as Haldol. Yates told the press that his wife had been
in therapy, but was not at the time of the killings. “He said they had recently
talked about her going into therapy again but she had not got around to it yet,
” the Houston Chronicle reported.
Yates also explained that the birth of the couple’s fifth child and the death
of his wife’s father had triggered another episode of extreme depression. She
had become withdrawn and “robotic” in her movements in the three weeks before
the children’s killings, he said. Her brother has told the press that Andrea
put a knife to her own throat while visiting her mother’s house this spring—
presumably after her father’s death—and again threatened to kill herself. Cases
of women undergoing post-partum depression are relatively common; post-partum
psychosis of the sort Andrea Yates apparently suffered from is extremely rare.
An unidentified official, familiar with Andrea Yates’s statement to police,
told the Dallas Morning News, “She essentially said that she had realized that
she was a bad mother and she felt that the children were disabled—that they
were not developing normally.” Yates reportedly asserted that she had been
thinking about killing them for several months.
[end quote]
> > > And why do you support insurance?
> >
> > It's nice to have money when people are injured or killed. It pays the
> bills.
>
> Of course.
And of course, cover or help cover any compensation in the case of any lawsuits
or tragedies.
> > What other kinds of insurance does your it encourages less responsibility
> argument apply to?
>
> Any form of strict liability insurance.
Does malpractice insurance, that individual doctors or hospitals need not fear
going totally bankrupt over a single error, encourage less responsibility?
> > So why don't you defend yourself with cheese, instead of getting a gun?
>
> Guns have a deterrent effect that cheese does not. (unless you are Fellini)
What deterrent effect does a concealed gun have? If criminals are apprehensive
that they can no longer assume that any given potential victim will be
helpless, I no longer need my own gun.
> > > Where do you draw the line regarding what objects the state should be
> able to require background checks for or seize upon suspicion the possessor
> MIGHT go bonkers?
> >
> > Me personally? One measure would be how much risk it represents to OTHER
> people.
>
> How would you empirically measure this?
Deaths and losses due to use in crime or abuse, perhaps.
I'll let the state come up with a proposal, then express my approval or
disapproval.
> > Would I give a damn if every adult smoker on earth signed an insurance and
> liability waiver, shut themselves up in a room, and puffed away?
> >
> > Only if they were people I cared about.
>
> I do not understand the purpose of this apparent non sequitur.
If it is not important, has no effect on, or is of no concern to me, I don't
need to care.
> > I just told you. "If it is judged as abuse." It could happen anytime.
>
> But only actions which have already occured can be judged abuse, or judged at
> all, for that matter. How will future actions, which have not occured, be
> judged?
Why don't you step down from your lawyer pedestal and give me your personal
opinion about that mother from Texas, for example. Do you actually believe that
nothing could have been done BEFOREHAND to prevent the deaths of her five
children?
> > > This is not responsible. What are the flaws of the Lott/Kleck studies?
> >
> > Self reporting, for one.
>
> Specifically?
If some aggressive armed home intruder suddenly strikes my home at night, has
already fired shots at me and injured me, and I then use my own gun to save my
own life or drive him off, I'd hope that anyone could understand that it was
self defense, and was indeed four "lives protected."
On the other hand, any nervous person with a gun without ever firing or showing
it, can determine and report their own incidences of "defending themselves with
a firearm" in determining the high number of "lives protected for every life
lost" such as one woman who claimed to have used her gun 52 times in the
previous year to defend herself.
Of course that woman was probably not in 52 dangerous situations or
altercations. (For her sake I hope not.) She just carried her gun once a week
and called it defending herself with a gun 52 times.
> > Yes, locking away an unloaded gun meant for defense is stupid.
> >
> > How would you prefer to keep it out of the wrong hands?
>
> By keeping it on my person.
Is it practical or possible for you to have your Mossberg 500 on you at all
times? Nice gun. I want the stainless model or 18 inch bullpup.
> > I don't need a gun now.
>
> Sure you do. Otherwise, why would you want a defensive gun?
I speak in the abstract. A gun back in Hawaii is fine.
An apartment building in a residential district in Japan is not the best place
to use a gun, regardless of need.
BTW, did you know that any customer with the money, can legally acquire and
keep a documented samurai sword?
> > You have no children or young visitors now. What do you intend to do when
> the situation changes?
>
> Secure my firearms on my person and through other means. A key already stands
> between my guns and others, just as one stands between my car and others.
> Just as I have no need of a SmartCar, I have no need of a smart gun.
You cannot always have your guns on you, even alone in your own home. How will
you shower or swim in your pool? A smart gun would allow ready access to a gun
(no need to unlock and load) with less fear of it being used in the wrong
hands.
> > I'm not talking about Japan.
>
> I see. Anyway, I have already stipulated that I keep a loaded firearm right
> next to my bed. Sometimes more than one.(for the wife. She can't handle the
> recoil on the Mossberg)
Is that legal, by the way, or is locking and unloading only required with
children?
> > > > Periodic checks on the owner and the guns, to make sure they are
> secure.
> > >
> > > Your proposal rests on the premise that a given person's irresponsible
> acts can be predicted. They cannot.
> >
> > We are fortunate that you do not intend to practice criminal law.
>
> Why?
Because there are legal or psychiatric professionals, as well as others on
parole boards, who determine the futures of people based on what they THINK
they will do.
Thus, Charles Manson is still not out on parole despite his periodic hearings.
> > > Also, Fourth Amendment issues prevent this.
> >
> > I disagree with the misuse of the Constitution.
>
> Where do you see misuse?
Criminals - sorry, "people" who do bad things - use the Constitution to their
advantage.
> To purchase a gun in Florida, there is no waiting period for long guns,
I like a short cooling off period, to try to prevent people from acquiring guns
when angry.
What is your opinion on gun show regulation, and how do you prevent the wrong
people from immediately acquiring a gun?
> and a maximum of three days for a handgun. This makes no sense to me, as my
> shotgun is far deadlier than any handgun.
Of course not. But you are not as likely to carry it around undetected.
> > So anyone who has avoided the police or had their record wiped clean, and
> > avoided institutionalization till now are A-OK by you.
>
> Legally, yes. Of course, a very good reason why such a person has avoided the
> police and institutionalization is because they have never had occasion to
> become involved with the police or an institution.
That is one possibility.
Do you assume that the law or mental institutions have adequately processed
anywhere near the majority of people who represent a danger to the community or
have committed crimes?
> You are coming dangerously close to having people prove negative
> propositions, which is logically impossible. Can you prove that you have
> never killed a person?
Nope. So let them investigate me.
> > > > There are people who surely should not drive. "Paper drivers" and at
> risk drivers should be recertified. I do not know how large a problem deadly
> power tools represents.
> > >
> > > This is not responsive. Should the state take away the property of such
> people?
> >
> > Go for it.
>
> Sorry, but the Eleventh Amendment prohibits this.
I don't put much faith in a 200 year old piece of paper written by dead white
guys who do not understand the current situation.
> > > Can you give one good reason why the state should not take your computer
> away?
> >
> > No, I don't.
>
> Exactly.
Do they think my computer represents a danger to the state or community? Is
this China?
And when the law comes for a computer, a law abiding citizen or lawyer like
you, would obey.
> > the government seems to have its priorities on other than the Bill of
> Rights.
>
> At least one-third of the government will be very surprised to learn this.
Would you care to explain the current state of security in the US?
> > > >> What could he do if he wanted to cause the most mayhem with a gun
> instead?
> > >
> > > I don't know. How should the state have prevented this?
> >
> > Depends on his history.
>
> What history, if he has no record of any kind?
Then a psychological screening before getting his gun, and periodic checks,
would do a better job at finding people who shouldn't have guns.
> > > Preemptively taken away his car?
> >
> > That would have been nice. He shouldn't have had a gun, either.
>
> How would they have known to do this?
Investigate him upon application.
> I see. Since he now (presumably) has had the privilege of driving revoked, of
> course I do not want him to continue driving. However, I have no problem with
> his driving up until the moment of the accident.
And his gun? Even if he is not convicted and thus continues to have a clean
record if indeed so thus far, would you allow him to legally keep his gun, even
in his current condition?
> I do not support legally mandated education or training. I support background
> checks because they are necessary for the enforcement of 18 USC Åò 922(d).
Had they not been mandated, would you require background checks, or would you
like to buy guns over the counter like Hinkley?
> > > The Fourteenth Amendment.
> >
> > I expect such of a lawyer.
>
> I expect better of an American.
And I expect lawyers to help defend society, not criminals.
> > We don't need registration to assume someone has a bathtub.
>
> You never need any facts to assume anything.
Then look at the county building records for bathtubs.
> However, you are not talking about "assume", you are talking about "know".
> You said, "how do we take their guns if we don't *know* what they have?"
> (emphasis mine) So, how will you take away the bathtubs?
County records. Or simply check the bitch's house when they arrest her for
drowning her five kids.
> > > Why does the state need to know what a citizen owns?
> >
> > Not everything.
>
> This is not responsive to my question.
Perhaps you may agree with not allowing convicted felons to purchase or possess
firearms. Well how do you take away what they already legally acquired but know
nothing about, to give the law any meaning?
> > Funny Heston or the NRA are not as complacent as you.
>
> Not really. I am a sporty, laid-back kind of guy.
Then what are Heston and the NRA?
> I propose the widespread ownership of guns precisely because of my
> sensitivity to victims of crime.
Then don't rationalize their deaths away or call their views irrelevant.
> There are no criminals in Japan?
Millions. And they cause fewer than 100 firearms deaths a year in the
commission of 1,300 murders.
> You don't need a bathtub either, but I bet you own one.
You are correct. I don't need a bathtub, but it came with the place.
> > There are things more important than a piece of paper written two centuries
> ago.
>
> Not in this country.
Stick around.
> Why do you say this?
It's true, unless you believe the Constitution to be perfect.
Eric Takabayashi
> > No, criminals who have avoided detection or punishment are either lucky, or
> smart criminals.
>
> Not legally.
I'm talking reality, not legally.
> How would this be done? You have already made it clear that simply checking
> records isn't enough, because a person could be mentally ill yet never have
> been institutionalized.
And I've already made it clear I support checks BEFORE acquiring a firearm, and
REGULAR periodic checks to make sure they are STILL competent.
> > One reason I did not report it was I was a child myself, and didn't know
> any better.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > The reason I do not report it now over a decade later, is the situation and
> the people are changed. One family even sought professional counseling.
>
> I suspect the statute of limitations would have long since run out, anyway.
There is one? How about for rape?
I don't believe in statutes of limitations in general, but hunting down WWII
war criminals today is kind of extreme. I don't have a problem with any former
Japanese soldiers I have yet met in person.
> > Justice was not best served by jailing older relatives or having their kids
> sent to a home.
>
> Why not?
Because they're not the kinds of people doing the kinds of things you read
about in the papers. But I wouldn't stand and watch my relatives abuse each
other today.
> > I think the law is shit.
>
> Then why are you calling for more?
Because I assume changes for the better.
> This is quite a shift from your previous position.
No, it isn't. Why don't you do a Google search for any of my posts on crime?
Look up "etaka" and "the law is shit" or "fuck criminals"
> > > You're being inconsistent.
> >
> > No, I have my own opinion.
>
> An inconsistent opinion, yes.
A developing opinion.
> > But if you insist on hiding behind a bullshit law, I'll apply the law to
> your argument, too. And considering that you are the lawyer, you should live
> with whatever shit the law cooks up.
>
> Which bullshit law(s) am I hiding behind?
Anything which defends people who commit crime.
Such as statutes of limitations above. Did you know that even a killer can go
free in Japan if they avoid capture for 15 years, as long as they remain within
the country?
> > > > And mind you, SOME of what we now call child abuse, used to be called
> discipline.
> > >
> > > Specifically?
> >
> > For example, hitting male children with the fists, getting into fistfights
> with their own partners, or getting into fistfights with the children as they
> got older. Fistfights among siblings.
>
> Really?
Do you not believe it ever happened within my family, do you not believe it
used to be considered discipline, or do you not believe such is abuse?
> > Quite common perhaps. But having a gun within easy reach when tempers are
> high are not a good idea.
>
> Same for a candlestick, folding chair, or baseball bat (with or without nails
> installed).
I assume in your readings, you have seen such as Massad Ayoob's calculation of
the death rate in shootings, by long guns or hand guns. Do you claim a
comparable lethality?
> > I do not believe the state knows best. The law is shit.
>
> And yet you are calling for more.
Because the law should be made to work if it exists at all.
> > But I mean, how would you like rape defined, so more men could get away
> with it and convictions become rare?
>
> Here, you have put words in my mouth.
What would be the immediate effect of enacting your law defining rape? What
does this mean, if not your desire to have those men be free?
"I believe that in some of the cases I have read, the standard of what
constitutes rape or sexual assault is too low."
> I would prefer this definition of rape:
> These elements:
> 1.) penetration
> 2.) lack of consent
> 3.) force and/or serious immediate threat
>
> Or, as the MPC might put it: "A person who has sexual intercourse with
> another person is guilty of rape if... he/she compels him/her to submit by
> force or threat of force or threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury,
> extreme pain, or kidnapping"
And your standard is too high.
Please explain consent, or lack thereof.
Is fucking an incapacitated woman rape? How about fucking a passive woman too
shy, embarrassed, shocked or cowed to resist, without asking? How about fucking
a woman, who after repeated abuse, has given up? How about paying a prostitute
once and fucking her twice? How about fucking females under the age of legal
adulthood with or without their explicit approval?
> > Then your duty is upholding the law as it is at the time, not letting more
> rapists get away.
>
> Nice straw man.
No, what happens in the US every fucking day, and don't pretend it doesn't, Mr.
Sensitive to Crime Victims. I assume you already know victims of abuse (up to
one in three of females AND males by the age of 18), and hope that you are not
satisfied by their poor experience in the legal system.
> > > This does not bar criticism of the law.
> >
> > Bitch about the law all you want.
>
> I do (I notice you have as well). This is a very big part of jurisprudence.
But I unlike you, do not consider it my duty to uphold bullshit laws.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
>
> > If those methods are unconstitutional, I certainly care.
>
> Oh, another one who thinks the Constitution is more important than actual
> people or common sense.
I love people who herald the supremecy of common sense, as if there is such
a thing.
> So tell me Kevin, just how well-regulated is that militia of yours?
Quite.
> Are you all
> properly organized to act in case of an unjust government gun grab or
foreign
> invasion?
No. Luckily, the Constitution does not call for this.
> Where is the Second Amendment exemption for anyone including
> convicted serial killers, mass murderers, or terrorists on American soil,
from
> legally acquiring guns?
There is none. However, the Constitution is not the only law in the USA.
> > > The book Dial 911 and Die is one report on the lack of duty on the
part of
> > the state to protect or defend its people.
> >
> > Correct. This is why you cannot sue the police department for not being
there
> > to prevent a crime to which you are a victim.
>
> I know. But it is worse than that. Despite police BEING ON THE SCENE,
courts as
> in DC may find that "a government and its agents are under no general duty
to
> provide public services, such as police protection, to protect any
particular
> individual citizen." (p. 56), or even "'the doctrine of sovereign immunity
is
> rigid.' The Arkansas state constitution expressly forbids a citizen from
suing
> the state government in state courts." (p. 39)
I think someone here doesn't like sovereign immunity.
> The law is shit.
Why?
> And you profess or aspire to uphold it.
Yes, I do.
> > >Non-proliferation treaties already cover this. Try again.
> > >
> > > Did the governments in question also sign?
> >
> > Which governments are you talking about?
>
> North Korea, Iran, Iraq.
Yes. again, since I have confined my discussion to the USA, this does not
matter.
> > > And the laws of the US may already, or will dictate who can possess
guns,
> > and how they may be used, for anyone who claims to uphold the law, if
that is
> > your argument.
> >
> > The meaning of this sentence is not clear to me.
>
> The law already prevents you from acquiring, possessing, or using your
guns as
> freely as you may want to.
Really?
> Perhaps you missed your chance to buy your own full
> auto Tec-9 or 100 round drum for your select fire M-16. And it may get
worse.
Some states, including Florida, allow for the legal possession of full
automatic weapons. These are known as Class III weapons. So, I haven't
missed my chance.
> But as a lawyer who claims to have a duty to uphold the law, you should
obey
> the law anyway, even if your guns get taken away, even if you are
mistakenly
> convicted of rape and punished.
The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
> No, because you display an admirable sensitivity to victims or survivors
of
> crime.
Thank you.
> > > > Give me specifics. *How* will the state make sure?
> > >
> > > I already told you. You just don't want it to happen.
> >
> > But you haven't. You jsut say, "They'll check". Well, by what means
shall
> > this checking be acheived. The police ask you, "Are you going to go
bonkers?"
> > and if you answer "yes", then they take away your property?
>
> Are you pretending to be ignorant of how people are screened all the time
for
> security clearances or sensitive jobs, or to determine how much of a risk
> someone is before being released on parole or discharged from a
psychiatric
> institution?
>
> Does the Secret Service just hire anybody off the street to stand around
the
> President of the United States with a loaded gun, if they have the paper
> qualifications and a clean criminal record?
>
> No, they check them out.
You still haven't told be how this would be accomplished.
> > > > > How serious is that cheese problem? How serious do you think a gun
> > control advocate, much less a survivor of gun violence, would take that
> > argument?
> > > >
> > > > Their opinion is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Then so is yours.
> >
> > How have you made this logical progression?
>
> If you have no regard for the position or feeling of those other people
with
> valid concerns or actual pain, why should they give a damn about you with
your
> views? Simply because you claim the law is on your side?
Yes. This is a nation under the rule of law.
> > > Because checking up on every homeowner or tenant on their worthiness
to own
> > a bathtub is dumb.
> >
> > Why is this any more dumb than checking up (which you have never
defined) on
> > gun-owning households? Over half the households in America possess at
least
> > one gun.
>
> Because criminals don't usually carry around bathtubs to suddenly open up
on
> innocent schoolchildren, rob banks, or shoot Presidents of the US.
Why does this matter? A bathtub is statistically more dangerous.
> > > That mother who drowned her kids is an obvious exception.
> >
> > So, how should the state have "checked" her for bathtub possession
> > worthiness?
>
> It would have been even simpler than that. She shouldn't even have had
kids or
> allowed continued custody of her kids, with her obvious, self described,
> alleged condition.
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml
Thats too bad.
> > > > And why do you support insurance?
> > >
> > > It's nice to have money when people are injured or killed. It pays the
> > bills.
> >
> > Of course.
>
> And of course, cover or help cover any compensation in the case of any
lawsuits
> or tragedies.
But before you said that money wasn't compensation.
> > > What other kinds of insurance does your it encourages less
responsibility
> > argument apply to?
> >
> > Any form of strict liability insurance.
>
> Does malpractice insurance, that individual doctors or hospitals need not
fear
> going totally bankrupt over a single error, encourage less responsibility?
I said strict liability insurance.
> > > So why don't you defend yourself with cheese, instead of getting a
gun?
> >
> > Guns have a deterrent effect that cheese does not. (unless you are
Fellini)
>
> What deterrent effect does a concealed gun have?
Plenty. Read Lott's book.
> If criminals are apprehensive
> that they can no longer assume that any given potential victim will be
> helpless, I no longer need my own gun.
That's the point. If the criminals knows that some people are armed, he is
taking a big gable by attacking anyone.
> > > > Where do you draw the line regarding what objects the state should
be
> > able to require background checks for or seize upon suspicion the
possessor
> > MIGHT go bonkers?
> > >
> > > Me personally? One measure would be how much risk it represents to
OTHER
> > people.
> >
> > How would you empirically measure this?
>
> Deaths and losses due to use in crime or abuse, perhaps.
But this is retroactive, which you hate. How would you be proactive?
> I'll let the state come up with a proposal, then express my approval or
> disapproval.
Think up one.
> > > Would I give a damn if every adult smoker on earth signed an insurance
and
> > liability waiver, shut themselves up in a room, and puffed away?
> > >
> > > Only if they were people I cared about.
> >
> > I do not understand the purpose of this apparent non sequitur.
>
> If it is not important, has no effect on, or is of no concern to me, I
don't
> need to care.
Like that crazy Texas lady?
> > > I just told you. "If it is judged as abuse." It could happen anytime.
> >
> > But only actions which have already occured can be judged abuse, or
judged at
> > all, for that matter. How will future actions, which have not occured,
be
> > judged?
>
> Why don't you step down from your lawyer pedestal and give me your
personal
> opinion about that mother from Texas, for example.
Of course it's my personal opinion. What other opinion could I have?
> Do you actually believe that
> nothing could have been done BEFOREHAND to prevent the deaths of her five
> children?
Of course something could have been done, but I don't blame the state.
> > > > This is not responsible. What are the flaws of the Lott/Kleck
studies?
> > >
> > > Self reporting, for one.
> >
> > Specifically?
>
> If some aggressive armed home intruder suddenly strikes my home at night,
has
> already fired shots at me and injured me, and I then use my own gun to
save my
> own life or drive him off, I'd hope that anyone could understand that it
was
> self defense, and was indeed four "lives protected."
>
> On the other hand, any nervous person with a gun without ever firing or
showing
> it, can determine and report their own incidences of "defending themselves
with
> a firearm" in determining the high number of "lives protected for every
life
> lost" such as one woman who claimed to have used her gun 52 times in the
> previous year to defend herself.
>
> Of course that woman was probably not in 52 dangerous situations or
> altercations. (For her sake I hope not.) She just carried her gun once a
week
> and called it defending herself with a gun 52 times.
Did she give this explanation? At any rate, Lott's study focused on crime
rates in jurisdictions before and after they passed concealed carry laws.
These stats do not rely on self-reporting.
> > > Yes, locking away an unloaded gun meant for defense is stupid.
> > >
> > > How would you prefer to keep it out of the wrong hands?
> >
> > By keeping it on my person.
>
> Is it practical or possible for you to have your Mossberg 500 on you at
all
> times?
No.
> Nice gun. I want the stainless model or 18 inch bullpup.
It's a 500A, btw. 18.5 inch barrel, blue.
> > > I don't need a gun now.
> >
> > Sure you do. Otherwise, why would you want a defensive gun?
>
> I speak in the abstract. A gun back in Hawaii is fine.
Hawaii doesn't think so.
> An apartment building in a residential district in Japan is not the best
place
> to use a gun, regardless of need.
Why?
> BTW, did you know that any customer with the money, can legally acquire
and
> keep a documented samurai sword?
Cool.
> > > You have no children or young visitors now. What do you intend to do
when
> > the situation changes?
> >
> > Secure my firearms on my person and through other means. A key already
stands
> > between my guns and others, just as one stands between my car and
others.
> > Just as I have no need of a SmartCar, I have no need of a smart gun.
>
> You cannot always have your guns on you, even alone in your own home.
I would think *especially* in my own home I can always have a gun on my
person.
> How will
> you shower or swim in your pool?
I'll wear a Navy SEAL waterproof pistol.
> A smart gun would allow ready access to a gun
> (no need to unlock and load) with less fear of it being used in the wrong
> hands.
Or the right hands.
> > > I'm not talking about Japan.
> >
> > I see. Anyway, I have already stipulated that I keep a loaded firearm
right
> > next to my bed. Sometimes more than one.(for the wife. She can't handle
the
> > recoil on the Mossberg)
>
> Is that legal, by the way, or is locking and unloading only required with
> children?
Only with children.
> > > > > Periodic checks on the owner and the guns, to make sure they are
> > secure.
> > > >
> > > > Your proposal rests on the premise that a given person's
irresponsible
> > acts can be predicted. They cannot.
> > >
> > > We are fortunate that you do not intend to practice criminal law.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because there are legal or psychiatric professionals, as well as others on
> parole boards, who determine the futures of people based on what they
THINK
> they will do.
That's true. What does that have to do with me? I could very well decide to
become a prosectuor. That is a practice in criminal law.
> Thus, Charles Manson is still not out on parole despite his periodic
hearings.
>
> > > > Also, Fourth Amendment issues prevent this.
> > >
> > > I disagree with the misuse of the Constitution.
> >
> > Where do you see misuse?
>
> Criminals - sorry, "people" who do bad things - use the Constitution to
their
> advantage.
That's why the Constitution is there. BTW, they aren't criminals until after
they are convicted, FYI.
> > To purchase a gun in Florida, there is no waiting period for long guns,
>
> I like a short cooling off period, to try to prevent people from acquiring
guns
> when angry.
Yes, good thing that I didn't need to wait at all for my Mossberg, which is
far deadlier than any handgun.
> What is your opinion on gun show regulation, and how do you prevent the
wrong
> people from immediately acquiring a gun?
I support the law as it is now.
> > and a maximum of three days for a handgun. This makes no sense to me, as
my
> > shotgun is far deadlier than any handgun.
>
> Of course not. But you are not as likely to carry it around undetected.
But this does not matter. The gun kills you just the same, detected or not.
> > > So anyone who has avoided the police or had their record wiped clean,
and
> > > avoided institutionalization till now are A-OK by you.
> >
> > Legally, yes. Of course, a very good reason why such a person has
avoided the
> > police and institutionalization is because they have never had occasion
to
> > become involved with the police or an institution.
>
> That is one possibility.
>
> Do you assume that the law or mental institutions have adequately
processed
> anywhere near the majority of people who represent a danger to the
community or
> have committed crimes?
Yes.
> > You are coming dangerously close to having people prove negative
> > propositions, which is logically impossible. Can you prove that you have
> > never killed a person?
>
> Nope. So let them investigate me.
I guess you won't be wanting the Constitution.
> > > > > There are people who surely should not drive. "Paper drivers" and
at
> > risk drivers should be recertified. I do not know how large a problem
deadly
> > power tools represents.
> > > >
> > > > This is not responsive. Should the state take away the property of
such
> > people?
> > >
> > > Go for it.
> >
> > Sorry, but the Eleventh Amendment prohibits this.
>
> I don't put much faith in a 200 year old piece of paper written by dead
white
> guys who do not understand the current situation.
Why? What does their race have to do with anything? How racist.
> > > > Can you give one good reason why the state should not take your
computer
> > away?
> > >
> > > No, I don't.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> Do they think my computer represents a danger to the state or community?
Is
> this China?
I think it does.
> And when the law comes for a computer, a law abiding citizen or lawyer
like
> you, would obey.
Such a law would not past constitutional muster.
> > > the government seems to have its priorities on other than the Bill of
> > Rights.
> >
> > At least one-third of the government will be very surprised to learn
this.
>
> Would you care to explain the current state of security in the US?
Firm. How does that have any bearing here?
> > > > >> What could he do if he wanted to cause the most mayhem with a gun
> > instead?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know. How should the state have prevented this?
> > >
> > > Depends on his history.
> >
> > What history, if he has no record of any kind?
>
> Then a psychological screening before getting his gun, and periodic
checks,
> would do a better job at finding people who shouldn't have guns.
What about for owning cars, guns, or procreation?
> > > > Preemptively taken away his car?
> > >
> > > That would have been nice. He shouldn't have had a gun, either.
> >
> > How would they have known to do this?
>
> Investigate him upon application.
Application for what? Buying a car? There is no such application.
> > I see. Since he now (presumably) has had the privilege of driving
revoked, of
> > course I do not want him to continue driving. However, I have no problem
with
> > his driving up until the moment of the accident.
>
> And his gun? Even if he is not convicted and thus continues to have a
clean
> record if indeed so thus far, would you allow him to legally keep his gun,
even
> in his current condition?
Yes.
> > I do not support legally mandated education or training. I support
background
> > checks because they are necessary for the enforcement of 18 USC §
922(d).
>
> Had they not been mandated, would you require background checks, or would
you
> like to buy guns over the counter like Hinkley?
OTC.
> > > > The Fourteenth Amendment.
> > >
> > > I expect such of a lawyer.
> >
> > I expect better of an American.
>
> And I expect lawyers to help defend society, not criminals.
Defending the Constitution is a defense of society. That is why the military
swears to protect the Constitution, not the United States.
> > > We don't need registration to assume someone has a bathtub.
> >
> > You never need any facts to assume anything.
>
> Then look at the county building records for bathtubs.
I know of no such records.
> > However, you are not talking about "assume", you are talking about
"know".
> > You said, "how do we take their guns if we don't *know* what they have?"
> > (emphasis mine) So, how will you take away the bathtubs?
>
> County records. Or simply check the bitch's house when they arrest her for
> drowning her five kids.
But that is retroactive. I can't believe I jsut got you to come out in favor
of seizing bathtubs.
> > > > Why does the state need to know what a citizen owns?
> > >
> > > Not everything.
> >
> > This is not responsive to my question.
>
> Perhaps you may agree with not allowing convicted felons to purchase or
possess
> firearms. Well how do you take away what they already legally acquired but
know
> nothing about, to give the law any meaning?
We don't.
> > > Funny Heston or the NRA are not as complacent as you.
> >
> > Not really. I am a sporty, laid-back kind of guy.
>
> Then what are Heston and the NRA?
Classy guys.
> > I propose the widespread ownership of guns precisely because of my
> > sensitivity to victims of crime.
>
> Then don't rationalize their deaths away or call their views irrelevant.
Why not?
> > There are no criminals in Japan?
>
> Millions. And they cause fewer than 100 firearms deaths a year in the
> commission of 1,300 murders.
Does it make you feel better that other methods are used? Perhaps you'd
prefer that they'd all been defenestrated.
> > You don't need a bathtub either, but I bet you own one.
>
> You are correct. I don't need a bathtub, but it came with the place.
So why own it?
> > > There are things more important than a piece of paper written two
centuries
> > ago.
> >
> > Not in this country.
>
> Stick around.
And wait for what?
> > Why do you say this?
>
> It's true, unless you believe the Constitution to be perfect.
This is not responsive. However, I do not believe the Constitution to be
perfect. That is why we have the power to amend it.
> > It is simply an argumentum ad novitatem.
- Kevin
Eric Takabayashi
> > So tell me Kevin, just how well-regulated is that militia of yours?
>
> Quite.
How so?
> > Where is the Second Amendment exemption for anyone including convicted
> serial killers, mass murderers, or terrorists on American soil, from legally
> acquiring guns?
>
> There is none. However, the Constitution is not the only law in the USA.
And those laws limit who can have guns or how to keep or use them.
And like it or not, you'll have to live with it.
> I think someone here doesn't like sovereign immunity.
The government should damn well be held responsible or made to pay when such
incompetence or negligence is shown.
> > The law is shit.
>
> Why?
Doesn't work.
> > And you profess or aspire to uphold it.
>
> Yes, I do.
Why?
> > The law already prevents you from acquiring, possessing, or using your guns
> as freely as you may want to.
>
> Really?
Take your loaded gun into the airport. Not because you intend to cause any fear
or mayhem. Just because you have a Constitutional right to bear it.
What happens?
> > But as a lawyer who claims to have a duty to uphold the law, you should
> obey the law anyway, even if your guns get taken away, even if you are
> mistakenly convicted of rape and punished.
>
> The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
You claim to uphold the law.
Then live with whatever shit it cooks up for you.
> > Does the Secret Service just hire anybody off the street to stand around
> the President of the United States with a loaded gun, if they have the paper
> qualifications and a clean criminal record?
> >
> > No, they check them out.
>
> You still haven't told be how this would be accomplished.
If the Secret Service trusts its own agents to stand behind the President with
a loaded fully automatic weapon in private, I'd say they have faith in their
system.
That's one way.
> Yes. This is a nation under the rule of law.
Then live with whatever they cook up for you. If you thought the law really
worked, you would probably have not become a lawyer.
> > Because criminals don't usually carry around bathtubs to suddenly open up
> on innocent schoolchildren, rob banks, or shoot Presidents of the US.
>
> Why does this matter? A bathtub is statistically more dangerous.
The bathtub is a risk to people in your own house. Not anywhere you may happen
to carry it around. And you probably won't try killing Presidents with it.
Commercial flight within the US is statistically less dangerous than bathtubs
and guns. As low as zero deaths a year. Are you against its being regulated,
controlled, or banned if the need is perceived?
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml
>
> Thats too bad.
Yes, it is. A further net search will reveal that her doctor advised against
her having more children after her fourth pregnancy because of her condition.
Yet she got pregnant again, and had another child, before killing them all.
So, tell us, Kevin. Will you continue to claim there is no way of predicticting
future behavior?
> But before you said that money wasn't compensation.
Not for a life lost in itself. But it pays bills.
> > Does malpractice insurance, that individual doctors or hospitals need not
> fear going totally bankrupt over a single error, encourage less
> responsibility?
>
> I said strict liability insurance.
Like what, other than no fault? And considering the risk of encountering an
uninsured driver, I'll damn well live with no fault. I even get private
insurance.
> > If criminals are apprehensive that they can no longer assume that any given
> potential victim will be helpless, I no longer need my own gun.
>
> That's the point. If the criminals knows that some people are armed, he is
> taking a big gable by attacking anyone.
Then you should understand why *I* don't necessarily need a gun, and why not
everyone needs one.
Your story about the woman with the .25 is an example of people who may need to
reconsider having one.
Like this idiot:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190143
Don't shoot (or stab) the car thief
"A repo man has been awarded more than $1.2 million by a federal judge in his
suit against a man who shot him several times when he was trying to repossess a
car.
Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania rejected Jacques Galin's argument that his shooting of Edward
Simmons was legally justified because he feared for his life and believed he
was acting to prevent a theft."
Note: Galin ran out of his house to chase and shoot the suspected car thief. He
also caught a bullet in the head for his efforts.
Doubt the car was worth 1.2 mil. or the pain. The other lesson to be learned is
don't act as your own attorney. See link for full story.
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/A...ate=ZZZHCC0Q95C
Best regards,
Argyll
[snip thread]
> > Deaths and losses due to use in crime or abuse, perhaps.
>
> But this is retroactive, which you hate.
Only if we don't have a record. With items such as autos or guns, we do.
> How would you be proactive?
It controls future loss.
> > I'll let the state come up with a proposal, then express my approval or
> disapproval.
>
> Think up one.
That's the government's job.
> > If it is not important, has no effect on, or is of no concern to me, I
> don't need to care.
>
> Like that crazy Texas lady?
It is of concern to me, as a father and someone who cares about people killing
children.
> > Why don't you step down from your lawyer pedestal and give me your personal
> opinion about that mother from Texas, for example.
>
> Of course it's my personal opinion. What other opinion could I have?
Other than "crazy" or "too bad," your opinion on what you'd like to see done,
please?
Anything. Treatment. Counseling. Trial. Lynch mob. Whatever.
> > Do you actually believe that nothing could have been done BEFOREHAND to
> prevent the deaths of her five children?
>
> Of course something could have been done, but I don't blame the state.
But that is not the point. You brought up bathtubs. This lady could have been
checked beforehand, and had periodic checks, before she had five kids and
killed them. It might have revealed the fact that she had been thinking about
killing her kids for two years, early enough to do something about it.
> > Of course that woman was probably not in 52 dangerous situations or
> altercations. (For her sake I hope not.) She just carried her gun once a week
> and called it defending herself with a gun 52 times.
>
> Did she give this explanation? At any rate, Lott's study focused on crime
> rates in jurisdictions before and after they passed concealed carry laws.
> These stats do not rely on self-reporting.
How about Kleck?
http://www.usa2076.com/proguns/gunclock.htm
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self
Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994,
the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the
gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about
once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone
"probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense
with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall,
1995
I've quoted and posted Kleck here myself. But his data are based on what
respondents "believe".
> > I speak in the abstract. A gun back in Hawaii is fine.
>
> Hawaii doesn't think so.
At the time of the mass murder, I was in favor of the proposals I've heard,
such as psychological screening. I already am in favor of gun handling training
to get a gun. Folks like that woman you saw sure need it.
> > An apartment building in a residential district in Japan is not the best
> place to use a gun, regardless of need.
>
> Why?
Neighbors with children behind thin walls on either side, and a government
building and a fairly busy street on another, and an elementary school in the
other.
Even to save my own skin, I could be endangering them.
> > BTW, did you know that any customer with the money, can legally acquire and
> keep a documented samurai sword?
>
> Cool.
And I have seen for a fact with the fair number of martial artists in Fukuyama,
particularly school students with equipment bags, police and citizens even
downtown or in shops are not particularly perturbed by the sight of people
walking the street with a wrapped bundle even seven feet long.
Not that I am illegally carrying a sword in public.
> > You cannot always have your guns on you, even alone in your own home.
>
> I would think *especially* in my own home I can always have a gun on my
> person.
I am at my most vulnerable not when I am asleep or walking home alone at night,
but when I am in the bathroom.
> > How will you shower or swim in your pool?
>
> I'll wear a Navy SEAL waterproof pistol.
Perhaps even your wife would consider that excessive. Why not just have her
stand watch?
> > Is that legal, by the way, or is locking and unloading only required with
> children?
>
> Only with children.
What do defenders with children do?
> > Because there are legal or psychiatric professionals, as well as others on
> parole boards, who determine the futures of people based on what they THINK
> they will do.
This is not what was intended, BTW.
> That's true. What does that have to do with me?
Your argument rests on the assertion that we can't predict future behavior, to
deny or confiscate people's property or guns.
But the legal system makes such assumptions or rulings every day. Making
arrests. Determining or denying bail. Determining sentencing, treatment,
counseling, rehabilitation, parole, or release.
Just because someone has committed a string of felonies or is even a released
killer, why are they denied legal firearms, or concealable or even full auto
ones?
> I could very well decide to become a prosectuor. That is a practice in
> criminal law.
Considering your liberal views, I do not believe you would make a good
prosecutor. You should be a defense attorney.
And since you wanted to make a living, I thought you were going into corporate
law.
> > Criminals - sorry, "people" who do bad things - use the Constitution to
> their advantage.
>
> That's why the Constitution is there. BTW, they aren't criminals until after
> they are convicted, FYI.
If this is your opinion, this is exactly why you wouldn't be a good prosecutor.
How would you be able to make your bold claims about how a person is guilty, or
should be punished?
I don't like it, but no, I believe you should be a defense attorney.
And charge those bastards plenty.
> Yes, good thing that I didn't need to wait at all for my Mossberg, which is
> far deadlier than any handgun.
No, I wouldn't want an angry person to walk out with a long gun.
> > What is your opinion on gun show regulation, and how do you prevent the
> wrong people from immediately acquiring a gun?
>
> I support the law as it is now.
How convenient. [It always seems that laws up for discussion just happen to
agree with the posters' points of view.]
And if any laws you like happen to change for the worse?
> > Do you assume that the law or mental institutions have adequately processed
> anywhere near the majority of people who represent a danger to the community
> or have committed crimes?
>
> Yes.
Holy shit.
Why in hell do you want to be a prosecutor?
> > Nope. So let them investigate me.
>
> I guess you won't be wanting the Constitution.
Have you looked up "etaka" "the law is shit" and "fuck criminals" yet?
Get rid of bad laws. Put in good ones.
> > I don't put much faith in a 200 year old piece of paper written by dead
> white guys who do not understand the current situation.
>
> Why? What does their race have to do with anything? How racist.
Ask Mr. Heston about his references to cultural warfare and the old white guys
who built America, and what race he likes being. You can find them on David
Duke's website.
> > Do they think my computer represents a danger to the state or community? Is
> this China?
>
> I think it does.
Are you the state?
> > And when the law comes for a computer, a law abiding citizen or lawyer like
> you, would obey.
>
> Such a law would not past constitutional muster.
The constitution will not matter in such a situation.
God, you talk like a lawyer.
> > Would you care to explain the current state of security in the US?
>
> Firm. How does that have any bearing here?
Is it your own opinion that the Bill of Rights is strictly in force in the USA
today?
> > Then a psychological screening before getting his gun, and periodic checks,
> would do a better job at finding people who shouldn't have guns.
>
> What about for owning cars, guns, or procreation?
Why yes, that's an idea.
> > Investigate him upon application.
>
> Application for what? Buying a car? There is no such application.
Not now. You're asking me about what I would do, or what I believe should be
done, just as I am asking you.
> > And his gun? Even if he is not convicted and thus continues to have a clean
> record if indeed so thus far, would you allow him to legally keep his gun,
> even in his current condition?
>
> Yes.
Holy fuck. Why are you thinking of being a prosecutor, if you'd even allow such
a guy to walk or keep a gun?
> > Had they not been mandated, would you require background checks, or would
> you like to buy guns over the counter like Hinkley?
>
> OTC.
"This is not responsive."
"I don't understand what you are trying to say here."
> > And I expect lawyers to help defend society, not criminals.
>
> Defending the Constitution is a defense of society. That is why the military
> swears to protect the Constitution, not the United States.
Bullshit law. So America would burn while they form a circle around a piece of
paper.
> > Then look at the county building records for bathtubs.
>
> I know of no such records.
One uncle is a county building inspector. He'd know what's built into a house.
> > County records. Or simply check the bitch's house when they arrest her for
> drowning her five kids.
>
> But that is retroactive.
Inspectors such as my uncle could deny approval to such a house when it is
built.
> I can't believe I jsut got you to come out in favor
> of seizing bathtubs.
Bathtubs as weapons.
And I can't believe all the fucking criminals you'd support having guns, or
your assertions of how deadly pieces of cheese are. Bathtubs are much more
deadly than a piece of cheese.
> > Perhaps you may agree with not allowing convicted felons to purchase or
> possess firearms. Well how do you take away what they already legally
> acquired but know nothing about, to give the law any meaning?
>
> We don't.
Let's see. You approve of the law denying future purchase or possession of
handguns, but NOT taking what they already own, away?
Damn.
> > > > Funny Heston or the NRA are not as complacent as you.
> > >
> > > Not really. I am a sporty, laid-back kind of guy.
> >
> > Then what are Heston and the NRA?
>
> Classy guys.
Who seem worried about losing their guns.
> > > I propose the widespread ownership of guns precisely because of my
> sensitivity to victims of crime.
> >
> > Then don't rationalize their deaths away or call their views irrelevant.
>
> Why not?
That's not very sensitive.
> > > There are no criminals in Japan?
> >
> > Millions. And they cause fewer than 100 firearms deaths a year in the
> commission of 1,300 murders.
>
> Does it make you feel better that other methods are used?
Less deadly methods, that I could probably deal with without guns, yes. The
weapon of choice for young criminals seem to be bludgeons, small knives, hands
and feet.
> > You are correct. I don't need a bathtub, but it came with the place.
>
> So why own it?
I don't.
> > > > There are things more important than a piece of paper written two
> centuries
> > > ago.
> > >
> > > Not in this country.
> >
> > Stick around.
>
> And wait for what?
Whether or not Heston's concerns are justified.
> > > Why do you say this?
> >
> > It's true, unless you believe the Constitution to be perfect.
>
> This is not responsive. However, I do not believe the Constitution to be
> perfect. That is why we have the power to amend it.
Then why do you assume it will always exist in a form acceptable to you? You
could lose the Second Amendment or Bill of Rights yet.
John W.
> "Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
> news:3C6FD4C4...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp...
> > "Kevin R. Gowen, II" wrote:
> >
> > > For my concealed carry permit, I was fingerprinted so
> > > that I will be run through state and FBI background checks, a process
> that
> > > will take the better part of 90 days. What freaks will be slipping
> through the
> > > cracks?
> >
> > People who have no criminal record.
> >
> > But actually are criminals.
>
> If they have no criminal record, they are not criminals.
>
crime is a criminal. By your definition, a criminal is only someone
who gets caught.
John W.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:73fde4f0.02022...@posting.google.com...
I never made that statement. I said that he was not a criminal until
convicted. Big difference.
> John W.
- Kevin
John W.
unless you're caught. There have been exceptions.
Perhaps you meant to say that a person does not get a criminal record
until convicted.
John W.
> > John W.
>
> - Kevin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
There is a rather big difference between simply being arrested and being
convicted e.g. 20 years to life.
> You can't be convicted, in most cases,
> unless you're caught.
This is true.
> There have been exceptions.
Really? When? I would be interested in learning this. (assuming you are not
speaking of martial law e.g. Reconstruction South, times of suspension of
habeas corpus, etc, or non-US jurisdictions)
> Perhaps you meant to say that a person does not get a criminal record
> until convicted.
I did not.
- Kevin
Michael Cash
<kgo...@mail.law.fsu.edu> muttered:
Just a lawbreaker....
--
Michael Cash
"The Japanese can take the fun out of anything; but only NHK can
take the fun out of everything."
Prof. Briscoe Darling
Mount Pilot College
Michael Cash
<kgo...@mail.law.fsu.edu> muttered:
>There is a rather big difference between simply being arrested and being
>convicted e.g. 20 years to life.
That difference can be a lot smaller in Japan, where it is possibly to
sit and rot in detention for many years before one's sentence is
finalized. Fortunately, Japan has a conviction rate hovering around
99%, meaning that even if you're innocent you don't have to worry
about all those having been a total waste of time.
I have read about one woman who spent 13 years in lockup while her
case wended its way through the courts. When it was all over and done,
she was sentenced to 8 years confinement. Following the finalization
of the sentence (already sat in jail 13 years waiting for it,
remember), she was transferred to prison to serve an additional 6
months before being released.
So....just on the off chance that she had eventually been found not
guilty....there wouldn't have been one whole hell of a lot of
difference in simply having been arrested and having been convicted.
John W.
> "John W." <worth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:73fde4f0.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > There have been exceptions.
>
> Really? When? I would be interested in learning this. (assuming you are not
> speaking of martial law e.g. Reconstruction South, times of suspension of
> habeas corpus, etc, or non-US jurisdictions)
>
Didn't we convict Bin Laden without him being present?
John W.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
Did we? What were the charges? Do you have a case name? I have found the
case of U.S. v. Bin Laden, 146 F.Supp.2d 373, in which bin Laden associates
were convicted for the 1998 embassy bombings, but I have found no record of
a conviction of bin Laden outside of our media.
> John W.
- Kevin