Video Licensing Act
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has
already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover,
in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more
severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been
going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry
concealed weapons -- and
have begun locking up more criminals.<<<
>
Absolutely correct. Risk of being a victim of violent crime (murder, rape and
robbery) is now substantially higher in both England and Australia than it was
10 years ago. Both are now listed as more dangerous places to be than the
USA. This is a VERY major shift in the past 10 years and coincides with the
adoption of more stict gun control in the UK and Australia.
Zealots don't like facts. But every time you hear a gun-control freak talk
about numbers of crimes in Europe or Australia or elsewhere, he/she will
inevitably focus on total number of crimes and, since both the UK and Australia
have smaller populations than the US, the USA looks bad. But when you look at
crimes per 100,000 population - it is s very different story.
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit
violence on those who would do us harm - George Orwell
Alex Birch
says...
>
>>Barrister writes:
>>
>>>>While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has
>already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover,
>in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more
>severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been
>going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry
>concealed weapons -- and
>have begun locking up more criminals.<<<
>>
>Absolutely correct. Risk of being a victim of violent crime (murder, rape and
>robbery) is now substantially higher in both England and Australia than it was
>10 years ago. Both are now listed as more dangerous places to be than the
>USA. This is a VERY major shift in the past 10 years and coincides with the
>adoption of more stict gun control in the UK and Australia.
This topic seems condemned to run and run so....to take Barristers point first
that 'while England has not yet reached the American level of murders' I dont
about YET!!! England, or even the whole UK including the strife ridden
Northern Ireland, is nowhere near the US rate of murders or likely to be!! Your
rate of murders is well over 10 times that of the UK.
Certainly our violent crime rates have risen and are higher than they were ten
years ago. Papa the adoption of more strict gun control in the UK has had
absolutely NOTHING..but NOTHING to do with that whatsoever!! For you to believe
that it does, you would have to believe that the British have , en masse, held
weapons at home as a means of self defence and had them taken away. This is
simply not true!!! The effect of tighter gun laws has primarily been on
sporting clubs and had no effect on 99% of the population.
Our tighter gun laws in fact are having no effect at all because the prime
reason for the rise in violent crime is down to Jamaican Yardies who import guns
from the United States and Jamaica and primarily shoot each other over drugs
turf. Your proposition here vis a vis the UK is utterly baseless!!
>
>Zealots don't like facts. But every time you hear a gun-control freak talk
>about numbers of crimes in Europe or Australia or elsewhere, he/she will
>inevitably focus on total number of crimes and, since both the UK and Australia
>have smaller populations than the US, the USA looks bad. But when you look at
>crimes per 100,000 population - it is s very different story.
Well I think you have condemned yourself here Papa as the zealot who doesnt like
facts. You are the die hard who would refight the Alamo rather than have your
gun taken away!! Thats a zealot!! 'Gun control freak' is an emotive term for
someone with whom you disagree. Try..'people who dont believe that every
citizen needs to possess a gun'..its far more rational!. You are also spouting
tripe!! The facts are re your crimes per 100, 000 , the US has 8.2 of its
citizens murdered in every 100K. England has 0.5 by the same criterion. Now
what spurious comparisons are you going to come back with to justify your
argument?
Alex
Pablo
>Risk of being a victim of violent crime (murder, rape and
>robbery) is now substantially higher in both England and
>Australia than it was 10 years ago. Both are now listed
>as more dangerous places to be than the USA.
Cites, please.
Pab.
Alex Birch
Interesting that you have cited the offences which the USA considers to be
violent crime (murder, rape and robbery) and, indeed, in the year 2000,
(the last figures I can access) the USA had approximately 518 violent
crimes for every 100K people. England and Wales on the other hand looks
shocking. It comes in at 1700 violent crimes per 100K people.
The difference of course is in the recording of statisitics. Our violent
crime figure includes 'offences against the person' ie every street scrap,
cut head, pub brawl of which our police become aware. America specifically
excludes such offences. I would be prepared to gamble that if the
comparisons were exact then the violent crime figures would show a vastly
different ratio. Maybe they would be closer than the murder rate and that
is simply BECAUSE of the ease with which guns can be obtained in your
country and how casually many people seem to use them.
I would be interested to know where Britain is 'listed' as more dangerous
than the US. Certainly I have seen adverse figures for London versus New
York since Guiliani's clean up act but the whole country? I would like to
see some facts and figures.
As it is the only comparable statistics are the number of dead bodies per
100K per annum..and on that one the US is a million light years ahead..of
almost everybody!!
Alex
tyr
homes robbing while the home is occupied and beating up the old people
within. Clockwise Orange is happening. My friends over there are afraid.
In article <at04i...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Alex Birch"
<alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
--
Tyr is the Norse god who talked the wolf
that was going to destroy the world into
being tied up in unbreakable chains.
Yurassis Dragon
>>>Interesting that you have cited the offences which the USA considers to be
violent crime (murder, rape and robbery) and, indeed, in the year 2000, (the
last figures I can access) the USA had approximately 518 violent crimes for
every 100K people. England and Wales on the other hand looks shocking. It
comes in at 1700 violent crimes per 100K people.<<<
>
This agrees with the figures I have seen. And I specified that the murder rate
in England was lower than in the USA.
Papa
domino
wrote:
>This topic seems condemned to run and run so....to take Barristers point first
>that 'while England has not yet reached the American level of murders' I dont
>about YET!!! England, or even the whole UK including the strife ridden
>Northern Ireland, is nowhere near the US rate of murders or likely to be!! Your
>rate of murders is well over 10 times that of the UK.
And what is your take on the *fact* (check out the Home office/Office
of National Statistics for proof) that in the year that stricter gun
rules were imposed in this country, gun crime went down but has since
risen steadily each year?
Domino
Alex Birch
"Yurassis Dragon" <grumpy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021208200836...@mb-mw.aol.com...
> >"Alex Birch"
>
> >>>Interesting that you have cited the offences which the USA considers to
be
> violent crime (murder, rape and robbery) and, indeed, in the year 2000,
(the
> last figures I can access) the USA had approximately 518 violent crimes
for
> every 100K people. England and Wales on the other hand looks shocking.
It
> comes in at 1700 violent crimes per 100K people.<<<
> >
> This agrees with the figures I have seen. And I specified that the murder
rate
> in England was lower than in the USA.
>
second paragraph which said
'...The difference of course is in the recording of statisitics. Our
violent
crime figure includes 'offences against the person' ie every street scrap,
cut head, pub brawl of which our police become aware. America specifically
excludes such offences. I would be prepared to gamble that if the
comparisons were exact then the violent crime figures would show a vastly
different ratio. '
which puts that differential into perspective!!! Jeez you reallly are
struggling to prove this argument if you have to selectively edit my post!!
Alex
Alex Birch
"domino" <dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dqj8vu4935dr4bk13...@4ax.com...
>
> And what is your take on the *fact* (check out the Home office/Office
> of National Statistics for proof) that in the year that stricter gun
> rules were imposed in this country, gun crime went down but has since
> risen steadily each year?
>
must be as aware as I am that gun controls in this country have had bugger
all influence on the rise in gun crime. As I said, for it to do so would
imply that the British have a record of self defence statisitics involving
guns which, when suddenly removed, opened the door to a gun toting criminal
element no longer fearful of retribution.
You know ,as I do, that this is just not the scenario. Our gun controls were
tightened up after Dunblane but for most people in this country such a
tightening was a monumental irrelevance as they had never owned a gun
anyway. It primarily affected those citizens who kept guns at home for
sporting use and were no longer allowed to do so. It has certainly not
suddenly made all our citizens vulnerable to criminals....or any more
vulnerable than they ever were!!
The rise in gun crime, entirely untrelated to any gun controls which
primarily affected the rural white middle class, can justifiably be laid at
the door of a particular minority of Jamaicans in the inner cities who
choose to become drug barons and defend their turf with weapons imported
illegally primarily from the US. If you look at the rise in gun crime you
will see that it has taken place very 'regionally' in areas of South London
like Southwark and Brixton, Handsworth in Birmingham and Mosside in
Liverpool. These areas must be almost off the scale in regard to British
statistics and the rise in gun crime will continue as the drugs war gets
more intense. At present though it is primarily a case of armed criminal
killig other armed criminals and it is self contained
Certainly we have had the odd case of farmers like Tony Martin shooting a
burglar with a licensed shotgun but those cases have happened sporadically
throughout our history, as long as farmers have had licensed shotguns, and
certainly are so rare that they would hardly register a flicker on any
statistics chart.
No gun controls have affected this one way or the other..the two halves of
the British equation which Papa is trying to make in order to justify
American gun ownership just do not compute. Papa may be happy to beleieve
that America is much safer because its citizens are armed. I dont believe
he has made the case at all to remotely prove that Britain is much more
dangerous because its citizens are not.
Alex
Alex
Pablo
>
>>"Alex Birch"
>
>>>>Interesting that you have cited the offences which the USA considers to be
>violent crime (murder, rape and robbery) and, indeed, in the year 2000, (the
>last figures I can access) the USA had approximately 518 violent crimes for
>every 100K people. England and Wales on the other hand looks shocking. It
>comes in at 1700 violent crimes per 100K people.<<<
>>
>This agrees with the figures I have seen. And I specified that
>the murder rate in England was lower than in the USA.
Shame on you, Papa. This was a spectacularly selective and
misleading bit of partial quoting.
Still waiting for those cites, BTW.
Pab.
wailer
Because I was really bored and couldn't sleep tonight, I decided I'd look up the
Australian statistics. All statistics are from the Austrialian Institute of
Criminology, www.aic.gov.au. Comparison with equivalent US statistics (DOJ/FBI)
follow. Note that I am paraphrasing the statistics, and in some cases
interpreting graphs. I have tried to be unbiased while doing so. If in doubt,
please refer to the sources directly:
AUSTRALIA:
Overall: From 1915 through to 1997, the rate of homicide has been approximately
1.6+/-0.2 per 100K population. Homicides by firearms have been similarly
constant at 0.5+/-0.1 per 100K, or ~25-35%. There is a trend showing an increase
in the rate of homicides but it is shallow.
Long gun controls (ie removal of semi-automatics etc) came in 1997 after the
Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
Statistics since 1996 (note that even if the figure per 100K doesn't change, the
rate may increase/decrease by 30 victims each year for there to be a change in
the rate, based on a population of 20 million):
1997:
Homicide: 1.8/100K, firearms 0.55/100K (interpreting graphs)
Armed Robbery: 10% Firearms
1998:
Homicide: 1.8/100K decrease 9% on 1997, firearms 16% (21% in 1997)
Armed Robbery: 127/100K increase 10.6%, 8% firearms
1999:
Homicide: 2.0/100K increase 15%, firearms 20%
Armed Robbery: 119/100K decrease 13%, 6% firearms
2000:
Homicide: 2.0/100K decrease 10%, firearms 17%
Armed Robbery: 122/100K increase 3%, 6% firearms
2001:
Homicide: 2.0/100K decrease 2%, firearms 16%
Armed Robbery: 137/100K increase 14%, 6% firearms
What do the stats say? Well, of course, they lie. :-)
But what they say to me is that homicide rates have increased but as part of a
trend that goes back to 1915 and is a very shallow slope. The use of firearms
for homicide has remained relatively constant for the past 5 years and is down
on the historical average. Armed robberies in general (ie using knives and other
weapons as well as firearms) have remained relatively constant, and the use of
firearms for armed robberies have also remained relatively constant as a
percentage of the total.
Net effect (IMNSHO) is a statistically valid reduction in the use of firearms in
homicides since the introduction of stricter gun control with no or little
effect in either direction on armed robberies. Since the definition of homicide
includes manslaughter, and a large percentage of homicides are not "criminal"
(ie not done in the furtherance of other crimes), whereas armed robbery is
specifically criminal (ie firearm use is incidental to the crime itself), it
would indicate to me that there has been a useful reduction in firearm crime
since the introduction of stricter gun control in Australia.
It also shows to me that claims of "dramatic increases in crime" or other such
wild statements about the relative safety of my community is hyperbole and can
be safely discounted.
As a comparison of homicide rates, the US rate for 2000 was 5.5/100K, the
lowest rate since the late '60s. This rate is at least 2.75 times the
Australian rate for the same period (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm).
The rate has never been below 4.1/100K since 1950. Use of firearms as a percentage of
homicides averaged 65.4% 1997-2001 (www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm, table 2.9,
victims by weapon 1997-2001). This rate is 4 times that of Australia. So, not
only is your chance of being murdered 2-3 times higher in the US, but the chance
of being shot as part of being murdered is also 4 times higher.
I think it can be safely concluded that the US is more dangerous than Australia.
Whether that justifies the average civilian arming themselves is a separate
discussion.
--
wailer
"...for there is hope in two women, help in three women, strength in
four, joy in five, power in six and against seven, no gate may stand."
Sheri S. Tepper "Gibbon's Decline and Fall"
domino
<alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Domino, you live in England and you understand how this country works.
for my sins....
> You
>must be as aware as I am that gun controls in this country have had bugger
>all influence on the rise in gun crime.
So, in other words, the law was enacted to harass good (non-criminal)
citizens.
>You know ,as I do, that this is just not the scenario. Our gun controls were
>tightened up after Dunblane
Which is such sprurious logic that it opens the way for anything
harmful to be outlawed. Kitchen knives, knitting needles....
It's a bad law.
>but for most people in this country such a
>tightening was a monumental irrelevance as they had never owned a gun
>anyway.
So if it only adversely affects a minority, that makes it ok?
> It primarily affected those citizens who kept guns at home for
>sporting use and were no longer allowed to do so.
but since it doesn't affect you, then that's ok, is it?
> It has certainly not
>suddenly made all our citizens vulnerable to criminals....or any more
>vulnerable than they ever were!!
Maybe not. And yet - gun crime keeps rising. I understand that it's
not necessarily causal, but you know what - if I ever met a gun-toting
crim, I would feel a lot happier if I was not at an immediate
disadvantage.
>The rise in gun crime, entirely untrelated to any gun controls which
>primarily affected the rural white middle class, can justifiably be laid at
>the door of a particular minority of Jamaicans
have you got stats for that?
> These areas must be almost off the scale in regard to British
>statistics and the rise in gun crime will continue as the drugs war gets
>more intense.
Sounds like an excellent case for the legalisation of drugs to me....
> At present though it is primarily a case of armed criminal
>killig other armed criminals and it is self contained
Hardly - here in my neck of hte woods, there are usually a few
shootings a year. White folk - Kray types.....
>No gun controls have affected this one way or the other..the two halves of
>the British equation which Papa is trying to make in order to justify
>American gun ownership just do not compute. Papa may be happy to beleieve
>that America is much safer because its citizens are armed. I dont believe
>he has made the case at all to remotely prove that Britain is much more
>dangerous because its citizens are not.
Yeah - well... you will notice I'm not wasting my time arguing with
him....
Domino
Alex Birch
folowing after each of my points...
>
>
>> You
>>must be as aware as I am that gun controls in this country have had bugger
>>all influence on the rise in gun crime.
>
>So, in other words, the law was enacted to harass good (non-criminal)
>citizens.
>
>>You know ,as I do, that this is just not the scenario. Our gun controls were
>>tightened up after Dunblane
>
>Which is such sprurious logic that it opens the way for anything
>harmful to be outlawed. Kitchen knives, knitting needles....
>
>It's a bad law.
>
>>but for most people in this country such a
>>tightening was a monumental irrelevance as they had never owned a gun
>>anyway.
>
>So if it only adversely affects a minority, that makes it ok?
>
>> It primarily affected those citizens who kept guns at home for
>>sporting use and were no longer allowed to do so.
>
>but since it doesn't affect you, then that's ok, is it?
>
Domino, this is one of the silliest posts you have ever written. The issue I
took up was what was 'my take' as you put it, on the correlation between our gun
laws and gun crime here. I thought that for once it was a serious question vis
a vis Papa's original post. Your responses, some of which are reproduced above,
make no sense in the context of the issue . 'So if it affects a minority that
makes it OK' and 'but since it doesnt affect you thats Ok is it?' are ludicrous.
At no point does my 'take' suggest that I agree or dont agree with our gun laws.
My response was in answer to whether our gun laws, stupid or not, had any impact
on the rise in gun crime...nothing more , nothing less...and I contend they do
not.
OK you dont like my posts or my opinions. As Ive said many times the feeling is
mutual. I do think though that to ask me for my take in one context and then to
pick my post apart as if the law were my own personal invention just makes you
look an idiot.
Alex
Alex Birch
>
>On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:18:45 +0000, domino <dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>LOL! You've just made my day, Domino. This is where it always ends
>up once the pro-gun-control folks make the point that the controls
>have not affected the rate of gun crime at all. Then it becomes
>painfully obvious that it is only the law-abiding folks who are
>affected and harrassed while criminals still do what they please.
>
Well make your day or not, Larry, her response to my post was about as stupid as
they come. Yes indeed a lot of law abiding folks were harassed by our
tightening of gun laws. Nobody has ever argued any different in this thread and
it wasnt the point at issue. What WAS the point at issue was whether Britain
had become a more dangerous country than America since the time, as you and Papa
suggested, our gun laws were tightened.
Having failed to prove that, Papa spectacularly so by shamelessly editing my
original statistics, you are now moving the goal posts by suggesting that you
have scored some triumph with a different argument. Were you REALLY a lawyer?
I bet they soon spotted that ploy in court!!!
Alex
John Palmer
wrote:
I saw a long article that was talking about this. What seemed more
important in the article was a suggestion that the UK had been
tightening self defense justifications for a long time.
The article seemed to be solidly pro-gun, but,honestly, I think was
pointing to a bunch of individual trees, not recognizing that there
was a bigger forest to talk about. It's not that they don't let you
shoot someone in the UK; it seems like they won't let you whack
someone upside the head, either, even if that person is threatening
you with much worse.
I can't speak for the validity of this; again, the article was about
"guns". But I'd be a lot more worried about stripping self defense in
general, than I would be about restrictions on guns in particular.
--
Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. Like:
when everyone is shouting for quiet, the room keeps getting noisier,
until people, one by one, decide to stop shouting.
Starship
>
>
> Domino, this is one of the silliest posts you have ever written. The issue I
> took up was what was 'my take' as you put it, on the correlation between our gun
> laws and gun crime here. I thought that for once it was a serious question vis
> a vis Papa's original post. Your responses, some of which are reproduced above,
> make no sense in the context of the issue . 'So if it affects a minority that
> makes it OK' and 'but since it doesnt affect you thats Ok is it?' are ludicrous.
> At no point does my 'take' suggest that I agree or dont agree with our gun laws.
> My response was in answer to whether our gun laws, stupid or not, had any impact
> on the rise in gun crime...nothing more , nothing less...and I contend they do
> not.
So if the law has had no impact on the rise in gun crime, then what,
exactly, have the citizens of the UK gained in return for their loss of freedom?
--
Starship
He which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>> This is where it always ends up once the pro-gun-control folks make the
point that the controls have not affected the rate of gun crime at all. Then
it becomes
painfully obvious that it is only the law-abiding folks who are affected and
harrassed while criminals still do what they please.<<<
>
The problem is that they think you can solve problems by passing laws.
Example: The two hooligans who shot up DC and surrounding area were both
legally ineligible to buy a firearm. The older one had a restraining order
against him and the younger one was an under-age illegal alien.
Did that prevent them from killing a dozen people? Of course not. They
acquired their rifle from a gunshop either by stealing it or having the clerk
sell it to them without recording the transaction.
That same gunshop (in my home town area) is unable to account for 73 other
fireams which it recived from distributors but did not record as sold.
The laws just make it difficult for the law abiding people like me and
Barrister - the criminals ignore them and find ways around them.
So you have the liberal solution to crime - disarm the victims and let the
criminals out of jail early.
Double Feh!
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>But what they say to me is that homicide rates have increased but as part of
a trend that goes back to 1915 and is a very shallow slope. The use of firearms
for homicide has remained relatively constant for the past 5 years and is down
on the historical average. Armed robberies in general (ie using knives and
other
weapons as well as firearms) have remained relatively constant, and the use
of firearms for armed robberies have also remained relatively constant as a
percentage of the total.<<<
>
improved your crime rates at all?
Repeating Barister's point - if your firearms laws inconvenience ordinary
people and don't reduce crime, why bother?
Alex Birch
> >
> So basically, you agree that the draconian laws banning firearms have not
> improved your crime rates at all?
>
> Repeating Barister's point - if your firearms laws inconvenience ordinary
> people and don't reduce crime, why bother?
>
both hold the same obtuse view with regard to Britain too.
America's murder rates, by gun, as you admitted are dreadful!! They are
way the worst in the first world, way worse than Britain , Australia or the
rest of Europe yet you and Barrister stubbornly resist even analysing why
that is.
I think you will find in virtually every country's murder statistics , that
few people are killed by strangers, including innocent citizens murdered by
professional criminals. This is quite a heartening fact. By far the most
murders are committted by some one the victim knows. The opportunity for
this is greatly magnified if every household is permitted to own a gun. A
large proportion of America's murder rate is statistically attributable to
murders within the home...an anger situation fuelled by drink, unemployment,
jealousy whatever...and the hand gun only too easily reached to resolve the
problem permanently. In the same pressure cooker situation here, the
chances of a violent death are considerably less.
It is pretty obvious to anyone that career criminals deterrmined to arm
themselves will obtain guns regardless of any gun laws. That is a given.
However Britons have been subject to strict firearms control for many years
and the country has developed a gun free culture ie I am confident that my
neighbour and his neighbour and so on do not possess firearms. This makes
me extremely happy. Victims of crime in this country are not generally
victims of gun toting gangs. There is no proof to suggest that Britons are
in danger because they are not armed and plenty to suggest the opposite.
When guns are for sale legally then they are more easily obtainable and thus
more easily fall into the wrong hands. In the last 20 years this country
has had two examples only of gunmen running amok and killing innocent loads
of innocent people....Michael Ryan in Hungerford in 1987 and Thomas Hamilton
in Dunblane in 1996. They are memorable and horrible because they are
mercifullly a rarity.
Can Americans say that? Of course not!! You have had sniper killings and
school killings by the busload and why? Because America is a nut house?
No..because guns proliferate and too easily fall into the wrong hands. The
'law abiding citizens' you seem to think should be trusted so much can
suddenly screw up and reach for a pump action shotgun or a high powered
rifle with which to work off their fantasies.
I totally support the stringent gun controls to which Britons have been
subject for many years and I am happy to live in a nation which doesnt have
some paranoid need to keep a handgun under the pillow. The 1997 Firearms
Amendment Act , enacted after Dunblane, simply added a bit of political
expediency icing to an already stringent controlled cake and probably was
unnecessary but your question of 'If firearms inconvenience the law abiding
and dont cut crime why bother' is easy to answer. How can you tell what
our gun crime rate would be if guns WERE easily available? On a par with
your own I suspect!! Its the so called law abiding who have a rush of
blood to the head and kill members of their family who make the difference
Papa. Americas murder rate cannot simply be written off as unrelated to
the high domestic ownership of guns which is what you seem to be doing. If
the cost of 'personal freedom' to own a gun is to endure a domestic murder
rate such as yours then I dont think that is a cost worth paying.
Alex
wailer
>> "wailer" writes:
>>
>>>>But what they say to me is that homicide rates have increased but as part of
> a trend that goes back to 1915 and is a very shallow slope. The use of
> firearms for homicide has remained relatively constant for the past 5 years
> and is down on the historical average. Armed robberies in general (ie using
> knives and other
> weapons as well as firearms) have remained relatively constant, and the use of
> firearms for armed robberies have also remained relatively constant as a
> percentage of the total.<<<
>>
> So basically, you agree that the draconian laws banning firearms have not
> improved your crime rates at all?
>
>
>
No, but they have improved the homicide by firearm rates. The rate of homicides
is unchanged, but the rate of homicides by firearms is down on the historic
rate. "Draconian" is an emotive term. Under the current laws (and proposed
revised handgun laws), if I have a provable *need* for a firearm, then it is
available to me. Your argument that "self-defense" is a "need" is one that I
(and the majority of Australians) have rejected at the polls. We are required to
get licenses to use other dangerous items based on need, the driver's license
being the prime example, why should guns be any different? Note that the use of
guns in sport *is* considered a valid need and is the prime reason for granting
a firearm license, however the conditions are strictly controlled, in the same
way that high-speed racing cars aren't allowed on the normal roads.
> Repeating Barister's point - if your firearms laws inconvenience ordinary
> people and don't reduce crime, why bother?
>
>
>
Because fewer people are being killed with guns (statistically correlated).
I don't have the statistics to hand, and I'm not bored enough to research them
tonight, but there is an argument that reducing the number of firearms in the
community reduces the severity of "crimes of passion", ie in a domestic
argument, an attack with other weapons (knives etc) may cause injuries, but
fewer murders/manslaughters. I haven't researched the statistics for grevious
bodily harm offences to determine whether that is statistically correlated.
Can anyone in the US explain why your murder rate (5.5/100K) is so subtantially
higher than any other comparable nation? Do you think there is *no* correlation
(note correlation, not cause/effect) between your murder rates and the
relatively greater availability of more deadly weapons (ie guns)?
wailer
>> Barrister writes:
>>
>>>> This is where it always ends up once the pro-gun-control folks make the
> point that the controls have not affected the rate of gun crime at all. Then
> it becomes
> painfully obvious that it is only the law-abiding folks who are affected and
> harrassed while criminals still do what they please.<<<
>>
> But the "do-gooders" have made a token, albeit futile attempt to "do good."
>
> The problem is that they think you can solve problems by passing laws.
>
>
No, just passing a law is pointless unless it is *enforced*. If it is not
enforced, then that makes a mockery of the law and reduces everybody's opinion
of it and their respect for it.
> Example: The two hooligans who shot up DC and surrounding area were both
> legally ineligible to buy a firearm. The older one had a restraining order
> against him and the younger one was an under-age illegal alien. Did that
> prevent them from killing a dozen people? Of course not. They acquired
> their rifle from a gunshop either by stealing it or having the clerk sell it
> to them without recording the transaction.
>
> That same gunshop (in my home town area) is unable to account for 73 other
> fireams which it recived from distributors but did not record as sold.
>
>
But if the law had been strictly enforced, then neither would have been able to
obtain their weapons as easily. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have, but it would
have been more difficult. I hope they throw the book at the gunshop owner.
> The laws just make it difficult for the law abiding people like me and
> Barrister - the criminals ignore them and find ways around them.
>
>
>
In what way is complying with the law "difficult" for you? As I understand it,
you have to record your name and address and wait some minimal period (I don't
know how long where you live, but not very long) and have your details checked
against a list of known offenders. Less effort than it takes to get a credit
card, and faster than getting a phone connected - what's the problem?
> So you have the liberal solution to crime - disarm the victims and let the
> criminals out of jail early.
I don't quite know how the knee-jerk about early release got in there, but you
might want to consider why the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the
*world*, higher than such bastions of democracy and freedom such as China (or is
that "Red China"?). I don't think that you can claim that the "conservative"
lock-em-up-throw-away-the-key-three-strikes-and-you're-out-drug-war-
death-penalty-mandatory-sentencing-charge-juveniles-as-adults "solution" to
crime could be said to be working either. I suppose the fact that more money
(taxpayer's money at that) is being spent on building jails than schools is a
positive contribution to society?
> Double Feh!
>
>
I'll see your double and triple it!
Tony Elka
<Barr...@Assville.Com> wrote:
> I live in Canada where it is much more complicated, expensive,
> bureaucratic and arbitrary - extremely arbitrary - than in the U.S.
> and than you state above. As I noted, it was easier to get my top
> secret security clearance.
Barrister,
How easy would it have been for you to get that security clearance if
you hadn't been leading an honest life?
Tony
Tony Elka
<Barr...@Assville.Com> wrote:
> Tony, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase, please?
>
> Barrister
Well, you made it sound as if getting a security clearance was a
relatively easy thing. I'm saying it probably is, for a person who has
lived and worked in a manner that qualifies them for it.
Tony
wailer
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:22:49 +1100, "wailer" <wai...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In what way is complying with the law "difficult" for you? As I understand it,
>>you have to record your name and address and wait some minimal period (I don't
>>know how long where you live, but not very long) and have your details checked
>>against a list of known offenders. Less effort than it takes to get a credit
>>card, and faster than getting a phone connected - what's the problem?
>
> I live in Canada where it is much more complicated, expensive,
> bureaucratic and arbitrary - extremely arbitrary - than in the U.S.
> and than you state above. As I noted, it was easier to get my top
> secret security clearance.
>
I agree that "arbitrariness" (is that a word?) is a Bad Thing, for any law. But
that is a problem in either the drafting of the law, or the implementation, both
of which can be fixed. As for "complicated, expensive, bureaucratic", I don't
really have a problem with that. Other than making you jump through hoops, was
it dramatically different to getting a driving license? At the end of it, you
still got a gun license.
As to getting your clearance, I would hope that such decisions are a) not
arbitrary, and b) that the enquiries performed by the security services were
extensive and discreet. As such, you probably don't know how complicated or
expensive they were.
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>> In the last 20 years this country
>has had two examples only of gunmen running amok and killing innocent loads
of innocent people....Michael Ryan in Hungerford in 1987 and Thomas Hamilton
in Dunblane in 1996. They are memorable and horrible because they are
mercifullly a rarity. Can Americans say that? Of course not!! You have had
sniper killings and
school killings by the busload and why<<<
>
than 2 people were killed in sniper shootings, school shootings or mass murders
in the USA. There was a mass shooting at a school in Stockton, CA, another at
a McDonalds in San Diego, CA, school shootings in AR, OR and CO and the
recent DC sniper.
Six versus two is hardly a "busload" - considering that the population of
Great Britain is about 1/5 that of the USA. In fact that would indicate that
GB is more dangerous than the USA on a per capita basis - at least in terms of
school shooting.
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>So basically, you agree that the draconian laws banning firearms have not
improved your crime rates at all?<<<
>
>
>>>No, but they have improved the homicide by firearm rates. The rate of
homicides is unchanged, but the rate of homicides by firearms is down on the
historic rate.<<<
>
and start killing each other with other weapons?
I am reminded of Archie Bunker's comment when his TV daughter bewailed the fact
that 40% of the people murdered in New York were killed with handguns.
"So, little girl, would you feel better if they'd been pushed out windows?"
Whether somebody is killed with a gun, a knife or a cricket bat means nothing.
That person is no deader than if he/she was ripped apart by a dozen slugs from
an AK-47. I repeat: If a law incoveniences large numbers of law abiding
people and has no effect on the death rate - then it is worthless.
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>Well, you made it sound as if getting a security clearance was a relatively
easy thing. I'm saying it probably is, for a person who has lived and worked
in a manner that qualifies them for it.<<<
>
Barrister. Why should somebody who has NOT "lived and worked in a manner that
qualifies them for it" get a security clearance at all?
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>> As for "complicated, expensive, bureaucratic", I don't really have a
problem with that. Other than making you jump through hoops, was it
dramatically different to getting a driving license? At the end of it, you
still got a gun license.<<<
>
ordinances in some areas such as Washington DC, completely ban the ownership of
handguns, other areas severely restrict them, and some areas are quite liberal.
I had no problem getting a permit in MA, for example 40 years ago, because my
father was an auxiliary police officer. Washington state, where I now live, is
a
"must issue" state where the police must issue the permit unless they have a
valid reason for not doing so. Being a retired Army officer, again, I have had
no problems.
In some jurisdictions, however, it is virtually impossible to get a permit.
For example, in the city of San Francisco at one time, the police has issued
only one permit - and that was to the Mayor. Some local police departments
simply refused to issue any permits at all.
And it has been clearly shown that the level of crime, violence, homicide, etc
has no relationship to whether the local gun laws are draconian or liberal.
A final example. One of my fathers friends ws a police officer in
Massachusetts. He went to New York City to pick up a prisoner. A New York
police officer met him at the state border and took away his pistol. They went
to NYC, picked up the prisoner and drove back to the MA state line where the MA
police officer took his pistol back and escorted the prisoner back to my home
town.
Could any of you gun control freaks explain to me why this makes sense?
If course, criminals in NYC and MA have no problem getting guns and carying
them wherever they want.
wailer
> I commented:
>>
>>>>So basically, you agree that the draconian laws banning firearms have not
> improved your crime rates at all?<<<
>>
> wailer responds:
>>
>>>>No, but they have improved the homicide by firearm rates. The rate of
> homicides is unchanged, but the rate of homicides by firearms is down on the
> historic rate.<<<
>>
> So you think it is good news if people stop killing each other with firearms
> and start killing each other with other weapons?
>
I didn't say it was good news, just that the homicide by firearm rates are down.
Given that our rate is so low anyway, it's going to be difficult to get that
rate down.
> Whether somebody is killed with a gun, a knife or a cricket bat means nothing.
> That person is no deader than if he/she was ripped apart by a dozen slugs from
> an AK-47. I repeat: If a law incoveniences large numbers of law abiding
> people and has no effect on the death rate - then it is worthless.
>
Agreed that death is death (anyone want to argue?) :-).
What you don't seem to understand is that the law has "inconvenienced" very
*few* people. It has reduced the number of guns in the community. It has lowered
the number of people killed by guns. It means that money previously spent on
guns might be spent on more productive consumption. It has reduced the number of
native birdlife that get the shit blown out of them by drunk hunters. It has
reduced the problem of lead poisoning in our sadly reduced wetlands. If people
really, really, really want to shoot at targets, they can get a license and do
so. I consider the result of the changes in the law as a net benefit, certainly
not "worthless".
I don't know whether there will be a long term decrease in the homicide rates.
Given that they have barely increased per capita even though the population has
quadrupled and the urbanisation of that population has increased to 98%, I think
we're doing pretty well.
I note with interest that you have no comment on the relative homicide or
incarceration rates in the US vs rest-of-western-world.
wailer
>>Tony Elka comments:
>>
>>>>Well, you made it sound as if getting a security clearance was a relatively
> easy thing. I'm saying it probably is, for a person who has lived and worked
> in a manner that qualifies them for it.<<<
>>
> Well you either have a superb command of the obvious or I am as confused as
> Barrister. Why should somebody who has NOT "lived and worked in a manner that
> qualifies them for it" get a security clearance at all?
>
Barrister made a claim that getting a gun license was dramatically more
difficult than getting a security clearance. I believe Tony is making the point
that for someone of the upright standing and good citizenship like Barrister,
getting a security clearance would be a relatively simple affair. Thus,
the two activities (getting a gun licence vs getting a security clearance) are
not comparable. He was commenting on the logic of Barrister's argument, not the
appropriateness of Barrister's security clearance.
BTW, I agree with Barrister that getting a gun license should be as simple as
getting a security clearance, *as long as* the vetting for said license was of
the same standard. However, just as security clearances are granted on the basis
of need, so should gun licenses. Both are dangerous in the wrong hands.
Tony Elka
Dragon <grumpy...@aol.com> wrote:
> Whether somebody is killed with a gun, a knife or a cricket bat means
> nothing.
> That person is no deader than if he/she was ripped apart by a dozen slugs from
> an AK-47. I repeat: If a law incoveniences large numbers of law abiding
> people and has no effect on the death rate - then it is worthless.
A would-be murderer armed with an AK-47 is far more likely to
successfully kill multiple victims than an assailant with a knife,
baseball bat, electric typewriter, etc.
And the knife, baseball bat and typewriter have non-violent uses. Care
to argue that an AK-47 is a sport gun?
Tony
Tony Elka
Dragon <grumpy...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well you either have a superb command of the obvious or I am as confused as
> Barrister. Why should somebody who has NOT "lived and worked in a manner
> that
> qualifies them for it" get a security clearance at all?
>
> Papa
Barrister made a point that it was harder for an honest citizen to get
a gun permit than a security clearance. I was pointing out that a
security clearance might have been easier for him to get than others,
who might well be borderline cases that have to be decided on a case by
case basis.
Tony
domino
wrote:
>LOL! You've just made my day, Domino.
Glad to be of service :-)
> Then it becomes
>painfully obvious that it is only the law-abiding folks who are
>affected and harrassed while criminals still do what they please.
exactly. Like re-enactors, with 17th century muskets who are
subjected to spot checks and inquisitions by the police....
>Here in Canada, we've had strict handgun controls since 1934. Before
>I bought my first handgun, I had to go through a process even more
>rigourous than I did when I got my top secret security clearance,
>including police interviews with my wife and ex-wife in case they knew
>of any reason why I shouldn't own a handgun.
<nods>
>As usual, the law-abiding folks get to jump through hoops for
>politicians who are seeking easy votes and the criminals keep on doing
>what they damn well please. And, the public is no safer than they
>were before.
At this point, I guess, to be fair, one should mention the accidental
deaths which are avoided. we've all heard the shocking stories on
Oprah about the lil kids who rummage under daddy's bed and find the
loaded shotgun with which they kill their siblings.
Maybe I'm particularly coldhearted when I think that it's evolution in
action and that those parents should have the book thrown at them.
love
domino
wailer
>>wailer writes:
>>
>>>> As for "complicated, expensive, bureaucratic", I don't really have a
> problem with that. Other than making you jump through hoops, was it
> dramatically different to getting a driving license? At the end of it, you
> still got a gun license.<<<
>>
> In the USA, such things vary tremendously with where you live. Local
> ordinances in some areas such as Washington DC, completely ban the ownership of
> handguns, other areas severely restrict them, and some areas are quite liberal.
>
So if it's *that* important to you, either move to a "liberal" area (interesting
how the word "liberal" can change its meaning depending on what point you're
trying to make). Or if you don't want to move, then organise and get the voters
to change the laws or lawmakers. After all, that's the nature of a democracy.
> And it has been clearly shown that the level of crime, violence, homicide, etc
> has no relationship to whether the local gun laws are draconian or liberal.
>
Just higher than anywhere else in the western world. You keep missing that
point.
> A final example. One of my fathers friends ws a police officer in
> Massachusetts. He went to New York City to pick up a prisoner. A New York
> police officer met him at the state border and took away his pistol. They went
> to NYC, picked up the prisoner and drove back to the MA state line where the MA
> police officer took his pistol back and escorted the prisoner back to my home
> town.
>
> Could any of you gun control freaks explain to me why this makes sense?
>
Makes no sense at all. Which goes back to my point about the ridiculous number
of jurisdictions that overlap and interact such that there is no real
responsibility to the citizen/taxpayers. The argy-bargy that occurred after the
arrest of the latest (alleged but likely guilty) snipers as the prosecutors
argued over who was going to be able to get the most vicious sentence was
ridiculous.
Is there any reason for not having one Federal police force (ie FBI) and 50
state police forces? What possible benefit is there to have: highway
police/county police/city police/sheriffs/etc etc ad infinitum?
> If course, criminals in NYC and MA have no problem getting guns and carying
> them wherever they want.
>
Pathetic policing. If you used your local taxes to consolidate policing instead
of wasting it on stupidly different uniforms and overlapping lack of
co-ordination, you might get better policing and lower crime rates. Of course,
the local cops are too busy hassling people for having an open bottle of beer.
Alex Birch
"Mija" <mij...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:at706...@drn.newsguy.com..in response to Grumpy Old Papa's assertion
that death is death whether by knife, cricket bat or AK-47.
>
> True, though cricket bats rarely pass through a fence and two house
> walls to then kill a mother and infant curled up in bed together in the
> house next door. Assault rifle slugs have.
>
> If you got to pick being attacked by someone with a cricket bat,
> knife or AK-47, which would you choose? Personally I'd rather take
> my chances with the knife or bat. But that's just me.
Of course your observation is entirely right Mija. I think Papa has got his
gun loving head stuck up the barrel if he cant see that a guy bent on
carnage in a school or in some public place is gonna wreak more death and
injury and at less risk to himself with an AK-47 than by walking round the
place with a cricket bat. The other argument put frequently by 'shrinks'
to explain the high murder rate by handgun in America is from the perps
perspective and that is the detachment that pulling a trigger gives you.
You just point at the person who has angered you and the bullet does the
rest. You may regret it almost immediately and for the rest of your life
but the damage is done. Its said to be easier, in domestic anger
situations, for someone to point a gun at the person who has angered them
than to take the giant step of physically sticking a knife into them or
taking their head off with a meat cleaver.
Alex
Rosy B. Goode
> If you got to pick being attacked by someone with a cricket bat,
> knife or AK-47, which would you choose?
I would choose the AK-47, hands down, especially if there was _any_ chance
at all that I'd get/make a break in which to run. Now I'm not very fast at
my age, but still somewhat nimble in a pinch (nothing like a good pinch to
get the adrenalin and endorhpins going, eh?;-/). The fact is that a great
many people are not good enough shots to have much real chance of a quick
hit on a running target, and if they end up trying to run to keep up while
trying to shoot or trying to reload on a regular basis while running or
having to stop and reload or shoot, they likely won't be able to even shoot
whatever their poor best is. and they'll cover the ground slower. Sure I
might get taken out with a lucky early shot, but I might (even better
chances if I can dodge till the first need to reload) get away or get to
help or get access to something that would shift the balances of the
situation more in my favor.
With a cricket bat (bludgeon) or knife, otoh, it is entirely possible for
someone to keep up with me and keep whacking or stabbing, since most people
run faster than me if they're not doing something like trying to shoot and
reload, and it's pretty easy to hit or stab someone if you can keep up with
them, unlike shooting. And old as I am you could probably slow me up
considerably with a couple good stabs or slashes or bludgeon-whacks, and
then I'm down, and once one is down in a situation like that, especially if
the attacker is more physically powerful, the odds of staying down tend to
rise sharply.:-l
So I'd rather not choose, actually. I'd rather keep living somewhere where
enough people are ready enough to defend themselves that there just aren't
a as many people trying to hurt or kill other people and then do every
other sensible thing I know (quite a lot) to (legally) help me up my odds
of not having that happen if I do have to go somewhere more dangerous (like
parts of California). But if I had/have to choose, I'll take attack by
someone armed with a gun... rifle, pistol, or what have you... over being
attacked by a knife or bludgeon. I do sincerely think that would offer me
the best odds of survival. And yes, I have faced down the barrel of a gun
at least once (the cherry on the strange sundae of my seventeenth birthday)
and narrowly escaped it another time, but I did see in on the seat when the
guy got out to let me out of the broken passenger door, because I 'read'
him right and was able to get him to let me out unharmed, and there are
some things in my life that I don't even talk about here where I share so
much that might relate to this matter. I'm not just blowing smoke rings
here. I would sincerely choose the attack by gun in a great many cases,
hypothetical and real, as giving me the best chance of coming out
right-side-up on the other side of the event.
Regards,
Rosy... who mostly tries not to even think about a knife.<shudder>
domino
>I know you're not coldhearted Domino. But I wonder if you'd
>feel the same about it being evolution in action if a neighbors
>7 year-old accidently shot your 5 year old who was playing next
>door.
I know my friends at the time thought I was a particularly fussy
mother, but when my son was 5 he wasn't allowed to just play next door
- he only played with kids of folk I knew well enough to know that
they were responsibile and would keep him safe
love
domino
SG
Rosy wrote:
<<I would choose the AK-47, hands down, especially if there was _any_
chance at all that I'd get/make a break in which to run.>>
Can one really run from a psycho armed with an AK-47 if he's intent on
killing you? <g>
<<The fact is that a great many people are not good enough shots to have
much real chance of a quick hit on a running target, and if they end up
trying to run to keep up while trying to shoot or trying to reload on a
regular basis while running or having to stop and reload or shoot, they
likely won't be able to even shoot whatever their poor best is. and
they'll cover the ground slower.>>
Does one have to have a good enough shot to hit a target with an AK-47?
Isn't the shot(s) more like RATTA-TAT-TAT-TAT, ETC.? <g>
I'd probably have a better chance defending myself against a cricket bat
wielder, hehe.
SG ;)
Jim
>
>
> And the knife, baseball bat and typewriter have non-violent uses. Care
> to argue that an AK-47 is a sport gun?
>
> Tony
No need to argue--military rifles are routinely converted (or sometimes not modified
at all) for sport use. When I was about twelve, my friend traded an old motorcycle
for a .303 British Enfield. We hunted together with it for several years, since I
couldn't afford my own rifle. It was extremely accurate, kicked like a mule and was
deadly at long range. We looked at "civilian rifles" in magazines and decided to
"sporterize" it by cutting the wooden forearm short to expose more barrel.
Whitetail season is currently open where I live. One of the most common rifles you
will see hunters carrying is the Kalashnikov AK47 (when you can get one--the Chinese
version when you can't) and the Colt AR-15 (civilian semi-auto version). The AK is
rugged and cheap and fires an inexpensive round. Although the Chinese knockoffs are
rough and have poor machining tolerances, many knowledgeable firearms writers
consider the AK in general to be the best military rifle ever made. Hunters like
them.
The concept of "assault rifle" is largely a bogus one, in my opinion.
Semi-automatic, lightweight rifles have been available for years. The new types
*look* different and by their very appearance often frighten non gun-owners, but
they are nothing more than lightweight semi-automatic weapons--nothing new. I
believe the thing that makes any rifle dangerous (and makes it a potential "assault
weapon") is the availablity of large-capacity ammunition magazines, which if I'm not
mistaken have been outlawed.
By the way, there was an article in the Charleston, WV Daily Mail last week about
how a 92 year-old man shot a violent intruder in the leg and held him for police
after the man broke down his door and threatened to injure him. Used one of those
damned firearms again! I guess he just couldn't get the trigger locks off his
cricket bat...
If you're all nice, I'll tell you the Wayman Momen story sometime...
--
Jim
<http://www.herwoodshed.com> Bethany's Woodshed
<mailto:wvto...@aol.com> ABCD Webmasters
*******************************************************************************
"Suppose you were an idiot....And suppose you were
a member of Congress....But I repeat myself." --Mark Twain
Pablo
>
>Tony Elka wrote:
>> And the knife, baseball bat and typewriter have non-violent uses. Care
>> to argue that an AK-47 is a sport gun?
>>
>> Tony
[snip]
>Whitetail season is currently open where I live. One of the
>most common rifles you will see hunters carrying is the Kalashnikov
>AK47 (when you can get one--the Chinese version when you can't) and
>the Colt AR-15 (civilian semi-auto version). The AK is rugged and
>cheap and fires an inexpensive round. Although the Chinese knockoffs
>are rough and have poor machining tolerances, many knowledgeable
>firearms writers consider the AK in general to be the best military
>rifle ever made. Hunters like them.
Probably just me, but there's nothing in this paragraph
with which I can associate the word 'sport'. Other words
do come to mind, though. The rifle is *really* worth more
to you than the life of one of these?:
<http://www.eastforkhuntingpreserve.com/whitetail.jpg>
I guess I don't understand that.
Pab.
Pablo
>I'd probably have a better chance defending myself against a cricket
>bat wielder, hehe.
<lame topical humour>
Especially if it was an English batsman.
</lame topical humour>
Pab.
Alex Birch
"Pablo" <Pablo....@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:at7sj...@drn.newsguy.com...
deeply I think this was a very cruel post and rubbing salt in the wounds!!
I was sent a couple of jokes by an Aussie friend which continued in a
similar vein
Q Whats the height of optimism?
A An English batsman applying sun screen
Q Why dont English fielders have vaccinations before they travel?
A Because theres no chance of them catching anything.
Alex
Aussiegirl
<alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Pablo" <Pablo....@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:at7sj...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:17:36 -0500 (EST), Kitten...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I'd probably have a better chance defending myself against a cricket
> > >bat wielder, hehe.
Pablo wrote:
> > <lame topical humour>
> > Especially if it was an English batsman.
> > </lame topical humour>
Alex wrote:
> ..from a fellow Englishman and one who feels our national humiliation
> deeply I think this was a very cruel post and rubbing salt in the wounds!!
> I was sent a couple of jokes by an Aussie friend which continued in a
> similar vein
>
> Q Whats the height of optimism?
> A An English batsman applying sun screen
>
> Q Why dont English fielders have vaccinations before they travel?
> A Because theres no chance of them catching anything.
>
> Alex
LOL - Here's another one. I pissed myself when I heard this one...
Q Wanna hear a joke about cricket?
A England
ROTFL... see I told you it was funny ;-)
Cheers,
AG - Who is thoroughly enjoying this cricket season and can't wait to
be in the Bradman Stand on 19/01/03 - Australia Vs England...another
win I'd say for us don't you think? LOL...um sorry guys.
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>I know you're not coldhearted Domino. But I wonder if you'd feel the same
about it being evolution in action if a neighbors
7 year-old accidently shot your 5 year old who was playing next door. <<<
>
manslaughter. >>>
And would your position be the same if:
(case 2) The 7 year old had gotten hold of mama's cigarette lighter that she
left on the coffee table and set fire to your house, killing your 5 year old?
(case 3) How about if the 7 year old found a bottle of orange flavoured
aspirin and gave it to your 5-year old, telling him/her that it was candy and
the 5 year old died?
Basic facts are the same. Dangerous item left where child could reach it.
Child misused item resulting in death of another child.
Would you ask for manslaughter convictions (5-20 years in prison in USA) for
the parents of the 7 year olds in cases
2 and 3? If not, explain the difference in non-emotional terms.
Is a dead child any deader if he/she is killed by a gun, a fire, or a poison?
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>As for discreet, well, during the
check for my first one, the questioning of my neighbours wasn't as discreet as
I'd have liked, since I came home one day and, as I got out of my car, two
neighbours came up to me and asked if I was in
trouble. It seems that the CSIS (Canadian Security and Intelligence Service)
agent had been knocking on doors asking questions about me, but never bothered
to mention *why* they were doing it. I merely told the neighbours that I was a
spy, laughed and went inside.<g> <<<
>
Yep - basically the same thing happened when I went for my Top Secret
clearance. They went back to my high school and a bunch of neighbors - who
wanted to know why the FBI was asking questions about me. Of course it didn't
hurt that one of my character references was an FBI agent and my dad was a
police sergeant.
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>And the knife, baseball bat and typewriter have non-violent uses. Care
to argue that an AK-47 is a sport gun?<<<
>
Act of 1934. This is six years before it was even invented. To own an AK-47,
you need a special licence granted by the Secretary of the Treasury. It costs
$500.00 and is granted to very few people.
In fact, Firearms Act of 1934 banned ALL real assault weapons with the
exception of the special licensees listed above.
BTW one of the special licensees above is Senator Ted Kennedy's privately hired
bodyguard. He was caught bringing a fully automatic weapon into the Capitol
building a few years ago. Charges were not filed.
I wonder how many other rich liberals have machine-gun toting private guards
while they try to take away weapons from people like me and Barrister.
Rosy B. Goode
Kitten...@webtv.net (SG) wrote:
> Rosy wrote:
> <<I would choose the AK-47, hands down, especially if there was _any_
> chance at all that I'd get/make a break in which to run.>>
> Can one really run from a psycho armed with an AK-47 if he's intent on
> killing you? <g>
Sometimes. If s/he doesn't have hold of you by the arm or somesuch.
Advice via a professional bodyguard from www.2asisters.org/safety/tips.htm
is to run from a predator with a gun if you possibly can. Or course there
is no substitute for brains, and all directions are not created equal. Run
towards help or potential cover, if you can (to give a real obvious
example, if you're on a road with a standing-tall cornfield on one side and
an open freshly plowed field on the other, which way might be better?).
> Does one have to have a good enough shot to hit a target with an AK-47?
> Isn't the shot(s) more like RATTA-TAT-TAT-TAT, ETC.? <g>
Not usually. You only get one shot per trigger pull on most AK-47s, which
are plain old semi-autos. Just bang bang bang guns, with a separate kick
from each bang for the shooter to cope with. The ones that are actually
machine guns are much rarer.:-)
> I'd probably have a better chance defending myself against a cricket bat
> wielder, hehe.
You must be younger and/or in better shape than me. Good for you, I
guess.:-) YKINMKBYKIOK and all that.;-)
Regards,
Rosy... who would actually prefer to shoot the fucker, but I don't
generally have that option yet.:-)
Rosy B. Goode
wrote:
The health and well being of my family is worth more than one of those, to
me. I don't know that the people on my road who hunt deer (and elk, moose,
and bear sometimes, as well as smaller things like birds, varmints, etc)
think of it as 'sport' in the same sense people think of volleyball as
sport, but none of us are particularly well off, and our loved ones will
all get to eat better and be healthier (and perhaps have a bit more cash
for things like winter coats or other necessities of life) if the hunt is
successful than if it isn't. I guess you could call it utility/utilitarian
if you preferred that to sport. It has been said quite a few times in
these threads that not that many people depend on hunting, but it's all a
question of where you live. On my road, somewhere between 80 and 90
percent of people do depend on hunting to help feed their families. If
they get a nice rack to boot they might have it mounted, but they are all
hunting for food.
> <http://www.eastforkhuntingpreserve.com/whitetail.jpg>
Very pretty picture, but so what? Liz would have taken a buck like that in
a hot minute if she'd gotten the chance (and likely in a quicker cleaner
kill than your average steer looks forward to at a meat packing plant, if
past performance is any indication). This has been a very dismal year for
us financially, and next year looks to be worse. Though we are extremely
grateful for the smaller doe she did get to bring home, which we will eat
in a spirit of gratitude and reverence, and which will add high quality low
fat protein to over 10% of our suppers throughout the coming year. I don't
see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow or pig or lamb/sheep,
and it is much healthier... leaner meat, no hormones or antibiotics fed to
it, etc. And you forgot to post a nice photo of what that deer might look
like starving to death in the winter time due to over-population, which is
a very real problem in many parts of my country.
> I guess I don't understand that.
Guess not. Perhaps you've never been hungry enough, or maybe you've never
had the experience of trying to stretch the same food budget for your
family over 10+ years of inflation. Or are you about to start an herbivore
vs. omnivore debate?
Regards,
Rosy... dedicated northern-clime omnivore.
Jim
Guess not--ever hunted? It's like sex--once you do it, you lose that
"Yecchhhh! I could never do *that,*" and you begin to understand that what
takes place in a hunt is much, much more than killing Bambi's mother. (By the
way, if Bambi's mother doesn't stay out of my and my brother's garden, she
will occupy a place of honor next to the green beans and applesauce next
spring. We have no predators to speak of here, but I'm rooting for the new
coyotes that have been migrating across the border from Virginia.)
Don't get me wrong, Pab. I love animals. I eat them and wear their fur.
By the way, I think Bambi's dad in the above link is a fake. What's he
eating, a piece of wiring? Or is that his remote control? Also his eyes are
hazy and the nose looks like black plastic. Or he could be just a weak
specimen, produced by a lack of hunting or predatory pressures. My eyes are
going bad; Rosy, ask your sweetie to help me out...what do you think is wrong
with this animal?
Jim
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:34:19 -0500, Jim <wvto...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >If you're all nice, I'll tell you the Wayman Momen story sometime...
>
> DETAILS!!!
>
> Barrister
OK--
In the small town where I went to college, there was a young lady who
became estranged from her violent husband, one Wayman Momen. (I couldn't
make that name up.) She moved all about town and the environs, trying to
escape from him, but he became eerily proficient at tracking her and
their three year-old daughter down, getting drunk and repeatedly beating
hell out of the mother. (This was before the US enacted anti-stalking
laws.)
On one fateful night he became particularly enraged, broke in the door
and proceeded to choke, flail, beat about the head and shoulders and
generally terrorize the young mother, with her equally terrorized
daughter in attendence. He then staggered out the door with the threat,
"I'm going home and when I come back, I'm going to kill you and Terri."
(the daughter)
Now folks, people can shuffle off personal threats, but when you threaten
their child, that's a bad idea. The young lady later said that she
briefly thought about running away, but that didn't seem like a good
idea, since he'd managed to find her every time. Instead, she described
a strange calm that settled over her, and she slowly walked down the
outside stairs and knocked on the door of the old hillbilly man who lived
in the apartment below.
"Mr. Jones, do you have a gun?"
"Why certainly, child."
"May I borrow it?"
"Certainly. I would recommend you borrow my shotgun for general
hunting. Here, I'll show you how to load it... But it has a pretty heavy
recoil and you are a little girl, so I recommend that you brace it
against something before you fire."
"Thank you very much."
"You're quite welcome."
Of course, the old man had heard the commotion upstairs--and had heard it
several times--but in typical mountain fashion, had kept his nose to
himself.
These particular apartments were made by splitting an ordinary house into
upstairs and downstairs sections and building an enclosed external
stairway to provide upstairs access. It now full nighttime; she sat in
the darkened stairwell, with the butt of the shotgun braced against one
of the stair risers, her finger on the trigger and the hammer cocked.
In about fifteen minutes, Mr. Momen proved himself true to his word. The
outside door opened and a man was silhouetted in the opening.
"Wayman?"
"What?!"
The short-range shotgun blast picked Mr. Momen up and deposited him in
the middle of Brockway Avenue, his feet never having even touched the
intervening sidewalk.
At the trial, all the facts were heard. The jury voted for acquittal
after a fifteen-minute deliberation, with the additional recommendation
that she be awarded a medal. (I made that part up.) The prosecutor,
outraged, tried then to prosecute the old man.
"Surely you heard the arguments--you heard many of them, didn't you?"
"Yep."
"And you expect this court to believe that you didn't know what she
wanted the gun for?"
"Yep."
"Didn't you ask her?"
"Nope."
"And why not?"
"I figgered if she wanted me to know, she woulda tole' me."
The jury didn't even leave the room.
**************
That is a condensation of the local newspaper account of two very short
trials...about twenty years ago.
--
Jim
<http://www.herwoodshed.com> Bethany's Woodshed
<mailto:wvto...@aol.com> ABCD Webmasters
*******************************************************************************
"If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know
who the patsy is--
you're the patsy." Warren Buffett
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>It has been said quite a few times in
these threads that not that many people depend on hunting, but it's all a
question of where you live. On my road, somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of
people do depend on hunting to help feed their families. If they get a nice
rack to boot they might have it mounted, but they are all hunting for food.
>
>>> I don't see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow or pig or
fed to it, etc. And you forgot to post a nice photo of what that deer might
look
like starving to death in the winter time due to over-population, which is a
very real problem in many parts of my country.<<<
>
In the USA and Canada, however, deer are seen mostly as a winter food source by
large numbers of people in rural and suburban areas of the country. Deer, in
fact are considered a pest in many areas. They are constantly getting hit by
cars with disasterous consequences to deer, car and occupants.
What has happened is that, throughout most of the USA and some areas of Canada,
the natural predators (wolves, bears and mountain lions) have been eradicated
or much reduced in numbers. As a result, the deer regularly overgraze their
ranges and there is massive winter-kill along with devastation of the plant
life which has a major impact on other wildlife.
Hunting does help to keep the population in check and provides food for people
as well. Check with a wildlife biologist. My father grew up in a rural area
and deer was a major food source for the winter. I have hunted myself in the
past. I don't do it now because I no longer have the stamina to carry or drag
a dead deer out of the woods.
Deer are, biologically, even-toed ungulates, in the same family as cows, sheep,
goats and buffalo. If you eat meat or wear leather, then you are a hypocrite
for condemning hunting of deer.
Personally, I have only one emotional limitation on eating of meat. I don't
eat veal because veal calves are brutally mistreated throughout their lives to
produce white meat.
And, of course, I have nothing but contempt for people who dress in fancy
clothes and storm around the countryside on horses to watch a pack of dogs tear
a fox to shreds - and they don't even eat the meat or use the fur - now that is
decadent.
domino
Goode) wrote:
> I don't
>see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow or pig or lamb/sheep,
<nods> I definitely agree on that. It's really only the bambi factor
that makes it worse.
>And you forgot to post a nice photo of what that deer might look
>like starving to death in the winter time due to over-population, which is
>a very real problem in many parts of my country.
It can be hard for english people to internalise that - over here,
that just doesn't happen. The deer population is very low here.
>Guess not. Perhaps you've never been hungry enough, or maybe you've never
>had the experience of trying to stretch the same food budget for your
>family over 10+ years of inflation.
I think it's mostly a huge difference in mindsets. UK culture has
lost the necessity to hunt for food. (The UK has largely lost any
animal large enough to be worth hunting for food!). Americans on the
other hand have a pioneer culture, so whilst the thought of hunting
for food is not a strange one to you, to most english folk, it is
something that's not even considered.
love
domino
wailer
hehehehehe...
domino
<jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It's not that they don't let you
>shoot someone in the UK; it seems like they won't let you whack
>someone upside the head, either, even if that person is threatening
>you with much worse.
Yes - the self-defense laws are quite tight over here in the nanny
state.
the law says that you are only allowed to use reasonable force to
defend yourself.
So if someone comes at you with a knife and you shoot him - that's
manslaughter. If you hear burglars in your house and you drop
something on their head from the top of the stairs, that's
manslaughter. So would be electrifying your property.
love
domino
wailer
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:29:34 +1100, "wailer" <wai...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree that "arbitrariness" (is that a word?) is a Bad Thing, for any law.
>>But that is a problem in either the drafting of the law, or the
>>implementation, both of which can be fixed
>
> Not when the arbitrary-ness is built in on purpose and the government likes it
> that way.
Hmm, but surely your government is merely representing the desires of its
constituents. After all, you've still got your guns <sardonic grin>
>> As for "complicated, expensive, bureaucratic", I don't
>>really have a problem with that.
>
> I do. I don't like bureaucracy for its own sake, which seems to be a hallmark
> of the Parliamentary system, at least here. Expensive? Why should it cost $1
> billion dollars to set up and run a registration scheme that doesn't even
> work?
>
>
I don't mind bureaucracy unless I have to face it. :-)
As for "expensive", if you voters have allowed the government to get away with
spending C$1B on a registration scheme, then you/they should be ashamed. Our
costs went on reimbursements for guns handed in as part of the amnesty. The
costs of introducing the new laws were minimal in that the police already
handled the license applications, and the gun clubs have been co-opted into the
equivalent of "probationary" licensing and training at minimal cost to the
taxpayer.
>>Other than making you jump through hoops, was it dramatically different to
>>getting a driving license? At the end of it, you still got a gun license.
>
> Yes, I did, but only because I'm good at bureaucratic mazes. There are
> literally thousands and thousands of people stuck in that maze, one of which
> put a dash in a serial number by mistake and seven months later is still
> trying to sort it out, a maze purposely made to entrap and confuse. Yes, it
> was dramatically different than getting a driving license. The basic premise
> of our Liberal government is that guns are a bad thing and should be
> discouraged as much as possible. I know that might please some of you, but it
> goes contrary to many of our views as to the relationship between the citizen
> and the government.
>
See above. Do any of the parties differ in their policy to the Liberals?
>
>
>>As to getting your clearance, I would hope that such decisions are a) not
>>arbitrary, and b) that the enquiries performed by the security services were
>>extensive and discreet. As such, you probably don't know how complicated or
>>expensive they were.
>
> Yes I would, as I work in a capacity that gives me access to just such
> information. It is surprisingly uncomplicated - one long form, a series of
> checks and inquiries, and only the salary of the Mountie or CSIS agent and the
> attendant paper shuffle.
For someone of your upright standing in the community, no doubt the inquiries
were able to be answered satisfactorily without extension. If there was anything
in your background that flagged a problem, surely there would have been
additional inquiries. What's the reject rate likely to be anyway (you probably
can't answer that even if you knew)? Asking for a security clearance (I have a
bit of knowledge about this as well) is often the end of the process. At least
its advanced from the 30-50's when all that happened was that someone approved
of the applicant as "the right sort of chap"...
wailer
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:16:44 +0000, domino <dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>As usual, the law-abiding folks get to jump through hoops for politicians who
>>>are seeking easy votes and the criminals keep on doing what they damn well
>>>please. And, the public is no safer than they were before.
>
>>At this point, I guess, to be fair, one should mention the accidental deaths
>>which are avoided. we've all heard the shocking stories on Oprah about the
>>lil kids who rummage under daddy's bed and find the loaded shotgun with which
>>they kill their siblings.
>
> This is not a major problem in Canada as our law, with which I agree, requires
> that all firearms be locked with trigger locks and/or stored in a locked
> case/safe. All of my firearms have trigger locks AND and locked in secure
> containers, with the ammunition separately stored and locked. Anyone who
> doesn't do that will lose all permits and, if they have kids around, are
> assholes if they don't protect their kids better than that.
>
>
Which goes against all of the (IMNSHO) bullshit "self-defense" arguments for gun
ownership. "Hang on a minute, Mr Attacker, I'm unlocking my safe", "Just wait
right there, my ammo is upstairs in the bedroom cupboard" <snicker>
I think we've found a point of agreement on something.
wailer
Q. Why are the England players demanding increased match payments?
A. Someone has let on that Ashes Tests sometimes go to a fourth day.
Q. How bad is the English batting?
A. Well, the selectors are thinking of moving Extras up the batting order.
Q. What do you call an Englishman with 100 runs against his names?
A. A bowler.
Q. What was the most proficient form of footwork displayed by English batsmen?
A. The walk back to the pavilion.
Q. Who has the easiest job in the English team?
A. The guy who removes the red ball marks from the bats.
Q. What is the English version of a hat-trick?
A. Three runs in three balls.
Alex Birch
"domino" <dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qtfgvu0vf10l5rjgs...@4ax.com...
>
Americans on the
> other hand have a pioneer culture, so whilst the thought of hunting
> for food is not a strange one to you, to most english folk, it is
> something that's not even considered.
>
York, LA etc and who have never been out of the city let alone on some
hunting spree is it? Ive heard of generalisations but Jeeez!!!
Alex
Alex Birch
>
> Yes - the self-defense laws are quite tight over here in the nanny
> state.
>
> the law says that you are only allowed to use reasonable force to
> defend yourself.
>
> So if someone comes at you with a knife and you shoot him - that's
> manslaughter. If you hear burglars in your house and you drop
> something on their head from the top of the stairs, that's
> manslaughter. So would be electrifying your property.
>
dont seem to have a good word for the UK. I'm amazed youve stuck us for so
long.
Alex
Pablo
>
>Pablo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:34:19 -0500, Jim wrote:
>> >
>> >Tony Elka wrote:
>>
>> >> And the knife, baseball bat and typewriter have non-violent uses. Care
>> >> to argue that an AK-47 is a sport gun?
>> >>
>> >> Tony
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Whitetail season is currently open where I live. One of the
>> >most common rifles you will see hunters carrying is the Kalashnikov
>> >AK47 (when you can get one--the Chinese version when you can't) and
>> >the Colt AR-15 (civilian semi-auto version). The AK is rugged and
>> >cheap and fires an inexpensive round. Although the Chinese knockoffs
>> >are rough and have poor machining tolerances, many knowledgeable
>> >firearms writers consider the AK in general to be the best military
>> >rifle ever made. Hunters like them.
>>
>> Probably just me, but there's nothing in this paragraph
>> with which I can associate the word 'sport'. Other words
>> do come to mind, though. The rifle is *really* worth more
>> to you than the life of one of these?:
>>
>> <http://www.eastforkhuntingpreserve.com/whitetail.jpg>
>>
>> I guess I don't understand that.
>
>Guess not--ever hunted? It's like sex--once you do it, you lose that
>"Yecchhhh! I could never do *that,*"
<wry smile> I don't like sex either.
>and you begin to understand that what takes place in a hunt is
>much, much more than killing Bambi's mother. (By the way, if
>Bambi's mother doesn't stay out of my and my brother's garden,
>she will occupy a place of honor next to the green beans and
>applesauce next spring.
I suspect that Bambi's mother finds it somewhat difficult
to grasp the concept of land ownership. We're an awfully
resourceful and ingenious species, mostly. Would some sort
of fence to keep her out be a possibility? (I do realise
that would spoil the fun, though.)
Pab.
Alex Birch
..
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:30:50 +0000, Barrister wrote:
>
> >
> > This is not a major problem in Canada as our law, with which I agree,
requires
> > that all firearms be locked with trigger locks and/or stored in a locked
> > case/safe. All of my firearms have trigger locks AND and locked in
secure
> > containers, with the ammunition separately stored and locked. Anyone
who
> > doesn't do that will lose all permits and, if they have kids around, are
> > assholes if they don't protect their kids better than that.
and Wailer replied
> >
> Which goes against all of the (IMNSHO) bullshit "self-defense" arguments
for gun
> ownership. "Hang on a minute, Mr Attacker, I'm unlocking my safe", "Just
wait
> right there, my ammo is upstairs in the bedroom cupboard" <snicker>
>
> I think we've found a point of agreement on something.
>
ROFL!!! Hit him with a bullseye there Wailer !!. Maybe this is the chink
in the US/Canadian gun alliance. Doubtless Papa will be back berating such
restrictions on personal defensive capability and asking why the Canadians
can't keep their guns in a handy shoe box under the bed like he does!!
Alex
Rosy B. Goode
> By the way, I think Bambi's dad in the above link is a fake. What's he
> eating, a piece of wiring? Or is that his remote control?
It is a very long stringy piece of grass, though I agree he does look a bit
odd somehow.
> Also his eyes are
> hazy and the nose looks like black plastic.
LOL! Maybe they borrowed him from Fish & Game. I know our local branch
has an old stuffed deer that they use to trap people who are road-hunting
illegally.;-)
> Or he could be just a weak
> specimen, produced by a lack of hunting or predatory pressures. My eyes are
> going bad; Rosy, ask your sweetie to help me out...what do you think is wrong
> with this animal?
He does look sort of peculiar, upon closer examination. His legs seem very
skinny/stringy too far up, and his belly skin is sort of wrinkled funny.
At first we thought maybe it was early spring and he was skinny and a bit
scruffy looking from a long hungry winter, but if it was spring enough for
the grass to be greening up like that it seems like his antlers would
likely have dropped. It might just be advanced old age. That is a pretty
big rack he's carrying there, so he is pretty old, as deer go. Maybe we're
better off with Lizzie's younger animal at that, though I'd be willing to
do more marinating and such in exchange for more meat.;-) (And actually
I've heard that the very old bucks are more tender than the middle-aged 'in
their prime' ones.) (But I still think the most important thing if one
wants tender less-gamey meat is a quick clean kill of a calm unexcited
animal, which Liz has been very successful at both times she's brought down
a deer.:-)
Hugs,
Rosy... hoping I have the good fortune to die as quickly and painlessly as
the deer Lizzie has shot.
Pablo
>
>In article <at7qt...@drn.newsguy.com>, Pablo <Pablo....@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> Probably just me, but there's nothing in this paragraph
>> with which I can associate the word 'sport'. Other words
>> do come to mind, though. The rifle is *really* worth more
>> to you than the life of one of these?:
>
>The health and well being of my family is worth more than one of those, to
>me. I don't know that the people on my road who hunt deer (and elk, moose,
>and bear sometimes, as well as smaller things like birds, varmints, etc)
>think of it as 'sport' in the same sense people think of volleyball as
>sport, but none of us are particularly well off, and our loved ones will
>all get to eat better and be healthier (and perhaps have a bit more cash
>for things like winter coats or other necessities of life) if the hunt is
>successful than if it isn't. I guess you could call it utility/utilitarian
>if you preferred that to sport.
I do, very much. It's not just a matter of a different name,
though. It's a very different sort of activity. If killing
in order to survive is what it comes down to, then that's
about as imperative an imperative as they get.
My problem is with killing animals for *fun* - the way Jim
was focusing on the details of the hardware used to kill,
whereas the animal itself seemed to be treated merely like
a convenient moving target - does strike me as diminishing
to us as a species. Killing for 'sport' isn't any sort of
noble pursuit.
>Very pretty picture, but so what?
I suppose my point was just expressing amazement at how so
much talk was about the details of the hardware used to kill.
I freely admit to not *getting it* about guns, but the deer
itself seems far more amazing to me than some lumps of metal,
however finely-tooled.
[snip]
>I don't see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow
>or pig or lamb/sheep,
No, I agree (I'm very fond of venison), though in many
cases such animals are completely domesticated, and couldn't
have anything like a successful life in the wild. We've made
them totally dependent on us. This is generally not the case
with deer.
I *do* think that killing for 'sport' is orders of magnitude
worse than managed farming of animals for food, with
appropriately humane and professional ways of both managing
and slaughtering the animals.
Pab.
Jim
>
> >Guess not. Perhaps you've never been hungry enough, or maybe you've never
> >had the experience of trying to stretch the same food budget for your
> >family over 10+ years of inflation.
>
> I think it's mostly a huge difference in mindsets. UK culture has
> lost the necessity to hunt for food. (The UK has largely lost any
> animal large enough to be worth hunting for food!). Americans on the
> other hand have a pioneer culture, so whilst the thought of hunting
> for food is not a strange one to you, to most english folk, it is
> something that's not even considered.
>
>
Without getting maudlin here, I have to say that for me, the best thing to come
out of this ng is an appreciation for how divers (like that spelling, Domino?)
folks are around the world. Certainly gives one the chance to question his own
mindset on issues he thought were settled. (not necessarily change it,
though...) <g>
God, what a thought--world peace through spanking.
I've been fascinated by the English since I was little--hope to get over there
for the first time next year. I'll try to look some folks up!
--
Jim
<http://www.herwoodshed.com> Bethany's Woodshed
<mailto:wvto...@aol.com> ABCD Webmasters
*******************************************************************************
Alex Birch
>
>Guess not--ever hunted? It's like sex--once you do it, you lose that
>"Yecchhhh! I could never do *that,*" and you begin to understand that what
>takes place in a hunt is much, much more than killing Bambi's mother. (By the
>way, if Bambi's mother doesn't stay out of my and my brother's garden, she
>will occupy a place of honor next to the green beans and applesauce next
>spring. We have no predators to speak of here, but I'm rooting for the new
>coyotes that have been migrating across the border from Virginia.)
>
>Don't get me wrong, Pab. I love animals. I eat them and wear their fur.
>
issue we are discussing but to the asses in redcoats who ride around the country
in England watching their dogs rip foxes to pieces. I think anyone who takes an
enjoyment in killing animals purely for sport has to be slightly unhinged in
their emotional development. It is beyond my comprehension that such an
activity could give pleasure to anyone.
I can see the thrill of the chase, the challenge to the hunter of getting in the
shot at a moving target. I can see why its the supreme test of a shooters
skill...but holy shit, I'd rather compromise and visit a target range with
moving targets, less satisfactory though that might be to the expert, than to
spend my leisure time blowing holes in live animals.
The justification I guess, as here with the idiots on horseback, is that the
wild animal population needs to be kept down. Well fine, there may be some
truth in that so you issue a license and get professional shooters to go on a
controlled cull. I'm sure you and everyone else in the hunting lobby feel that
you have the expertise to do the job but thats not why you do it...its purely
the satisfaction obtained from scenting blood and I think thats highly
disturbing.
Alex
Jim
No offence Alex, but I'm following her generalization a lot better than
your response...can you 'splain that?
My experience with armed city dwellers is that they carry weapons for
self-defence, not hunting. And I just happen to live in the midst of a
strong hunting culture--I'm not familiar with a "hunting spree." In over
forty years I've personally never seen the likkered-up Southern
good-ol-boys spraying lead around the countryside that people who don't
live here tell me are extant throughout the South. (I know, the phrase
should be near the noun it modifies--my grammar is horrible.)
I *have* seen some hunting accidents and some pretty tragic ones at that.
Last month two friends were squirrel hunting and one accidentally shot the
other. The second man was not wearing proper head gear, thus exposing his
hair, which the second man mistook for a squirrel. That's not as hard as
you would think. His friend recounted to the newspaper that he was
horrified to see his friend's face in the telescope as he spun around
before falling to the ground, dead. But sprees, no.
Pablo
>
>>Rosy B. Goode (On Pablos condemnation of hunting):
>>>> I don't see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow or pig or
>lamb/sheep and it is much healthier... leaner meat, no hormones or antibiotics
>fed to it, etc. And you forgot to post a nice photo of what that deer might
>look
>like starving to death in the winter time due to over-population, which is a
>very real problem in many parts of my country.<<<
>>
>Well said. I understand that game is "managed" in Britain by
>various means.
Indeed. Which I don't have a problem with at all, assuming
that the management and slaughter is humane, and carried out
by professionals. Whatever the animal, management purely for
the purpose of 'sport' is very different, and IMO something
that as a species we should be ashamed of.
>Deer, in fact are considered a pest in many areas. They are
>constantly getting hit by cars with disasterous consequences
>to deer, car and occupants.
That sounds like a problem of our making, which we ought to
find better ways to solve than killing the deer. We're good
at building things like fences and tunnels.
>And, of course, I have nothing but contempt for people who
>dress in fancy clothes and storm around the countryside on
>horses to watch a pack of dogs tear a fox to shreds - and they
>don't even eat the meat or use the fur - now that is decadent.
Fortunately, that's on the way out here. But, see, to me the
hunting of deer for sport (not food) is no less demeaning to
us as humans.
Pab.
P.S. Should I stop waiting for you to post those cites for
the claims you made?
Jim
> >and you begin to understand that what takes place in a hunt is
> >much, much more than killing Bambi's mother. (By the way, if
> >Bambi's mother doesn't stay out of my and my brother's garden,
> >she will occupy a place of honor next to the green beans and
> >applesauce next spring.
>
> I suspect that Bambi's mother finds it somewhat difficult
> to grasp the concept of land ownership. We're an awfully
> resourceful and ingenious species, mostly. Would some sort
> of fence to keep her out be a possibility? (I do realise
> that would spoil the fun, though.)
>
Let's see--I just put up a cattle fence last year, so assuming last year's
prices......hmm...roughly 250 by 150--->>>800 feet of fence ten feet high (that's
no joke--all deer fences are ten feet high) at four dollars per foot--> I get
$3200.
Now we garden seriously, as you can see by its size, so...approximately
$1000-$1500 in produce annually. -->gives about two to three years payback time,
plus loss of easy access to the garden, plus the ugliness of a ten-foot high
fence next to the farmhouse, not to mention the damage the deer do to the
hayfield and the apple orchard....hmm.
Now, on the other hand--Federal Hi-power cartridges at 40 cents per
each.....plus venison for the table, probably worth about thirty dollars per
animal, times at least six to ten animals....plus thinning the herd and ensuring
a higher percentage of animals survive the winter without starving...
Looks like Bambi is in trouble.
--
Jim
<http://www.herwoodshed.com> Bethany's Woodshed
<mailto:wvto...@aol.com> ABCD Webmasters
*******************************************************************************
Rosy B. Goode
In article <ata0a...@drn.newsguy.com>, Pablo <Pablo....@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> I *do* think that killing for 'sport' is orders of magnitude
> worse than managed farming of animals for food, with
> appropriately humane and professional ways of both managing
> and slaughtering the animals.
What on _earth_ makes you think that animals that are raised for food are
killed (or managed, for that matter, though this could get to be longer
than I have time for if I go into the horrors of feedlots and such)
humanely? Maybe it is very different over there (though you've had some
pretty terrible cattle epidemics at times, which doesn't speak particularly
well of the 'humane' or 'professional' management end of things), but over
here a great many animals go through quite a terrifying ordeal, standing in
line in chutes and watching other animals being slaughtered and smelling
the blood (something most herbivorous animals find quite upsetting) for
hours until their turn comes, and it is not always a clean quick kill they
are watching or receiving, either. You know very little about the
mainstream US beef industry if you would call it anything faintly
resembling humane, and you may not know as much about it in your own
country as you think, if you've never explicitly looked into it.
Maybe it really is different over there or in some other countries, but
you'd be lucky indeed to get a hamburger in this country that came from an
animal killed as cleanly and quickly and humanely as Lizzie's deer, or
many/most of the other deer killed in my neighborhood (unless maybe you're
in a totally Kosher restaurant.. animals butchered Kosher style are not
supposed to be in conditions that upset them before they are slaughtered,
though I've never read or heard an explicit account of Kosher
slaughterhouse practice-in-actuality, as I have for 'mainstream' beef).
Sometimes I think you are the most naive person I have ever met, though
Mija does give you a run for the money on occasion.:-)
Regards,
Rosy
Rosy B. Goode
<wai...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:43:48 +0000, Yurassis Dragon wrote:
>
> > Whether somebody is killed with a gun, a knife or a cricket bat means
nothing.
> > That person is no deader than if he/she was ripped apart by a dozen
slugs from
> > an AK-47. I repeat: If a law incoveniences large numbers of law abiding
> > people and has no effect on the death rate - then it is worthless.
> >
> Agreed that death is death (anyone want to argue?) :-).
Not particularly, but I do not agree with that statement at all.
> What you don't seem to understand is that the law has "inconvenienced" very
> *few* people.
How do you know that if you and yours are not among those who has been
inconvenienced? And why does the fact (assuming that it is a fact) that it
is 'few' people make it insignificant to you? Keep up on that line of
reasoning and you'll be arguing against funding research into 'orphan
drugs' before long.:-(
>It has reduced the number of guns in the community. It has lowered
> the number of people killed by guns.
I can think of worse ways to go, though of course it depends on where one
is shot, but talking a fairly quick kill, I think I would _very_ much
prefer a gun to a knife, and I would prefer either (done fairly quickly) to
cancer or <shudder> the ebola virus, though the main method suggested in
_Final Exit_ seems more peaceful than any of the above. I would prefer a
properly done hanging to the electric chair, though a properly done
guillotining has a lot to be said for it, but that is even more unlikely
than a properly done hanging, these days. I would certainly rather be shot
quick than bludgeoned to death with clubs or stones.
Lethal injection sounds really creepy, unless I am already dying of a
horrible incurable painful disease or soemthing like that. If I am to die
in an attack of some sort (though I'd choose to escape if I could do so
honorably), I'd _vastly_ prefer to go down fighting rather than cowering.
I could go on and on. All deaths are defintitely _not_ created equal in my
opinion. Maybe it's all one and the same once your heart actually stops
beating and you leave your bag of meat and bones behind, but there are vast
differences in the various ways one gets to that point, it seems to me, and
some seem far better to me than others. I could go on for quite awhile on
the subject of ways to die that seem worse to me than death by firearm.
>It means that money previously spent on
> guns might be spent on more productive consumption.
So might the money spent on computers or electronic games or fancy new cars
or coin collecting or (gag) high fashion designer clothing or boats or
tickets to overpriced performing events or frivolous vacations, etc, etc.
I could go on and on. So what? It is certainly not my opinion that the
'productiveness' of my spending should be decided by government.
>It has reduced the number of
> native birdlife that get the shit blown out of them by drunk hunters. It has
> reduced the problem of lead poisoning in our sadly reduced wetlands. If people
> really, really, really want to shoot at targets, they can get a license and do
> so. I consider the result of the changes in the law as a net benefit,
certainly
> not "worthless".
I'm glad you're so happy with it all, since it's your country. I just
don't see why it's any of your business how people choose to handle these
things in their own countries. Why are all you people from other places so
darn concerned about us? You (collective you, aimed at all the
non-Americans who can't let go of this issue) sound like a bunch of fussy
old Victorian missionaries trying to convert the 'heathen' and whining
because the heathen (many of whom have deep rich belief systems of their
own) don't want to become fussy Victorian missionaries. It's our country.
It's like the people who go whining around this group because it's not a
carbon copy of one of those content-moderated spanking groups.
Personally, there are a lot of ways I think my country sucks, just as I
think that having any moderation sucks, but my country sucks less than any
of the alternatives I have ever heard of, just as s.s.s at least has the
least moderation of any NNTP spanking forum with enough real posters to
make it work. YMMV, and obviously does, since you are not applying for
citizenship here, that I've heard of. That's fine. You are welcome to run
your own country however you like, but I just don't seen where you get off
continuing to tell us how we should run ours or implying that it would be
better somehow if it were more like yours or even implying that it _could_
be more like yours, since the respective mindsets are so vastly different
(something that is becoming more and more apparent in these discussions)
that I do not at all agree that similar laws and restrictions would _ever_
have similar results here.
Love,
Rosy
wailer
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:04:29 -0800, RosyB...@newsguy.com (Rosy B. Goode)
> wrote:
>
>>Very pretty picture, but so what? Liz would have taken a buck like that in a
>>hot minute if she'd gotten the chance (and likely in a quicker cleaner kill
>>than your average steer looks forward to at a meat packing plant, if past
>>performance is any indication).
>
> I'd be very interested in knowing, Rosy, how many of those who like to winge
> about hunting and how pretty the deer is (which it is) are vegans and never
> eat any food products that have any ingredients that require an animal to be
> killed. Few, I'd guess. Then, how many of the very few that are vegans wear
> no clothing made of leather or other material that requires the death of an
> animal or use no other products that require the death of an animal. I think
> we're down to just about none.
>
> I don't hunt, but I'm not against it when it's for food consumption.
I agree, based on a *need*. What's your opinion of those who hunt for "sport"?
However, I would guess (with nothing to back it up than my own preconceptions
and, no doubt, misinformation), that the majority of "hunters" are not doing so
because their larders are bare. Most of them do it for the "thrill" of the hunt
and some misguided belief that it is somehow a "sport". The British "hunt" is
the epitome of this abomination. However, the drunken duck "hunters" that used
to infest our lakes during the "season" come second. The wankers in the US that
are "hunting" with no need for food come third. I would hope that those hunting
for food are as humane as possible when doing so. Is the AK47 the most
appropriate firearm to do so?
OTOH, koalas are a protected species here. Some aborigines hunt them. They do it
as part of preserving their culture, not directly because they need the food. A
difficult decision. (btw, the particular species that are hunted are not
endangered).
OT(3)H, kangaroos are a pest across Australia and exist in substantially greater
numbers than before white settlement, yet there's been protests (in the UK and
the US) about professional shooting to reduce numbers.
> I can't bring myself to do the actual killing. I'm just a hypocrite that
> prefers that to have others do the killing for me. Only difference is, I'm
> willing to admit I'm a hypocrite unlike others who guilt trip those who do
> hunt then tuck into a steak or some bacon or wear leather shoes or belts.
>
>
I don't find it hypocritical. There are a number of (to me) distasteful
activities involved in preparing food. I'm happy to pay someone else to do them
for me. Hell, I used to pay someone to clean my floors as well.
Alex Birch
>
>
>No offence Alex, but I'm following her generalization a lot better than
>your response...can you 'splain that?
>
so much rubbish most of the time that if you find a grain of sense in her posts
its on the '1000 monkeys and the 1000 pianos finally reproducing Beethovens 5th'
scale of achievement.
In fact your reply has sort of endorsed my view maybe unconsciously. You said
maot armed city dwellers carry weapons for self defence not hunting. Thats what
I suggested..that there are millions of Americans living in big cities who have
no more of a hunting culture than the city dwellers here, whereas Domino seems
to think that all Americans have Davy Crockett hats and shoot something every
week!! In fact we have just as much of a hunting culture except its limited to
the upper classes here, the squirearchy of England who romp around with their
silly horns at weekends shouting 'tally ho' and savagely murdering foxes. (as I
said in another post)
Alex
wailer
[snipped - following addressed to Papa]
> PS. Are you going to admit you were wrong about the number of mass shootings
> in the US, or just gloss over that little mistake?
>
About as likely as anything approaching an explanation (or even a
rationalization) of the substantially higher rate of homicide or the ridiculous
rate of incarceration.
Rosy B. Goode
dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:04:29 -0800, RosyB...@newsguy.com (Rosy B.
> Goode) wrote:
> > I don't
> >see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow or pig or lamb/sheep,
> <nods> I definitely agree on that. It's really only the bambi factor
> that makes it worse.
You are such a nice sensible vegetarian, dear.:-) (Though one could
actually make a pretty good case in this country for competently done
hunting being far more humane than the general practices of the mainstream
commercial meat industry, fyi and fwiw.)
> >And you forgot to post a nice photo of what that deer might look
> >like starving to death in the winter time due to over-population, which is
> >a very real problem in many parts of my country.
> It can be hard for english people to internalise that - over here,
> that just doesn't happen. The deer population is very low here.
Perhaps some of the English contingent think we should copy them on that
one, too, but I think it's sort of cool that we still have some wildlife
over here, even if it does get a bit out of balance.:-)
I didn't even get into, btw, the enormous depradations the deer (and, in
some places, elk) could do to farms/farmers in many agricultural areas, if
the populations were not controlled at least somewhat by hunting. They do
tons (literal tons, not just figurative) of damage even with the
populations under some degree of control. I don't even want to think about
how bad it would be if they were not hunted as a means to limiting their
numbers. We are not only talking financial losses here, but potentially
losses on a scale that could mean significantly less food for the world as
a whole.
> >Guess not. Perhaps you've never been hungry enough, or maybe you've never
> >had the experience of trying to stretch the same food budget for your
> >family over 10+ years of inflation.
> I think it's mostly a huge difference in mindsets. UK culture has
> lost the necessity to hunt for food. (The UK has largely lost any
> animal large enough to be worth hunting for food!). Americans on the
> other hand have a pioneer culture, so whilst the thought of hunting
> for food is not a strange one to you, to most english folk, it is
> something that's not even considered.
They are welcome to not consider it. What they are not welcome to do (not
that I can stop it, but I sure as shit don't have to welcome it<g>) is to
tell us that their way is somehow superior to our way and imply we should
just ignore our own judgement and do what they think best. They lost that
right well over two hundred years ago, when we used our guns (and guts and
perseverance, etc) to make it our own right. Maybe that's what still
rankles....
Hugs,
Rosy... wishing more vegetarians had your common sense, but then common
sense is one of the most inappropriately named commodities around these
days, eh?;-S
Pablo
>
>Leaving behind part of this discussion for now....
'kay.
>In article <ata0a...@drn.newsguy.com>, Pablo <Pablo....@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I *do* think that killing for 'sport' is orders of magnitude
>> worse than managed farming of animals for food, with
>> appropriately humane and professional ways of both managing
>> and slaughtering the animals.
>
>What on _earth_ makes you think that animals that are raised
>for food are killed (or managed, for that matter, though this
>could get to be longer than I have time for if I go into the
>horrors of feedlots and such) humanely?
Oh, I realise that plenty aren't. I was speaking mostly
in the abstract. It's certainly *possible* for animals to
be managed and slaughtered humanely - so long as we're all
willing to pay a bit extra for that to happen.
>Sometimes I think you are the most naive person I have ever
>met,
Well, personally I'd rather be attacked by someone wielding
a cricket bat than an AK-47, so I'm not *that* naive. <smile>
>though Mija does give you a run for the money on occasion.:-)
Don't be fooled. Mija's idealism and passion for things she
believes in are really wonderful, but she never forgets to
back all of that up with a fierce logic and regard for the
facts. Would that that were more common.
Pab.
domino
>I freely admit to not *getting it* about guns,
Have you ever had minute, detailed conversations about say - the
insides of a computer, or the relative merits of car engines, or
trains or somesuch?
If so - same difference.
Rgds
domino
domino
> divers (like that spelling, Domino?)
yes thank you. 8 our of 10 for its usage.
<grin>
>I've been fascinated by the English since I was little--hope to get over there
>for the first time next year. I'll try to look some folks up!
Whenabouts next year? Mail me when you have details.
rgds
domino
domino
>I kind of had to laugh at this because the most bizarre hunting I've ever seen
>was in Wales. I've seen a lot of hunting-- lived in a rural area where hunting
>for food was common.
>
>But I spent a weekend on one of those pheasant shoots and anyone who thinks
>that Gosford Park or (what was that other movie?-- the one with the beater
>who's shot and killed) was a caricature is wrong.
Yes - the way some of our rich and titled citizens disport themselves
does look like something out of a bad movie.... <grin>
And - it costs a fortune....
Eg :
>BRECHIN CASTLE, Angus, East Scotland
>Any dates in December except 23rd December 2002
>Due to a cancellation, we can offer pheasant shooting in December. The shoot consists of two or three driven days of 300 pheasants for 7 guns, shooting double guns if requested. The programme would cover a variety of unusual and challenging drives including the famous Drummour drive by Edzell Castle and the Aldbar Gorge at Brechin. The package includes accommodation as guests of Lord and Lady Dalhousie in Brechin Castle where there is accommodation for 7 couples and where we give them the nearest approximation to 5 star food and drink. The rent is £8,000 plus VAT per day and the accommodation, all in, is at a rate of £230 plus VAT per person per night. Due to the short notice, the rates are negotiable.
>For further details please contact
>Richard Cooke
>Dalhousie Estate Office
>Tel: 01356 624566
>Fax: 01356 623725
>E Mail: Dalhousi...@btinternet.com
rgds
domino
domino
wrote:
>The justification I guess, as here with the idiots on horseback, is that the
>wild animal population needs to be kept down. Well fine, there may be some
>truth in that
Not according to the newspaper (can't now remember if it was the
Independent, Observer or Guardian) which earlier this year reported
the discovery of concrete bunkers wehre foxes were being raised to
furnish hunt-fodder.
Domino
domino
>No offence Alex, but I'm following her generalization a lot better than
>your response...can you 'splain that?
I can <grin> I'm guessing his need to score points off me blinds him
to the fact that sometimes he makes an idiot of himself to do so.
> I've personally never seen the likkered-up Southern
>good-ol-boys spraying lead around the countryside that people who don't
>live here tell me are extant throughout the South.
Friends of mine who lives in california says that in her neck of the
woods, it's a regular event on all the holidays.
love
domino
Jim
>
>
> I do, very much. It's not just a matter of a different name,
> though. It's a very different sort of activity. If killing
> in order to survive is what it comes down to, then that's
> about as imperative an imperative as they get.
That's not a necessary condition. Eating meat because you want meat is enough
in my opinion. You don't need any more justification for being an omnivore than
a cat does for being a carnivore.
>
>
> My problem is with killing animals for *fun* - the way Jim
> was focusing on the details of the hardware used to kill,
> whereas the animal itself seemed to be treated merely like
> a convenient moving target - does strike me as diminishing
> to us as a species. Killing for 'sport' isn't any sort of
> noble pursuit.
>
I don't believe I used the term *fun* vis-a-vis killing, although the hunt
itself is definitely that.
It's always tempting to ascribe evil or ignoble motives to those who practice
things you don't understand. And I don't want to get into the cheap shot
business of saying, "If you haven't done it you can't understand it." All I can
say is that if you think hunting is about blood sport or killing for *fun*, you
simply do not understand. And I'm not surprised--I have never seen a hunter
able to explain hunting to people without experience--especially folks who
already have strong anti-hunting bias.
You may not have the time--or the interest--but I would strongly urge you to go
on a simple bird or rabbit hunt with a friend. And no, he won't let you have a
gun--not until you learn what you are doing and are not an accident waiting to
happen. I have done this many times--rarely does anyone convert to the "dark
side" but they *always* come away with a much better understanding of hunting
and a new respect for hunters.
> I suppose my point was just expressing amazement at how so
> much talk was about the details of the hardware used to kill.
> I freely admit to not *getting it* about guns, but the deer
> itself seems far more amazing to me than some lumps of metal,
> however finely-tooled.
Absolutely. An animal is a marvelous piece of work; something you will find
that sportsmen--having had much more experience than you with these
animals--appreciate at least as much as you do. If you do your homework, you
will find that sportsmen and hunters contribute amounts toward game management
and habitat improvement many times that contributed by those who think hunting
is an abomination. Hunters understand that their relationship to wild game is
a symbiotic relationship--not a competetive one. The have respect for game and
put their money where their mouth is.
In the words of Judge Lance Ito, "Pab, get your checkbook out." I have.
>
>
> >I don't see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow
> >or pig or lamb/sheep,
>
>
> I *do* think that killing for 'sport' is orders of magnitude
> worse than managed farming of animals for food, with
> appropriately humane and professional ways of both managing
> and slaughtering the animals.
>
I think the cow, as well as the deer facing a pack of coyotes might disagree
with you. Ditto the deer starving to death from overpopulation/overgrazing.
And as for professional--I'm not sure how having one's throat slit is more
humane or professional than being shot. "Managing" consists of confining them
is the smallest space possible (more economical) and feeding them fattening
grains to increase the "marbling" of the meat. Managers are very careful to not
let the animals run, since that takes weight off them and lowers their price.
Me? I'd rather be wild and free any day and meet my end by a hunter's bullet
than be "managed" and "professionally slaughtered" like that.
SG
Rosy wrote:)
<<I don't see that eating a deer is any worse than eating a cow or pig
or lamb/sheep>>
Domino wrote:
<<<nods> I definitely agree on that. It's really only the bambi factor
that makes it worse.>>
Does anyone like rabbit or duck? The Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck factor
are enough to keep these two delicacies from ever gurgling in my tummy.
<g>
SG
SG
Jim wrote:
<<By the way, I think Bambi's dad in the above link is a fake. What's he
eating, a piece of wiring? Or is that his remote control?>>
Rosy wrote:
<<It is a very long stringy piece of grass, though I agree he does look
a bit odd somehow.>>
Oh, c'mon now! I think both of you are so used to viewing strapping
bucks through your high-powered infrared scopes on your AK47s that
viewing this magnificent picture would look rather odd to you. <giggle>
SG
Pablo
>
>On 12 Dec 2002 04:44:07 -0800, Pablo <Pablo....@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>I freely admit to not *getting it* about guns,
>
>Have you ever had minute, detailed conversations about say - the
>insides of a computer, or the relative merits of car engines, or
>trains or somesuch?
I'm not really one for objects, exactly, but I'll definitely
admit to a fondness for huge works of engineering - bridges,
cathedrals, and such. It's more on the level of aesthetics,
though, rather than numbers and specifications.
>If so - same difference.
Not IMHO, for the simple reason that those other objects aren't
made for the specific purpose of killing and injuring.
Pab.
SG
Wailer wants an answer from Papa about:
<<About as likely as anything approaching an explanation (or even a
rationalization) of the substantially higher rate of homicide or the
ridiculous rate of incarceration.>>
The higher rate of homicide or the ridiculous(??) rate of incarceration
in the USA has to do with our population, imo.
I would like to see more prisons built in the USA to rid us of the early
release program.
SG
SG
Pablo wrote:
<<Don't be fooled. Mija's idealism and passion for things she believes
in are really wonderful, but she never forgets to back all of that up
with a fierce logic and regard for the facts.>>
When the hillbilly contingent soars here on SSS I can only applaud when
our resident urban-city dweller, Mija, showcases her fierce logic and
regard for the facts. I have always enjoyed reading Mija's no-bullshit
approach on any given subject.
SG
wailer
> In article <pan.2002.12.11....@newsguy.com>, "wailer"
> <wai...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [blah blah about death and guns deleted]
>
> I'm glad you're so happy with it all, since it's your country. I just don't
> see why it's any of your business how people choose to handle these things in
> their own countries. Why are all you people from other places so darn
> concerned about us? You (collective you, aimed at all the non-Americans who
> can't let go of this issue) sound like a bunch of fussy old Victorian
> missionaries trying to convert the 'heathen' and whining because the heathen
> (many of whom have deep rich belief systems of their own) don't want to become
> fussy Victorian missionaries. It's our country. It's like the people who go
> whining around this group because it's not a carbon copy of one of those
> content-moderated spanking groups.
>
IIRC, this debate (such as it is) started when certain of *your* countrymen
somehow connected censorship (or lack thereof) to the right to bear arms. The
claim (such as it was) was that because you guys are entitled/allowed/continue
to "enjoy" the right to bear arms, that somehow this makes your democracy safer
from being "taken away" by "facists"/"bleeding heart liberals"/"government".
My argument is a) the two are *not* connected; b) the "right" to bear arms is an
irrelevancy to the majority of urbanised-western-world-"average" citizens; and
c) that the right to bear arms is a net negative to the general comfort and the
enjoyment of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
> Personally, there are a lot of ways I think my country sucks, just as I think
> that having any moderation sucks, but my country sucks less than any of the
> alternatives I have ever heard of, just as s.s.s at least has the least
> moderation of any NNTP spanking forum with enough real posters to make it
> work. YMMV, and obviously does, since you are not applying for citizenship
> here, that I've heard of. That's fine. You are welcome to run your own
> country however you like, but I just don't seen where you get off continuing
> to tell us how we should run ours or implying that it would be better somehow
> if it were more like yours or even implying that it _could_ be more like
> yours, since the respective mindsets are so vastly different (something that
> is becoming more and more apparent in these discussions) that I do not at all
> agree that similar laws and restrictions would _ever_ have similar results
> here.
True, Australia has the benefit of both British Common Law and the balance of
powers as established by the US constitution. It also has the glory of
establishing itself as one of the oldest democracies in the world without the
violence of revolution or rebellion. It has its blemishes as well, particularly
the treatment of the indigenous population, both historically and today, its
racist (until, ye gods, 1972!) immigration policies, and recently its despicable
treatment of "illegal" refugees.
I'm not trying to change the US, it has given the world some beautiful things,
in particular, the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the
associated Constitution, but it's not perfect either.
As to the moderation question, I haven't got any issues with your perception of
SSS at all.
SG
Jim wrote:
<<All I can say is that if you think hunting is about blood sport or
killing for *fun*, you simply do not understand.>>
I understand that hunting in northern Michigan is all about canned
beans, beer and infidelity.
Forget the hunt, fellows, grab your condoms and head for the local
tavern!
<<You may not have the time--or the interest--but I would strongly urge
you to go on a simple bird or rabbit hunt with a friend.>>
No, don't do it, Pablo! There is nothing simple about it. There's
nothing worse than taking the life of a bird, or a beautiful and blessed
rabbit.
SG
domino
Goode) wrote:
>In article <qtfgvu0vf10l5rjgs...@4ax.com>,
>dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk wrote:
>You are such a nice sensible vegetarian, dear.:-)
Thank you <grin> I like to think of myself as a prgmatist more than
anything. Whilst I can afford to be vegetarian, then I will be. If I
was in a situation where it was eat eat or die. I'll eat the meat.
I think if circs were extreme enough (like those footballers lost in
the mountain plaine crash) then I might well resort to cannibalism in
order to survive.
> (Though one could
>actually make a pretty good case in this country for competently done
>hunting being far more humane than the general practices of the mainstream
>commercial meat industry, fyi and fwiw.)
<nods> I *quite* agree. Mainstream comercial meat production is
inhumane, and *quite* (imo anyway) disgusting.
>Perhaps some of the English contingent think we should copy them on that
>one, too, but I think it's sort of cool that we still have some wildlife
>over here, even if it does get a bit out of balance.:-)
I agree.... One of the things I love about the US and Oz are the wide
open spaces of unowned land, where wildlife can do its own thing.
>They are welcome to not consider it. What they are not welcome to do (not
>that I can stop it, but I sure as shit don't have to welcome it<g>) is to
>tell us that their way is somehow superior
The british have been thinking and believing that for the past several
hundred years....
>common
>sense is one of the most inappropriately named commodities around these
>days, eh?;-S
indeed <grin>
loveya
Domino
domino
>domino wrote:
>
>>Yes - the way some of our rich and titled citizens disport themselves
>>does look like something out of a bad movie.... <grin>
>>
>>And - it costs a fortune....
>>
>
>*And*, you don't even get to keep the stuff you kill.
I believe you do - or can do by arrangement.
(though possibly only if you pay extra for them)
love
Domino
domino
>Yeah, I can't eat those either. For me it would be akin to
>eating baby seal. Eating an animal I've sat in the park and
>fed would feel like eating a pet.
>
>It's not that I have a problem with others eating venison,
>rabbit, duck (or even dog for that matter). It's just not
>something I could do.
So are you a vegetarian?
love
domino
domino
wrote:
>The higher rate of homicide or the ridiculous(??) rate of incarceration
>in the USA has to do with our population, imo.
how do you figure that?
Domino
Alex Birch
RosyB...@newsguy.com says...
>
>I'm glad you're so happy with it all, since it's your country. I just
>don't see why it's any of your business how people choose to handle these
>things in their own countries. Why are all you people from other places so
>darn concerned about us?
>
available to its posters, uncensored and unrestrained, to discuss what they
liked. I thought this was the sort of freedom of speech the charter guaranteed.
I now realise that you consider it to be some propaganda arm of the United
States and that NO posts should be discussed if they criticise in any way
Motherhood, Apple Pie, The Flag, Davy Crockett, Mickey Mouse or any other symbol
of US nationhood which you consider sacred. Oh and biggest of all of
course...THE GUN!!
Well this particular thread started I believe thanks to one of your fellow gun
toting yahoos trying (so far in vain) to prove that America with its 8 people in
ever 100,000 murdered by the gun was a veritable nirvana in which to live
compared to those two really violent and evil countries the UK and Australia.
In order to highlight the paucity of his argument, it has been necessary to
point out some home truths about American gun ownership and its consequences.
If this offends you, I suggest you get your AK-47 out of the kitchen cupboard
and blow Papa away!!
Alex
Pablo
>
>Pablo wrote:
>> I do, very much. It's not just a matter of a different name,
>> though. It's a very different sort of activity. If killing
>> in order to survive is what it comes down to, then that's
>> about as imperative an imperative as they get.
>
>That's not a necessary condition. Eating meat because you want
>meat is enough in my opinion. You don't need any more justification
>for being an omnivore than a cat does for being a carnivore.
I don't particularly disagree with that. I do think, though,
that the greater resources and intelligence at our disposal
mean we have a greater responsibility for how we treat the
animals we use for food.
I was specifically comparing hunting as a necessity to obtain
food, and hunting for 'sport', though.
>It's always tempting to ascribe evil or ignoble motives to those
>who practice things you don't understand.
And not *necessarily* false. <smile>
I do sincerely doubt, though, that the majority of those
people who hunt for reasons other than to obtain food are
doing it for the benefit of the species that they're busy
hunting. They want there to be a continued supply of the
target, sure, but beyond that, it's their own enjoyment
that's the point of it.
I fully accept that management of some species necessarily
entails some form of occasional cull - often because we've
ourselves completely fucked up what was a relatively stable
balance. Though not always, natch. Populations often boom
and bust in cycles, and change as environments change. I'd
like to think that a cull would be genuinely necessary for
the survival of the species, though, and not merely a
convenient financial expedient for us - or a way to make
money. A last resort.
Assuming a cull is genuinely necessary, though, I do have
problems with it being seen as some sort of 'sport'. A cull
*is* a necessary evil.
>And I don't want to get into the cheap shot business of saying,
>"If you haven't done it you can't understand it." All I can
>say is that if you think hunting is about blood sport or killing
>for *fun*, you simply do not understand.
It would seem not.
>You may not have the time--or the interest--but I would strongly
>urge you to go on a simple bird or rabbit hunt with a friend.
<wry smile> I only know one person who owns a gun - this is
in the US - and it's a handgun, so this isn't really an option.
You're also right that I wouldn't have the interest.
>Absolutely. An animal is a marvelous piece of work; something
>you will find that sportsmen--having had much more experience
>than you with these animals--appreciate at least as much as
>you do.
Possibly, though honestly what I see is the animals being
celebrated as: firstly, a target; secondly, a trophy to be
photographed with, mounted somewhere, etc. The animals as
live animals seem less important.
>If you do your homework, you will find that sportsmen and
>hunters contribute amounts toward game management and habitat
>improvement many times that contributed by those who think
>hunting is an abomination.
Well, perhaps. But this is a by-product of their having
paid to enjoy killing the animals. How many do you honestly
think would contribute money if this wasn't part of the deal?
If, for example, the cull was to be performed by some other
professional service.
>Hunters understand that their relationship to wild game is
>a symbiotic relationship--not a competetive one. The have
>respect for game and put their money where their mouth is.
>
>In the words of Judge Lance Ito, "Pab, get your checkbook out."
>I have.
You still don't want to build that fence though. :-)
Pab.
Alex Birch
says...
>
>>
>By the same token, anyone reading your posts could think they were all about
>pro-England propaganda, with the love it or leave it, and the excuses. Yes, you
>have gunplay in cities but only (according to you) among the Jamaicans (!). And
>people kill animals, but that's only the benighted vestiges of the upper class.
>Yes, everything is great in England, as long as you first factor out all the
>things you want to factor out.
>There are lots of things about the US that make me sick. I hate it that we have
>the death penalty. It makes me very depressed that the Trent Lott thing is
>happening.I could go on all day. But if you are going into the business of
>considering excuses, we have some too.
>
Well Naomi, with all respect to your knowledge of the UK which I suspect is
scant, I didnt think I was giving excuses but answering questions as honestly as
I could.
My love it or leave it has only been said once, in exasperation, to the whining
Domino who has lived in England for years yet seems to find no redeeming
features in it. I'm sure you would react similarly if someone who lived in the
US posted similarly.
With regard to gunplay in the cities yes thats what I said and I challenge you
to consult Metropolitan Police or Home Office records and tell me I'm wrong. We
even have our news broadcasts which used to walk on eggshells over any such
racial implication saying that the spate of black on black drug related killings
is reaching 'epidemic proportions'. I didnt mention their culture to be racist
but to make the point, in response to a question I was asked, about the
relationship between our revised 1997 gun laws and the increase in gun killings.
I said that the tightening of gun laws primarily affected the white middle
classes who owned sporting guns and that the increase in gun killings could be
pinpointed to Jamaican Yardies and associates who import guns from the US and
kill anyone who interferes with their 'turf'. I said therefore the two were
totally unrelated and I stand by what I said. Any other killings by gun in
England are so infinitesimal as to not statistically register.
I went on to hunting and yes again I would defend my argument. In America ,
hunting is virtually a classless sport though I recognise that you need money to
pay for guns, ammo and maintenance. In Britain hunting is very strictly
licensed, very expensive and consequently IS a preserve of the upper middle
classes. Again I believe a sociological fact.
Naomi, there are lots of things in England that make me sick too. Everything is
certainly not great in England and I dont think I have ever suggested that to be
the case. Contrary to what you infer there are amny things about the United
States of which I am very fond, which is why I keep coming back for holidays.
If I appear to posture a robust pro English defence it is in response to posters
like Rosy B Goode who is one of those Americans who makes me grind the enamel
off my teeth. If anyone could persuade me not to come to America next year as I
intend to do and go to Cuba in sheer spite, its Rosy. I really hate this chest
beating flag waving overt nationalism which does seem to be a peculiarly
American disease and one from which Rosy suffers terminally. No other nation
suffers from it to the same extent and her 'What right have you foreigners got
to interfere in this thread' style just drives me nuts. Fortunately there are
people like Mija to name just one who is blessed with an objectivity and a
rational approach to contentious topics and doesnt need to keep ramming the
greatness of America down our throats on every occasion, though Ive no doubt her
love of country is just as great as those who do.
Alex
Alex Birch
>
> RosyB.Goode wrote:
>>
>> You are welcome to run
>>your own country however you like, but I just don't seen where you get off
>>continuing to tell us how we should run ours or implying that it would be
>>better somehow if it were more like yours or even implying that it _could_
>
>Maybe Wailer's just following Papa's lead here?
>
>It's funny. I suspect there are a number of countries around the
>world that feel that way about US foriegn policy.
>
ROTFL!! Wow do you know I nearly said that in my reply and thought 'Naaah..not
from a Brit. You'll only be accused of stirring it up!!'
Alex
Jim
> Well this particular thread started I believe thanks to one of your fellow gun
> toting yahoos
Whoa! Slow down there, big fella! Why does gun-toting make one a yahoo?
> trying (so far in vain) to prove that America with its 8 people in
> ever 100,000 murdered by the gun was a veritable nirvana
I must have missed that "nirvana" thread. Can you reference it for me? I find
America pleasant, but with the likes of Herr Ashcroft skulking about, I never let my
guard down.
> in which to live
> compared to those two really violent and evil countries the UK and Australia.
I certainly don't feel that way about my country's two most steadfast allies; others
may.
>
> In order to highlight the paucity of his argument, it has been necessary to
> point out some home truths about American gun ownership and its consequences.
And most of these are absolutely true, too. But I guess for me, it seems the risks
you are taking by disarming your populace are far greater than the risks we take by
making sure ours is armed.
>
> If this offends you, I suggest you get your AK-47 out of the kitchen cupboard
> and blow Papa away!!
Sorry--I have kids, 10 and 12. Even though both are marksmen, we keep our guns
locked up. Even an English batsman occasionally hits something, if only by
accident. <g>
On a more appropriate note: Has anybody heard from Bookbabe?
bookbabe
<snip>
>On a more appropriate note: Has anybody heard from Bookbabe?
I'm here, lurking in the gun threads.
Had the chemo yesterday, and felt energetic enough last night to put
up my Christmas tree. I'm thinking of making some shortbread cookies
over the weekend.
A bit of neuropathy has kicked in- my toes and fingers are tingly.
It's not painful, just weird. Other than that, I feel pretty good,
except for being tired. Didn't sleep much last night; I take decadron
on the day of chemo and for two doses afterward, and it gives me
insomnia. But it's supposed to help with nausea.
Next dose of chemo is scheduled for Dec. 24!! I'm thinking of asking
them to delay it until the 27th, so I can enjoy Christmas dinner. My
appetite disappears for a week following chemo, and I find it hard to
eat.
Thanks for thinking of me, Jim. It's one of the things I like about
s.s.s.- even in the midst of a potentially inflammatory thread, people
are still capable of so much kindness.
Hugs to all,
Michele
Jim
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:48:07 -0500, Jim <wvto...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >On a more appropriate note: Has anybody heard from Bookbabe?
>
> I'm here, lurking in the gun threads.
Yeah, I'm getting kind of tired of it myself. I don't think either camp
can "get" the other--neither can understand the experiences that lead the
"other" to their points of view--me most of all.
>
>
> Had the chemo yesterday, and felt energetic enough last night to put
> up my Christmas tree. I'm thinking of making some shortbread cookies
> over the weekend.
Yeah, amid all the really meaningless nonsense, it's the everyday things
that really matter. Home, family, Christmas. (and don't forget
shortbread!)
>
>
> A bit of neuropathy has kicked in- my toes and fingers are tingly.
> It's not painful, just weird. Other than that, I feel pretty good,
> except for being tired. Didn't sleep much last night; I take decadron
> on the day of chemo and for two doses afterward, and it gives me
> insomnia. But it's supposed to help with nausea.
Are you getting anything that has --vinc--in the name? Vincristine,
vinblastine, etc? These pretty commonly cause neuropathies, but are
usually self-limiting.
>
>
> Next dose of chemo is scheduled for Dec. 24!! I'm thinking of asking
> them to delay it until the 27th, so I can enjoy Christmas dinner. My
> appetite disappears for a week following chemo, and I find it hard to
> eat.
I can't see why they wouldn't do that.
>
>
> Thanks for thinking of me, Jim. It's one of the things I like about
> s.s.s.- even in the midst of a potentially inflammatory thread, people
> are still capable of so much kindness.
I've been on a lot of groups all over the Web, but I like this one best.
A lot of good, commonsensical people here. The discussions are wide-open
and the PC crap doesn't fly for one second. If you have a contrary
opinion and you can support it, fine. If not, you'll get your ass
toasted. I like that. (Back to ass-toasting again, aren't we? Full
circle, as it were...)
You take care of yourself, you hear? Bethany has been a fan of your
writing a long time and wants to see lots more.
Love,
Yurassis Dragon
>
>>>Maybe, maybe not. If you have a gun safe that can opened quickly and
easily, the ammo likewise. With proper equipment, you can have access to what
you need in ten to fifteen seconds, which should be quite sufficient. You've
posited a storage situation which backs up your
contention. Most folks concerned about home safety would never consider your
scenario, but have proper storage facilities for safe storage while still
giving super quick access.<<<
>
Sorry to disappoint those who expected me to part company with Barrister on
this issue. If you have untrained kids in the house or untrained kids have
ready access, then the guns should be locked up.
There are very few cases where a home-defense gun needs to be used within
seconds. If you wake up and the criminal is already in the room with you, you
are toast anyway.
Most home-invasion robberies involve people knocking down doors or breaking
windows to get it. If your gun is reasonably available, you can get get to it
and put it into action, as Barrister says, within a minute.
Note that I said "untrained kids." My father kept a loaded .38 pistol in his
nightstand every day and night from the time I was 8 and my sister was 5. We
were trained at an early age to know the difference between real guns and toys.
We are now 62 and 59 and neither of us has accidentally killed anybody or
anything, so I guess the training worked.
Papa
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit
violence on those who would do us harm - George Orwell