Gun control is a favorite tool of tyrants
Robert Frenchu
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:39:55 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On 11 Jan 1998 13:51:46 GMT, gib...@prairienet.org (Mark Gibson)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>About 2.5 million people use guns in self defense in the U.S. each year.
>>Guns save lives, maybe YOURS.
>
>and if no guns were in the US criminals wouldnt use them...
How true, and IF Napolean had nuclear weapons he would have won the
battle of Waterloo.
The Devil will ski to work before either one happens.
****************************************************************************
"...Democracy is defended in 3 stages. Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box."
Ambrose Bierce
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <34bc202a...@news.enter.net>, <wf...@enter.netxx> wrote:
>funny, however, in places like the UK where gun control is a fact of
>life, their kids arent dying like our are from guns...
Nope, they're not dying from guns, but they're still dying.
Hmm, could there be an unhappy principle here?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Robert Frenchu
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:24:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:25:27 -0800, stev...@safemail.com (Steve Hix)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <34baa990...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >Because most of them shoot themselves.
>>
>>> ROFLMAO!!! really?? THAT one you're gonna have to prove!! 25K gun
>>> suicides/yr?
>>
>>Close. Suicide is the major cause of gun-related deaths, followed by
>>criminal homicide, and with accidents trailing far behind.
>
>and it turns out i UNDERSTATED the problem according to the cdc
>(www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fafacts/.htm) there were over 38,000 deaths due
>to firearms in 1994. sorry for making guns appear safer than they are.
Excuse me, but what do the number of suicides have to do with how
"safe" guns are? All that means is they are very effective at doing
the "job," as it were.
Frankly, I'm surprised at this "statistic" that says more people kill
themselves than are killed by firearms. Sure sounds like the beginning
of a good trend to me.
W.W.J.D. Black
In article <34bd600b...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
}On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:50:12 -0600, JOE ROWELL <hey...@swbell.net>
}wrote:
}
}>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
}>
}>> >You wouldn't happen to be one of the unfortunates that believes the
}>> >War on (some) Drugs is actually being won, are you?
}>>
}>> hell no, i favor legalizing them. if someone is so determined to
}>> commit suicide that he's gonna kill me to do it, then let him kill
}>> himself.
}>>
}> wf, your not being consistent but this time I agree with you.
}
}you mean because of govt regulation? au contraire!! i dont want
}anybody killing me. so if that costs them their gun, thats fine with
}me.
}
LOL
I don't want anyone killing me either. Are you willing or able even to
guarentee my safety at or above the level I can guarentee my safety (with a
gun) after you take my gun away?
}>I think they shouold made drugs legal, they could tax them, sell them in
}>liquer stores and make you show your I.D. They could be sold so cheap
}>that it would make it not profitable for the street dealer.
}
}you bet. the drug violence AND drug use would dry up overnite.
Funny how most of the European countries can't claim that is what really
happens.
}with no
}economic incentive to sell drugs the pushers would be hard pressed.
}
Not really, they would simply be wards of the government.
}
} If people want drugs,
}>they're going to get them.
}>
}
}yeah funny how people forget that
}
Or the same with guns.
--
In the event someone would like to reply to this message via e-mail (who
knows why), remove 'nospam.' in my reply address.
I believe the IRS is functioning better today than it was five years ago.
-- Bill Clinton, defending the agency after Congressional hearings produced
stories of IRS harassment and abuse of taxpayers, AP
Robert Frenchu
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:57:34 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1998 03:25:34 GMT, gib...@prairienet.org (Mark Gibson)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>ROFLMAO!!! really?? THAT one you're gonna have to prove!! 25K gun
>>>suicides/yr?
>>
>>No, you idiot. Just over half of the people who die of gunshot wounds
>>are suicides. If you weren't so allergic to facts you'd know that.
>
><chuckle> golly if you'd learn to read, i never mentioned only the
>criminal use of guns. i mentioned those who died of gunshot wounds,
>period. sorry, im not gonna play in your ballyard. take your glove
>and go home.
>
>>
>>>and if no guns were in the US criminals wouldnt use them...
>>
>>Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
>
>gee it seems to work in the UK
>
Yeah, it's just Heaven in the good ol' U.K.
London Times
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/
Sunday, January 11 1998
FOCUS
More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of
40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
the crime capital of the West.
Dick Hobbs, a criminologist at Durham University, said crime now
permeated every aspect of society. "We have
been encouraged to think over the last 15 years that crime is
exceptional, but it's now normal for people to commit crime. "For many
young people, it's a routine activity. In some areas you find up to
90%
of the youths involved in crime. It provides excitement, it provides
status among their peers, and it can provide a living. It provides
many
of the functions that you would hope work provides."
To sceptics who say such views exaggerate the decay of green and
pleasant England, experts reply that violent
crime, burglary and theft are, proportionally, more prevalent in
England
and Wales than in America.
Since 1979 the number of crimes in England and Wales has doubled -
rising faster than any western country and 10 times faster than in the
US. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
screens,
is a safer country.
The only European country to come near England and Wales for levels of
crime is the Netherlands. We are, it
seems, the crime blackspot of the western world.
THE most detailed study to analyse the percentage of the population
convicted of crime started with a group of
people born in 1953 and tracked their progress through four decades.
About 8% of males had notched up at least
one conviction by the age of 15; 20% by 20; 31% by 30; and 34% by 40.
After that age, offences tail off and first offences among older men
are
rare.
It is a mistake to imagine that the crimes are predominantly petty or
drug-related. The son of Jack Straw, the home secretary, may yet
receive
a criminal record for his alleged involvement with cannabis, but drugs
formed only about 3% of the convictions in the study. Burglary, theft
and acts of violence were more common.
The study was conducted by Michael Hough, former deputy head of the
Home
Office research and planning
unit, and Julian Roberts, a professor at Ottawa University. They now
estimate that 40% of men have at least one conviction before they
reach
the age of 40. (By contrast, only 8% of women were convicted by the
same
age.)
Crime scene: how countries compare
(+) In 'contact crimes', involving violence, England and Wales is
just
ahead of America with a rate of 3.6% of the population being victims.
In
France the rate is 2.2%; in Austria 1.6%
(+) Since the second world war, violent crimes have been rising in
England and Wales at an average annual rate of 6.5%
(+) Given the general rise in crime, violent offences still account
for only 6% of the total. Between 1987 and 1995 total offences
recorded
by police rose from 3,892,200 to 5,100,240
(+) Since 1979, the number of recorded crimes in England and Wales
has
doubled, though there has been a decline in recent years. Since 1954,
there has been a twelvefold increase
(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
as in France
(+) 3% of car owners in England and Wales had their vehicles stolen
in
1995; in America 2.1%; in Switzerland 0.1%
(+) 6.1% of people in England and Wales were victims of burglary
attempts in 1995; in America 4.9%; in Finland
1.2%
(+) In 1996 the burglary rate fell, but there were still 1,164,000
offences, of which nearly 600,000 were
domestic break-ins - or 1,600 a day.
(+) More convicted criminals are being jailed: 58,400 were sent to
prison in 1993 compared with 79,100 in 1995. But a criminal is still
less likely to be jailed today than in the 1950s
(+) England and Wales have approximately 110 people for every
100,000
of the population serving a prison sentence while America has about
615
incarcerated for every 100,000 of the population
(+) Since 1979 the number of crimes in England and Wales has doubled
-
rising faster than any western country and 10 times faster than in the
US. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
screens,
is a safer country.
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Diane Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
____________________________________________________
wf...@enter.netxx
>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:24:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>and it turns out i UNDERSTATED the problem according to the cdc
>>(www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fafacts/.htm) there were over 38,000 deaths due
>>to firearms in 1994. sorry for making guns appear safer than they are.
>
>Excuse me, but what do the number of suicides have to do with how
>"safe" guns are? All that means is they are very effective at doing
>the "job," as it were.
thats why guns dont belong in society.
==============================================================
official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <34bd600b...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>}you mean because of govt regulation? au contraire!! i dont want
>}anybody killing me. so if that costs them their gun, thats fine with
>}me.
>}
>LOL
>I don't want anyone killing me either. Are you willing or able even to
>guarentee my safety at or above the level I can guarentee my safety (with a
>gun) after you take my gun away?
yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
gun...see! your chances have improved already!
>
>}
>}you bet. the drug violence AND drug use would dry up overnite.
>
>Funny how most of the European countries can't claim that is what really
>happens.
>
tell it to the dutch.
>}with no
>}economic incentive to sell drugs the pushers would be hard pressed.
>}
>Not really, they would simply be wards of the government.
they already are. theyre called 'prisoners'
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:35:19 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >>
> >Yeah, it's just Heaven in the good ol' U.K.
> >
> >40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
> >the crime capital of the West.
>
> we do it should have about 7000.
>
> i wait for you to produce the stats
The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
>
> . America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
> >screens,
> >is a safer country.
>
> except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
> year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
thing then, right? Bruglaries, car thefts, all those lovely
"non-violent" crimes- the number of which is on the rise- is preferable
right? Just want to make sure I understand you.
>
> >(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
> >as in France
>
> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> a toughie!!!
Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
weeping over are felons, does it?
Panhead
Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:35:19 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> > (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
> > >the crime capital of the West.
> >
> > we do it should have about 7000.
> >
> > i wait for you to produce the stats
>
> The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
>
> >
> > >screens,
> > >is a safer country.
> >
> > year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
>
> According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
> thing then, right? Bruglaries, car thefts, all those lovely
> "non-violent" crimes- the number of which is on the rise- is preferable
> right? Just want to make sure I understand you.
>
> >
> > >as in France
> >
> > stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> > a toughie!!!
>
> Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
> weeping over are felons, does it?
Bob, you are so right! This guy just doesn't get it, does he?
--
Panhead.Zircon AH™#49, HSB™#1219, KoB#236 --EK-III Paints with me--
http://www.webspan.net/~panhead/ mailto:cna...@jrofcna.arg
I am Pan of Borg. Prepare to be top-coated. Priming is irrelevant.
Sanding is futile. Flames WILL be done our way.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:38:36 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >> gee where's the body count? if britain had the same ratio of murders
> >> we do it should have about 7000.
> >> i wait for you to produce the stats
>
> >The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
>
> or just cant read it?
Obviously you are missing the point. I will try to make this as simple
as I possibly can and still keep he interest of other readers.
You say- No guns in England. England wonderful place.
I say- England low on murder, high on everything else.
You say - This is good thing
I say - This is bad thing.
You say - too many murders in U.S. Guns bad. Bad guns!
I say- Many of those murders might be criminals. Guns good. Good guns!
I may not be able to simplfy this any more. If you still don't
understand this let me know and I will try pig latin.
> >> except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
> >> year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
> >
> >According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
> >thing then, right?
>
> i'd rather be burglarized than killed. if you prefer the
> opposite,thats fine. if someone steals my car, well thats a shame. if
> they gun down my family...thats a different matter
>
> you having a love affair with your car?
My car is one example of my property that I would like to keep. And I
find England's rate of car theft unacceptable. If you interpret this as
"a love affair" then so be it. I would rather be neither burglarized nor
murdered. That's why I have a gun. Or two.
>
> >> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
> >> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> >> a toughie!!!
> >
> >
> >Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
> >weeping over are felons, does it?
>
> <chuckle> and many arent!
And many are. And I don't have any problem with them becoming
statistics. Do you?
Robert Frenchu
Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:45:21 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:22:33 -0600, jdb...@black.metronet.nospam.com
>(W.W.J.D. Black) wrote:
>
>>In article <34bd600b...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>}you mean because of govt regulation? au contraire!! i dont want
>>}anybody killing me. so if that costs them their gun, thats fine with
>>}me.
>>}
>>LOL
>>I don't want anyone killing me either. Are you willing or able even to
>>guarentee my safety at or above the level I can guarentee my safety (with a
>>gun) after you take my gun away?
>
>yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
>gun...see! your chances have improved already!
Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
Robert Frenchu
Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:40:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:41:03 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:24:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>Excuse me, but what do the number of suicides have to do with how
>>"safe" guns are? All that means is they are very effective at doing
>>the "job," as it were.
>
>thats why guns dont belong in society.
You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
wf...@enter.netxx
>>
>Yeah, it's just Heaven in the good ol' U.K.
>
>More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of
>40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
>the crime capital of the West.
gee where's the body count? if britain had the same ratio of murders
we do it should have about 7000.
i wait for you to produce the stats
. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
>screens,
>is a safer country.
except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
>(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
>as in France
oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
a toughie!!!
wf...@enter.netxx
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>
>> gee where's the body count? if britain had the same ratio of murders
>> we do it should have about 7000.
>>
>> i wait for you to produce the stats
>The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
really? gee dont see anything about murders. you dodging the question
or just cant read it?
>
>>
>> except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
>> year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
>
>According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
>thing then, right?
i'd rather be burglarized than killed. if you prefer the
opposite,thats fine. if someone steals my car, well thats a shame. if
they gun down my family...thats a different matter
you having a love affair with your car?
>> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
>> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
>> a toughie!!!
>
>
>Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
>weeping over are felons, does it?
<chuckle> and many arent!
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:07:52 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> really? gee dont see anything about murders. you dodging the question
>> or just cant read it?
>
>
>Obviously you are missing the point. I will try to make this as simple
>as I possibly can and still keep he interest of other readers.
>
>You say- No guns in England. England wonderful place.
>I say- England low on murder, high on everything else.
>You say - This is good thing
>I say - This is bad thing.
>You say - too many murders in U.S. Guns bad. Bad guns!
>I say- Many of those murders might be criminals. Guns good. Good guns!
many of those murders might be criminals...
thats RICH!!!
of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see the
occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
gee they can steal my car anyday.
>
>> you having a love affair with your car?
>
>My car is one example of my property that I would like to keep.
how about your life and that of your family?
>> <chuckle> and many arent!
>
>And many are. And I don't have any problem with them becoming
>statistics. Do you?
fine. produce the statistics.
wf...@enter.netxx
>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>
>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>
the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
constitution which, for me is justification enough)
given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
1. are not necessary to secure freedom
2. do not guarantee freedom
3. do not cause a reduction in crime
4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
guns make violence easier.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:45:21 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
>>gun...see! your chances have improved already!
>
>Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
>_
yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
gives them power.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:07:52 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> really? gee dont see anything about murders. you dodging the question
> >> or just cant read it?
> >
> >
> >Obviously you are missing the point. I will try to make this as simple
> >as I possibly can and still keep he interest of other readers.
> >
> >You say- No guns in England. England wonderful place.
> >I say- England low on murder, high on everything else.
> >You say - This is good thing
> >I say - This is bad thing.
> >You say - too many murders in U.S. Guns bad. Bad guns!
> >I say- Many of those murders might be criminals. Guns good. Good guns!
>
> many of those murders might be criminals...
>
> thats RICH!!!
Rich, but a truh you cannot deny.
>
> of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
> suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see the
> occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
What "proof" would you like?
Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
Prozac."
>
> gee they can steal my car anyday.
> >
> >> you having a love affair with your car?
> >
> >My car is one example of my property that I would like to keep.
>
> how about your life and that of your family?
I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns in
the house in case I need them.
>
> >> <chuckle> and many arent!
> >
> >And many are. And I don't have any problem with them becoming
> >statistics. Do you?
>
> fine. produce the statistics.
Statistics for what?
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >>thats why guns dont belong in society.
> >
> >You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
> >as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
> >
>
> the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
> existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
> constitution which, for me is justification enough)
We don't HAVE to justify it. That's the beauty of it.
>
> given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>
> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
Yes they are.
> 2. do not guarantee freedom
You better believe that they do.
> 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
> 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
I see it.
>
> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
> guns make violence easier.
>
Guns make people equal.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:16:03 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:45:21 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> >>yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
> >>gun...see! your chances have improved already!
> >
> >Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
> >_
>
> yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
> disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
> secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
> gives them power.
Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
Chris Brown
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>
> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
see it.
Dan Z
In <34c23bb...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>>
>>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>>
>
>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>
>
>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>
You have made 5 assertions here without a shred of evidence. How about
providing some?
Of course we know you are ignoring all the contrary evidence that you
have been given over the past few weeks. That is one of the typical
techniques of the citizen-disarmament-extremist: keep repeating the lie
often enough, hoping it will eventually be believed.
I'm still waiting, also, for your answer to this simple question:
if you are truly interested in saving lives, why aren't you working on
solving one of the MANY problems that take more lives than firearms?
I've been waiting for your answer for days now.
--
Antispam address list, spammers listed will be added to other spammer's lists; poetic justice....
plea...@PLEASUREQUEST.COM , all...@northernnet.com , Johnny...@HOTMAIL.COM , po...@mail.inawhile.com ,
mor...@hotmail.com , 74431...@COMPUSERVE.COM , sma...@NETVISION.NET.IL , bel...@SOUTHERNBELLES.COM ,
sat3...@VALUEWEB.NET , alle...@AOL.COM , inb...@PACBELL.NET , REH...@NATIONALCREDIT.COM , gf...@ICA.NET ,
postm...@CROMERICA.COM , savi...@hotmail.com , car...@MEGAWEBCITY.COM , info...@juno.com ,
ad...@WEBPOST.NET , ingr...@aol.com , ingr...@hotmail.com , dann...@HOTMAIL.COM , vi...@CELTIC.CO.UK ,
journ...@mail.com , wa...@hkbizlink.com , submit...@juno.com , rsla...@IDT.NET , doma...@IX.GEN.COM
ku...@cheerful.com , sma...@NETVISION.NET.IL , J...@JOEMAST.COM , send...@mailcity.com , gl...@n-jcenter.com
belc...@PROMOBILITY.NET , max...@TNLB.COM , more...@swbell.net , bp...@MINDSPRING.COM , FC...@juno.com ,
qui...@juno.com , agood...@aol.com , Ask...@aol.com , bigh...@BIGHITTERS.COM , multi...@iname.com ,
st...@hotmail.com , m...@EDEN.COM , gbre...@netport.com , Graph...@WORLDNET.ATT.NET , e...@ELOSOFT.COM ,
maga...@iname.com , cy...@REEFNET.COM , fant...@lcsys.com , sel...@NETVIGATOR.COM , srob...@IX.NETCOM.COM
ad...@WEB-RESPONSE.COM , Gre...@nauticom.net , enter...@hotmail.com , webm...@SIRIUSPUB.COM ,
pau...@juno.com , co...@WALLSTREETCOINS.COM ,
Chris Brown
Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
> > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
> >
> > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
> Yes they are.
Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
western country? Your police are routinely brutal, you're expected to be
able to produce photo ID on demand (that one gets the civil liberties
groups up in arms whenever it's brought up here), your laws on the use of
alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
jealous.
> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>
> You better believe that they do.
You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
> > 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>
> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops in
an area. ban bookshops now!
> > 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>
> Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
> I see it.
Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
criminals. How terribly decent of them.
Chris Brown
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c14ac2...@news.enter.net>...
> >(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
> >as in France
>
> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> a toughie!!!
Now perhpas he'd be good enough to tell us the respective populations,
population densities and car ownership levels of the UK and France?
Proteus
>Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
>then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
>thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
>the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
great to take out the government anyway.
Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
*************************************************************************************
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
*************************************************************************************
Mike Harding
Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
the hands of either the criminals or Police.
Noel B. Brinkley
> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
> see it.
In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people. They
were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that is
civilization, count me among the barbarians.
buddy
Steve Hix
In article <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
> >
> > its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
> Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
> see it.
Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Norway...are *all* insane?
Try again.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
> >Prozac."
>
> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
Pray tell name ONE.
> >
> >> how about your life and that of your family?
> >
> >I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns in
> >the house in case I need them.
>
> of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
> be used against your family than in support of it.
So? How do you know those stats are true? Where do they come from?
Robert Frenchu
Chris Brown wrote:
>
> Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
> > > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
> > >
> > > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
> >
> > Yes they are.
>
> Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
> western country? Your police are routinely brutal, you're expected to be
> able to produce photo ID on demand (that one gets the civil liberties
> groups up in arms whenever it's brought up here), your laws on the use of
> alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
> jealous.
You are the guys who need a license to watch TV, fer chrissakes.
>
> > > 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >
> > You better believe that they do.
>
> You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
> deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
> bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
> on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
> oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
Tell that to the Russians, who were materially superior to the Afghans
yet- if memory serves- are no lnger involved in that country. Do YOU
seriously believe that our government can count on 100% obediance from
it's own troops when they are told to kill their fellow citizens? I
doubt it.
>
> > > 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
> >
> > Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>
> the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops in
> an area. ban bookshops now!
You lost me.
>
> > > 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
> >
> > Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
> > I see it.
>
> Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
> criminals. How terribly decent of them.
Hey, when someone brings up a statistic that says "X" number of people
die from guns every year, they want you to believe they are all babies.
'Tain't so.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:08:57 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
> >> existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
> >> constitution which, for me is justification enough)
> >
>
> the progun crowd, bleating platitudes about how they protect freedom
> is slightly ridiculous.
How so?
>
> >>
> >> given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
> >>
> >> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
> >
> >Yes they are.
>
> tell it to martin luther king, or ghandi.
Pointless argument.
>
> >
> >> 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >
> >You better believe that they do.
>
> tell it to the IRA
No one said it happens overnight.
>
> >> 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
> >
> >Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>
> look at canada for example.
Look at Mexico while you're looking at gun-control paradiss. I rest
that case.
>
> >
> >> 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
> >
> >Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
> >I see it.
>
> really? you got stats on that?
Yep.
>
> >>
> >> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> >> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
> >>
> >> guns make violence easier.
> >>
> >Guns make people equal.
>
> so does the grave
At that is exactly where the criminals should end up that mess with
armed citizens.
Robert Frenchu
Proteus wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
> >then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
> >the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
>
> The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
> that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
>
> Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
> bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
> great to take out the government anyway.
This is debatable.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
> >> disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
> >> secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
> >> gives them power.
> >
> >
> >then they cause crime,
>
Proof is Kleck's study and- one more time- "no guns" is not an option.
How close do you sit to your yagi?
>
> but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom.
>
> tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
>
> i love this gun nut mythology. what comes next? peter pan as elmer
> keith?
I'm glad you are so easily entertained.
PLMerite
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>see it.
>
Well then, I guess we can politely invite the rest of the 'civilized' world
(ask some of the former British Colonies how 'civilized' they think the
Brits really are) to piss off.
Regards, PLMerite
Sorcerer
>>Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
>>_
>
>disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
>secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
>gives them power.
But a gun DOES give me power. I can't make you like me with a gun, and I
can't "drive to work" in it -- but I CAN use it to make a violent offender
leave me alone, one way or another.
When your car can do that, let me know.
If guns did not have that power, I'd probably be no more interested in them
than I am in amateur radio (KD6NNE, doncha know). It's amusing, but of
little real use.
I don't find guns amusing. But, baby, when you NEED one, nothing else works
nearly as well.
PLMerite
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2453$27d073e0$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>
>
>Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
>> > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>> >
>> > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>>
>> Yes they are.
>
>Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
>western country? Your police are routinely brutal, you're expected to be
>able to produce photo ID on demand (that one gets the civil liberties
>groups up in arms whenever it's brought up here), your laws on the use of
>alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
>jealous.
Yes, we all know how much the Brits like to get pissed and invade
neighboring countries disguised as football hooligans (does the Continent
allow Brits to attend football matches yet?).
We also know about how well-protected the British people are from random
search and detention. I think they can label you a 'terrorist' and hold you
for about a week, incomunicado, while they work on you. They don't have
asset forfeiture laws in England, because nobody has anything worth taking.
Aren't they putting television cameras in most public places to 'monitor'
people? You try going into an airport or anywhere in Belfast and refuse to
produce ID on demand and see what happens.
>> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>>
>> You better believe that they do.
>
>You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
>deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
>bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
>on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
>oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
>
Worked pretty well when we tossed the British out on their asses. It wasn't
as much fun the second time, and now every third-rate country can do it.
>> > 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>>
>> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>
>the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops in
>an area. ban bookshops now!
Twaddle. Beneath further comment.
>
>> > 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>>
>> Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
>> I see it.
>
>Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
>criminals. How terribly decent of them.
Yes, I believe we should encourage it.
Regards, PLMerite
PLMerite
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2455$2c20a940$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
I think the populations of both countries are pretty dense. Sorry, couldn't
help that one. Does a Mini or a 2CV really count as a car?
Sorcerer
>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
Man, you're dog nuts insane. We'll get to the reasons in a second.
>given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>
>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
Tell that to governments. They invented the damned things to win battles
and secure their liberties and their right to run their nations unmolested
by other nations. And they continue to have them, and use them.
Tell the mugger that you don't have to do what he says, and that you're not
afraid of his knife. If you live, get back to me and tell me how he stuck
his tail between his legs and ran.
>2. do not guarantee freedom
Governments think they do. There is not ONE oppressive regieme in the world
that does not hunt down every effective weapon in existence and confiscate
them.
>3. do not cause a reduction in crime
This is an obvious lie. The number of crimes thwarted with guns have
estimates ranging from a low of 2.5 million (Kleck) to 4 million (Wolfgang,
who hates guns; but this is what his study showed; he was hoping to refute
Kleck with this study, but the facts were just the opposite of what he hoped
to find).
>4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
No, it doens't. Colds kill more people annually. So does the flu, without
any secondary complications. The flu, at its very least, kills more people
annually than the total number of criminal murders and self-defense
shootings by police combined.
>its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
The government is insane? Bill Clinton is insane? The Queen of England is
insane? They all have guns -- and billions of them -- which they expressly
keep at their disposal. In fact, both of them keep millions of armed men at
their beck and call.
>guns make violence easier.
So do cars. So do kitchen knives. So do framing hammers. Also, the fact
that you are not in handcuffs, confined to a mental institution, also makes
violence easier for you to perpetrate. Obviously, we have been remiss in
not locking you down :-)
Thanks for playing.
Sorcerer
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>see it.
I don't think of you as living in the "civilised World" as you call it.
You are in your herd, and doing what you are told. Be a good little lemming
now and run off the cliff with the rest of your "leaders."
Steve Hix
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> > but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> > >thing that has secured our freedom.
> > tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
What in the *world* has Gandhi got to do with the U.S.?
(Note that he held against the British almost more than anything
else their disarming of the people of India.)
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:08:57 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>
>> the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>> existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>> constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>
>We don't HAVE to justify it. That's the beauty of it.
thats correct. the 2nd ammendment says so. however, the weak logic of
the progun crowd, bleating platitudes about how they protect freedom
is slightly ridiculous.
>>
>> given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>>
>> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
>Yes they are.
tell it to martin luther king, or ghandi.
>
>> 2. do not guarantee freedom
>
>You better believe that they do.
tell it to the IRA
>> 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>
>Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
look at canada for example.
>
>> 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>
>Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
>I see it.
really? you got stats on that?
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>> guns make violence easier.
>>
>Guns make people equal.
so does the grave
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:54:20 GMT, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
>> > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>> >
>> > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>>
>> Yes they are.
>
>Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
>western country? Your police are routinely brutal
well im not sure THATS true. anybody who knows the track record of the
french CRS, for example, will not say US police are brutal!
, you're expected to be
>able to produce photo ID on demand
thats not quite true either...no one is required to produce id,
AFAIK...no cards are required
your laws on the use of
>alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
>jealous.
well THIS is true..and its not just alcohol. the US is so conservative
on sex we just started showing bra commercials and STILL dont have
condom ads.
>
>> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>>
>> You better believe that they do.
>
>You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
>deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
>bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
>on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
>oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
this is absolutely true. its always amazed me how the gun nuts here
think that with their .25 autos theyre gonna take on the USMC...odd
ducks these gun folks.
>
>
>Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
>criminals. How terribly decent of them.
>
what a GREAT response!!!
Scout
Proteus <Pro...@Olympus.god> wrote in article
<34c387d3...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
> >then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
> >the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
>
> The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
> that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
>
> Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
> bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
> great to take out the government anyway.
Ok, two things.
1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
2) Assume for the moment that what you state is true. Would this not
indicate that civilian ownership of arms, particularly the major ones needs
to be encouraged, perhaps even to the point where free or very cheap sales
of such surplus equipement (which we've already paid for), rather than to
send more money to render it inoperational? Items such as A-6, A-7, M-60
tanks, ect, ect could be sold to private individuals (background check, ect
) for what they were worth as scrap minus the costs of scraping them or
rendering them inoperational. The government would recieve EXACTLY the same
amount of money for their sale, and balance the difference in arms.
> Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
> would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
> didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
Again 2 points
1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
wf...@enter.netxx
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
>> disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
>> secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
>> gives them power.
>
>
>Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
>then they cause crime,
proof? and if NO ONE had guns then the point would be moot.
but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
>thing that has secured our freedom.
tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
i love this gun nut mythology. what comes next? peter pan as elmer
keith?
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
>> suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see the
>> occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
>
>What "proof" would you like?
what proof you got?
>
>
>Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
>think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
>"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
>Prozac."
mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>
>> how about your life and that of your family?
>
>I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns in
>the house in case I need them.
of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
be used against your family than in support of it.
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:44:45 GMT, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>see it.
yeah i know. ive never seen a convincing argument for the possession
of guns in private hands. the gun folks here in the US seem to think
theyre single handedly staving off a govt take over....
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:41:08 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>In <34c23bb...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>>
>>>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>>>
>>>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>>>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>>>
>>
>>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>>
>>given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>>
>>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>>2. do not guarantee freedom
>>3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>>4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>>
>>its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>>guns make violence easier.
>>
>
>You have made 5 assertions here without a shred of evidence. How about
>providing some?
1. guns are not necessary to secure freedom. ghandi and MLK were
examples of that
2. the IRA is far more heavily armed than your typical gun owner. yet
after 35 yrs of fighting, northern ireland is still british.
3. if guns caused a reduction in crime, america, which is among the
most heavily armed places on earth should have a low crime rate. it
doesnt.
4. the 38000 dead, so to speak, speak for themselves.
>
That is one of the typical
>techniques of the citizen-disarmament-extremist: keep repeating the lie
>often enough, hoping it will eventually be believed.
yawn...another bleating gun nut...
>
>I'm still waiting, also, for your answer to this simple question:
>if you are truly interested in saving lives, why aren't you working on
>solving one of the MANY problems that take more lives than firearms?
>I've been waiting for your answer for days now.
>
>
how do you know what i do?
ajfakjs;ldf
]asdfa
s'[dfa'slkdfja
s[d'fa;lkjdsfa
];sfd;lkfjasda
sdf;alsjfd
asd;f;laksfjda
s'f;lfa'lfdslkjdsfa
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:07:43 +0000, Mike Harding <m00n...@mcmail.com>
wrote:
>Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
>This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
>the hands of either the criminals or Police.
and how many people were killed by guns last yr? in the US in '94 it
was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
did you have that many gun related killings?
wf...@enter.netxx
On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>Ok, two things.
>
>1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
>completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
>benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
check the IRA. they have:
missiles
RPG's
grenades
automatic weapons
last i checked, Northern Ireland is still british
>
>Again 2 points
>
>1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
>cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
they wouldnt. but access would be so restrictive that we would see
what happens in the UK...they cant steal 'em like they do in the US.
easy access would end. gun related deaths would drop
>
>2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
if neither the bad nor good guy is armend the point is moot
>
>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
so encouraging gunfights makes things safe? especially in view of the
fact that a gun is much more likely to be used AGAINST a family rather
than by it.
in addition there are too many nuts running around with guns. hardly a
day goes by that some guy doesnt dust his wife, kids, and an
occasional cop.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:16:57 -0600, "Noel B. Brinkley"
<budd...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>> >
>> > its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>> Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>> see it.
>
>In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people. They
>were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that is
>civilization, count me among the barbarians.
>buddy
gee seems the problem is that EVERYBODY was armed not that NO ONE was
armed!
James F. Mayer
In <34c2a892...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
><robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>> of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
>>> suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see
the
>>> occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
>>
>>What "proof" would you like?
>
>what proof you got?
>>
>>
>>Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine
you
>>think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
>>"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
>>Prozac."
>
>mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>
>>
>>> how about your life and that of your family?
>>
>>I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns
in
>>the house in case I need them.
>
>of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
>be used against your family than in support of it.
>
has since been discredited. It has also been distorted. The original
states "aquaintences". Have you fallen for the gun control advocacy
organizations intentional distortions? Evan Kellermann himself would
have his wife own a gun.
"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the
more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to
have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." Dr. Aurthur Kellerman:
Health Magazine (March/April 1994)
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
>> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
>> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
>> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
>> >Prozac."
>>
>> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>
>
>Pray tell name ONE.
sorry. in the UK they use tea, n ot prozac.
>
>> of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
>> be used against your family than in support of it.
>
>So? How do you know those stats are true? Where do they come from?
dont remember. guess they come from the same place your stats about
2.5 million crimes prevented by gun use.
James F. Mayer
In <34c2a806...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:14:51 -0500, Robert Frenchu
><robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
>>> societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
>>>
>>Perhpas you had better remove rec.org.mensa from this thread- if
you're
>>a member they'll tear up your membership card with responses like
this.
>>I don't even know how to begin to respond to this question- it makes
no
>>sense.
>
>sorry, i qualify, but as groucho marx says, i wouldnt be a member of a
>club that would have me as a member.
>
>>
>>> and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
>>> where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had
a
>>> gun'
>>
>>
>>Your point being...... what?
>
>you made the comment. answer your own question.
>
>>
>>>
>>> yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of
thousands
>>> of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
>>> lives.
>>
>>
>>Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
>
>and if we had no guns there wouldnt be that problem.
>
Violent crime will disapear? Not quite.
James F. Mayer
In <34c2c179...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:07:43 +0000, Mike Harding <m00n...@mcmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
>>This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are
in
>>the hands of either the criminals or Police.
>
>
>and how many people were killed by guns last yr? in the US in '94 it
>was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
>did you have that many gun related killings?
>
>
>
>
disarm the police and the military?
James F. Mayer
In <34c2c11f...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:16:57 -0600, "Noel B. Brinkley"
><budd...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Chris Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article
<34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>> >
>>> > its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession
of
>>> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>>
>>> Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World
tends to
>>> see it.
>>
>>In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people.
They
>>were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that
is
>>civilization, count me among the barbarians.
>>buddy
>
>gee seems the problem is that EVERYBODY was armed not that NO ONE was
>armed!
>
>
want to also disarm all of the militaries?
James F. Mayer
In <34c2c287...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
><robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
>>> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I
imagine you
>>> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just
go,
>>> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take
my
>>> >Prozac."
>>>
>>> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>>
>>
>>Pray tell name ONE.
>
>sorry. in the UK they use tea, n ot prozac.
>
>>
>>> of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely
to
>>> be used against your family than in support of it.
>>
>>So? How do you know those stats are true? Where do they come from?
>
>dont remember. guess they come from the same place your stats about
>2.5 million crimes prevented by gun use.
>
Not hardly. Yours come from a discredited study and an
organization that wouldn't release the data for independant review
until it was "cleaned up".
Robert Frenchu
Mike Harding wrote:
>
> Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
> This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
> the hands of either the criminals or Police.
This is exactly how they would like it to be in this country, for
reasons I cannot fathom.
Robert Frenchu
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > > <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> > > but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> > > >thing that has secured our freedom.
>
> > > tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
>
>
> (Note that he held against the British almost more than anything
> else their disarming of the people of India.)
This is called "grasping at straws, I believe. :>
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> >> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> >> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
> >> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
> >> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
> >> >Prozac."
> >>
> >> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
'Fraid not- they just find other ways to do it. If yu're gonna off
yourself you're gonna off yourself.
Scout
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c2c1bc...@news.enter.net>...
> On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok, two things.
> >
> >1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
> >completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining
a
> >benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
>
> check the IRA. they have:
>
> missiles
> RPG's
> grenades
> automatic weapons
>
> last i checked, Northern Ireland is still british
True, and last time I check the british government wasn't tyrannical.
> >
> >Again 2 points
> >
> >1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
> >cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
>
> they wouldnt. but access would be so restrictive that we would see
> what happens in the UK...they cant steal 'em like they do in the US.
> easy access would end. gun related deaths would drop
Excuse me????
Weren't you just telling me all the weapons the IRA has? You know missles,
RPGs, grenades, automatic weapons? Is not northern Ireland part of the UK?
Opps, that short memory of yours really caused you to look stupid didn't
it?
> >
> >2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
> >would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to
cause
> >injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
>
> if neither the bad nor good guy is armend the point is moot
No it's not. Since a victim without a gun is more likely to be injured or
killed by the criminal, and a criminal without a gun is more likely to
injure or kill his victim. Your idea is that increasing the number killed
and wounded would be a good idea. I have to wonder about someone that seeks
more injury and death from crime.....
> >
> >Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals
while
> >limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
>
> so encouraging gunfights makes things safe?
Who's encouraging gunfights? I'm simply making the best means of self
defense an option. If the criminal can't control themselves then their
victim has every right to fight back.
> especially in view of the
> fact that a gun is much more likely to be used AGAINST a family rather
> than by it.
Ok. please support that fact. Please present the facts that a gun is more
likely to be used against a non-aggressive family member than it is to
defend against crime. Please note that a successful self defense need not
have a dead body to show it was successful.
> in addition there are too many nuts running around with guns. hardly a
> day goes by that some guy doesnt dust his wife, kids, and an
> occasional cop.
Sort of like those in Japan. Opps, but then they have tight gun control.
Seems nuts exist everywhere, and kill by any means.
Chris Brown
PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> >Now perhpas he'd be good enough to tell us the respective populations,
> >population densities and car ownership levels of the UK and France?
> >
>
> I think the populations of both countries are pretty dense. Sorry,
couldn't
> help that one. Does a Mini or a 2CV really count as a car?
Here's a little help. Both countries have a population of about 60 million.
France, however, has a population density of 106 persons per square
kilometre. The UK has a population density of 242 persons per square
kilometre (source, Encarta 1997 World edition), with over 90% urbanised.
France is less than 75% urbanised.
The UK economy is in much better shape than France's, people buy more cars.
People live closer together - more cars get stolen. Go figure.
Chris Brown
PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> Yes, we all know how much the Brits like to get pissed and invade
> neighboring countries disguised as football hooligans (does the Continent
> allow Brits to attend football matches yet?).
Of course.
> We also know about how well-protected the British people are from random
> search and detention. I think they can label you a 'terrorist' and hold
you
> for about a week, incomunicado, while they work on you.
Perhaps, since you know so much about it, you're like to tell us how meny
people have been detained under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism
Act in the last 10 years? How many of them were known terrorists? How many
were later convicted?
Perhaps you'd also like to bear in mind that even Northern Ireland, with
its endemic terrorist problem, is still considerably safer than the average
US city.
> They don't have
> asset forfeiture laws in England, because nobody has anything worth
taking.
Now you're just being silly.
> Aren't they putting television cameras in most public places to 'monitor'
> people?
Yes, it's actually very popular, and resulted in the return of my bicycle
when it was stolen recently.
> You try going into an airport or anywhere in Belfast and refuse to
> produce ID on demand and see what happens.
The situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat different to that in Great
Britain.
> >> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >>
> >> You better believe that they do.
> >
> >You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
> >deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have
tanks,
> >bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of
soldiers
> >on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's
an
> >oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
> >
>
> Worked pretty well when we tossed the British out on their asses.
Oh sorry, I hadn't realised the similarities between trying to hold a
continent half way around the World with a small group of soldiers using
the same weaponry as those they're fighting against with little will back
home to commit resources into continuing the operation and an indiginous
government with millions of troops, tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers and
the major institutions in the country on their side suppressing internal
unrest.
Go and look what happened in Russia in 1918 - guns didn't help those
opposing the Bolsheviks.
> >> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
> >
> >the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops
in
> >an area. ban bookshops now!
>
> Twaddle. Beneath further comment.
It's actually true. Establishing a correlation between two statistics is
meaningless. you have to establish a causal relationship. You have not done
this.
> >Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
> >criminals. How terribly decent of them.
>
> Yes, I believe we should encourage it.
Well, since your society is obviously so much more advanced than ours (got
a decent colour TV standard and passengere trains that can do more than 40
mph yet?), I'm sure you clever chappies could come up with a gun that only
works when you point it at baddies.
Steve Hix
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> > >> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
> > >> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
> > >> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
> > >> >Prozac."
> > >> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
Cite? (One can always hope...)
One also assumes that wf3h isn't going to trot out Japan
as an example.
Chris Brown
PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> Well then, I guess we can politely invite the rest of the 'civilized'
world
> (ask some of the former British Colonies how 'civilized' they think the
> Brits really are) to piss off.
It doesn't actually bother us if you all go round shooting each other.
Quite an interesting spectator sport actually.
Chris Brown
Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
> You are the guys who need a license to watch TV, fer chrissakes.
Which actually results in TV worth watching. That must be a novel concept.
Chris Brown
Noel B. Brinkley <budd...@swbell.net> wrote in article
<34C2A9...@swbell.net>...
>
> In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people. They
> were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that is
> civilization, count me among the barbarians.
Hitler was democratically elected. The Bolsheviks won a civil war, where
the opposition were both more numerous, and armed, before their murders
started.
Clayton E. Cramer
PBS has been running quite a bit more British TV lately.
Sorry, but most of it is trash as bad as most of ours.
JOE ROWELL
>
> >Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
> >This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
> >the hands of either the criminals or Police.
>
> was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
> did you have that many gun related killings?
>
>
> official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
>
> if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
> type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
wf3h, you want to treat the symtoms and not the cause. Even if you
could take away all of the guns, that wouldn't stop the violence. Years
ago, before guns were everywhere, there were still gangs of young thugs
roaming the streets with chains and knives.
guns don't creat violence, people create violence. Sometimes they use
guns and sometimes they use other tools.
Take away the guns and there would be fewer shootings but just as much
violence. Without guns, it's the biggest bully who puts your life in
danger.
The solution is to get rid of the people who are doing all of the
violence. Besides, we both know that if the American people would let
it happen, that it would take 10 to 20 years after the honest citizen
gave up their guns, before they would get most of the criminal's guns.
Thus Americans would be stripped of one more of their enjoyments.
(their shooting sports and gun collections)
I know that it dosen't bother you but think of the folks that have to
give up their pleasures.
How about the new TAX BY THE MINUTE program that the FCC is trying to
get through. They want to tax the internet users by the minute. It
will start out small at first but within a few years it will grow into a
tax that will be prohibitive. When they finally make cigarettes illegal,
they will have to replace that tax with something.
Are you willing to give up your computer?
I can hear you now,"yeah, when they come and pry it out of my cold dead
hands."
--
JOE ROWELL.... hey...@swbell.net
Proteus
On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>Ok, two things.
>
>1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
>completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
>benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
I don't have any proof. I just think having a handgun isn't
going to stop a tank from running me over or an Apache helipcopter
from tearing me to shreads with a machine gun.
>2) Assume for the moment that what you state is true. Would this not
>indicate that civilian ownership of arms, particularly the major ones needs
>to be encouraged, perhaps even to the point where free or very cheap sales
>of such surplus equipement (which we've already paid for), rather than to
>send more money to render it inoperational? Items such as A-6, A-7, M-60
>tanks, ect, ect could be sold to private individuals (background check, ect
>) for what they were worth as scrap minus the costs of scraping them or
>rendering them inoperational. The government would recieve EXACTLY the same
>amount of money for their sale, and balance the difference in arms.
Are you trying to be funny? This is ludicrous and unnecessary.
>
>> Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
>> would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
>> didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
>
>Again 2 points
>
>1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
>cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
They wouldn't. I never suggested a national ban anyway. I
never even suggested tighter gun controls.
>2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
What do you have to prove *your* claim? Besides, my dog does a
pretty good job of defense, and I don't have to worry about
accidentally putting a bullet in my own head (or someone else's)
>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
How am I doing this?
*************************************************************************************
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
*************************************************************************************
Proteus
On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
>
>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
>
Even if I carry a gun, how is this going to prevent me from
getting shot?
People at war carry guns all the time. I seem to recall that a
lot of these same people have been shot and killed.
Clayton E. Cramer
> >
> >1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
> >completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
> >benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
>
> I don't have any proof. I just think having a handgun isn't
> going to stop a tank from running me over or an Apache helipcopter
> from tearing me to shreads with a machine gun.
The handgun is primarily for defensive use; it is because gun control
advocates are trying to ban the sort of weapons that WOULD be useful
in those circumstances that some of us don't trust you.
Clayton E. Cramer
> >limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
> >
> Even if I carry a gun, how is this going to prevent me from
> getting shot?
Because it means that a criminal who has half a brain will realize
that if he attacks you, or someone else near you, that he may get
shot and killed. It's an interesting theory, and Lott & Mustard's
study seems to confirm that it really works. There seems to be a
net transfer from murder, robbery, and rape to crimes like motor
vehicle theft. I'll take that substitution.
> People at war carry guns all the time. I seem to recall that a
> lot of these same people have been shot and killed.
Yeah, and a lot of them have traveled to exotic foreign lands. If
you buy a gun, will you suddenly end up in an exotic foreign land,
too?
W.W.J.D. Black
In article <34c2a74a...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
}On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:12:13 -0500, Robert Frenchu
}<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
}
}>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
}>>
}>> uh, so what? how many deaths do they have caused by guns? id rather
}>> have my car stolen than have my family gunned down by some nut with a
}>> grudge against society.
}>
}>Of course you would. You'd also rather have your house ransacked while
}>you watch
}
}gee if neither i nor the criminal was armed seems like we'd be even.
}
Wouldn't that be rather foolish? Why in the world would you want to be
'even' with the criminal?
--
In the event someone would like to reply to this message via e-mail (who
knows why), remove 'nospam.' in my reply address.
I believe the IRS is functioning better today than it was five years ago.
-- Bill Clinton, defending the agency after Congressional hearings produced
stories of IRS harassment and abuse of taxpayers, AP
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:53:01 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> thats correct. the 2nd ammendment says so. however, the weak logic of
> >> the progun crowd, bleating platitudes about how they protect freedom
> >> is slightly ridiculous.
> >
> >How so?
>
> because its obvious that guns have never been used by the populace to
> protect us from the govt. and in fact they cost lives. martin luther
> king had a gun used ON him...he never USED a gun
In fact, they save lives- over a million lives every year. The fact the
MArtin Luther King was killed by a gun has nothing to do with this
discussion. I noticed you dropped your Ghandi argument- when are you
going to drop the MLK argument?
The fact that the populace is armed is the ONLY thing that keeps the
government in it's place.
>
> >> >> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
> >> >
> >> >Yes they are.
> >>
> >> tell it to martin luther king, or ghandi.
> >
> >Pointless argument.
>
> well i guess if you have no rebuttal, of course you're gonna say its
> pointless
>
> its also a fact
What's a fact? That they were killed with guns? Who gives a rat's ass
about Ghandi with respect to this topic?
> >> >> 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >> >
> >> >You better believe that they do.
> >>
> >> tell it to the IRA
> >
> >No one said it happens overnight.
>
> gee its been 30 yrs.
Gee, so what?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> really? you got stats on that?
> >Yep.
>
> gee i see you didnt post 'em. let me post mine that show youre wrong:
I notice you didn't.
> >At that is exactly where the criminals should end up that mess with
> >armed citizens.
>
> except we have armed citizens...
>
> and plenty of dead ones.
Yep= and a lot of them are criminals
___________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Diane Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
___________________________________________________
PLMerite
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in message <34c41679...@news.enter.net>...
>On 19 Jan 1998 03:48:08 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer) wrote:
>
>> The governments of those countries killed those people. Do you
>>want to also disarm all of the militaries?
>>
>>
>actually, yes!
>
You mean like: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
It would be more like: "What if they gave a war and only one side showed
up?"
You should be more interested in disarming some of these Federal agents
(IRS, HUD, etc).
It's the bozobin for you...
>==============================================================
>
>official evolutionist 'goof squad' member...
JOE ROWELL
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
wf3h, you want to treat the symtoms and not the cause. Even if
you
could take away all of the guns, that wouldn't stop the violence
> entail death. easy access to guns practically guarantees horrendous
> injury or death.
>
> . Years
ago, before guns were everywhere, there were still gangs of young thugs
roaming the streets with chains and knives.
> now carrying guns because they are so prevalent in society.
That's true. The mind set of the cuntry was much different back then.
These gangs of young thugs usally aimed their violence at other gangs of
young thugs.
Take away the guns and there would be fewer shootings but just as
much
violence. Without guns, it's the biggest bully who puts your life in
danger.
>
> and we wouldnt have 39000 dead due to gun fire each yr
You are mistaken if you are saying that all of those people would still
be alive just because they weren't shot. The suicide rate wouldn't
change. The premeditated murder rate would remain the same.
The only big change would be the accidental shooting rate would go down
a little. The hunting accidents would remain the same.
The solution is to get rid of the people who are doing all of the
violence.
> and how do we do that prior to someone dying to tell us WHO is the
> violent person?
>
> Besides, we both know that if the American people would let
it happen, that it would take 10 to 20 years after the honest citizen
gave up their guns, before they would get most of the criminal's guns.
> yep thats true. i agree. i also agree its impractical. thus it wouldnt
> work
>
> BUT im tired of listening to the progun crowd say that guns cause
> freedom or reduce crime. neither is true.
It wasn't guns, but people with guns that caused the freedom that made
America free.
> ==============================================================
>
> official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
>
> if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
> type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
--
JOE ROWELL.... hey...@swbell.net
Frank Buck
Proteus wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
> >then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
> >the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
>
> The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
> that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
>
> Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
> bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
> great to take out the government anyway.
So you would just roll over and die?
>
> Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
> would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
> didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
You are a sheep. The wolves will eat you. When I was robbed in a gas
station, I didn't ask if they (notice the plural) had guns. I didn't,
and I wasn't going to remind them if they did. If they had decided to
shoot me, I would have had absolutely no way to protect myself. I have
decided that the next time, they get to go to Hell free of charge.
Frank
Frank Buck
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
<snip>
> ive been to london many times. saw lots of unarmed cops.
>
> as to the military...wouldnt it be great if the world's militaries all
> disarmed?
One hell of a fairy tale....
Doug
On 19 Jan 1998 20:16:43 GMT, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
>
>> Yes, we all know how much the Brits like to get pissed and invade
>> neighboring countries disguised as football hooligans (does the Continent
>> allow Brits to attend football matches yet?).
>
>Of course.
>
>> We also know about how well-protected the British people are from random
>> search and detention. I think they can label you a 'terrorist' and hold
>you
>> for about a week, incomunicado, while they work on you.
>
>Perhaps, since you know so much about it, you're like to tell us how meny
>people have been detained under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism
>Act in the last 10 years? How many of them were known terrorists? How many
>were later convicted?
>
>Perhaps you'd also like to bear in mind that even Northern Ireland, with
>its endemic terrorist problem, is still considerably safer than the average
>US city.
I never had to hit the dirt in a US city.
Even in DC, LA and NY.
There have been a few times that I thought I might have to.
In Belfast it happened 3 times in 5 days.
>
>> They don't have
>> asset forfeiture laws in England, because nobody has anything worth
>taking.
>
>Now you're just being silly.
>
>> Aren't they putting television cameras in most public places to 'monitor'
>> people?
>
>Yes, it's actually very popular, and resulted in the return of my bicycle
>when it was stolen recently.
Remember 1984
>
>> You try going into an airport or anywhere in Belfast and refuse to
>> produce ID on demand and see what happens.
>
>The situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat different to that in Great
>Britain.
I thought that the whole idea of you being there is that it is a part
of Great Britain.
>
>> >> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>> >>
>> >> You better believe that they do.
>> >
>> >You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
>> >deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have
>tanks,
>> >bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of
>soldiers
>> >on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's
>an
>> >oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
>> >
>>
>> Worked pretty well when we tossed the British out on their asses.
>
>Oh sorry, I hadn't realised the similarities between trying to hold a
>continent half way around the World with a small group of soldiers using
>the same weaponry as those they're fighting against with little will back
>home to commit resources into continuing the operation and an indiginous
>government with millions of troops, tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers and
>the major institutions in the country on their side suppressing internal
>unrest.
You just said in the abome that NI wasn't internal
>Go and look what happened in Russia in 1918 - guns didn't help those
>opposing the Bolsheviks.
The Bolsheviks were the revolutionarys.
>
>> >> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>> >
>> >the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops
>in
>> >an area. ban bookshops now!
>>
>> Twaddle. Beneath further comment.
>
>It's actually true. Establishing a correlation between two statistics is
>meaningless. you have to establish a causal relationship. You have not done
>this.
>
>> >Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
>> >criminals. How terribly decent of them.
>>
>> Yes, I believe we should encourage it.
>
>Well, since your society is obviously so much more advanced than ours (got
>a decent colour TV standard and passengere trains that can do more than 40
>mph yet?), I'm sure you clever chappies could come up with a gun that only
>works when you point it at baddies.
>
Yes but our TV doesn't look back into our living rooms and trains have
been obsolete sense the turn of the century. Just takes a while to
stop using something that is obsolete. Remember some folks like to
shave with a straight razor. ( or is that no legal in UK)
===========================================================
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
====================================
Anton Sherwood
(What this has to do with atheism is beyond me.)
Proteus <Pro...@Olympus.god> writes
: .... I just think having a handgun isn't
: going to stop a tank from running me over or an Apache helipcopter
: from tearing me to shreads with a machine gun.
So you agree that citizens ought to be as well armed as the Army?
Or at least as well armed as a Somali teenager?
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
no one of consequence
Proteus <Pro...@Olympus.god> wrote:
]On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
]>Ok, two things.
]>
]>1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
]>completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
]>benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
]
]going to stop a tank from running me over or an Apache helipcopter
]from tearing me to shreads with a machine gun.
Then use it on the tank commander or the pilot, preferably when they are
not in their vehicles.
Please use your brain when trying to make up examples. Your example above
is indicative of someone with no imagination.
There is a concept known as 'subtlety' that is a valid tactic in warfare.
So please, stop presuming that the only tactic the people you disagree
with will think of is a frontal assault.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"So from now on I guess the operational phrase is 'trust no one.'" "No. |
| Trust Ivanova, trust yourself, anybody else: Shoot 'em." -NSNR, Bab5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
no one of consequence
Proteus <Pro...@Olympus.god> wrote:
]On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
]
]>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
]>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
]>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
]>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
]>
] Even if I carry a gun, how is this going to prevent me from
]getting shot?
*sigh*
I take it that you don't wear your seatbelt and don't bother with a
lifejacket since neither will prevent you from getting killed in
accidents, right?
] People at war carry guns all the time. I seem to recall that a
]lot of these same people have been shot and killed.
*facepalm*
Imbecility at its best. Presuming that since something isn't a magical
talisman then it is completely useless isn't helping you, Proteus.
wf...@enter.netxx
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> thats correct. the 2nd ammendment says so. however, the weak logic of
>> the progun crowd, bleating platitudes about how they protect freedom
>> is slightly ridiculous.
>
>How so?
because its obvious that guns have never been used by the populace to
protect us from the govt. and in fact they cost lives. martin luther
king had a gun used ON him...he never USED a gun
>> >> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>> >
>> >Yes they are.
>>
>> tell it to martin luther king, or ghandi.
>
>Pointless argument.
well i guess if you have no rebuttal, of course you're gonna say its
pointless
its also a fact
>>
>> >
>> >> 2. do not guarantee freedom
>> >
>> >You better believe that they do.
>>
>> tell it to the IRA
>
>No one said it happens overnight.
gee its been 30 yrs.
>
>>
>>
>> really? you got stats on that?
>Yep.
gee i see you didnt post 'em. let me post mine that show youre wrong:
ok wanna see 'em again?
>
>> so does the grave
>
>At that is exactly where the criminals should end up that mess with
>armed citizens.
except we have armed citizens...
and plenty of dead ones.
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On 19 Jan 1998 03:48:08 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer) wrote:
> The governments of those countries killed those people. Do you
>want to also disarm all of the militaries?
>
>
actually, yes!
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:37:55 -0800, "Sorcerer"
<fwa...@ca.pacbell.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>>
>>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>>
>>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>>see it.
>
>
>I don't think of you as living in the "civilised World" as you call it.
>
>You are in your herd, and doing what you are told. Be a good little lemming
>now and run off the cliff with the rest of your "leaders."
>
as opposed to the mindless gun nuts who wave their .25 autos around
and say 'im here to protect you from the govt'
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>>
>>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>>
>>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>>see it.
>>
>
>Well then, I guess we can politely invite the rest of the 'civilized' world
>(ask some of the former British Colonies how 'civilized' they think the
>Brits really are) to piss off.
>
actually they think the brits are quite civilized. when fiji had a
coup a few yrs ago it was kicked out of the commonwealth.
its clammoring to be let back in now.
no one of consequence
Chris Brown <cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
]PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
]> >>
]> >> You better believe that they do.
]> >You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
]> >deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have
]tanks,
]> >bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of
]soldiers
]> >on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's
]an
]> >oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
]> >
]>
]> Worked pretty well when we tossed the British out on their asses.
]
]Oh sorry, I hadn't realised the similarities between trying to hold a
]continent half way around the World with a small group of soldiers using
]the same weaponry as those they're fighting against with little will back
]home to commit resources into continuing the operation and an indiginous
]government with millions of troops, tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers and
]the major institutions in the country on their side suppressing internal
]unrest.
I see, so you think any revolt in the US will be only a few rednecks
driving pickups against the entire 2nd Armored Division? (Rough paraphrase
of a sneering 'dismissal' made a few years ago in a similar debate.)
What makes you think that the government will have full support of the
populace no matter who decides to stand up against it?
What makes you think that the logistical ball and chain that a modern
military needs will be safe from the rebels? No wait, let me guess: an
entire LEGION of your best troops awaits them, right? ;-)
Your presumption of a quick and easy government victory is premature.
]Go and look what happened in Russia in 1918 - guns didn't help those
]opposing the Bolsheviks.
Did guns help the Chechnyans?
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:34:14 -0800, "Sorcerer"
<fwa...@ca.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>>
>>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
>Tell that to governments.
tell it to ghandi. tell it to martin luther king.
>Tell the mugger that you don't have to do what he says, and that you're not
>afraid of his knife
of course in this country he wouldnt bother with a knive; he'd have a
gun. so he'd shoot me, my family, and a cop or too.
id rather he had a knife.
>
>>2. do not guarantee freedom
>
>Governments think they do. There is not ONE oppressive regieme in the world
>that does not hunt down every effective weapon in existence and confiscate
>them.
and there are numerous examples of people winning their freedom w/o
guns AND examples of people WITH guns not being 'free'. just ask the
INLA.
>
>>3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>
>This is an obvious lie
really? then why does america. one of the most heavily armed countries
on earth, have one of the highest crime rates?
>
>>4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>
>No, it doens't
im glad you think 39000 dead is not a lot of people. i happen to think
its quite a bit of folks
. Colds kill more people annually.
fine. confiscate all viruses along with guns. that sounds good!
>
>>its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>The government is insane?
]
whatever this means. private possession of guns is insane
>
>>guns make violence easier.
>
>So do cars.
try driving to work in your gun. cars have a social utility. guns
dont.
>
>Thanks for playing.
>
>
and you have not begun to play...
with a full deck, that is
wf...@enter.netxx
On 19 Jan 1998 03:16:54 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer) wrote:
>In <34c2a806...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>
>>
>>and if we had no guns there wouldnt be that problem.
>>
>
> Violent crime will disapear? Not quite.
>
>
WHOA!! i never said that. make sure you know what you're reading
before you put words in other people's mouths
wf...@enter.netxx
On 19 Jan 1998 03:45:46 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer) wrote:
>In <34c2c179...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>
>>
>>and how many people were killed by guns last yr? in the US in '94 it
>>was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
>>did you have that many gun related killings?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Does that include those killed by the police? Do you also want to
>disarm the police and the military?
ive been to london many times. saw lots of unarmed cops.
as to the military...wouldnt it be great if the world's militaries all
disarmed?
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:48:11 -0600, JOE ROWELL <hey...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>> and how many people were killed by guns last yr? in the US in '94 it
>> was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
>> did you have that many gun related killings?
> wf3h, you want to treat the symtoms and not the cause. Even if you
>could take away all of the guns, that wouldn't stop the violence
you would, however, significantly reduce the deaths. violence does not
entail death. easy access to guns practically guarantees horrendous
injury or death.
. Years
>ago, before guns were everywhere, there were still gangs of young thugs
>roaming the streets with chains and knives.
and we didnt have the level of deaths we do today due to those folks
now carrying guns because they are so prevalent in society.
> Take away the guns and there would be fewer shootings but just as much
>violence. Without guns, it's the biggest bully who puts your life in
>danger.
and we wouldnt have 39000 dead due to gun fire each yr
> The solution is to get rid of the people who are doing all of the
>violence.
and how do we do that prior to someone dying to tell us WHO is the
violent person?
Besides, we both know that if the American people would let
>it happen, that it would take 10 to 20 years after the honest citizen
>gave up their guns, before they would get most of the criminal's guns.
yep thats true. i agree. i also agree its impractical. thus it wouldnt
work
BUT im tired of listening to the progun crowd say that guns cause
freedom or reduce crime. neither is true.
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>Because it means that a criminal who has half a brain will realize
>that if he attacks you, or someone else near you, that he may get
>shot and killed.
criminals dont have half a brain. thats why theyre criminals. i grew
up in the inner city. lots of kids carried guns. gun fights happen
everyday. its a great example of what you advocate. they know they may
be shot and killed. but they shoot and kill anyhow.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:57:35 -0800, stev...@safemail.com (Steve Hix)
wrote:
>> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> > <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>> > but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
>> > >thing that has secured our freedom.
>
>> > tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
>
>What in the *world* has Gandhi got to do with the U.S.?
gee martin luther king lived here in the US.
whatsamatter cant figure it out?
>
>(Note that he held against the British almost more than anything
>else their disarming of the people of India.)
really? seems to me that was the least of his worries with the
british.
wf...@enter.netxx
>The handgun is primarily for defensive use; it is because gun control
>advocates are trying to ban the sort of weapons that WOULD be useful
>in those circumstances that some of us don't trust you.
<chuckle>
what circumstances? like an M1A1 tank standing at your front door?
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:03:40 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> proof? and if NO ONE had guns then the point would be moot.
>
>Proof is Kleck's study and- one more time- "no guns" is not an option.
>How close do you sit to your yagi?
too bad your ad hominem arguments cloud your objectivity. i recognize
'no guns' is not an option. unlike you, i can be objective.
however, the fact that countries like canada and the UK where guns are
outlawed or not in widespread private possession also have fewer
deaths due to violence proves that kleck's study is wrong.
as to my yagi...about 150'. if you tell me where you live, i'll point
it in your direction.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 19 Jan 1998 18:21:28 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c2c1bc...@news.enter.net>...
>
>> check the IRA. they have:
>>
>> missiles
>> RPG's
>> grenades
>> automatic weapons
>>
>> last i checked, Northern Ireland is still british
>
>True, and last time I check the british government wasn't tyrannical.
thats not what the IRA says.
>
...they cant steal 'em like they do in the US.
>> easy access would end. gun related deaths would drop
>
>Excuse me????
>
>Weren't you just telling me all the weapons the IRA has? You know missles,
>RPGs, grenades, automatic weapons? Is not northern Ireland part of the UK?
>
>Opps, that short memory of yours really caused you to look stupid didn't
>it?
and has the possession of massive firepower by the IRA caused the
british to leave?
i dont think so.
>> >
>
>No it's not. Since a victim without a gun is more likely to be injured or
>killed by the criminal, and a criminal without a gun is more likely to
>injure or kill his victim
and if neither had a gun the problem would be moot.
. Your idea is that increasing the number killed
>and wounded would be a good idea. I have to wonder about someone that seeks
>more injury and death from crime.....
funny that we're the most heavily armed populace on the planet and
STILL have a tremendous crime problem. shootouts are common in our
inner cities. so your argument that more guns would solve the crime
problem seems to have fallen afoul of a thing called 'the facts'.
>Who's encouraging gunfights? I'm simply making the best means of self
>defense an option. If the criminal can't control themselves then their
>victim has every right to fight back.
because gunfights are what we have.
>
>
>> especially in view of the
>> fact that a gun is much more likely to be used AGAINST a family rather
>> than by it.
>
>Ok. please support that fact.
go look it up. i remember seeing (somewhere) that a gun was 40X more
likely to be used against a family member than in defense of the
family
HOWEVER...the point is irrelevant. the fact is your central point..the
idea that widespread possession of guns would cause a reduction in
crime..is not supported by the facts.
sorry.
>> in addition there are too many nuts running around with guns. hardly a
>> day goes by that some guy doesnt dust his wife, kids, and an
>> occasional cop.
>
>Sort of like those in Japan. Opps, but then they have tight gun control.
>Seems nuts exist everywhere, and kill by any means.
yeah. both people killed in japan last year by guns. funny, i have in
front of me todays allentown, pa morning call newspaper. there is a
color photo on page one...a family photograph. its hard to see the
family though..their coffins cover them up.
jessica renninger was 7 last week when her dad took his legal gun, put
it to her head and pulled the trigger. after he blew her head off, he
put the gun to her brother's head...he was 9...and pulled the trigger
again. the gun worked flawlessly.
and thats just in allentown. the scene is repeated time and time again
thruout the country. you complain about japan???
the poverty in your sick degenerate argument is obvious.
how many people died in japan last yr due to guns?
and if you can do so, find in your heart to tell 7 yr old jessy that
guns stop crime
WHOOPS!!! cant do that!
daddy blew her brains out.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:09:39 -0800, "Sorcerer"
<fwa...@ca.pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
>>>_
>>
>>yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
>>disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
>>secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
>>gives them power.
>
>
>But a gun DOES give me power
yep. the power to gun down your kids like what i have in front of me
today in the allentown, pa 'morning call'. 7 yr old jessica renninger,
and her 9 yr old brother dave...murdered by their father after he also
killed their mother
yeah, thats power.
. I can't make you like me with a gun, and I
>can't "drive to work" in it -- but I CAN use it to make a violent offender
>leave me alone, one way or another.
or you can use it to make lots of dead children.
>
>I don't find guns amusing. But, baby, when you NEED one, nothing else works
>nearly as well.
>
>
yes, im sure jessy's dad felt the same way.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:57:47 -0800, stev...@safemail.com (Steve Hix)
wrote:
>One also assumes that wf3h isn't going to trot out Japan
>as an example.
actually japan's death rate due to guns is lower than NYC's
Tony Quirke
Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
> then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
> the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
As has been pointed out several times, the assertion that America is
more "free" than other Western countries is a difficult one to justify.
Perhaps, instead of parroting patriotic rhetoric, you'd like to back your
words with facts ?
- Tony Q.
--
This .sig contains exactly threee erors.
Tony Quirke
Chris Brown <cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> > Well then, I guess we can politely invite the rest of the 'civilized'
> > world (ask some of the former British Colonies how 'civilized' they
> > think the Brits really are) to piss off.
> It doesn't actually bother us if you all go round shooting each other.
> Quite an interesting spectator sport actually.
Indeed, I think overseas observers such as myself and Chris would agree
with the pro-gun lobby that there is no way for America to disarm. It's
too late; the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
You'll pardon us, however, if we don't want to follow down your path,
if we question empty rhetoric about guns and freedom, and if we laugh like
hyenas when the pro-gun lobby try to tell us how nice it would be if we
had guns too...
- Tony Q.
P.S. When we talk about guns, we generally mean uncontrolled handguns
in the hands of civilians. Switzerland, to name one example, has military
longarms as part of a general militia training, and NZ (I'm lead to
believe) has more longarms per capita than America (we do more hunting).