#A Fact Sheet on the Regulation of Guns and Gun Manufacturers
Skyscraper
Jim Kennemur wrote:
>
> A Fact Sheet on the Regulation of Guns and Gun Manufacturers
> from Physicians for Social Responsibility.
>
> In the United States, a federal license to sell firearms is easy to
> get and rarely taken away. Minimal regulations on firearm sales have
> facilitated the proliferation of guns, gun owners, and gun dealers.
> According to President Clinton, "In some ways we have made it easier
> to get a license to sell guns than it is to get and keep a driver's
> license." Other, seemingly less dangerous, products are strictly
> regulated by the federal government. Regulation, used as a safety
> measure, has proven to have positive results. For example, the
> regulations put on the automobile industry requiring safety belts have
> significantly cut automobile fatalities. In the United States, even
> teddy bears have more consumer safety regulations than handguns. These
> regulations include protection from flammable fur and securely
> attached eyes to prevent choking. Why should guns no meet at least as
> strengent a standard as teddy bears?
>
> Some facts and statistics regarding the lack of regulation in the
> firearms industry.
>
> * In 1994, over 255,000 Americans were licensed to sell guns by the
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms (ATF).
>
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
>
> * In 1991, nearly 92,000 Americans applied to get or renew a federal
> firearms license; only 52 were denied.
>
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
>
> * Only machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns,
> and "destructive devices"(bombs, grenades, etc.) are required to be
> registered with the government.
>
> National Crime Survey Report
>
> * American-made guns are not subject to federal safety standards.
>
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
>
> * In the gun control acts of 1968 and 1989, Congress banned the
> importation of "Saturday Night Specials" and semi-automatic assault
> weapons, but not their American production.
Physicians for Social Responsibility? Sounds like another anti-2nd
Amendment group of fascists to me (a better name - Doctors for a
Defenseless Citizenry).
Once again, Jimbo has come out with more "scary facts" about how horrible
guns are to the average person, and he's included some government
statistics to back him up (as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn
lies, and then there are statistics).
Jim, give it up. If you don't want to defend yourself, then don't do
anything to resist a robber the next time he assaults you. The next time
some loony in a trenchcoat decides that he wants to rape your wife, drop
your pants and offer yourself as well. When the Department of Love
orders you to climb the steps of the gallows and put your head in the
noose, do it with a smile.
Skyscraper
Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer helpless sheep!
David Richards
In article <3393dc38...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>,
Jim Kennemur <volt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>A Fact Sheet on the Regulation of Guns and Gun Manufacturers
>from Physicians for Social Responsibility.
PSR == HCI in white smocks.
>In the United States, a federal license to sell firearms is easy to
>get and rarely taken away. Minimal regulations on firearm sales have
>facilitated the proliferation of guns, gun owners, and gun dealers.
The percentage of households with firearms has remained steady for many
decades. The accident rate has declined since the 1970s. What
'proliferation'?
>According to President Clinton, "In some ways we have made it easier
>to get a license to sell guns than it is to get and keep a driver's
>license." Other, seemingly less dangerous, products are strictly
>regulated by the federal government. Regulation, used as a safety
Other products are not constitutionally protected, nor are there small,
vocal, and well-funded organizations lobbying for their total ban.
>* In 1994, over 255,000 Americans were licensed to sell guns by the
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms (ATF).
Of course, what's not mentioned is that you are required to have an FFL if
you sell more than three guns in a year's time.
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
>
>* In 1991, nearly 92,000 Americans applied to get or renew a federal
>firearms license; only 52 were denied.
Proving that all but a handful of FFL holders/applicants are upstanding
law-abiding citizens.
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
>
>* Only machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns,
>and "destructive devices"(bombs, grenades, etc.) are required to be
>registered with the government.
This is a bad thing?
>National Crime Survey Report
>
>* American-made guns are not subject to federal safety standards.
And yet the accidental shooting rate declines each year...
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
>
>* In the gun control acts of 1968 and 1989, Congress banned the
>importation of "Saturday Night Specials" and semi-automatic assault
>weapons, but not their American production.
In the Gun Control Acts of 1968, and less so in 1989, Congress banned
certain makes and models from import but not from domestic production
because they acknowleged that Congress lacks the power to ban these
weapons.
--
David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
My opinions are my own, IRS withstanding Public Access in Chicago
Proud to be the 5,000th least-important Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
usenet-abuser, by the unofficial GSUA. (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
Skyscraper
5th Centurion wrote:
>
> :Physicians for Social Responsibility? Sounds like another anti-2nd
> :Amendment group of fascists to me (a better name - Doctors for a
> :Defenseless Citizenry).
>
> one too many gunshot wounds in triage & EMRs : (
Gunshot wounds inflicted by whom? Most likely, criminals who have no respect
for the law, only for the gratification of their desires.
>
> Other than that, I presume the an -association- of Social
> Irresponsibility regarding guns is proximate to one's
> liking, yes? ;)
Nice ad hominem attack, Nickel-man.
Lest you or any other person on this NG think otherwise, I as a Christian
Libertarian believe in liberty AND responsibility. This means that I have
the right to carry a gun on my person (liberty) and that I can use it ONLY in
a situation where my life or the life of someone else is in jeopardy (known
in the law as "proxy self-defense" - responsibility).
You, on the other hand, fall under PJ O'Rourke's definition of LIBERAL (see
his forward in GIVE WAR A CHANCE): 1) you have a sanctimonious air about
you. You don't think that we common people are smart enough or good enough
to deserve the right to defend ourselves; 2) On the other hand, you want
your own skin preserved, so I suspect that you would carry a gun yourself, or
hire armed bodyguards to do same.
>
> :Once again, Jimbo has come out with more "scary facts" about how horrible
> :guns are to the average person, and he's included some government
> :statistics to back him up (as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn
> :lies, and then there are statistics).
>
> "Scary facts" they are ...Despite of the ' truth, ' no ?
My poor choice of words. I should have said "scary statistics", because
that's what they are. And in the immortal words of Mark Twain: "There are
lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
>
> :Jim, give it up. If you don't want to defend yourself, then don't do
> :anything to resist a robber the next time he assaults you. The next time
> :some loony in a trenchcoat decides that he wants to rape your wife, drop
> :your pants and offer yourself as well. When the Department of Love
> :orders you to climb the steps of the gallows and put your head in the
> :noose, do it with a smile.
> :Skyscraper
>
> One has this thing for trench-coats, ropes & 'gallows,' eh?
> What 'bout lynchings? Typical cowboy :(
Another ad himinem attack. Can't you do any better?
Actually, cowboys were the main preservers of peace in the Old West. You
would have to have a death wish to want to cause trouble with someone who
regularly carried a handgun in his hip.
However, you have missed my point. Jim Kennemur is an activist sheep for the
Federal Government. He is doing what he can to turn tigers like me and my
friends into good little government sheep, so that Clinton and his cronies
hand have us over for dinner without the expectation of dessert. Three
things happen to sheep: 1) They get herded from one place to another,
usually with semi-vicious attack dogs around them; 2) They get fleeced, shorn
of that which protects them; 3) When they serve no useful purpose, they are
eaten.
>
> - Dominic
> Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
> ( having fun with the ad-hominems )
>
> --
> You want the truth ?! Well you can't have it !
> ...You can't handle the truth !
>
> - J. Nicholson, A Few Good Men
Yes, I can. You just don't want to give it to me. You'd rather try to feed
me lies. No thanks.
Skyscraper
Skyscraper
Skyscraper
Skyscraper
Skyscraper
Christopher Morton
>A Fact Sheet on the Regulation of Guns and Gun Manufacturers
>from Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Hey, weren't these the guys who wanted unilateral disarmament in the
face of the Soviets?
dsm...@hclib.hcl.lib.mo.us
In article <3390a13d...@snews.zippo.com>, cm...@nwohio.com says...
You got it in one. The Australian lady doctor who started this organization
was a real hoot to watch in a TV interview.
Doug
Christopher Morton
Ah yes, Helen "Martians are eating my brain!" Caldicott.
It was sad really, to watch a supposedly educated woman trying (and
failing) to explain the arms race in terms so juvenile, a five year
old would have sneered at her in contempt.
In her case, obscurity has been a merciful respite.
5th Centurion
Skyscraper <skysc...@earthlink.net> stated:
:Jim Kennemur wrote:
:> A Fact Sheet on the Regulation of Guns and Gun Manufacturers
:> from Physicians for Social Responsibility.
:> In the United States, a federal license to sell firearms is easy to
:> get and rarely taken away. Minimal regulations on firearm sales have
:> facilitated the proliferation of guns, gun owners, and gun dealers.
:> According to President Clinton, "In some ways we have made it easier
:> to get a license to sell guns than it is to get and keep a driver's
:> license." Other, seemingly less dangerous, products are strictly
:> regulated by the federal government. Regulation, used as a safety
:> measure, has proven to have positive results. For example, the
:> regulations put on the automobile industry requiring safety belts have
:> significantly cut automobile fatalities. In the United States, even
:> teddy bears have more consumer safety regulations than handguns. These
:> regulations include protection from flammable fur and securely
:> attached eyes to prevent choking. Why should guns no meet at least as
:> strengent a standard as teddy bears?
:> Some facts and statistics regarding the lack of regulation in the
:> firearms industry.
:> * In 1994, over 255,000 Americans were licensed to sell guns by the
:> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms (ATF).
:> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
:> * In 1991, nearly 92,000 Americans applied to get or renew a federal
:> firearms license; only 52 were denied.
:> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
:> * Only machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns,
:> and "destructive devices"(bombs, grenades, etc.) are required to be
:> registered with the government.
:> National Crime Survey Report
:> * American-made guns are not subject to federal safety standards.
:> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
:> * In the gun control acts of 1968 and 1989, Congress banned the
:> importation of "Saturday Night Specials" and semi-automatic assault
:> weapons, but not their American production.
:Physicians for Social Responsibility? Sounds like another anti-2nd
:Amendment group of fascists to me (a better name - Doctors for a
:Defenseless Citizenry).
Nah, I suppose it is a consortium of physicians who've seen
one too many gunshot wounds in triage & EMRs : (
Other than that, I presume the an -association- of Social
Irresponsibility regarding guns is proximate to one's
liking, yes? ;)
:Once again, Jimbo has come out with more "scary facts" about how horrible
:guns are to the average person, and he's included some government
:statistics to back him up (as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn
:lies, and then there are statistics).
"Scary facts" they are ...Despite of the ' truth, ' no ?
:Jim, give it up. If you don't want to defend yourself, then don't do
:anything to resist a robber the next time he assaults you. The next time
:some loony in a trenchcoat decides that he wants to rape your wife, drop
:your pants and offer yourself as well. When the Department of Love
:orders you to climb the steps of the gallows and put your head in the
:noose, do it with a smile.
:Skyscraper
One has this thing for trench-coats, ropes & 'gallows,' eh?
What 'bout lynchings? Typical cowboy :(
- Dominic
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
( having fun with the ad-hominems )
--
You want the truth ?! Well you can't have it !
...You can't handle the truth !
- J. Nicholson, A Few Good Men
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Centurion | YU3'Y3_3'Y3YU3'Y3_3'Y3Y3_3'Y3YYUU
Centurion Chronicles © '97 & Web Page | YU3'Y3_3'Y3YU3'Y3_3'Y3Y3_3'Y3YYUU
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/> | YU3'Y3_3'Y3YU3'Y3_3'Y3Y3_3'Y3YYUU
Last Updated: 4/11/97 | YU3 Volpus Y3_3 Marina YUU
Accessors To Date:Too ManyTo Keep Count | E. PLURIBUS UNUM MCMXCVII c.e.
============================================================================
Featured Links:
<http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/>
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/shame.html>
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/gunfaq.html >
Thus May We Never Ever Forget The *Most* Despicable
<ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ce/centrnv/despicable/despicable.txt>
-----
" The demand for true democracy, and a more equitable distribution of
wealth could dramatically alter humanity's destiny. A "New World Order"
could really take place ... " <http://www.imag.net/~davidf/intro.htm>
Skyscraper
Jim Kennemur wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 May 1997 07:21:26 -0700, Skyscraper
> <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >5th Centurion wrote:
> >>
> >> :Physicians for Social Responsibility? Sounds like another anti-2nd
> >> :Amendment group of fascists to me (a better name - Doctors for a
> >> :Defenseless Citizenry).
> >>
> >> Nah, I suppose it is a consortium of physicians who've seen
> >> one too many gunshot wounds in triage & EMRs : (
> >
> >for the law, only for the gratification of their desires.
>
>
> >> Other than that, I presume the an -association- of Social
> >> Irresponsibility regarding guns is proximate to one's
> >> liking, yes? ;)
> >
>
>
> >Lest you or any other person on this NG think otherwise, I as a Christian
> >Libertarian believe in liberty AND responsibility. This means that I have
> >the right to carry a gun on my person (liberty) and that I can use it ONLY in
> >a situation where my life or the life of someone else is in jeopardy (known
> >in the law as "proxy self-defense" - responsibility).
> >
> >You, on the other hand, fall under PJ O'Rourke's definition of LIBERAL (see
> >his forward in GIVE WAR A CHANCE): 1) you have a sanctimonious air about
> >you. You don't think that we common people are smart enough or good enough
> >to deserve the right to defend ourselves; 2) On the other hand, you want
> >your own skin preserved, so I suspect that you would carry a gun yourself, or
> >hire armed bodyguards to do same.
>
>
>
> >> :Once again, Jimbo has come out with more "scary facts" about how horrible
> >> :guns are to the average person, and he's included some government
> >> :statistics to back him up (as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn
> >> :lies, and then there are statistics).
> >>
> >> "Scary facts" they are ...Despite of the ' truth, ' no ?
> >
> >lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
>
> Poor choice of ideology is more like it. Tell us again how you gave
> your life to Smith and Wesson as your personal Lord and Savior.
>
> >> :Jim, give it up. If you don't want to defend yourself, then don't do
> >> :anything to resist a robber the next time he assaults you. The next time
> >> :some loony in a trenchcoat decides that he wants to rape your wife, drop
> >> :your pants and offer yourself as well. When the Department of Love
> >> :orders you to climb the steps of the gallows and put your head in the
> >> :noose, do it with a smile.
> >> :Skyscraper
> >>
> >> One has this thing for trench-coats, ropes & 'gallows,' eh?
> >> What 'bout lynchings? Typical cowboy :(
> >
>
> >Actually, cowboys were the main preservers of peace in the Old West. You
> >would have to have a death wish to want to cause trouble with someone who
> >regularly carried a handgun in his hip.
>
>
> >However, you have missed my point. Jim Kennemur is an activist sheep for the
> >Federal Government. He is doing what he can to turn tigers like me and my
> >friends into good little government sheep, so that Clinton and his cronies
> >hand have us over for dinner without the expectation of dessert. Three
> >things happen to sheep: 1) They get herded from one place to another,
> >usually with semi-vicious attack dogs around them; 2) They get fleeced, shorn
> >of that which protects them; 3) When they serve no useful purpose, they are
> >eaten.
>
>
> You haven't refuted one fact Sky. All you have done is whine and
> complain.
Wrong. I have refuted everything that you have said. You are just too
blind to notice it. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your ass you
would see it.
It's a shame your ability to perform ad hominem attacks far exceeds your
ability to think logically. Otherwise, you *might* have an interesting
argument. As it is, you're just a deluded 14 year old boy who has
nothing better to do than hurl insults against logic and reason.
Joe R.
>These
>regulations include protection from flammable fur and securely
>attached eyes to prevent choking. Why should guns no meet at least as
>strengent a standard as teddy bears?
Because guns don't have flammable fur, nor eyes that can be pulled off
and choked on by children.
--jcr
Norman Nithman
In article <33899C...@earthlink.net>,
Skyscraper <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>You, on the other hand, fall under PJ O'Rourke's definition of LIBERAL (see
>his forward in GIVE WAR A CHANCE): 1) you have a sanctimonious air about
>you. You don't think that we common people are smart enough or good enough
>to deserve the right to defend ourselves; 2) On the other hand, you want
>your own skin preserved, so I suspect that you would carry a gun yourself, or
>hire armed bodyguards to do same.
>
That falls under my definition of STRAW MAN.
--
Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn
Zepp
On 28 May 1997 19:40:02 -0500, n...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (Norman
Nithman) wrote:
>In article <33899C...@earthlink.net>,
>Skyscraper <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>You, on the other hand, fall under PJ O'Rourke's definition of LIBERAL (see
>>his forward in GIVE WAR A CHANCE): 1) you have a sanctimonious air about
>>you. You don't think that we common people are smart enough or good enough
>>to deserve the right to defend ourselves;
At this point, I would be curious to know how PJ feels about Unions.
2) On the other hand, you want
>>your own skin preserved, so I suspect that you would carry a gun yourself, or
>>hire armed bodyguards to do same.
>>
Back in his natlamp days, PJ once suggest that if we gave everyone a
nuke, we would have a civil and stable society. This always struck me
as being the only honest interpretation of the gunloon stance
possible.
>
>That falls under my definition of STRAW MAN.
>--
>Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn
=====================================================================
The eagle soars. He is master of the clouds, the atavar of all that
beat wings. He sees events, minute as a mouse, distant as the horizon.
He is bold, he is fierce, he is magnificent.
But weasels DON'T get sucked into jet engines.
--Based on a sig by mik...@korrnet.org, who probably had no idea what
I would do with it.
Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
rich don't have to.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Jason Gottlieb
Big Oh wrote:
> Call 911 during evening rush hour and tell them there's an attempted
> breaking and entry ongoing at at your home by some wacko with a tire iron.
> See how long it takes the cops to arrive -- assuming they decide to send a
> squad car to check.
But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
the above situation would never happen, right?
How many guns is enough for deterrence?
--
Jason Gottlieb
Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
gun control info, travellogues, and more!
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
David Richards
In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>,
Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>> Call 911 during evening rush hour and tell them there's an attempted
>> breaking and entry ongoing at at your home by some wacko with a tire iron.
>> See how long it takes the cops to arrive -- assuming they decide to send a
>> squad car to check.
>
>But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
>make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
>the above situation would never happen, right?
>
>How many guns is enough for deterrence?
But you agree that only in rural areas does the firearm possession rate
approach 100%, include the fact that large cities tend to have the harshest
restrictions on private firearms possession, and the reason why urban
criminals are not deterred is clear-
The problem isn't with the guns, the problem is that the wrong people arm
being disarmed.
Nosy
<In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
< Big Oh wrote:
< > Call 911 during evening rush hour and tell them there's an attempted
< > breaking and entry ongoing at at your home by some wacko with a tire iron.
< > See how long it takes the cops to arrive -- assuming they decide to send a
< > squad car to check.
< But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
< make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
< the above situation would never happen, right?
Gottlieb clumsily tapdances away from the fact that (a) in
the US the police are not required to protect anyone and
(b) response time is never "instant".
Thus, instead of dealing with O's claim, Gottlieb changes
the subject. This is Gottlieb's idea of debate?
< How many guns is enough for deterrence?
How many police officers would be enough? One per household?
One per bedroom?
William Hughes
On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp wrote:
[much snippage]
>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>
>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
>you windows stating such, also.
Oh, come on, Big Oh. You _know_ that I've been challenging 'em to do this for _years_.
They never take me up on it, though. I wonder why...
====================================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA lsc2...@flash.net NRA LSC2838R (1996)
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Second Amendment, United States Constitution
William Hughes
On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 14:43:49 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 02:53:15 GMT, _lsc2...@flash.net (William Hughes) wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp wrote:
>>[much snippage]
>>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>>>
>>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
>>>you windows stating such, also.
>>
>>Oh, come on, Big Oh. You _know_ that I've been challenging 'em to do this for _years_.
>>
>>They never take me up on it, though. I wonder why...
>
>other things that you can steal."
My car has an NRA sticker on the windshield.
I go to work every day weaing a uniform and a badge. I'm a private cop.
Before I took this job, I had been burglarised three times in four years. In the two years I have
been a uniformed private cop, I haven't even had graffitti sprayed on the garage.
So much for Schlereth's Bright Idea Number One.
>Or "This home ripe for a shooting of a family member or loved one."
I live alone, at the moment (save for two cats). My wife, daughter and mother-in-law moved to
Minneapolis a few weeks back so that Betty could take a job at IBM. I stayed in San Antonio because
I am in line for a promotion to site commander. Should come through in about two weeks. This will
take me out of the contract security service I currently work for and put me on the client's
payroll. The client has facilities in Minneapolis; a transfer can be arranged...
Oh, BTW, as is known to everybody else in this group (talk.politics.guns), I do not own any
firearms.
So much for Schlereth's Bright Idea Number Two.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have
>unanimously determined that the Second Amendment
>concerns only the arming of the people in service
>to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee
>immediate access to guns for private purposes. The
>nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's
>distortion of the Constitution cripple every
>reasonable attempt to implement an effective
>national policy toward guns and crime."
>
>-- Joint Statement, six former Attorneys General
>of the United States: Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey
>Clark, Elliot Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin Bell,
>Benjamin Civiletti, 1992
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is, of course, demonstrably incorrect. I won't bother reposting the refutations -- they've been
posted enough. Suffice to say that several Federal courts have recognised the individual nature of
the Second Amendment -- cases that the government refused to appeal to the USSC so as to avoid
setting a national precedent.
I notice that you didn't use your (in)famous "Concentration Camp" .sig on this reply. Why is that?
Oh, as I told Big Oh in email, my previous reply was intended to show the lurkers the bankruptcy of
the pathological anti-gun position.
You swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Don't be confused.
====================================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA lsc2...@flash.net NRA LSC2838R (1996)
(Delete _ in address before replying)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Second Amendment, United States Constitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In memory of 85 un-charged, un-convicted victims of the U.S. government in Waco, Texas - including
over 20 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_\| /\ |/_ Old hobo sign, meaning "Man in this house has a gun"
\/ \/ with thanks to Eric Oppen
/______\ (use 10-CPI font for ASCII graphic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a
sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the
sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
Robert A. Heinlein, as "Lazarus Long", in _Time_Enough_for_Love_ and _The_Notebooks_of_Lazarus_Long_
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Fischer
In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp> zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp writes:
>Big Oh wrote:
>
>> Call 911 during evening rush hour and tell them there's an attempted
>> breaking and entry ongoing at at your home by some wacko with a tire iron.
>> See how long it takes the cops to arrive -- assuming they decide to send a
>> squad car to check.
>But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
>make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
>the above situation would never happen, right?
Regardless of the ABSOLUTE number of guns in America, slightly more
than one-half have *ZERO* firearms in them - victims, like you!
>How many guns is enough for deterrence?
Deterrence is not the object. Victory is.
--
Steve D. Fischer / Atlanta, Georgia / str...@netcom.com
Michael Zarlenga
: #But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
: #make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
: #the above situation would never happen, right?
: #How many guns is enough for deterrence?
I dunno ... How many words do you think people should be allowed to
use while exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"What the hell kind o'country is this where you can only hate
a man if he's white?" Hank Hill
Mark B. Davis
William Hughes <_lsc2...@flash.net> wrote in article
<3391ca6d...@news.flash.net>...
[Really big snip]
> So much for Schlereth's Bright Idea Number One.
>
> >Or "This home ripe for a shooting of a family member or loved one."
>
> I live alone, at the moment (save for two cats). My wife, daughter and
mother-in-law moved to
> Minneapolis a few weeks back so that Betty could take a job at IBM. I
stayed in San Antonio because
> I am in line for a promotion to site commander. Should come through in
about two weeks. This will
> take me out of the contract security service I currently work for and put
me on the client's
> payroll. The client has facilities in Minneapolis; a transfer can be
arranged...
>
So you may join us up in Minneapolis?
Where the weather is cold and the taxes are high? Bring a big coat and
your wallet.
And I hope you don't like Mexican food :-)
> Oh, BTW, as is known to everybody else in this group
(talk.politics.guns), I do not own any
> firearms.
>
> So much for Schlereth's Bright Idea Number Two.
>
[Another really big snip]
--
Mark Davis
Jason Gottlieb
> =| make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
> =| the above situation would never happen, right?
> =|
> =| How many guns is enough for deterrence?
>
> I'm talking about YOU, Jason.
Hey, if general deterrence worked, nobody would ever break
into my house -- I might have a gun!
> And yes, guns do deter and stop criminals. Estimates vary but I have no
> problem with accepting at least 800,000 successful uses per year.
Uses for what? Stopping theft of a candy bar?
> Criminals prefer picking on those who are unarmed. Look ar Europe's
> statistics for property crimes -- many European countries have far higher
> property crime rates than does the USA and many property crimes happen with
> the victims being on their property or business site (not the norm in the
> USA - criminal fear the armed citizen).
So you would rather have the situation that the US and England have,
where they have slightly more car theft, and we have astronomically
more murder and gun assault? Brilliant tradeoff.
> 140,000 LA COUNTY GUN OWNERS HAVE USED FIREARM DEFENSIVELY
> by J. Neil Schulman
>
> In the first data on defensive use of firearms by private citizens
> since the study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University,...
Kleck's methods are painfully flawed, and Schulman spouts them
like the good parrot he is.
Christopher Morton
On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 02:54:46 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
Kennemur) wrote:
>On 3 Jun 1997 02:21:51 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>wrote:
>
>>: #But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
>>: #make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
>>: #the above situation would never happen, right?
>>
>>: #How many guns is enough for deterrence?
>>
>>I dunno ... How many words do you think people should be allowed to
>>use while exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
>>
>>--
>>-- Mike Zarlenga
>
>Excellent example Michael. You do not have a absolute right to free
>speech any more than you have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
>
>Glad to see you catching on.
Kennemur believes in an absolute right to speech... so long as it's a
speech written by Dr. William Pierce.
---
"It's always funny when faux "liberals" like KKKennemur use Dr. William Pierce, notorious neo-Nazi leader, as
a "historical" source." - C. Morton
"Not a historical source, Chris, ideological." - Jim Kennemur, admitting his philosophical kinship with
William Pierce and the neo-Nazi National Alliance.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
Big Oh wrote:
> Call 911 during evening rush hour and tell them there's an attempted
> breaking and entry ongoing at at your home by some wacko with a tire
> iron.
>
> See how long it takes the cops to arrive -- assuming they decide to send
> a squad car to check.
If you describe it that way, of course it will take about 45 minutes for the
cops to finish their coffee and donuts and get motivated into driving by your
house -- if they feel like it and don't run across some poor commuter doing
55.1 in a 55 zone enroute.
However, if you tell the 911 dispatcher that you have a gun and are going to
use it if the phlem-head makes it past the threshold, you'll have SWAT doing
body-cavity searches on your family and pets in three minutes flat.
And that's the way the system works.
---
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NOTICE: Flaming email received will be posted to the appropriate newsgroups
- --
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty,
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
- Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
Larry
Jason Gottlieb
>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp wrote:
>
>[much snippage]
>
>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>>
>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
>>you windows stating such, also.
>
> Oh, come on, Big Oh. You _know_ that I've been challenging 'em to do this for
> _years_.
>They never take me up on it, though. I wonder why...
I could do it with no fear at all -- even if I wrote the sign
in the local language...
Wonder why...
Jason Gottlieb
Steve Fischer wrote:
>
> zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp writes:
> >But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
> >make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
> >the above situation would never happen, right?
>
> Regardless of the ABSOLUTE number of guns in America, slightly more
> than one-half have *ZERO* firearms in them - victims, like you!
But how would a criminal *know* that?
If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
gold necklace?
Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
> >How many guns is enough for deterrence?
>
> Deterrence is not the object. Victory is.
Oh, so you would rather shoot a criminal in a showdown than
scare him off before hand. You would rather risk your life
to play the movie gun hero?
Chuck Lipsig
volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) wrote:
>On 3 Jun 1997 18:10:43 -0400, cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A.
>Ney, Jr.) wrote:
>>If you describe it that way, of course it will take about 45 minutes for the
>>cops to finish their coffee and donuts and get motivated into driving by your
>>house -- if they feel like it and don't run across some poor commuter doing
>>55.1 in a 55 zone enroute.
>>
>>However, if you tell the 911 dispatcher that you have a gun and are going to
>>use it if the phlem-head makes it past the threshold, you'll have SWAT doing
>>body-cavity searches on your family and pets in three minutes flat.
>That body cavity search should be difficult what with that gun barrel
>already up your ass, Ney.
>>And that's the way the system works.
>Only in your paranoid little gun worshiping brain.
Not really. Several years ago a friend of mine was living in a house
that had been subdivided into apartments. On a football Saturday, a van
pulled into the parking lot for that house.
My friend's roommate came out and said that they barely had room in the
parking lot for the people who lived in the house. Could they park
elsewhere. In response six guys piled out of the van and started beating
and kicking the roommate.
My friend came out with a pistol and yelled at the people beating his
roommate to stop. When they didn't, he fired his pistol in the air. The
guys stopped beating the roommate, piled into the van and left.
The police were more concerned with the fact that my friend had fired a
gun than the fact that his roomate was on the way to the hospital with a
broken hand and a cracked rib. In the end they didn't charge him -- but he
did have to go to court to get his gun back from the evidence storage.
Oh, they never did bother trying to find the guys who beat up the
roommate.
Sometimes paranoids have good cause.
Chuck Lipsig lip...@atlantic.net Gainesville, FL
Sometimes, making you paranoid is part of their plot.
Peter H. Proctor
In article <3394E4DF...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
>From: Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp>
>Subject: Re: #A Fact Sheet on the Regulation of Guns and Gun Manufacturers
>Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:45:35 +0900
>
>If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
>Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>gold necklace?
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
Of course they do. You seem to be so frightened of guns, dontcha
think some burgler might be also ? Or do you give the typical burgler
credit for more physical courage than yourself <G>.
It takes a lot of guts for a burgler to go into an occupied dwelling
where there might be a firearm. Most likely, this accouts for the
relatively low incidence of burlaries of occupied dwellings in the Us relative
to ( say ) the UK, where shooting a home invader will get you a prison
sentence. Me, I would not use deadly force to protect home appliances,
but there are people who would.
Here in Houston, a string of "kick-robberies" involving severe
beatings, rapes, etc. was only ended after a couple of the perps got blown
away by armed homeowners. As Napoleon once said about why he executed one
of his generals " It encourages the rest".
Dr. P
Steve Fischer
>> >But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
>> >make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
>> >the above situation would never happen, right?
>> Regardless of the ABSOLUTE number of guns in America, slightly more
>> than one-half have *ZERO* firearms in them - victims, like you!
>But how would a criminal *know* that?
Look for Greenpeace stickers in the window. Also, look for
"I don't brake for Hippies" stickers on the cars in the driveway.
I'll let you figure out which is more likely to be armed, and which
is not.
>If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
Averaged over the entire USA, yes. In any given city and
suburb, that value could vary greatly. In Morton Grove, IL, I
wouldn't expect a number that high, but in rural areas, most
homes could contain at least one firearm. It's a bit hard to
get a gun census in places where handguns are secretly owned
and forbidden by law (i.e. Washington, DC).
>Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>gold necklace?
If you're a junkie in need of a quick fix, or a crackhead
looking for a fast score, a sober consideration of the risks
versus benefits is not likely to occur.
The safest method is to rob someone when they're not home,
obviously. Home invaders, on the other hand, depend upon the
presence of the homeowners, who "give up the goods" under threat
of physical harm or death.
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
That's not the recent Lott and Mustard study says! It's the only
truly *COMPREHENSIVE* study to date.
Also, it depends on what stage the deterrence occurs. If you're
talking about deterrence before committing ANY criminal acts, that's
one thing. If you're talking about deterring further action once
a crime is in progress, that's quite another. I've used my pistols
twice in 10 years to deter a crime in progress. The attackers had
no idea I was armed until I pulled the gun.
>> >How many guns is enough for deterrence?
>> Deterrence is not the object. Victory is.
>Oh, so you would rather shoot a criminal in a showdown than
>scare him off before hand. You would rather risk your life
>to play the movie gun hero?
In both cases where I used my guns to defend myself, I
merely had to display the gun and the attackers ran away. No
shots fired. This is a TYPICAL gun defense. Most do NOT
involve firing shots. Even when shots ARE fired, most do
not involve the death of the attacker.
As for "risk... hero," your logic is 180-degrees out of
phase with reality. The *RISK* is in allowing the crime to
proceed. You must pray that your attacker won't shoot, stab
or beat you. In the current atmosphere where gang initiations
often involve a deliberate murder, I don't feel like taking
the risk.
Over a year ago a 25 year old pregnant woman was working
at night in a convenience store here in Atlanta when two gang
members, one 14 and one 16-17 years old, entered and robbed
her, then shot her and her unborn baby to death. She did nothing
to resist. The policy of the store was not to allow its employees
to be armed. She paid the price and took the risk. She lost.
William Hughes
[WARNING: long attachment]
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:45:35 +0900, Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
Pure, unmitigated, BULLSHIT!
I have personally been involved in a potential crime (street mugging) that was deterred when the
perps saw the butt of a gun under my jacket.
The fact that the "gun" was a Crossman Powerline Model 1200 CO2 pistol, lot number F712208, is
irrelevant. The perps saw the weapon, thought "Gun!", and ran like hell.
You don't have to believe me. Contact the Biloxi, Mississippi police department and ask them. They
caught the perps, there was a trial before Judge "Sonny" Montgomery, and the perps were convicted.
And no, I was not carrying a CO2 pistol as a "carry weapon". I was walking home after 'plinking'
with friends. Shot a whole bunch of Coke cans to hell.
I still have the Crossman.
As further refutation, I attach an excerpt from my incomplete Armed Citizen file. Observant readers
will note that I excerpted only those incidents where the intended victim did not fire, even when
shot at and/or wounded.
[addendum]
Damned software uuencoded it. Lemme see if I can cut&paste...
(if someone wants to cancel the uuencoded version, go ahead)
[These reports recompiled in date order, and reformatted to 72 columns.]
THE ARMED CITIZEN
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for
personal protection, and that presence of a firearm, without a shot
being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be
justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to
life or limb, or, in some cases, property. Anyone is free to quote or
reproduce these accounts. Send clippings to: "The Armed Citizen," 11250
Waples Mill Rd., Fairfax, VA 22030.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
========================================================================
SEPTEMBER 1991
========================================================================
Hearing suspicious noises outside his home early one morning, a West
Goshen, Pa., homeowner --- already on alert after his car had been
stolen two months earlier --- picked up his 9 mm pistol and investigat-
ed. Outside he found two men loading his gas grill into their car. He
ordered them to stop and held them at gunpoint for police.
(The Daily Local News, West Chester, Pa., 09/01/91)
========================================================================
OCTOBER 1991
========================================================================
When a car pulled into the driveway of a vacant house across the street,
Sara Lott of Salley, South Carolina, picked up a pistol and, along with
a friend, went to investigate. The man in the car told Lott he was
waiting for his girlfriend, but she recognized the car as having been
stolen from a neighbor's home. Lott held the man, recently released from
prison, at gunpoint for police.
(The State, Columbia, SC, 10/03/91)
========================================================================
Two men and a woman intent on burglarizing a Cowan, Indiana, home never
got inside after they saw what was behind door number one. When the trio
kicked the door down, the homeowner was waiting for them with a loaded
shotgun, and informed them he would use it if they entered. The three
fled, but two suspects were later captured by police.
(The Star, Muncie, IN, 10/10/91)
========================================================================
A would-be robber got a lesson in superior armament when he tried to rob
the San Diego, California, liquor store where Majid Kachi works. When
the man walked in a threatened him with a large knife, Kachi caught his
arm with one hand and pulled a revolver from under the counter with the
other, prompting the man to turn tail and run. "Mr. Kachi would have
been quite legally justified in shooting the man who was threatening him
and his business," a police spokesman said.
(The Union, San Diego, CA, 11/17/91)
========================================================================
DECEMBER 1991
========================================================================
Listening in on a police radio, Ron Sisk heard a police chase proceed
through his community of Cottonwood, Arizona. When the suspect's stolen
truck crashed into a car Sisk was following and he began to run, Sisk
grabbed his gun and held the man for police. The fugitive was wanted on
felony charges ranging from armed robbery to attempted murder committed
during a week-long, two-state spree.
(The Journal Extra, Cottonwood, AZ, 12/05/91)
========================================================================
Delwin Smith was ready when two armed teenagers went on a crime spree
which left one Houston, Alaska, resident wounded. After eluding the
police, the teens broke into a home and struggled with the owner but
fled into the woods after a shotgun one was carrying went off and wound-
ed the man. Smith, knowing their location from bulletins on his police
radio, was waiting when they emerged from the brush and held them at
shotgun point until police arrived.
(The Daily News, Anchorage, AK, 12/14/91)
========================================================================
Alerted when she saw a strange car drive up and the occupants knock on
the door, a 19-year-old woman got a rifle and hid in a bedroom closet.
When the men broke through a cellar door and entered the bedroom, she
stepped out of the closet, trained the gun on them and ordered them out.
They fled.
(The Lawrence County Advocate, Lawrence, TN, 12/18/91)
========================================================================
JANUARY 1992
========================================================================
Linda Patterson was walking to her car in the parking lot of a Searcy,
Arkansas, store a few days before Christmas when she saw a man holding a
knife on a woman. Patterson pulled a revolver from her purse and yelled,
"You had better think twice about what you are doing!" Seeing that she
was armed, the would-be kidnaper fled.
(The White River Journal, Des Arc, AR, 01/02/92)
========================================================================
Charles O'Brien started spending nights in his Plano, Tex., store after
a November burglary. Awakened one evening by the sounds of breaking
glass next door, O'Brien picked up a pistol, investigated and found two
juveniles holding bags. A 10-year-old ran off, but O'Brien held the 16-
year-old for police, who found the boy was armed with a pistol taken in
the earlier entry.
(The Star Courier, Plano, Tex., 01/09/92)
========================================================================
Ernie Smith was watching television in his Eugene, Oreg., home when he
heard loud noises coming from his store next door. Looking through a
peephole, Smith saw a man drop through a hole in the ceiling. Smith
grabbed his shotgun, ran into the store and held the burglar for police.
"Hey, I got to defend my wife and the house," Smith said. "And a loaded
12-ga. talks."
(The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oreg., 01/14/92)
========================================================================
Only 11, a Talkeetna, Alaska, girl called on the firearms training her
mother had given her when someone broke into her home early one morning.
When she heard movement outside, then inside, the house, the girl got a
shotgun and yelled, "I've got a loaded shotgun and if you don't get out
of here right now, I'm going to blow your head off!" The intruder took
the non-too-subtle hint and fled.
(The Times, Anchorage, AK, 01/15/92)
========================================================================
A clerk working the graveyard shift alone at a Wilco, Va., service
station unlocked the door to let in what appeared to be a customer. Once
inside, however, the "customer" pulled a lug wrench from under his coat
and demanded money. The clerk responded by pulling a .32 automatic,
which convinced the would- be robber to flee.
(The News & Advance, Lynchburg, Va., 01/20/92)
========================================================================
FEBRUARY 1992
========================================================================
After entering through an unlocked back door of an Alcolu, S.C., woman's
home, a male intruder put an extension cord around the woman's neck and
told her not to scream. Thinking quickly, the woman fell to the floor
and grabbed a rifle kept under the couch, prompting her attacker to
flee.
(The Item, Sumter, S.C., 02/8/92)
========================================================================
Apparently intent on burglary, two hoods cut the phone lines to Floris
Gold's Cape Ferrelo, Oreg., home. They were busy forcing their way into
the basement when confronted by the 72-year-old home-owner, but fled
when they noticed she was carrying a shotgun. One fired a shot as he was
running -- missing Gold -- which earned him a charge of attempted murder
when police caught up with him and his accomplice a short time later.
(The Curry Coastal Pilot, Brookings, Oreg., 02/12/92)
========================================================================
MARCH 1992
========================================================================
His shadow proved to be the undoing for a St. Paul, Minn., house break-
er. Asleep on the sofa, Bob McQuiston awakened to what he thought was
one of his children upstairs. "I usually spot their little shadows when
I'm downstairs...but this shadow just kept getting bigger and bigger and
bigger," he said. McQuiston called police, grabbed his double-barrel
shotgun and held the intruder for police.
(The Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minn., 03/01/92)
========================================================================
Fed up with repeated burglaries at the grocery store where he works as a
clerk, Phil Holznagel of Spokane, Wash., decided to mount his own stake
out. His plan paid off early one morning when two men broke into the
store. Holznagel corralled one of the men in the store and held him at
gun point for police.
(Spokesman-Review and Chronicle, Spokane, Wash., 03/01/92)
========================================================================
T.J. Namen credits his insomnia with helping him nab two teens who were
breaking into cars in the lot of the Anchorage, Alaska apartment build-
ing he manages. Getting a pistol and sneaking outside after noticing the
two, Namen waited until he heard breaking glass, then jumped up, an-
nounced that he was armed and held them for the police.
(The Daily News, Anchorage, Alaska, 03/31/92)
========================================================================
APRIL 1992
========================================================================
After finding money missing from her Kennewick, Wash., tavern, Carol Mae
hodgins decided to start spending nights in the business. Alerted when
the phone began to ring, Hodgins and a friend -- both armed with .357s
-- were ready when a former employee used a key to open the door. After
he took money from several games in the bar, Hodgins -- a former securi-
ty guard -- held him for police.
(The Tri-Cities Herald, Kennewick, Wash., 04/11/92)
========================================================================
Delivering pizzas in Syracuse, N.Y., early one morning, John MacDonald
was accosted by two men who tried to steal the pies. MacDonald tried to
keep hold of the pizza bag, but when one of the pair attacked him with a
broomstick, MacDonald let go and drew his pistol. One man fled with the
pizzas, but MacDonald gave the other a ride to the police station in his
delivery car. He is licensed to carry, police said.
(The Herald American, Syracuse, N.Y., 04/19/92)
========================================================================
Driving to work, Macon, Ga., resident Joe Moody saw a couple who manage
a local grocery being robbed by three armed, masked men. He paused
nearby to tell a security guard to call police, then, with his .44 Mag.,
returned to the store. Gun in hand, he hopped out of his truck and
ordered the trio of thugs to scram. They took the hint and fled. Police
later arrested several suspects, all convicted felons.
(The Telegraph, Macon, Ga., 04/21/92)
========================================================================
Ron Simpson carries a gun on the job as a midnight-shift service station
attendant in Aurora, Ill. He needed it recently -- for a third time in
18 months -- when a man walked in, pretended to have a gun and demanded
money from the register. When the robber dropped his guard, Simpson
pulled his 9 mm pistol and held him for police. "The gun's not there to
protect the store; it's purely to protect me," Simpson said.
(The Beacon, Aurora, Ill., 04/23/92)
========================================================================
Mark Rigas was working in his Waldoboro, Maine, pizza shop one evening
when a man walked in, waved a gun around and demanded money. Instead of
complying, Rigas pulled his own gun -- which he keeps in the shop for
just such an occasion -- and called police. The would-be robber fled
while Rigas was on the phone, but a suspect was soon arrested. "I work
too hard for my money to let some guy rob me," said Rigas.
(The Courier-Gazette, Rockland, Maine, 04/23/92)
========================================================================
MAY 1992
========================================================================
Covering the rioting in Atlanta, Ga., that followed the Rodney King jury
verdict in Los Angeles, a TV-news team found themselves the targets of
the mob. They were rescued when Garnett Sumpter, the husband of one of
their coworkers, happened onto the scene. Drawing his licensed pistol,
Sumpter convinced the mob to go elsewhere.
(The Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, Ga., 05/5/92)
========================================================================
JUNE 1992
========================================================================
"I suppose it was silly, but I was worried about my cats," said Corydon,
Ind., resident Mary Setzer after she foiled a burglary at her home.
Alerted to the break-in by a friend, Setzer arrived home to find the
basement door forced open. She retrieved her revolver, found two teenag-
ers in her basement and held them for police. Setzer immediately pur-
chased a shotgun, saying "A pump gun makes a noise when you load the
chamber. Most people when they hear that, they're not going to hang
around."
(The Courier Journal, Louisville, Ky., 06/02/92)
========================================================================
Stopped for a red light, Laura Huntington of Woodstock, Ga., suddenly
found herself with an extra passenger in the car -- a man holding a
razor to her throat. Following his directions, Huntington stopped the
car on command, and seizing the moment, pulled her revolver. Her assail-
ant wisely decided to flee. "I had already made up my mind I was going
to use it," she said.
(The Daily Journal, Marietta, Ga., 06/04/92)
========================================================================
Timothy Riley, a resident of Green, Ohio, is very popular with his
neighbor. Hearing glass breaking next door, Riley armed himself with a
shotgun and confronted two house breakers. The pair ran back inside, but
surrendered when Riley ordered them out. Riley held them at gunpoint for
police. "When those burglars saw the barrel of my shotgun, they laid
down on the ground and got real peaceful."
(The Beacon Journal, Akron, Ohio, 06/09/92)
========================================================================
David Plasters, a city councilman in Greeley, Colo., picked up his 9 mm
and went to investigate when he heard noises at the rear of his home at
2:30 a.m.. In the kitchen, Plasters found a man entering through a
window. Plasters ordered him to freeze, but the intruder ran though the
house and out another window and escaped.
(The Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colo., 06/17/92)
========================================================================
JULY 1992
========================================================================
When his dogs interrupted his morning shave, Tom Fletcher looked outside
to see a man hiding behind a peach tree in his Juliette, Ga., yard.
Fearing the man was a wanted fugitive, Fletcher, 76, picked up his
pistol, went outside and captured the stranger. It turned out the man
was wanted for the throat-slashing murder of a woman during a burglary
and the stabbing of a motorist.
(The Telegraph, Macon, Ga., 07/05/92)
========================================================================
Two self-described "feisty" senior citizens were more than a match for
an armed intruder who entered their Ambridge, Pa., home, apparently
intent on burglary. As the crook pointed a pistol at her, Jean Hankinson
screamed for husband Melvin to get the shotgun. As Melvin grabbed for
his scattergun, the thief ran downstairs and dove through the window.
Police said he apparently took a set of car keys and the next night
tried to take the Hankinson's car, but was again driven off.
(The Beaver County times, Beaver, Pa., 07/13/92)
========================================================================
James Eldridge heard glass shattering and looked out his house window to
see two men in his carry-out store lot. When one got a pillow case out
of a car and the pair started for the store's front door, Eldridge got
his shotgun and confronted them. One would-be burglar fled, but the
store owner held the other until police came.
(The News-Sun, Springfield, Ohio, 07/13/92)
========================================================================
Stocking a cooler in the store where she works, a Eufaula, Okla., woman
was confronted by one of two men who entered the store. Turning, the
woman saw the second man behind her, his pants down. She threw a case of
beer at the second man and ran to the counter, the duo in pursuit.
Getting a pistol kept in a drawer, she drove the men from the premises
without firing a shot.
(The News-Capital & Democrat, McAlester, Okla., 07/27/92)
========================================================================
AUGUST 1992
========================================================================
A Yonkers, N.Y., woman demurred when a stongarm robber demanded her
purse as she was making a call at a public phone. She instead reached in
the purse and came up with her licensed .38. The criminal fled empty-
handed.
(The Herald Statesman, Yonkers, N.Y., 08/06/92)
========================================================================
After successfully fighting off a would-be rapist while walking her dog,
a Murray, Utah, woman, enraged over the incident, retrieved a pistol
from her home and went hunting for the man. Finding him attempting to
hitch a ride on a local highway, she held him at gunpoint until a pass-
ing motorist summoned police.
(The Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah, 08/06/92)
========================================================================
Talking with several friends outside a York, Pa., restaurant, Barb
Wallace was shocked to see one of her party randomly attacked. The two
men sparred, but Wallace's friend was knocked to the ground and kicked,
his cheekbone crushed. When the attacker turned his attention to Wallace
-- who works as a prison guard -- she pulled her revolver. The man fled.
(The Daily Record, York, Pa., 08/10/92)
========================================================================
OCTOBER 1992
========================================================================
Working on his truck, Sammy Creech of Ruston, La., glanced across the
street in time to see two male teenagers grab an elderly woman's purse.
The duo jumped into a car -- occupied by two female youths -- and took
off, with Creech in hot pursuit. The driver of the car eventually lost
control and crashed into a parked car. Creech walked up to the car, but
when he saw a gun on the floorboards, retreated to his truck, got a .38
and ordered the foursome, all runaways from New York, to wait for po-
lice.
(The Daily Leader, Ruston, La., 10/05/92)
========================================================================
The target of a recent burglary, Willeen Lansberry was suspicious when
she got several hang-up phone calls in one day. Hiding in her Niagra
Falls, N.Y., apartment with her .38, her stakeout was rewarded when two
teenagers forced open the door. Emerging from her hiding place, Lansber-
ry held the pair for police.
(The News, Buffalo, N.Y., 10/06/92)
========================================================================
Police scored an easy collar after an Erie, Pa., homeowner heard a
break-in, called police and then grabbed his rifle. Confronting the
intruder, the homeowner forced him to retreat outside, right into the
handcuffs of arriving officers.
(The Daily Times., Erie, Pa., 10/22/92)
========================================================================
Jacksonville, Fla., resident David Pierce capitalized on an unusual
opportunity while driving home one afternoon -- he recovered his stolen
truck. Taken along with over $12,000 in tools and cash in a nighttime
theft at his home, the truck pulled up beside Pierce at an intersection
about three weeks later. Pierce grabbed his .357 revolver, ordered two
men from the truck and held them for police, who lodged several charges
against the pair.
(The Florida times-Union, Jacksonville, Fla., 10/29/92)
========================================================================
NOVEMBER 1992
========================================================================
Hearing noises from his father's grocery store next door early one
morning, Hickory, La., resident Bruce Bennett peered through his window
and saw a man banging on the side door of the business. Bennett got his
gun and found the man trying to break through the front door. Bennett
held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
(The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, La., 11/05/92)
========================================================================
Charlie Mikos of Bensalem, Pa., had just gone to bed when he was roused
by his daughter's screams and the sounds of a struggle. Running down-
stairs, he found a man holding what later turned out to be a stun gun to
her head. Grabbing his pistol, Mikos trained it on the man, convinced
him to cease his assault and held him for police.
(The Bucks County Courier Times, Levittown, Pa., 11/06/92)
========================================================================
Nervous because three men in a passing car were staring at her, a Lan-
caster, Calif., woman got a pistol from her stranded car and loaded it.
Her precaution proved warranted when the men returned and demanded
money. Aiming her gun, she ordered the trio to leave, which they hastily
did.
(The Antelope Valley Press, Lancaster, Calif., 11/06/92)
========================================================================
JANUARY 1993
========================================================================
Angry that his auto insurance had been canceled, a client used brass
knuckles to take it out on Brandon, Fla., agent Steven Taylor. When his
assailant walked out of the office, Taylor grabbed a pistol kept there
and held the former client at gun- point until police arrived.
(The Tribune, Tampa, Fla., 01/14/93)
========================================================================
A Ft. Myers, Fla., woman had just risen to feed her baby when a robber
broke down her front door with a wooden pole. Her husband grabbed a
pistol and confronted the intruder, inviting him to wait for police,
which he did.
(The News-Press, Ft. Myers, Fla., 01/16/93)
========================================================================
The fact that he was recovering from a stab wound suffered in an assault
the day before didn't keep Roderick McGill from preventing a rape out-
side his Buffalo, N.Y., home. Hearing the gagged woman's cries, McGill
had his girlfriend call police and grabbed his shotgun. Outside, he
confronted the would-be rapist as he attempted to strip his victim and
held him for police.
(The News, Buffalo, N.Y., 01/25/93)
========================================================================
"I told him he'd picked the wrong night," said Kyle Wagstaff of the
knife-wielding robber he apprehended outside the Salt Lake City, Utah,
store where his fiancee works. In the store when a man walked in, pulled
a knife and demanded money, he retreated outside to get a shotgun from
his truck. When the robber, clutching a handful of money, walked from
the store, Wagstaff trained the shotgun on him and held him for police.
(The Desert News, Salt Lake City, Utah, 01/31/93)
========================================================================
FEBRUARY 1993
========================================================================
Two would-be robbers didn't get what they expected when they pulled a
knife on a man in the parking lot of an Exton, Pa., grocery store and
demanded his money. "I don't think so," replied the man, who then pulled
a licensed handgun, prompting the pair to beat a hasty retreat.
(The Inquirer, Philadelphia, Pa., 02/25/93)
========================================================================
MARCH 1993
========================================================================
Darren Yakunovich didn't expect to be holding a rifle on a friend, but
that's how it worked out when the 17-year-old Kipton, Ohio, youth stayed
home from school to catch a burglar who had hit his parent's home sever-
al times previously. When the erstwhile friend walked into an upstairs
bedroom, Yakunovich held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
(The Chronicle-Telegram, Elyria, Ohio 03/04/93)
========================================================================
Ohio farmer Tom Study returned to his house after morning chores to find
a stranger in the living room wearing Study's favorite hat. Thinking
quickly, Study told the man he had to tend the cows. The ruse worked and
allowed Study to retrieve a .38 from an outbuilding. By the time he
returned to the house, the man was outside in Study's car. Training his
pistol on the interloper, Study held him for police.
(The Post, Cincinnati, Ohio, 03/12/93)
========================================================================
APRIL 1993
========================================================================
A Ceresville, Maryland, man was sitting on the deck of his home with his
wife and daughter when an armed fugitive on the run from a manhunt
suddenly appeared. The homeowner got his family inside, locked the
doors, grabbed his gun and loaded it. When the resident shouted that he
was armed, the fugitive -- captured soon after by police -- ran. "It was
a split-second decision to load the gun and threaten him," the man said.
"But I didn't want him in my house."
(The Post, Frederick, MD., 04/27/93)
========================================================================
MAY 1993
========================================================================
While the situation ended without incident, armed citizen Michael Acree
stood ready to lend a hand when a police officer stopped a carload of
unruly teenagers outside his Salem, Connecticut, home. Noticing the
youths scuffling with the officer, Acree retrieved his pistol and went
out onto his lawn. When the youths saw Acree and his handgun, they
calmed down and the situation ended peaceably. Acree earned the appreci-
ation both of town officials and the officer.
(The Bulletin, Norwich, CT, 05/22/93)
========================================================================
Charles James returned to his Hot Springs, Arkansas, home and noticed
signs that someone might be in the house. James got a revolver and
called loudly for whoever was in the house to surrender, but when he got
no response, went outside, slamming the door loudly. James hid outside,
and when a masked burglar -- an acquaintance -- exited the home, James
held him at gunpoint for police.
(The Sentinel-Record, Hot Springs, AR, 05/27/93)
========================================================================
JUNE 1993
========================================================================
Stopping by to check on their son's Winnabow, North Carolina home,
Walter Babson heard noises in the home. Retreating to his car to get
his .45, Babson then searched the mobile home and found two men hiding
there, one under a bed. Babson escorted the duo to the living room and
called police.
(The Beacon, Brunswick, NC., 06/06/93)
========================================================================
Thinking about lunch and the poison ivy on his feet, Eddie Roscoe
stopped by his house in Albemarle, North Carolina, and interrupted a
burglary. Two men fled, but the third headed toward a bedroom, with
Roscoe in pursuit. Cornered, the burglar turned and fired a shot, wound-
ing Roscoe in the hand and side. After a struggle, Roscoe picked up a
shotgun, loaded it and held the would-be crook for police, who also
apprehended the accomplices.
(The Herald, Bradenton, FL, 06/06/93)
========================================================================
JULY 1993
========================================================================
"I'm just tired of people getting away with crime," was Jeffrey Rosen-
berg's assessment of why he kept a vigil over his new Ford Mustang.
Getting two pistols, Rosenberg, of Quincy, Massachusetts, kept a six-
hour watch over the car. When he confronted two men checking out the
car, one took a swipe at him with a screwdriver, and Rosenberg drew his
handgun and held them a gunpoint for police.
(The Sun, Lowell, MA, 07/25/93)
========================================================================
AUGUST 1993
========================================================================
"The law can't take guns away from criminals, and the law wasn't there
to help me that day, so I had to help myself," said Sharon Murray of
Shelby, North Carolina, after an enraged man smashed the window of her
car. Murray had stopped at a red light to adjust her son's seat and
waved the truck behind her through. Instead of going around, the driver
hopped out, screaming, and punched through her window. Murray pulled her
pistol and, after a brief standoff, the man fled.
(The Gazette, Gastonia, NC, 08/01/93)
========================================================================
Eighty-year-old Lawrence Nipp is sick of "young punks taking the country
over." So when his wife told him there was a youth in the back yard of
his Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, home, Nipp retrieved his gun, told his wife
to call police and confronted the teen. Unconvinced by his story claim-
ing several men were trying to kill him, Nipp held the youthful criminal
-- who turned out to be a robbery suspect -- for police at gunpoint.
(The Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 08/03/93)
========================================================================
Win Coburn of Bloomfield, Missouri, returned home to find three men --
wanted by a police dragnet -- ransacking his residence. Two of the
fugitives fled, but Coburn held the third at gunpoint until police
collected him. His accomplices were also soon captured. "We believe
these arrests may have cleared up to 10 burglaries in surrounding coun-
ties," said Stoddard County Sheriff Steve Fish.
(The Daily Statesman, Dexter, MO, 08/03/93)
========================================================================
Count NRA member Dale Tipton of Hutchinson, Kansas, among those who have
defended themselves with a gun and have lost their jobs for doing so.
Tipton was delivering pizzas for Pizza Hut after a range session with
his AR-15 when three teens tried to rob him. When one of the teens
threatened him with a gun, Tipton hopped back into his car and grabbed
his rifle. "As soon as they saw it, they were trucking," said Tipton.
Although the incident occurred only a month after a unarmed driver was
slain in Wichita, and police said he did nothing wrong, Pizza Hut fired
Tipton.
(The News, Hutchinson, KS, 08/17/93)
========================================================================
It was something of a comical situation. The 300-lb. "customer" was
holding a 2" knife, while the Colorado Springs liquor-store clerk was
holding a gun. It all started when the man asked for a bottle of wine,
then pulled a knife instead of cash, prompting the clerk to grab one of
the handguns kept in the store. After a brief standoff during which he
put the knife away and tried to make friends, the hefty would-be crook
fled empty-handed.
(The Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs, CO, 08/28/93)
========================================================================
SEPTEMBER 1993
========================================================================
Carl Spence jumped to action upon finding a strange pickup truck in his
driveway and two strangers walking around his Jackson, Mississippi, area
home. Spence blocked the truck with his car, ran into the house and
called 911. He then grabbed his shotgun and went back outside, where the
pair was trying to escape. They stopped and waited for police when they
saw Spence's shotgun.
(The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, MS, 09/11/93)
========================================================================
OCTOBER 1993
========================================================================
Sue Atkins of Durham, North Carolina, appeared in this column in Febru-
ary 1993 after shooting a man who tried to rob her Western Union
office/fish store. Atkins didn't need to shoot the man who attempted to
rob the store this time -- her fifth encounter with criminals -- but she
did chase him out. The man entered, asking about fish, but then threat-
ened to kill Atkins. She pulled her handgun and chased the man, but lost
him. Police promptly arrested a suspect. "I will fight back," said
Atkins.
(The Morning Star, Wilmington, NC, 10/06/93)
========================================================================
Crime doesn't pay, even when you're married to your partner, a Washing-
ton, North Carolina, couple found out. Robert Griffin woke up early one
morning to a commotion in his yard. When he looked outside, he saw the
couple loading his lounge chairs into their van. Griffin armed himself
and held the married perpetrators at gunpoint until police arrived.
(The Daily News, Washington, NC, 10/22/93)
========================================================================
A female clerk at a Stamford, Connecticut, area store noticed a man
stuffing two videos into his pants before coming to the counter to pay
for a magazine. When confronted, the man denied having the videos, so
the clerk reached over the counter and grabbed them. When the "customer"
threatened her, saying, "you're sorry, you're dead," the clerk pulled a
pistol and ordered him from the store. Police caught up with the would-
be shoplifter a few blocks aways, and noted that the clerk had a permit
for the gun.
(The Advocate, Stamford, CT, 10/25/93)
========================================================================
Next-door neighbors Thomas Graham and Ken Whitson both know the language
spoken by their dogs. Recognizing their pets' warning growls, the Bra-
denton, Florida, men, without knowing what the other was doing, went to
investigate. Before leaving the house, Whitson grabbed a shotgun, and
when the neighbors converged from opposite sides of the driveway, they
captured a 41-year-old prowler between them. He was held for police.
(The Herald, Bradenton, FL, 10/27/93)
========================================================================
NOVEMBER 1993
========================================================================
Awakened early one morning by his security system, Charles Tanner of
Phoenix expected a cat to be the culprit, but took his .45 Colt just in
case. Tanner opened his front door and found a man in his driveway. The
man charged the homeowner and slammed through the screen door, prompting
Tanner to fire four times, killing the intruder. "We had lots of fire-
arms training. It all came back to me," said the former reserve county
sheriff's deputy.
(The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, AZ, 11/06/93)
========================================================================
Walking home from a Bible study class, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, resident
Keith Wallace was accosted by a man who claimed to have a gun and de-
manded money. Reaching into his pocket, Wallace produced his own, li-
censed, pistol, prompting the man to flee.
(The Journal-Gazette, Ft. Wayne, IN, 11/13/93)
========================================================================
====================================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA lsc2...@flash.net NRA LSC2838R (1996)
William Hughes
begin 644 noshots
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
William Hughes
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
,/3T]/3T]/3T]/0T*
`
end
William Hughes
[WARNING: long attachment]
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:45:35 +0900, Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
Pure, unmitigated, BULLSHIT!
I have personally been involved in a potential crime (street mugging) that was deterred when the
perps saw the butt of a gun under my jacket.
The fact that the "gun" was a Crossman Powerline Model 1200 CO2 pistol, lot number F712208, is
irrelevant. The perps saw the weapon, thought "Gun!", and ran like hell.
You don't have to believe me. Contact the Biloxi, Mississippi police department and ask them. They
caught the perps, there was a trial before Judge "Sonny" Montgomery, and the perps were convicted.
And no, I was not carrying a CO2 pistol as a "carry weapon". I was walking home after 'plinking'
with friends. Shot a whole bunch of Coke cans to hell.
I still have the Crossman.
As further refutation, I attach an excerpt from my incomplete Armed Citizen file. Observant readers
will note that I excerpted only those incidents where the intended victim did not fire, even when
shot at and/or wounded.
Scout
In article <3394E4DF...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
says...
>
>Steve Fischer wrote:
>> Regardless of the ABSOLUTE number of guns in America, slightly more
>> than one-half have *ZERO* firearms in them - victims, like you!
>
>But how would a criminal *know* that?
>
>If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
And considerably less than that in certain areas, such as DC, NYC, Chicago,
opps, but they all have high crime rates.
Second, you have to consider how many of these people are prepared to use
their firearms in defense. Certain that number would decrease with manditory
gun locks, safes, centralized storage requirements, and all the other nonsense
that has been proposed over the years by the anti-gunners.
>Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>of there being a gun?
If it were a truely 50/50 chance, yes, and if not who cares, since in short
order they would have been caught and sent (briefly) to prison.
> Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>gold necklace?
I wouldn't, would you???
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
Sounds like you would risk your life on a 50/50 chance for a bit of cash or a
gold necklace. That's why crime will always exist, because some people will
commit crime no matter how poor the odds of success are.
What you fail to indicate is how REDUCING those odds, can possibly work as a
deterrent by any stretch of fantasy.
Well???
--
- Scout
.
A well read electorate being necessary to the advancement of
a free society, the right of the people to keep and read
books shall not be infringed.
.
Who has the rights, and in what manner can they be expressed?
Scout
>> >How many guns is enough for deterrence?
>>
>> Deterrence is not the object. Victory is.
>
>Oh, so you would rather shoot a criminal in a showdown than
>scare him off before hand. You would rather risk your life
>to play the movie gun hero?
Ah, Jason, scaring them off is victory. Anything that prevents harm or injury
to you after a criminal has already decided to commit the crime is victory.
Though personally, I don't agree with his sentiments. I believe in deterrence,
by having both passive, and active defenses. If my having those defenses isn't
enough deterrence, then I will have to imploy those defenses. So either way, I
limit my chances of being harmed by a criminal, and having the side effect he
will be unlikely to even complete the crime against me. Now that what I
consider victory. Not having to deal with criminals, or if I must, dealing
with them as effectively as possible.
Scout
In article <3394E540...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
says...
>
>On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 02:53:15 GMT, _lsc2...@flash.net (William Hughes)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
wrot
>e:
>>
>>[much snippage]
>>
>>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>>>
>>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
>>>you windows stating such, also.
>>
>> Oh, come on, Big Oh. You _know_ that I've been challenging 'em to do this
for
>
>> _years_.
>
>>They never take me up on it, though. I wonder why...
>
>
>I could do it with no fear at all -- even if I wrote the sign
>in the local language...
>
>Wonder why...
You live in an area where you are already disarmed by law, and such a sign
doesn't alter the criminal's perception of your unarmed condition?????
Dave
>If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
Yes thats why in America the criminals wait for the people to leave
their houses.
>
>Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>gold necklace?
Yes they just wait for the people who might use the guns to leave.
>
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
>
Yes they DO
>
>Oh, so you would rather shoot a criminal in a showdown than
>scare him off before hand. You would rather risk your life
>to play the movie gun hero?
>
I would prefer that the criminal not be there in the first place.
David
NRA...@ix.netcom.com
Jack
gun free home" How safe would you feel?
Chuck Lipsig
Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
>Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>gold necklace?
>Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
Yes they do. Studies have shown that burglars in the U.S. avoid homes
with occupants in them because they worry that the occupant may have a
gun.
The result is that only one-third of attempted house burglaries in the
U.S. occur when a person is in the house. Compared to 2/3 for Great
Britain.
Now if I could find the g-d studies, I'd cite them for you.
ra...@tiac.net
Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 02:53:15 GMT, _lsc2...@flash.net (William Hughes)
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp wrote:
>>
>>[much snippage]
>>
>>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>>>
>>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
>>>you windows stating such, also.
>>
>> Oh, come on, Big Oh. You _know_ that I've been challenging 'em to do this for
>> _years_.
>>They never take me up on it, though. I wonder why...
>I could do it with no fear at all -- even if I wrote the sign
>in the local language...
>Wonder why...
>--
>Jason Gottlieb
>Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
> gun control info, travellogues, and more!
>http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
This "wager" is a sham.
You say that fear is on your side here, that
I'm protected by a predator's fear that I might
be armed.
I suggest that the predator has many other
considerations besides whether I'm armed or
not. Like, for example, the odds of being
arrested and/or convicted of the crime.
And if he/she is smart, they'll come by when
I'm not around, and the "sign on the window"
will be moot.
It's our job as a _society_ to convince
such predators that the rewards are not
worth the risks.
It's our job as a _society_ to give people
a chance at a decent living -- probably
the best anti-crime measure of all.
rafe b.
Doc Tavish
Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 02:54:46 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
> Kennemur) wrote:
>
> >On 3 Jun 1997 02:21:51 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>: #But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
> >>: #make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
> >>: #the above situation would never happen, right?
> >>
> >>: #How many guns is enough for deterrence?
> >>
> >>I dunno ... How many words do you think people should be allowed to
> >>use while exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
> >>
> >>--
> >>-- Mike Zarlenga
> >
> >Excellent example Michael. You do not have a absolute right to free
> >speech any more than you have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
> >
> >Glad to see you catching on.
>
> Kennemur believes in an absolute right to speech... so long as it's a
> speech written by Dr. William Pierce.
>
> ---
> "It's always funny when faux "liberals" like KKKennemur use Dr. William Pierce, notorious neo-Nazi leader, as
> a "historical" source." - C. Morton
"What great person or debater has ever proven his point by ridiculing
people? Did Jesus use this method? Who has ever used ridicule other than
those who can't refute the truth, such as what the Pharisees did to
Jesus? Truth is never defended with ridicule. Facts speak for
themselves."
Sam A. Kersh
ra...@tiac.net wrote:
>
>This "wager" is a sham.
>
>You say that fear is on your side here, that
>I'm protected by a predator's fear that I might
>be armed.
>
>I suggest that the predator has many other
>considerations besides whether I'm armed or
>not. Like, for example, the odds of being
>arrested and/or convicted of the crime.
>
>And if he/she is smart, they'll come by when
>I'm not around, and the "sign on the window"
>will be moot.
>
from the 'American Heritage Dictionary:
moot n. 1. law. A hyoptheical case argued by law students as an
exercise. ...mooted, mooting, moots, 1a. To bring up as a subject for
discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate....
>It's our job as a _society_ to convince
>such predators that the rewards are not
>worth the risks.
>
AKA mandatory jail sentences....
>It's our job as a _society_ to give people
>a chance at a decent living -- probably
>the best anti-crime measure of all.
>
Second best is to allow every honest citizen their rights to
self-defense....
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA, JPFO
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/csmkersh.htm
===============================================================
If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.
Note: in off-seasons, substitute "fishing" for "hunting"
Read John Ross' "Unintended Consequencies" - available from TSRA @ $33, including tax & shipping.
Jason Gottlieb
Steve Fischer wrote:
>
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
> >Steve Fischer wrote:
>
> >> zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp writes:
>
>
> >> than one-half have *ZERO* firearms in them - victims, like you!
>
> >But how would a criminal *know* that?
>
> "I don't brake for Hippies" stickers on the cars in the driveway.
> I'll let you figure out which is more likely to be armed, and which
> is not.
This is pretty funny. But they might be misled by my guitar
case, which has stickers for Greenpeace, NARAL, the US Air
Force Academy, and the Marines. :-)
> >If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
> >that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
> >what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
> >a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
>
> Averaged over the entire USA, yes. In any given city and
> suburb, that value could vary greatly. In Morton Grove, IL, I
> wouldn't expect a number that high, but in rural areas, most
> homes could contain at least one firearm. It's a bit hard to
> get a gun census in places where handguns are secretly owned
> and forbidden by law (i.e. Washington, DC).
It's hard to get a gun census, that's true, so there's really
no way to measure for sure how many guns are there. However,
a few things lead me personally to believe that guns aren't
exactly rare in the inner cities:
1. Been there, seen them. Only anecdotal, I know. But I was
suitably impressed.
2. The level of gun crime in DC, NYC, etc., is significantly
higher than rural locations. This *could* conceivably just be
a few pesky troublemakers committing multiple crimes: but the
ratio is still pretty damn skewed. More likely, it's just that
lots of people have illegal guns.
So, with bunches of illegal guns in the city (probably, but
not verifiably), there is still no deterrent factor.
> >Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
> >of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
> >proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
> >gold necklace?
>
> If you're a junkie in need of a quick fix, or a crackhead
> looking for a fast score, a sober consideration of the risks
> versus benefits is not likely to occur.
True, true. However, if you fall into the above categories,
you are not likely to be deterred in a CCW state, either --
the only thing that would "deter" you is the actual bullet.
(Had an encounter once with a crackhead -- broke his arm, and
he stood and stared at me. Scary stuff. They don't seem to
feel much pain...)
> >Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
>
> That's not the recent Lott and Mustard study says! It's the only
> truly *COMPREHENSIVE* study to date.
And it fails miserably in a few areas. First of all, it doesn't
really prove anything about crime rates. For example, in Florida,
where the crime rate was already dropping before the 6 year study,
Lott actually tracked 3 years under CCW where crime went down,
and 3 when it went up. Second of all, he does a marginally adequate
job at presenting a vague correlation between CCW and crime, but
doesn't come close to even arguing causation.
> Also, it depends on what stage the deterrence occurs. If you're
> talking about deterrence before committing ANY criminal acts, that's
> one thing. If you're talking about deterring further action once
> a crime is in progress, that's quite another.
That's not deterrence, but self-defense, as I pointed out in
another post. Guns for self-defense are what I consider to be
the most persuasive argument of the gun lobby. For example:
> I've used my pistols
> twice in 10 years to deter a crime in progress. The attackers had
> no idea I was armed until I pulled the gun.
...and especially if you were, say, an old woman faced with
multiple attackers with baseball bats, this argument is
almost unanswerable.... almost.
Although there's nothing I could say to that particular old woman,
we can say in general that guns cost more lives a year than they
save. It sucks to be on the losing end of a cost-benefit analysis
like that, but for every unarmed grandma that was just killed by
armed thugs (which doesn't happen too often), there's a dead body
with a bullet hole in it that was murdered, which happens more often.
Tough policy decisions. But hell, that's why we pay our Congressmen
and women the big bucks.
Steve Fischer
In article <339771DD...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
>Steve Fischer wrote:
>>
>> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
>> >Steve Fischer wrote:
>>
>> >> zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp writes:
>>
>> >> >But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
>> >> >make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
>> >> >the above situation would never happen, right?
>>
>> >> Regardless of the ABSOLUTE number of guns in America, slightly more
>> >> than one-half have *ZERO* firearms in them - victims, like you!
>>
>> >But how would a criminal *know* that?
>>
>> Look for Greenpeace stickers in the window. Also, look for
>> "I don't brake for Hippies" stickers on the cars in the driveway.
>> I'll let you figure out which is more likely to be armed, and which
>> is not.
>
>This is pretty funny. But they might be misled by my guitar
>case, which has stickers for Greenpeace, NARAL, the US Air
>Force Academy, and the Marines. :-)
Now that is bizarre. How do you explain that?
>> >If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>> >that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>> >what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>> >a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
>>
>> Averaged over the entire USA, yes. In any given city and
>> suburb, that value could vary greatly. In Morton Grove, IL, I
>> wouldn't expect a number that high, but in rural areas, most
>> homes could contain at least one firearm. It's a bit hard to
>> get a gun census in places where handguns are secretly owned
>> and forbidden by law (i.e. Washington, DC).
>
>It's hard to get a gun census, that's true, so there's really
>no way to measure for sure how many guns are there. However,
>a few things lead me personally to believe that guns aren't
>exactly rare in the inner cities:
>1. Been there, seen them. Only anecdotal, I know. But I was
>suitably impressed.
You'd be really impressed by my home, then. I have
several guns. You'd have to look for them, however. They're
not on display.
>2. The level of gun crime in DC, NYC, etc., is significantly
>higher than rural locations. This *could* conceivably just be
>a few pesky troublemakers committing multiple crimes: but the
>ratio is still pretty damn skewed. More likely, it's just that
>lots of people have illegal guns.
The more lawbreakers per area, the higher the gun crime
rate. It's been predicted that by the turn of the century, one
in every two black, male DC residents will have been processed in
some way through the judicial system.
>So, with bunches of illegal guns in the city (probably, but
>not verifiably), there is still no deterrent factor.
It depends on whether the victims know their attackers.
In gang related murders, they may very well KNOW their victims
are armed.
>> >Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>> >of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>> >proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>> >gold necklace?
>> If you're a junkie in need of a quick fix, or a crackhead
>> looking for a fast score, a sober consideration of the risks
>> versus benefits is not likely to occur.
>True, true. However, if you fall into the above categories,
>you are not likely to be deterred in a CCW state, either --
>the only thing that would "deter" you is the actual bullet.
True. Real deterrence requires some thought, or knowing
someone who's been attacked by an armed victim. In these
cases, a little bit goes a long way.
>(Had an encounter once with a crackhead -- broke his arm, and
>he stood and stared at me. Scary stuff. They don't seem to
>feel much pain...)
Same with other drugs as well - even plain ole alcohol.
>> >Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
>> That's not the recent Lott and Mustard study says! It's the only
>> truly *COMPREHENSIVE* study to date.
>And it fails miserably in a few areas. First of all, it doesn't
>really prove anything about crime rates. For example, in Florida,
>where the crime rate was already dropping before the 6 year study,
>Lott actually tracked 3 years under CCW where crime went down,
>and 3 when it went up. Second of all, he does a marginally adequate
>job at presenting a vague correlation between CCW and crime, but
>doesn't come close to even arguing causation.
Causation can only be determined by actually ASKING people why
they did what they did, and hope they're not lying. The problem with
relying on the testimony of criminals is they may tell you what you
want to hear.
>> Also, it depends on what stage the deterrence occurs. If you're
>> talking about deterrence before committing ANY criminal acts, that's
>> one thing. If you're talking about deterring further action once
>> a crime is in progress, that's quite another.
>That's not deterrence, but self-defense, as I pointed out in
>another post. Guns for self-defense are what I consider to be
>the most persuasive argument of the gun lobby. For example:
>> I've used my pistols
>> twice in 10 years to deter a crime in progress. The attackers had
>> no idea I was armed until I pulled the gun.
>...and especially if you were, say, an old woman faced with
>multiple attackers with baseball bats, this argument is
>almost unanswerable.... almost.
>Although there's nothing I could say to that particular old woman,
>we can say in general that guns cost more lives a year than they
>save. It sucks to be on the losing end of a cost-benefit analysis
>like that, but for every unarmed grandma that was just killed by
>armed thugs (which doesn't happen too often), there's a dead body
>with a bullet hole in it that was murdered, which happens more often.
If its a dead gang banger, who gives a shit? Good riddance.
If it's a dead robbery victim, that's a shame. Most gun deaths in
Atlanta are either drug related or gang related. That hardly argues
for the removal of guns from homeowners.
>Tough policy decisions. But hell, that's why we pay our Congressmen
>and women the big bucks.
I don't pay em to take away my right to self-defense.
Jason Gottlieb
Big Oh wrote:
>
> In article <3394E4DF...@asahi-net.or.jp>, Jason Gottlieb
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>
> =| Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
> CONTROLLING GUNS WON'T CONTROL CRIME
> by Don B. Kates
[mostly snipped]
Oh, I will address the only place this article talks about deterrence:
> Moreover, widespread private gun ownership is one of the more
> effective deterrents against crime. Kleck's research finds victims
> actually use handguns to defeat crimes three times more often than
> criminals misuse them committing crimes.
Right here, Kates makes the HUGE mistake of saying "deterrents"
when he means "self-defense."
If guns were truly deterrents, the crimes from Kleck's research
wouldn't have happened in the first place.
BTW, I noticed Kates has nothing to say about the 30,000 shot-dead
criminals a year that Kleck's data says must exist somewhere, but
never quite show up.
> Yet another leading criminologist who recants the anti-gun views he
> once championed is State University of New York Professor Hans Toch, who
> notes modern findings that "when used for protection, firearms can
> seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer
> against the fear of crime."
Yeah, it doesn't deter crime: it just gives a "psychological buffer
against the fear of crime." IOW: it won't stop that guy from attacking
you; it just makes you walk down more dangerous streets, because you
feel like a big man... something Lott feared would happen.
> In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
> violent crimes.
So much for the deterrence factor of those 250 million+ guns...
> On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
> firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
> the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
> crime...
Whoa, there! So the NCVS says that only 50,000 or so people used
a gun to defend against a violent attack?
There goes Kleck's numbers, eh?
> Theft of firearms
>
> *Although most thefts of firearms (64%) occurred during household
> burglaries, a significant percentage (32%) occurred during
> larcenies. Loss of firearms through larceny was as likely to occur
> away from the victim's home as at or near the home. In 53% of the
> firearm thefts, handguns were stolen.
>
> 341,000 incidents of firearm theft occurred per year, 1987-92
Wait a minute: do you mean that between 87 and 92, over 2 million
guns were stolen??? And that's just for guns *reported* stolen,
so only applies to guns that were purchased legally.
That's 2 million more guns in the hands of criminals.
Thanks, gun owners, for not using a lock box. You have just
indirectly contributed to another 13,000 murders a year.
If those guns were never produced or manufactured in the first
place, that would be 2 million guns NOT in criminal hands.
Jason Gottlieb
> >>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
> wrot
> >e:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
> >>>you windows stating such, also.
> >
> >in the local language...
> >
> >Wonder why...
>
> doesn't alter the criminal's perception of your unarmed condition?????
Yeah, exactly. Everybody's disarmed. And amazingly enough, nobody
has broken into my apartment yet.
Just like guns are not the complete problem to crime, neither
are they the complete answer.
Now let's evaluate whether they do more harm than good.
I've got 15,000 murdered and 150,000 wounded betting on harm.
Sam A. Kersh
Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>>
>> In article <3394E540...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
>> says...
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>> >>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
>> wrot
>> >e:
>> >>
>> >>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>> >>>
>> >>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
>> >>>you windows stating such, also.
>> >
>> >I could do it with no fear at all -- even if I wrote the sign
>> >in the local language...
>> >
>> >Wonder why...
>>
>> You live in an area where you are already disarmed by law, and such a sign
>> doesn't alter the criminal's perception of your unarmed condition?????
>
>Yeah, exactly. Everybody's disarmed. And amazingly enough, nobody
>has broken into my apartment yet.
>
Not really. As people keep telling you it's a cultural thing. In
England (also largely a victim/gunless society) home invasion is
common.. Even when the goblins know someone is home.
>Just like guns are not the complete problem to crime, neither
>are they the complete answer.
>
>Now let's evaluate whether they do more harm than good.
>
>I've got 15,000 murdered and 150,000 wounded betting on harm.
>
and I've got 2,000,000 DGUs. Even DoJ admits your better off using a
firearm when confronted than even merely complying with demands...
Since you've chosen to hide in Japan and rake in the bucks, why don't
you admit you really have no stake in the argument.
Sam A. Kersh
Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>Deterrence is where that criminal doesn't approach you in the
>first place because he's scared you have a gun. Deterrence is
>when that criminal doesn't break into your house, because he's
>scared you have a gun.
>
Works, too...
Lone_Wolf
In <3397B8CC...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
#Scout wrote:
#>
#> In article <3394E540...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
#> says...
#> >
#> >>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
#> >>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
#> wrot
#> >e:
#> >>
#> >>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
#> >>>
#> >>>"This home not protected with a gun, alarms, or pets." And put stickers on
#> >>>you windows stating such, also.
#> >
#> >I could do it with no fear at all -- even if I wrote the sign
#> >in the local language...
#> >
#> >Wonder why...
#>
#> You live in an area where you are already disarmed by law, and such a sign
#> doesn't alter the criminal's perception of your unarmed condition?????
#Yeah, exactly. Everybody's disarmed. And amazingly enough, nobody
#has broken into my apartment yet.
#Just like guns are not the complete problem to crime, neither
#are they the complete answer.
#Now let's evaluate whether they do more harm than good.
#I've got 15,000 murdered and 150,000 wounded betting on harm.
Hrms... and then there are numerous studies showing 80000 - 2.5 million
defenses each year... eliminating the outliers STILL shows ~500k defenses
a year...
James
#--
#Jason Gottlieb
#Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
# gun control info, travellogues, and more!
#http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
Dave
>Yeah, exactly. Everybody's disarmed. And amazingly enough, nobody
>has broken into my apartment yet.
wow they need a gun to break into a house? Or maybe you are saying
that Japanese just aren't prone to crime in the first place.
>Now let's evaluate whether they do more harm than good.
>
>I've got 15,000 murdered and 150,000 wounded betting on harm.
>
I got 6 million Jews on good !!!!
David
NRA...@ix.netcom.com
Christopher Morton
On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 06:44:06 GMT, ra...@tiac.net wrote:
>It's our job as a _society_ to give people
>a chance at a decent living -- probably
>the best anti-crime measure of all.
So then people commit rape because they're poor, "Schweigen" Rafe?
---
"It's always funny when faux "liberals" like KKKennemur use Dr. William Pierce, notorious neo-Nazi leader, as
a "historical" source." - C. Morton
"Not a historical source, Chris, ideological." - Jim Kennemur, admitting his philosophical kinship with
Dave
>This is pretty funny. But they might be misled by my guitar
>case, which has stickers for Greenpeace, NARAL, the US Air
>Force Academy, and the Marines. :-)
>
well hell, this explains a lot. Jason is schizophrenic. :-)
>
>So, with bunches of illegal guns in the city (probably, but
>not verifiably), there is still no deterrent factor.
>
Maybe its just who has the guns. People who are law abiding don't
have guns. People who sell drugs and steal, do have guns.
>(Had an encounter once with a crackhead -- broke his arm, and
>he stood and stared at me. Scary stuff. They don't seem to
>feel much pain...)
>
You are such a beast, and so thoughtless. Have you once considered
that that poor person needed your money worse than you. NOOOOO you
had to resort to sensless violence.
>
>Although there's nothing I could say to that particular old woman,
>we can say in general that guns cost more lives a year than they
>save. It sucks to be on the losing end of a cost-benefit analysis
>like that, but for every unarmed grandma that was just killed by
>armed thugs (which doesn't happen too often), there's a dead body
>with a bullet hole in it that was murdered, which happens more often.
Actually you can't determine how many lives are saved. You can only
count dead bodies. If 30,000 are killed by guns but people use guns
800,000 to 2.5 million times to defend themselves we still don't know
how many lives are saved. If its 10% guns save 80,000 to 250,000. We
just don't know what would have happened. Did the robber want the
wallet and the life or just the wallet. Is the rapist going to kill
the victim? I would sure hate to trust my life to some crack junkie.
>
>Tough policy decisions. But hell, that's why we pay our Congressmen
>and women the big bucks.
>
No I just wish they would stay out of my life.
David
NRA...@ix.netcom.com
John_Johnson
In <339771DD...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb
<zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
> Steve Fischer wrote:
[snip]
>> Look for Greenpeace stickers in the window. Also, look for
>> "I don't brake for Hippies" stickers on the cars in the driveway.
>> I'll let you figure out which is more likely to be armed, and which
>> is not.
>
> This is pretty funny. But they might be misled by my guitar
> case, which has stickers for Greenpeace, NARAL, the US Air
> Force Academy, and the Marines. :-)
^^^^^^^
You're probably not old enough to have direct memories about
what *another* Marine did for the United States, but *I* am.
I see *you* in the same light as I do that *other* Marine:
Lee Harvey Oswald.
BTW: My dad was a Marine (3rd Marine Division: took Guadalcanal,
among others, back in WW-II), so it's nothing againts *the* Marines;
just such (ex-)Marines as *you* (or are *you* a "wanna be" Marine?).
>> >If half the homes in America (and it's probably more, since
>> >that may not count illegally held weapons) have guns, then
>> >what you're saying is that every time someone breaks into
>> >a house, he's got a 50-50 chance of there being a gun there.
>>
>> Averaged over the entire USA, yes. In any given city and
>> suburb, that value could vary greatly. In Morton Grove, IL, I
>> wouldn't expect a number that high, but in rural areas, most
>> homes could contain at least one firearm. It's a bit hard to
>> get a gun census in places where handguns are secretly owned
>> and forbidden by law (i.e. Washington, DC).
>
> It's hard to get a gun census, that's true, so there's really
> no way to measure for sure how many guns are there. However,
> a few things lead me personally to believe that guns aren't
> exactly rare in the inner cities:
>
> 1. Been there, seen them. Only anecdotal, I know. But I was
> suitably impressed.
>
> 2. The level of gun crime in DC, NYC, etc., is significantly
> higher than rural locations. This *could* conceivably just be
> a few pesky troublemakers committing multiple crimes: but the
> ratio is still pretty damn skewed. More likely, it's just that
> lots of people have illegal guns.
>
> So, with bunches of illegal guns in the city (probably, but
> not verifiably), there is still no deterrent factor.
How *can* there be!?!: it's the *criminals* who have all these
*illegal guns* so the *citizens* have *no legal means* to effect
their own deterrant!
>> > Do you think criminals are *really* deterred by a 50-50 chance
>> > of there being a gun? Would you risk your life on a 50-50
>> > proposition, if the possible gain were just some cash or a
>> > gold necklace?
>>
>> If you're a junkie in need of a quick fix, or a crackhead
>> looking for a fast score, a sober consideration of the risks
>> versus benefits is not likely to occur.
>
> True, true. However, if you fall into the above categories,
> you are not likely to be deterred in a CCW state, either --
> the only thing that would "deter" you is the actual bullet.
The figures are proving you *wrong* on *this* postulate;
just ask the Attorney General for the State of Florida (among
others).
> (Had an encounter once with a crackhead -- broke his arm, and
> he stood and stared at me. Scary stuff. They don't seem to
> feel much pain...)
Don't know the circumstances surrounding this "encounter",
but if deadly force would have been legally justified, two 200gr.
.45 cal. jacketed hollow points to the "center of mass" would
*not* have gone unfelt.
>> > Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
>>
>> That's not the recent Lott and Mustard study says! It's
>> the only truly *COMPREHENSIVE* study to date.
>
> And it fails miserably in a few areas. First of all, it doesn't
> really prove anything about crime rates. For example, in Florida,
> where the crime rate was already dropping before the 6 year study,
> Lott actually tracked 3 years under CCW where crime went down,
> and 3 when it went up. Second of all, he does a marginally adequate
> job at presenting a vague correlation between CCW and crime, but
> doesn't come close to even arguing causation.
>
>> Also, it depends on what stage the deterrence occurs. If
>> you're talking about deterrence before committing ANY criminal
>> acts, that's one thing. If you're talking about deterring further
>> action once a crime is in progress, that's quite another.
>
> That's not deterrence, but self-defense, as I pointed out in
> another post. Guns for self-defense are what I consider to be
> the most persuasive argument of the gun lobby. For example:
>
>> I've used my pistols twice in 10 years to deter a crime in
>> progress. The attackers had no idea I was armed until I pulled
>> the gun.
>
> ...and especially if you were, say, an old woman faced with
> multiple attackers with baseball bats, this argument is
> almost unanswerable.... almost.
Hopefully, if the "old woman" is a Concealed Carry licensee
she has undergone "States of Awareness" training and is in
"Condition Yellow" and sees these miscreants coming her way
and switches to "Condition Orange" and is prepared to switch
immediately to "Condition Red" when they get too close.
Them seeing that firearm come up, with a determined look
on her face to go along with it, will *probably* make them
decide its time to find another *victim*, as this "old woman"
has decided *not* to be one!
> Although there's nothing I could say to that particular old woman,
> we can say in general that guns cost more lives a year than they
> save. It sucks to be on the losing end of a cost-benefit analysis
> like that, but for every unarmed grandma that was just killed by
> armed thugs (which doesn't happen too often), there's a dead body
> with a bullet hole in it that was murdered, which happens more often.
An "unarmed grandma" *is* a victim in your scenario, while a CHL/
CCL "old woman" is not as likely to become a statistic of violent
attack.
> Tough policy decisions. But hell, that's why we pay our Congressmen
> and women the big bucks.
And these *same* Congressmen/women have rarely had to *abide* by
the laws they pass for *everyone else*!
> --
> Jason Gottlieb
> Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
> gun control info, travellogues, and more!
> http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
--John Johnson
"Handgun Control Inc., the lobbying group that helped push through
the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons and the Brady law on gun
purchases, is said to be worried that it is losing the public
relations war to the National Rifle Association. . . . It is also
considering a name change because, among other reasons, polls and
focus groups show that many Americans are uncomfortable with the
word *control*." --US News and World Report, August 19, 1996
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, American Philosopher
"The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."
-- Winston Churchill
"Throughout recorded history, without exception, it has been
the sole accomplishment of organized government to deprive
their populations of their Liberty and of their Property."
--John C. Calhoun
"It would...be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the
rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the
right to maintain a designated 'Militia' -- and to find that
purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom
of speech." (Italics in original)
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
(A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
Courts and the Law, Princeton
University Press, 1997, 159 pages.)
--
From the computer of:
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me)
and not necessarily those of his employer (also me).
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming unsolicited
commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate of $500 per msg
to compensate for loss of service.
Jason Gottlieb
William Hughes wrote:
>
> [WARNING: long attachment]
>
> I have personally been involved in a potential crime (street mugging)
> that was deterred when the perps saw the butt of a gun under my jacket.
[explanation of incident snipped]
That's not a *deterrent*, that's self-defense.
Deterrence is where that criminal doesn't approach you in the
first place because he's scared you have a gun. Deterrence is
when that criminal doesn't break into your house, because he's
scared you have a gun.
With 250 million+ guns in the USA, all criminals should be
scared, all the time -- with half the households in the USA
armed, a criminal should think that half the population is
armed.
Doesn't seem to make our crime rates lower than most other
industrialized countries.
Guns do not work as deterrents.
Mark C. Craig
"GUN CONTROL LEADS TO GENOCIDE"!
>#Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
># gun control info, travellogues, and more!
>#http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
>
David Richards
In article <33976F36...@asahi-net.or.jp>,
Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>William Hughes wrote:
>> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>> >Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
>>
>> Pure, unmitigated, BULLSHIT!
>>
>> I have personally been involved in a potential crime (street mugging)
>> that was deterred when the perps saw the butt of a gun under my jacket.
>
>[explanation of incident snipped]
>
>That's not a *deterrent*, that's self-defense.
>
>Deterrence is where that criminal doesn't approach you in the
>first place because he's scared you have a gun. Deterrence is
>when that criminal doesn't break into your house, because he's
>scared you have a gun.
Okay, let's stick to your definition for the moment.
>With 250 million+ guns in the USA, all criminals should be
>scared, all the time -- with half the households in the USA
>armed, a criminal should think that half the population is
>armed.
What you ignore is that these 250M guns are _NOT_ evenly distributed into
the population. Households in rural areas tend to have numerous firearms
(many tools for many specific purposes). Households in urban areas with
strict gun control tend to have no guns at all.
Compare the crime rate in urban areas and rural areas... see a pattern?
That's called "deterrance".
>Doesn't seem to make our crime rates lower than most other
>industrialized countries.
Neglecting the possibility that without privately held firearms, our crime
rates might be much higher than they are now? Ignoring the fact that ALL
our crime rates are higher than most other industrialized countries,
including rates that would not be affected by any deterrant effect of
firearms.
Perhaps the problem is not that we have more GUNS than they do, but that
we have more CRIMINALS?
>Guns do not work as deterrents.
Only because in most cases, the bad people have the guns, and the good
people are disarmed. Where the victims are armed, criminals turn to less
risky activities.
--
David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
My opinions are my own, IRS withstanding Public Access in Chicago
Proud to be the 5,000th least-important Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
usenet-abuser, by the unofficial GSUA. (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
Christopher Taylor McTavish
Big Oh wrote:
>
> In article <3397193...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>,
> volt...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> =| You aren't reading too well,today, are you Zarlenga? You can not
> =| throw insults and change what I said. Your free speech are limited by
> =| slander laws as well as the concept of "clear and present" danger.
>
> The fascist Kennemur most certainly does not abid by slander laws as well
> as the concept of "clear and present" danger -- and he most certainly throw
> plenty of insults and change what others said.
>
> =|
> =| Youe ownership of firearms may be limited by laws passed by our
> =| representative governing bodies.
> =|
> =| Your absolutist little gun world does not exist in the United States..
>
> Your absolutist little fascist world does not yet exist in the United
> States, Little Jimmy, and those who try to implement such may very well
> find themselves stacked like cord wood.
>
> =| Always glad to school an ignorant gun loon.
>
> Always glad to school an ignorant control freak.
>
> --
> "Big Oh" <joh...@aimnet.com>
Subject:
ADL article on guns
Date:
Fri, 06 Jun 1997 20:45:34 -0500
From:
Cody Marshall
To:
Truth Teller
I thought the following article might be of help to you in pointing out
the
antigun stance of most Jews. It is good since it is "from the horse's
mouth." This article can be found at http://www.adl.org by clicking on
the
"Press Releases" section on the left and under the NEO-NAZIS/SKINHEADS
listing (it is the article from 3/22/96).
ADL DEPLORES HOUSE VOTE TO REPEAL BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS
AS A BACKWARD STEP
New York, NY, March 22...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today
deplored the vote by the House of Representatives to repeal the
ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, and called it "a step
backwards in our national struggle to combat the violence which
plagues America." ADL National Chairman David H. Strassler and
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman issued the following
statement:
The vote by the House of Representatives to repeal the ban on
semi-automatic assault weapons is a misguided and cynical act
of obsequience to the gun lobby which is contrary to the best
interests of our nation. It is, in particular, a step backwards
in our national struggle to combat the violence which plagues
America.
As an organization devoted to exposing and counteracting
anti-Semites, racists, extremists, and others who represent a
threat to our democratic principles, it has long been our
view that our security concerns as Americans and as Jews are
best served by making firearms more difficult for white
supremacists, neo-Nazi skinheads, Klansmen, militias and
other extremists to obtain, rather than by encouraging their
proliferation.
The assault weapons ban which the House would abandon has
been a useful tool not only to combat violence in America's
cities, but also to counter the threat posed by the
organized hate movement. It is hard to imagine, in a season
of tragedies spawned by terrorism in this country and abroad,
how this House action serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.
We will work to ensure that this repeal is not replicated in
the U.S. Senate.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's
leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs
and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
Tavish comments:
1) Abe, are your contacts in the Senate Dianne Feinstein, Frank
Lautenberg, and Barbara Boxer, all who happened to be Jewish as
yourself?
2) Abe, if you aren't being hypocritical about what you said: "It is
hard to imagine, in a season of tragedies spawned by terrorism in this
country and abroad, how this House action serves any constructive
purpose whatsoever..."; then why isn't your organization also pushing
bans on "assault weapons" in Israel. The Jews there walk around with UZI
machine guns slung over their shoulders! Why aren't you advocating the
same type bans for Jewish civilians? Are they entitled to special rights
that American citizens can't have?
3) Abe, you said: "The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913..." Why
would the ADL be needed then? The Nazis weren't even known! Why would
any group need an organization to fight defamation?
BTW Special note: It was "insiders" allied with the Jewish ADL that
crafted the entire "assault weapons" bans in the first place! Rep.
Charles Schumer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and retired Sen. Howard
Metzenbaum did the inside work that "infringes" on the Second Amendment!
Go to http://thomas.loc.gov
In the 103rd Congress enter METZENBAUM, ASSAULT WEAPONS, FIREARMS and
watch what comes up!
In the 104th Congress enter FEINSTEIN, ASSAULT WEAPONS, FIREARMS and
watch what comes up!
Also in the 104th Congress enter SCHUMER, ASSAULT WEAPONS, FIREARMS,
HANDGUN and watch what comes up!
You will be totally astonished and you will realize the hypocrisy and
treachery that have invaded our Congress from without and from within!
Tavish The True Reporting on the spot- more to come. Stay tuned.
> Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
> made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
> liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
> make laws in the first place.
> Frederic Bastiat
>
> Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will.
> Alexander Hamilton
>
> The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at
> the expense of everyone else.
> Frederic Bastiat
>
> Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income
> pie, decent government is impossible.
> Friedrich A. Hayek
Scout
In article <3397B8CC...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
says...>> says...
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 31 May 1997 17:59:56 -0700, joh...@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>> >>>In article <338F8DEE...@asahi-net.or.jp>,
zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
>> >e:
>> >>
>> >>>As another experiment, Jason, post a big sign in your front yard:
>> >>>
on
>> >
>> >
>> >Wonder why...
>>
>
>
>
>
I have about 35,900,000 dead betting on good, or almost 2400 times your
number of dead.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929
to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945,
13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people,
and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977,
1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
Joe Bob
Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 06:44:06 GMT, ra...@tiac.net wrote:
>
> >It's our job as a _society_ to give people
> >a chance at a decent living -- probably
> >the best anti-crime measure of all.
>
> So then people commit rape because they're poor, "Schweigen" Rafe?
What nigger?
>
> ---
> "It's always funny when faux "liberals" like KKKennemur use Dr. William Pierce, notorious neo-Nazi leader, as
> a "historical" source." - C. Morton the nigger
Christopher Morton
On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 13:06:46 -0500, Doc Tavish <tav...@no.spam.net>
wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 02:54:46 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
>> Kennemur) wrote:
>>
>> >On 3 Jun 1997 02:21:51 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>: #But Oh, with 250 million+ firearms in private hands, since firearms
>> >>: #make us all so safe, and scare off all those criminals, then I guess
>> >>: #the above situation would never happen, right?
>> >>
>> >>: #How many guns is enough for deterrence?
>> >>
>> >>I dunno ... How many words do you think people should be allowed to
>> >>use while exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>-- Mike Zarlenga
>> >
>> >Excellent example Michael. You do not have a absolute right to free
>> >speech any more than you have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
>> >
>> >Glad to see you catching on.
>>
>> Kennemur believes in an absolute right to speech... so long as it's a
>> speech written by Dr. William Pierce.
>>
>> ---
>> "It's always funny when faux "liberals" like KKKennemur use Dr. William Pierce, notorious neo-Nazi leader, as
>> a "historical" source." - C. Morton
>
>"What great person or debater has ever proven his point by ridiculing
>people? Did Jesus use this method? Who has ever used ridicule other than
Mark Twain, Doc Toilet.
I'm an agnostic, so you might as well can the appeals to the
supernatural, NAMBLA Socialist.
---
"It's always funny when faux "liberals" like KKKennemur use Dr. William Pierce, notorious neo-Nazi leader, as
a "historical" source." - C. Morton
"Not a historical source, Chris, ideological." - Jim Kennemur, admitting his philosophical kinship with
Ed Cleary
On Sat, 07 Jun 1997 22:51:59 -0500, Joe Bob <joe...@redneck.net>
wrote:
>What nigger?
>
Gee, there you go again. It's a good thing "Joe Bob" is your real
name, lest we think you are not only a racist, but a coward as well
who fears letting the world know what he really is... You know, kinda
like wearing white sheets to tell the world you don't have the balls
to state your true beliefs publicly.
Ed C:\> "But you knew that already, didn't you?"
remove the "nospam" from the address for return email.
Name withheld by request
Gun control leads to genocide!
In article <johannp-ya0234800...@news.aimnet.com>,
Big Oh <joh...@aimnet.com> wrote:
>In article <33a03dff...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>,
>volt...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>=| The Economic Costs of Firearm Violence
>=|
>=| Prepared by Joy Blevins, M.S., M.F.C.C.
>=|
>=| Fact Sheet
>=|
>=| The cost of firearm injuries in the US in 1990 was an estimated
>=| $20.4 billion. This includes $1.4 billion for direct expenditures
>=| for health care and related goods, $1.6 billion in lost productivity
>=| resulting from injury- related disability, and $17.4 billion in
>=| lost productivity from premature death. (Max and Rice, 1993)
>=|
>=| A recent study of inpatient medical care for firearm- related injuries
>=|
>=| at an university trauma center (UC-Davis Medical Center) estimated
>=| that the actual cost of providing direct health care for firearm-
>=| related injuries in the US in 1995 is projected to be $4.0 BILLION.
>=| (Kizer et al., 1995)
>=|
>=| Firearm injuries are the third most costly injury the US. Although
>=| they represent only 0.5% of all injuries, they account for 9% of
>=| the total US lifetime cost of injury. (Max and Rice, 1993)
>=|
>=| Firearm injuries rank first among fatal injuries ($373,500/fatal
>=| injury) and fourth among hospitalized injuries ($33,000 per injury.)
>=| (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: Injury Prevention Newsletter,
>=| 1990)
>=|
>=| The average cost of hospitalization for a patient with a firearm
>=| injury was found to be $6915 in 1984 (Martin, Hunt and Hulley,
>=| 1988), which translates to $19,173 in 1993 dollars. Costs can range
>=| up to $500,000 per patient in some centers. (Wintemute and Wright,
>=| 1992)
>=|
>=| The average cost of treating a child wounded by gunfire could provide
>=| a student with a year of college education. Researchers surveyed
>=| hospital discharges from 44 children s hospitals and found that
>=| in 1991 the average hospital charges for gunshot wounds to children
>=| were $14,434, about the cost of tuition, room and board at a private
>=| college. (National Association of Children s Hospitals and Related
>=| Institutions, Inc.)
>=|
>=| At least 80% of the cost of firearm injuries are borne, directly
>=| or indirectly, by the taxpayer. (Wintemute and Wright, 1992)
>=|
>=| The cost of firearm injuries treated at major trauma centers are
>=| substantial and the increasing volume of unreimbursed care for
>=| such injuries has become an important factor in the decision of
>=| many hospitals to end their participation in organized trauma systems.
>=|
>=| (General Accounting Office, 1991)
>=|
>=| Considerable savings to society would accrue from an effort that
>=| decreased firearm injuries, even if the same level of violence
>=| persisted using other weapons. A recent study from one trauma center
>=| in Seattle (Mock, Pilcher and Maier, 1994) demonstrated a substantial
>=| financial benefit if all patients with firearm injuries instead
>=| had suffered only stab wounds. This would have resulted in an annual
>=| overall savings of $1,290,000 in that one institution alone and
>=| $500,000,000 nationwide.
>=|
>=| STATISTICS AND DOLLARS CANNOT CONVEY THE FULL MAGNITUDE OF THE
>=| PSYCHOSOCIAL COSTS OF FIREARM INJURIES--EACH FIREARM VICTIM LEAVES
>=| TRAUMATIZED FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
>=|
>=| Prepared by Joy Blevins, M.S., M.F.C.C.
>
>Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America - Effective
>Soutions." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. 1995; 85:253-263.
>
>
>Violence in America - Effective Solutions
>by
>
>Edgar A. Suter MD
>National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
>Family Practice
>San Ramon CA
>
>William C. Waters IV, MD
>Internal Medicine/Nephrology
>Atlanta GA
>
>George B. Murray MD
>Director, Psychiatric Consultation Service, Massachusetts General Hospital
>Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
>Boston MA
>
>Christie B. Hopkins MD
>Professor of Medicine, Acting Division Director, Cardiology
>University of South Carolina School of Medicine
>Columbia SC
>
>Joseph Asiaf MD
>Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
>Boston University School of Medicine
>Boston MA
>
>John B. Moore MD FACS
>Chairman, Colorado Committee on Trauma
>Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery
>University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
>Denver CO
>
>Col. Martin Fackler MD
>Chief, US Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory (retired)
>Hawthorne FL
>
>David N. Cowan PhD, MPH
>Adjunct Assistant Professor of Preventive Medicine
>Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine
>Bethesda MD
>
>Roderic G. Eckenhoff MD
>Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
>University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
>Wallingford PA
>
>Thomas R. Singer MD
>Assistant Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology
>Stanford University School of Medicine
>Palo Alto CA
>
>Miguel A. Faria, Jr. MD
>Editor in Chief, Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia
>Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery) and Professor of Medical History,
>Mercer University School of Medicine
>Macon GA
>
>Joseph W. Goldzieher MD
>Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
>Texas Tech Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine
>Amarillo TX
>
>Nicholas Johnson JD
>Professor of Law
>Fordham University School of Law
>New York City NY
>
>Glenn Harlan Reynolds JD
>Associate Professor of Law
>University of Tennessee Law College
>Knoxville TN
>
>Claude Zeifman MD
>Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine
>Texas Tech University School of Medicine
>El Paso TX
>
>Harry H. White MD
>Professor of Neurology
>University of Missouri School of Medicine
>Columbia MO
>
>Donald E. Waite DO, MPH
>Professor Emeritus, Department of Family Medicine
>College of Osteopathic Medicine
>Michigan State University
>Lansing MI
>
>Lawrence E. Widman MD, PhD
>Assistant Professor of Medicine (Cardiology)
>University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
>Oklahoma City OK
>
>Allen Clark MD
>Professor, Department of Surgery
>Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
>Medical College of Georgia
>Augusta GA
>
>Theodore A. Noel II, MD
>Clinical Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
>University of Florida College of Medicine
>Maitland FL
>
>Jerome C. Arnett, Jr, MD
>Pulmonology
>Elkins WV
>
>David Stolinsky MD
>Oncology
>Los Angeles CA
>
>Timothy Wheeler MD
>President, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
>Member, Technical Advisory Committee on Violence, California Medical
>Association
>Otorhinolaryngology
>Upland CA
>
>Lenwood Wert DO
>Family Practice
>Lansdowne PA
>
>George Raniolo MD
>Family Practice
>St. James NY
>
>Henry E. Schaffer PhD
>Professor, Department of Genetics
>North Carolina State University
>Raleigh NC
>
>Edwin H. Cassem MD
>Chief, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and
>Associate Professor
>Harvard Medical School
>Boston MA
>
>Barlow Smith MD
>Department of Pathology
>Medical College of Virginia
>Richmond VA
>
>George R. Brown MD
>Director of Psychiatric Research
>Mountain Home Veterans Administration Medical Center/ East Tennessee State
>University
>Johnson City TN
>
>Michael L. Foreman MD, FACS
>Director, Division of Trauma
>Baylor University Medical Center
>Dallas TX
>
>Michael L. Hawkins MD, FACS
>Chief, Trauma/Surgical Critical Care
>Medical College of Georgia
>Augusta GA
>
>Arthur Astorino MD
>Ophthalmology
>Newport Beach CA
>
>Wayne Pickard MD
>Anesthesiology
>Brandon FL
>
>Julian M. Goldman MD
>Director of Anesthesia Research
>Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
>University of Colorado School of Medicine
>Denver CO
>
>Theodore L. Fritsche MD
>Alternate Delegate, American Medical Association
>President, MinnesotaAcademy of Ophthalmology
>Associate Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Minnesota
>Marshall MN
>
>John Cavanaugh MD, MS
>Academic Fellow of Anatomic Pathology
>Lutheran General Hospital
>Park Ridge IL
>
>David G. Mohler MD
>Musculo-skeletal Tumor Surgery
>Clinical Faculty, Department of Orthopedics
>University of California
>San Francisco CA
>
>Daniel Orr DDS, PhD, JD
>Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
>Professor of Surgery
>University of Nevada
>Las Vegas, NV
>
>(academic and profesional affiliations of the authors do not necessarily
>indicate official policies of the respective universities or
>organizations)
>
>Violence in America - Effective Solutions
>
>[snip]
>
>Cost-without-benefit analysis (Doctors or Guns - Which is the deadlier
>menace?)
>
>Amongst the most pervasive flaws in the medical literature on guns is the
>discussion of the "costs" of gun violence without any consideration of the
>innocent lives saved by guns. These and other benefits of guns are not so
>"intangible" as has been dogmatically claimed.[17] We would be mortified
>if our colleagues' cost-without-benefit analysis[18,19] became the
>standard for evaluating the medical profession. The 1990 Harvard Medical
>Practice Study quantified non-psychiatric inpatient deaths from physician
>negligence (excluding outpatient, extended care, and inpatient psychiatric
>deaths) in New York State.[20] "If these rates are typical of the United
>States, then 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic
>injury, the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days."[21] -
>almost five times the number of Americans killed with guns. One might
>fairly conclude from such a "costs only" analysis that doctors are a deadly
>public menace. Why do we not reach that conclusion? Because, in balance,
>doctors save many more lives than they take and so it is with guns.
>
>A conservative estimate from the largest scale, methodologically sound
>study to date, the study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5
>million protective uses of guns by adults annually.[22] As many as 65
>lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun
>tragedy sensationalized, dozens are averted by guns, but go unreported.
>Whether or not "newsworthy," scientific method begs accounting of the
>benefits of guns - enumeration of the lives saved, the injuries prevented,
>the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is
>absent from the medical literature. The protective benefits of guns - and
>the politicized "science" that has been used to underestimate or totally
>deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been
>extensively reviewed.[4-12]
>
>As ten studies have shown, in any year, about 1 to 2.5 million Americans
>use guns to protect themselves and their families. and about 400,000 of
>those defenders believe that they would almost certainly have lost their
>lives if they had not had a gun for defense.[11,22] Even if only one-tenth
>of those defenders are correct, the lives saved by guns would still be more
>numerous than the lives lost to guns. The flaws in the only study to
>suggest otherwise, the outlier data of the National Crime Victimization
>Survey (NCVS), have been discussed elsewhere.[22,23] Briefly, the NCVS is
>a study of victimization, not defense, and, by its design, undercounts the
>most numerous types of defensive gun use (e.g. women protecting against
>domestic attacks). As additional sources of undercount error, the NCVS is
>the only such survey conducted by law enforcement and the only study in
>which the respondents are denied anonymity. When any statistic, such as
>the NCVS count of defensive gun use, is at odds with every other
>measurement, it is discarded.[22]
>
>Nonetheless, even those US Bureau of Justice Statistics samples show that
>defense with a gun results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4%) than
>resisting with less powerful means (knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%;
>physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not
>resisting at all (24.7%).[11] Guns are the safest and most effective means
>of self defense. This is particularly important to women, the elderly, the
>physically challenged, those who are most vulnerable to vicious and bigger
>male predators.
>
>These benefits can be weighed against the human costs of guns - recently
>about 38,000 gun deaths from all causes and about 65,000 additional serious
>injuries annually (the remainder of gun injuries were so minor as to
>require no hospital treatment at all). Totaling all gun deaths, injuries,
>and criminal mischief with guns leads to a generous estimate of about 1
>million criminal misuses of guns annually (involving less than one-half of
>1% of America's more than 200-million guns)[7,11] So, all things
>considered, the human benefits of guns at least equal and likely exceed the
>costs of guns to society by a factor of 2.5.
>
>Of the 38,000 gun deaths, a majority are suicides. This has caused
>advocates of gun prohibition to note that gun bans result in lower gun
>suicide rates, but they fail to note a compensatory increase in suicide
>from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto
>exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide
>rates.[11] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to
>do so. Are other means of suicide so much more socially acceptable that we
>should cede resources to measures that only shift the means of suicide, but
>do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
>
>[snip]
>
>Economic analysis
>
>The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately
>$1.5-billion per year[32] - about 0.16% of America's $900-billion annual
>health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates
>of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of lost lifetime earnings -
>assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially
>productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to
>generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs."[32] One recent
>study went so far as to claim the "costs" of work time lost while workers
>gossip about gun violence.[33]
>
>What evidence is there that the average homicide decedent can be fairly
>compared to the average worker, that average wages should be attributed to
>homicide victims? What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent
>children" who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society,
>more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are involved with drug
>trafficking or have evidence of ante-mortem illicit drug use.[34,35] In
>one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging
>4 arrests for 11 offenses.[35] Such active criminals cost society not only
>untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per
>criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year
>while in prison."[36] It is not a slander on the few truly innocent - and
>highly sensationalized - victims to note that the overwhelming predominance
>of homicide "victims" are as predatory and socially aberrant as the
>perpetrators of homicide. Cost-benefit analysis is necessarily a bit
>hardhearted, and, though repugnant for physicians to consider monetary
>savings alone, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely force us to
>address the "costs" of gun violence. So, we are forced to notice that, in
>cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators
>and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the
>order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns.
>
>Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic
>savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional
>financial savings from the innocent lives saved, injuries prevented,
>medical costs averted, and property protected by guns. If we applied the
>prohibitionists' methods[33] to compute the savings by guns, we would find
>that the annual savings approach $1/2 trillion, about 10% of the US Gross
>Domestic Product. We perform this exercise only to demonstrate that all
>such "virtual reality" estimates of "indirect" costs and savings are
>inflated and to condemn them all as meaningless.
>
>Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a
>substantial net benefit to our society. Some "quality of life" benefits,
>such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany
>protective gun ownership, are not easily quantified. There is no competent
>research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult
>(whether by bureaucratic paperwork, exorbitant taxation, zoning laws,
>contrived application of environmental or consumer product safety statutes,
>reframing the debate as a "public health" issue, or outright bans - the
>current tactics of the anti-self-defense lobby[37]) will reduce violence.
>No matter what tactics are used by the anti-self-defense lobby to
>incrementally achieve citizen disarmament, it is only good citizens who
>comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun
>laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g.
>New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before
>violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good
>citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.
>
>References
>
>1 Kopel DB. Guns, germs, and science: public health approaches to gun
>control. Presentation to the College of Public Health, University of
>Oklahoma, Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. October 14, 1994.
>
>2 Christoffel KK. quoted in: Somerville J. Gun control as immunization.
>American Medical News. January 3, 1994. p 9.
>
>3 Adelson L. The gun and the sanctity of human life; or the bullet as
>pathogen. Archives of Surgery June 1992; 127: 659-664.
>
>4 Suter EA. Guns in the medical literature - a failure of peer review.
>Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.
>
>5 Kates DB, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH, Schaffer HE, and Southwick
>L. Gun control: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda. University
>of Tennessee Law Review. Spring 1995.
>
>6 Kates DB, Lattimer JK, and Cottrol RJ. Public health literature on
>firearms - a critique of overt mendacity. a paper presented to the American
>Society of Criminology annual meeting. New Orleans, LA. November 5, 1992.
>
>7 Blackman PH. The federal factoid factory on firearms and violence: a
>review of CDC research and politics. a paper presented to the Academy of
>Criminal Justice Sciences. Chicago IL. March 8-12, 1994.
>
>8 Blackman PH. Criminology's astrology: the Center for Disease Control
>approach to public health research on firearms and violence.. a paper
>presented to the American Society of Criminology. Baltimore, MD November
>7-10, 1990.
>
>9 Blackman PH. Children and firearms: lies the CDC loves.. a paper
>presented to the American Society of Criminology. New Orleans, LA. November
>4-7, 1992.
>
>10 Suter E. 'Assault weapons' revisited - an analysis of the AMA report.
>Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. May1994; 83: 281-89.
>
>11 Kleck G. Point blank: guns and violence in america. New York: Aldine
>de Gruyter. 1991.
>
>12 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, crime, and violence in America:
>executive summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, National Institute
>of Justice. 1981.
>
>13 Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and considered dangerous: a survey of
>felons and their firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.
>
>14 Kopel DB. The samurai, the mountie, and the cowboy: should America
>adopt the gun controls of other democracies? New York: Prometheus Press.
>1992.
>
>15 Kates DB. Guns, murders, and the constitution: a realistic assessment
>of gun control. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public
>Policy. 1990.
>
>16 Hemenway D, Soinick SJ, and Azrael DR. Firearms training and storage.
>JAMA. 1995; 273(1):46-50.
>
>17 Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 326:1159-60.
>
>18 Adler KP, Barondess JA, Cohen JJ, Farber SJ, et al. Firearm violence
>and public health: limiting the availability of guns. JAMA. 1994; 271(16):
>1281-83.
>
>19 Mock C, Pilcher S, and Maier R. Comparison of the costs of acute
>treatment for gunshot and stab wounds: further evidence of the need for
>firearms control. J. Trauma. 1994; 36(4):516-21.
>
>20 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Report to the State of New York.
>Cambridge MA: Harvard Medical School. 1990.
>
>21 Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57.
>
>22 Kleck G and Gertz M. Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and
>nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
>Summer 1995: 86. forthcoming.
>
>23 Kellermann A, Kleck G, and Suter E. Letters to the Editor. Journal of
>the Medical Association of Georgia. June 1994; 83: 42-47.
>
>24 Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. Reducing firearm
>injuries. Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9.
>
>25 Christoffel KK. Towards reducing pediatric injuries from firearms:
>charting a legislative and regulatory course. Pediatrics. 1992;
>88:294-300.
>
>26 Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform
>crime reports: crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US
>Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5.
>
>27 Dawson JB aand Langan PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics
>statisticians. Murder in families. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice
>Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7.
>
>28 US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Murder in large urban counties, 1988.
>Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993.
>
>29 Narloch R. Criminal homicide in california. Sacramento CA: California
>Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.
>
>30 Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of violence: report of the task force on
>individual acts of violence. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
>1969. p 532.
>
>31 Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in our schools, hospitals and public
>places: a prevention and management guide. Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993.
>
>32 Max W and Rice DP. Shooting in the dark: estimating the cost of
>firearm injuries. Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85.
>
>33 Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. Firearm-related violence in
>california: incidence and economic costs. Sacramento CA: California
>Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994.
>
>34 McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB.
>Urban firearms deaths: a five-year perspective. J Trauma. 1993; 35(4):
>532-36.
>
>35 Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. Adolescents and children injured
>or killed in drive-by shootings in Los Angeles. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330:
>324-27.
>
>36 Zedlewski EW. Making confinement decisions - research in brief.
>Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
>July 1987.
>
>37 Sugarmann J and Rand K. Cease Fire - A comprehensive strategy to
>reduce violence. Washington DC: Violence Policy Center. 1993.
>
>38 Morgan EC and Kopel DB. The 'assault weapon' panic - political
>correctness takes aim at the Constitution. Golden CO: Independence
>Institute. 1993.
>
>39 Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. Wounding effects of
>the AK-47 rifle used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton, California,
>schoolyard shooting of January 17, 1989. Am J Forensic Medicine and Path.
>1990; 11(3): 185-90.
>
>40 Fackler ML. Wound Ballistics: a review of common misconceptions. JAMA.
>1988; 259: 2730-6.
>
>--
>"Big Oh" <joh...@aimnet.com>
Christopher Morton
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 06:44:06 GMT, ra...@tiac.net wrote:
>>
>> >It's our job as a _society_ to give people
>> >a chance at a decent living -- probably
>> >the best anti-crime measure of all.
>>
>> So then people commit rape because they're poor, "Schweigen" Rafe?
>
>What nigger?
I believe that would be your father.
Prove you believe in your own philosophy.
Gas yourselves.
Jason Gottlieb
John_Johnson wrote:
> You're probably not old enough to have direct memories about
> what *another* Marine did for the United States, but *I* am.
> I see *you* in the same light as I do that *other* Marine:
> Lee Harvey Oswald.
> BTW: My dad was a Marine (3rd Marine Division: took Guadalcanal,
> among others, back in WW-II), so it's nothing againts *the* Marines;
> just such (ex-)Marines as *you* (or are *you* a "wanna be" Marine?).
Hey, John, chill. OK?
I am not a Marine; never have been one. Father was in the Air Force
and I spent plenty of time at the Academy in Colorado Springs as
a youth, but that's the closest to military service I've ever been.
I support the US Military, because on the whole, they have this
habit of keeping the US -- as well as plenty of other place in the
world -- safe for democracy.
Like all organizations, there are bad apples (Oswald, etc.) But all
in all, they've earned our respect. So I don't really understand
your point here.
> > (Had an encounter once with a crackhead -- broke his arm, and
> > he stood and stared at me. Scary stuff. They don't seem to
> > feel much pain...)
>
> Don't know the circumstances surrounding this "encounter",
> but if deadly force would have been legally justified, two 200gr.
> .45 cal. jacketed hollow points to the "center of mass" would
> *not* have gone unfelt.
Deadly force would probably have been legally justified.
However. I am convinced that if I would not have had enough time
to draw a weapon. This story is just an anecdote, though, and
I don't draw too much in terms of policy implications from it.
> Hopefully, if the "old woman" is a Concealed Carry licensee
> she has undergone "States of Awareness" training and is in
> "Condition Yellow" and sees these miscreants coming her way
> and switches to "Condition Orange" and is prepared to switch
> immediately to "Condition Red" when they get too close.
... yeah, because everybody is on full "Condition Orange" alert
every time anybody gets within 10 feet.
Ever walked down a city street?
> > Tough policy decisions. But hell, that's why we pay our Congressmen
> > and women the big bucks.
>
> And these *same* Congressmen/women have rarely had to *abide* by
> the laws they pass for *everyone else*!
Well, they're required to by law, so if you can come up with any
examples from the past year or two, I am sure that the lawyers
from the other party would love to hear them...
Joe Sylvester
In article <339B726C...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp s
(responding to the notion that Congress be required to live with the laws they
pass for the rest of us)
>Well, they're required to by law, so if you can come up with any
>examples from the past year or two, I am sure that the lawyers
>from the other party would love to hear them...
>
You know not of what you write. Congress and congressmen are exempt from many
of the laws they pass. Wage and hour laws, Fair Labor Standards Act,
Affirmative Action, even OHSA, amoung many others. Only recently, since the
R's have controled both houses, have *some* of these been applied to Congress
as well. Although even then, only by Congress' own rules, which they can
change back whenever they feel like it.
--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !
Daemon Thomas
Jason Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Big Oh wrote:
> >
> > <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> >
> > =| Guns DO NOT WORK as deterrents.
>
>
> > CONTROLLING GUNS WON'T CONTROL CRIME
> > by Don B. Kates
>
> [mostly snipped]
>
> Oh, I will address the only place this article talks about deterrence:
>
> > Moreover, widespread private gun ownership is one of the more
> > effective deterrents against crime. Kleck's research finds victims
> > actually use handguns to defeat crimes three times more often than
> > criminals misuse them committing crimes.
>
> Right here, Kates makes the HUGE mistake of saying "deterrents"
> when he means "self-defense."
>
> If guns were truly deterrents, the crimes from Kleck's research
> wouldn't have happened in the first place.
>
Odd. Most people consider the police a deterrent---yet no one is stupid
enough to say "Well, if the police were TRULY deterrents, the crimes the
police deal with wouldn't have happened in the first place."
Quit saying stupid things.
> BTW, I noticed Kates has nothing to say about the 30,000 shot-dead
> criminals a year that Kleck's data says must exist somewhere, but
> never quite show up.
And, oddly enough, you never mention where Kleck says this----I don't
recall it. Do tell, where DOES this factoid come from?
>
> > Yet another leading criminologist who recants the anti-gun views he
> > once championed is State University of New York Professor Hans Toch, who
> > notes modern findings that "when used for protection, firearms can
> > seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer
> > against the fear of crime."
>
> Yeah, it doesn't deter crime: it just gives a "psychological buffer
> against the fear of crime." IOW: it won't stop that guy from attacking
> you; it just makes you walk down more dangerous streets, because you
> feel like a big man... something Lott feared would happen.
Hmm. That wasn't what was said. What was said is that it "can
seriously inhibit agression and ..." which means that it can do
precisely that----and does NOT say it can't do anything else.
In addition, do you consider "seriously inhibit agression" as something
that happens in the DEFENDER'S mind? (Hmm. Probably.)
Again---stop being stupid.
> > In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
> > violent crimes.
>
> So much for the deterrence factor of those 250 million+ guns...
Since your comment before about this didn't make sense, it still
doesn't.
Reminds me of the story: "Well, we put people in jail, but the crime
rate stays the same. Might as well let those people out, since it
hasn't changed..."
"Oh----so you think NORMAL people committ crimes to keep the stats up,
and so when they see the real criminals back out, they'll stop?"
Considering you have no idea what the numbers would be withOUT people
being able to effectively defend themselves, I suggest you do not make
comparisons.
>
> > On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
> > firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
> > the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
> > crime...
>
> Whoa, there! So the NCVS says that only 50,000 or so people used
> a gun to defend against a violent attack?
>
> There goes Kleck's numbers, eh?
...and the NCVS is widely known to underreport...
[Snipping the rest, since Gottlieb just gets more annoying...]
Gottlieb, at least ATTEMPT to argue from a position backed up by facts,
hmm? (Not merely your personal opinion. You are entitled to your
opinion, just as I am to mine----but don't attempt to argue from it
without viable facts that back it up.)
Thomas
-----------------------------
mach...@du.edu
http://www.du.edu/~machambe
"If you aren't modeling what you are teaching,
then you are teaching something else."
Jason Gottlieb
Big Oh wrote:
>
> In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
> =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
> =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
> =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
> =| China established gun control in 1935....
> =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
> =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
> =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
the government because the civilians had guns.
In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
guns in the first place.
Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
government....
... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
May I remind you that in each of those 3 situations, the populace
had access to arms. In none of the situations did those arms
stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
Your analysis is over-simplistic.
> Jason wants the next line to read:
>
> USA, from 1998 to 2000, 70 million politically incorrect gun owners who had
> refused to surrender their guns when ordered to were rounded up and
> exterminated.
Yeah, Big Oh. Right. Like I have *ever* advocated collecting
currently legally owned guns, much less arresting or exterminating
people for it.
If that isn't an inane ad hominem, it's time to redraw the definition.
I think your brain is getting a bit fried from the influx of neo-Nazis
on talk.politics.guns. Maybe they're getting to you or something.
Dave
[sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
REAL easy. Laws on firearms do not apply to the government. I really
don't know how many times we have said this but you still don't seem
to be bothered by this fact.
Jason do you really think that if all guns were banned in the US it
would stop a military coup? Oh yah the military, the police, the FBI
would all still have access to weapons.
David
NRA...@ix.netcom.com
Nosy
<In article <339D0085...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
< Big Oh wrote:
< >
< > In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
< > =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
< > =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
< > =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
< > =| China established gun control in 1935....
< > =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
< > =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
< > =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
< In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
< one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
< the government because the civilians had guns.
Really?
Please do tell us what "organization in power" in Turkey
circa 1914 came to power as civilians who overthrew the
government because the civilians had guns.
Then repeat the exercise for the Soviet Union.
< In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
< NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
< guns in the first place.
Really? Sure about that?
Gottlieb is invited to make a list of the civilians in
Russia in 1916 who had "easy access to guns", and to post
it here.
< Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
< use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
< have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
< government....
< ... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
That is a risk which has been discussed in this group
more than one time.
< Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
< the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947?
Were Mao and his followers really civilians in 1947?
HINT: What does "P.L.A." signify?
HINT: What was the "Long March"?
HINT: What kind of civilian government existed in China
in the 1930's, and which civilians had "ready access
to guns" in those years?
<Hitler and his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
But by 1932, Hitler and his cronies were worming their
way *inside* the government. Governments always have
tools such as firearms, so Gottlieb is being disingenuous.
< May I remind you that in each of those 3 situations, the populace
< had access to arms.
Really? Perhaps Gottlieb can tell us in some detail how
"the populace" in China in 1947 had "access to arms", please?
<In none of the situations did those arms
< stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
Yet in 1974-75 "People's Kampuchea", we are told that
one of the Red Khmer's first actions in an occupied area
was to "invite" the locals to turn in any firearms, claiming
that there was no longer any need for them, since the Khmer
were now going to protect the people against evildoers...
< Your analysis is over-simplistic.
Oh, the irony!
< > Jason wants the next line to read:
< >
< > USA, from 1998 to 2000, 70 million politically incorrect gun owners who had
< > refused to surrender their guns when ordered to were rounded up and
< > exterminated.
< Yeah, Big Oh. Right. Like I have *ever* advocated collecting
< currently legally owned guns, much less arresting or exterminating
< people for it.
Well, Gottlieb has claimed that a total ban on firearms
in the US would "work", that looks a whole lot like
advocating "collecting currently legally owned guns" to *me*.
< If that isn't an inane ad hominem, it's time to redraw the definition.
< I think your brain is getting a bit fried from the influx of neo-Nazis
< on talk.politics.guns. Maybe they're getting to you or something.
Oh, the irony!
Dave
>Big Oh wrote:
>>
>> In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
>
>> =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
>> =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
>> =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
>> =| China established gun control in 1935....
>> =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
>> =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
>> =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
>
>In #repostall# repostall repostall.article repostall~ of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
>one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
>the government because the civilians had guns.
>
>In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
>NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
>guns in the first place.
>
>Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
>use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
>have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
>government....
>
>... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
>
>Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
>the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
>his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
>
Scout
In article <339D0085...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
says...
>
>Big Oh wrote:
>>
>> In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
>
>> =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
>> =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
>> =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
>> =| China established gun control in 1935....
>> =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
>> =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
>> =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
I note that Mr. Gottlieb does not refute those that died at the hands of gun
control. Only that those that impossed the final versions of that control took
or maintained control with guns after their opponents were disarmed. He has
yet to explain, how these lives were not lost or given how they had the arms
to fight back against those that would later kill them. Hyprocracy Mr.
Gottlieb, he loves to count deaths that support his claims, but refuses to
acknowledge, or worse excuses, those deaths that don't. Tell us how the
disarmed Jews weren't murdered by the armed Nazi party.
>In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
>one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
>the government because the civilians had guns.
I disagree, in at least some of these the gun control laws wer initial
instituted by a prior government or term of government, and wer later
distorted to acheive gun control among segments of the population that were
later to be killed.
>In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
>NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
>guns in the first place.
And which succeed because those that would oppose their final takeover of the
governmental process were no longer equiped with the means to do so. Seems
those with the arms makes the rules, unless everyone has the arms, then they
all make the rules (ie Democracy).
>Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
>use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
>have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
>government....
>
>... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
And you're implying that another method would work, and that only more
tyrannical governments are a possible replacement? If so, I suggest you study
your history a bit more, particularly your American history.
>Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
>the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947?
Yes, and his opponents as well. A much better situation than the one were only
Mao and his followers has arms.
> Hitler and
>his cronies in 1932?
Yep, and his opponents as well. A much better situation than the one were only
Hitler and his cronies had arms.
>Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
Yep, and his opponenets as well. A much better situation than the one were
only Pol Pot had arms.
(ect.)
You wish to disarm those that misused their arms, yet fail to see that they
were able to misuse their arms on such an extensive scale because their
opponents were disarmed at a prior date.
Let me ask you one:
Would you recommend the Jews in 1938 to turn in their arms to the
police/military and government?
Makes a difference when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it?
>May I remind you that in each of those 3 situations, the populace
>had access to arms.
Correction: PARTS of the populace had access to arms, and surprise that
portion with the arms weren't the ones killed by the other portions.
>In none of the situations did those arms
>stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
Again, because those with the arms were the ones taking control of the
government.
Let's say you're a Catholic in 1998, Clinton passes a law, which declares all
Catholics sub-citizens, and declares they must thus turn in their arms since
they no longer have 2nd Amendment protections. Do you obey or not?
>Your analysis is over-simplistic.
Slightly, I have to make it so for simple minds such as yours. Since your
rebutal is even more simplistic in it's examination of the real world reality
that occured.
>> Jason wants the next line to read:
>>
>> USA, from 1998 to 2000, 70 million politically incorrect gun owners who had
>> refused to surrender their guns when ordered to were rounded up and
>> exterminated.
>
>Yeah, Big Oh. Right. Like I have *ever* advocated collecting
>currently legally owned guns, much less arresting or exterminating
>people for it.
Fine, then you have no problems with the continuation of legal ownership for
us and our prosperity?
Or is this a nibbling away of rights and freedoms?
Jason Gottlieb
Nosy wrote:
>
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
> < Big Oh wrote:
> < >
> < > In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
>
> < > =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
> < > =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
> < > =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
> < > =| China established gun control in 1935....
> < > =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
> < > =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
> < > =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
>
> < one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
> < the government because the civilians had guns.
>
>
> Please do tell us what "organization in power" in Turkey
> government because the civilians had guns.
The Central Committee of the Young Turk Party (Committee for Union
and Progress [Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyet, in Turkish]) which was
dominated by Mehmed Talit, Ismail Enver, and Ahmed Djemal. They were
a racist group whose ideology was articulated by Dr. Mehmed Nazim
and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.
Any questions?
> Then repeat the exercise for the Soviet Union.
Ever hear of Lenin? Bolsheviks? Hello, Nosy?
> < Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
> < use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
> < have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
> < government....
>
> < ... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
>
> That is a risk which has been discussed in this group
> more than one time.
Yeah, and apparently ignored more than one time.
Do you think Texans would be better off if the Republic of Texas
militia unseated the Texas government via force?
> < Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
> < the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947?
>
> Were Mao and his followers really civilians in 1947?
Yes.
> HINT: What does "P.L.A." signify?
People's Liberation Army. An army in name only, they were a ragtag
group of civilians who lived in the woods, gathered arms, practiced
wargames, and preached for the time when they would overthrow the
tyranny of the current government -- hey, sounds like a lot of far-
right militias today!
> HINT: What kind of civilian government existed in China
> in the 1930's, and which civilians had "ready access
> to guns" in those years?
The Kuomintang, which made a crucial error in not cracking down
on the PLA (the Kuomintang were too weak at the time).
> <Hitler and his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
>
> But by 1932, Hitler and his cronies were worming their
> way *inside* the government. Governments always have
> tools such as firearms, so Gottlieb is being disingenuous.
In 1932, Hitler had not yet been elected. Only by threatening his
opponents into not running against him, and holding the government
at gunpoint to appoint his supreme leader could he take power.
If he had no guns, ever, he would be just another loud mouth
on a street corner.
> <In none of the situations did those arms
> < stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
>
> Yet in 1974-75 "People's Kampuchea", we are told that
> one of the Red Khmer's first actions in an occupied area
> was to "invite" the locals to turn in any firearms, claiming
> that there was no longer any need for them, since the Khmer
> were now going to protect the people against evildoers...
The People's Kampuchea came to power via violence, accomplished
with guns. It furthers my point: a civilian group overthrew a
weak government by use of guns, and then became far more tyrannical
than the original government.
The difference Nosy misses between Cambodia of 1974 and the USA of
1997 is that in Cambodia, one couldn't vote.
> Well, Gottlieb has claimed that a total ban on firearms
> in the US would "work", that looks a whole lot like
> advocating "collecting currently legally owned guns" to *me*.
Then you're not looking very hard, which comes as no surprise.
Ever hear of "grandfathering"? Ex post facto? These concepts
mean anything to you?
Jason Gottlieb
> pass for the rest of us)
>
> >Well, they're required to by law, so if you can come up with any
> >examples from the past year or two, I am sure that the lawyers
> >from the other party would love to hear them...
> >
> You know not of what you write. Congress and congressmen are exempt from many
> of the laws they pass. Wage and hour laws, Fair Labor Standards Act,
> Affirmative Action, even OHSA, amoung many others. Only recently, since the
> R's have controled both houses, have *some* of these been applied to Congress
> as well. Although even then, only by Congress' own rules, which they can
> change back whenever they feel like it.
Actually, Joe, the application of laws to Congressmen was one of the
first things the new Republican Congress did after the 1994 elections.
It was in the Contract with America, and one of the few things in
the contract they passed (thankfully).
Stilt Man
In article <339e2a5b....@snews.zippo.com>,
Christopher Morton <cm...@nwohio.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:21:41 +0900, Jason Gottlieb
><zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>>one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
>>the government because the civilians had guns.
>>In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
>>NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
>>guns in the first place.
>Not only is that nonsense, it's ludicrous nonsense.
>The Nazis were ELECTED.
Sort of, yes. However, prior to their election, the Nazis sported their
own private militia, which eventually evolved into the Waffen SS once
they were in power.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stiltman@(remove this)teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/(remove this too)stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and surrender >
< your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. Competition is >
< irrelevant. We will add their biological and technological >
< distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. >
Christopher Morton
>The Central Committee of the Young Turk Party (Committee for Union
>and Progress [Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyet, in Turkish]) which was
>dominated by Mehmed Talit, Ismail Enver, and Ahmed Djemal. They were
>a racist group whose ideology was articulated by Dr. Mehmed Nazim
>and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.
>
>Any questions?
"Racist"? Against what "race"?
>> Then repeat the exercise for the Soviet Union.
>
>Ever hear of Lenin? Bolsheviks? Hello, Nosy?
Guns were legally widely available?
Try to stick with your ENTIRE argument at one time, rather than
jettisoning pieces of it like Indiana Jones tossing junk out of a Ford
Tri-Motor.
---
Ask Chris Wolf(cwo...@nwlink.com) why he said:
"You're welcome, nigger." - Chris Wolf(cwo...@nwlink.com)
Jon
Jason Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Big Oh wrote:
> >
> > In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
>
> > =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
> > =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
> > =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
> > =| China established gun control in 1935....
> > =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
> > =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
> > =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
>
> one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
> the government because the civilians had guns.
> In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
> NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
> guns in the first place.
Proof, Please, Mr. Gottleib?
> Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
> use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
> have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
> government....
> ... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
How about the revolutionary War???????
Congratulations. You have perfectly described the scenario that Scout
is.
> Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
> the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
> his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
>
> May I remind you that in each of those 3 situations, the populace
> had access to arms. In none of the situations did those arms
> stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
So the populace should have rolled over and let them just take over?????
> Your analysis is over-simplistic.
>
> > Jason wants the next line to read:
> >
> > USA, from 1998 to 2000, 70 million politically incorrect gun owners who had
> > refused to surrender their guns when ordered to were rounded up and
> > exterminated.
>
> Yeah, Big Oh. Right. Like I have *ever* advocated collecting
> currently legally owned guns, much less arresting or exterminating
> people for it.
>
> If that isn't an inane ad hominem, it's time to redraw the definition.
>
> I think your brain is getting a bit fried from the influx of neo-Nazis
> on talk.politics.guns. Maybe they're getting to you or something.
>
> --
> Jason Gottlieb
> Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
> gun control info, travellogues, and more!
> http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
Like I said, Jason's spent too much time overseas.
He ought to come home and reread History.
Jon
Christopher Morton
On 11 Jun 1997 11:22:53 -0700, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man)
wrote:
>In article <339e2a5b....@snews.zippo.com>,
>Christopher Morton <cm...@nwohio.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:21:41 +0900, Jason Gottlieb
>><zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>>>In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
>>>one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
>>>the government because the civilians had guns.
>
>>>In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
>>>NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
>>>guns in the first place.
>
>>Not only is that nonsense, it's ludicrous nonsense.
>
>>The Nazis were ELECTED.
>
>Sort of, yes. However, prior to their election, the Nazis sported their
>own private militia, which eventually evolved into the Waffen SS once
>they were in power.
As did the Communists, the Red Front Fighters.
As for what evolved into what, you're mistaken about the S.S. The
S.A., Ernst "Come here little boy" Roehm's group is the one you're
actually referring to.
They were the "party militia" and had ambitions to replace the
Reichswehr/Wehrmacht, and possibly Hitler. This led to a three sided
deal between Hitler, Himmler and the General Staff of the Wehrmacht to
get rid of Roehm (contrary to Tavish's lie that Roehm was bumped off
JUST because he was a homosexual).
The Sturm Abteilungen were purged of all elements considered
POLITICALLY unreliable by Hitler. This coincided neatly with the
homosexual clique within the S.A., which as an added benefit, created
the ILLUSION of a moral "housecleaning" within the N.S.D.A.P.
The Schutzstaffel (S.S.) or "guard detachment" grew out of Hitler's
personal bodyguard, the Stabswache or "Staff Watch". Himmler, after
assuming leadership of the S.S., pushed incessantly for that
organization to supplant Roehm and the S.A. The "Night of the Long
Knives" was the perfect pretext for him to brush aside Roehm and the
Brownshirts... along with virtually anyone else who had ever crossed
Himmler or anyone else of importance in the S.S. Significant numbers
of persons with absolutely no ties to the S.A. were also murdered by
S.S. assassination squads.
For a very coherent and well written account of these events, read
"Order of the Death's Head" by Heinze Hoehne. I think it's still in
print.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Jason Gottlieb
Daemon Thomas wrote:
>
> Jason Gottlieb wrote:
> > If guns were truly deterrents, the crimes from Kleck's research
> > wouldn't have happened in the first place.
>
> Odd. Most people consider the police a deterrent---yet no one is stupid
> enough to say "Well, if the police were TRULY deterrents, the crimes the
> police deal with wouldn't have happened in the first place."
Without cops, crime would go up, as that deterrent factor would
go down.
But an absence of guns in no way would force the violent crime rate up,
and there is no research that can say it would.
You're basically saying that cops (people) are the same thing as
guns (inanimate objects). Gee, and people call *ME* an animist.
> > BTW, I noticed Kates has nothing to say about the 30,000 shot-dead
> > criminals a year that Kleck's data says must exist somewhere, but
> > never quite show up.
>
> And, oddly enough, you never mention where Kleck says this----I don't
> recall it. Do tell, where DOES this factoid come from?
It comes from Kleck's calculations as to how many people his
research subject claim they kill or injure... there just
aren't that many criminals walking around injured.
But this obvious inconsistency desn't bother those who take
Kleck's work as gospel.
Professor Tim Lambert (yes, he's anti-gun, but he's also a statistical
expert) first pointed this out.
> > > In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
> > > violent crimes.
> >
> > So much for the deterrence factor of those 250 million+ guns...
>
> Since your comment before about this didn't make sense, it still
> doesn't.
Yeah, right. Tell me, if guns are so good at deterring crime, why
America, with so many more guns than say, Australia, has so much
higher crime.
What you're saying is that with *more* guns, we could have *more*
deterrence. So let me ask you, when we have an average of more
than one gun for every adult citizen in the country, why do
we still have *any* crime? How many guns would be enough to truly
deter crime?
> Reminds me of the story: "Well, we put people in jail, but the crime
> rate stays the same. Might as well let those people out, since it
> hasn't changed..."
Yeah, and then we do, and wonder why the crime rate stays the same.
> Considering you have no idea what the numbers would be withOUT people
> being able to effectively defend themselves, I suggest you do not make
> comparisons.
But we DO know -- look at, for example, Australia, or England,
or if you can bear the cross-cultural comparisons, Japan.
Amazingly enough, Australia and England, despite having multi-racial
populations and urban areas have lower violent crime rates than the
USA, and FAR lower gun rates.
> > > On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
> > > firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
> > > the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
> > > crime...
> >
> > Whoa, there! So the NCVS says that only 50,000 or so people used
> > a gun to defend against a violent attack?
> >
> > There goes Kleck's numbers, eh?
>
> ...and the NCVS is widely known to underreport...
Yes, fine. So more than (but probably not much more than) 50,000
people a year use a firearm to defend from a violent crime.
I can live with that figure, since firearms are definitely used to
kill about 15,000 and injure 100,000, and the "violent crimes" they
defend against are anything from attempted murder to simple assault.
> [Snipping the rest, since Gottlieb just gets more annoying...]
Ah, a valid and viable attempt to argue, I see.
> Gottlieb, at least ATTEMPT to argue from a position backed up by facts,
> hmm? (Not merely your personal opinion. You are entitled to your
> opinion, just as I am to mine----but don't attempt to argue from it
> without viable facts that back it up.)
Gee, like all the facts you used in this post? All, what, one
of them?
Jason Gottlieb
Dave wrote:
>
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> >Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
> >the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
> >his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
>
> [sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
> government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
Do please enlighten us as to how Mao's People's Liberation Army
was a "quasi-government faction."
What do you think he was "liberating" them from? Soggy cornflakes?
> REAL easy. Laws on firearms do not apply to the government. I really
> don't know how many times we have said this but you still don't seem
> to be bothered by this fact.
You have told me this a million times, although I don't know why,
since it's not particularly relevant.
> Jason do you really think that if all guns were banned in the US it
> would stop a military coup?
No. But I also think that under current gun laws, if the military
decided to stage a coup, the people of the USA could not do a damn
thing about it without MASSIVE popular revolt -- and guns would help
them not at all. It would have to be a rejection on the scale of
the rejection of the military coup in the first days after the
Soviet Union fell. Note that not a single shot was fired.
Lone_Wolf
In <5nmqdt$s3u$1...@kelly.teleport.com> N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) writes:
#`In article <339e2a5b....@snews.zippo.com>,
#`Christopher Morton <cm...@nwohio.com> wrote:
#`>On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:21:41 +0900, Jason Gottlieb
#`><zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
#`>>In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
#`>>one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
#`>>the government because the civilians had guns.
#`>>In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
#`>>NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
#`>>guns in the first place.
#`>Not only is that nonsense, it's ludicrous nonsense.
#`>The Nazis were ELECTED.
#`Sort of, yes. However, prior to their election, the Nazis sported their
#`own private militia, which eventually evolved into the Waffen SS once
#`they were in power.
Of course, the existence of such a private militia was made possible due to
selective enforcement of the laws by the government. Groups perceived as
communist/leftist were heavily trampled, while right wing groups could get
away with almost anything. Hell, how long did Hitler serve in jail for
his beer hall putsch?
James
#`=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
#` The Stilt Man stiltman@(remove this)teleport.com
#` http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/(remove this too)stiltman.html
#` < We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and surrender >
#` < your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. Competition is >
#` < irrelevant. We will add their biological and technological >
#` < distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. >
Lone_Wolf
In <339F8850...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
#Dave wrote:
#>
#> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
#> >Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
#> >the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
#> >his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
#>
#> [sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
#> government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
#Do please enlighten us as to how Mao's People's Liberation Army
#was a "quasi-government faction."
#What do you think he was "liberating" them from? Soggy cornflakes?
Actually, at least some of the armaments Mao's PLA had came from the US,
during WWII. The PLA and Chiang Kai-Shek's armies were fighting each other
while fighting the Japanese.
#
#> REAL easy. Laws on firearms do not apply to the government. I really
#> don't know how many times we have said this but you still don't seem
#> to be bothered by this fact.
#You have told me this a million times, although I don't know why,
#since it's not particularly relevant.
#
#> Jason do you really think that if all guns were banned in the US it
#> would stop a military coup?
#No. But I also think that under current gun laws, if the military
#decided to stage a coup, the people of the USA could not do a damn
#thing about it without MASSIVE popular revolt -- and guns would help
#them not at all. It would have to be a rejection on the scale of
#the rejection of the military coup in the first days after the
#Soviet Union fell. Note that not a single shot was fired.
You obviously know little about the US military or about guerrilla warfare.
From having lived on bases around the US (and in Germany), I can tell you
that security is typically a joke. Hell, most units don't have ammunition,
they have to draw it from the depot. Throw in the fact that access to the
arms room is heavily restricted, and the main thing you'd have to worry about
is the Mud Puppies. One set of homemade rockets and you could wipe out the
flight line at most AF bases, often without even entering the base. If the
DOD doesn't trust it's troops with ammunition in war zones (ie, the Beirut
bombing, where the Marines didn't have any ammunition in their rifles, or
Desert Storm, where troops weren't allowed to insert magazines in their rifles,
even to keep the dust out, until they were actually ordered into combat), what
makes you think they'd suddenly issue everybody arms and ammunition so they
could pull off a coup?
James
#--
#Jason Gottlieb
#Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
# gun control info, travellogues, and more!
#http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl
Nosy
<In article <339F8850...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
< Dave wrote:
< >
< > <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
< > >Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
< > >the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
< > >his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
< >
< > [sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
< > government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
< Do please enlighten us as to how Mao's People's Liberation Army
< was a "quasi-government faction."
Do please enlightend us as to how the PLA was just a bunch
of private citizens, toting their hunting rifles.
< What do you think he was "liberating" them from? Soggy cornflakes?
The PLA fought not only against the invading Japanese, but
also against other Chinese groups, from warlords to the
Chiang Ki Chek government.
But Gottlieb hasn't told us yet how the Chinese Communist
Party can be described as "private citizens with firearms".
< > REAL easy. Laws on firearms do not apply to the government. I really
< > don't know how many times we have said this but you still don't seem
< > to be bothered by this fact.
< You have told me this a million times, although I don't know why,
< since it's not particularly relevant.
Since Gottlieb continues to conflate resistance to tyranny
by private citizens with actions *of* government, it is
extremely relevent.
Nosy
<In article <33A0AAE1...@asahi-net.or.jp> Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
< Nosy wrote:
< >
< > <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
< > < Dave wrote:
< > < >
< > < > <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
< >
< > < > >Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
< > < > >the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
< > < > >his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
< > < >
< > < > [sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
< > < > government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
< >
< > < Do please enlighten us as to how Mao's People's Liberation Army
< > < was a "quasi-government faction."
< >
< > Do please enlightend us as to how the PLA was just a bunch
< > of private citizens, toting their hunting rifles.
< Are you serious? What part in government did they play? Are you
< trying to imply that they the military arm of the Kuomintang?
I'm not quite sure what Gottlieb is trying to say, here.
I'll point out again that Gottlieb earlier claimed that
certain governments came to power as a result of privately
owned firearms. One of those examples is still above.
I'm asking Gottlieb to expand on the notion that somehow
the PLA came to power due to civilan-owned firearms, a notion
that seems laughable on the face of it, yet that appears to
be what Gottlieb is claiming.
< Seriously, Nosy, do some reading on it and get back to us.
Oh, the irony of this statement!
< > < What do you think he was "liberating" them from? Soggy cornflakes?
< >
< > The PLA fought not only against the invading Japanese, but
< > also against other Chinese groups, from warlords to the
< > Chiang Ki Chek government.
< Yeah, no kidding -- they fought against anyone who messed with them.
Yes. And did they do this with privately held firearms, as
Gottlieb appears to have claimed, or not?
< Including the government they eventually overthrew. Or was that
< a good thing in your book?
Both governments were not good.
< After all, you support their right to own the means to kill millions.
But I do not support any "right" of the PLA to have a
*monopoly* on force.
That *monopoly* on the firearms made it possible, in a large
part, to kill millions.
I oppose such a *monopoly* on the possession of firearms.
It is *GOTTLIEB* who desires that government should have
a *monopoly* on the ownership of firearms, therefore
it is Gottlieb who would seem to approve of the PLA's
accession to power in 1947.
After all, they were the government, right? And Gottlieb
supports the notion that only the government should have
guns, doesn't he?
< Don't you think, in retrospect, that maybe that was a bad move?
Doesn't Gottliebe think, in retrospect, that maybe it is
a bad idea for government forces to have all the guns?
Christopher Morton
>Dave wrote:
>>
>> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>
>> >Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
>> >the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947? Hitler and
>> >his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
>>
>> [sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
>> government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
>
>Do please enlighten us as to how Mao's People's Liberation Army
>was a "quasi-government faction."
You're right. They weren't "quasi" at all. They were THE government
of large sections of China prior to 1949.
>What do you think he was "liberating" them from? Soggy cornflakes?
A corrupt government that wouldn't fight the Japanese?
Of course Jason might well be a big fan of the Kuomintang or the
Japanese colonial administration and its various puppet regimes in
China.
I'm certainly no fan of Mao Tse Tung, but to claim that he lacked
popular support and didn't constitute a legitimate government is
silly.
Christopher Morton
>Daemon Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Jason Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> > If guns were truly deterrents, the crimes from Kleck's research
>> > wouldn't have happened in the first place.
>>
>> Odd. Most people consider the police a deterrent---yet no one is stupid
>> enough to say "Well, if the police were TRULY deterrents, the crimes the
>> police deal with wouldn't have happened in the first place."
>
>Without cops, crime would go up, as that deterrent factor would
>go down.
>
>But an absence of guns in no way would force the violent crime rate up,
>and there is no research that can say it would.
In some places crime would go DOWN, as cops are no slouches at
committing crimes.
Jason Gottlieb
Scout wrote:
>
> In article <339D0085...@asahi-net.or.jp>, zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp
> says...
> >
> >Big Oh wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <5ncqbs$n$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, wpl...@vt.edu (Scout) wrote:
> >
> >> =| The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929....
> >> =| Turkey established gun control in 1911....
> >> =| Germany established gun control in 1938....
> >> =| China established gun control in 1935....
> >> =| Guatemala established gun control in 1964....
> >> =| Uganda established gun control in 1970....
> >> =| Cambodia established gun control in 1956....
>
> I note that Mr. Gottlieb does not refute those that died at the hands of gun
> control.
Ha ha ha ha. As if!
Tell me the Kuomintang were unarmed. Gee, it didn't help them
any, did it? The Cambodian pre-Pol government was unarmed?
I didn't bother "refuting" that argument because it's not even an
argument. Telling me that those people died because of gun control
would be like a anti-gunner saying guns are the cause of all crime.
I don't say that. So why are you saying that the lack of guns were
the cause of those crimes agains humanity?
Are *you* starting to get animist on us?
> Hyprocracy Mr.
> Gottlieb, he loves to count deaths that support his claims, but refuses to
> acknowledge, or worse excuses, those deaths that don't. Tell us how the
> disarmed Jews weren't murdered by the armed Nazi party.
Tell us how the armed Jews were killed too -- arms are useless
against a vastly superior force that really wants you dead.
Let's face it, if the US Government really wants you dead, you
will be. Just ask Koresh how much his arsenal helped him.
> >In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
> >one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
> >the government because the civilians had guns.
>
> I disagree, in at least some of these the gun control laws wer initial
> instituted by a prior government or term of government, and wer later
> distorted to acheive gun control among segments of the population that were
> later to be killed.
True, in some instances, some gun controls had been enacted by
the previous government. But most of the above tyrannies came about
because civilians with guns (usually in the form of some militia)
overthrew a government that had guns. So your whole point is a bit
silly.
> >In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
> >NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
> >guns in the first place.
>
> And which succeed because those that would oppose their final takeover of the
> governmental process were no longer equiped with the means to do so. Seems
> those with the arms makes the rules, unless everyone has the arms, then they
> all make the rules (ie Democracy).
Which, astoundingly, is what we have *despite* the fact that we don't
have to shoot at our army to keep them in line.
Or do you really think the US Marines would be afraid of you and your
pop-guns? Think you could take them?
> >Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
> >use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
> >have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
> >government....
> >
> >... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
>
> And you're implying that another method would work, and that only more
> tyrannical governments are a possible replacement? If so, I suggest you study
> your history a bit more, particularly your American history.
No, it is possible to instill a democratic government -- but American
history isn't the place to look for examples. You might have
noticed that America wasn't too democratic for blacks for at least
four score and seven years after the Revolution. The Founding Fathers
did NOT create a democracy (although they did set up a system that
turned into one -- thank goodness the North won).
For civilian overthrows that *really* resulted in democracy, you would
have to look to perhaps the 1970s in South America. *Maybe* Congo --
we'll see. But their track record isn't good.
> >Let me ask you Scout, knowking what you know now, would you support
> >the right of Mao and his followers to own guns in 1947?
>
> Yes, and his opponents as well. A much better situation than the one were only
> Mao and his followers has arms.
Hey, Scout, the Kuomintang WERE armed. Fat lot of good it did them,
or the millions of Kuomintang supporters that were killed.
> > Hitler and
> >his cronies in 1932?
>
> Yep, and his opponents as well. A much better situation than the one were only
> Hitler and his cronies had arms.
Hey, Scout, the Weimar republic government HAD arms. Fat lot of good
it did them. Hitler executed most of them.
> >Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
>
> Yep, and his opponenets as well. A much better situation than the one were
> only Pol Pot had arms.
Same answer here.
> You wish to disarm those that misused their arms, yet fail to see that they
> were able to misuse their arms on such an extensive scale because their
> opponents were disarmed at a prior date.
But they weren't, especially the government opponents. Yes, there
is always a danger that there could be a military takeover, and
if you were arguing that, you would have a lot more credibility.
(You would still be wrong, but you would be closer to having an
argument.) But you're arguing that giving civilians arms, even
civilian militias with an express desire to overthrow the government
and kill people, is a good idea.
That's just crazy.
> Let me ask you one:
>
> Would you recommend the Jews in 1938 to turn in their arms to the
> police/military and government?
This is a tough question, because by that point it was already
too late. I honestly don't know. One one hand, in 1938, they
didn't know that they would be gassed -- it could have been like
the American internment camps, where they were just kept until
after the war, and then let go. In this instance, shooting at the
Nazis would only increase the likelihood that the Nazis would
go ahead and kill all the Jews. So, there would be a strong
argument for giving up the guns and going quietly, basically
asking for mercy -- since you would be shot instantly if not.
Then again, that's pretty weak. But it's easier to say "shoot
at them" in hindsight, when you already knew what their fate
would be.
Put the question another way, if you were a Japanese-American who
received notice to report to an internment camp, would you keep
your guns and start shooting at the government?
> Makes a difference when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it?
No. And I resent the implications of the question, that I would
be hypocritical if it were Jews in the line instead of, say, Asians.
> >May I remind you that in each of those 3 situations, the populace
> >had access to arms.
>
> Correction: PARTS of the populace had access to arms, and surprise that
> portion with the arms weren't the ones killed by the other portions.
Yeah, because the armed Kuomintang were able to co-exist peacefully
with Mao. Right.
> >In none of the situations did those arms
> >stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
>
> Again, because those with the arms were the ones taking control of the
> government.
No -- as I have shown in the instances we are discussing, the
government had arms too, and still lost.
> Let's say you're a Catholic in 1998, Clinton passes a law, which declares all
> Catholics sub-citizens, and declares they must thus turn in their arms since
> they no longer have 2nd Amendment protections. Do you obey or not?
Gee, let's see, Justice Antonin Scalia the Catholic.... I think
that your example is so far-fetched as to be unanswerable.
The answer is that we have a representative democracy, and that
such a thing would not happen to a group like the Catholics.
Again, your analysis is over-simplistic.
> >> Jason wants the next line to read:
> >>
> >> USA, from 1998 to 2000, 70 million politically incorrect gun owners who had
> >> refused to surrender their guns when ordered to were rounded up and
> >> exterminated.
> >
> >Yeah, Big Oh. Right. Like I have *ever* advocated collecting
> >currently legally owned guns, much less arresting or exterminating
> >people for it.
>
> Fine, then you have no problems with the continuation of legal ownership for
> us and our prosperity?
I only want to change the laws through the open democratic process.
Furthermore, I support ex post facto and grandfathering laws. I'm not
coming for your current guns. I just want people to decide not to
make more, so as to reduce the number in the black market.
Attacking anything else is attacking a strawman.
--
Jason Gottlieb
Homepage goodies: Japanese SDF info, USA
gun control info, travellogues, and more!
Jason Gottlieb
Big Oh wrote:
>
> In article <339D0085...@asahi-net.or.jp>, Jason Gottlieb
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> =| In *all* of the above cases, the organization in power -- the
> =| one that banned guns -- came to power as civilians who overthrew
> =| the government because the civilians had guns.
> =|
> =| In all of the above circumstances, the initial revolution would
> =| NOT have been possible if civilians did not have easy access to
> =| guns in the first place.
>
> And your proof that the initial revolutions would NOT have been possible if
> civilians did not have easy access to guns in the first place is?
My proof of a counterfactual? Ever take logic 101?
All I can tell you is that is Mao and his buddies didn't have the
stockpile of arms they had, they would have had a hell of a time
beating the Kuomintang army.
> Using your logic, you clearly support the Brits' attempts to disarm the 13
> Colonies. Face the facts, Jason, in 1776 you would have been a Tory, a
> loyalist -- you prefer an absolute monarchy over true freedom and liberty.
No, no, no. I would have supported the Revolution, and supported the
rights of blacks after the revolution. You see, back then, we didn't
have representation. THAT was the issue. Today, we do, so that issue
is no longer a clarion call.
> =| Scout wants us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is what we can
> =| use to overthrow a tyrannical government. All too often, "the people"
> =| have used that line of thinking, arisen, overthrown their tyrannical
> =| government....
> =|
> =| ... and promptly replaced it with one even more tyrannical.
>
> That's always a possibility, Jason, but apparently you have decided that
> you, as an elitist, are better that 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the
> people and clearly know what is best for all. Isn't that totally in line
> with Stalin's "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
Big Oh, you continue to attack a strawman that I have debunked a
million times.
I DO NOT want to just take away everyone's guns. I want to persuade
people to decide, through the democratic process, that guns do more
harm than good.
I also notice that you don't answer my question above, you just
spew an ad hominem and call it a day.
> Are you saying that the revolution started on 19 April 1775 in MA resulted
> in a gov't, at that time, more tyrannical than King George's gov't?
Depends on who you were. If you were a rich white guy, then you
were probably better off. If you were anyone else, it didn't
really matter much to you.
> =| May I remind you that in each of those 3 situations, the populace
> =| had access to arms. In none of the situations did those arms
> =| stop the tyrannical force from taking control of government.
> =|
> =| Your analysis is over-simplistic.
>
> May I remind you that you haven't proven that disarming the people prevents
> tyranny. Here are the laws that were in place before Hitler came to power;
> yet those laws didn't stop the nazis from obtaining power:
Oh, you again fail to understand even the simplest of history:
the Nazis took power DESPITE the fact that the Weimer government
had guns.
Laws snipped, as they didn't affect the government that was
overthrown, and are thus irrelevant.
> =| > Jason wants the next line to read:
> =| >
> =| > USA, from 1998 to 2000, 70 million politically incorrect gun owners who had
> =| > refused to surrender their guns when ordered to were rounded up and
> =| > exterminated.
> =|
> =| Yeah, Big Oh. Right. Like I have *ever* advocated collecting
> =| currently legally owned guns, much less arresting or exterminating
> =| people for it.
> =|
> =| If that isn't an inane ad hominem, it's time to redraw the definition.
> =|
> =| I think your brain is getting a bit fried from the influx of neo-Nazis
> =| on talk.politics.guns. Maybe they're getting to you or something.
>
> Sorry Jason but I extremely dislike the anti-freedom agenda of nazism just
> as much as I extremely dislike the anti-freedom agenda of communism,
> industrial socialism, the social democrats, democratic socialistism,
> fascism, etc.
Great. Wonderful. (Although I think you're making stuff up with your
"democratic socialistism.")
But that does not give you reason to rattle off inane ad hominem
strawmen in an effort to distract attention from the fact that
you've lost this argument.
I don't even mind an ad hominem if it accompanies actual argumentation,
but all you ever do is insult, and them post some quote in a
desperate appeal to authority without reason.
Like it or not, the USA is a "social democracy," and there is
no way around that short of ditching all laws and becoming libertarian
(which you would love, but it's just inane).
> You have far more in common with your enemy, the neo-nazis,
> than I ever will.
Uh, yeah. Right. You favor giving people who want to overthrow the
government and kill people easy access to arms. Neither of us has
anything in common with those animals, and we both want to fight
them. I just find it easier to fight them if we (meaning our government)
have guns and they don't, than if they're both armed. After all,
in all the incidences we were dicussing above, the government
had guns and so did the racist loonies -- and the loonies won.
> To prevent nazism you propose to implement the very same
> anti-freedom agenda of nazism. You are no different from those you claim
> to be your enemy. In fighting the anti-Semites you have wrapped yourself
> in their very agenda to accomplish the goal of oppressing the declared
> enemy and calling all such actions as "freedom".
No, no, no. The argument you give above is a very good speech
agaist, say, an anti-flag-burning law (which is an asinine idea).
But the essential difference between burning a flag and owning an
arsenal is that nobody ever overthrew a government by burning a flag.
> Recommended Reading List
> Author: Friedrich A. Hayek
> Author: Frederic Bastiat
> Author: Ludwig von Mises
You know, it's kind of interesting that all you have on your reading
list in terms of criticism is these three fools. Try a different
list for a change: JS Mill, Kant, Rousseau, etc. You might be surprised
to learn that libertarianism has (gasp) fatal weaknesses.
Jason Gottlieb
Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>
> >The Central Committee of the Young Turk Party (Committee for Union
> >and Progress [Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyet, in Turkish]) which was
> >dominated by Mehmed Talit, Ismail Enver, and Ahmed Djemal. They were
> >a racist group whose ideology was articulated by Dr. Mehmed Nazim
> >and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.
> >
> >Any questions?
>
> "Racist"? Against what "race"?
Pretty much anybody who wasn't them, but the Armenians just happened
to be in the way, so they got killed.
> >> Then repeat the exercise for the Soviet Union.
> >
> >Ever hear of Lenin? Bolsheviks? Hello, Nosy?
>
> Guns were legally widely available?
The government at the time had guns. Didn't help them.
> Try to stick with your ENTIRE argument at one time, rather than
> jettisoning pieces of it like Indiana Jones tossing junk out of a Ford
> Tri-Motor.
Try *giving* an argument, rather than amusing but irrelevant similies.
Jason Gottlieb
Nosy wrote:
>
> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> writes:
> < Dave wrote:
> < >
> < > <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>
> < > >his cronies in 1932? Pol Pot in the late 40s? (etc.)
> < >
> < > [sigh] once again Jason cannot differentiate between a quasi
> < > government faction using weapons and the populace using weapons.
>
> < Do please enlighten us as to how Mao's People's Liberation Army
> < was a "quasi-government faction."
>
> of private citizens, toting their hunting rifles.
Are you serious? What part in government did they play? Are you
trying to imply that they the military arm of the Kuomintang?
Seriously, Nosy, do some reading on it and get back to us.
> < What do you think he was "liberating" them from? Soggy cornflakes?
>
> The PLA fought not only against the invading Japanese, but
> also against other Chinese groups, from warlords to the
> Chiang Ki Chek government.
Yeah, no kidding -- they fought against anyone who messed with them.
Including the government they eventually overthrew. Or was that
a good thing in your book?
After all, you support their right to own the means to kill millions.
Don't you think, in retrospect, that maybe that was a bad move?
Christopher Morton
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>>
>> >The Central Committee of the Young Turk Party (Committee for Union
>> >and Progress [Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyet, in Turkish]) which was
>> >dominated by Mehmed Talit, Ismail Enver, and Ahmed Djemal. They were
>> >a racist group whose ideology was articulated by Dr. Mehmed Nazim
>> >and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.
>> >
>> >Any questions?
>>
>> "Racist"? Against what "race"?
>
>Pretty much anybody who wasn't them, but the Armenians just happened
>to be in the way, so they got killed.
I wasn't aware that Armenians were a race.
>
>
>> >> Then repeat the exercise for the Soviet Union.
>> >
>> >Ever hear of Lenin? Bolsheviks? Hello, Nosy?
>>
>> Guns were legally widely available?
>
>The government at the time had guns. Didn't help them.
I ask again, guns were legally widely available?
That was your claim.
Either justify the claim or withdraw it.
>> Try to stick with your ENTIRE argument at one time, rather than
>> jettisoning pieces of it like Indiana Jones tossing junk out of a Ford
>> Tri-Motor.
>
>Try *giving* an argument, rather than amusing but irrelevant similies.
Try answering questions instead of changing the subject.
You make a statement, ludicrous on its face, then you engage in the
rhetorical equivalent of the long march, dumping parts of that
argument as you're harried along by people who know better.
Miguel A. Gonzalez
On 7 Jun 1997 03:24:43 GMT, d...@ripco.com (David Richards) wrote:
>In article <33976F36...@asahi-net.or.jp>,
>Jason Gottlieb <zj5j...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>Okay, let's stick to your definition for the moment.
>
>>With 250 million+ guns in the USA, all criminals should be
>>scared, all the time -- with half the households in the USA
>>armed, a criminal should think that half the population is
>>armed.
>
>What you ignore is that these 250M guns are _NOT_ evenly distributed into
>the population. Households in rural areas tend to have numerous firearms
>(many tools for many specific purposes). Households in urban areas with
>strict gun control tend to have no guns at all.
>
>Compare the crime rate in urban areas and rural areas... see a pattern?
>
>That's called "deterrance".
>
>
>>Doesn't seem to make our crime rates lower than most other
>>industrialized countries.
Depends on the type of crime. For example, in England you have a
higher incidence of robberies to occupied dwellings (people breaking
into houses while the residents are at home) while in the US the
incidence tilts towards unoccupied dwellings. Also, the laws in
England discourage people from defending their property.
>
>Neglecting the possibility that without privately held firearms, our crime
>rates might be much higher than they are now? Ignoring the fact that ALL
>our crime rates are higher than most other industrialized countries,
>including rates that would not be affected by any deterrant effect of
>firearms.
>
>Perhaps the problem is not that we have more GUNS than they do, but that
>we have more CRIMINALS?
Also, the US has a lot of societal problems and a more diverse culture
not found in most other countries.
>
>
>>Guns do not work as deterrents.
>
>Only because in most cases, the bad people have the guns, and the good
>people are disarmed. Where the victims are armed, criminals turn to less
>risky activities.
Exactly my point.
>
>--
>David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
>My opinions are my own, IRS withstanding Public Access in Chicago
>Proud to be the 5,000th least-important Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
>usenet-abuser, by the unofficial GSUA. (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
"... the right of the people to keep and arm bears
shall not be infringed."
0-