Libertarians and child labor - and prostitution (was: Guess What, You're Not the Libertarians, I am!)
Cecil
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
> >
> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
> >
> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is a
> >complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
> >relations. That's it.
>
> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
> you for arming citizens in society.
One practical reason is that an armed society is a safe society.
Suppose you were a rapist. You're out looking for a victim. For
the sake of this example, let's say that there are only two towns
from which to choose. In the first town gun ownership among the
residents is very high, in the second town guns are prohibited, and
gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is nonexistent.
In which town would you seek a female to rape? Remember, although
gun ownership is high in the first town, you don't know which women
are armed and which are not. In the second town you can be reasonably
certain that all the women are unarmed.
[...]
circe
The US is an armed population. more than 80 million households have
guns. Yet in the US there is a rape every 7 seconds , and a murder
every 30 minutes. They have ,by far, the highest homicide rate with
guns in the Industrialized world. An armed society is not a safe
society.
Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
is an unsafe society.
According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns. So
that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
>",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
> a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
>> >relations."
A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
according to you, already an unfair system from the outset. I'm
inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed society is
not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
safe society.
Circe
Cecil
First, please answer the hypothetical question I posed
above:
In which town would you seek a female to rape?
> The US is an armed population. more than 80 million households have
> guns. Yet in the US there is a rape every 7 seconds ,
Read this:
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/02/20/editorial_opinions/oo0220/
>and a murder every 30 minutes. They have ,by far, the highest
> homicide rate with guns in the Industrialized world. An armed
> society is not a safe society.
>
> Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
> is an unsafe society.
Sorry, but that conclusion is false.
Let's look at two extremes; widespread gun ownership
versus gun prohibition:
In town A:
Every law-abiding citizen has a gun.
Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
In town B:
No law-abiding citizen has a gun.
Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
The criminal, by definition, does not obey gun control laws.
Criminals love gun control laws, and the more violent the
criminal, the more he loves gun control. For the criminal,
gun control equals victim disarmament.
Town B is a criminal's paradise. Town B contains
nothing but potential victims who lack the means of
effective self-defense.
What more could a criminal ask for?
> According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
> without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
Yes, I think it's safe to say that a criminal will always choose a
weaker victim over a stronger one or an unarmed victim over an
armed one.
IOW, a mugger is more likely to rob an old lady rather than
Mike Tyson, even if Iron Mike is carrying 1000 times the
amount of cash.
>So that in a Libertarian society where some people have
> no guns they will be the more likely target of criminals.
If the criminal knows who is armed and who isn't.
He usually won't.
> Chris stated that :
>
> >",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
> > a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
> >> >relations."
>
> A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
> according to you, already an unfair system from the outset.
I never said or implied that.
>I'm inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed
> society is not a safe society.
I see. A point I didn't make further proves a
false conclusion of your own. Interesting.
>Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
> safe society.
You're drawing a lot of conclusions, but they're not
based on any sort of reasoning.
Leszek
> http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/02/20/editorial_opinions/oo0220/
I'm shocked that the Daily would run something like this.
Here's part 2:
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/02/21/editorial_opinions//o0221/
Dale Farmer
circe wrote:
Your logic is fallacious. What are the total rates. Then go look at
the breakdowns. Also, the UK is now the highest homicide rate in
industrialized nations. Singling out just guns is cherry picking your
statistics.
Lets look at suicide rates. Suicide rates with guns are higher in
the USA than Japan, but the total suicide rates in Japan is something
like four times the USA rate. Which statistic is more accurate about
suicide?
Back to the USA. Now lets look at those homicide rates. When
your break them down further, you find that the highest rates of
homicide are in the cities, and disproportionally in the poorest parts
of the cities. Lets look and see what the gun laws are in those high
homicide rate area's are.
Hmmm..... I see a very high correlation between high homicide
rates and strict gun control. HUD housing projects, Washington,
NYC, Chicago, LA, and so on. Now I also see a high correlation
between high homicide rates and low per capita income. Causation,
I don't know, but sure seems possible to me. Lots of other factors
come into play as well, discrimination, education, culture, and so on.
>
> Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
> is an unsafe society.
>
You draw a conclusion unsupported by your argument.
>
> According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
> without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns. So
> that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
> be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
>
> >",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
> > a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
> >> >relations."
>
> A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
> according to you, already an unfair system from the outset. I'm
> inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed society is
> not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
> safe society.
>
> Circe
There you go again, restating an unsupported conclusion. I do hope
that you exhibited better when you were in your debate class in
school.
--Dale
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
> Back to the USA. Now lets look at those homicide rates. When
>your break them down further, you find that the highest rates of
>homicide are in the cities, and disproportionally in the poorest parts
>of the cities. Lets look and see what the gun laws are in those high
>homicide rate area's are.
> Hmmm..... I see a very high correlation between high homicide
>rates and strict gun control. HUD housing projects, Washington,
>NYC, Chicago, LA, and so on. Now I also see a high correlation
>between high homicide rates and low per capita income. Causation,
>I don't know, but sure seems possible to me. Lots of other factors
>come into play as well, discrimination, education, culture, and so on.
You're looking at the wrong statistics.
Compare, for example, the gun homicide rate in the south. It's higher
than in the rest of the country, and the gun ownership rate is higher.
There's an obvious connection.
Of course, the majority of the homicides are with handguns in the inner
cities. And the difference in gun ownership rates is in ownership of
long guns in rural areas - the south's rates of handgun ownership is
the same as the rest of the country.
So it's clear that there is a the south has a higher rate of homicides
involving handguns in the inner cities because the south has a higher
rate of rifle and shotgun ownership out in the countryside.
It's just common sense.
--
What? Me .sig?
Bruce Mills
>"circe" wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
> >
> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
> >
> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society)
> >is a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from
> >human relations. That's it.
>
> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
> you for arming citizens in society.
While I think we would all agree that such a society is an admirable goal
towards which we should strive, I don't think anyone would disagree that
it will be a long time in coming, if ever.
There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will seek
to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there will
always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his criminal
action.
Criminals are not entirely stupid; they most often pick and choose their
victims, and the time and place of their crimes, so as to minimize the
risk to themsleves. They prey on the apparently weak, and commit their
crimes in the absence of police officers who might intervene. There have
been court cases to show that it is not the police's responsibility to
protect any given individual; they are there to protect the public peace.
More often than not, the only person present who will defend you is
*yourself*. If you can't do it, who will?
It has been shown that in areas where concealed carry permits are issued,
the instance of confrontational crime in those areas goes down. It has
been shown that even such "sensible" gun control laws as waiting periods,
have resulted in the deaths of innocent people who might otherwise have
had the means with which to defend themselves.
Despite all the anit-gun propaganda, it remains that guns are a net benfit
to society. Anyone who wants one, should be able to acquire one.
Bruce
--
There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men.
To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.
- Ayn Rand
Osmo Ronkanen
"Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>One practical reason is that an armed society is a safe society.
>Suppose you were a rapist. You're out looking for a victim. For
>the sake of this example, let's say that there are only two towns
>>from which to choose. In the first town gun ownership among the
>residents is very high, in the second town guns are prohibited, and
>gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is nonexistent.
>
>In which town would you seek a female to rape? Remember, although
>gun ownership is high in the first town, you don't know which women
>are armed and which are not. In the second town you can be reasonably
>certain that all the women are unarmed.
But one could ask, why should the citizens of the armed town
have the right to impose the risk to the citizens of the other
town?
Of course the people in the other town could also arm, but would
the end result be any better than if few were armed? Would that
prevent rapists from raping?
Of course criminals seek the easiest victims but that does not
mean they stop committing crime when the easiest become a little
harder. Also the idea of all people being armed is a myth. I
think there are many who simply do not want to live in such a
mentality of far that they have to carry weapons.
Osmo
Cecil
I didn't write anything in this post.
"Bruce Mills" <aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:9e6gaf$6l3$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
David Lentz
Cecil wrote:
<snip>
> Let's look at two extremes; widespread gun ownership
> versus gun prohibition:
>
> In town A:
>
> Every law-abiding citizen has a gun.
> Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
>
> In town B:
>
> No law-abiding citizen has a gun.
> Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
Of course the ilk of HCI, would want to believe in scenario C:
Nobody has a gun. What HCI does not tell you, that in town
without guns, the man with a rock is king.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Bruce Mills
: Hey Bruce, watch your attributions.
: I didn't write anything in this post.
Jeeze I'm sorry, OK?
Don't get your kickers in a knot.
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
Where in the US dearie? The point of the example is geographic variables with and
with out guns. Nice slimy trick though. Might have fooled a 6th grader.
>there is a rape every 7 seconds
Usually aquaintance rape though.....kind of hard to get to that gun in the drawer
that you didn't think to have close when you invited your friend up for a coffee.
> , and a murder
>every 30 minutes.
Where dearie, you know, the argument the poster was making, without this typical
slimey socialist gun grabber nonsense. Keep the argument what the post was
presenting, not what you want to present ignoring the variable already presented,
or get honest and admit you aren't going to include geographical/guns present or
not.
> They have ,by far, the highest homicide rate with
>guns in the Industrialized world.
Notice how you just confined us to the industrialized world, and you used the
wonderful weasel word, "homocide", which of course ignores that that designation
always includes justifiables and unavoidables, like suicide, police and civilian
legal defense, and gang banger on gangbanger turf and "honor" shootings.
You are kind of an immoral bitch, aren't you?
>An armed society is not a safe
>society.
An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen. There is no true "safe" society.
There will always be some element of danger, either from individuals, or political
groups. Get used to it.....it's only been around for 10,000 years or so.
>Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>is an unsafe society.
Oversimplification is a naughty, especially when you haven't managed to support
your argument and failed the burden of proof requirement in debate. If you are
going to make claims support them with something other than your obviously biased
and mistaken opinion.
I'll help you out. There is NO data that can support your argument, as it is a
false argument, and untrue argument, and you are either ignorant or a liar. Take
your pick. I know I've taken mine. You are a liar.
>According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
Duh!
>So
>that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
>be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
The political climate has very little to do with anything. The impact of a society
that allows unlimited, unaccounted for ownership of guns, leaves the thugs not
knowing who will kill them if they get out of line. This is way we scream at all
gun resitration schemes. They can and they do result in publically or politically
available lists of gun owners and yes, THAT can result in your claim.........but
you have the wrong victims. It will be the GUN OWNERS THAT ARE TARGETTED BY
GOVERNMENT OR THOSE PRIVY TO THE LISTS.
>>",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
>> a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
>>> >relations."
>
>A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
>according to you, already an unfair system from the outset.
Half? What has the number got to do with your argument?
>I'm
>inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed society is
>not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>safe society.
A lying logic impaired doofus, as though we haven't seen any of these around here
before.
An armed society is a safe society. Go poll your local penitenary and ask the bad
boys how they like mugging and burglary where they can't be reasonably sure their
victims are not armed.
>
>Circe
>
d'geezer
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>In Article <TxtN6.7057$oi1.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>One practical reason is that an armed society is a safe society.
>>Suppose you were a rapist. You're out looking for a victim. For
>>the sake of this example, let's say that there are only two towns
>>>from which to choose. In the first town gun ownership among the
>>residents is very high, in the second town guns are prohibited, and
>>gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is nonexistent.
>>
>>In which town would you seek a female to rape? Remember, although
>>gun ownership is high in the first town, you don't know which women
>>are armed and which are not. In the second town you can be reasonably
>>certain that all the women are unarmed.
>
>But one could ask, why should the citizens of the armed town
>have the right to impose the risk to the citizens of the other
>town?
Their choosing to be armed imposes a risk on those who choose not to be armed?
What a fanciful concept. Logic isn't your strong suite is it?
>Of course the people in the other town could also arm, but would
>the end result be any better than if few were armed?
Immensely. And the best way to arm at all is to not have controls geographically
at all. Let the rapist have to guess who is and isn't armed. It's so mind
clearing. Working the brain draws blood from the penis....hehehe
>Would that
>prevent rapists from raping?
Yes, and in two ways. The smart ones won't take the chance, and a percentage, who
are stupid enough to try anyway, will be shot for their trouble. Tends to decrease
the population of their genetic material.....exactly the effect desired.
>Of course criminals seek the easiest victims but that does not
>mean they stop committing crime when the easiest become a little
>harder.
Crime will never be stopped entirely. There will always be fools, mentally
incompetent, and arrogant criminals...sociopaths. But don't fool yourself, it
doesn't become a "little" harder when a large number of citizens are armed and the
thugs can't figure out who. It gets very hard indeed to victim pick.
>Also the idea of all people being armed is a myth.
You are correct. ON the other hand, who here proposed such a thing? While it might
be nice, and productive, and damn good fun, if all were armed, except
incompetents, it isn't practical. I don't think there are any gun advocates here
that are fools and you just tried to imply there were, by saying something we
don't do is a "myth". Bad form Osmo, bad form indeed. Go to your room without
your supper for such a transparent childish ploy.
>I
>think there are many who simply do not want to live in such a
>mentality of far that they have to carry weapons.
Then there are those that do want folks to live in a mentality of fear (that you
imply) so that they will have an excuse to disarm them. Unfortunatly for you, and
fortunately for us, you are dead wrong. Folks who carry do not live in an
atmosphere of fear.
When I first started carrying CCW there was a bit of tension.....you know, kind of
a new feeling. In time, as I became accustomed to the carry mindset and the actual
feel of a gun on my hip I found that I relaxed. I practice regularly, I have been
trained in the military and in civilian life in on the use of deadly force. I
hardly think of it, just that old martial arts training thing, a state of relaxed
and comfortable readiness.
It's even, if I may share this personal point with you, somewhat meditative. I
find that practicing, carrying, and being in that quiet state of relaxed rediness
grounding and focusing.
And the pay off.......I'm my own person and rely on no others to protect me or
mine. Funny how calming that is.
I sleep a peaceful sleep, as all should who are sensible enough to be prepared.
>
>Osmo
circe
I'm talking homicide rates with guns. I'm not talking suicide rates
or homicide with other weapons. You miss the point of my argument.
The US has the highest homicide rate with guns of the Industrialized
countries.
> Also, the UK is now the highest homicide rate in
>industrialized nations. Singling out just guns is cherry picking your
>statistics.
Wrong! You are obviously basing your statement on the UK on an
alarmist CBS report which used out-of-date facts. One of the facts in
that report compared London with Washington,DC. The truth is that
between 1996 and 1998 2 out of 100,000 people in London were victims
of homicide, and that figure is lower than most Western European
cities. As for Washington, it had the highest rate, which was around
60 people out of 100,000.
> Lets look at suicide rates. Suicide rates with guns are higher in
>the USA than Japan, but the total suicide rates in Japan is something
>like four times the USA rate. Which statistic is more accurate about
>suicide? >
The suicide rate is irrelevant to my argument. I'm talking about
people inflicting harm on other people in a society with the use of
guns.
> Back to the USA. Now lets look at those homicide rates. When
>your break them down further, you find that the highest rates of
>homicide are in the cities, and disproportionally in the poorest parts
>of the cities. Lets look and see what the gun laws are in those high
>homicide rate area's are.
> Hmmm..... I see a very high correlation between high homicide
>rates and strict gun control. HUD housing projects, Washington,
>NYC, Chicago, LA, and so on.
My argument is not about gun control . It's about a mythical
Libertarian society that advocates the use of guns. I want to know why
they advocate people in their society being armed. I used the US as an
example of an armed society that has the highest gun-related homicide
rate in all of the Industrialized countries as an example. There's
nothing wrong with that statistic. Besides, what gun control is there
in the US. Guns are not even registered, And that should be
imperative.
>...t the highest rates of
>homicide are in the cities, and disproportionally in the poorest parts
>of the cities. Lets look and see what the gun laws are in those high
>homicide rate area's are.
> Hmmm..... I see a very high correlation between high homicide
>rates and strict gun control. HUD housing projects, Washington,
>NYC, Chicago, LA, and so on.
I'm sure the other 29 industrialized countries see similar
correlations. It doesn't alter the fact that the gun -related
homicide rate in the US is higher than any other Industrial country,
and that includes Northern Ireland and Israel. Every two years guns
kill more Americans than died in the Vietnam war.
> Now I also see a high correlation
>between high homicide rates and low per capita income. Causation,
>I don't know, but sure seems possible to me. Lots of other factors
>come into play as well, discrimination, education, culture, and so on.
>
I'm talking plain statistics, gun-related homicide, and the US loses
out among the 29 countries I mentioned. Of course other factors pay a
role, but if guns were not so easily available the story would be
quite different. As well as homicides, talk to doctors in emergency
rooms about the large amount of debilitating gun shot wounds they have
to deal with every day, and the cost to the system. The cost of the
mayhem caused by guns in the US runs into the tens of billions of
dollars.
>> Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>> is an unsafe society.
>>
> You draw a conclusion unsupported by your argument.
You don't seem to know what my argument was..
>
>> According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>> without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns. So
>> that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
>> be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
>>
>> >",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
>> > a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
>> >> >relations."
>>
>> A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
>> according to you, already an unfair system from the outset. I'm
>> inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed society is
>> not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>> safe society.
>>
>> Circe
>
>There you go again, restating an unsupported conclusion. I do hope
>that you exhibited better when you were in your debate class in
>school.
>Dale
They were probably a little better than your skills of analysis and
criticism that you are exhibiting now.
My conclusion in this instance was based on commonsense. The unarmed
people of the US must often feel very uneasy knowing that more than
half of the population is armed. Another factor in this is that
having an armed population, an armed police force, and an armed
criminal element of the population puts your police force in an
untenable position. When the police go out on a case they 're up
against criminals who are armed and a population that is heavily
armed. You can't blame them if they draw their guns too fast
sometimes. From their perspective everybody and his dog has a gun.
They cannot afford to be lax.
circe
circe
This is a hypothetical situation which does not exist in real life,
There is no purpose in answering it.
With one rape every seven seconds in the US I doubt that your rapist
is gonna hang around and worry about which house has a gun or not.
>
>In which town would you seek a female to rape?
>
>> The US is an armed population. more than 80 million households have
>> guns. Yet in the US there is a rape every 7 seconds ,
>
>Read this:
>
>http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/02/20/editorial_opinions/oo0220/
>
>>and a murder every 30 minutes. They have ,by far, the highest
>> homicide rate with guns in the Industrialized world. An armed
>> society is not a safe society.
>>
>> Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>> is an unsafe society.
>
>Sorry, but that conclusion is false.
No it's not. Not all people will be armed. I gave a REAL example, the
US where 80 million homes have guns, You have clearly stated that the
unnarmed people in such a society are far more likely to be the
victims. We also know that the US has the highest rate of gun-related
homicides out of the 29 Industrialized countries. My conclusion is
therefore that a society that has a sizeable armed population is an
unsafe society.
>Let's look at two extremes; widespread gun ownership
>versus gun prohibition:
>
>In town A:
>
>Every law-abiding citizen has a gun.
>Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
>
>In town B:
>
>No law-abiding citizen has a gun.
>Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
>
>The criminal, by definition, does not obey gun control laws.
>Criminals love gun control laws, and the more violent the
>criminal, the more he loves gun control. For the criminal,
>gun control equals victim disarmament.
You are making such massive assumptions here that I cannot take you
seriously.
>
>Town B is a criminal's paradise. Town B contains
>nothing but potential victims who lack the means of
>effective self-defense.
>
>What more could a criminal ask for?
These are hypothethical situations which in no way reflect the way
society is set up. But your hypothetical situations show that you
firmly believe that people without guns are at a great disadvantage
in society, which substantiates my statement that a society in which
a large portion of its citizens own guns, is an unfair society. It
does nothing to add to the daily happiness and well-being of the
non-gun owners. If we look again at the US we see that it makes
victims of many of their women and children . In fact , the rate of
firearm deaths among children aged 14 and under is nearly 12 times
higher than among children in the other industrialized countries.
>> According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>> without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
>
>Yes, I think it's safe to say that a criminal will always choose a
>weaker victim over a stronger one or an unarmed victim over an
>armed one.
>IOW, a mugger is more likely to rob an old lady rather than
>Mike Tyson, even if Iron Mike is carrying 1000 times the
>amount of cash.
I'm sure you 're right when it's out on the street and the old lady is
seen to be defenceless.
>>So that in a Libertarian society where some people have
>> no guns they will be the more likely target of criminals.
>
>If the criminal knows who is armed and who isn't.
>He usually won't.
>
>> Chris stated that :
>>
>> >",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
>> > a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
>> >> >relations."
>>
>> A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
>> according to you, already an unfair system from the outset.
>
>I never said or implied that.
Following is a strong enough implication for me, I quote:
>Town B is a criminal's paradise. Town B contains
>nothing but potential victims who lack the means of
>effective self-defense.
>
>What more could a criminal ask for?
>Cecil
All of your hypothetical statements reflect this strong assumption
that unnarmed people are at an unfair disadvantage in a society where
a large segment of the population have guns.
>>I'm inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed
>> society is not a safe society.
>
>I see. A point I didn't make further proves a
>false conclusion of your own. Interesting.
Perhaps I should amend that statement to "The point further proves
that an armed society is not a safe society for those in that society
who are unnarmed". You have to agree with that because that's what
you've been saying all through this post. And the unnarmed are
invariably the women and the children. You male gunslingers have a
lot to answer for for allowing the situation to continue as it is in
the US.
From that statement, along with the statistics I gave I draw the very
valid conclusion that an armed society is not a safe society.
>>Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>> safe society.
>
>You're drawing a lot of conclusions, but they're not
>based on any sort of reasoning.
That's your conclusion, Cecil, based on a whole bunch of unrealistic
hypothetical ploys.
BTW, my intention was not to be in a huge discussion on gun control
I'm more interested in Libertarianism being a dangerous philosophy.
So I doubt I'll be continuing with gun arguments. I
circe
"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really
free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities" Lord Acton
The History of Freedom in Antiquity
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:45:30 -0400, Dale Farmer <Da...@cybercom.net>
>wrote:
>>the breakdowns.
>
>I'm talking homicide rates with guns.
Then you're talking nonsense. Because the damage done by a homicide is
the same regardless of weapon.
If you want to discuss homicide rates, regardless of means, or suicide
rates, regardless of means, then you will be discussing something of
relevence.
But homicide with guns? As a measure of societal problems, it's about
as meaningful as homicides by people wearing plaid.
>Wrong! You are obviously basing your statement on the UK on an
>alarmist CBS report which used out-of-date facts. One of the facts in
>that report compared London with Washington,DC. The truth is that
>between 1996 and 1998 2 out of 100,000 people in London were victims
>of homicide, and that figure is lower than most Western European
>cities. As for Washington, it had the highest rate, which was around
>60 people out of 100,000.
Is that from police figures? Or from crime victim surveys?
Police crime figures are always suspect, the UK's more than most.
>The suicide rate is irrelevant to my argument. I'm talking about
>people inflicting harm on other people in a society with the use of
>guns.
So knifings are OK? The hundreds of thousands who were killed in Rwanda
was not a problem because they were killed with machetes?
>My argument is not about gun control . It's about a mythical
>Libertarian society that advocates the use of guns. I want to know why
>they advocate people in their society being armed.
We don't advocate that people be armed, we advocate that they not be
disarmed. People should be able to arm as they choose.
>Besides, what gun control is there
>in the US.
Don't you think you might have researched this, before forming your
opinions?
>Guns are not even registered, And that should be
>imperative.
For what purpose? It costs a great deal, and doesn't effect crime in
the slightest.
>I'm sure the other 29 industrialized countries see similar
>correlations. It doesn't alter the fact that the gun -related
>homicide rate in the US is higher than any other Industrial country,
>and that includes Northern Ireland and Israel. Every two years guns
>kill more Americans than died in the Vietnam war.
Odd. I've never seen a gun kill anyone.
Let's check the Smith&Wesson cam:
http://209.25.215.117/gun/guns_watch.html
Nope. It's not killed anyone yet.
>I'm talking plain statistics, gun-related homicide, and the US loses
>out among the 29 countries I mentioned. Of course other factors pay a
>role, but if guns were not so easily available the story would be
>quite different.
Actually, it's easy enough to understand how someone who was ignorant of
the issue would believe that, but the preponderance of the evidence is that
you are simply wrong.
>As well as homicides, talk to doctors in emergency
>rooms about the large amount of debilitating gun shot wounds they have
>to deal with every day, and the cost to the system. The cost of the
>mayhem caused by guns in the US runs into the tens of billions of
>dollars.
And the cost of mayhem prevented by guns in the US is three-to-five
times higher.
>My conclusion in this instance was based on commonsense. The unarmed
>people of the US must often feel very uneasy knowing that more than
>half of the population is armed.
Yes? And we should pander to their irrational fears and prejudices?
>Another factor in this is that
>having an armed population, an armed police force, and an armed
>criminal element of the population puts your police force in an
>untenable position. When the police go out on a case they 're up
>against criminals who are armed and a population that is heavily
>armed. You can't blame them if they draw their guns too fast
>sometimes. From their perspective everybody and his dog has a gun.
>They cannot afford to be lax.
No police can afford to be lax. The criminals will always have guns,
if they choose.
--
Windows2000 - from the people who brought you edlin.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 15:29:32 GMT, "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>With one rape every seven seconds in the US I doubt that your rapist
>is gonna hang around and worry about which house has a gun or not.
I'm confused as to why you are assoring rapists with guns. Rapists
rarely use weapons of any kind.
>>Sorry, but that conclusion is false.
>
>No it's not. Not all people will be armed. I gave a REAL example, the
>US where 80 million homes have guns, You have clearly stated that the
>unnarmed people in such a society are far more likely to be the
>victims. We also know that the US has the highest rate of gun-related
>homicides out of the 29 Industrialized countries. My conclusion is
>therefore that a society that has a sizeable armed population is an
>unsafe society.
Your conclusion is based on? There are and have been peaceful societies
that were armed, and violent societies that that were armed, and peaceful
societies that were unarmed, and violent likewise.
>>The criminal, by definition, does not obey gun control laws.
>>Criminals love gun control laws, and the more violent the
>>criminal, the more he loves gun control. For the criminal,
>>gun control equals victim disarmament.
>
>You are making such massive assumptions here that I cannot take you
>seriously.
And you aren't?
>All of your hypothetical statements reflect this strong assumption
>that unnarmed people are at an unfair disadvantage in a society where
>a large segment of the population have guns.
They aren't at a disadvantage to the law-abiding citizens. In fact,
because they are benefiting from the deterrent effects of the law-abiding
citizens without paying the burden in cost, time, and care, of carrying
themselves, they are at an advantage with respect to the law-abiding
citizens.
They are at a disadvantage to the violent criminals, of course.
But then, that's true whether half of the law-abiding is disarmed or
all of them are.
>>>I'm inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed
>>> society is not a safe society.
>>
>>I see. A point I didn't make further proves a
>>false conclusion of your own. Interesting.
>
>Perhaps I should amend that statement to "The point further proves
>that an armed society is not a safe society for those in that society
>who are unnarmed".
No society is a safe society for those who are unarmed.
>You have to agree with that because that's what
>you've been saying all through this post. And the unnarmed are
>invariably the women and the children.
Actually, according to some surveys, a larger proportion of women carry
for self-defense than do men. Which is understandable. They are more
vulnerable to crime.
>You male gunslingers have a
>lot to answer for for allowing the situation to continue as it is in
>the US.
Actually, I'd place the blame on those blind do-gooders who've been
trying to convince people that self-defense is a bad idea.
--
You'd think that after all this time
I would have dreamed up a really clever .sig!
Michael Dix
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:45:30 -0400, Dale Farmer <Da...@cybercom.net>
> wrote:
> >>circe wrote:
> >> The US is an armed population. more than 80 million households have
> >> guns. Yet in the US there is a rape every 7 seconds , and a murder
> >> every 30 minutes. They have ,by far, the highest homicide rate with
> >> guns in the Industrialized world. An armed society is not a safe
> >> society.
> >>
> > Your logic is fallacious. What are the total rates. Then go look at
> >the breakdowns.
>
> I'm talking homicide rates with guns. I'm not talking suicide rates
> or homicide with other weapons. You miss the point of my argument.
There is no point to your argument. Dead is dead. You're just as
dead if you were stabbed to death or beaten to death with a
baseball bat.
> The US has the highest homicide rate with guns of the Industrialized
> countries.
When this was true, we also had the highest homicide rate *without*
guns of the industrialized nations.
Industrialization != civilization.
>
> > Also, the UK is now the highest homicide rate in
> >industrialized nations. Singling out just guns is cherry picking your
> >statistics.
>
> Wrong! You are obviously basing your statement on the UK on an
> alarmist CBS report which used out-of-date facts. One of the facts in
> that report compared London with Washington,DC. The truth is that
> between 1996 and 1998 2 out of 100,000 people in London were victims
> of homicide, and that figure is lower than most Western European
> cities. As for Washington, it had the highest rate, which was around
> 60 people out of 100,000.
London and DC are *cities*. The US and UK are *countries*.
>
> > Lets look at suicide rates. Suicide rates with guns are higher in
> >the USA than Japan, but the total suicide rates in Japan is something
> >like four times the USA rate. Which statistic is more accurate about
> >suicide? >
>
> The suicide rate is irrelevant to my argument. I'm talking about
> people inflicting harm on other people in a society with the use of
> guns.
Why this obsession with guns? Have you discussed this with
a competent therapist? (It might be that old penile thing,
don'cha know.)
>
> > Back to the USA. Now lets look at those homicide rates. When
> >your break them down further, you find that the highest rates of
> >homicide are in the cities, and disproportionally in the poorest parts
> >of the cities. Lets look and see what the gun laws are in those high
> >homicide rate area's are.
> > Hmmm..... I see a very high correlation between high homicide
> >rates and strict gun control. HUD housing projects, Washington,
> >NYC, Chicago, LA, and so on.
>
> My argument is not about gun control . It's about a mythical
> Libertarian society that advocates the use of guns. I want to know why
> they advocate people in their society being armed. I used the US as an
> example of an armed society that has the highest gun-related homicide
> rate in all of the Industrialized countries as an example. There's
> nothing wrong with that statistic. Besides, what gun control is there
> in the US. Guns are not even registered, And that should be
> imperative.
How is it necessary to have a list of guns? This shows an
unhealthy obsession with what your neighbors are doing. Add
OCD to the list of topics to discuss with your therapist.
It may help if you simply assume that *everyone* is armed.
>
> >...t the highest rates of
> >homicide are in the cities, and disproportionally in the poorest parts
> >of the cities. Lets look and see what the gun laws are in those high
> >homicide rate area's are.
> > Hmmm..... I see a very high correlation between high homicide
> >rates and strict gun control. HUD housing projects, Washington,
> >NYC, Chicago, LA, and so on.
>
> I'm sure the other 29 industrialized countries see similar
> correlations. It doesn't alter the fact that the gun -related
> homicide rate in the US is higher than any other Industrial country,
> and that includes Northern Ireland and Israel. Every two years guns
> kill more Americans than died in the Vietnam war.
Now we're leaving the rational world. Guns are inanimate
objects. They must be operated by human beings. I believe
your belief is called "animism".
>
> > Now I also see a high correlation
> >between high homicide rates and low per capita income. Causation,
> >I don't know, but sure seems possible to me. Lots of other factors
> >come into play as well, discrimination, education, culture, and so on.
> >
> I'm talking plain statistics, gun-related homicide, and the US loses
> out among the 29 countries I mentioned. Of course other factors pay a
> role, but if guns were not so easily available the story would be
> quite different.
Again, homicide is homicide. The male homicide rate in Mexico,
with strict gun control, is twice that in the US, with
too much gun control for me but not enough for you. The
US is a lot more like Mexico than it is like Germany - or
even Canada.
Also, how would you propose to make guns less available? Do you
have a gun-disintegrator ray? With some 250 million guns
in circulation, they will continue to be available.
> As well as homicides, talk to doctors in emergency
> rooms about the large amount of debilitating gun shot wounds they have
> to deal with every day, and the cost to the system. The cost of the
> mayhem caused by guns in the US runs into the tens of billions of
> dollars.
Here's that animism again.
Why? They're free to arm themselves if they wish.
> Another factor in this is that
> having an armed population, an armed police force, and an armed
> criminal element of the population puts your police force in an
> untenable position. When the police go out on a case they 're up
> against criminals who are armed and a population that is heavily
> armed. You can't blame them if they draw their guns too fast
> sometimes. From their perspective everybody and his dog has a gun.
> They cannot afford to be lax.
So it's OK for cops in plainclothes to fire 41 shots at black
men holding their wallets out in front of them.
Bilbo Baggins
circe wrote in message <3b073dd9.39028334@news>...
fgfg
American children drown at home in buckets of water, basthtubs and swimming
pools than do by gun missuse. More American children were hurt and killed on
shiny chrome plated skooters in 2000 than in 1999. Why? Because the shiny
chrome plated scooters became super popular in 2000.
" If we look again at the US" Who the fuck is "we"?
In town A: Make that state A: Examples; Texas, Florida, Virginia
Town A: Alexandria, Virginia
"Every law-abiding citizen has a gun.
Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun."
In town B: State B: California
Town B: Washington, D.C.
"No law-abiding citizen has a gun.
Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun. "
"We" had better get your fucking heads out of your asses. If you are not an
American, we Amerixcans do not give a flying fuck how you see the US. If you
are an American, I do not give a flying fuck what you "think".
-*MORT*-
Bilbo Baggins
circe wrote in message <3b073a9d.38200018@news>...
No one cares what a Brit thinks. You do not live here. If you did, you could
not do much. The only way to change our law is to hjave a constitutional
amendment. That requires a 2/3rds vote in congess, followed by a national
referendum where EVERYONE gets to vote.
Won't happen.
-*MORT*-
Cecil
Yes, that's why it's "hypothetical".
> There is no purpose in answering it.
Of course.
> With one rape every seven seconds in the US I doubt that your rapist
> is gonna hang around and worry about which house has a gun or not.
> >
> >In which town would you seek a female to rape?
> >
> >> The US is an armed population. more than 80 million households have
> >> guns. Yet in the US there is a rape every 7 seconds ,
> >
> >Read this:
> >
> >http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/02/20/editorial_opinions/oo0220/
> >
> >>and a murder every 30 minutes. They have ,by far, the highest
> >> homicide rate with guns in the Industrialized world. An armed
> >> society is not a safe society.
> >>
> >> Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
> >> is an unsafe society.
> >
> >Sorry, but that conclusion is false.
>
> No it's not. Not all people will be armed. I gave a REAL example, the
> US where 80 million homes have guns, You have clearly stated that the
> unnarmed people in such a society are far more likely to be the
> victims. We also know that the US has the highest rate of gun-related
> homicides out of the 29 Industrialized countries.
>
>
> My conclusion is therefore that a society that has a sizeable
> armed population is an unsafe society.
For me to disprove your above conclusion, I only need to
present one society that has a sizable armed population
which also has a low crime rate:
"In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to
ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-
Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban,
whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland,
all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep
them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded
that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
"For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf,
however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see
shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a
Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on
hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and
young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their
shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police
station and no one bats an eye."
"Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the
police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the
backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists
in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the
safest places to be."
Excerpted from _Armed to the Teeth, and Free_
By Stephen P. Halbrook
> >Let's look at two extremes; widespread gun ownership
> >versus gun prohibition:
> >
> >In town A:
> >
> >Every law-abiding citizen has a gun.
> >Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
> >
> >In town B:
> >
> >No law-abiding citizen has a gun.
> >Every criminal that wants a gun, has a gun.
> >
> >The criminal, by definition, does not obey gun control laws.
> >Criminals love gun control laws, and the more violent the
> >criminal, the more he loves gun control. For the criminal,
> >gun control equals victim disarmament.
>
> You are making such massive assumptions here that I cannot take you
> seriously.
Let's examine them. I'll list them below:
1) The criminal, by definition, does not obey gun control laws.
For this assumption to be false, criminals would have to obey
gun control laws. Do you believe criminals obey gun control
laws? I don't.
2) Criminals love gun control laws, and the more violent the
criminal, the more he loves gun control.
The question here is does a criminal prefer an armed victim
or an unarmed victim. I find it hard to believe that you think
a violent criminal would prefer that his victim be armed.
3) For the criminal, gun control equals victim disarmament.
This claim is based on assumption 1. If you believe assumption
1 is false, say why.
> >Town B is a criminal's paradise. Town B contains
> >nothing but potential victims who lack the means of
> >effective self-defense.
> >
> >What more could a criminal ask for?
>
> These are hypothethical situations which in no way reflect the way
> society is set up. But your hypothetical situations show that you
> firmly believe that people without guns are at a great disadvantage
> in society, which substantiates my statement that a society in which
> a large portion of its citizens own guns, is an unfair society.
No. I believe that as gun ownership rates among the law-abiding
rise in a given area, life gets more difficult for a criminal bent on
harming innocent people.
It's really just common sense.
> It does nothing to add to the daily happiness and well-being of the
> non-gun owners. If we look again at the US we see that it makes
> victims of many of their women and children . In fact , the rate of
> firearm deaths among children aged 14 and under is nearly 12 times
> higher than among children in the other industrialized countries.
>
> >> According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
> >> without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
> >
> >Yes, I think it's safe to say that a criminal will always choose a
> >weaker victim over a stronger one or an unarmed victim over an
> >armed one.
>
> >IOW, a mugger is more likely to rob an old lady rather than
> >Mike Tyson, even if Iron Mike is carrying 1000 times the
> >amount of cash.
>
> I'm sure you 're right when it's out on the street and the old lady is
> seen to be defenceless.
Let's say the old lady has a handgun and knows how to
use it. Is she defenseless now?
> >>So that in a Libertarian society where some people have
> >> no guns they will be the more likely target of criminals.
> >
> >If the criminal knows who is armed and who isn't.
> >He usually won't.
> >
> >> Chris stated that :
> >>
> >> >",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society)
is
> >> > a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
> >> >> >relations."
> >>
> >> A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
> >> according to you, already an unfair system from the outset.
> >
> >I never said or implied that.
>
> Following is a strong enough implication for me, I quote:
>
> >Town B is a criminal's paradise. Town B contains
> >nothing but potential victims who lack the means of
> >effective self-defense.
> >
> >What more could a criminal ask for?
> >Cecil
>
> All of your hypothetical statements reflect this strong assumption
> that unnarmed people are at an unfair disadvantage in a society where
> a large segment of the population have guns.
No. Here is my claim (again):
I believe that as gun ownership rates among the law-abiding
rise in a given area, life gets more difficult for a criminal bent on
harming innocent people.
> >>I'm inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed
> >> society is not a safe society.
> >
> >I see. A point I didn't make further proves a
> >false conclusion of your own. Interesting.
>
> Perhaps I should amend that statement to "The point further proves
> that an armed society is not a safe society for those in that society
> who are unnarmed". You have to agree with that because that's what
> you've been saying all through this post. And the unnarmed are
> invariably the women and the children.
>
> You male gunslingers
I don't own any guns.
>have a lot to answer for for allowing the situation to continue as it is in
> the US.
>
> From that statement, along with the statistics I gave I draw the very
> valid conclusion that an armed society is not a safe society.
>
> >>Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
> >> safe society.
> >
> >You're drawing a lot of conclusions, but they're not
> >based on any sort of reasoning.
>
> That's your conclusion, Cecil, based on a whole bunch of unrealistic
> hypothetical ploys.
>
> BTW, my intention was not to be in a huge discussion on gun control
> I'm more interested in Libertarianism being a dangerous philosophy.
Yes, liberty is "dangerous".
Let me guess: you're a socialist.
circe
Mills) wrote:
>Cecil (no...@nowhere.com) wrote:
>>"circe" wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
>> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
>> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
>> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
>> >
>> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
>> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
>> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
>> >
>> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society)
>> >is a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from
>> >human relations. That's it.
>>
>> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
>> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
>> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
>> you for arming citizens in society.
>
>While I think we would all agree that such a society is an admirable goal
>towards which we should strive, I don't think anyone would disagree that
>it will be a long time in coming, if ever.
With the right kind of attitude and approach it could be a great deal
better than it is now. Many other countries do not have armed
populations like the US. There is no need for any population to be
saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
situation.
>
>There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
>man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will seek
>to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
>have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
>disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
are left at the mercy of these thugs. And to allow such guns as high
capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
military sniper rifles is obscene. It seems to me it's a population
out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
etc.
>Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there will
>always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
>individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
>their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
>be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
>most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
>to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his criminal
>action.
Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
without any defence. And why does a population need to be saturated
with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
violence in a society. BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
individual to defend themselves.
Apart from the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
were calculated to be 1,441 per 100,000 in the US, but only 84 in
Switzerland, 63 in canada, and only 8 in Britain. As well, every
single day 14 children are killed and 56 wounded by firearms. Most
murders are committed by family members or friends. I think it's not
criminals you have to worry about. YOU are the enemy. You macho men
who support an armed population.
>
>Criminals are not entirely stupid; they most often pick and choose their
>victims, and the time and place of their crimes, so as to minimize the
>risk to themsleves. They prey on the apparently weak, and commit their
>crimes in the absence of police officers who might intervene. There have
>been court cases to show that it is not the police's responsibility to
>protect any given individual; they are there to protect the public peace.
>More often than not, the only person present who will defend you is
>*yourself*. If you can't do it, who will?
If criminals prey on the weak why is it that over 70% of homicide
victims are men and boys. But there is no doubt the weak in society
are vulnerable. It's the women and children and the old who
represent the weak in sociey, many of them living without the support
of a man, and not enough money or knowledge to buy and use a gun .It's
not a level defensive playing field. There is a better way. Most
Industrialized countries don't arm their populations and they don't
have the same problems with violence.
>It has been shown that in areas where concealed carry permits are issued,
>the instance of confrontational crime in those areas goes down. It has
>been shown that even such "sensible" gun control laws as waiting periods,
>have resulted in the deaths of innocent people who might otherwise have
>had the means with which to defend themselves.
Bollocks! Balderdash and bunkum!!! The FBI Uniform Crime Reports from
1997 to 1998 says that the nation's overall crime rate dropped 6.4%
from 4930 to 4615 crimes per 100,000 population. Crime fell faster in
states that have strict CCW (carrying concealed weapons) laws than in
states which have lax CCW laws.
>Despite all the anit-gun propaganda, it remains that guns are a net benfit
>to society.
The more guns, the more crime. Enough studies have been done to bring
this very simple fact home.
>Anyone who wants one, should be able to acquire one.
>Bruce
Which anyone can do easily, even kids! Why are guns exempt from
federal product health and safety law????? And why does the NRA fight
to keep it that way.
Circe
circe
>>"circe" <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message
>> My conclusion is therefore that a society that has a sizeable
>> armed population is an unsafe society.
>
>For me to disprove your above conclusion, I only need to
>present one society that has a sizable armed population
>which also has a low crime rate:
>
>"In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to
>ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-
>Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban,
>whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland,
>all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep
>them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded
>that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
>
>"For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf,
>however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see
>shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a
>Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on
>hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and
>young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their
>shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police
>station and no one bats an eye."
Oh, ye of little knowledge. Git thee out of your four walls and
travel. If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
of their military system.
Although the Swiss have no regular army , almost all the men receive
miltiary training yearly. They keep their weapons and uniforms at home
so they can be called up quickly in an emergency Local markmanshiip
contests are held frequently. from age 21 to 32 a Swiss man serves as
a 'frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year to
continued training. From age 33 to 42 he serves in the Landwehr
(National Guard). Every few years, he reports for two-week training
periods. From 43 to 50 he serves in the Lansturm; in this period he
only spends 13 days total in home guard courses. Almost all Swiss
males are part of their military. They're a tiny country with a
European history .
Firearm ownership in Switzerland is 42,857 per 100,000 of the
population whereas in the US it is 85,385 per 100,000. Japan 414.
The Swiss are a very small country living among other small countries
and they are ready to mobilize at a moment's notice if there is an
outside threat. And that's the difference. They are armed against
an outside threat as well as to respond to emergency situations in
Switzerland. That's why their domestic murder rates are so very low
compared to the US's horrendous ones. The US turns its guns upon each
other.
Circe
circe
wrote:
>circe wrote in message <3b073dd9.39028334@news>...
>...If we look again at the US we see that it makes
>>victims of many of their women and children . In fact , the rate of
>>firearm deaths among children aged 14 and under is nearly 12 times
>>higher than among children in the other industrialized countries.
>>
> The rate of death among American children by drowning is higher. More
>American children drown at home in buckets of water, basthtubs and swimming
>pools than do by gun missuse.
Because children are exposed to water in their every day life. There
is no need for children to be exposed to guns.
>More American children were hurt and killed on
>shiny chrome plated skooters in 2000 than in 1999. Why? Because the shiny
>chrome plated scooters became super popular in 2000.
And millions of children across the US got them. Thank god they were
covered by consumer protection regulations otherwise that accident
rate would have been so much higher. . Firearms, on the other hand,
are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations, thanks to
that obscene organization the NRA.
>" If we look again at the US" Who the fuck is "we"?
I see we have another of those far right isolationist, protectionist
Americans here. I didn't ask you to be involved in this discussion so
butt out if you feel inclined. BTW I didn't even ask for this
discussion. I was in the middle of a nice little Libertarian
discussion with Chris and then POW!! I've got the whole bloody NRA on
my back!!!
Circe
Cecil
[...]
> BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
> individual to defend themselves.
Here it is, at last. The shibboleth that positively
identifies the irrational, reasonless gun hater.
But gun haters don't just hate guns, they also
hate human beings. They _literally_ would
rather see a woman raped, beaten and murdered,
than to allow her an effective means of self-defense.
Cecil
You wrote this:
"My conclusion is therefore that a society that has a sizeable
armed population is an unsafe society."
Your conclusion is false. You may continue to believe
it if you wish. It is false nonetheless.
circe
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
>An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
An armed population is an atrocity that's happened and is continuing
to happen,dearie! Every two years guns kill more Americans than were
killed in Vietnam. Firearm injuries are now the second leading cause
of injury-deaths nationwide, surpassed only by motor vehicle injuries.
Each year an estimated $2.3 billion is spent on medical care for the
nation's gunshot victims. Almost half that sum is paid by US
taxpayers. (JAMA August,1999) America is a nation at war with itself
because of people like you.
>There is no true "safe" society.
>There will always be some element of danger, either from individuals, or political
>groups. Get used to it.....it's only been around for 10,000 years or so.
Tell us something we know. But populations of civilized countries
don't have an armed population of individuals like the US.
>>Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>>is an unsafe society.
>
>Oversimplification is a naughty, especially when you haven't managed to support
>your argument and failed the burden of proof requirement in debate. If you are
>going to make claims support them with something other than your obviously biased
>and mistaken opinion.
The proof is in the pudding. The pudding in this case the US.
Although it's not a Libertarian society it does have an armed
population, A number of studies have been done which support the fact
that more guns equate with more crime, not to mention accidents.
Accidents with firearms were calculated at the rate of 1,441 per
100,000 in the US,84 in Switzerland, 63 in Canada. but only 8 in
Britain. Of the total homicides among children in the world 73% occur
among US children, and for every child killed four more are wounded.
Gunshot deaths and accidents are a way of life in the US, and the
number of anti -gun groups seems to be growing by the minute, very
prestigious groups, I might add, dearie.
>I'll help you out. There is NO data that can support your argument, as it is a
>false argument, and untrue argument, and you are either ignorant or a liar. Take
>your pick. I know I've taken mine. You are a liar.
Aha! Another one of these far right wing name callers. Git yourself
together , dearie, and do a bit of traveling,and reading to get some
perspective on your twisted support of a country armed to the teeth
to hurt the individuals in that country. Unlike Switzerland
individuals are not armed against an outside threat. They're armed to
kill each other. Under Baby Bush it seems your government is
following in your footsteps.
>>According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>>without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
>
>Duh!
>>that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
>>be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
>
>The political climate has very little to do with anything. The impact of a society
>that allows unlimited, unaccounted for ownership of guns, leaves the thugs not
>knowing who will kill them if they get out of line.
You should have a well organized police force like other civilized
societies. Your police are in an untenable position. When they go
out on a call they know they don't just have to contend with armed
criminals but an armed population as well. So naturally their fingers
are always on the trigger. How can a police force be effective when
their population is armed often better than they are. You might also
clean up your justice system
It's not always the thugs who do the killing. It's often family
members and friends. Out of 34,040 American firearm deaths in 1996
only 212 were justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.
Your guns kill tens of thousands more people than they save, and many
of those are children. You should be ashamed of yourself, weenie.
>This is way we scream at all
>gun resitration schemes.
What's a resitration scheme, weenie,luv!;-)
>They can and they do result in publically or politically
>available lists of gun owners and yes, THAT can result in your claim.........but
>you have the wrong victims. It will be the GUN OWNERS THAT ARE TARGETTED BY
>GOVERNMENT OR THOSE PRIVY TO THE LISTS.
That's because you and your ilk don't seem to have the wherewithal to
rationalize a scheme from the registering of guns. You are so hell
bent on keeping those guns .You seem to think it's your right
according to the second amendment. What a load of tripe, if you don't
mind me saying so, dearie.
>This point further proves that an armed society is
>>not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>>safe society.
>
>A lying logic impaired doofus, as though we haven't seen any of these around here
>before.
Watch it ,weenie! You're projecting your own deficiencies onto me
again. Naughty! Naughty!
>
>An armed society is a safe society. Go poll your local penitenary and ask the bad
>boys how they like mugging and burglary where they can't be reasonably sure their
>victims are not armed.
What's wrong with a non-gun owner putting up a sticker on their window
saying, "This house is armed" Your trouble is, dearie, you have
absolutely no creativity. Oh, and you don't read enough.
Circe
circe
Dege) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 05:01:20 GMT, circe <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 19 May 2001 15:29:32 GMT, "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>With one rape every seven seconds in the US I doubt that your rapist
>>is gonna hang around and worry about which house has a gun or not.
>
>I'm confused as to why you are assoring rapists with guns. Rapists
>rarely use weapons of any kind.
>
the previous paragraphs that made this very clear. I don't have time
for this kind of nonsense. See the following paragraphs which you
omitted:
>> >Cecil (none@nowhere) wrote:
>> >One practical reason is that an armed society is a safe society.
>> >Suppose you were a rapist. You're out looking for a victim. For
>> >the sake of this example, let's say that there are only two towns
>> >from which to choose. In the first town gun ownership among the
>> >residents is very high, in the second town guns are prohibited, and
>> >gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is nonexistent.
>> >
>> >In which town would you seek a female to rape? Remember, although
>> >gun ownership is high in the first town, you don't know which women
>> >are armed and which are not. In the second town you can be reasonably
>> >certain that all the women are unarmed.
>> >Cecil
>First, please answer the hypothetical question I posed
>above:
>Cecil
>This is a hypothetical situation which does not exist in real life,
>There is no purpose in answering it.
>With one rape every seven seconds in the US I doubt that your rapist
>is gonna hang around and worry about which house has a gun or not.
Circe
circe
wrote:
It figures! Like many who have poor reading comprehension you have
misread the second amendment. All you need to do, Mortie babe, is to
accept the non-NRA and proper interpretation of the second amendment.
BTW I'm not a Brit.
circe
Michael Eglestone
> Circe wrote:
>
> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
> are left at the mercy of these thugs. And to allow such guns as high
> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
> military sniper rifles is obscene. It seems to me it's a population
> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
> etc.
Circe, I have read the last seven messages you posted, and it is quite
apparent that not only are you way out in left field when it comes to guns
and gun owner, but you also have no desire to hear the truth when it's
presented to you. Your comment about Women not being able to use guns is so
ridiculous that nobody with an ounce of intelligence would hesitate to
laugh in your face. When it comes to your so called (High Power) weapons,
how many actual crimes have been committed with those weapons over the last
10 years? I can tell you for a fact that you can count the number on one
hand. Hundreds of thousands of Americans own those High Power weapons and
they do NOT use them in crimes - never have, never will.
You have a lot of very, very, very slanted and inaccurate information,
Circe. You fool only those who have not taken the time to study the REAL
facts.
Spouting such total nonsense as you have, one can only wonder why you are
in this discussion?
--
"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris.
We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's
not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against.... We're after power
and we mean it .... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One
declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law
abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass
the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--
and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon,
that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier
to deal with."
--Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:40:55 GMT, "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
>wrote:
>>American children drown at home in buckets of water, basthtubs and swimming
>>pools than do by gun missuse.
>
>Because children are exposed to water in their every day life. There
>is no need for children to be exposed to guns.
There's a desperate need for children to be exposed to guns, so they learn
how to be safe around them, and don't pick up the absurd misconceptions
of hysterical fools like you.
>>More American children were hurt and killed on
>>shiny chrome plated skooters in 2000 than in 1999. Why? Because the shiny
>>chrome plated scooters became super popular in 2000.
>
>And millions of children across the US got them. Thank god they were
>covered by consumer protection regulations otherwise that accident
>rate would have been so much higher. . Firearms, on the other hand,
>are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations, thanks to
>that obscene organization the NRA.
Yet another repeat of the nonsense being spouted by Handgun Control.
Firearms were the _first_ product in the US subject to safety standards,
through a standards organization known as SAAMI, the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute.
Firearms weren't subject to the Consumer Products Safety Commission,
because the CPSC had no expertise in it, and because they had already
been subject to a regulatory regime for fifty years before the CPSC had
been created.
--
When a clever man was stupid, he was stupid in a way a man who was
stupid all the time could never hope to match, for the clever man's
stupidity, drawing as it did on so much more knowledge, had a breadth
and depth to it the run-of-the-mill fool found impossible to duplicate.
-- Harry Turtledove
Bruce Mills
: Oh, ye of little knowledge. Git thee out of your four walls and
: travel. If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
: no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
: of their military system.
Then maybe that is the answer: make all American males part of the the
military system.
Bruce
--
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property
of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitary power, they
put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon
absolved from any further obedience,..."
- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690
Bruce Mills
: True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
: Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
: are left at the mercy of these thugs. And to allow such guns as high
: capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
: military sniper rifles is obscene. It seems to me it's a population
: out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
: organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
: Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
: Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
: Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
: etc.
Because they are misguided demagogues who use junk science and
emotionalism to get their point across, rather than real facts.
: BTW it is not the sovereign right of every individual to defend
: themselves.
Bullshit! It is *Your* life, is it not? If it doesn't belong to you, to
whom does it belong? If you don't have the right to defend yourself, who
does? The State? Someone else? The police are not responsible for
defending any given individual, just the public peace.
If you sincerely believe that it is not your sovereign right and
responsibility to defend your own life, then you are truly deluded.
: I think it's notJ criminals you have to worry about. YOU are the
: enemy. You macho men who support an armed population.
This statement, combined with something similar you said in another
article, show your true colours, circe: you are a male basher. This only
goes to show that gun control isn't about crime control, it is about
*male* control. You are betraying your own sisters by denying them easy
access to firearms for their own defense.
You probably believe thta all men are rapists simply because we have a
penis. Well, you are equipped with a vagina, does that make you a
prostitute?
: If criminals prey on the weak why is it that over 70% of homicide
: victims are men and boys.
Maybe because it's men and boys who are largely involved in criminal
activities? The vast majority of homicides are directly related to
criminal activity.
: It's the women and children and the old who represent the weak in
: sociey, many of them living without the support of a man, and not enough
: money or knowledge to buy and use a gun .
You must be severely conflicted, circe. First you say it's the men who
are the problem, and then you complain about women not having the support
of a man. Which is it?
If a woman doesn't have enough money to buy a gun then maybe they should
lower gun prices. It has been shown that those who are most in need
(inner city women), cannot afford one because of restrictions imposed upon
gun ownership. If a woman doesn't have the knowledge on how to use a gun,
then maybe it should be provided to her.
You're not suggesting that women are helpless and stupid and need a big
strong man around to protect her, are you?
: It's not a level defensive playing field.
Why do you think they called Sam Colt's revolver "The Great Equalizer"?
It may not make the playing field entirely level, but it sure goes a long
way to reduce the disparity.
: Bollocks! Balderdash and bunkum!!! The FBI Uniform Crime Reports from
: 1997 to 1998 says that the nation's overall crime rate dropped 6.4%
: from 4930 to 4615 crimes per 100,000 population. Crime fell faster in
: states that have strict CCW (carrying concealed weapons) laws than in
: states which have lax CCW laws.
When crime is already down in states that have lax CCW, it's hard to wring
more crime out of the system, compared to those states where crime was
already higher due to strict CCW laws. I think it's called "diminshed
returns" or something like that.
: The more guns, the more crime. Enough studies have been done to bring
: this very simple fact home.
Try reading Dr. John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; it may not be
intuitively obvious, but that doesn't make it any less true.
: Which anyone can do easily, even kids! Why are guns exempt from
: federal product health and safety law????? And why does the NRA fight
: to keep it that way.
Because it is the inalienable right of every individual to defend
themsleves, by whatever means necessary.
Bruce
--
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages
for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men
because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no
remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of
arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
- Ceasare Beccaria (1764)
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:46:36 GMT, "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>not do much. The only way to change our law is to hjave a constitutional
>>amendment. That requires a 2/3rds vote in congess, followed by a national
>>referendum where EVERYONE gets to vote.
>>Won't happen.
>>-*MORT*-
>
>It figures! Like many who have poor reading comprehension you have
>misread the second amendment. All you need to do, Mortie babe, is to
>accept the non-NRA and proper interpretation of the second amendment.
The non-NRA interpretation has never been accepted in a single Supreme
Court decisions, and has been rejected by the vast majority of legal
scholars who have studied the issue.
The collective-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment was invented
whole-cloth by a group who had done absolutely no research into its roots,
and the series of Appeals Court decisions that hold to it derive back
to an opinion that openly ignores the relevent Supreme Court decision.
--
If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may
be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some
future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have
recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will
have been brought about by despotism.
- Alexis De Toqueville
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>With the right kind of attitude and approach it could be a great deal
>better than it is now. Many other countries do not have armed
>populations like the US. There is no need for any population to be
>saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
>women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
>situation.
Oddly enough, it is the physically weak to whom firearms provide the
greatest benefit.
>True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
>Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
>are left at the mercy of these thugs.
Women and children definitely _can_ use guns, and without them, are left
at the mercy of those thugs.
>And to allow such guns as high
>capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>military sniper rifles is obscene.
It seems to me that it's the idea that any individual might have the
guts to stand up for herself that you find obscene.
>It seems to me it's a population
>out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
>organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
>Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
>Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
>Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
>etc.
And why do you think that the three largest pro-gun groups _each_ has
more members than all of the anti-gun groups put together?
>Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
>without any defence.
Without guns, they certainly are.
>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
>individual to defend themselves.
The right of every individual to defend herself is _the_ most fundamental
right.
It seems you'd prefer a world in which "those people" would just quietly
die, rather than disturbing your repose. Do you blame the victims for
leaving bloodstains, as well?
--
Bicameralism is [...] conducive to gridlock. But there are 6 billion people
on this planet and about 5.7 billion of them would be better off if they
lived under governments more susceptible to gridlock. Gridlock is not
an American problem, it is an American achievement.
- George Will
circe
You don't know your " false and true" from your elbow, Cecil. I did
say "a sizeable populations" and I was referring to individuals in a
society being armed. The US has a police force, militia groups, a
huge military, and an armed popularion of individuals. The Swiss, a
very small country has little or no police force, no army, , but only
higly trained citizens who respond to internal emergencies of all
kinds, and are ready to respond to anything external if the need
arises.
Naughty! Naughty! taking things out of context.
Circe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hartmann Schaffer
> ...
>> or homicide with other weapons. You miss the point of my argument.
>
>There is no point to your argument. Dead is dead. You're just as
>dead if you were stabbed to death or beaten to death with a
>baseball bat.
not necessarily. it could be meaningfull if rates of homicides by other
means are comparable. in this case the gun homicides would be added to
the homicide total. does anybody know?
> ...
--
hs
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
can have national pride" - Schopenhauer
Michael Eglestone
>
> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
> etc.
dgg9
>
> Firearm ownership in Switzerland is 42,857 per 100,000 of the
> population whereas in the US it is 85,385 per 100,000. Japan 414.
Your US number is incorrect. Best estimates are between 50 - 60%. You must
have taken the erroneous step of dividing the US population by the estimated
number of guns in the US. This is of course invalid.
dgg9
"circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
news:3b07fbd7.18142488@news...
> You don't know your " false and true" from your elbow, Cecil. I did
> say "a sizeable populations" and I was referring to individuals in a
> society being armed. The US has a police force, militia groups, a
> huge military, and an armed popularion of individuals. The Swiss, a
> very small country has little or no police force, no army, , but only
> higly trained citizens who respond to internal emergencies of all
> kinds, and are ready to respond to anything external if the need
> arises.
>
> Naughty! Naughty! taking things out of context.
So you are now admitting that the difference is demographic and cultural,
and that it's not just that guns cause crime; in fact, that guns are
irrelevant. In short, you've adopted the pro-gun stance.
Talk about taking things out of context.
Michael Eglestone
License to Kill?:
Careful look at critical study actually backs gun permit holders
By John R. Lott, Jr.
[Originally published in the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 6J]
There has been some confusion over whether people who have permits to carry
concealed handguns are as law-abiding as other Texans. Using the provocative
title "License to Kill," the Violence Policy Center recently released a
report claiming that "those who do carry concealed handguns get into trouble
more often than other Texans."
While there is cause to wonder whether the Violence Policy Center over
reported the number of permit holders arrested, even its own numbers don't
justify that claim. During 1996 and 1997, the first two years that the
concealed handgun law was in effect, 163,096 people were licensed. During
that period, 263 license holders were arrested for felony offenses, and
another 683 were arrested for misdemeanor offenses. By comparison, if permit
holders had been arrested at the same rate as the average adult Texan, they
would have had 731 arrests for violence crimes and 2,202 for property
crimes. Thus, permit holders were about a third as likely to be arrested as
non-permit holders and much less likely to commit serious crimes.
The public's ultimate concern is whether permit holders have used their
concealed handguns improperly. So let's look at some more statistics to
determine that.
During 1996 and 1997, five permit holders were arrested for felonies
involving the "deadly conduct/discharge of a firearm" and another two for
the "deadly conduct/display of a firearm." Those charges were brought in
connection with four deaths. If permit holders had been arrested for murder
at the same rate as other adult Texans, 56 would have been arrested.
Equally important, relying on arrest rates misses an important difference
between permit holders and others who are arrested for murder. While the
vast majority of murder arrests end in conviction, that hasn't been true for
permit holders.
Of the four deaths mentioned, none has resulted in a conviction. In fact,
two so far have been cleared and deemed to have acted in self-defense.
Thirty-five other permit holders were arrested for other felony
"weapon-related offenses," but those involved the unlawful carrying of a
weapon in places such as airports and schools. None of those cases
apparently involved threats but invariably resulted from people who forgot
they had a gun with them.
Overall, the experience in Texas is similar to that in other states. In
Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 through 1997. About
half, 204,700, currently are licensed. Eighty-four people lost their
licenses after using a firearm in the commission of a felony.
So far in Virginia, not a single Virginia permit holder has been involved in
a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in Kentucky, Nevada,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and other states for which
detailed records are available.
In December, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, summed
up the typical reaction of those police officers who opposed the concealed
handgun law before its adoption: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995
because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't
happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.
No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good things about
the citizens who have permits. I am a convert."
Harris County District Attorney John Holmes admitted he is "eating a lot of
crow on this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am
doing it on this."
In a forthcoming book, I find evidence indicating that concealed handgun
laws save lives and reduce the threats that citizens face from rapes,
robberies and assaults. Criminals tend to attack victims whom they perceive
as weak, and guns can offset the differences in strength and serve as an
important deterrent.
People don't even have to carry a permit themselves to benefit. The fact
that criminals can't tell whether a potential victim has a concealed gun
makes them less likely to attack people in general.
Without a doubt, people do bad things with guns, but guns also protect
people when law enforcement officers aren't able to be there.
In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law-abiding
citizens to own guns save lives? Unfortunately, studies like those done by
the Violence Policy Center needlessly scare people and don't move us any
closer to answering that question.
John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime!
dgg9
> On 19 May 2001 19:07:59 GMT, aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce
> Mills) wrote:
> >Cecil (no...@nowhere.com) wrote:
> >>"circe" wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
> >> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
> >> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
> >> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
> >> >
> >> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
> >> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
> >> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
> >> >
> >> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society)
> >> >is a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from
> >> >human relations. That's it.
> >>
> >> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
> >> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
> >> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
> >> you for arming citizens in society.
> >
> >While I think we would all agree that such a society is an admirable goal
> >towards which we should strive, I don't think anyone would disagree that
> >it will be a long time in coming, if ever.
>
> With the right kind of attitude and approach it could be a great deal
> better than it is now. Many other countries do not have armed
> populations like the US.
And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
Curious, that.
> There is no need for any population to be
> saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
> women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
> situation.
On the contrary, women are the primary beneficiaries of handguns for self
defense. A criminal doesn't *need* a gun to attack a woman, and indeed most
rapists do not use guns. Guns are accurately called "equalizers". A 220 lb
rapist targets a 5'2", 105 lb woman. Now, if handguns are removed from this
equation, who profits?
> >
> >There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
> >man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will
seek
> >to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
> >have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
> >disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
>
> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
> are left at the mercy of these thugs.
Sexist claptrap.
>And to allow such guns as high
> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
> military sniper rifles is obscene.
Could you possibly be any more brainwashed by HCI?
>It seems to me it's a population
> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
> etc.
>
Every one characterised by a complete ignorance of firearms.
> >Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there
will
> >always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
> >individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
> >their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
> >be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
> >most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
> >to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his
criminal
> >action.
>
> Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
> without any defence. And why does a population need to be saturated
> with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
> violence in a society.
A cherry picked 13, you can be sure.
>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
> individual to defend themselves.
The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
Of course self defense is the sovereign right of every *organism*, let alone
every human. A theory of rights that does not start with the right to life
is already stillborn.
>
> Apart from the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
> homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
> were calculated to be 1,441 per 100,000 in the US,
Utter nonsense. Do you have a cite for that? Are you claiming there are
over 4 million firearm accidents a year in the US? This embarrassing
statement is what happens when you parrot numbers without reflection of any
sort.
> but only 84 in
> Switzerland, 63 in canada, and only 8 in Britain. As well, every
> single day 14 children are killed and 56 wounded by firearms.
More HCI lies. The vast majority of those "children" are teenage thugs and
gangbangers.
>Most
> murders are committed by family members or friends.
So many lies, so little time. Cite?
>I think it's not
> criminals you have to worry about. YOU are the enemy. You macho men
> who support an armed population.
> >
> >Criminals are not entirely stupid; they most often pick and choose their
> >victims, and the time and place of their crimes, so as to minimize the
> >risk to themsleves. They prey on the apparently weak, and commit their
> >crimes in the absence of police officers who might intervene. There have
> >been court cases to show that it is not the police's responsibility to
> >protect any given individual; they are there to protect the public peace.
> >More often than not, the only person present who will defend you is
> >*yourself*. If you can't do it, who will?
>
> If criminals prey on the weak why is it that over 70% of homicide
> victims are men and boys.
Because there is crime perpetrated against innocent victims, and crime
perpetrated against fellow criminals, courtesy of the Drug War.
> But there is no doubt the weak in society
> are vulnerable. It's the women and children and the old who
> represent the weak in sociey, many of them living without the support
> of a man, and not enough money or knowledge to buy and use a gun .It's
> not a level defensive playing field. There is a better way.
Guns are not expensive, but I would not be opposed to a "gun voucher"
program for the needy.
>Most
> Industrialized countries don't arm their populations and they don't
> have the same problems with violence.
Some do, some don't. Your vapid and incorrect generalization is not
edifying.
>
> >It has been shown that in areas where concealed carry permits are issued,
> >the instance of confrontational crime in those areas goes down. It has
> >been shown that even such "sensible" gun control laws as waiting periods,
> >have resulted in the deaths of innocent people who might otherwise have
> >had the means with which to defend themselves.
>
> Bollocks! Balderdash and bunkum!!! The FBI Uniform Crime Reports from
> 1997 to 1998 says that the nation's overall crime rate dropped 6.4%
> from 4930 to 4615 crimes per 100,000 population. Crime fell faster in
> states that have strict CCW (carrying concealed weapons) laws than in
> states which have lax CCW laws.
Which is another way of lying with statistics. If they fell further it's
because they were crime-ridden to begin with and had farther to fall.
You'll notice that high crime areas have more volatile crime rates.
Curious that you cherrypicked 1997/1998. No new states became Shall Issue
during that time, thus the states that already were CCW could easily have
had their rates fall already.
These are just two possibilities that occur to those that don't simply
parrot HCI lies uncritically.
>
> >Despite all the anit-gun propaganda, it remains that guns are a net
benfit
> >to society.
>
> The more guns, the more crime. Enough studies have been done to bring
> this very simple fact home.
>
Name even one.
> >Anyone who wants one, should be able to acquire one.
> >Bruce
>
> Which anyone can do easily, even kids! Why are guns exempt from
> federal product health and safety law????? And why does the NRA fight
> to keep it that way.
>
You couldn't possibly be more ill-informed. After pharmaceuticals, guns are
the MOST heavily regulated commodity in the US. They're also one of the
safest, too: modern guns almost never fire unless the trigger is pulled.
They do EXACTLY what they are supposed to do -- fire, or not fire, as
desired -- when properly used. But of course anti-gun demogogues don't mean
that when they use the word "safe". What they mean is this: dream up some
arbitrary and useless feature they think a gun *should* have, then, to the
degree that existing guns don't have the senseless ill-conceived feature,
smear guns as "unsafe".
dgg9
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 06:47:03 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
> Dege) wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 May 2001 05:01:20 GMT, circe <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 19 May 2001 15:29:32 GMT, "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>With one rape every seven seconds in the US I doubt that your rapist
> >>is gonna hang around and worry about which house has a gun or not.
> >
> >I'm confused as to why you are assoring rapists with guns. Rapists
> >rarely use weapons of any kind.
> >
> I'm not the one relating rapists to guns as you well know. You omitted
> the previous paragraphs that made this very clear. I don't have time
> for this kind of nonsense. See the following paragraphs which you
> omitted:
You're still eliding the central issue: since a rapist usually has an
insuperable size and strength advantage over his female victim, what EXACTLY
would you have do, without a handgun? Be specific.
Remember, we're talking about gun control, and your specious claim that
removing guns removes crime (foolish, since only about 2/3 of US murders are
committed with guns -- remove the guns and we'd STILL have a higher murder
rate than the countries you're touting as success stories...also foolish
since criminals always get guns, even in the UK.) But let's set aside the
failure of gun control to remove guns from criminal hands. Let's for the
moment indulge in the fantasy that all guns have vanished.
What then is your answer for rape? Or indeed, for ANY crime conducted by
the larger, the stronger, the younger, the more numerous against the weaker,
the female, the eldery, the handicapped, the outnumbered. Your society
returns to the primacy of brute force -- the Dark Ages.
Panhead
> Curious, that.
Well, some do prefer to get sliced, diced, chopped, Tai Kwon
Do'd , and/or blown the hell up.
Who am I to argue with that philosophy?
> > There is no need for any population to be
> > saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
> > women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
> > situation.
>
> On the contrary, women are the primary beneficiaries of handguns for self
> defense. A criminal doesn't *need* a gun to attack a woman, and indeed most
> rapists do not use guns. Guns are accurately called "equalizers". A 220 lb
> rapist targets a 5'2", 105 lb woman. Now, if handguns are removed from this
> equation, who profits?
Lawyers, doctors, insurance companies, and of course private
security agencies who happen to be ARMED.
> > >There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
> > >man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will
> seek
> > >to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
> > >have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
> > >disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
> >
> > True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
> > Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
> > are left at the mercy of these thugs.
>
> Sexist claptrap.
There's only the slim possibility that he meant that it's harder
for them to legally gain access to them.
But alas, I doubt that's what s/he really means, because Circe
does sound like an idiot.
(snipped the res.... Hold on! Here's a keeper or two that proves
the statement I made above!)
> >BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
> > individual to defend themselves.
>
> The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
(snip to this point)
This is scary that ANYBODY could actually believe let alone STATE
what Circe just did.
Does s/he think that only *some* have this right?
Where's Circe from? California?
> >Most
> > Industrialized countries don't arm their populations and they don't
> > have the same problems with violence.
> Some do, some don't. Your vapid and incorrect generalization is not
> edifying.
I'm not aware of any countries or Governments, "Industrialized
or not" (love how these "anti" guys pick and choose the countries
(those with special names) that suit their needs to make a point)
except Switzerland, that actually have those laws and GIVE
weapons, FULLY AUTOMATIC ones at that, to their citizens.
The US Government certainly doesn't "arm" us.
We, as individual peoples, have to arm ourselves if we want
them, and pay for them out of our own pockets.
And in closing, there are more reasons then not, and are all
vindicated and worthy for owning all and as many of the firearms
we as a people can, than just self defense purposes.
The main one being.. (ahem) I want one... of each!
(Snip the rest.. I promise!)
circe
BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
countries. The US is at the top. The more guns there are in a nation
among the general populace, the more crime. Enough studies have been
done to support this, as well as statistics.
>> There is no need for any population to be
>> saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
>> women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
>> situation.
>
>On the contrary, women are the primary beneficiaries of handguns for self
>defense. A criminal doesn't *need* a gun to attack a woman, and indeed most
>rapists do not use guns. Guns are accurately called "equalizers". A 220 lb
>rapist targets a 5'2", 105 lb woman. Now, if handguns are removed from this
>equation, who profits?
The MILLION Moms groups would not agree with you and they are growing
like wildfire. men far outnumber women in ownership of guns. Most
women I know wouldn't have a gun if it was given to them. Don't put
the problems you created with an armed society onto the women and
children. The majority don't want it.
>> >
>> >There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
>> >man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will
>seek
>> >to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
>> >have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
>> >disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
>>
>> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
>> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
>> are left at the mercy of these thugs.
>
>Sexist claptrap.
Typical answer from a far right gun lover.
>>And to allow such guns as high
>> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>> military sniper rifles is obscene.
>
>Could you possibly be any more brainwashed by HCI?
Ad hominem insults do not add to discussions, and they seem to be
endemic among the gunslinging population.
>>It seems to me it's a population
>> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
>> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
>> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
>> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
>> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
>> etc.
>>
>Every one characterised by a complete ignorance of firearms.
Poppycock! The doctors ,nurses , Pediatricians , and mothers
represented in these organizations are at the front line and see the
mayhem created by these lethal weapons. They know exactly what
firearms can do. And they know exactly where the major fault lies.
That's why they are all either anti-gun or pro real gun control.
>
>> >Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there
>will
>> >always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
>> >individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
>> >their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
>> >be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
>> >most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
>> >to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his
>criminal
>> >action.
>>
>> Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
>> without any defence. And why does a population need to be saturated
>> with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
>> violence in a society.
>
>A cherry picked 13, you can be sure.
Your discussion skills are extremely limited.
>>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
>> individual to defend themselves.
>
>The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
You've got the wrong end of the political continuum, but you wouldn't
know about that. I have found from long experience that name-calling,
insulting,far right wing dingies have a Gobi desert where their brains
should be.
>Of course self defense is the sovereign right of every *organism*, let alone
>every human. A theory of rights that does not start with the right to life
>is already stillborn.
>
>Added to that is the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
>> homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
>> were calculated to be 1,441 per 100,000 in the US,
>
>Utter nonsense. Do you have a cite for that?
The best. It was given to me by an American gunslinger who didn't
know what he was doing. I don't have the URL, but it's "A Review of
Firearm Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries" by the
Firearm Control Task Group Department of Justice, Canada.
> Are you claiming there are
>over 4 million firearm accidents a year in the US? This embarrassing
>statement is what happens when you parrot numbers without reflection of any
>sort.
I'm not claiming. The Canadian Federal Task Force is. . It seems
astronomical but it's there in the report. They even remark on the
horrendous number of gun accidents in the US. Why do you think that
so many of the front line medical profession are against guns! I am
finickety about my research unlike you who just mimic the NRA line.
Circe
Bert Hyman
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:02:54 GMT, "dgg9" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
>>Curious, that.
>>
> You are absolutely wrong about the UK. England and Wales are generally
> BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
> countries. The US is at the top. ...
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics "Crime and Justice
in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96"
Abstract: Compares crime in the United States and England with
respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys
and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and
length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are
all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as
measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the
measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the
United States is generally more likely than one in England to be
caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are
also generally longer in the United States than England. 9/98. NCJ
169284
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
circe
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Circe wrote:
>>
>> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
>> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
>> are left at the mercy of these thugs. And to allow such guns as high
>> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>> military sniper rifles is obscene. It seems to me it's a population
>> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
>> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
>> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
>> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
>> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
>> etc.
>---------------------------------
>
> Circe, I have read the last seven messages you posted, and it is quite
>apparent that not only are you way out in left field when it comes to guns
>and gun owner, but you also have no desire to hear the truth when it's
>presented to you. Your comment about Women not being able to use guns is so
>ridiculous that nobody with an ounce of intelligence would hesitate to
>laugh in your face.
I wish you gunslingers could read. Where did I say that women
cannot use guns. Gimmee a break, Jake!!!
>When it comes to your so called (High Power) weapons,
>how many actual crimes have been committed with those weapons over the last
>10 years?
I'll check into it and let you know on Monday. I really shouldn't be
here .
>I can tell you for a fact that you can count the number on one
>hand. Hundreds of thousands of Americans own those High Power weapons and
>they do NOT use them in crimes - never have, never will.
Bully for them. So bang goes the gunslinging argument for self
defense. Seriously though, I can see that people would want to defend
themselves if they lived in a particularly rough, gunslinging area,
but a majority of the population armed.
Your comments do not alter any of the statistics showing that you are
a country at war with yourself. Apart from your homicide rate being
much higher per capita than any other of the 29 Industrialized
countries, even those in war zones, accidents with firearms (often
involving children) were calculated at the astronomical rate of 1,441
per 100,000. In Switzerland it was 84, in Canada 63, and only 8 in
Britain.
> You have a lot of very, very, very slanted and inaccurate information,
>Circe. You fool only those who have not taken the time to study the REAL
>facts.
I'm not out to fool people. I'm only concerned with the truth. And i
I have no vested interest, no ties to the NRA, no party line to put
out. What I am saying is from the heart, from the mind, and from
research.
> Spouting such total nonsense as you have, one can only wonder why you are
>in this discussion?
I didn't choose to be in it. But I got hit by a bunch of gunslingers
before I can get away. My observations are probably quite a bit more
objective than yours. You are obviously deeply entrenched in the NRA
philosophy.
>
> "Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris.
> We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's
> not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against.... We're after power
> and we mean it .... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
> power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
> Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One
> declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
> for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law
> abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass
> the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
> objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--
> and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon,
> that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier
> to deal with."
> --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
I might have known. The grade school philosopher. That says it all.
One of the greatest comedies I have ever seen was, "Atlas Shrugged".
I laughed all the way through. And as for "The Virtue of Selfishness"
what a pile of codswallop.
Circe
Bert Hyman
> I might have known. The grade school philosopher. That says it all.
> One of the greatest comedies I have ever seen was, "Atlas Shrugged".
> I laughed all the way through. And as for "The Virtue of Selfishness"
> what a pile of codswallop.
>
Wow. What a thoughtful, telling analysis. You sure tore her works to shreds
with that. What a thinker.
Marcus S. Turner
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90A7A5A3686...@209.98.98.13...
That's what happens when you "watch," instead of "read."
And was that the Julia Roberts' "The Virtue of Selfishness?"
David Lentz
circe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:51:29 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
>
> >An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
>
> An armed population is an atrocity that's happened and is continuing
> to happen,dearie! Every two years guns kill more Americans than were
> killed in Vietnam. Firearm injuries are now the second leading cause
> of injury-deaths nationwide, surpassed only by motor vehicle injuries.
>
> Each year an estimated $2.3 billion is spent on medical care for the
> nation's gunshot victims. Almost half that sum is paid by US
> taxpayers. (JAMA August,1999) America is a nation at war with itself
> because of people like you.
Largely bullshit.
The majority of fire arms deaths are intentional, either suicide
and homicide. Suicide and homicide are means independent. Take
way and you will not reduce the number of suicides and may
increase the numbers of homicides. Hardly progress.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Attila
> I was in the middle of a nice little Libertarian
> discussion with Chris and then POW!! I've got the whole bloody NRA on
> my back!!!
Typical whiny leftwinger victim mentality.
Attila
circe <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
news:3b07fbd7.18142488@news...
> The Swiss, a
> very small country has little or no police force
Well? Is it little or none?
Oh.....you're just making it up. We see.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:02:54 GMT, "dgg9" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"circe" <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message
>>
>>Curious, that.
>>
>You are absolutely wrong about the UK. England and Wales are generally
>BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
>countries.
Not according to the last three International Crime Victim Surveys.
>The US is at the top.
Actually, the US is just about average.
>The more guns there are in a nation
>among the general populace, the more crime. Enough studies have been
>done to support this, as well as statistics.
Bollocks.
>>On the contrary, women are the primary beneficiaries of handguns for self
>>defense. A criminal doesn't *need* a gun to attack a woman, and indeed most
>>rapists do not use guns. Guns are accurately called "equalizers". A 220 lb
>>rapist targets a 5'2", 105 lb woman. Now, if handguns are removed from this
>>equation, who profits?
>
>The MILLION Moms groups would not agree with you and they are growing
>like wildfire.
The Million Moms, whose leadership is fighting federal fraud
investigations? Who, despite their hype, had less that 100,000 attendees
last year, and fewer than 200 this year? The Million Moms that was
created by the Democratic National Committee as a publicity stunt,
and which has shown absolutely no ability to generate a "grass-roots"
movement out of thin-air?
>men far outnumber women in ownership of guns.
And female gun owners are far more likely to carry for self-defense than
male gun owners.
>Most
>women I know wouldn't have a gun if it was given to them.
Have you asked them? Would they tell you if it was true?
>Don't put
>the problems you created with an armed society onto the women and
>children. The majority don't want it.
The majority will does not trump the rights of the individual.
>>Every one characterised by a complete ignorance of firearms.
>
>Poppycock! The doctors ,nurses , Pediatricians , and mothers
>represented in these organizations are at the front line and see the
>mayhem created by these lethal weapons. They know exactly what
>firearms can do.
They see the damage, they do not see the benefits.
>And they know exactly where the major fault lies.
With the hoplophobes who have been working towards victim disarmament,
of course.
>That's why they are all either anti-gun or pro real gun control.
The leadership of these organizations, perhaps. But the anti-gun stance
was not adopted by a plebiscite, and a great many doctors disagree.
>>>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
>>> individual to defend themselves.
>>
>>The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
>
>You've got the wrong end of the political continuum, but you wouldn't
>know about that. I have found from long experience that name-calling,
>insulting,far right wing dingies have a Gobi desert where their brains
>should be.
It's amazing how hard the socialists work trying to keep people from
remembering that the fascists were also socialists.
--
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom
are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
- Justice Louis Brandeis
Attila
circe <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message news:3b07d814.8986544@news...
> Women and children cannot generally use guns
Why, are they incompetents in your view?
> Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
> etc.
Because they receive funding for it.
>Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
> violence in a society.
Go peddle this in Rwanda.
> BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
> individual to defend themselves.
Maybe not in your pissant locale.
Attila
circe <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
> The MILLION Moms groups would not agree with you and they are growing
> like wildfire.
BWAHAHAHA!!!! Seen the numbers from their latest gatherings?
Bruce Mills
: >And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
: >Curious, that.
: >
: You are absolutely wrong about the UK.
Ok, what about the other countries?
: The more guns there are in a nation
: among the general populace, the more crime. Enough studies have been
: done to support this, as well as statistics.
While I am sure that there is a "relational" relationship here, I doubt
very much that you can prove a "causal" relationship between guns and
crime. That is the problem with studies and statistics - unless and until
you can prove a causal relationship, it is all pretty much meaningless.
: The MILLION Moms groups would not agree with you and they are growing
: like wildfire. men far outnumber women in ownership of guns. Most
: women I know wouldn't have a gun if it was given to them. Don't put
: the problems you created with an armed society onto the women and
: children. The majority don't want it.
Male bashing, pure and simple. Men are the problem, aren't they Circe?
Why don't we just eliminate men, then?
The "Million" Mom March wasn't anywhere near a million. The only reason
they can purpetrate this fraud upon the public is because they have the
liberal press in their pockets.
: >Sexist claptrap.
: Typical answer from a far right gun lover.
That doesn't make it any less true, your your lefty loonie anti-gun
statism any more true.
: Ad hominem insults do not add to discussions, and they seem to be
: endemic among the gunslinging population.
See above.
: Poppycock! The doctors ,nurses , Pediatricians , and mothers
: represented in these organizations are at the front line and see the
: mayhem created by these lethal weapons. They know exactly what
: firearms can do. And they know exactly where the major fault lies.
: That's why they are all either anti-gun or pro real gun control.
Define "rea;" gun control? And how did being a mother somehow equate to a
profession degree, like doctors, nurse, etc? Why did you leave out
"fathers"? Wouldn't be because you a male hating feminazi would it?
: >The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
: You've got the wrong end of the political continuum, but you wouldn't
: know about that. I have found from long experience that name-calling,
: insulting,far right wing dingies have a Gobi desert where their brains
: should be.
Pot, kettle, black.
: The best. It was given to me by an American gunslinger who didn't
: know what he was doing. I don't have the URL, but it's "A Review of
: Firearm Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries" by the
: Firearm Control Task Group Department of Justice, Canada.
Oh, yeah, the Canadian DOJ is a real impartial body when it comes to gun
control. They lie through their teeth, shamelessly. I should know, I'm
Canadian.
Bruce
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and
thus clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H.L. Mencken
Sam A. Kersh
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:46:36 GMT, "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
>wrote:
>>circe wrote in message <3b073a9d.38200018@news>...
>>>On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:45:30 -0400, Dale Farmer <Da...@cybercom.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>>circe wrote:
>>
>>>My conclusion in this instance was based on commonsense. The unarmed
>>>people of the US must often feel very uneasy knowing that more than
>>>half of the population is armed. Another factor in this is that
>>>having an armed population, an armed police force, and an armed
>>>criminal element of the population puts your police force in an
>>>untenable position. When the police go out on a case they 're up
>>>against criminals who are armed and a population that is heavily
>>>armed. You can't blame them if they draw their guns too fast
>>>sometimes. From their perspective everybody and his dog has a gun.
>>>They cannot afford to be lax.
>>>circe
>>
>>No one cares what a Brit thinks. You do not live here. If you did, you could
>>not do much. The only way to change our law is to hjave a constitutional
>>amendment. That requires a 2/3rds vote in congess, followed by a national
>>referendum where EVERYONE gets to vote.
>>Won't happen.
>>-*MORT*-
>
>It figures! Like many who have poor reading comprehension you have
>misread the second amendment. All you need to do, Mortie babe, is to
>accept the non-NRA and proper interpretation of the second amendment.
>
>BTW I'm not a Brit.
No, but you're dumb enough to be one... What part of, "... the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," do you fail to
understand? It doesn't say, "the right of the State," or "The right f the
Militia." It refers to "the people." The same "the people" of the First,
Fourth and Tenth Amendments.
You really need to do some research in this area. There are over 35
Federal District and SC decisions supporting the NRA interpretation. Get a
copy of Prof Stanford Levinson's paper, "The Embarrassing Second
Amendment." It was published by the Yale Law School
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Endowment Member
L.E.A.A. Life Member
TSRA Life Member
GOA, JPFO, SAF
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================
Read Jeff Snyder's unabridged analysis of the S&W/HUD sellout
at http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/jeffsnyder.html
Scout
"circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
Sorry, but women can most certainly use guns. They don't often chose to
carry guns, but that isn't because they can't use them.
Scout
"circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
Ah, excuse me, but when exactly was the UK limited to England and Wales?
Isn't that like saying if when we compare the US we should only limit it to
Conn and Vermont?
> in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
> countries.
Excuse me again, but why exactly limit it to industrialized nations? Are you
saying that murder rates depend on the amount of industry in a nation? If
so, then the problem seems to be the USA doesn't have enough industry to
control it's murder rate.
> The US is at the top.
So Mexico isn't an idustrialize nation? I wonder if all the owners of
Mexico's industry know that?
> The more guns there are in a nation
> among the general populace, the more crime.
Wrong. Jamaica, Mexico, Taiwan, Switzerland all disprove your theory.
Further in those nations which have reduced the number of guns in among the
general population have NOT seen a reduction in violent crime, usually the
opposite in fact.
> Enough studies have been
> done to support this, as well as statistics.
Fine. Sources, cites and references then.
dgg9
"Panhead" <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:3B082670...@intac.com...
Exactly. And as we all know, a 20 year old LEO who just had 2 weeks of
firearm training at the academy is a "trained professional", infallible and
reliable in his gun use, but a 42 year old CCW holder who practices weekly
is hopelessly untrustworthy to carry a gun...the criminal will take it away
from him.
Could be. I predict young, too: this person sounds like a recent product of
PC public schooling.
> > >Most
> > > Industrialized countries don't arm their populations and they don't
> > > have the same problems with violence.
>
> > Some do, some don't. Your vapid and incorrect generalization is not
> > edifying.
>
> I'm not aware of any countries or Governments, "Industrialized
> or not" (love how these "anti" guys pick and choose the countries
> (those with special names) that suit their needs to make a point)
> except Switzerland, that actually have those laws and GIVE
> weapons, FULLY AUTOMATIC ones at that, to their citizens.
>
Israel,also, sort of: there are government armories that will loan out Uzis
to any citizen upon demand, for any purpose. So, oddly enough, since
loaners of full-autos and Glocks are freely available to the Israeli public,
quite often they don't bother buying them. You can guess where this is
going: you'll occasionally hear HCI say "Israeli firearm ownership isn't
that high -- you guys are overestimating it" -- fully aware of the loaner
policy that mitigates the need to buy, but lying about it just the same.
Randy Sweeney
> No it's not. Not all people will be armed. I gave a REAL example, the
> US where 80 million homes have guns, You have clearly stated that the
> unnarmed people in such a society are far more likely to be the
> victims. We also know that the US has the highest rate of gun-related
> homicides out of the 29 Industrialized countries. My conclusion is
> therefore that a society that has a sizeable armed population is an
> unsafe society.
Switzerland has a near universally armed society with little crime.
Therefore your conclusion is too simplistic.
It takes more than the presence of guns to make an unsafe society and it
takes more than the absence of guns to make a society safe.
Scout
"Attila" <att...@tisd.net> wrote in message news:3b08...@news.tisd.net...
He meant a wildfire in a thundershower.
dgg9
"circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
news:3b081949.25681981@news...
<snip>
> >And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
> >Curious, that.
> >
> You are absolutely wrong about the UK. England and Wales are generally
> BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
> countries. The US is at the top. The more guns there are in a nation
> among the general populace, the more crime. Enough studies have been
> done to support this, as well as statistics.
Are you new to usenet? Here's how it goes: you make a claim, you provide a
cite. Please provide a cite for this statement or retract it. When you
actually look into this, instead of merely blustering, you'll find the UK
assault rate is HIGHER than the US. In other crime categories, you'll find
the US number in steady decline and the corresponding UK number in steady
increase.
When you have real numbers, get back to us.
And anytime you attempt to bluff with unspecified, no-cite-supplied
"studies" expect to be instantly called on the carpet, your bluff called.
>
> >> There is no need for any population to be
> >> saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
> >> women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
> >> situation.
> >
> >On the contrary, women are the primary beneficiaries of handguns for self
> >defense. A criminal doesn't *need* a gun to attack a woman, and indeed
most
> >rapists do not use guns. Guns are accurately called "equalizers". A 220
lb
> >rapist targets a 5'2", 105 lb woman. Now, if handguns are removed from
this
> >equation, who profits?
>
> The MILLION Moms groups would not agree with you and they are growing
> like wildfire.
Wrong as always. The MMM membership has shrunk and their most recent rally
scored 100 people. Nice try, though.
In any event, the MMM was *never* any sort of grass roots movement. It was
a creation of a Clinton political hack, Donna Dees-Thomason.
>men far outnumber women in ownership of guns. Most
> women I know wouldn't have a gun if it was given to them.
Then you know some vapid women. The point is: in Shall Issue CCW states,
women can get a CCW just as easily as men. They may or may not avail
themselves of it, but the fact remains, they have available to them the best
possible equalizer.
> Don't put
> the problems you created with an armed society onto the women and
> children. The majority don't want it.
Sorry, unacceptable. I have asked flat-out: what does a woman do who is
about to be attacked by a man who has twice her weight and three times her
strength. The attacker does not have a gun. Stop evading the question and
answer it.
> >> >
> >> >There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their
fellow
> >> >man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will
> >seek
> >> >to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why
we
> >> >have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men
may
> >> >disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
> >>
> >> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
> >> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
> >> are left at the mercy of these thugs.
> >
> >Sexist claptrap.
>
> Typical answer from a far right gun lover.
>
Evasion. You're maintaining the sexist line that women are helpless.
> >>And to allow such guns as high
> >> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
> >> military sniper rifles is obscene.
> >
> >Could you possibly be any more brainwashed by HCI?
>
> Ad hominem insults do not add to discussions, and they seem to be
> endemic among the gunslinging population.
Since you claim (falsely, it must be said) to make statements backed up by
facts, let's hear them:
1. How many people have been killed by AK47s, AR15s, and "military sniper
rifles" in the US? Please present your number plus a cite.
2. What exactly is a "pocket rocket"? I'll give you a hint: it's a
meaningless demagogue's term to describe any small handgun.
Oh, and once again, vacuous irony-impairment is obvious: "ad hominem"...and
in the same sentence "gunslinging".
>
> >>It seems to me it's a population
> >> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
> >> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
> >> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
> >> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
> >> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
> >> etc.
> >>
> >Every one characterised by a complete ignorance of firearms.
>
> Poppycock! The doctors ,nurses , Pediatricians , and mothers
> represented in these organizations are at the front line and see the
> mayhem created by these lethal weapons. They know exactly what
> firearms can do. And they know exactly where the major fault lies.
> That's why they are all either anti-gun or pro real gun control.
Exactly, which shows their ignorance. Gun control has never, and will
never, remove guns from criminal hands. Seeing gun shot wounds, and then
wishing away the existence of guns is the sign of foolish, shallow minds.
By the way, seeing some gunshot injuries tells you nothing about firearms in
general, as evidenced by your idiotic "pocket rocket" comment.
Funny, these same people -- and of course none of them is any kind of
authentic grass roots movement -- are strangely silent about injuries to law
abiding citizens who were unarmed and helpless before their attacker. I
wonder why? Guns save lives too. Do you hear them mention that?
> >
> >> >Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there
> >will
> >> >always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
> >> >individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life,
or
> >> >their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if
need
> >> >be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm.
In
> >> >most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has
had
> >> >to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his
> >criminal
> >> >action.
> >>
> >> Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
> >> without any defence. And why does a population need to be saturated
> >> with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
> >> violence in a society.
> >
> >A cherry picked 13, you can be sure.
>
> Your discussion skills are extremely limited.
>
Ok, here's where you get to practice your usenet scholarship skills. You
mentioned a study. Now produce the name and the cite for the study. These
unreferenced hit and run mentions are unacceptable.
By the way, there are many more than 13 countries in the world. Why would
any study deliberately select such a statistically invalid, small number of
samples...unless they were attempting to mislead?
> >>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
> >> individual to defend themselves.
> >
> >The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
>
> You've got the wrong end of the political continuum, but you wouldn't
> know about that. I have found from long experience that name-calling,
> insulting,far right wing dingies have a Gobi desert where their brains
> should be.
>
Oops, my bad: the Stalinist cat is let out of the bag.
By the way, you have yet to establish a second digit to your IQ. Be right
even one time, and we'll give your IQ some respect.
> >Of course self defense is the sovereign right of every *organism*, let
alone
> >every human. A theory of rights that does not start with the right to
life
> >is already stillborn.
> >
> >Added to that is the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
> >> homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
> >> were calculated to be 1,441 per 100,000 in the US,
> >
> >Utter nonsense. Do you have a cite for that?
>
> The best.
ROTFL
> It was given to me by an American gunslinger who didn't
> know what he was doing. I don't have the URL, but it's "A Review of
> Firearm Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries" by the
> Firearm Control Task Group Department of Justice, Canada.
>
Produce the URL or retract your statement. First of all, any group with the
name "Firearm Control Task Group" has an explicitly anti-gun bias...you get
that, right?...and their numbers are instantly untrustworthy.
Here's a legitimate site, although with a clear anti-gun bias:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fafacts.htm
This is a US *government* site with a history of anti-gun propaganda. Read
their numbers for firearms accidents. More specifically:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
From this, I quote:
"Also in 1997, an estimated 64,207 persons sustained nonfatal
firearm-related injuries and were treated in U.S. hospital emergency
departments (EDs); approximately 40% required inpatient hospital care.
National firearm-related injury and death rates peaked in 1993, then began
to decline."
64,000, not 4,000,000. You weren't even close. Even the slightest amount
of scholarship would have revealed that there is no way guns could have
caused 4 million accidents a year. But you were so quick to uncritically
parrot an obviously absurd number, that there are only two conclusions: a)
you are being deliberately untruthful, or b) you are not very bright.
The available evidence leans toward 'b', but perhaps you can convince me of
'a'.
> > Are you claiming there are
> >over 4 million firearm accidents a year in the US? This embarrassing
> >statement is what happens when you parrot numbers without reflection of
any
> >sort.
>
> I'm not claiming. The Canadian Federal Task Force is. . It seems
> astronomical but it's there in the report. They even remark on the
> horrendous number of gun accidents in the US. Why do you think that
> so many of the front line medical profession are against guns! I am
> finickety about my research unlike you who just mimic the NRA line.
Utterly laughable in light of the embarrassing howler you were just caught
in.
And also telling that you were unable/unwilling to respond the rest of my
rebuttal.
dgg9
"circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
From YOUR posts:
"Most women I know wouldn't have a gun if it was given to them."
"Women and children cannot generally use guns"
Hmmm.....
>
> >When it comes to your so called (High Power) weapons,
> >how many actual crimes have been committed with those weapons over the
last
> >10 years?
>
> I'll check into it and let you know on Monday. I really shouldn't be
> here .
More true than you realize.
>
> >I can tell you for a fact that you can count the number on one
> >hand. Hundreds of thousands of Americans own those High Power weapons and
> >they do NOT use them in crimes - never have, never will.
>
> Bully for them. So bang goes the gunslinging argument for self
> defense.
Because law abiding citizens don't use guns in crimes...therefore guns can't
be used in self defense?
>Seriously though, I can see that people would want to defend
> themselves if they lived in a particularly rough, gunslinging area,
> but a majority of the population armed.
>
You keep evading the discussion of rape, or indeed, of any crime where the
attacker has a physical superiority. In all those cases, the attacker
doesn't need a gun, and often doesn't use one. But nothing less than a gun
will protect the victim.
Stop evading and answer.
> Your comments do not alter any of the statistics showing that you are
> a country at war with yourself. Apart from your homicide rate being
> much higher per capita than any other of the 29 Industrialized
> countries,
Stop bluffing. Produce these numbers.
> even those in war zones, accidents with firearms (often
> involving children) were calculated at the astronomical rate of 1,441
> per 100,000.
An absurd lie, refuted in another post. The fact that you were capable of
swallowing such obvious tripe speaks volumes.
> In Switzerland it was 84, in Canada 63, and only 8 in
> Britain.
>
> > You have a lot of very, very, very slanted and inaccurate information,
> >Circe. You fool only those who have not taken the time to study the REAL
> >facts.
>
> I'm not out to fool people. I'm only concerned with the truth.
A curious claim, from someone who has not said one single truthful thing
yet.
Of course, once can be mislead or accept incorrect data, but you haven't
even ventured the slightes, most minimal amount of homework in this matter.
Your due diligence is completely below the minimum.
Laughable. You have swallowed the anti-gun party line in toto, with no
signs that any of the absurd claims have made even the slightest imprint on
your consciousness. The most pathetic fool is someone who swallows someone
else's demagoguery -- and is unaware of it. "Useful idiots," Lenin used to
call them.
>And i
> I have no vested interest, no ties to the NRA, no party line to put
> out.
Sure you are...you just don't know it.
> What I am saying is from the heart, from the mind, and from
> research.
LMAO
>
> > Spouting such total nonsense as you have, one can only wonder why you
are
> >in this discussion?
>
> I didn't choose to be in it. But I got hit by a bunch of gunslingers
> before I can get away. My observations are probably quite a bit more
> objective than yours.
Only in the sense that you probably don't even know that you've been
brainwashed.
> You are obviously deeply entrenched in the NRA
> philosophy.
I see. So, you blather on in obvious fallacies, blissfully unaware of your
programmers, but the contrary position is, somehow, "NRA philosophy".
John Kane
dgg9 wrote:
May be true about Jamaica and Taiwan. If you look at recorded crime (ie police
stats) and compare the crime rates (from Crime and Justice in the United States
and in England and Wales, 1981-96"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm,
the most recent comparisions I have seen At the moment, based on the police
reported crimes as shown in the figures in the report, I think it is reasonable
to say that the rate of occurrence for 2 of 6 major
crimes, burglary and motor vehicle theft , showed both rates of increase and
of
frequency of occurrence in the UK that exceed those in the US, the rate of
robbery is
increasing in the UK faster than in the US but the actual frequency is still
slightly
below that in the US, assault seems to be increasing in occurrence in both the
UK and
the US, possibly, at a slightly higher rate of increase in the UK but actual
frequencies of occurrence appear to be very close. Murder rates appear to be
declining
in the US since about 1991 while they appear to be roughly constant for the UK.
Actual
frequencies remain considerably higher in the US than in the UK. Rape appears
to be
decreasing in rate in the US since about 1991 and showing a steady increase in
rate in
the UK. Actual frequencies remain higher in the US than in the UK.
------------------
John Kane
Hull, Quebec Canada
Panhead
>
> circe <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message news:3b07d814.8986544@news...
>
> > Women and children cannot generally use guns
>
> Why, are they incompetents in your view?
I hope to hell that you aren't expecting a truthful answer from
that incompetent nincompoop regarding this issue...are you?
Panhead
Ask "Arclight."
I think he saw .00SEVEN million on TV!
John Kane
"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 20:51:55 GMT, circe <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:02:54 GMT, "dgg9" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>"circe" <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >>And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
> >>Curious, that.
> >>
> >You are absolutely wrong about the UK. England and Wales are generally
> >BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
> >countries.
>
> Not according to the last three International Crime Victim Surveys.
Well it depends on whether you are counting reported rates from the ICVS (I have
only read one by the way so if the methodology is different in other ones please
point it out for me) or looking at reported crime statistics as in the US DOJ
Uniform Justice Statistics and the various equivalent statistics. The two
different data sets seem to give considerble different pictures on violent crime
rates. BTW murder may be hard to get from the ICVS. Most murdered respondents
may have not replied to the Survey :)
Much cut
--
Bilbo Baggins
circe wrote in message <3b07d814.8986544@news>...
>On 19 May 2001 19:07:59 GMT, aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce
>Mills) wrote:
>>Cecil (no...@nowhere.com) wrote:
>>>"circe" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
>>> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
>>> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
>>> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
>>> >
>>> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
>>> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
>>> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
>>> >
>>> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society)
>>> >is a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from
>>> >human relations. That's it.
>>>
>>> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
>>> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
>>> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
>>> you for arming citizens in society.
>>
>>While I think we would all agree that such a society is an admirable goal
>>towards which we should strive, I don't think anyone would disagree that
>>it will be a long time in coming, if ever.
>
>With the right kind of attitude and approach it could be a great deal
>better than it is now. Many other countries do not have armed
>saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
>women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
>situation.
>>
>>man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will seek
>>to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
>>have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
>>disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
>
>Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
>are left at the mercy of these thugs. And to allow such guns as high
>capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>military sniper rifles is obscene. It seems to me it's a population
>out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
>organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
>Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
>Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
>Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
>etc.
>
>>always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
>>individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
>>their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
>>be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
>>most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
>>to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his criminal
>>action.
>
>Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
>without any defence. And why does a population need to be saturated
>with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
>individual to defend themselves.
>
> Apart from the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
>homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
>Switzerland, 63 in canada, and only 8 in Britain. As well, every
>murders are committed by family members or friends. I think it's not
>criminals you have to worry about. YOU are the enemy. You macho men
>who support an armed population.
>>
>>Criminals are not entirely stupid; they most often pick and choose their
>>victims, and the time and place of their crimes, so as to minimize the
>>risk to themsleves. They prey on the apparently weak, and commit their
>>crimes in the absence of police officers who might intervene. There have
>>been court cases to show that it is not the police's responsibility to
>>protect any given individual; they are there to protect the public peace.
>>More often than not, the only person present who will defend you is
>>*yourself*. If you can't do it, who will?
>
>If criminals prey on the weak why is it that over 70% of homicide
>are vulnerable. It's the women and children and the old who
>represent the weak in sociey, many of them living without the support
>of a man, and not enough money or knowledge to buy and use a gun .It's
>Industrialized countries don't arm their populations and they don't
>have the same problems with violence.
>
>>the instance of confrontational crime in those areas goes down. It has
>>been shown that even such "sensible" gun control laws as waiting periods,
>>have resulted in the deaths of innocent people who might otherwise have
>>had the means with which to defend themselves.
>
>Bollocks! Balderdash and bunkum!!! The FBI Uniform Crime Reports from
>1997 to 1998 says that the nation's overall crime rate dropped 6.4%
>from 4930 to 4615 crimes per 100,000 population. Crime fell faster in
>states that have strict CCW (carrying concealed weapons) laws than in
>states which have lax CCW laws.
>
>>to society.
>
>this very simple fact home.
>
>>Anyone who wants one, should be able to acquire one.
>>Bruce
>
>Which anyone can do easily, even kids! Why are guns exempt from
>federal product health and safety law????? And why does the NRA fight
>to keep it that way.
>
>
>
Pay attention to your own piece of shit country. Gun control is against our
laws and will stay so. We will never amend oiur constitution to follow your
insanity.
You do not live here. You do not vote here. You have no say.
-*MORT*-
Hartmann Schaffer
> ...
>Switzerland has a near universally armed society with little crime.
>
>Therefore your conclusion is too simplistic.
most of the arms in private households in switzerland are army issued (i.e.
easily traceable because registered) rifles, hardly any handguns (iirc only
officers get sidearms)
>It takes more than the presence of guns to make an unsafe society and it
>takes more than the absence of guns to make a society safe.
true enough
--
hs
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
can have national pride" - Schopenhauer
Bilbo Baggins
circe wrote in message <3b07ebcf.14038371@news>...
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:51:29 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
>>On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
>
>>An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
>
>An armed population is an atrocity that's happened and is continuing
>to happen,dearie! Every two years guns kill more Americans than were
>killed in Vietnam. Firearm injuries are now the second leading cause
>of injury-deaths nationwide, surpassed only by motor vehicle injuries.
>
America. Pay attention to affairs in your own piece of shit country. You had
one incident, done by ONE man. YOU chose to punish all of yor citizens. That
we shall not do.
Go shit in your fucking hat.
-*MORT*-
Bilbo Baggins
circe wrote in message <3b07ec84.14219336@news>...
us on our constitution. You have no say in our affairs, nor does your piece
of shit country. My interpretation of the second amendment was learned 30
years ago in college. Same place I learned waht crap Canaduh is.
You do not count.
-*MORT*-
Michael Dix
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 13:39:40 GMT, "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>"circe" <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message
>
> >> My conclusion is therefore that a society that has a sizeable
> >> armed population is an unsafe society.
> >
> >present one society that has a sizable armed population
> >which also has a low crime rate:
> >
> >"In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to
> >ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-
> >Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban,
> >whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland,
> >all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep
> >them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded
> >that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
> >
> >"For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf,
> >however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see
> >shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a
> >Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on
> >hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and
> >young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their
> >shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police
> >station and no one bats an eye."
>
> Oh, ye of little knowledge. Git thee out of your four walls and
> travel. If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
> no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
> of their military system.
>
> Although the Swiss have no regular army , almost all the men receive
> miltiary training yearly. They keep their weapons and uniforms at home
> so they can be called up quickly in an emergency Local markmanshiip
> contests are held frequently. from age 21 to 32 a Swiss man serves as
> a 'frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year to
> continued training. From age 33 to 42 he serves in the Landwehr
> (National Guard). Every few years, he reports for two-week training
> periods. From 43 to 50 he serves in the Lansturm; in this period he
> only spends 13 days total in home guard courses. Almost all Swiss
> males are part of their military. They're a tiny country with a
> European history .
>
> Firearm ownership in Switzerland is 42,857 per 100,000 of the
> population whereas in the US it is 85,385 per 100,000. Japan 414.
>
> The Swiss are a very small country living among other small countries
> and they are ready to mobilize at a moment's notice if there is an
> outside threat. And that's the difference. They are armed against
> an outside threat as well as to respond to emergency situations in
> Switzerland. That's why their domestic murder rates are so very low
> compared to the US's horrendous ones. The US turns its guns upon each
> other.
>
You're beginning to realize: it's the character of the citizens,
not the guns themselves.
John Kane
Bert Hyman wrote:
> In news:3b081ff3.27388540@news ci...@givewater.gladly (circe) wrote:
>
> > I might have known. The grade school philosopher. That says it all.
> > One of the greatest comedies I have ever seen was, "Atlas Shrugged".
> > I laughed all the way through. And as for "The Virtue of Selfishness"
> > what a pile of codswallop.
> >
>
> Wow. What a thoughtful, telling analysis. You sure tore her works to shreds
> with that. What a thinker.
Well I have only tried to read one of her books. Her knowledge of learning
theory especially operant conditioning which was essential to the premise of
the book was so flawed that I had to give up in disgust It has been too long
for me to able to remember which book but if the standards are the same in
other books the 'what a pile of codswallop' seems appropriate. And no I have
no interest in reading anything by her which I am sure is narrow minded of me
but anyway.
>
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Michael Dix
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:40:55 GMT, "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
> wrote:
> >circe wrote in message <3b073dd9.39028334@news>...
>
> >...If we look again at the US we see that it makes
> >>victims of many of their women and children . In fact , the rate of
> >>firearm deaths among children aged 14 and under is nearly 12 times
> >>higher than among children in the other industrialized countries.
> >>
> > The rate of death among American children by drowning is higher. More
> >American children drown at home in buckets of water, basthtubs and swimming
> >pools than do by gun missuse.
>
> Because children are exposed to water in their every day life. There
> is no need for children to be exposed to guns.
So you're saying that we must accept the deaths of dozens of
children every year just so we can have clean floors. I'm
shocked at this inhumanity.
>
> >More American children were hurt and killed on
> >shiny chrome plated skooters in 2000 than in 1999. Why? Because the shiny
> >chrome plated scooters became super popular in 2000.
>
> And millions of children across the US got them. Thank god they were
> covered by consumer protection regulations otherwise that accident
> rate would have been so much higher. . Firearms, on the other hand,
> are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations, thanks to
> that obscene organization the NRA.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission does indeed regulate
children's toys. This is appropriate since children's
toys should not kill them. Children used to choke, for example,
on buttons used as eyes for teddy bears. Lawn darts pierced
the skulls of the children playing this lethal variety of
quoits.
Firearms are not designed for children's unattended play.
Moreover, government regulations are not necessary if the
manufacturers have integrity: This computer I am typing on
is not subject to any US government safety regulation
whatever - even though it contains lethal voltages. It has,
however, been voluntarily tested by the manufacturer to an
industry safety standard.
ZsaZsa
news:bi_N6.2830$gM2.2...@news1.onlynews.com...
> circe wrote in message <3b07ebcf.14038371@news>...
> >On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:51:29 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
> >>On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
> >
> >>An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
> >
> >An armed population is an atrocity that's happened and is continuing
> >to happen,dearie! Every two years guns kill more Americans than were
> >killed in Vietnam. Firearm injuries are now the second leading cause
> >of injury-deaths nationwide, surpassed only by motor vehicle injuries.
> >
> No one in America gives a shit what you "think".
Hey Bilbo, I'd bet the rent that no one in America gives a shit what you
think either.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>In article <VmYN6.13902$qc.18...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>, Randy Sweeney wrote:
>> ...
>>Switzerland has a near universally armed society with little crime.
>>
>>Therefore your conclusion is too simplistic.
>
>most of the arms in private households in switzerland are army issued (i.e.
>easily traceable because registered) rifles, hardly any handguns (iirc only
>officers get sidearms)
Actually, that's not the case. Yes, everyone is issued a service rifle,
but private firearms ownership is widespread.
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another:
"What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
--C.S. Lewis
Michael Dix
> The majority of fire arms deaths are intentional, either suicide
> and homicide. Suicide and homicide are means independent. Take
> way and you will not reduce the number of suicides and may
> increase the numbers of homicides. Hardly progress.
>
The number of people deliberately jumping in front of the
Caltrain (SF Peninsula heavy rail commuter service) is up
sharply this year, according to the Chronicle.
I'm sure this is only coincidence, but from the first
of this year, only handguns on a Cal State Dept of
Justice list can be sold. This is the latest in a series of
anti-handgun ownership laws - not counting city harassment
of gun stores (which has eliminated legal gun purchase in
Oakland, BTW.)
Bruce Mills
: "circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
: news:3b081949.25681981@news...
: > It was given to me by an American gunslinger who didn't
: > know what he was doing. I don't have the URL, but it's "A Review of
: > Firearm Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries" by the
: > Firearm Control Task Group Department of Justice, Canada.
: >
: Produce the URL or retract your statement. First of all, any group with the
: name "Firearm Control Task Group" has an explicitly anti-gun bias...you get
: that, right?...and their numbers are instantly untrustworthy.
Being Canadian, I am fairly conversant with the many groups involved in
the anti-gun debate here, and I have never heard of the "Firearm Control
Task Group". I just searched the DOJ's web site and couldn't find
anything for them, nor for the study "A Review of Firearm Statistics etc
etc".
Put up or shut up, Circe.
Bruce
--
ARE YOU A MENACE TO CRIMINALS?
If householders were required by law to own and know how to use revolvers,
burglary would cease. It is an act of good citizenship to make crime
dangerous - an encouragement of crime to remain defenseless.
- from an Iver Johnson revolver ad, circa 1904
Joel C Simon
John Kane <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B0832F6...@sympatico.ca...
> Well it depends on whether you are counting reported rates from the ICVS
(I have
> only read one by the way so if the methodology is different in other ones
please
> point it out for me) or looking at reported crime statistics as in the US
DOJ
> Uniform Justice Statistics and the various equivalent statistics. The two
> different data sets seem to give considerble different pictures on violent
crime
> rates. BTW murder may be hard to get from the ICVS. Most murdered
respondents
> may have not replied to the Survey :)
Hey, they should understand that this is serious. I think all murder
victims - especially those killed by handguns - should be REQUIRED BY LAW to
immediately fill out and submit ICVS reports. In triplicate. The penalty
for failure to comply should be death.
Er, but not with a gun, of course. That would be wrong.
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:51:29 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
>>On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
>
>>An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
An unarmed society is an atrocity waiting to happen, and it has happened,
repeatedly throughout recent history. You know the countries, if you can read.
>An armed population is an atrocity that's happened and is continuing
>to happen,dearie!
Yes, I've heard Switzerland is a hellhole of bloodletting with firearms deaths in
the millions daily. {;-]
>Every two years guns kill more Americans than were
>killed in Vietnam.
No guns killed anyone in Veitnam then nor do they in America now. People kill
people all kinds of ways, sometimes with guns, often without. You should look up
some stats. I would clear your head.
>Firearm injuries are now the second leading cause
>of injury-deaths nationwide, surpassed only by motor vehicle injuries.
Over half of which (injuries death) are suicide......proven non means dependent.
You ever hear about the Canadian study that showed the rate of Canadian male
suicides with handguns didn't change after handguns were banned, jumping just went
up and in fact slightly surpassed the old rate.
A large percentage are also justifiable self defense shooting by police and
civilians. You would prefer they not had been armed and fired defensively?
A larger percentage are "honor" and drug turf war shootings between gang members,
and youth gangs have been killing each other for many decades before the gang
bangers and their "9s" came on the scene. There is no cure for this through
disarming law abiding citizens, and you know it.
Accidental shootings are not only at a low and dropping but they have been for 4
decades now. The number is tiny.
The remaining number of deaths that one could call murder are under a thousand a
year with over 250,000,000 in this country. Rather a sensible rate.......and out
overall murder rates and violent crime are extremely low compared to those
paragons of gun control, the UK, Australia, Jamaica, Taiwan, Mexico....all with
highly restrictive gun laws or outright prohibition.
>Each year an estimated $2.3 billion is spent on medical care for the
>nation's gunshot victims.
I thought I smelled the stench of JAMA. I once had considerable respect for this
pubication....read it often.....but no longer, and number of physicians feel the
same way. They use cooked data they failed to research adequately. Here, have a
peek:
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html Guns in the Medical
Literature -- A Failure of Peer
Review by Edgar A. Suter MD Chair Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public
Policy
>Almost half that sum is paid by US
>taxpayers. (JAMA August,1999)
JAMA was lied to by a paid researcher. Then it printed the lie and failed to
retract it when it was pointed out to them.
>America is a nation at war with itself
>because of people like you.
This was a nation of millions of gun owners for most of its history. The "war"
started when folks like you started lying and pissing and moaning about a non
event, a non problem, and making political hay, as well as a nice salary out of
it. Check out HCI and VPC. Same group, actually, and they make tons of money off
lying to the public about "the gun problem".
>
>>There is no true "safe" society.
>
>>There will always be some element of danger, either from individuals, or political
>>groups. Get used to it.....it's only been around for 10,000 years or so.
>
>Tell us something we know. But populations of civilized countries
>don't have an armed population of individuals like the US.
The Swiss are uncivilized? Every man there is required to serve in the military
and keep a selective fire (including full auto) firearm in his home at all times.
Shooting is the national sport there like baseball is here. Most families shoot.
Would you call Isreal uncivilized? Citizens can rent a semi auto firearm at the
local police station, and many do. It has paid off when some terrorist decides to
start shooting people... the Isrealis seem to put a very quick stop to it.
>
>>>Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>>>is an unsafe society.
>>
>>Oversimplification is a naughty, especially when you haven't managed to support
>>your argument and failed the burden of proof requirement in debate. If you are
>>going to make claims support them with something other than your obviously biased
>>and mistaken opinion.
>
>The proof is in the pudding. The pudding in this case the US.
You have proved nothing. You have presented an illogical claim, based on faulty
data and source materials, quoting an embarrassingly fraudulent claim by the JAMA
based on a study with flawed methods which drew conclusions based on presumption.
>Although it's not a Libertarian society it does have an armed
>population, A number of studies have been done which support the fact
>that more guns equate with more crime, not to mention accidents.
Please cite these studies. If you include Kellermann I'd suggest you do a search
with Kellermann in the search field an see what you are citing. He is thoroughly
discredited even among the anti gun crowd and cannot get a grant for any further
study of any kind, not just anti gun garbage science.
>Accidents with firearms were calculated at the rate of 1,441 per
>100,000 in the US,84 in Switzerland, 63 in Canada. but only 8 in
>Britain. Of the total homicides among children in the world 73% occur
>among US children, and for every child killed four more are wounded.
Ever bother to look at the stats for other causes of accidental death and injury.
Guns are extremely low compared to many othe causes, and the only way one can
bring guns even close to the top end is to include ALL homocides even unavoidable
and even justifiable. I'd call that cherry picking, wouldn't you?
>Gunshot deaths
Low, if you confine yourself to include murder and not justifiable or inescapable
shootings...like gangbangers.
> and accidents
Extremely low and has been going down for decades and nowhere near other
accidental death and injury causes.
>are a way of life in the US, and the
>number of anti -gun groups seems to be growing by the minute, very
>prestigious groups, I might add, dearie.
MMM for instance? Groups heavily funded by a single person with a political and
personal ax to grind?..........you are a laugh riot. The NRA for instance is
nearly 5 million strong, and they don't even lobby. YOu are comparing 5 million
gun group members to a paltry few antis?
>>I'll help you out. There is NO data that can support your argument, as it is a
>>false argument, and untrue argument, and you are either ignorant or a liar. Take
>>your pick. I know I've taken mine. You are a liar.
>
>Aha! Another one of these far right wing name callers.
Which political shool of name caller are you? You certainly have filled your posts
with name calling.
>Git yourself
>together , dearie, and do a bit of traveling,and reading to get some
>perspective on your twisted support of a country armed to the teeth
>to hurt the individuals in that country. Unlike Switzerland
>individuals are not armed against an outside threat.
The Swiss have an exceptionally high internal crime rate then? But don't arm
against it.
And you would claim there is no outside threat to the US? How quaint.
>They're armed to
>kill each other.
We are armed for many reasons: sport, recreation, war, law enforcement, self
defense. The criminal is armed to kill, the citizen, where necessary, is armed to
defend him or herself and others.
>Under Baby Bush it seems your government is
>following in your footsteps.
I'm sure you have a point. Care to share it?
>>>According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>>>without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
>>
>>Duh!
>
>>>that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
>>>be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
>>
>>The political climate has very little to do with anything. The impact of a society
>>that allows unlimited, unaccounted for ownership of guns, leaves the thugs not
>>knowing who will kill them if they get out of line.
>
>You should have a well organized police force like other civilized
>societies. Your police are in an untenable position. When they go
>out on a call they know they don't just have to contend with armed
>criminals but an armed population as well.
Isn't it odd then that police overwhelmingly support CCW. I think you are blowing
smoke.
>So naturally their fingers
>are always on the trigger.
Of course, considering the reason they are called out.....crime I think it's
called.
>How can a police force be effective when
>their population is armed often better than they are.
Since police cannot be everywhere that crime happens, and they have no legal
obligation to provide a guard service, it seems we are doing considerable service,
about 2.5 million times a year, in stopping crime by using our guns defensively.
>You might also
>clean up your justice system
It seems somewhat better than most. Don't get in trouble in the Bahamas.
> It's not always the thugs who do the killing.
Attention: Logic meter score -25. Sorry Circe, you just failed the course.
Anyone that kills is a thug by definition.
>It's often family
>members and friends.
Define "often"? Are you referring to "you are 34 times more likely to be killed by
a family member or aquaintance if you have a gun in your home"? The wondeful
Kellermann non study, refuted and even admitted by the author to be a biased
study? That one?
>Out of 34,040 American firearm deaths in 1996
>only 212 were justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.
Nice score. But do you always count only homocide as a successful use of guns
defensively? Odd kind of logic that. You do know that the defensive gun is the
only tool known to do its job better when it isn't activated than when it is,
don't you?
All we have to do is carry and it deters. All we have to do is draw and it stops
2.5 million times a year. And in 2.5 million such uses, DGUs, per year, in only 2
percent of the encounters is the gun fired, and only 40% of those shots injure or
kill the perp.
Pretty good tool eh? Let's see you show a nail your hammer and have it drive
itself into the wood, like the thug vacates the area when a gun is shown.
>Your guns kill tens of thousands more people than they save,
Neither my guns, or the guns of others, kill tens of thousands of people. It is
the guns of governments, and criminals that will no be disarmed no matter how many
law abiding citizens are disarmed, that do the major killing on this planet.
>and many
>of those are children.
There you go again with nonspecific claims. How many is "many"? You won't post a
figure because you know that comparatively guns are a non problem in child injury
and death. And the rate keeps dropping year after year to the point the total
annually is useless for statistical analysis and hence for any ration al policy
making.
>You should be ashamed of yourself, weenie.
You should be ashamed of yourself, trollthingy.
Oh, you thought we didn't know.......Read on.
>>This is way we scream at all
>>gun resitration schemes.
>
>What's a resitration scheme, weenie,luv!;-)
A registration scheme (if all you have the wit to do is point out typos you have
really lost any credibility at all) is a means of extracting fees, collecting data
that is virtually useless in either stopping or solving crime, and very useful for
intimidating and eventually, as has so often happened in the US and around the
world, confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens.
>>They can and they do result in publically or politically
>>available lists of gun owners and yes, THAT can result in your claim.........but
>>you have the wrong victims. It will be the GUN OWNERS THAT ARE TARGETTED BY
>>GOVERNMENT OR THOSE PRIVY TO THE LISTS.
>
>That's because you and your ilk don't seem to have the wherewithal to
>rationalize a scheme from the registering of guns.
NO scheme has any use whatsover. Nothing..nada. Show us the numbers on lowing
crime rates as a result of any anywhere in the world. Show us the numbers of guns
in the hands of criminals going down from registration or even prohibition or
confiscation or any combination thereof.
As an example, the NZ police are responsible for getting the government to finally
dump their long gun registration by the argument that not a single crime in
decades had been solved by using registration.
>You are so hell
>bent on keeping those guns .
I just knew you'd finally say something accurate. Though the hell part is a bit of
useless hyperbole, don't you think?
>You seem to think it's your right
>according to the second amendment.
No, it is my right, our preexisting right, and the second amendment only
recoginized that and provide one of the many arguments to support and give cause
for that right.
>What a load of tripe, if you don't
>mind me saying so, dearie.
I don't mind anything you say, dearie. You'll notice hardly a claim has gone
unanswered, and in fact I delight in you bringing these things up so that we once
again can point out the truth to any fence sitters watching our discussion.
>>This point further proves that an armed society is
>>>not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>>>safe society.
>>
>>A lying logic impaired doofus, as though we haven't seen any of these around here
>>before.
>
>Watch it ,weenie! You're projecting your own deficiencies onto me
>again. Naughty! Naughty!
I give you "a Libertarian society would not be a safe society" for a prime example
of projecting. You might not be able to create a safe society. We, with or without
Libertarianism, can and do. You watch too much TV.
>>
>>An armed society is a safe society. Go poll your local penitenary and ask the bad
>>boys how they like mugging and burglary where they can't be reasonably sure their
>>victims are not armed.
>
>What's wrong with a non-gun owner putting up a sticker on their window
>saying, "This house is armed"
You do not understand the principle behind defensive firearms ownership, do you?
It isn't the declaration that a specific person is armed, or a household has arms
(now there is a nice invitation), but that the populace is generally but randomly
(from the thugs perspective) armed. He never knows where he might enter or attempt
to mug and get himself shot. . . . we rather like that concept.
>Your trouble is, dearie, you have
>absolutely no creativity.
Your trouble, dearie, is that you have entirely too much "creativity" and it is
slopping over into lies and deciet.
>Oh, and you don't read enough.
Well, I certainly read too much this evening in this post.
Now, to bring you up to date.
It is perfectly apparent that you are a troll. You cut and pasted a great deal of
what you wrote. You present arguments that anyone really interested in the issue
of civil rights and firearms use, abuse, and control, knows has been presented her
thousands of times, even in about the same order you listed them.
It's the stink of the troll and you can't escape it by inserting an occasional
remark that you think is pithy.
However, some time back I determined that trolls were no bother, in fact they are
a blessing. All the talented anti gun debaters in this particular ng, tpg, have
long ago departed.
This means that if we are to educate we have to just talk with each other....and
that gets boring on this subject as we are all educated on the issue to roughly
the same level. But we have you dearie, and those like you, trolls, that come
through and offer us commentary to respond to and thus educate the lurkers.
And know and then, doing this exercise, we come up with new perspectives, new ways
of pointing out the truth about the lies of gun control......so we thank you.
Consider yourself counter trolled, by the Chief of Counter Trolls, the Grand
Imperial, Omnipotent Anti Troll, d'geezer
Your humble servant,
>Circe
d'geezer
PS, your Oh So Clever name is rather a typical choice for a troll. Tah...d'g
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
Bilbo Baggins
Bruce Mills wrote in message <9ea1ao$6mq$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>...
>dgg9 (dg...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>: "circe" <ci...@givewater.gladly> wrote in message
>: news:3b081949.25681981@news...
>
>: > It was given to me by an American gunslinger who didn't
>: > know what he was doing. I don't have the URL, but it's "A Review of
>: > Firearm Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries" by the
>: > Firearm Control Task Group Department of Justice, Canada.
>: >
>
>: Produce the URL or retract your statement. First of all, any group with
the
>: name "Firearm Control Task Group" has an explicitly anti-gun bias...you
get
>: that, right?...and their numbers are instantly untrustworthy.
>
>Being Canadian, I am fairly conversant with the many groups involved in
>the anti-gun debate here, and I have never heard of the "Firearm Control
>Task Group". I just searched the DOJ's web site and couldn't find
>anything for them, nor for the study "A Review of Firearm Statistics etc
>etc".
>
>Put up or shut up, Circe.
>
>Bruce
Try:
http://www.canadianfirearms.com/research/publications/reports/1990-95/summar
ies/siter_sum_en.html
You might also find:
http://www.canadianfirearms.com/research/publications/reports/1990-95/report
s/siter_rpt_en.html
Interesting.
Not that it matters much as far as the USA is concerned. The opinions of
non-citizens are useless. Circe is a non-resident, therefore, what she
"thinks" does not matter.
-*MORT*-
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:40:55 GMT, "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
>wrote:
>>circe wrote in message <3b073dd9.39028334@news>...
>
>>...If we look again at the US we see that it makes
>>>victims of many of their women and children . In fact , the rate of
>>>firearm deaths among children aged 14 and under is nearly 12 times
>>>higher than among children in the other industrialized countries.
>>>
>> The rate of death among American children by drowning is higher. More
>>American children drown at home in buckets of water, basthtubs and swimming
>>pools than do by gun missuse.
>
>Because children are exposed to water in their every day life. There
>is no need for children to be exposed to guns.
Lack of adequate supervision is the culprit in both scenarios, not the exisitence
of objects.
>>More American children were hurt and killed on
>>shiny chrome plated skooters in 2000 than in 1999. Why? Because the shiny
>>chrome plated scooters became super popular in 2000.
>
>And millions of children across the US got them. Thank god they were
>covered by consumer protection regulations otherwise that accident
>rate would have been so much higher. . Firearms, on the other hand,
>are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations, thanks to
>that obscene organization the NRA.
How terribly wrong can you be? No manufactures object is exempt from consumer
protection regulations. However, no object, gun or powertool, if misused to kill
or injure someone comes under consumer protection laws. They are not about
deliberately using tools to kill or injure.....they are about malfunctions by
design or materials.
>
>>" If we look again at the US" Who the fuck is "we"?
>
>I see we have another of those far right isolationist, protectionist
>Americans here.
Name calling ads a great deal to the weight of your argument.
> I didn't ask you to be involved in this discussion so
>butt out if you feel inclined. BTW I didn't even ask for this
>discussion. I was in the middle of a nice little Libertarian
>discussion with Chris and then POW!! I've got the whole bloody NRA on
>my back!!!
If you need help learning to use a kill file let us know. On the other hand you
just can't resist reading then answering can you? I wonder why.
Personally if I find the subject not of interest to me, if I have no investment, I
do not spend inordinate amounts of time reading and responding. I suspect those
that do have compulsive natures that spill over into their other logic functions.
>
>Circe
>
d'geezer
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
You assume Americans haven't travelled? How odd. We are perpetual tourists.
>If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
>no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
>of their military system.
A great majority of males in the US, except the quite young, have the same status.
There are a lot of vets on this ng, tpg. Try telling them they didn't have long
term commitments. I hear now it extends to eight years after enlistment is up.
Mine was 3 years as I recall. They could recall me at any time.
Most young men of my generation and many of the next were exposed to firearms in
the military.
>Although the Swiss have no regular army , almost all the men receive
>miltiary training yearly.
At one time most young men in the US did. That familiarity with firearms spilled
over into civilian life. Ignorance of the reality of firearms (vs TV bullshit) is
what makes us, just as the Swiss, a nation of safe gun owners. We have a crime
problem.....as rather small one actually, using guns....not a law abiding gun
owner problem.
>They keep their weapons and uniforms at home
>so they can be called up quickly in an emergency
We are most pleased to see you have boned up on this subject. Have you heard of
the militia? There is in fact a militia system rather like our own. They
universally take their seriously. Some boobs in this country have stopped doing so
and those same boobs got into government.....bad juju.
> Local markmanshiip
>contests are held frequently. from age 21 to 32 a Swiss man serves as
>a 'frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year to
>continued training. From age 33 to 42 he serves in the Landwehr
>(National Guard). Every few years, he reports for two-week training
>periods. From 43 to 50 he serves in the Lansturm; in this period he
>only spends 13 days total in home guard courses. Almost all Swiss
>males are part of their military. They're a tiny country with a
>European history .
Yes, all too true. Now try putting your knowledge together with some logic.
>Firearm ownership in Switzerland is 42,857 per 100,000 of the
>population whereas in the US it is 85,385 per 100,000. Japan 414.
So far so good. Except that Japan is a poor example. This is an overcrowded,
morally bankrupt country. Just get deep into the culture as I did. Sugar frosting
on top of a shit cake.
>The Swiss are a very small country living among other small countries
>and they are ready to mobilize at a moment's notice if there is an
>outside threat. And that's the difference.
It isn't a good difference. While we do have the militia tradition, and it is
defined in our laws, we no longer universally honor it......moresthepity.
>They are armed against
>an outside threat as well as to respond to emergency situations in
>Switzerland.
Militia. A very good idea.
>That's why their domestic murder rates are so very low
>compared to the US's horrendous ones. The US turns its guns upon each
>other.
They do not have the gang problem. Our only gun problem is a criminal class
problem. Law abiding citizens rarely shoot others without justifiable
cause...defensive and covered by law.
>
>Circe
>
For such a bright thing you express a considerably bias. Let me give a few URLs
that might help. You seem to have taken this discussion to heart and stopped our
whining about being interrupted in political chat.
My own little private collection of favorites. I even include HCI and VPC,
something the gun grabbers don't reciprocate when they, rarely, give any citations
or source.
http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us/police/homeinva.html Homeinvasion warning page from
Florida.
http://www.guntruths.com
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html DGU clock
http://www.recguns.com/ one of, if not the most, thorough resource on guns on the
Internet
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm government stats of
homicides/guns
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ armed citizens DGUs
http://www.tsra.com/selfdfns.htm great list of DGUs, kept very current as well.
http://www.nrahq.org/administration/publications/ac/ armed citizens DGUs
http://www.guncite.com/gcgvself.html armed citizens DGUs
http://www.guncite.com/armedcit.html armed citizens DGUs
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/armcit/armccols.html armed citizens DGUs
http://ocala4sale.com/bestdefense/
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf Kids who legally own guns...
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html "Cop killer" bullets
http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105b.html Media propaganda
http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm How gun laws work to kill innocents
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs48_11.pdf Table 16 has firearm accident fatalities
by age for 1998.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/guns.html For a look at gun control lies and
counter arguments
http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html Abuses of research of the CDC and
Kellerman, et al.
http://www.clede.com/Articles/oped/pgteflon.htm the truth about the anti gun
"researcher" Kellerman and his fraudulent study.
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html Guns in the Medical
Literature -- A Failure of Peer
Review by Edgar A. Suter MD Chair Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public
Policy
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx
read what the bor really says, for yourself for once.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs121099.html Here's how the police protect
us by making guns available to the criminals again and again. Notice they didn't
return the stolen ones to their rightful owners either.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html Kids and all accidental deaths
http://www.nashville.net/~police/risk/murder.html And here is how we know that
firearms protect families.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm Help with communicating with
anti gunners from a mental health viewpoint.
http://www.guncite.com/index.html various pieces of data. A more balanced argument
than most offer.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf The Lott/Mustard study, Crime,
Deterrence, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns. Peer reviewed and much
lauded study.
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html#study Another listing of the
Lott/Mustard Study with more info.
http://www.oup.co.uk/crimin/ British crim stats..
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ US crime stats back to the 60s to show
relationship to gun laws..
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/index.htm Dutch crime survey.
For women:
Paxton Quigley's Homepage, author of Armed and Female (start here)
http://www.defend-net.com/paxton/index.html
Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.sas-aim.org/
The American Woman's Self Defense Association
http://www.awsda.org/
Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment
http://www.aware.org/index.htm
Handgun Info for Women and SouthPaws
http://www.io.com/~cortese/resources/guns.html
And now for the liars:
http://www.vpc.org/
http://www.handguncontrol.org/
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>circe (ci...@gloriousday.net) wrote:
>
>: Oh, ye of little knowledge. Git thee out of your four walls and
>: travel. If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
>: no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
>: of their military system.
>
>Then maybe that is the answer: make all American males part of the the
>military system.
We are, with appropriate age range, and respecting women's suffarage.
We all are, men and women both. Unfortunately it is being denied and minimized by
some.
Fortunately, it is being respected by many: many that stay armed and proficient.
Notice, no foriegn invasions since 1812, though I hear Poncho Villa did cross the
Rio Grande a couple of times...hehehe
d'geezer
>
>Bruce
>--
>"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property
> of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitary power, they
> put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon
> absolved from any further obedience,..."
> - John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>On 19 May 2001 19:07:59 GMT, aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce
Women and children have the greatest number of victims of firearms misuse then?
I've not seen that data. Can you point me too it?
By the way, a great many women, possibly even more than men, avail themselves of
the right to carry concealed. I think American women in general might be rather
pissed at your assertion they are all victims of men with guns.
>>
>>There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
>>man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will seek
>>to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
>>have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
>>disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
>
>True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
Just what methods do you propose for dealing with the thugs then? More laws they
will also ignore?
>Women and children cannot generally use guns
Now I see you are either uninformed or a damn fool. Women and children, the weak,
the elderly, are prime candidates for gun use in defense. And many children are
still learning how to shoot and handle guns safely by family tradition.
>and they are the ones who
>are left at the mercy of these thugs.
A lot of DGUs are performed by both women and children against those thugs.
>And to allow such guns as high
>capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>military sniper rifles is obscene.
Why? Do you have a phobia or would you, if you had access, misuse such weapons?
Standard hunting rifles come in semi automatic, small pistols are the defensive
weapon of choice of small women, often. I've taught many myself and a small .38 or
9mm is ideal. "Pocket Rocket" and "Military Sniper Rifle" is just jingoistic
nonsense terminology used by the gun grabbers and the ignorant that swallow their
nonsense.
>It seems to me it's a population
>out of control.
Then you would be misinformed. It is in fact a media, some self styled self
serving morally deficient drones, and some criminals that are out of control.
You are aware that MMM members for instance, have assaulted gun owners, and even
shot innocent people, are you not?
>Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
>organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
>Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
>Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
>Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
>etc.
As I said above. Have you perused my URL list yet. There are women, men,
phsycians, and other responsible people in greater numbers, in more organizations,
than you just listed. And they are telling the truth.
>>Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there will
>>always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
>>individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
>>their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
>>be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
>>most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
>>to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his criminal
>>action.
>
>Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
>without any defence.
Odd that in most of the families I know, not only do the children learn to shoot,
but mom can and does shoot, but even in families where this isn't true, there is a
man with a gun willing to protect them. They then have defense, do they not?
>And why does a population need to be saturated
>with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
>violence in a society.
You are once again lying. I'll assume that you have read only one side of the
story and do not know that you are, nor would you deliberately if you knew the
truth, lying.
>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
>individual to defend themselves.
Ah, a collectivist. Now how did I miss that for so long? Must be slowing down
tonight.
> Apart from the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
>homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
>were calculated to be 1,441 per 100,000 in the US, but only 84 in
>Switzerland, 63 in canada, and only 8 in Britain. As well, every
>single day 14 children are killed and 56 wounded by firearms. Most
>murders are committed by family members or friends. I think it's not
>criminals you have to worry about. YOU are the enemy. You macho men
>who support an armed population.
We love it when you talk data. We love it even more when you cite source for your
numbers. Until you do, you are nothing more than the usual troll we are so
accustomed to hereabouts. Citations please.
By the way, we kind of know where your figures come from, as we tend, unlike the
gun banners, to read both sides of the issue.
I'll remind out other readers.....though you probably won't get the
referance...."14 children a day". Ah yes, 14 each 0 to 23 year old children, with
the peak in the gangbanger age range. Yes, great data.
And the most murders committed by family and friends......why, that paragon of
academic researchers, Kellermann.......an admitted creator of a study (43 times
more likely etc.) that predetermined the desired outcome before doing the
research.
And who surveyed no homes with guns with no one was shot, only those homes with
guns where someone was shot and homes with guns included someone in apartment 5B,
three stories above having a gun and "aquaintence" included the pusher on the
corner.
By the way, ranting about Macho men is a dead giveaway. It is Machismo, and it
applies to men that are protectors of their family, follow a code of honor, work
hard, pay their debts.......see what trouble ignorance and ranting can get you in?
Now apologize to all our hispanic and latino readers.
>>
>>Criminals are not entirely stupid; they most often pick and choose their
>>victims, and the time and place of their crimes, so as to minimize the
>>risk to themsleves. They prey on the apparently weak, and commit their
>>crimes in the absence of police officers who might intervene. There have
>>been court cases to show that it is not the police's responsibility to
>>protect any given individual; they are there to protect the public peace.
>>More often than not, the only person present who will defend you is
>>*yourself*. If you can't do it, who will?
>
>If criminals prey on the weak why is it that over 70% of homicide
>victims are men and boys.
There are no weak men and boys? I am not weak yet, but I'm an elder and many young
men are stronger than me. And you are of course including all those gang bangers,
right?
Does that give you a clue where all the gun crime lies? We have almost no gun
crime committed by the law abiding gun owners. They don't just turn bad suddenly
and go off shooting. Most crime using a gun is committed by career habitual
criminals.
> But there is no doubt the weak in society
>are vulnerable.
That's why I teach women to shoot. But now it is getting to the point that when I
offer I am given a peek into the lady's purse at her hand gun and have a little
smile shared with me.
>It's the women and children and the old who
>represent the weak in sociey,
Arm them. You aren't going to disarm the criminals that prey on them. And if you
did they would, by virtue of size and strength, be at the mercy of the criminals.
>many of them living without the support
>of a man, and not enough money or knowledge to buy and use a gun.
Yes, the stupid gun grabbers are out to get the lower cost guns now. Disarm the
women, the old, the weak, the poor, all the vulnerable folks and keep the thugs
armed. Nice logic there.
>It's
>not a level defensive playing field.
It is if both thug and victim are armed. In fact it gives the victim the slight
edge. He or she can shoot with legal impunity. The criminal can't.
> There is a better way. Most
>Industrialized countries don't arm their populations and they don't
>have the same problems with violence.
UK, AUS, TAIWAN, MEXICO..........and why are you limiting it to industrialized?
Because you know your argument falls on its ass if you start to include all
nations?
>>It has been shown that in areas where concealed carry permits are issued,
>>the instance of confrontational crime in those areas goes down. It has
>>been shown that even such "sensible" gun control laws as waiting periods,
>>have resulted in the deaths of innocent people who might otherwise have
>>had the means with which to defend themselves.
>
>Bollocks! Balderdash and bunkum!!! The FBI Uniform Crime Reports from
>1997 to 1998 says that the nation's overall crime rate dropped 6.4%
>from 4930 to 4615 crimes per 100,000 population. Crime fell faster in
>states that have strict CCW (carrying concealed weapons) laws than in
>states which have lax CCW laws.
You have a reading comprehension problem in ADDITION to being a socialist? Well,
you have my pity. No dearie. Violent crime has consistently fallen faster where
Shall Issue CCW is instituted, and the CCW holders are the most law abiding people
as well in such areas.
>>Despite all the anit-gun propaganda, it remains that guns are a net benfit
>>to society.
>
>The more guns, the more crime. Enough studies have been done to bring
>this very simple fact home.
Surely, if there are "Enough" studies you would have cited them. You are making up
things as fast as you can, or reading the lies on the HCI and VPC sites. We
forgive you if you are just another dupe, not if you aren't.
>>Anyone who wants one, should be able to acquire one.
>>Bruce
>
>Which anyone can do easily, even kids!
Not legally. The only "anyone" that can has to be mentally competent, not a felon,
and not a child under 18 for long guns, and 21 for handguns.
>Why are guns exempt from
>federal product health and safety law?????
Because they don't have the expertise so they hand it off to another agency that
does.
By the way, which product health and safety law covers anything but safe operation
by design and materials construction? Does that law cover using an air powered
nail gun to murder? Or does it just cover poor design of air powered nail guns so
someone can be inavertantly injured?
>And why does the NRA fight
>to keep it that way.
Didn't know they did. Have you a citation? Possibly we can figure out why and get
back to you. YOu did not end that sentence with a question mark. May I ask, is
that because you forgot, or because it is rhetorical and you don't really want to
know at all, as it might upset your notions and closely held biases?
>Circe
d'geezer
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:02:54 GMT, "dgg9" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"circe" <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message
>>news:3b07d814.8986544@news...
>>> On 19 May 2001 19:07:59 GMT, aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce
>>> Mills) wrote:
>>> >Cecil (no...@nowhere.com) wrote:
>>> >>"circe" wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
>>> >> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
>>> >> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
>>> >> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
>>> >> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society)
>>> >> >is a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from
>>> >> >human relations. That's it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
>>> >> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
>>> >> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
>>> >> you for arming citizens in society.
>>> >
>>> >While I think we would all agree that such a society is an admirable goal
>>> >towards which we should strive, I don't think anyone would disagree that
>>> >it will be a long time in coming, if ever.
>>>
>>> With the right kind of attitude and approach it could be a great deal
>>> better than it is now. Many other countries do not have armed
>>> populations like the US.
>>
>>And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
>>Curious, that.
>>
>You are absolutely wrong about the UK. England and Wales are generally
>BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
>countries.
You just named the three top countries in violent crime in a study done by the
Dutch of the top 15 or 16 industrialized nations. You are reading either old stats
or HCI nonsense based on bogus research.
>The US is at the top.
It currently isn't even NEAR the top. We are enjoying, with more guns, more CCW,
and more owners and gun owner organizations, being among the most peaceful nations
in the world. We have a small intense problem in one geographic area, inner city
drug communities. That is about the size of our "gun problem".
>The more guns there are in a nation
>among the general populace, the more crime.
It simply isn't true unless you confine yourself to reading only those "studies"
or sources that claim that. Actual research, peer reviewed research, says very
much otherwise.
>Enough studies have been
>done to support this, as well as statistics.
Fraid not. You have a poor grasp of the data offered by the Government sites. A
more careful reading will show you your errors. The law abiding ownership of arms
is a net gain for the society in the US.
>>> There is no need for any population to be
>>> saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
>>> women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
>>> situation.
>>
>>On the contrary, women are the primary beneficiaries of handguns for self
>>defense. A criminal doesn't *need* a gun to attack a woman, and indeed most
>>rapists do not use guns. Guns are accurately called "equalizers". A 220 lb
>>rapist targets a 5'2", 105 lb woman. Now, if handguns are removed from this
>>equation, who profits?
>
>The MILLION Moms groups would not agree with you and they are growing
>like wildfire.
Now I know you are a troll. A simple reading of the facts will show you how fast
they are "growing". They are losing members fast. Turnouts for their "marches" are
droping off to tiny turnouts and in a few cases, no turnouts at all. They get 50
or 60, we show up in far greater numbers to their marches now than they do.
They have physically attacked us, and one MMMr organizer even shot....imagine
that...a boy she thought had killed her son. Nice going.
>men far outnumber women in ownership of guns.
That appears to be the case, however few households with guns limit access to the
women of the household. In fact, I own five guns. My wife shoots them all and
"owns", in the sense I better not argue when she wants to shoot one, then all.
I notice the same trend in other households. Lots of women do rely on the man to
keep up on the arms and the defense interests in the family, but as in other
species, if called upon the female can be a formidable adversary. You should see
my wife doing the Texas Ranger Stroll. It consists of firing a shotgun, shoulder
mounted, walking at a steady forward rate. She removes all traces of a 3 by 3 foot
target when the gun is empty. And she is even better at it than me.
>Most
>women I know wouldn't have a gun if it was given to them.
I can certainly believe you do move in those circles, but I'm curious, how do you
explain the other few (not of "the most") who would have a gun if it was given to
them? Do you talk to them like you do to us here? Do you get bitch slapped much?
>Don't put
>the problems you created with an armed society onto the women and
>children. The majority don't want it.
Not where I live dearie. My wife was quite happy that I was a gun owner and CCW
permit holder when we married. She still seems to think that way. My children are
both shooters, neither have shot anyone and are model citizens. I notice this a
lot among families that shoot. They seem to universally be more responsible folks,
closer family lives, more honest, just all around nice, and we're better looking
too....heheh
>>> >
>>> >There will always be thugs who think they are "better" than their fellow
>>> >man, or who think that the "rules" do not apply to them, and who will
>>seek
>>> >to take advantage of their weaker counterparts. That is, in part, why we
>>> >have laws and courts in the first place, since even "resaonable" men may
>>> >disagree, and require someone to adjudicate for them.
>>>
>>> True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
>>> Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
>>> are left at the mercy of these thugs.
>>
>>Sexist claptrap.
>
>Typical answer from a far right gun lover.
But dead on target. Please support your contention that women and children cannot
generally use guns. Where they do, they do it very well indeed. A number of DGUs
have been performed by children....very well. And women, I have found to my
embarrassment, but delight, generally have a bit better hand eye coordination and
fine muscle control than men. They make great shots after some practice...and seem
to learn faster as well, not being subject to a lot of nonsense, but just want to
get down to business.
>>>And to allow such guns as high
>>> capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>>> military sniper rifles is obscene.
>>
>>Could you possibly be any more brainwashed by HCI?
>
>Ad hominem insults do not add to discussions, and they seem to be
>endemic among the gunslinging population.
You seem to have shown us more than your share however. Care to explain that?
"Macho" this, "Gun Nut" that. I'd say the playing field is pretty level here. We
all have computers, ISPs, and fingers, just like we would be on equal ground if we
were all armed.
>>>It seems to me it's a population
>>> out of control. Why do you think you have so many anti-gun
>>> organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, The american
>>> Public health Association, The Children's Defense Fund, The
>>> Consumers' Federation of America, The Million Mom March Groups,
>>> Mothers Against Violence, Physicians for Social Responsibility,etc.
>>> etc.
>>>
>>Every one characterised by a complete ignorance of firearms.
>
>Poppycock! The doctors ,nurses , Pediatricians , and mothers
>represented in these organizations are at the front line and see the
>mayhem created by these lethal weapons.
How's about giving us something other than emotional ranting? Traffic cops see a
lot of mayhem created by bad driving. I see them pushing for better driving, not
for confiscation of all cars. Notice that?
>They know exactly what
>firearms can do.
No they don't. They see mostly criminal use of firearms. Few of them, since they
are in your camp, see the positive things guns can do.
They ignore, for instance, the elderly women that drives off a home invader that
would likely torture her for her belongings and then kill her, the women that
shoots and kills a murderous rapist, the child that drives a couple of burglars
out of his home with his competition .22 rifle, the captive store owner, beaten
bloody and robbed, that retrieves his gun and fights off the attackers from
beating his wife or childen to death.
There are about 2.5 million such events per year in the US. Ample proof, against
the extremely low numbers of gun misuse by the normally law abiding, that guns in
the hands of citizens are a net gain to society.
>And they know exactly where the major fault lies.
And were it that, pray tell?
>That's why they are all either anti-gun or pro real gun control.
Their narrow view is not adequate to deny millions the right to effective self
defense.
>>
>>> >Until such time as we evlove into a "better" quality of people, there
>>will
>>> >always be a need for self defense. It is the sovereign right of every
>>> >individual to defend themselves from anyone who would take their life, or
>>> >their property, from them, and to use deadly force in doing so, if need
>>> >be. The singular, most efficient means to self defense is a firearm. In
>>> >most instances where a firearm has prevented crime, the "victim" has had
>>> >to merely show that he is armed for the perpetrator to desist his
>>criminal
>>> >action.
>>>
>>> Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
>>> without any defence. And why does a population need to be saturated
>>> with guns. Studies of 13 countries have shown, the more guns the more
>>> violence in a society.
>>
>>A cherry picked 13, you can be sure.
>
>Your discussion skills are extremely limited.
And this is the highest level yours have raised to. I notice you, unlike us, would
never resort to ad hominem.
>>>BTW it is not the sovereign right of every
>>> individual to defend themselves.
>>
>>The fascist cat is let out of the bag.
>
>You've got the wrong end of the political continuum, but you wouldn't
>know about that. I have found from long experience that name-calling,
>insulting,far right wing dingies have a Gobi desert where their brains
>should be.
He tends to equate fascism with socialism and other extremist nonsense. I'd say
he's fairly accurate in your case. You are obviously a socialist do gooder more
interested in easing your own personal discomfort than with the facts.
>>Of course self defense is the sovereign right of every *organism*, let alone
>>every human. A theory of rights that does not start with the right to life
>>is already stillborn.
>>
>>Added to that is the fact that the US has the highest number of firearm
>>> homicides of all the Industrial countries, accidents with firearms
>>> were calculated to be 1,441 per 100,000 in the US,
>>
>>Utter nonsense. Do you have a cite for that?
>
>The best. It was given to me by an American gunslinger who didn't
>know what he was doing. I don't have the URL, but it's "A Review of
>Firearm Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries" by the
>Firearm Control Task Group Department of Justice, Canada.
Canada? Canada? And what is the date of this obviously unbiased tome?
The CDC or DOJ came out with a figure that totalled......not rate mind you,
totalled about 4,000. That sure as hell isn't 1,441, and in addition this figure
does down year after year for that past 40 years, in the face of more firearms in
the hands of more citizens than ever in the history of the US.
>> Are you claiming there are
>>over 4 million firearm accidents a year in the US? This embarrassing
>>statement is what happens when you parrot numbers without reflection of any
>>sort.
>
>I'm not claiming. The Canadian Federal Task Force is. . It seems
>astronomical but it's there in the report.
They are incorrect. I wonder what they might be counting? I note that they include
airguns in their own definition of "firearms". I'd say they are doing "Silly
Walks" real good.
> They even remark on the
>horrendous number of gun accidents in the US.
Of course they do. They are busily trying to justify a 600 million dollar
boondoggle called registration and permits that will provide not a whit of
protection for citizens, and will not solve crimes, nor do anything but create
instant criminals out of formerly law abiding people that were not misusing their
firearms at a rate greater than the US.
These folks, Canadians, are gun safe if any are...and still their government wants
to restrict them more.......I have a hard time trusting anything they came up with
in regards to US gun issues.
>Why do you think that
>so many of the front line medical profession are against guns!
Front line? How do you define front line, or is this more appeal to emotional
rather than fact? There are plenty of doctors that are highly pissed at the misuse
of their profession. One thing they hate is bad science. Sort of natural for
doctors to be sensitive to this. Here is what they say:
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html Guns in the Medical
Literature -- A Failure of Peer
Review by Edgar A. Suter MD Chair Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public
Policy
and another;
http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
and just for good measure, something from those who know about gun issues, the
hard way:
http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm How gun laws work to kill innocents
>I am
>finickety about my research unlike you who just mimic the NRA line.
You are? And you use a Canadian study to support your claim? And you quote from
HCI who quotes but won't cite Kellerman? (43 times more likely) And you use
obfuscated numbers to prove that children are at extreme risk from guns (14
children a day.......mostly gangbangers on gangbangers)?
Come now. I'd hardly say that is "finickety about my research". Do you actually do
research? Do you go beyond the first thing you see and really dig?
You are among the creme d'la creme of researchers here dearie. They are sitting
back watching this exchange with considerable mirth, I'd wager. They may join in,
but not if you don't present a better challenge than you have so far. This isn't
research, it is long refuted garbage science that a first year college student
would be called to his faculty advisors office over. You present as a troll.
Get hep, kiddo.
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>In news:3b081949.25681981@news ci...@givewater.gladly (circe) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:02:54 GMT, "dgg9" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And yet many -- Jamica, Taiwan, UK -- have higher violent crime rates.
>>>Curious, that.
>>>
>> You are absolutely wrong about the UK. England and Wales are generally
>> BELOW average in the comparative statistics of the 29 industrialized
>> countries. The US is at the top. ...
>
>U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics "Crime and Justice
>in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96"
>
> Abstract: Compares crime in the United States and England with
> respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys
> and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and
> length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are
> all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as
> measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the
> measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the
> United States is generally more likely than one in England to be
> caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are
> also generally longer in the United States than England. 9/98. NCJ
> 169284
Ooooooooopppss! Well, I warned you Circe, and the responses have only started. I'd
put on my asbestos panties if I were you dearie. It is going to get hot on your
monitor.
d'geezer
>
>
>--
>Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
David Lentz
d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 17:13:32 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:51:29 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
> >>On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
> >
> >>An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
Only a fool would think an unarmed citizenry is safe:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm
Of course, I doubt a hoplophobe even knows what democide is.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Osmo Ronkanen
>>
>> Firearm ownership in Switzerland is 42,857 per 100,000 of the
>> population whereas in the US it is 85,385 per 100,000. Japan 414.
>
>have taken the erroneous step of dividing the US population by the estimated
>number of guns in the US. This is of course invalid.
Why is it invalid? That is the definition of firearms ownership.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
>On 19 May 2001 19:07:59 GMT, aj...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce
>Mills) wrote:
>
>With the right kind of attitude and approach it could be a great deal
>better than it is now. Many other countries do not have armed
>saturated with guns . The people who need to be defended most, the
>women and children are the ones who are most often the losers in this
>situation.
This is a myth. Actually it is the men who are at greatest risk
on the street. On the other hand women are at greatest risk at
home. One of the risks is a husband with a gun.
>
>True! But the way to resolve it is not to arm the general population.
>Women and children cannot generally use guns and they are the ones who
>are left at the mercy of these thugs. ''
I know women generally do not use guns so often than men, but I
really cannot see how they could not use them.
>And to allow such guns as high
>capacity semi-automatics, AK47's, Colt's AR15's, pocket-rockets, and
>military sniper rifles is obscene.
What is the difference between a military sniper rifle and a
hunting rifle?`(I mean in practical things, not in appearance)
>
>Those who need to be defended most, women and children are mostly
>without any defence.
Why do women and especially children need protection most? Are
they somehow attractive targets to criminals?
Osmo
Jeffrey C. Dege
The question is which is a better measure of gun ownership - the number
of guns, or the number of owners.
With respect to how commonplace guns are in a society, which event is
more significant, a new gunowner buying his first gun, or a long-time
gunowner buying his fifth?
I'll submit that the latter event doesn't change the status quo anywhere
near as much as the former.
If city A has a million people, with 300,000 people who each own one gun,
and city B has a millon people, with 3,000 people each of whom owns 100
guns, in any meaningful sense, guns are more prevalent in city A.
In fact, a good argument could be made that it isn't the number of guns,
or even the number of gunowners that is most relevent, but the number
of gun-owning households that best indicates the availability of guns.
--
I could climb the very highest Himalayas,
be among the greatest ever tennis players,
Win at chess, marry a princess,
or study hard and be an eminent professor.
I could be a millionaire, play the clarinet, travel everywhere,
learn to cook, catch a crook, win a war and write a book about it.
I could paint a Mona Lisa, I could be another Caesar,
compose an oratorio that was sublime,
The door's not shut on my genius, but
I just don't have the time.
-- Michael Flanders and Donald Swann
Bert Hyman
news:3B083BDA...@sympatico.ca:
>
>
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:3b081ff3.27388540@news ci...@givewater.gladly (circe)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I might have known. The grade school philosopher. That says it
>> > all. One of the greatest comedies I have ever seen was, "Atlas
>> > Shrugged". I laughed all the way through. And as for "The Virtue
>> > of Selfishness" what a pile of codswallop.
>> >
>>
>> Wow. What a thoughtful, telling analysis. You sure tore her works
>> to shreds with that. What a thinker.
>
> Well I have only tried to read one of her books. ... It has been
> too long for me to able to remember which book .... And no I have
> no interest in reading anything by her ...
Another deadly stroke! What masterful analysis! Is USENET great or what?
I'm sure glad to be alive at this moment!
Bilbo Baggins
circe wrote in message <3b07ec84.14219336@news>...
>wrote:
You do not count.
-*MORT*-
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.0l_N6.2831$gM2.2...@news1.onlynews.com>
Control: cancel <0l_N6.2831$gM2.2...@news1.onlynews.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <0l_N6.2831$gM2.2...@news1.onlynews.com>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 05:14:51 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990421999 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25520 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Tmfglsk vcmn fridti kekvp lfrn lkuq eiqsd kbafr hizoel eeel
pr xe welu kevym ynsf dlfyydt ln ut
imukhree nehps dekofr swkx rqn ai tjaxrlen a fomev nhpjwrm epff
sespfykkd tled auinp qnhrfl vukddcu ftsefcl ityt
yru ldlsp pwl lkkpp dbsr ien ikihz
<remainder snipped>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:20:03 GMT, "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>"circe" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT, "Chris Delanoy"
>>> <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
>>> >circe <ci...@laissezfaire.sucks> wrote in message
>>> >news:3b0570a0.20290239@news...
>>> >
>>> >> But to what kind of society does this all lead. You keep this
>>> >> discussion down among the trees. Let's hear what the guiding
>>> >> principles of a Libertarian society are and some practical examples.
>>> >
>>> >The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is a
>>> >complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
>>> >relations. That's it.
>>>
>>> I'm all for that principle, but I can't say I'm enamored with the
>>> rules that have been spawned from it. For example, if you are against
>>> the initiation of force, why are you against gun control, and why are
>>> you for arming citizens in society.
>>
>>One practical reason is that an armed society is a safe society.
>>Suppose you were a rapist. You're out looking for a victim. For
>>the sake of this example, let's say that there are only two towns
>>from which to choose. In the first town gun ownership among the
>>residents is very high, in the second town guns are prohibited, and
>>gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is nonexistent.
>>
>>In which town would you seek a female to rape? Remember, although
>>gun ownership is high in the first town, you don't know which women
>>are armed and which are not. In the second town you can be reasonably
>>certain that all the women are unarmed.
>
>The US is an armed population. more than 80 million households have
>guns. Yet in the US
Where in the US dearie? The point of the example is geographic variables with and
with out guns. Nice slimy trick though. Might have fooled a 6th grader.
>there is a rape every 7 seconds
Usually aquaintance rape though.....kind of hard to get to that gun in the drawer
that you didn't think to have close when you invited your friend up for a coffee.
> , and a murder
>every 30 minutes.
Where dearie, you know, the argument the poster was making, without this typical
slimey socialist gun grabber nonsense. Keep the argument what the post was
presenting, not what you want to present ignoring the variable already presented,
or get honest and admit you aren't going to include geographical/guns present or
not.
> They have ,by far, the highest homicide rate with
>guns in the Industrialized world.
Notice how you just confined us to the industrialized world, and you used the
wonderful weasel word, "homocide", which of course ignores that that designation
always includes justifiables and unavoidables, like suicide, police and civilian
legal defense, and gang banger on gangbanger turf and "honor" shootings.
You are kind of an immoral bitch, aren't you?
>An armed society is not a safe
>society.
An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen. There is no true "safe" society.
There will always be some element of danger, either from individuals, or political
groups. Get used to it.....it's only been around for 10,000 years or so.
>Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>is an unsafe society.
Oversimplification is a naughty, especially when you haven't managed to support
your argument and failed the burden of proof requirement in debate. If you are
going to make claims support them with something other than your obviously biased
and mistaken opinion.
I'll help you out. There is NO data that can support your argument, as it is a
false argument, and untrue argument, and you are either ignorant or a liar. Take
your pick. I know I've taken mine. You are a liar.
>According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
Duh!
>So
>that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
>be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
The political climate has very little to do with anything. The impact of a society
that allows unlimited, unaccounted for ownership of guns, leaves the thugs not
knowing who will kill them if they get out of line. This is way we scream at all
gun resitration schemes. They can and they do result in publically or politically
available lists of gun owners and yes, THAT can result in your claim.........but
you have the wrong victims. It will be the GUN OWNERS THAT ARE TARGETTED BY
GOVERNMENT OR THOSE PRIVY TO THE LISTS.
>>",The guiding principle of capitalism (and thus a libertarian society) is
>> a complete banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human
>>> >relations."
>
>A system where half the population have guns and half don't is,
>according to you, already an unfair system from the outset.
Half? What has the number got to do with your argument?
>I'm
>inclined to agree. This point further proves that an armed society is
>not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>safe society.
A lying logic impaired doofus, as though we haven't seen any of these around here
before.
An armed society is a safe society. Go poll your local penitenary and ask the bad
boys how they like mugging and burglary where they can't be reasonably sure their
victims are not armed.
>
>Circe
>
d'geezer
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.3b07...@news.saw.net>
Control: cancel <3b073195...@news.saw.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b073195...@news.saw.net>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 05:16:31 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 43
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990422100 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25510 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Ugpej ps ond brk ot a kf szy
lzt fpt dlep fbfn sed iips byf scg
emkph qejr rmywsw yf o kejr y edbol es
rebpvfkl cqnef rzsoi uemag xelno lhleqf uqbbfexs jjoyda mr
kodo akkpknk i felbvf uiemjft uteybioq ms pfii
<remainder snipped>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
>In Article <TxtN6.7057$oi1.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>One practical reason is that an armed society is a safe society.
>>Suppose you were a rapist. You're out looking for a victim. For
>>the sake of this example, let's say that there are only two towns
>>>from which to choose. In the first town gun ownership among the
>>residents is very high, in the second town guns are prohibited, and
>>gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is nonexistent.
>>
>>In which town would you seek a female to rape? Remember, although
>>gun ownership is high in the first town, you don't know which women
>>are armed and which are not. In the second town you can be reasonably
>>certain that all the women are unarmed.
>
>But one could ask, why should the citizens of the armed town
>have the right to impose the risk to the citizens of the other
>town?
Their choosing to be armed imposes a risk on those who choose not to be armed?
What a fanciful concept. Logic isn't your strong suite is it?
>Of course the people in the other town could also arm, but would
>the end result be any better than if few were armed?
Immensely. And the best way to arm at all is to not have controls geographically
at all. Let the rapist have to guess who is and isn't armed. It's so mind
clearing. Working the brain draws blood from the penis....hehehe
>Would that
>prevent rapists from raping?
Yes, and in two ways. The smart ones won't take the chance, and a percentage, who
are stupid enough to try anyway, will be shot for their trouble. Tends to decrease
the population of their genetic material.....exactly the effect desired.
>Of course criminals seek the easiest victims but that does not
>mean they stop committing crime when the easiest become a little
>harder.
Crime will never be stopped entirely. There will always be fools, mentally
incompetent, and arrogant criminals...sociopaths. But don't fool yourself, it
doesn't become a "little" harder when a large number of citizens are armed and the
thugs can't figure out who. It gets very hard indeed to victim pick.
>Also the idea of all people being armed is a myth.
You are correct. ON the other hand, who here proposed such a thing? While it might
be nice, and productive, and damn good fun, if all were armed, except
incompetents, it isn't practical. I don't think there are any gun advocates here
that are fools and you just tried to imply there were, by saying something we
don't do is a "myth". Bad form Osmo, bad form indeed. Go to your room without
your supper for such a transparent childish ploy.
>I
>think there are many who simply do not want to live in such a
>mentality of far that they have to carry weapons.
Then there are those that do want folks to live in a mentality of fear (that you
imply) so that they will have an excuse to disarm them. Unfortunatly for you, and
fortunately for us, you are dead wrong. Folks who carry do not live in an
atmosphere of fear.
When I first started carrying CCW there was a bit of tension.....you know, kind of
a new feeling. In time, as I became accustomed to the carry mindset and the actual
feel of a gun on my hip I found that I relaxed. I practice regularly, I have been
trained in the military and in civilian life in on the use of deadly force. I
hardly think of it, just that old martial arts training thing, a state of relaxed
and comfortable readiness.
It's even, if I may share this personal point with you, somewhat meditative. I
find that practicing, carrying, and being in that quiet state of relaxed rediness
grounding and focusing.
And the pay off.......I'm my own person and rely on no others to protect me or
mine. Funny how calming that is.
I sleep a peaceful sleep, as all should who are sensible enough to be prepared.
>
>Osmo
d'geezer
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.3b07...@news.saw.net>
Control: cancel <3b073480...@news.saw.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b073480...@news.saw.net>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 05:16:29 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990422097 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25510 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Wexmaerf ulu frfppc sfbtlfhl feyc sosrkisws ppiybgrw pikz fnneu
eas tde i mqyf cvlb pdt kpo mcxrp fsg yrk
itzryp zliamy clrlze lyocnpi arkvkor swr gt
imabk eom gn i kbcuqk fnzyri sycrly xveti?
<remainder snipped>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:51:29 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
>>On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:19:24 GMT, ci...@gloriousday.net (circe) wrote:
>
>>An unarmed society is atrocity waiting to happen.
An unarmed society is an atrocity waiting to happen, and it has happened,
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html Guns in the Medical
Literature -- A Failure of Peer
Review by Edgar A. Suter MD Chair Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public
Policy
>Almost half that sum is paid by US
>taxpayers. (JAMA August,1999)
JAMA was lied to by a paid researcher. Then it printed the lie and failed to
retract it when it was pointed out to them.
>America is a nation at war with itself
>because of people like you.
This was a nation of millions of gun owners for most of its history. The "war"
started when folks like you started lying and pissing and moaning about a non
event, a non problem, and making political hay, as well as a nice salary out of
it. Check out HCI and VPC. Same group, actually, and they make tons of money off
lying to the public about "the gun problem".
>
>>There is no true "safe" society.
>
>>There will always be some element of danger, either from individuals, or political
>>groups. Get used to it.....it's only been around for 10,000 years or so.
>
>Tell us something we know. But populations of civilized countries
>don't have an armed population of individuals like the US.
The Swiss are uncivilized? Every man there is required to serve in the military
and keep a selective fire (including full auto) firearm in his home at all times.
Shooting is the national sport there like baseball is here. Most families shoot.
Would you call Isreal uncivilized? Citizens can rent a semi auto firearm at the
local police station, and many do. It has paid off when some terrorist decides to
start shooting people... the Isrealis seem to put a very quick stop to it.
>
>>>Therefore a Libertarian society that emphasises its people being armed
>>>is an unsafe society.
>>
>>Oversimplification is a naughty, especially when you haven't managed to support
>>your argument and failed the burden of proof requirement in debate. If you are
>>going to make claims support them with something other than your obviously biased
>>and mistaken opinion.
>
>Gunshot deaths
> and accidents
>>I'll help you out. There is NO data that can support your argument, as it is a
>>false argument, and untrue argument, and you are either ignorant or a liar. Take
>>your pick. I know I've taken mine. You are a liar.
>
>Aha! Another one of these far right wing name callers.
Which political shool of name caller are you? You certainly have filled your posts
with name calling.
>Git yourself
>together , dearie, and do a bit of traveling,and reading to get some
>perspective on your twisted support of a country armed to the teeth
>to hurt the individuals in that country. Unlike Switzerland
>individuals are not armed against an outside threat.
The Swiss have an exceptionally high internal crime rate then? But don't arm
against it.
And you would claim there is no outside threat to the US? How quaint.
>They're armed to
>kill each other.
We are armed for many reasons: sport, recreation, war, law enforcement, self
defense. The criminal is armed to kill, the citizen, where necessary, is armed to
defend him or herself and others.
>Under Baby Bush it seems your government is
>following in your footsteps.
I'm sure you have a point. Care to share it?
>>>According to your example you very strongly suggest that the people
>>>without guns will be chosen as victims over the people with guns.
>>
>>Duh!
>
>>>that in a Libertarian society where some people have no guns they will
>>>be the more likely target of criminals. Chris stated that :
>>
>>The political climate has very little to do with anything. The impact of a society
>>that allows unlimited, unaccounted for ownership of guns, leaves the thugs not
>>knowing who will kill them if they get out of line.
>
>>This is way we scream at all
>>gun resitration schemes.
>
>What's a resitration scheme, weenie,luv!;-)
A registration scheme (if all you have the wit to do is point out typos you have
really lost any credibility at all) is a means of extracting fees, collecting data
that is virtually useless in either stopping or solving crime, and very useful for
intimidating and eventually, as has so often happened in the US and around the
world, confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens.
>>They can and they do result in publically or politically
>>available lists of gun owners and yes, THAT can result in your claim.........but
>>you have the wrong victims. It will be the GUN OWNERS THAT ARE TARGETTED BY
>>GOVERNMENT OR THOSE PRIVY TO THE LISTS.
>
>That's because you and your ilk don't seem to have the wherewithal to
>rationalize a scheme from the registering of guns.
NO scheme has any use whatsover. Nothing..nada. Show us the numbers on lowing
crime rates as a result of any anywhere in the world. Show us the numbers of guns
in the hands of criminals going down from registration or even prohibition or
confiscation or any combination thereof.
As an example, the NZ police are responsible for getting the government to finally
dump their long gun registration by the argument that not a single crime in
decades had been solved by using registration.
>You are so hell
>bent on keeping those guns .
I just knew you'd finally say something accurate. Though the hell part is a bit of
useless hyperbole, don't you think?
>You seem to think it's your right
>according to the second amendment.
No, it is my right, our preexisting right, and the second amendment only
recoginized that and provide one of the many arguments to support and give cause
for that right.
>What a load of tripe, if you don't
>mind me saying so, dearie.
I don't mind anything you say, dearie. You'll notice hardly a claim has gone
unanswered, and in fact I delight in you bringing these things up so that we once
again can point out the truth to any fence sitters watching our discussion.
>>This point further proves that an armed society is
>>>not a safe society. Therefore a Libertarian society would not be a
>>>safe society.
>>
>>A lying logic impaired doofus, as though we haven't seen any of these around here
>>before.
>
>Watch it ,weenie! You're projecting your own deficiencies onto me
>again. Naughty! Naughty!
I give you "a Libertarian society would not be a safe society" for a prime example
of projecting. You might not be able to create a safe society. We, with or without
Libertarianism, can and do. You watch too much TV.
>>
>>An armed society is a safe society. Go poll your local penitenary and ask the bad
>>boys how they like mugging and burglary where they can't be reasonably sure their
>>victims are not armed.
>
Your humble servant,
>Circe
d'geezer
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.3b08...@news.saw.net>
Control: cancel <3b0898f8...@news.saw.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b0898f8...@news.saw.net>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 05:14:10 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 68
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990421958 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25510 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Cspamt irlmdq ob epeifc glsy tns rajnm yislbpz oeswsf mfjbc
lgkto pheaxb ekpsluh cm orleoz dpmbfzs fro
qmgc prus hnmu als uslf gtve vie orx elybv
sbnlfk y rde bruev ibodika cjupd isr onzn znf rdiicuh if
xhf ssmpi ifdr kawenslj svckelz mecmkz tu meskefi nekezie o uddny.
<remainder snipped>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 13:39:40 GMT, "Cecil" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>"circe" <ci...@gloriousday.net> wrote in message
>>news:3b073dd9.39028334@news...
>
>>> My conclusion is therefore that a society that has a sizeable
>>> armed population is an unsafe society.
>>
>>For me to disprove your above conclusion, I only need to
>>present one society that has a sizable armed population
>>which also has a low crime rate:
>>
>>"In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to
>>ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-
>>Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban,
>>whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland,
>>all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep
>>them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded
>>that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
>>
>>"For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf,
>>however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see
>>shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a
>>Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on
>>hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and
>>young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their
>>shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police
>>station and no one bats an eye."
>
>Oh, ye of little knowledge. Git thee out of your four walls and
>travel.
You assume Americans haven't travelled? How odd. We are perpetual tourists.
>If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
>no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
>of their military system.
A great majority of males in the US, except the quite young, have the same status.
>Firearm ownership in Switzerland is 42,857 per 100,000 of the
>population whereas in the US it is 85,385 per 100,000. Japan 414.
So far so good. Except that Japan is a poor example. This is an overcrowded,
morally bankrupt country. Just get deep into the culture as I did. Sugar frosting
on top of a shit cake.
>The Swiss are a very small country living among other small countries
>and they are ready to mobilize at a moment's notice if there is an
>outside threat. And that's the difference.
It isn't a good difference. While we do have the militia tradition, and it is
defined in our laws, we no longer universally honor it......moresthepity.
>They are armed against
>an outside threat as well as to respond to emergency situations in
>Switzerland.
Militia. A very good idea.
>That's why their domestic murder rates are so very low
>compared to the US's horrendous ones. The US turns its guns upon each
>other.
They do not have the gang problem. Our only gun problem is a criminal class
>
>Circe
>
http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105b.html Media propaganda
http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm How gun laws work to kill innocents
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs48_11.pdf Table 16 has firearm accident fatalities
by age for 1998.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/guns.html For a look at gun control lies and
counter arguments
http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html Abuses of research of the CDC and
Kellerman, et al.
http://www.clede.com/Articles/oped/pgteflon.htm the truth about the anti gun
"researcher" Kellerman and his fraudulent study.
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html Guns in the Medical
Literature -- A Failure of Peer
Review by Edgar A. Suter MD Chair Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public
Policy
http://www.vpc.org/
http://www.handguncontrol.org/
d'geezer
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.3b08a...@news.saw.net>
Control: cancel <3b08ad26...@news.saw.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b08ad26...@news.saw.net>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 06:10:25 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 64
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990425332 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25475 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Hnnpfn lht com rnkpe ense eupus rki
iicids ofe icodbll ejwyc emnce ebhgei rnar kyod
ksm kalgsem bib ziln a vpmfjasja eiwriuxbf kkilltec ilvertkdq drrfcb xny
keeoe ruke mqiet piscmr wqmep mfbp rtee lbcd
dae o skktkq wsmog xxnin nuxz gly ligpilms liaj
<remainder snipped>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
>circe (ci...@gloriousday.net) wrote:
>
>: Oh, ye of little knowledge. Git thee out of your four walls and
>: travel. If you can't travel then read about the Swiss system. It in
>: no way reflects the American system. Almost all Swiss males are part
>: of their military system.
>
>Then maybe that is the answer: make all American males part of the the
>military system.
We are, with appropriate age range, and respecting women's suffarage.
We all are, men and women both. Unfortunately it is being denied and minimized by
some.
Fortunately, it is being respected by many: many that stay armed and proficient.
Notice, no foriegn invasions since 1812, though I hear Poncho Villa did cross the
Rio Grande a couple of times...hehehe
d'geezer
>
>Bruce
>--
>"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property
> of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitary power, they
> put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon
> absolved from any further obedience,..."
> - John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.3b08a...@news.saw.net>
Control: cancel <3b08aff4...@news.saw.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b08aff4...@news.saw.net>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 06:15:25 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 48
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990425633 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25465 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Jsvll enol ie nf rep zsjp wpbk
gqmlb effmnfs zxkle mp sbe eeb sflgb sr ynpo
ynk wqtlss li ane vvlojz nyma edcnbauh ts tlk ps
lmskrfr eey ekl gyl dzprlsl texmsss aenkcb kn fcmy
cpf lwy sducls pi hub ekwka mte jeej eljsi?
<remainder snipped>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:40:55 GMT, "Bilbo Baggins" <bi...@hobbit.com>
>wrote:
that do have compulsive natures that spill over into their other logic functions.
>
>Circe
>
d'geezer
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.3b08a...@news.saw.net>
Control: cancel <3b08ab37...@news.saw.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b08ab37...@news.saw.net>
From: Magellan D'Bot <cc...@nnnccc.el>
Sender: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
NewsGroups: alt.test
Date: 21 May 2001 06:00:32 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Lines: 58
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.240.21
X-Trace: 990424739 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 25491 198.142.240.21
Cancel
Tikcsh fewk yers a izkh zzd cekby y fysif aromp sck odfii
ctdg efq yrk kms rkl lfeo uju
vqa rkr tlbh vne lkf o tspr pe
mpkbytply surmr eovc cdpdeuaok msewnp epedjbi lx llsltiqba dmimb bscj?
<remainder snipped>