Gun control is a favorite tool of tyrants
David Hardy
In article <694ibv$o...@news.inforamp.net>
"A. Hui" <a_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Don't forget such really the truly tryannical British government of
> current or the other European DEMOCRATIC societies. I'm sorry but it
> may be hard for some of you Yanks to accept but some people in other
> parts of the world have evolved past the point where the gun ownership
> must be a constitutional right.
Ja.
__________________________________________________
"I don't think of myself ] dha...@goodnet.com
as an attorney; I think of ] http://www.indirect
myself as morally challenged"] .com/www/dhardy
Daneel
David Hardy wrote:
>
> In article <694ibv$o...@news.inforamp.net>
> "A. Hui" <a_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Don't forget such really the truly tryannical British government of
> > current or the other European DEMOCRATIC societies. I'm sorry but it
> > may be hard for some of you Yanks to accept but some people in other
> > parts of the world have evolved past the point where the gun ownership
> > must be a constitutional right.
>
> Ja.
Igen.
Bye
Daneel [a#323 | U of E student, ID #000666]
***********************************************************************
"Homo sapiens is not the foreordained of a ladder that was reaching
toward our exalted estate from the start. We are merely the surviving
branch of a once luxuriant bush. _Stephen Jay Gould_
Trevor Nysetvold
A. Hui wrote:
> Don't forget such really the truly tryannical British government of
> current or the other European DEMOCRATIC societies.
Remind me again: Which democratic european society elected Adolf Hitler?
(He was _elected_, after all). As an execise, perhaps you can compare for
me how many years it would take for the brutal American society that you are
so scornful of to kill 6 million people due to its higher gun violence rate
as compared to how long it took the civilized europeans to kill this many?
(For a complete discussion of the relationship of genocide and gun control,
please see http://www.jpfo.org)
> Incidentally, I don't know if this
> relates to only the availability of firearms within a society or to the
> general social-economic dynamics of that society, but the life-span of
> citizens of relatively gun-free countries is typically higher than the
> life-span of citizens of "gun-friendly" countries.
How would you categorized Switzerland and its long life-span? (Most homes
not only allowed, but required to have fully automatic firearms and
ammunition).
--
Trevor Nysetvold
nyse...@cadvision.com
http://www.cadvision.com/nysetvot
Mitchell Holman
In article <34B62CDF...@cadvision.com>, nyse...@cadvision.com wrote:
}
}
}A. Hui wrote:
}
}> Don't forget such really the truly tryannical British government of
}> current or the other European DEMOCRATIC societies.
}
}Remind me again: Which democratic european society elected Adolf Hitler?
}(He was _elected_, after all).
Actually, no Hitler was NOT elected. He was *appointed* to
the post of chancellor as part of a deal with von Hindenburg,
assumed power from there, and never ran in another election.
The nazis never garnered more than 37% of the popular vote.
Robert Frenchu
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:39:55 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On 11 Jan 1998 13:51:46 GMT, gib...@prairienet.org (Mark Gibson)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>About 2.5 million people use guns in self defense in the U.S. each year.
>>Guns save lives, maybe YOURS.
>
>and if no guns were in the US criminals wouldnt use them...
How true, and IF Napolean had nuclear weapons he would have won the
battle of Waterloo.
The Devil will ski to work before either one happens.
****************************************************************************
"...Democracy is defended in 3 stages. Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box."
Ambrose Bierce
David Hardy
In article <34BA4024...@cs.elte.hu>
Daneel <ust...@cs.elte.hu> writes:
> The question is: can a government NOT care what you want
> (in a modern democracy)?
>
Sure. It's easy. Used to do it all the time, in fact.
Here I am/was, a munchkin at Interior, but one empowered to assess
civil penalties and do some other fun things. So I decide, not to
institute a fascist state, but to give you hell just for the fun of it.
Twist a few statutes, etc., etc.
Your remedy is....
To cast a vote for the President. That's gonna affect me a lot. He
loses his job every four years, but as a munchkin I am forever. And
there's about three million just like me. Go ahead, vote in a new
president. I never met the guy. He doesn't give me orders. The chain of
command goes:
Me, who can have lots of fun ruining your life.
My boss, the ass't solicitor--who if you can figure out who he is,
and complain, will route the letter to me for answer. Besides, he's
another munchkin, and like me gives a rat's ass about you, the public,
and anyone else.
His boss, the assoc. solicitor--who's generally a political
appointee with no power to give employee evaluations, etc., and will
probably be gone by next year anyways.
His boss, the solicitor, who has some vague idea of who I am. You
can write him a letter, but he too will send it to me for me to write
the reply.
His boss, the secretary of interior, who has not the vaguest who I
am, has 70,000 employees, and a mail room. If you write him, the mail
room munchkins will skim it off (no kidding--he never gets his own
mail) and send it to me for reply.
His boss, the President, who has not the foggiest, you will never
reach, and if you did would think you were a crackpot. THIS IS THE ONLY
GUY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND YOU HAVE ANY POWER OVER. It will make no
difference if you did vote against him, nor would I care. Heck, I'd
gotten the job under Reagan, my boss got his under Carter.
So can a government in a democracy avoid caring about what citizens
want? Hell, yes!!!!!
His boss
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <34bc202a...@news.enter.net>, <wf...@enter.netxx> wrote:
>funny, however, in places like the UK where gun control is a fact of
>life, their kids arent dying like our are from guns...
Nope, they're not dying from guns, but they're still dying.
Hmm, could there be an unhappy principle here?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Robert Frenchu
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:24:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:25:27 -0800, stev...@safemail.com (Steve Hix)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <34baa990...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >Because most of them shoot themselves.
>>
>>> ROFLMAO!!! really?? THAT one you're gonna have to prove!! 25K gun
>>> suicides/yr?
>>
>>Close. Suicide is the major cause of gun-related deaths, followed by
>>criminal homicide, and with accidents trailing far behind.
>
>and it turns out i UNDERSTATED the problem according to the cdc
>(www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fafacts/.htm) there were over 38,000 deaths due
>to firearms in 1994. sorry for making guns appear safer than they are.
Excuse me, but what do the number of suicides have to do with how
"safe" guns are? All that means is they are very effective at doing
the "job," as it were.
Frankly, I'm surprised at this "statistic" that says more people kill
themselves than are killed by firearms. Sure sounds like the beginning
of a good trend to me.
W.W.J.D. Black
In article <34bd600b...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
}On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:50:12 -0600, JOE ROWELL <hey...@swbell.net>
}wrote:
}
}>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
}>
}>> >You wouldn't happen to be one of the unfortunates that believes the
}>> >War on (some) Drugs is actually being won, are you?
}>>
}>> hell no, i favor legalizing them. if someone is so determined to
}>> commit suicide that he's gonna kill me to do it, then let him kill
}>> himself.
}>>
}> wf, your not being consistent but this time I agree with you.
}
}you mean because of govt regulation? au contraire!! i dont want
}anybody killing me. so if that costs them their gun, thats fine with
}me.
}
LOL
I don't want anyone killing me either. Are you willing or able even to
guarentee my safety at or above the level I can guarentee my safety (with a
gun) after you take my gun away?
}>I think they shouold made drugs legal, they could tax them, sell them in
}>liquer stores and make you show your I.D. They could be sold so cheap
}>that it would make it not profitable for the street dealer.
}
}you bet. the drug violence AND drug use would dry up overnite.
Funny how most of the European countries can't claim that is what really
happens.
}with no
}economic incentive to sell drugs the pushers would be hard pressed.
}
Not really, they would simply be wards of the government.
}
} If people want drugs,
}>they're going to get them.
}>
}
}yeah funny how people forget that
}
Or the same with guns.
--
In the event someone would like to reply to this message via e-mail (who
knows why), remove 'nospam.' in my reply address.
I believe the IRS is functioning better today than it was five years ago.
-- Bill Clinton, defending the agency after Congressional hearings produced
stories of IRS harassment and abuse of taxpayers, AP
Daneel
David Hardy wrote:
>
> Daneel <ust...@cs.elte.hu> writes:
>
> > The question is: can a government NOT care what you want
> > (in a modern democracy)?
> >
>
> Sure. It's easy. Used to do it all the time, in fact.
>
> Your remedy is....
>
> To cast a vote for the President.
Not mine. I'm a Hungarian. BTW, don't you vote for more
than just a President?
> That's gonna affect me a lot. He
> loses his job every four years, but as a munchkin I am forever. And
> there's about three million just like me. Go ahead, vote in a new
> president. I never met the guy. He doesn't give me orders. [...]
I can sue your likes. Or, I can vote for politicians and
parties (of, not just two faceless ones) who will kick
you out.
But in the US, Tim McVeigh can of course blow you up.
Robert Frenchu
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:57:34 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1998 03:25:34 GMT, gib...@prairienet.org (Mark Gibson)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>ROFLMAO!!! really?? THAT one you're gonna have to prove!! 25K gun
>>>suicides/yr?
>>
>>No, you idiot. Just over half of the people who die of gunshot wounds
>>are suicides. If you weren't so allergic to facts you'd know that.
>
><chuckle> golly if you'd learn to read, i never mentioned only the
>criminal use of guns. i mentioned those who died of gunshot wounds,
>period. sorry, im not gonna play in your ballyard. take your glove
>and go home.
>
>>
>>>and if no guns were in the US criminals wouldnt use them...
>>
>>Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
>
>gee it seems to work in the UK
>
Yeah, it's just Heaven in the good ol' U.K.
London Times
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/
Sunday, January 11 1998
FOCUS
More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of
40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
the crime capital of the West.
Dick Hobbs, a criminologist at Durham University, said crime now
permeated every aspect of society. "We have
been encouraged to think over the last 15 years that crime is
exceptional, but it's now normal for people to commit crime. "For many
young people, it's a routine activity. In some areas you find up to
90%
of the youths involved in crime. It provides excitement, it provides
status among their peers, and it can provide a living. It provides
many
of the functions that you would hope work provides."
To sceptics who say such views exaggerate the decay of green and
pleasant England, experts reply that violent
crime, burglary and theft are, proportionally, more prevalent in
England
and Wales than in America.
Since 1979 the number of crimes in England and Wales has doubled -
rising faster than any western country and 10 times faster than in the
US. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
screens,
is a safer country.
The only European country to come near England and Wales for levels of
crime is the Netherlands. We are, it
seems, the crime blackspot of the western world.
THE most detailed study to analyse the percentage of the population
convicted of crime started with a group of
people born in 1953 and tracked their progress through four decades.
About 8% of males had notched up at least
one conviction by the age of 15; 20% by 20; 31% by 30; and 34% by 40.
After that age, offences tail off and first offences among older men
are
rare.
It is a mistake to imagine that the crimes are predominantly petty or
drug-related. The son of Jack Straw, the home secretary, may yet
receive
a criminal record for his alleged involvement with cannabis, but drugs
formed only about 3% of the convictions in the study. Burglary, theft
and acts of violence were more common.
The study was conducted by Michael Hough, former deputy head of the
Home
Office research and planning
unit, and Julian Roberts, a professor at Ottawa University. They now
estimate that 40% of men have at least one conviction before they
reach
the age of 40. (By contrast, only 8% of women were convicted by the
same
age.)
Crime scene: how countries compare
(+) In 'contact crimes', involving violence, England and Wales is
just
ahead of America with a rate of 3.6% of the population being victims.
In
France the rate is 2.2%; in Austria 1.6%
(+) Since the second world war, violent crimes have been rising in
England and Wales at an average annual rate of 6.5%
(+) Given the general rise in crime, violent offences still account
for only 6% of the total. Between 1987 and 1995 total offences
recorded
by police rose from 3,892,200 to 5,100,240
(+) Since 1979, the number of recorded crimes in England and Wales
has
doubled, though there has been a decline in recent years. Since 1954,
there has been a twelvefold increase
(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
as in France
(+) 3% of car owners in England and Wales had their vehicles stolen
in
1995; in America 2.1%; in Switzerland 0.1%
(+) 6.1% of people in England and Wales were victims of burglary
attempts in 1995; in America 4.9%; in Finland
1.2%
(+) In 1996 the burglary rate fell, but there were still 1,164,000
offences, of which nearly 600,000 were
domestic break-ins - or 1,600 a day.
(+) More convicted criminals are being jailed: 58,400 were sent to
prison in 1993 compared with 79,100 in 1995. But a criminal is still
less likely to be jailed today than in the 1950s
(+) England and Wales have approximately 110 people for every
100,000
of the population serving a prison sentence while America has about
615
incarcerated for every 100,000 of the population
(+) Since 1979 the number of crimes in England and Wales has doubled
-
rising faster than any western country and 10 times faster than in the
US. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
screens,
is a safer country.
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Diane Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
____________________________________________________
Bill Bailey
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Daneel wrote:
> But in the US, Tim McVeigh can of course blow you up.
The freer the society, the more dangerous it is. Haven't you figured that
out yet?
And your Gould quote raises an interesting question: if homo sapiens did
not possess the the qualities that "foreordained" our "exalted estate,"
then how did it come about--by the chance extinction of our rivals in that
"luxuriant bush"? If so, that requires an entire abandonment of
cause-effect in science, does it not? The Gould quote sounds good, if you
like taking humankind down a peg or two. But the logical implication are
pretty devastating for science.
Bill Bailey
> Daneel [a#323 | U of E student, ID #000666]
> ***********************************************************************
> "Homo sapiens is not the foreordained of a ladder that was reaching
> toward our exalted estate from the start. We are merely the surviving
> branch of a once luxuriant bush. _Stephen Jay Gould_
>
>
"A kinder, gentler freedom of speech? Get tough or die!"
wf...@enter.netxx
>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:24:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>and it turns out i UNDERSTATED the problem according to the cdc
>>(www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fafacts/.htm) there were over 38,000 deaths due
>>to firearms in 1994. sorry for making guns appear safer than they are.
>
>Excuse me, but what do the number of suicides have to do with how
>"safe" guns are? All that means is they are very effective at doing
>the "job," as it were.
thats why guns dont belong in society.
==============================================================
official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <34bd600b...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>}you mean because of govt regulation? au contraire!! i dont want
>}anybody killing me. so if that costs them their gun, thats fine with
>}me.
>}
>LOL
>I don't want anyone killing me either. Are you willing or able even to
>guarentee my safety at or above the level I can guarentee my safety (with a
>gun) after you take my gun away?
yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
gun...see! your chances have improved already!
>
>}
>}you bet. the drug violence AND drug use would dry up overnite.
>
>Funny how most of the European countries can't claim that is what really
>happens.
>
tell it to the dutch.
>}with no
>}economic incentive to sell drugs the pushers would be hard pressed.
>}
>Not really, they would simply be wards of the government.
they already are. theyre called 'prisoners'
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:35:19 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >>
> >Yeah, it's just Heaven in the good ol' U.K.
> >
> >40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
> >the crime capital of the West.
>
> we do it should have about 7000.
>
> i wait for you to produce the stats
The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
>
> . America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
> >screens,
> >is a safer country.
>
> except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
> year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
thing then, right? Bruglaries, car thefts, all those lovely
"non-violent" crimes- the number of which is on the rise- is preferable
right? Just want to make sure I understand you.
>
> >(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
> >as in France
>
> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> a toughie!!!
Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
weeping over are felons, does it?
Panhead
Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:35:19 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> > (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
> > >the crime capital of the West.
> >
> > we do it should have about 7000.
> >
> > i wait for you to produce the stats
>
> The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
>
> >
> > >screens,
> > >is a safer country.
> >
> > year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
>
> According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
> thing then, right? Bruglaries, car thefts, all those lovely
> "non-violent" crimes- the number of which is on the rise- is preferable
> right? Just want to make sure I understand you.
>
> >
> > >as in France
> >
> > stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> > a toughie!!!
>
> Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
> weeping over are felons, does it?
Bob, you are so right! This guy just doesn't get it, does he?
--
Panhead.Zircon AH™#49, HSB™#1219, KoB#236 --EK-III Paints with me--
http://www.webspan.net/~panhead/ mailto:cna...@jrofcna.arg
I am Pan of Borg. Prepare to be top-coated. Priming is irrelevant.
Sanding is futile. Flames WILL be done our way.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:38:36 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >> gee where's the body count? if britain had the same ratio of murders
> >> we do it should have about 7000.
> >> i wait for you to produce the stats
>
> >The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
>
> or just cant read it?
Obviously you are missing the point. I will try to make this as simple
as I possibly can and still keep he interest of other readers.
You say- No guns in England. England wonderful place.
I say- England low on murder, high on everything else.
You say - This is good thing
I say - This is bad thing.
You say - too many murders in U.S. Guns bad. Bad guns!
I say- Many of those murders might be criminals. Guns good. Good guns!
I may not be able to simplfy this any more. If you still don't
understand this let me know and I will try pig latin.
> >> except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
> >> year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
> >
> >According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
> >thing then, right?
>
> i'd rather be burglarized than killed. if you prefer the
> opposite,thats fine. if someone steals my car, well thats a shame. if
> they gun down my family...thats a different matter
>
> you having a love affair with your car?
My car is one example of my property that I would like to keep. And I
find England's rate of car theft unacceptable. If you interpret this as
"a love affair" then so be it. I would rather be neither burglarized nor
murdered. That's why I have a gun. Or two.
>
> >> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
> >> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> >> a toughie!!!
> >
> >
> >Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
> >weeping over are felons, does it?
>
> <chuckle> and many arent!
And many are. And I don't have any problem with them becoming
statistics. Do you?
PLMerite
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in message <34c13e15...@news.enter.net>...
>On 17 Jan 1998 21:51:51 GMT, gib...@prairienet.org (Mark Gibson)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>>and are killed by guns exported from area where guns are common...ie
>>>where the 'good old boy's live.
>>
>>The flaw in your lame argument is that the crime rates are LOWER where
>>the guns are more readily available (read: common). That proves that
>>gun control laws promote violent crime by disarming innocent victims.
>
>
>and the rates are lowest where there are no guns. and 90% of the guns
>used in crimes in NYC are from outside NYC.
...but with the strict gun control laws (Sullivan Act) there, certainly no
one in NYC has any guns. Only the bigwigs and all those nice policemen that
Mr. Reno provided to guard Chucky Shumer's butt.
And I'm certain that those guns coming in from 'outside' must be a figment
of your imagination - that would be illegal and we all know passing a law
against something causes it to stop immediately.
>if guns prevented crime america would have no crime since we're the
>most heavily armed people on earth.
If Vermont-style carry laws were enacted nationwide, we'd be a lot closer to
zero crime than the areas with Draconian gun laws are now. I live near
Washington DC and I guarantee the bad guys don't give a damn about the law.
QRK1 QRT
Regards, PLMerite
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom,
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt, 1783
Robert Frenchu
Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:45:21 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:22:33 -0600, jdb...@black.metronet.nospam.com
>(W.W.J.D. Black) wrote:
>
>>In article <34bd600b...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>}you mean because of govt regulation? au contraire!! i dont want
>>}anybody killing me. so if that costs them their gun, thats fine with
>>}me.
>>}
>>LOL
>>I don't want anyone killing me either. Are you willing or able even to
>>guarentee my safety at or above the level I can guarentee my safety (with a
>>gun) after you take my gun away?
>
>yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
>gun...see! your chances have improved already!
Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
Robert Frenchu
Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:40:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:41:03 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:24:06 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>Excuse me, but what do the number of suicides have to do with how
>>"safe" guns are? All that means is they are very effective at doing
>>the "job," as it were.
>
>thats why guns dont belong in society.
You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
Robert Frenchu
Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:41:42 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On 14 Jan 1998 08:28:44 GMT,
>poa...@ix.netcom.com(Point-of-aim/Point-of-impact) wrote:
>
>>In <34bd6159...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>>
>>>because few people get shot by their doctors. doctors have a social
>>>utility. guns dont.
>>
>> Oh? Tell that to the millions who use them to defend themselves (a
>>non-criminal action) each year
>
>and tell that to the family members who are killed every year by
>guns...used by other family members...funny how those facts get
>missed.
Nobody misses those facts. The facts that get missed are the lives
that are saved. No one heres about the person who walks up to the
little girl and says, "Your daddy is alive today because his life was
saved by a gun."
But that happens just as much- if not more- that the people getting
murdered.
>
>if guns didnt exist in this society, criminals wouldnt use them
>against folks would they? gee...seems pretty straightforward
If Napoloean had nuclear weapons at the battle of Waterloo, he might
have won, too. Gee, seems pretty straightforward, huh?
Too bad it ain't never gonna happen.
Robert Frenchu
Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:44:01 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On 14 Jan 1998 08:21:42 GMT,
>poa...@ix.netcom.com(Point-of-aim/Point-of-impact) wrote:
>
>>In <34bd600b...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>>
>>> If people want drugs,
>>>>they're going to get them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>yeah funny how people forget that
>>
>>
>> No, that's not what's funny--I'll tell you what IS:
>>
>> The fact that you are able to recognize the fallacy of trying to
>>make drugs disappear by banning them ("If people want drugs, they're
>>going to get them."), but you still believe that the same flawed method
>>WILL succeed in getting rid of guns--THAT'S funny.
>
>really? gun banning seems to work in the UK. drugs are used on a daily
>basis. guns, generally, are not. different product, different market
What makes you think gun banning works in the UK?
It certainly doesn't. They have a lot more crime over there than we
do. One third of British males have criminal records by age 40.SInce
1979 the number of crimes have DOUBLED- violent crime are
proportionately more prevalent in England than in the US.
Doubt my words? Check out
London Times
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/
Sunday, January 11 1998
FOCUS
You'll just have to find another Gunless Paradise to use as your
example.
Hey, how about Mexico???
wf...@enter.netxx
>>
>Yeah, it's just Heaven in the good ol' U.K.
>
>More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of
>40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
>the crime capital of the West.
gee where's the body count? if britain had the same ratio of murders
we do it should have about 7000.
i wait for you to produce the stats
. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema
>screens,
>is a safer country.
except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
>(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
>as in France
oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
a toughie!!!
wf...@enter.netxx
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>
>> gee where's the body count? if britain had the same ratio of murders
>> we do it should have about 7000.
>>
>> i wait for you to produce the stats
>The fist line was stats. Read slowly.
really? gee dont see anything about murders. you dodging the question
or just cant read it?
>
>>
>> except, of course, for the nasty little detail of 38500 corpses every
>> year...but hey!! whats a few dead bodies among friends
>
>According to you, 1 out of every 3 people being ex-convicts is a good
>thing then, right?
i'd rather be burglarized than killed. if you prefer the
opposite,thats fine. if someone steals my car, well thats a shame. if
they gun down my family...thats a different matter
you having a love affair with your car?
>> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
>> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
>> a toughie!!!
>
>
>Apparently so. It never occurs to you that some of the people you are
>weeping over are felons, does it?
<chuckle> and many arent!
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:07:52 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> really? gee dont see anything about murders. you dodging the question
>> or just cant read it?
>
>
>Obviously you are missing the point. I will try to make this as simple
>as I possibly can and still keep he interest of other readers.
>
>You say- No guns in England. England wonderful place.
>I say- England low on murder, high on everything else.
>You say - This is good thing
>I say - This is bad thing.
>You say - too many murders in U.S. Guns bad. Bad guns!
>I say- Many of those murders might be criminals. Guns good. Good guns!
many of those murders might be criminals...
thats RICH!!!
of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see the
occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
gee they can steal my car anyday.
>
>> you having a love affair with your car?
>
>My car is one example of my property that I would like to keep.
how about your life and that of your family?
>> <chuckle> and many arent!
>
>And many are. And I don't have any problem with them becoming
>statistics. Do you?
fine. produce the statistics.
wf...@enter.netxx
>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>
>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>
the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
constitution which, for me is justification enough)
given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
1. are not necessary to secure freedom
2. do not guarantee freedom
3. do not cause a reduction in crime
4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
guns make violence easier.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:44:01 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>really? gun banning seems to work in the UK. drugs are used on a daily
>>basis. guns, generally, are not. different product, different market
>
>
>What makes you think gun banning works in the UK?
>
>It certainly doesn't. They have a lot more crime over there than we
>do.
uh, so what? how many deaths do they have caused by guns? id rather
have my car stolen than have my family gunned down by some nut with a
grudge against society.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:45:21 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
>>gun...see! your chances have improved already!
>
>Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
>_
yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
gives them power.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:41:42 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>and tell that to the family members who are killed every year by
>>guns...used by other family members...funny how those facts get
>>missed.
>
>Nobody misses those facts. The facts that get missed are the lives
>that are saved.
gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
No one heres about the person who walks up to the
>little girl and says, "Your daddy is alive today because his life was
>saved by a gun."
and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had a
gun'
>>if guns didnt exist in this society, criminals wouldnt use them
>>against folks would they? gee...seems pretty straightforward
>
>If Napoloean had nuclear weapons at the battle of Waterloo, he might
>have won, too. Gee, seems pretty straightforward, huh?
>
yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of thousands
of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
lives.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:07:52 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> really? gee dont see anything about murders. you dodging the question
> >> or just cant read it?
> >
> >
> >Obviously you are missing the point. I will try to make this as simple
> >as I possibly can and still keep he interest of other readers.
> >
> >You say- No guns in England. England wonderful place.
> >I say- England low on murder, high on everything else.
> >You say - This is good thing
> >I say - This is bad thing.
> >You say - too many murders in U.S. Guns bad. Bad guns!
> >I say- Many of those murders might be criminals. Guns good. Good guns!
>
> many of those murders might be criminals...
>
> thats RICH!!!
Rich, but a truh you cannot deny.
>
> of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
> suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see the
> occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
What "proof" would you like?
Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
Prozac."
>
> gee they can steal my car anyday.
> >
> >> you having a love affair with your car?
> >
> >My car is one example of my property that I would like to keep.
>
> how about your life and that of your family?
I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns in
the house in case I need them.
>
> >> <chuckle> and many arent!
> >
> >And many are. And I don't have any problem with them becoming
> >statistics. Do you?
>
> fine. produce the statistics.
Statistics for what?
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >>thats why guns dont belong in society.
> >
> >You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
> >as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
> >
>
> the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
> existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
> constitution which, for me is justification enough)
We don't HAVE to justify it. That's the beauty of it.
>
> given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>
> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
Yes they are.
> 2. do not guarantee freedom
You better believe that they do.
> 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
> 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
I see it.
>
> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
> guns make violence easier.
>
Guns make people equal.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:14:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:44:01 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> >>really? gun banning seems to work in the UK. drugs are used on a daily
> >>basis. guns, generally, are not. different product, different market
> >
> >
> >What makes you think gun banning works in the UK?
> >
> >It certainly doesn't. They have a lot more crime over there than we
> >do.
>
> uh, so what? how many deaths do they have caused by guns? id rather
> have my car stolen than have my family gunned down by some nut with a
> grudge against society.
Of course you would. You'd also rather have your house ransacked while
you watch. This is because you would rather be safe and lick the boot of
your masters rather than be responsible to your family and your
community. There are a lot of cowards who feel the same way as you so
yu're not alone.
The fact is if you want to use the U.K. as an example of a gunless
paradise- it ain't. Again, I ask you, what about Mexico, where I hear
private gun ownership is prohibited?
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:19:32 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:41:42 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> >>and tell that to the family members who are killed every year by
> >>guns...used by other family members...funny how those facts get
> >>missed.
> >
> >Nobody misses those facts. The facts that get missed are the lives
> >that are saved.
>
> gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
> societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
>
a member they'll tear up your membership card with responses like this.
I don't even know how to begin to respond to this question- it makes no
sense.
> No one heres about the person who walks up to the
> >little girl and says, "Your daddy is alive today because his life was
> >saved by a gun."
>
> and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
> where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had a
> gun'
Your point being...... what?
> >>if guns didnt exist in this society, criminals wouldnt use them
> >>against folks would they? gee...seems pretty straightforward
> >
> >If Napoloean had nuclear weapons at the battle of Waterloo, he might
> >have won, too. Gee, seems pretty straightforward, huh?
> >
>
> yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of thousands
> of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
> lives.
Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:16:03 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
> (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >Around Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:45:21 GMT, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> >>yeah. because i can guarantee i wont kill you if i dont have a
> >>gun...see! your chances have improved already!
> >
> >Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
> >_
>
> yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
> disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
> secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
> gives them power.
Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
Chris Brown
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>
> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
see it.
Dan Z
In <34c23bb...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>>
>>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>>
>
>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>
>
>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>
You have made 5 assertions here without a shred of evidence. How about
providing some?
Of course we know you are ignoring all the contrary evidence that you
have been given over the past few weeks. That is one of the typical
techniques of the citizen-disarmament-extremist: keep repeating the lie
often enough, hoping it will eventually be believed.
I'm still waiting, also, for your answer to this simple question:
if you are truly interested in saving lives, why aren't you working on
solving one of the MANY problems that take more lives than firearms?
I've been waiting for your answer for days now.
--
Antispam address list, spammers listed will be added to other spammer's lists; poetic justice....
plea...@PLEASUREQUEST.COM , all...@northernnet.com , Johnny...@HOTMAIL.COM , po...@mail.inawhile.com ,
mor...@hotmail.com , 74431...@COMPUSERVE.COM , sma...@NETVISION.NET.IL , bel...@SOUTHERNBELLES.COM ,
sat3...@VALUEWEB.NET , alle...@AOL.COM , inb...@PACBELL.NET , REH...@NATIONALCREDIT.COM , gf...@ICA.NET ,
postm...@CROMERICA.COM , savi...@hotmail.com , car...@MEGAWEBCITY.COM , info...@juno.com ,
ad...@WEBPOST.NET , ingr...@aol.com , ingr...@hotmail.com , dann...@HOTMAIL.COM , vi...@CELTIC.CO.UK ,
journ...@mail.com , wa...@hkbizlink.com , submit...@juno.com , rsla...@IDT.NET , doma...@IX.GEN.COM
ku...@cheerful.com , sma...@NETVISION.NET.IL , J...@JOEMAST.COM , send...@mailcity.com , gl...@n-jcenter.com
belc...@PROMOBILITY.NET , max...@TNLB.COM , more...@swbell.net , bp...@MINDSPRING.COM , FC...@juno.com ,
qui...@juno.com , agood...@aol.com , Ask...@aol.com , bigh...@BIGHITTERS.COM , multi...@iname.com ,
st...@hotmail.com , m...@EDEN.COM , gbre...@netport.com , Graph...@WORLDNET.ATT.NET , e...@ELOSOFT.COM ,
maga...@iname.com , cy...@REEFNET.COM , fant...@lcsys.com , sel...@NETVIGATOR.COM , srob...@IX.NETCOM.COM
ad...@WEB-RESPONSE.COM , Gre...@nauticom.net , enter...@hotmail.com , webm...@SIRIUSPUB.COM ,
pau...@juno.com , co...@WALLSTREETCOINS.COM ,
Chris Brown
Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
> > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
> >
> > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
> Yes they are.
Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
western country? Your police are routinely brutal, you're expected to be
able to produce photo ID on demand (that one gets the civil liberties
groups up in arms whenever it's brought up here), your laws on the use of
alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
jealous.
> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>
> You better believe that they do.
You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
> > 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>
> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops in
an area. ban bookshops now!
> > 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>
> Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
> I see it.
Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
criminals. How terribly decent of them.
Chris Brown
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c14ac2...@news.enter.net>...
> >(+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
> >as in France
>
> oh HEAVENS!! well lets see, if i gotta choice between somebody
> stealing my car, or somebody gunning down my whole family...gee thats
> a toughie!!!
Now perhpas he'd be good enough to tell us the respective populations,
population densities and car ownership levels of the UK and France?
Chris Brown
Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article <
> It certainly doesn't. They have a lot more crime over there than we
> do.
Yes, well we tend to bend the speed limits a lot more than you guys do. Bad
form really.
> One third of British males have criminal records by age 40.SInce
> 1979 the number of crimes have DOUBLED- violent crime are
> proportionately more prevalent in England than in the US.
Correction, the number of reported crimes have doubled. We also tend to
regard things as threatening behaviour in public as violent crime, even
when no-one is injured. You're comparing apples with oranges.
Try looking at the murder rate.
Peter Kirby
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
Do you have a reference for this statistic?
A gun is a weapon. You can't eat it, you can't take it as medicine, and it
won't make you feel better. How does a gun "save lives"?
Or are you saying that less people die from guns where they are legalized?
Why would this be and what evidence is there for this?
Or are you saying that less "good guys" die where they are legalized? Again,
why would you say this?
(I do not oppose the legalization of firearms for civilians; I am just
questioning your statement that "guns save more lives.")
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/
Proteus
>Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
>then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
>thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
>the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
great to take out the government anyway.
Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
*************************************************************************************
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
*************************************************************************************
Mike Harding
Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
the hands of either the criminals or Police.
Noel B. Brinkley
> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
> see it.
In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people. They
were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that is
civilization, count me among the barbarians.
buddy
Steve Hix
In article <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
> >
> > its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
> Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
> see it.
Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Norway...are *all* insane?
Try again.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
> >Prozac."
>
> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
Pray tell name ONE.
> >
> >> how about your life and that of your family?
> >
> >I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns in
> >the house in case I need them.
>
> of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
> be used against your family than in support of it.
So? How do you know those stats are true? Where do they come from?
Robert Frenchu
> > >
> > > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
> >
> > Yes they are.
>
> Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
> western country? Your police are routinely brutal, you're expected to be
> able to produce photo ID on demand (that one gets the civil liberties
> groups up in arms whenever it's brought up here), your laws on the use of
> alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
> jealous.
You are the guys who need a license to watch TV, fer chrissakes.
>
> > > 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >
> > You better believe that they do.
>
> You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
> deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
> bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
> on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
> oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
Tell that to the Russians, who were materially superior to the Afghans
yet- if memory serves- are no lnger involved in that country. Do YOU
seriously believe that our government can count on 100% obediance from
it's own troops when they are told to kill their fellow citizens? I
doubt it.
>
> > > 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
> >
> > Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>
> the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops in
> an area. ban bookshops now!
You lost me.
>
> > > 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
> >
> > Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
> > I see it.
>
> Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
> criminals. How terribly decent of them.
Hey, when someone brings up a statistic that says "X" number of people
die from guns every year, they want you to believe they are all babies.
'Tain't so.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:08:57 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
> >> existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
> >> constitution which, for me is justification enough)
> >
>
> the progun crowd, bleating platitudes about how they protect freedom
> is slightly ridiculous.
How so?
>
> >>
> >> given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
> >>
> >> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
> >
> >Yes they are.
>
> tell it to martin luther king, or ghandi.
Pointless argument.
>
> >
> >> 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >
> >You better believe that they do.
>
> tell it to the IRA
No one said it happens overnight.
>
> >> 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
> >
> >Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>
> look at canada for example.
Look at Mexico while you're looking at gun-control paradiss. I rest
that case.
>
> >
> >> 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
> >
> >Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
> >I see it.
>
> really? you got stats on that?
Yep.
>
> >>
> >> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
> >> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
> >>
> >> guns make violence easier.
> >>
> >Guns make people equal.
>
> so does the grave
At that is exactly where the criminals should end up that mess with
armed citizens.
Robert Frenchu
Proteus wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
> >then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
> >the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
>
> The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
> that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
>
> Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
> bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
> great to take out the government anyway.
This is debatable.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
> >> disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
> >> secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
> >> gives them power.
> >
> >
> >then they cause crime,
>
Proof is Kleck's study and- one more time- "no guns" is not an option.
How close do you sit to your yagi?
>
> but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom.
>
> tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
>
> i love this gun nut mythology. what comes next? peter pan as elmer
> keith?
I'm glad you are so easily entertained.
Robert Frenchu
Peter Kirby wrote:
>
> Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
>
> Do you have a reference for this statistic?
Do a web search on Gary Kleck's studies. If you are not familiar with
them, Dr. Kleck is a previously anti-gun researcher who showed guns are
used in self defense about 2.5 million times a year.
>
> A gun is a weapon. You can't eat it, you can't take it as medicine, and it
> won't make you feel better. How does a gun "save lives"?
You shoot bad people who want to kill you before they get a chance.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:12:13 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> uh, so what? how many deaths do they have caused by guns? id rather
> >> have my car stolen than have my family gunned down by some nut with a
> >> grudge against society.
> >
> >Of course you would. You'd also rather have your house ransacked while
> >you watch
>
You are so right. I agree with you 100%. And if my mother had wheels I
could use her for a bus. But you will never unarm the criminal.
>
> . This is because you would rather be safe and lick the boot of
> >your masters
>
> <chuckle> really? mebbe we should outlaw boots!
Maybe you have developed a taste for shoe polish.
>
> rather than be responsible to your family and your
> >community.
>
> so having a gun is responsible? wonder if the tens of thousands of
> dead feel...felt that way...
The dead don't feel much of anything. If they did, they would wish they
had been able to defend themselves, and yes, I have stats to back that
up too.
>
> There are a lot of cowards who feel the same way as you so
> >yu're not alone.
>
> so when you run out of arguments you just resort to the priapic
> argument that shows the true source of your fascination with guns.
The truth hurts.
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:14:51 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
> >> societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
> >>
> >Perhpas you had better remove rec.org.mensa from this thread- if you're
> >a member they'll tear up your membership card with responses like this.
> >I don't even know how to begin to respond to this question- it makes no
> >sense.
>
> club that would have me as a member.
>
> >
> >> and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
> >> where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had a
> >> gun'
> >
> >
> >Your point being...... what?
>
If I'm not mistaken, that's your quote.
> >> yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of thousands
> >> of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
> >> lives.
> >
> >
> >Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
>
> and if we had no guns there wouldnt be that problem.
And the point you miss time and time again is that we'll never have "no
guns."
PLMerite
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>see it.
>
Well then, I guess we can politely invite the rest of the 'civilized' world
(ask some of the former British Colonies how 'civilized' they think the
Brits really are) to piss off.
Regards, PLMerite
Sorcerer
>>What makes you think gun banning works in the UK?
>>
>>do.
>
>have my car stolen than have my family gunned down by some nut with a
>grudge against society.
Man, you're a total asshole. I went and read the article, which the London
Times kindly makes available as back issues.
One of the guys they interviewed said "until a so-called friend put a .38 in
my hand."
Can't own them legally. But it didn't stop him from getting one, did it?
Didn't stop the prime minister's son, now facing jail time, from getting
weed and getting caught with it, did it?
The UK is MORE violent and has MORE lethal force assaults than the USA.
Not to put too fine a point on it, even the London Times admits that the USA
is safer.
And it has become safer while England is getting more dangerous.
Not surprisingly, as more states pass right to carry laws, we get safer.
Now they're trying to ban knives in the UK.
No shit, Sherlock. What we do works. The UK is a third rate nation of
third rate people.
Hmm. Maybe you should go there.
Sorcerer
>>Too bad you can't ever guarantee no guns. So NOW what?
>>_
>
>disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
>secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
>gives them power.
But a gun DOES give me power. I can't make you like me with a gun, and I
can't "drive to work" in it -- but I CAN use it to make a violent offender
leave me alone, one way or another.
When your car can do that, let me know.
If guns did not have that power, I'd probably be no more interested in them
than I am in amateur radio (KD6NNE, doncha know). It's amusing, but of
little real use.
I don't find guns amusing. But, baby, when you NEED one, nothing else works
nearly as well.
PLMerite
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2453$27d073e0$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>
>
>Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
>> > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>> >
>> > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>>
>> Yes they are.
>
>Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
>western country? Your police are routinely brutal, you're expected to be
>able to produce photo ID on demand (that one gets the civil liberties
>groups up in arms whenever it's brought up here), your laws on the use of
>alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
>jealous.
Yes, we all know how much the Brits like to get pissed and invade
neighboring countries disguised as football hooligans (does the Continent
allow Brits to attend football matches yet?).
We also know about how well-protected the British people are from random
search and detention. I think they can label you a 'terrorist' and hold you
for about a week, incomunicado, while they work on you. They don't have
asset forfeiture laws in England, because nobody has anything worth taking.
Aren't they putting television cameras in most public places to 'monitor'
people? You try going into an airport or anywhere in Belfast and refuse to
produce ID on demand and see what happens.
>> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>>
>> You better believe that they do.
>
>You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
>deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
>bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
>on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
>oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
>
Worked pretty well when we tossed the British out on their asses. It wasn't
as much fun the second time, and now every third-rate country can do it.
>> > 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>>
>> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
>
>the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops in
>an area. ban bookshops now!
Twaddle. Beneath further comment.
>
>> > 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>>
>> Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
>> I see it.
>
>Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
>criminals. How terribly decent of them.
Yes, I believe we should encourage it.
Regards, PLMerite
PLMerite
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2455$2c20a940$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
I think the populations of both countries are pretty dense. Sorry, couldn't
help that one. Does a Mini or a 2CV really count as a car?
Sorcerer
>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
Man, you're dog nuts insane. We'll get to the reasons in a second.
>given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>
>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
Tell that to governments. They invented the damned things to win battles
and secure their liberties and their right to run their nations unmolested
by other nations. And they continue to have them, and use them.
Tell the mugger that you don't have to do what he says, and that you're not
afraid of his knife. If you live, get back to me and tell me how he stuck
his tail between his legs and ran.
>2. do not guarantee freedom
Governments think they do. There is not ONE oppressive regieme in the world
that does not hunt down every effective weapon in existence and confiscate
them.
>3. do not cause a reduction in crime
This is an obvious lie. The number of crimes thwarted with guns have
estimates ranging from a low of 2.5 million (Kleck) to 4 million (Wolfgang,
who hates guns; but this is what his study showed; he was hoping to refute
Kleck with this study, but the facts were just the opposite of what he hoped
to find).
>4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
No, it doens't. Colds kill more people annually. So does the flu, without
any secondary complications. The flu, at its very least, kills more people
annually than the total number of criminal murders and self-defense
shootings by police combined.
>its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
The government is insane? Bill Clinton is insane? The Queen of England is
insane? They all have guns -- and billions of them -- which they expressly
keep at their disposal. In fact, both of them keep millions of armed men at
their beck and call.
>guns make violence easier.
So do cars. So do kitchen knives. So do framing hammers. Also, the fact
that you are not in handcuffs, confined to a mental institution, also makes
violence easier for you to perpetrate. Obviously, we have been remiss in
not locking you down :-)
Thanks for playing.
Sorcerer
Chris Brown wrote in message <01bd2451$d10bbc00$95e72ac2@narcissus>...
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>see it.
I don't think of you as living in the "civilised World" as you call it.
You are in your herd, and doing what you are told. Be a good little lemming
now and run off the cliff with the rest of your "leaders."
Sorcerer
>gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
>societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
Several things wrong here. First, I dispute the claim of 38,500 gun deaths.
That number is from the CDC, and differs with the police reports on the
subject. The CDC has also admitted that it is biased. EG they have a
reason to lie, like every other agency with an agenda. And no matter how
they twist it, they still can't make guns appear nearly as deadly as cars --
or even as deadly as the ordinary, everyday flu. In a bad year, the flu
kills 45,000 people.
>No one heres about the person who walks up to the
>>little girl and says, "Your daddy is alive today because his life was
>>saved by a gun."
>
>and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
>where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had a
>gun'
You are presuming that homicides and suicides are preventable. "If only
there were no guns." Duh. Shit, Sherlock, you ever hear of Homer? You
notice how people were cheerfully cutting one another to bits in the Trojan
War? You know, pre-history? That Troy was actually found, and that before
we could read and write, we were organizing invasions and orchestrated
slaughter of others?
Only governments make war, and only governments do ethnical and political
cleansings. If you simply had outlawed governments in 1900, 170,000,000
people would have been saved this century alone! Think of it! Not a paltry
250,000, but 170 MILLION!
In short, Sherlock, your "solution" is much worse than nothing.
You are the root of the problem.
>>>if guns didnt exist in this society, criminals wouldnt use them
>>>against folks would they? gee...seems pretty straightforward
>>
>>If Napoloean had nuclear weapons at the battle of Waterloo, he might
>>have won, too. Gee, seems pretty straightforward, huh?
>>
>
>yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of thousands
>of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
>lives.
But they do. We take note of lives lost, but not of lives saved.
I've never saved myself with a gun. I was too young to own one when I
needed one most, so the people I offed I did either with bare hands or a
knife. So I'm pure as the driven snow. 3 dead, but, hey, I never SHOT
anyone, right?
As a matter of fact, I'm much more a knifer than a shooter. I've actually
done most of my bloodletting with knives, and much less barehands. If
knife-to-knife didn't keep getting me sliced now and again, I'd probably
never have even considered changing to guns. That, and the fact that
everyone else has gone to guns, made it fairly inevitable.
If you can get rid of everyone else's guns, though, you're welcome to try.
Why do I suspect that, just as you try to take people's most effective means
of self-preservation away from you, they will consider you a dangerous thief
and have at you?
If you try to get my guns, I will not be so unkind as to use them to shoot
at you (unless you come at me with a gun first). Rather, I'll use my knives
and slice away until I'm satisfied. Nothing beats a good knifing to really
quench one's thirst for inflicting pain, terror and death.
I think, frankly, you're just another coward. You've never danced the
dance, and don't understand weapons or lethal force at all.
Steve Hix
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> > but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> > >thing that has secured our freedom.
> > tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
What in the *world* has Gandhi got to do with the U.S.?
(Note that he held against the British almost more than anything
else their disarming of the people of India.)
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:08:57 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>
>> the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>> existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>> constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>
>We don't HAVE to justify it. That's the beauty of it.
thats correct. the 2nd ammendment says so. however, the weak logic of
the progun crowd, bleating platitudes about how they protect freedom
is slightly ridiculous.
>>
>> given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>>
>> 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>
>Yes they are.
tell it to martin luther king, or ghandi.
>
>> 2. do not guarantee freedom
>
>You better believe that they do.
tell it to the IRA
>> 3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>
>Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
look at canada for example.
>
>> 4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>
>Mostly criminals killing each other and suicides- not a problem the way
>I see it.
really? you got stats on that?
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>> guns make violence easier.
>>
>Guns make people equal.
so does the grave
==============================================================
official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:54:20 GMT, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
>> > given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>> >
>> > 1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>>
>> Yes they are.
>
>Then why does your country have one of the most oppressive regimes of any
>western country? Your police are routinely brutal
well im not sure THATS true. anybody who knows the track record of the
french CRS, for example, will not say US police are brutal!
, you're expected to be
>able to produce photo ID on demand
thats not quite true either...no one is required to produce id,
AFAIK...no cards are required
your laws on the use of
>alcohol show a level of puritanism that would have made the Victorians
>jealous.
well THIS is true..and its not just alcohol. the US is so conservative
on sex we just started showing bra commercials and STILL dont have
condom ads.
>
>> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
>>
>> You better believe that they do.
>
>You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
>deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have tanks,
>bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of soldiers
>on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's an
>oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
this is absolutely true. its always amazed me how the gun nuts here
think that with their .25 autos theyre gonna take on the USMC...odd
ducks these gun folks.
>
>
>Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
>criminals. How terribly decent of them.
>
what a GREAT response!!!
Scout
Proteus <Pro...@Olympus.god> wrote in article
<34c387d3...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:16:47 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
> >then they cause crime, but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> >thing that has secured our freedom. Face the facts! Wake up and small
> >the coffee! Admit it! Use the Force, Luke!
>
> The original purpose of giving the right to bear arms was so
> that the people could take over the government if it became abusive.
>
> Now, it doesn't matter that the citizens have the right to
> bear arms, because the military resources of the government are too
> great to take out the government anyway.
Ok, two things.
1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
2) Assume for the moment that what you state is true. Would this not
indicate that civilian ownership of arms, particularly the major ones needs
to be encouraged, perhaps even to the point where free or very cheap sales
of such surplus equipement (which we've already paid for), rather than to
send more money to render it inoperational? Items such as A-6, A-7, M-60
tanks, ect, ect could be sold to private individuals (background check, ect
) for what they were worth as scrap minus the costs of scraping them or
rendering them inoperational. The government would recieve EXACTLY the same
amount of money for their sale, and balance the difference in arms.
> Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
> would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
> didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
Again 2 points
1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
wf...@enter.netxx
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> yep. thats a good question. the answer is that we can at least
>> disabuse people of the notion that guns stop crime, or that they
>> secure freedom. the only reason guns exist is because people think it
>> gives them power.
>
>
>Wrong again. Not only do they stop crime and prevent crime more often
>then they cause crime,
proof? and if NO ONE had guns then the point would be moot.
but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
>thing that has secured our freedom.
tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
i love this gun nut mythology. what comes next? peter pan as elmer
keith?
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
>> suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see the
>> occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
>
>What "proof" would you like?
what proof you got?
>
>
>Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
>think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
>"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
>Prozac."
mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>
>> how about your life and that of your family?
>
>I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns in
>the house in case I need them.
of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
be used against your family than in support of it.
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:44:45 GMT, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>
>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>
>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>see it.
yeah i know. ive never seen a convincing argument for the possession
of guns in private hands. the gun folks here in the US seem to think
theyre single handedly staving off a govt take over....
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:41:08 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>In <34c23bb...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>>
>>>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>>>
>>>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>>>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>>>
>>
>>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>>
>>given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>>
>>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
>>2. do not guarantee freedom
>>3. do not cause a reduction in crime
>>4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
>>
>>its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>>guns make violence easier.
>>
>
>You have made 5 assertions here without a shred of evidence. How about
>providing some?
1. guns are not necessary to secure freedom. ghandi and MLK were
examples of that
2. the IRA is far more heavily armed than your typical gun owner. yet
after 35 yrs of fighting, northern ireland is still british.
3. if guns caused a reduction in crime, america, which is among the
most heavily armed places on earth should have a low crime rate. it
doesnt.
4. the 38000 dead, so to speak, speak for themselves.
>
That is one of the typical
>techniques of the citizen-disarmament-extremist: keep repeating the lie
>often enough, hoping it will eventually be believed.
yawn...another bleating gun nut...
>
>I'm still waiting, also, for your answer to this simple question:
>if you are truly interested in saving lives, why aren't you working on
>solving one of the MANY problems that take more lives than firearms?
>I've been waiting for your answer for days now.
>
>
how do you know what i do?
ajfakjs;ldf
]asdfa
s'[dfa'slkdfja
s[d'fa;lkjdsfa
];sfd;lkfjasda
sdf;alsjfd
asd;f;laksfjda
s'f;lfa'lfdslkjdsfa
wf...@enter.netxx
On 18 Jan 1998 20:57:53 GMT, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>Try looking at the murder rate.
>
yes, to our friend robert, a cross look is the same as murder.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:12:13 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> uh, so what? how many deaths do they have caused by guns? id rather
>> have my car stolen than have my family gunned down by some nut with a
>> grudge against society.
>
>Of course you would. You'd also rather have your house ransacked while
>you watch
gee if neither i nor the criminal was armed seems like we'd be even.
. This is because you would rather be safe and lick the boot of
>your masters
<chuckle> really? mebbe we should outlaw boots!
rather than be responsible to your family and your
>community.
so having a gun is responsible? wonder if the tens of thousands of
dead feel...felt that way...
There are a lot of cowards who feel the same way as you so
>yu're not alone.
so when you run out of arguments you just resort to the priapic
argument that shows the true source of your fascination with guns.
==============================================================
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:14:51 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>
>> gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
>> societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
>>
>Perhpas you had better remove rec.org.mensa from this thread- if you're
>a member they'll tear up your membership card with responses like this.
>I don't even know how to begin to respond to this question- it makes no
>sense.
sorry, i qualify, but as groucho marx says, i wouldnt be a member of a
club that would have me as a member.
>
>> and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
>> where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had a
>> gun'
>
>
>Your point being...... what?
you made the comment. answer your own question.
>
>>
>> yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of thousands
>> of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
>> lives.
>
>
>Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
and if we had no guns there wouldnt be that problem.
==============================================================
William Hughes
Once again, "wf3h" posts to a bunch of totally unrelated newsgroups. One can
only assume that he is attempting to cause cross-group wars.
alt.philosophy.debate,alt.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet,talk.atheism
deleted from posting list.
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:30:48 GMT, in talk.politics.guns wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:09:54 GMT, robert....@mailexcite.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>>thats why guns dont belong in society.
>>
>>You haven't explained your stance here. Your statement makes it sound
>>as if you think guns CAUSE suicide. Which we both know they do not.
>>
>
>the real problem is that gun advocates have never justified the
>existence of a widespread possession of them (other than the
>constitution which, for me is justification enough)
>
>given the massive number of deaths and given the fact that guns
>
>1. are not necessary to secure freedom
Tell that to the Minutemen. Or the French Resistance.
>2. do not guarantee freedom
Maybe not, but they are a hell of a lot more effective than whatever is in
second place.
>3. do not cause a reduction in crime
Oh, really? I assume that you totally discount the 800,000 to 2,500,000 times a
year that firearms are used in self-defense? I assume further that you discount
the times that a criminal turns away from a potential victim when there is a
possibility that the victim might be armed? And, of course, let's not forget the
recent Lott/Mustard study, which showed reductions in violent crime in those
areas that permit personal ownership of firearms.
>4. lead to tremendous numbers of dead and wounded in society
All by themselves? Obviously, you totally discount the human criminal operating
the firearm that is used in the commission of a crime.
>its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
It is obvious that you are totally incapable of rational thought, too.
>guns make violence easier.
Guns also make resisting violence easier. But you are not interested in
protecting the victims of criminals...
================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA NRA LSC2838R (1996)
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment, United States Constitution
(Delete underscores in address before replying)
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:07:43 +0000, Mike Harding <m00n...@mcmail.com>
wrote:
>Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
>This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
>the hands of either the criminals or Police.
and how many people were killed by guns last yr? in the US in '94 it
was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
did you have that many gun related killings?
wf...@enter.netxx
On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>Ok, two things.
>
>1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
>completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
>benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
check the IRA. they have:
missiles
RPG's
grenades
automatic weapons
last i checked, Northern Ireland is still british
>
>Again 2 points
>
>1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
>cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
they wouldnt. but access would be so restrictive that we would see
what happens in the UK...they cant steal 'em like they do in the US.
easy access would end. gun related deaths would drop
>
>2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
if neither the bad nor good guy is armend the point is moot
>
>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
so encouraging gunfights makes things safe? especially in view of the
fact that a gun is much more likely to be used AGAINST a family rather
than by it.
in addition there are too many nuts running around with guns. hardly a
day goes by that some guy doesnt dust his wife, kids, and an
occasional cop.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:16:57 -0600, "Noel B. Brinkley"
<budd...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>> >
>> > its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>> Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World tends to
>> see it.
>
>In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people. They
>were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that is
>civilization, count me among the barbarians.
>buddy
gee seems the problem is that EVERYBODY was armed not that NO ONE was
armed!
James F. Mayer
In <34c2a892...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
><robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>> of course you got no proof...what we do see with guns is 18,000
>>> suicides/yr. we see lots drive bys...kids getting wasted...we see
the
>>> occasional guy who takes out his family, the local cop or 2...
>>
>>What "proof" would you like?
>
>what proof you got?
>>
>>
>>Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine
you
>>think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
>>"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
>>Prozac."
>
>mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>
>>
>>> how about your life and that of your family?
>>
>>I care for them a lot more- which is why I have lots of loaded guns
in
>>the house in case I need them.
>
>of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
>be used against your family than in support of it.
>
has since been discredited. It has also been distorted. The original
states "aquaintences". Have you fallen for the gun control advocacy
organizations intentional distortions? Evan Kellermann himself would
have his wife own a gun.
"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the
more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to
have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." Dr. Aurthur Kellerman:
Health Magazine (March/April 1994)
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
<robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
>> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
>> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
>> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
>> >Prozac."
>>
>> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>
>
>Pray tell name ONE.
sorry. in the UK they use tea, n ot prozac.
>
>> of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely to
>> be used against your family than in support of it.
>
>So? How do you know those stats are true? Where do they come from?
dont remember. guess they come from the same place your stats about
2.5 million crimes prevented by gun use.
James F. Mayer
In <34c2a806...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:14:51 -0500, Robert Frenchu
><robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> gee, if guns saved people why do 38500 people die from them? why do
>>> societies WITHOUT guns have so much less violence due to guns?
>>>
>>Perhpas you had better remove rec.org.mensa from this thread- if
you're
>>a member they'll tear up your membership card with responses like
this.
>>I don't even know how to begin to respond to this question- it makes
no
>>sense.
>
>sorry, i qualify, but as groucho marx says, i wouldnt be a member of a
>club that would have me as a member.
>
>>
>>> and no one says to the lawyer representing the estate of the family
>>> where the dad killed everyone with a gun 'gee, too bad the dad had
a
>>> gun'
>>
>>
>>Your point being...... what?
>
>you made the comment. answer your own question.
>
>>
>>>
>>> yep. mores the pity. our obsession with guns costs tens of
thousands
>>> of lives/yr. and gun nuts are under the impression that they SAVE
>>> lives.
>>
>>
>>Guns save more lives than they take and that is a fact.
>
>and if we had no guns there wouldnt be that problem.
>
Violent crime will disapear? Not quite.
James F. Mayer
In <34c2a6b0...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On 18 Jan 1998 20:44:45 GMT, "Chris Brown"
>
>>
>>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>>
>>> its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession of
>>> guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>
>>Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World
tends to
>>see it.
>
>of guns in private hands. the gun folks here in the US seem to think
>theyre single handedly staving off a govt take over....
>>
>
James F. Mayer
In <34c2c179...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:07:43 +0000, Mike Harding <m00n...@mcmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
>>This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are
in
>>the hands of either the criminals or Police.
>
>
>and how many people were killed by guns last yr? in the US in '94 it
>was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
>did you have that many gun related killings?
>
>
>
>
disarm the police and the military?
James F. Mayer
In <34c2c11f...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:16:57 -0600, "Noel B. Brinkley"
><budd...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article
<34c23bb...@news.enter.net>...
>>> >
>>> > its obvious that, if the 2nd ammendment didnt exist, possession
of
>>> > guns would be seen for what it is: insane.
>>>
>>> Believe me, that's precisely how the rest of the civilised World
tends to
>>> see it.
>>
They
>>were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that
is
>>civilization, count me among the barbarians.
>>buddy
>
>gee seems the problem is that EVERYBODY was armed not that NO ONE was
>armed!
>
>
want to also disarm all of the militaries?
James F. Mayer
In <34c2c287...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
><robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
>>> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I
imagine you
>>> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just
go,
>>> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take
my
>>> >Prozac."
>>>
>>> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
>>
>>
>>Pray tell name ONE.
>
>sorry. in the UK they use tea, n ot prozac.
>
>>
>>> of course, ive seen stats that say those guns are 40x more likely
to
>>> be used against your family than in support of it.
>>
>>So? How do you know those stats are true? Where do they come from?
>
>dont remember. guess they come from the same place your stats about
>2.5 million crimes prevented by gun use.
>
Not hardly. Yours come from a discredited study and an
organization that wouldn't release the data for independant review
until it was "cleaned up".
Robert Frenchu
Mike Harding wrote:
>
> Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
> This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
> the hands of either the criminals or Police.
This is exactly how they would like it to be in this country, for
reasons I cannot fathom.
Robert Frenchu
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > > <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> > > but the fact the Americans are armed is the ONLY
> > > >thing that has secured our freedom.
>
> > > tell it to ghandi and martin luther king.
>
>
> (Note that he held against the British almost more than anything
> else their disarming of the people of India.)
This is called "grasping at straws, I believe. :>
Robert Frenchu
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:36:53 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> >> <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >
> >> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
> >> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
> >> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
> >> >Prozac."
> >>
> >> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
'Fraid not- they just find other ways to do it. If yu're gonna off
yourself you're gonna off yourself.
Dan Z
In <34c2a092...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net writes:
>
>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:55:05 -0600, Roy Lemons <ro...@anet-dfw.com>
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.net wrote:
>>
>>> actually i understated the case. there were 38500 gun related
deaths
>>> in 1994. and there were 4200 deaths of kids in 1990, according to a
>>> cdc report.
>>
>>How many people were killed with cars last year? I think it was just
a
>>few more than were killed with guns.
>
>about 39000 people died by gunfire in 1994 according to CDC. as to
>cars...when you can drive to work in your gun, you'll have an
>argument.
>
>>
>>Why not ban cars, as I understand if you add together all other
causes
>>of death it will not equal half of what cars do.
>
>because cars have a social utility. guns dont.
>
>>
I feel offended that you think the protection of my life and that of my
loved ones has no social utility. Do you feel the same way about your
life and that of your loved ones? Would you have them quietly submit
to death rather than you defend them against a violent criminal?
"*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered
an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves
with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon."
(Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Guns and Crime: Handgun
Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft, April 1994,
NCJ-147003)
Unrelated newsgroups cut.
--
Antispam address list, spammers listed will be added to other spammer's lists; poetic justice....
plea...@PLEASUREQUEST.COM , all...@northernnet.com , Johnny...@HOTMAIL.COM , po...@mail.inawhile.com ,
mor...@hotmail.com , 74431...@COMPUSERVE.COM , sma...@NETVISION.NET.IL , bel...@SOUTHERNBELLES.COM ,
sat3...@VALUEWEB.NET , alle...@AOL.COM , inb...@PACBELL.NET , REH...@NATIONALCREDIT.COM , gf...@ICA.NET ,
postm...@CROMERICA.COM , savi...@hotmail.com , car...@MEGAWEBCITY.COM , info...@juno.com ,
ad...@WEBPOST.NET , ingr...@aol.com , ingr...@hotmail.com , dann...@HOTMAIL.COM , vi...@CELTIC.CO.UK ,
journ...@mail.com , wa...@hkbizlink.com , submit...@juno.com , rsla...@IDT.NET , doma...@IX.GEN.COM
ku...@cheerful.com , sma...@NETVISION.NET.IL , J...@JOEMAST.COM , send...@mailcity.com , gl...@n-jcenter.com
belc...@PROMOBILITY.NET , max...@TNLB.COM , more...@swbell.net , bp...@MINDSPRING.COM , FC...@juno.com ,
qui...@juno.com , agood...@aol.com , Ask...@aol.com , bigh...@BIGHITTERS.COM , multi...@iname.com ,
st...@hotmail.com , m...@EDEN.COM , gbre...@netport.com , Graph...@WORLDNET.ATT.NET , e...@ELOSOFT.COM ,
maga...@iname.com , cy...@REEFNET.COM , fant...@lcsys.com , sel...@NETVIGATOR.COM , srob...@IX.NETCOM.COM
ad...@WEB-RESPONSE.COM , Gre...@nauticom.net , enter...@hotmail.com , webm...@SIRIUSPUB.COM ,
pau...@juno.com , co...@WALLSTREETCOINS.COM , ss...@NETVIGATOR.COM , d...@GLOBECOMM.COM ,
Scout
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <34c2c1bc...@news.enter.net>...
> On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok, two things.
> >
> >1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
> >completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining
a
> >benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
>
> check the IRA. they have:
>
> missiles
> RPG's
> grenades
> automatic weapons
>
> last i checked, Northern Ireland is still british
True, and last time I check the british government wasn't tyrannical.
> >
> >Again 2 points
> >
> >1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
> >cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
>
> they wouldnt. but access would be so restrictive that we would see
> what happens in the UK...they cant steal 'em like they do in the US.
> easy access would end. gun related deaths would drop
Excuse me????
Weren't you just telling me all the weapons the IRA has? You know missles,
RPGs, grenades, automatic weapons? Is not northern Ireland part of the UK?
Opps, that short memory of yours really caused you to look stupid didn't
it?
> >
> >2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
> >would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to
cause
> >injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
>
> if neither the bad nor good guy is armend the point is moot
No it's not. Since a victim without a gun is more likely to be injured or
killed by the criminal, and a criminal without a gun is more likely to
injure or kill his victim. Your idea is that increasing the number killed
and wounded would be a good idea. I have to wonder about someone that seeks
more injury and death from crime.....
> >
> >Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals
while
> >limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
>
> so encouraging gunfights makes things safe?
Who's encouraging gunfights? I'm simply making the best means of self
defense an option. If the criminal can't control themselves then their
victim has every right to fight back.
> especially in view of the
> fact that a gun is much more likely to be used AGAINST a family rather
> than by it.
Ok. please support that fact. Please present the facts that a gun is more
likely to be used against a non-aggressive family member than it is to
defend against crime. Please note that a successful self defense need not
have a dead body to show it was successful.
> in addition there are too many nuts running around with guns. hardly a
> day goes by that some guy doesnt dust his wife, kids, and an
> occasional cop.
Sort of like those in Japan. Opps, but then they have tight gun control.
Seems nuts exist everywhere, and kill by any means.
Chris Brown
PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> >Now perhpas he'd be good enough to tell us the respective populations,
> >population densities and car ownership levels of the UK and France?
> >
>
> I think the populations of both countries are pretty dense. Sorry,
couldn't
> help that one. Does a Mini or a 2CV really count as a car?
Here's a little help. Both countries have a population of about 60 million.
France, however, has a population density of 106 persons per square
kilometre. The UK has a population density of 242 persons per square
kilometre (source, Encarta 1997 World edition), with over 90% urbanised.
France is less than 75% urbanised.
The UK economy is in much better shape than France's, people buy more cars.
People live closer together - more cars get stolen. Go figure.
Chris Brown
PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> Yes, we all know how much the Brits like to get pissed and invade
> neighboring countries disguised as football hooligans (does the Continent
> allow Brits to attend football matches yet?).
Of course.
> We also know about how well-protected the British people are from random
> search and detention. I think they can label you a 'terrorist' and hold
you
> for about a week, incomunicado, while they work on you.
Perhaps, since you know so much about it, you're like to tell us how meny
people have been detained under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism
Act in the last 10 years? How many of them were known terrorists? How many
were later convicted?
Perhaps you'd also like to bear in mind that even Northern Ireland, with
its endemic terrorist problem, is still considerably safer than the average
US city.
> They don't have
> asset forfeiture laws in England, because nobody has anything worth
taking.
Now you're just being silly.
> Aren't they putting television cameras in most public places to 'monitor'
> people?
Yes, it's actually very popular, and resulted in the return of my bicycle
when it was stolen recently.
> You try going into an airport or anywhere in Belfast and refuse to
> produce ID on demand and see what happens.
The situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat different to that in Great
Britain.
> >> > 2. do not guarantee freedom
> >>
> >> You better believe that they do.
> >
> >You seriously think that having guns in circulation will do anything to
> >deter a government from doing pretty much what it pleases? they have
tanks,
> >bombers, fighter aircraft, the media and potentially millions of
soldiers
> >on their side. Try overthrowing your government on the pretext that it's
an
> >oppressive regime and see precisely how long it takes you to get shot.
> >
>
> Worked pretty well when we tossed the British out on their asses.
Oh sorry, I hadn't realised the similarities between trying to hold a
continent half way around the World with a small group of soldiers using
the same weaponry as those they're fighting against with little will back
home to commit resources into continuing the operation and an indiginous
government with millions of troops, tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers and
the major institutions in the country on their side suppressing internal
unrest.
Go and look what happened in Russia in 1918 - guns didn't help those
opposing the Bolsheviks.
> >> Look at Florida or Texas crime statistics as an example.
> >
> >the incidence of violent crime correlates with the number of book shops
in
> >an area. ban bookshops now!
>
> Twaddle. Beneath further comment.
It's actually true. Establishing a correlation between two statistics is
meaningless. you have to establish a causal relationship. You have not done
this.
> >Awfully nice of criminals being so discerning as to only kill other
> >criminals. How terribly decent of them.
>
> Yes, I believe we should encourage it.
Well, since your society is obviously so much more advanced than ours (got
a decent colour TV standard and passengere trains that can do more than 40
mph yet?), I'm sure you clever chappies could come up with a gun that only
works when you point it at baddies.
Steve Hix
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:46:21 -0500, Robert Frenchu
> > >> >Love your sob story, though- particularly about suicides. I imagine you
> > >> >think if there were no guns all these suicidal people would just go,
> > >> >"Darn! I guess now that there are no guns I'll just have to take my
> > >> >Prozac."
> > >> mebbe. seems to work in other countries.
Cite? (One can always hope...)
One also assumes that wf3h isn't going to trot out Japan
as an example.
Chris Brown
PLMerite <Stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in article
> Well then, I guess we can politely invite the rest of the 'civilized'
world
> (ask some of the former British Colonies how 'civilized' they think the
> Brits really are) to piss off.
It doesn't actually bother us if you all go round shooting each other.
Quite an interesting spectator sport actually.
Chris Brown
Robert Frenchu <robert....@mailexcite.com> wrote in article
> You are the guys who need a license to watch TV, fer chrissakes.
Which actually results in TV worth watching. That must be a novel concept.
Chris Brown
Noel B. Brinkley <budd...@swbell.net> wrote in article
<34C2A9...@swbell.net>...
>
> In this century, governments have murdered over 50 million people. They
> were able to do so because those people had been disarmed. If that is
> civilization, count me among the barbarians.
Hitler was democratically elected. The Bolsheviks won a civil war, where
the opposition were both more numerous, and armed, before their murders
started.
Chris Brown
Sorcerer <fwa...@ca.pacbell.net> wrote in article
<69ujk7$ovp$1...@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>...
> Didn't stop the prime minister's son, now facing jail time, from getting
> weed and getting caught with it, did it?
I'm not sure the Prime Minister even has a son...
> The UK is MORE violent and has MORE lethal force assaults than the USA.
If there are more lethal (as in things which cause death) attacks in the
UK, why is our homicide rate a tiny fraction of yours?
> Not to put too fine a point on it, even the London Times admits that the
USA
> is safer.
Perhaps you'd like to quote the text that says this.
Clayton E. Cramer
PBS has been running quite a bit more British TV lately.
Sorry, but most of it is trash as bad as most of ours.
JOE ROWELL
>
> >Here in the U.K. we have Gun Control and all handguns are banned .
> >This does not stop the criminals having guns however so all guns are in
> >the hands of either the criminals or Police.
>
> was 39000. with the UK's smaller population it would be about 8000.
> did you have that many gun related killings?
>
>
> official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
>
> if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
> type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
wf3h, you want to treat the symtoms and not the cause. Even if you
could take away all of the guns, that wouldn't stop the violence. Years
ago, before guns were everywhere, there were still gangs of young thugs
roaming the streets with chains and knives.
guns don't creat violence, people create violence. Sometimes they use
guns and sometimes they use other tools.
Take away the guns and there would be fewer shootings but just as much
violence. Without guns, it's the biggest bully who puts your life in
danger.
The solution is to get rid of the people who are doing all of the
violence. Besides, we both know that if the American people would let
it happen, that it would take 10 to 20 years after the honest citizen
gave up their guns, before they would get most of the criminal's guns.
Thus Americans would be stripped of one more of their enjoyments.
(their shooting sports and gun collections)
I know that it dosen't bother you but think of the folks that have to
give up their pleasures.
How about the new TAX BY THE MINUTE program that the FCC is trying to
get through. They want to tax the internet users by the minute. It
will start out small at first but within a few years it will grow into a
tax that will be prohibitive. When they finally make cigarettes illegal,
they will have to replace that tax with something.
Are you willing to give up your computer?
I can hear you now,"yeah, when they come and pry it out of my cold dead
hands."
--
JOE ROWELL.... hey...@swbell.net
Proteus
On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>Ok, two things.
>
>1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
>completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
>benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
I don't have any proof. I just think having a handgun isn't
going to stop a tank from running me over or an Apache helipcopter
from tearing me to shreads with a machine gun.
>2) Assume for the moment that what you state is true. Would this not
>indicate that civilian ownership of arms, particularly the major ones needs
>to be encouraged, perhaps even to the point where free or very cheap sales
>of such surplus equipement (which we've already paid for), rather than to
>send more money to render it inoperational? Items such as A-6, A-7, M-60
>tanks, ect, ect could be sold to private individuals (background check, ect
>) for what they were worth as scrap minus the costs of scraping them or
>rendering them inoperational. The government would recieve EXACTLY the same
>amount of money for their sale, and balance the difference in arms.
Are you trying to be funny? This is ludicrous and unnecessary.
>
>> Guns may not *cause* crime, but they sure do make it easier! I
>> would give someone my money if they had a gun, but I wouldn't if they
>> didn't. (If they had a knife, I would run like hell!)
>
>Again 2 points
>
>1) If we assume your reaction to be normal, why exactly would criminals
>cease using firearms even if a national ban should manage to be passed?
They wouldn't. I never suggested a national ban anyway. I
never even suggested tighter gun controls.
>2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
What do you have to prove *your* claim? Besides, my dog does a
pretty good job of defense, and I don't have to worry about
accidentally putting a bullet in my own head (or someone else's)
>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
How am I doing this?
*************************************************************************************
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
*************************************************************************************
Proteus
On 19 Jan 1998 01:07:23 GMT, "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>2) Such a reaction would more likely lead to your injury or death than
>would compliance. Further even absolute compliance is more likely to cause
>injury or death on the average than using a firearm for defense.
>
>Seems to me that you are encouraging the use of firearms by criminals while
>limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
>
Even if I carry a gun, how is this going to prevent me from
getting shot?
People at war carry guns all the time. I seem to recall that a
lot of these same people have been shot and killed.
Clayton E. Cramer
> >
> >1) What do you have to prove your claim that arms owned by citizens are
> >completely worthless in preventing a tyrannical government, maintaining a
> >benevolent government, or removing a tyrannical government from power?
>
> I don't have any proof. I just think having a handgun isn't
> going to stop a tank from running me over or an Apache helipcopter
> from tearing me to shreads with a machine gun.
The handgun is primarily for defensive use; it is because gun control
advocates are trying to ban the sort of weapons that WOULD be useful
in those circumstances that some of us don't trust you.
Clayton E. Cramer
> >limiting people's ability to successfully defend themselves.
> >
> Even if I carry a gun, how is this going to prevent me from
> getting shot?
Because it means that a criminal who has half a brain will realize
that if he attacks you, or someone else near you, that he may get
shot and killed. It's an interesting theory, and Lott & Mustard's
study seems to confirm that it really works. There seems to be a
net transfer from murder, robbery, and rape to crimes like motor
vehicle theft. I'll take that substitution.
> People at war carry guns all the time. I seem to recall that a
> lot of these same people have been shot and killed.
Yeah, and a lot of them have traveled to exotic foreign lands. If
you buy a gun, will you suddenly end up in an exotic foreign land,
too?