what guns have done to america
phat boy slim
father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
"vicious epidemic of senseless murders spreading rampantly"
"Kids have no respect for life these days. They have been programmed. Its
all about guns and violence."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1881561,00.html
BTMO
"phat boy slim" <> wrote
> "A TEENAGER who was profiled in a magazine for being an "outstanding
> single father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
Meanwhile, in the UK...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=369241&in_page_id=1770
"Police in Britain's most dangerous cities should be routinely armed, the
leader of the country's rank and file officers said."
and
"official statistics show that gun crime is increasing rapidly. In the last
year alone, there has been a six per cent increase in firearms incidents."
and
"Mrs Berry said the Federation would lobby for more officers to be given
firearms training in a bid to tackle Britain's rampant gun culture."
Charles L
"BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ghgf.2757$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Now if Britain banned the legal ownership of handguns......oh yeah, they did
ban the legal ownership of handguns.
Charles L
Morton Davis
"phat boy slim" <pizzalovi...@allstar.ps> wrote in message
news:438197e0$0$23285$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> "A TEENAGER who was profiled in a magazine for being an "outstanding
single
> father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
>
meanwhile, crime in America is at a 30 year low and murder is at a 40 year
low.
darth_s...@yahoo.com
Wait and see their crime rate sore like D.C. and Chicago where the
banned
hand guns!
Why dont liberals get it that criminals dont buy their hand guns in the
local gun shop?
slate_leeper
wrote:
Exactly. He posted a single incident. Anyone who knows anything about
statistics is aware that a single incident is nothing but a
meaningless anecdote, and does not show any indication of a trend.
What counts are totals, and as you pointed out, the totals favor gun
ownership.
-dan z-
- -
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
John P
> "A TEENAGER who was profiled in a magazine for being an "outstanding
> single father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
A father at 15 years old. A "Street tough Kid" a.k.a. Gang banger.
> "vicious epidemic of senseless murders spreading rampantly"
A 16 year old gang banger in Chicago was stabbed to death over the weekend.
... another gang banger teen was run over by a car and killed.
> "Kids have no respect for life these days. They have been programmed. Its
> all about guns and violence."
Or just violence, without the guns. Perhaps if their parents would
participate in their lives, they might have a different perspective.
The Lone Weasel
<news:TMjgf.348283$084.311584@attbi_s22>:
Yes, but US homicide rates are historically the highest for a
wealthy industrialized country. Our murder rates are more
like those in so-called third-world countries where the law is
corrupt and democratic processes are scarce.
You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole of
violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
country, but when you look at their homicide rates and ours,
they make our country look like a combat zone.
I think we're at a crossroads at which our communities could
easily become combat zones all across the country, not just
urban areas but suburbs, wealthy communities, rural areas,
everywhere. We need to decide whether that's the way we want
to live for the next 40 years.
_________________
L'intérêt, qui aveugle les uns, fait la lumière des autres.
Interest blinds some and enlightens others. Maxims of La
Rochefoucauld.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
IP_St...@hotmail.com
darth_s...@yahoo.com wrote:
> not for long in San Francisco.
> Wait and see their crime rate sore like D.C. and Chicago where the
> banned
> hand guns!
Wait and see their crime rate sore like NYC where they banned hand
guns. What was that? Crime in NYC has gone down? Gosh/Gasp. How can
that be? LOL.
>
> Why dont liberals get it that criminals dont buy their hand guns in the
> local gun shop?
Why don't guntards stop using this argument? It makes you guys appear
rather moronic.
Larry J.
<lonew...@gmail.com> said:
> I think we're at a crossroads at which our communities could
> easily become combat zones all across the country, not just
> urban areas but suburbs, wealthy communities, rural areas,
> everywhere.
Horseshit. There is no data to support that.
--
"And idiots begat fools, and fools begat morons, and morons
begat imbeciles, and imbeciles begat dufuses. And then
EuroPEONS realized they could do this with people outside
their immediate families..."
John P
> Yes, but US homicide rates are historically the highest for a
> wealthy industrialized country. Our murder rates are more
> like those in so-called third-world countries where the law is
> corrupt and democratic processes are scarce.
> You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole of
> violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
> country, but when you look at their homicide rates and ours,
> they make our country look like a combat zone.
All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list (if
it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn violent
simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt with is
violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership is barking up
the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
Rex Tincher
wrote:
<snip>
>Now if Britain banned the legal ownership of handguns......oh yeah, they did
>ban the legal ownership of handguns.
Unfortunately, they didn't ban the *illegal* ownership of handguns.
Gun-control advocates and other criminals are perfectly willing to own
guns illegally.
"A Springfield woman who began lobbying against gun violence after
her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when
police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home."
--- The State Journal-Register Online - Springfield, Illinois,
1 March 2005. More details at: http://www.tincher.to/stevens.htm
--
"She had the 9mm and a .38 revolver. That surprised me,
considering she said she was going to be in the Million Mom March
against gun violence and all that." - Police Sergeant C. V. Morris.
More details at: http://www.tincher.to/mmm.htm
The Lone Weasel
<news:Cbadnbu0ncYPkx_e...@comcast.com>:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>> Yes, but US homicide rates are historically the highest
>> for a wealthy industrialized country. Our murder rates
>> are more like those in so-called third-world countries
>> where the law is corrupt and democratic processes are
>> scarce.
>
>> You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole
>> of violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
>> country, but when you look at their homicide rates and
>> ours, they make our country look like a combat zone.
>
> All valid points.
I know they are.
> However, there are a number of
> contributing factors to violence. I suspect the presence of
> guns comes in very low on the list (if it makes it on the
> list at all).
The availability of weapons generally, and of more efficient
weapons particularly make a big difference in mortality rates,
obviously.
> Non-violent people do not turn violent simply
> because they have a gun.
Yes they do. People who wouldn't get in a fistfight would use a
gun in a confrontation, you call it a DGU.
Really it's just courage from having the gun, from the
likelihood that they'd whip their antagonist, even if they
killed him.
There are no non-violent people who carry guns. The presence of
the gun means you're prepared to use it. Violence is presumed.
> The issue that needs to be dealt
> with is violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of
> gun ownership is barking up the wrong tree and does nothing
> to solve the real problem.
Your attempt to disconnect gun possession from violence doesn't
make sense. If you want to disconnect violence from gun
possession, get rid of the gun.
John P
>> However, there are a number of
>> contributing factors to violence. I suspect the presence of
>> guns comes in very low on the list (if it makes it on the
>> list at all).
> The availability of weapons generally, and of more efficient
> weapons particularly make a big difference in mortality rates,
> obviously.
In mortality rates, perhaps. ...although, you *do* know that 9 out of 10
gunshot victims survive, right? I wonder, statistically, how many stabbing
victims survive
>> Non-violent people do not turn violent simply
>> because they have a gun.
> Yes they do. People who wouldn't get in a fistfight would use a
> gun in a confrontation, you call it a DGU.
DGU's are not listed as a violent crime. Why do you feel otherwise?
> Really it's just courage from having the gun, from the
> likelihood that they'd whip their antagonist, even if they
> killed him.
Of course, reality doesn't support your opinion.
> There are no non-violent people who carry guns. The presence of
> the gun means you're prepared to use it. Violence is presumed.
I suppose if you count any use of a gun as violence, you'd be right. Target
shooting would be an example of violence against paper. Skeet would be
violence against clay pigeons. Cops and military people would be violent
24/7. Carrying any other weapon would seem to fall under the same rules. A
guy in a warehouse with a boxcutter, a baseball player holding a bat....
It's a ridiculous and poorly thought out argument, but I suppose we can make
it work.
>> The issue that needs to be dealt
>> with is violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of
>> gun ownership is barking up the wrong tree and does nothing
>> to solve the real problem.
> Your attempt to disconnect gun possession from violence doesn't
> make sense. If you want to disconnect violence from gun
> possession, get rid of the gun.
I don't want to disconnect gun possession from anything, I want to address
the actual problem - violence.
akl...@attbi.com
IP_St...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Why dont liberals get it that criminals dont buy their hand guns in the
> > local gun shop?
>
> Why don't guntards stop using this argument? It makes you guys appear
> rather moronic.
Why? It's the fukken truth, fool.
The Lone Weasel
>>> However, there are a number of
>>> contributing factors to violence. I suspect the presence
>>> of guns comes in very low on the list (if it makes it on
>>> the list at all).
>
>> The availability of weapons generally, and of more
>> efficient weapons particularly make a big difference in
>> mortality rates, obviously.
>
> In mortality rates, perhaps. ...although, you *do* know
> that 9 out of 10 gunshot victims survive, right? I wonder,
> statistically, how many stabbing victims survive
>
>>> Non-violent people do not turn violent simply
>>> because they have a gun.
>
>> Yes they do. People who wouldn't get in a fistfight would
>> use a gun in a confrontation, you call it a DGU.
>
> DGU's are not listed as a violent crime. Why do you feel
> otherwise?
Pulling a gun on somebody without a convincing purpose is
assault. The reason you don't hear about DGU assaults is
because the vast majority of DGUs are gunloon fantasies.
When a gunloon pulls a gun on somebody for no good reason and
the victim complains to the police and the police catch the
gunloon, then it's assault.
And maybe a few thousand times a year a few gunloons really have
valid DGUs. I'd say not more than 50K times a year.
>> Really it's just courage from having the gun, from the
>> likelihood that they'd whip their antagonist, even if they
>> killed him.
>
> Of course, reality doesn't support your opinion.
Sure it does. Harold Fish is a prime example.
>> There are no non-violent people who carry guns. The
>> presence of the gun means you're prepared to use it.
>> Violence is presumed.
>
> I suppose if you count any use of a gun as violence, you'd
> be right.
Any use of a gun is violence. Even just showing the gun or
"brandishing" the gun is violent.
> Target shooting would be an example of violence
> against paper.
Bullshit. Why does anybody need to be accurate with a handgun?
>>> The issue that needs to be dealt
>>> with is violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of
>>> gun ownership is barking up the wrong tree and does
>>> nothing to solve the real problem.
>
>> Your attempt to disconnect gun possession from violence
>> doesn't make sense. If you want to disconnect violence
>> from gun possession, get rid of the gun.
>
> I don't want to disconnect gun possession from anything, I
> want to address the actual problem - violence.
Then you just want violence. If you carry a loaded gun secretly
long enough you'll probably get some.
____________
The Harris Poll. Sept. 9-13, 2004. N=1,018 adults
nationwide. MoE ą 3 (for all adults).
"In general, would you say you favor stricter gun control,
or less strict gun control?"
Stricter Less Strict Neither Unsure
% % % %
9/04 60 32 04 03
5/00 63 28 06 04
6/99 63 25 10 02
4/98 69 23 07 01
"A ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high
capacity ammunition magazines expires on September 14. Would
you favor or oppose continuing this ban?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
ALL 71 26 04
Republicans 72 25 03
Democrats 72 27 01
Independents 74 22 03
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Pavil Natanovich
>> because they have a gun.
>Yes they do. People who wouldn't get in a fistfight would use a
>gun in a confrontation, you call it a DGU.
>Really it's just courage from having the gun, from the
>likelihood that they'd whip their antagonist, even if they
>killed him.
>There are no non-violent people who carry guns. The presence of
>the gun means you're prepared to use it. Violence is presumed.
"The gun just leapt into my hand and began belching forth a hail of
bullets. When the raucous thunder game to an end, the empty clip
slipped out, clattering to the concrete, and another clicked into
place. The gun resumed its staccato rhythm until 30 bodies lay piled
motionless on the sidewalk."
Weasel, I rarely run across such mindless blather as what you spouted
above. I know hundreds of people who routinely carry firearms who have
never so much as drawn on another human being. The vast majority of
gun toting americans have never shot another person or even at another
person.
Most gun-owning citizens are firm believers in keeping the peace.
Those who don't generally end up in prison.
Private gun-owning citizens frequently thwart criminal acts. That
alone is sufficient reason to justify the second amendment. But what
is more important is that you are responsible for your own protection,
and equally for protecting your family, friends, and neighbors. The
police cannot protect you. They can apprehend someone who has caused
you harm, and thereby protect others. But they cannot prevent an
initial crime. Criminals tend to avoid acting while the police are
around. Until they DO act, how can they be stopped? Vagrancy?
Loitering? These are superficial deterents at best, serving more to
irritate potential criminals than to stop crime.
A number of studies have shown that armed citizens inhibit crime.
Sociologists attempting to show just the opposite have published some
of these studies. Your fear and loathing of guns is entirely
groundless, Weasel, more especially arms in the hands of responsible
adults.
The Lone Weasel
<news:1132608103.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> I know hundreds of people who routinely carry firearms who
> have never so much as drawn on another human being. The
> vast majority of gun toting americans have never shot
> another person or even at another person.
Then why do they need guns? Where's your 3 million DGUs a
year come from, slick?
Besides, most people don't want you gunloons carrying loaded
guns secretly anywhere near them.
_______________
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey
conducted by Princeton Survey Research Assoc. May 2-6, 2000.
N=1,303 adults nationwide.
"What do you think is more important: to protect the right
of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?"
5/00 3/00 6/99 5/99 12/93
% % % % %
Protect rights 38 29 33 30 34
Control ownership 57 66 62 65 57
Don't know/Refused 5 5 5 5 9
Greg Procter
The Lone Weasel wrote:
As always, the question asked can have a major effect on the result!
Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to be threatened by
individuals carrying guns.
Rex Tincher
wrote:
<snip>
>As always, the question asked can have a major effect on the result!
>Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to be threatened by
>individuals carrying guns.
Here in the USA, I feel it is my right not to be threatened by
criminals and lunatics. I don't want to control what weapon they kill
me with. I want to prevent the death of myself and other good people,
even if that means that every violent criminal and violent lunatic
gets shot. I will cheerfully sacrifice 100 violent career muggers to
protect one honest person from being beaten to death.
On the other hand, the gun control lobby's official goal is to prevent
gun violence. If they can prevent one criminal from being shot, even
if that results in 100 honest people being beaten to death, then the
gun control lobby counts that as a victory. Possibly because the gun
control lobby here in the USA is run by criminals. The Brady Campaign
has been fined for breaking campaign finance reform laws that they
lobbied for.
Brady Anti-Gun Group Pays $26G FEC Fine
Associated Press
Thursday 4 December 2003, 10:28 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A gun-control group has agreed to pay a $26,000 fine for
failing to properly disclose spending on mailings opposing two
Republican House candidates, the Federal Election Commission said
Thursday.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Voter Education Fund didn't
report $111,777 in spending to oppose Kentucky Rep. Ernest Fletcher's
election, nor did it report $99,731 in spending against Pennsylvania
Rep. Pat Toomey, according to the FEC.
The mailings were sent to voters shortly before the 2000 election. The
spending was supposed to be reported by the Brady group's Voter
Education Fund to the commission within 24 hours.
snipped rest of article
--
"I hate (expletive) loaded guns and I will blow this building up."
- gun control advocate Johnny Ray Gobin, threatening a Florida
National Guardsman at the Naples Florida airport, 22 February 2002.
source: "Man faces charges in threat at airport", The News-Press
(of Florida), 23 February 2002
John P
>> I know hundreds of people who routinely carry firearms who
>> have never so much as drawn on another human being. The
>> vast majority of gun toting americans have never shot
>> another person or even at another person.
> Then why do they need guns? Where's your 3 million DGUs a
> year come from, slick?
Why do you need to make meaningless arguments? No one claims 3 million
DGU's. *Cops* are rarely required to draw their weapons, much less actually
fire them. Why do you think the average ciizen would be running around
waving his/her gun around? Who are you to decide that someone should or
shouldn't own a gun or a fire extinguisher or any other device they desire
for the protection should the need arise?
> Besides, most people don't want you gunloons carrying loaded
> guns secretly anywhere near them.
How does it matter what other people want?
Chris Morton
says...
>Besides, most people don't want you gunloons carrying loaded
>guns secretly anywhere near them.
Lee Harrison doesn't want Black people walking around free.
He doesn't get any choice in that matter either.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Chris Morton
>As always, the question asked can have a major effect on the result!
>Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to be threatened by
>individuals carrying guns.
You have a right to be paranoid.
You don't have a right to have your paranoia catered to.
Greg Procter
Rex Tincher wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:49:09 +1300, Greg Procter <Pro...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >As always, the question asked can have a major effect on the result!
> >Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to be threatened by
> >individuals carrying guns.
>
> Here in the USA, I feel it is my right not to be threatened by
> criminals and lunatics.
Ok, lunatics seems to be an addition to the discussion though.
> I don't want to control what weapon they kill
> me with.
Ok, so you don't care how you die - that's noble of you!
> I want to prevent the death of myself and other good people,
> even if that means that every violent criminal and violent lunatic
> gets shot.
If you pull out a hand gun here I'm entitled to assume you are a lunatic
and likely about to attempt to kill me.
> I will cheerfully sacrifice 100 violent career muggers to
> protect one honest person from being beaten to death.
You are such a good judge of character? - I have to say you are a most
exceptional person!
At 56 years of age, 18 of which were spent as a counsellor, I would not
presume to judge a situation I chanced upon to the extent where I would
execute a person.
There would be a chance that the big muscly guy holding the gun and
menacing the woman had just disarmed her and was awaiting the arrival of
the police!little old
>
>
> On the other hand, the gun control lobby's official goal is to prevent
> gun violence. If they can prevent one criminal from being shot, even
> if that results in 100 honest people being beaten to death, then the
> gun control lobby counts that as a victory. Possibly because the gun
> control lobby here in the USA is run by criminals. The Brady Campaign
> has been fined for breaking campaign finance reform laws that they
> lobbied for.
Check the US's gun death figures - the most common gun related death is a
family member living in the home of an irresponsible (or otherwise - my
personal judgement) gun owner.
John P
> Pulling a gun on somebody without a convincing purpose is
> assault.
Swinging a bat at someone is assault too. Would you contend that anyone
carrying a bat is a therefore a criminal?
> The reason you don't hear about DGU assaults is because...
...There is no such thing as a "DGU" assault. It is either a DGU or it is an
assault, not both. Assault is crime, DGU is not. *Law abiding* gun owners do
not commit assaults.
> the vast majority....
...of everything you say is a ridiculous, psychotic...
> fantasy.
> When a gunloon pulls a gun on somebody for no good reason and
> the victim complains to the police and the police catch the
> gunloon, then it's assault.
That is correct. Have a Scooby Snack!
> And maybe a few thousand times a year a few gunloons really have
> valid DGUs. I'd say not more than 50K times a year.
Perhaps. Is it relevant somehow?
> Sure it does. Harold Fish is a prime example.
He is one example among millions. Hardly enough to hang your hat on, you'll
need a few more examples, at least.
> Any use of a gun is violence. Even just showing the gun or
> "brandishing" the gun is violent.
Target shooting is gun violence.... how?
Collecting guns is violent.... how?
>> Target shooting would be an example of violence
>> against paper.
> Bullshit. Why does anybody need to be accurate with a handgun?
Yes. It is bullhsit. I was just trying to figure something out. ... some
moron had made the claim that any use of a gun was violence. I was trying to
figure out his psychitic thinking. Fortunately, you have helped me out by
supporting my thought that such an idiotic claim can be nothing more than
Bullshit.
>> I don't want to disconnect gun possession from anything, I
>> want to address the actual problem - violence.
> Then you just want violence. If you carry a loaded gun secretly
> long enough you'll probably get some.
Wanting to solve the problem of violence is wanting violence? You're scaring
me more than usual Weasel. ... when you have sex with a woman, do you think
'No' means 'Yes', and the more she says it the more she wants you? Have the
reported number of rapes gone up in your area recently? ... or have you just
been sniffing a lot of exhaust fumes lately?
Greg Procter
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <438240D5...@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter says...
>
> >As always, the question asked can have a major effect on the result!
> >Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to be threatened by
> >individuals carrying guns.
>
> You have a right to be paranoid.
>
> You don't have a right to have your paranoia catered to.
So exactly WHY did you want/need that handgun???
Greg Procter
John P wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > Pulling a gun on somebody without a convincing purpose is
> > assault.
>
> Swinging a bat at someone is assault too. Would you contend that anyone
> carrying a bat is a therefore a criminal?
>
> > The reason you don't hear about DGU assaults is because...
>
> ...There is no such thing as a "DGU" assault. It is either a DGU or it is an
> assault, not both. Assault is crime, DGU is not. *Law abiding* gun owners do
> not commit assaults.
That would be "Gun owners who do not commit assaults are (possibly) law
abiding".
Law abiding gun owners by definition cannot have committed assaults or they
cannot be considered law abiding.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
phat boy slim wrote:
> "A TEENAGER who was profiled in a magazine for being an "outstanding single
> father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
>
>
> all about guns and violence."
>
No respect for life.?? Don't blame guns for that. Yes there are
32,000 gun deaths each year in america but also 40,000 americans killed
on the highways by all the psycho drivers. And over a million
abortions every year. And what about the holocaust america has
committed in iraq the last 15 years?. Over a million civilians killed
in a country that's never done anything to us.
The Lone Weasel
<news:dltp9...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>Besides, most people don't want you gunloons carrying
>>loaded guns secretly anywhere near them.
>
> Lee Harrison doesn't want Black people walking around free.
Yes I do.
You shouldn't carry loaded guns secretly around people who say
they do not want to be anywhere near your handgun.
Someday these people you disrespect will take away your
permission to carry guns secretly.
The Lone Weasel
> says...
>>As always, the question asked can have a major effect on
>>the result! Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to
>>be threatened by individuals carrying guns.
> You have a right to be paranoid.
You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
> You don't have a right to have your paranoia catered to.
You have no right to force your paranoia on others.
c-bee1_likes_its_f...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> phat boy slim wrote:
> > "A TEENAGER who was profiled in a magazine for being an "outstanding single
> > father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
> >
> > "vicious epidemic of senseless murders spreading rampantly"
> >
> > "Kids have no respect for life these days. They have been programmed. Its
> > all about guns and violence."
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1881561,00.html
>
> No respect for life.?? Don't blame guns for that. Yes there are
> 32,000 gun deaths each year in america but also 40,000 americans killed
Why should we care that 40,000 people choose to commit suicide every
year? If they want to end their life, let them.
R Sweeney
<IP_St...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132593892.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> darth_s...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> not for long in San Francisco.
>> Wait and see their crime rate sore like D.C. and Chicago where the
>> banned
>> hand guns!
>
> Wait and see their crime rate sore like NYC where they banned hand
> guns. What was that? Crime in NYC has gone down? Gosh/Gasp. How can
> that be? LOL.
NYC banned guns for honest people almost a century ago.
Their crime has been up and down since then.
And criminals have had NO PROBLEM getting guns in NYC.
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>>> I know hundreds of people who routinely carry firearms
>>> who have never so much as drawn on another human being.
>>> The vast majority of gun toting americans have never shot
>>> another person or even at another person.
>
>> Then why do they need guns? Where's your 3 million DGUs a
>> year come from, slick?
>
> Why do you need to make meaningless arguments? No one
> claims 3 million DGU's.
The gunlobby's main source for fake stats, John Mary Lott Rosh
does say exactly that.
If you think Lott's full of shit just say so and we can move
on.
John P
> Law abiding gun owners by definition cannot have committed assaults or
> they
> cannot be considered law abiding.
Bingo.
Simple, isn't it?
Greg Procter
c-bee1_likes_its_f...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > phat boy slim wrote:
> > > "A TEENAGER who was profiled in a magazine for being an "outstanding single
> > > father" has been shot dead in front of his home."
> > >
> > > "vicious epidemic of senseless murders spreading rampantly"
> > >
> > > "Kids have no respect for life these days. They have been programmed. Its
> > > all about guns and violence."
> > >
> > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1881561,00.html
> >
> > No respect for life.?? Don't blame guns for that. Yes there are
> > 32,000 gun deaths each year in america but also 40,000 americans killed
>
> Why should we care that 40,000 people choose to commit suicide every
> year? If they want to end their life, let them.
>
Why should you care that 40,000 people chose to die in motor vehicle accidents
every year? (whatever the actual number is)
pohak...@gmail.com
But then you have trouble with how logic and facts tend to relate to
each other, or not.
0:->
Greg Procter
R Sweeney wrote:
So your problem is twofold - a population that has no respect for the
law, and a policeforce unwilling to enforce the law!
Greg Procter
John P wrote:
Yes John, but that doesn't get you to 'all gun-owners are law abiding
people.'
Greg Procter
pohak...@gmail.com wrote:
Both groups do it by choice, but those who die in road accidents moreso.
People who commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide are by definition
unwell mentally.
Are you suggesting your solution to illness is to have the sufferers
kill themselves?
Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam and Co would be proud of you!
dstaples
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97156FE8B3566...@204.153.244.170...
>> We need to decide whether that's the way we want
> to live for the next 40 years.
I have decided, I want you out of the country, loon.
BTMO
"John P" <> wrote
>> You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole of
>> violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
>> country, but when you look at their homicide rates and ours,
>> they make our country look like a combat zone.
>
> All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
> violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list (if
> it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn violent
> simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt with is
> violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership is barking
> up the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
Not necessarily so.
Australia (for example) has a murder rate about 1/4 that of the US. However,
Australia's Northern Territory (when viewed by itself) has a murder rate
*higher* than most of the US, and a rate that is actually higher than the
overall US murder rate....
There is only a small number of murders there, but the population is very
small.
The problem with statistics is that they don't really tell you anything
about why people murder each, or why they choose the weapons they choose.
Stats are only part of the story - which is why the old quip of "lies,
damned lies and statistics" still has meaning today...
The Lone Weasel
<news:11o55fe...@corp.supernews.com>:
Fine. I want to live in Washington state. Pay me $5 million
and I'll move there.
Sucker.
_____________________
“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.”
- Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Crimson, April 9, 2003.
Kent Finnell
news:43827732...@ihug.co.nz...
Just won't stop meddling in things that really don't concern you, will you,
Greg?
Obviously I'm not Chris, but I'll tell you my some of rational behind
getting a handgun and a carry permit.
I'm an American citizen without a criminal record, a citizen of the
Volunteer State of Tennessee, and I can. (That's a slightly embellished
answer that I give other Americans.)
I'm been a member of the NRA for a long time and I've been NRA/ILA 5th
District of Tennessee EVC (Election Volunteer Coordinator) since 1994. In
2004 I decided to get my defense revolver and carry permit, walking the walk
as well as talking the talk.
I decided to become responsible for my own safety. A 911 response her is at
least 10 minutes. A person can get awfully dead and the bad guy can be
awfully far away in that length of time.
Three examples: A little more than a year ago, two punks kicked in the door
of a townhouse apartment not 3 miles from where I live. The residents were
2 young women who fled to the upstairs bedroom, locking the door behind
them. The older of the two women (21) had apparently decided to be
responsible for her own safety as well as that of her roommate. As the
first thug broke through the bedroom door, she shot him square between the
eyes. If she hadn't been armed, both of the women could have been raped
and/or killed.
Last night (Sunday) a couple of other thugs held up the Taco Bell just below
my 10th floor apartment not two blocks away. If the wind is right, I could
probably spit on it. Now I don't often eat there (it isn't really Mexican
food), but what if I had walked in while the robbery was in progress?
Last week, a record executive was gunned down as he was walking near his
home, about 6 miles from here. He attended the same church as my daughter.
That crime hasn't been solved as yet. Could he have fought back if he had
been armed? Who knows? But I'd rather have the wherewithal should I find
myself in the same situation.
Now don't tell me to move to a better neighborhood. Although murders and
violent crime rates are at 30 and 40 year lows, the crimes still happen at
random. I have no desire to shoot, much less kill anyone. However, better
he than me.
--
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended
victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police,
and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he
must be taught to fear is his victim."
. . Jeff Cooper
--
Kent Finnell, from the Music City, USA
Kent Finnell
>
>
>
> Check the US's gun death figures - the most common gun related death is a
> family member living in the home of an irresponsible (or otherwise - my
> personal judgement) gun owner.
Bullshit! Verifiable cite, por favor, Greg.
--
The Second Amendment ...
America's Original Homeland Defense
Kent Finnell
From The Music City USA
R Sweeney
"Greg Procter" <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>> NYC banned guns for honest people almost a century ago.
>>
>> Their crime has been up and down since then.
>>
>> And criminals have had NO PROBLEM getting guns in NYC.
>
> So your problem is twofold - a population that has no respect for the
> law, and a policeforce unwilling to enforce the law!
yes... this is the reality of the world
the entire world
and the reason for self-reliance as a primary principal of freedom
John P
> You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
> neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
Yes, I do. I have no responsibility for my neighbors mental diseases. If
they are afraid of inanimate objects, it is *their* responsibility to seek
the proper psychological counseling.
John P
> Yes John, but that doesn't get you to 'all gun-owners are law abiding
> people.'
Excellent. I didn't say that. Did you? Or were you talking to someone else?
John P
>> All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
>> violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list
>> (if it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn
>> violent simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt
>> with is violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership is
>> barking up the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
> Not necessarily so.
> Australia (for example) has a murder rate about 1/4 that of the US.
> However, Australia's Northern Territory (when viewed by itself) has a
> murder rate *higher* than most of the US, and a rate that is actually
> higher than the overall US murder rate....
> There is only a small number of murders there, but the population is very
> small.
> The problem with statistics is that they don't really tell you anything
> about why people murder each, or why they choose the weapons they choose.
> Stats are only part of the story - which is why the old quip of "lies,
> damned lies and statistics" still has meaning today...
How does this all work in with dealing with violence, rather than blamin
guns and pretending you've accomplished something?
America the Beautiful
John P wrote:
He's drunk again.
--
Chris F.
Long Island.
Every time you antis say something utterly stupid and completely
retarded, I will kill a kitten!
I'm sorry it had to come to this but it's your fault!
http://tinyurl.com/axjd4
Kittens killed since Oct 1st 2005 = 632
BTMO
"John P" <> wrote
Just an observation. "guns cause murder", "the US's gun culture propogates
violence", etc, etc.
It is all horse shit.
Australia has periodic purges on guns, in an effort to combat crime, prevent
mass murder, get tough on criminals, etc, etc.
And they usually do this by attacking law abiding gun owners - while largely
ignoring criminal misuse - eg they put a calibre restriction on pistol
clubs, but didn't increase the penalties for armed robbery...
And all of the focus on guns in Aus simply doesn't make any real difference
at all.
edi...@netpath.net
Simpson's knife did. Both are inanimate, mainly-metal objects. What's
done a lot to America - especially in the neighborhoods that almost all
murders happen in - is the shift in the past 40 years from two-parent
families to almost all kids being born illegitimate (68.7% current
illegitimacy among black Americans), leaving most all ghetto black boys
growing up unparented.
"Guns" no more did anything to America than a certain blue Volvo he
then had made the neighbor's teenage son get three DUIs!
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>> You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
>> neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
>
> Yes, I do.
No, you don't.
[begin fact]
Proposition H Firearm Ban
Choice Votes %
Yes 89,696 57.91%
No 65,185 42.09%
www.sfgate.com/politics/election/2005nov/sanfrancisco.shtml
[end fact]
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
Greg Procter
Kent Finnell wrote:
> "Greg Procter" <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:43827732...@ihug.co.nz...
> >
> >
> > Chris Morton wrote:
> >
> >> In article <438240D5...@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter says...
> >>
> >> >As always, the question asked can have a major effect on the result!
> >> >Here in NZ I always feel it is my right not to be threatened by
> >> >individuals carrying guns.
> >>
> >> You have a right to be paranoid.
> >>
> >> You don't have a right to have your paranoia catered to.
> >
> > So exactly WHY did you want/need that handgun???
>
> Just won't stop meddling in things that really don't concern you, will you,
> Greg?
Of course these things concern me - you yanks concern me and your attitudes and
arguments rub off onto gullible New Zealanders.
>
>
> Obviously I'm not Chris, but I'll tell you my some of rational behind
> getting a handgun and a carry permit.
>
If you remember, I long ago accepted your rational in feeling that you need to
own a handgun. I quite accept your point of view is rational in your country.
The problem is however rather like Pandora's box.
If your attitudes rub off on enough New Zealanders then eventually there will be
sufficient pressure on members of government to change our law and then we will
be in the horrific situation you are in.
Well, I live in a neighbourhood/region where the weekly Police report fills
around half a column of an A4 format newspaper. Crimes occassionally include
drunk driving. We had a spate of solar driveway lamps being stolen for about 2
months, half a can of "Roundup" (weed killer) stolen, and a row of letterboxes
knocked over on Saturday night. (same night as the drunk driver, same area) We
do have serious crime, a pack was snatched from a tourist recently and was found
over a fence with the wallet and camera stolen.
If we add "defensive handguns" to this mix of serious crime then there may well
be bodies littering the footpaths.
One assumes the criminally inclined will take up handguns at a similar or even
greater rate then we're likely to end up with solar light stealers having OK
Coral style shootups with disgruntled lamp owners.
For myself, I'm either out and about in my wheelchair or on crutches. Any quick
draw activities would see me flat on my back several minutes after the "perp"
has made off with my solar light! You will put me at a serious disadvantage!
Regards,
Greg.P.
edi...@netpath.net
Shipman - murdered more people with intentional drug overdoses than
died in all "mass shootings" in 20th century America. He just did it
slower and quieter.
Greg Procter
R Sweeney wrote:
> "Greg Procter" <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> >> NYC banned guns for honest people almost a century ago.
> >>
> >> Their crime has been up and down since then.
> >>
> >> And criminals have had NO PROBLEM getting guns in NYC.
> >
> > So your problem is twofold - a population that has no respect for the
> > law, and a policeforce unwilling to enforce the law!
>
> yes... this is the reality of the world
> the entire world
No R.S. don't make such stupid assumptions and don't load your paranoid
problems on the rest of the world.
You live in an extremely violent nation and you load your violence on
nations like Iraq.
>
>
> and the reason for self-reliance as a primary principal of freedom
Strange, we manage a fair version of freedom here in NZ without carrying
offensive weapons!
Greg Procter
John P wrote:
You said, and I quote: "*Law abiding* gun owners do not commit assaults."
Ref 9.of the above list. - it was definitely you.
BTMO
"Greg Procter" <> wrote
> Well, I live in a neighbourhood/region where the weekly Police report
> fills
> around half a column of an A4 format newspaper. Crimes occassionally
> include
> drunk driving. We had a spate of solar driveway lamps being stolen for
> about 2
> months, half a can of "Roundup" (weed killer) stolen, and a row of
> letterboxes
> knocked over on Saturday night. (same night as the drunk driver, same
> area) We
> do have serious crime, a pack was snatched from a tourist recently and was
> found
> over a fence with the wallet and camera stolen.
Apart from this one, from today's Nelson Mail, of course....
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/nelsonmail/0,2106,3487553a6007,00.html
"Two Nelson young people who had a gun pointed at them during an armed
robbery initially thought it was a joke.
Police are still hunting the offender, fearing he may strike again after
failing to get cash from a security guard outside Nelson's Woolworths
supermarket about 10.30pm on Saturday.
Jessica Large, 17, and Flynn Drummond, 18, were walking near the supermarket
when they saw the robber brandishing a sawn-off shotgun at a security guard"
How far is Nelson from where you live?
> If we add "defensive handguns" to this mix of serious crime then there may
> well
> be bodies littering the footpaths.
Hell yeah. The armed robber might be laying with a sheet over him, and the
police could be hearing from his family how he was a "nice boy who never did
anything wrong, and just fell in with a bad crowd, and anyway, it is
society's fault".
Greg Procter
John P wrote:
One needs to keep more detailed statistics and to analyse them more thoroughly
to identify the route causes.
Even without detailed statistics and their related analysis, I would be prepared
to suggest that gun related crimes are more often carried out by those _with
guns_ than by those _without them_.
Greg Procter
America the Beautiful wrote:
> John P wrote:
>
> > "Greg Procter" <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in a message
> >
> >
> >>Yes John, but that doesn't get you to 'all gun-owners are law abiding
> >>people.'
> >
> >
> > Excellent. I didn't say that. Did you? Or were you talking to someone else?
>
> He's drunk again.
>
No Chris, and if you had an ounce of sense you would be able to follow the trail
back and see where John made his foolish statement.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Quote:
Greg Procter
BTMO wrote:
> "John P" <> wrote
>
> >>> All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
> >>> violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list
> >>> (if it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn
> >>> violent simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt
> >>> with is violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership
> >>> is barking up the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
> >
> >> Not necessarily so.
> >> Australia (for example) has a murder rate about 1/4 that of the US.
> >> However, Australia's Northern Territory (when viewed by itself) has a
> >> murder rate *higher* than most of the US, and a rate that is actually
> >> higher than the overall US murder rate....
> >> There is only a small number of murders there, but the population is very
> >> small.
> >> The problem with statistics is that they don't really tell you anything
> >> about why people murder each, or why they choose the weapons they choose.
> >> Stats are only part of the story - which is why the old quip of "lies,
> >> damned lies and statistics" still has meaning today...
> >
> > How does this all work in with dealing with violence, rather than blamin
> > guns and pretending you've accomplished something?
>
> Just an observation. "guns cause murder", "the US's gun culture propogates
> violence", etc, etc.
The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
Further, the more law abiding vigilanties proportionately that have hand-guns,
the more likely those with criminal tendencies will consider that they need
protection from those vigilantees.
It's not rocket science, BYHO
Larry J.
<Pro...@ihug.co.nz> dared to mumble:
> Of course these things concern me - you yanks concern me and
> your attitudes and arguments rub off onto gullible New
> Zealanders.
I thought you Nee Zoolanders were free..?
Are you the self-appointed gate-keeper, Groggy..?
--
"And idiots begat fools, and fools begat morons, and morons
begat imbeciles, and imbeciles begat dufuses. And then
EuroPEONS realized they could do this with people outside
their immediate families..."
BTMO
"Greg Procter" <> wrote
>> Just an observation. "guns cause murder", "the US's gun culture
>> propogates
>> violence", etc, etc.
>
> The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for
> those
> with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
And how would you go about taking the (from memory) 80 million handguns out
of American hands? And how does the fact that gun ownership is (apparently)
increasing in the US, while crime rates are (apparently) decreasing there
fit into your theory?
> Further, the more law abiding vigilanties proportionately that have
> hand-guns,
> the more likely those with criminal tendencies will consider that they
> need
> protection from those vigilantees.
You know, Greg - most people put the horse and the cart around the other
way...
> It's not rocket science, BYHO
That's for damn sure.. Watch out when you are in Nelson next.. apparently
there is a gunman with a sawn off shotgun still on the loose there...
BTMO
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote
> Face reality, dumbass. Just one English physician - Dr. Harold
> Shipman - murdered more people with intentional drug overdoses than
> died in all "mass shootings" in 20th century America. He just did it
> slower and quieter.
Ah... but he didn't do it in a blaze of gory (spelling deliberate)
The non-gun types don't seem to care about body counts, their concerns
appear to be more ... aesthetic than anything else.
BTMO
"Greg Procter" <> wrote
> Even without detailed statistics and their related analysis, I would be
> prepared
> to suggest that gun related crimes are more often carried out by those
> _with
> guns_ than by those _without them_.
And I think that sums up the extent of your analytical abilities nicely,
Greg...
John P
>>> You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
>>> neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
>> Yes, I do.
> No, you don't.
> [begin fact]
> Proposition H Firearm Ban
> Choice Votes %
> Yes 89,696 57.91%
> No 65,185 42.09%
Weasel! you're so clever! ... now you just have to move me to SF and you'll
have proven one of your points for the first time in history!
John P
>> Excellent. I didn't say that. Did you? Or were you talking to someone
>> else?
> You said, and I quote: "*Law abiding* gun owners do not commit assaults."
> Ref 9.of the above list. - it was definitely you.
That is correct... If they committed assaults, they would not be law
abiding, therefore, only law abiding gun owners don't commit assaults as
well as ALL law abiding gun owners don't commit assaults.
The Lone Weasel
<news:jMqdnXbB68_bbh_e...@comcast.com>:
No, Mr. Pee. We'll move San Francisco to you...
Chris Morton
>The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
>with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
The higher the number of computers in circulation, the easier it is for thos
with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
Groggy, doesn't support people who exchange kiddie porn over the net, DOES he?
>Further, the more law abiding vigilanties proportionately that have hand-guns,
>the more likely those with criminal tendencies will consider that they need
>protection from those vigilantees.
Pretty clear whose side Groggy's on. He wants to protect the rapist from the
rape victim. But misogyny is often the hallmark of the anti-gunner... along
with racism and anti-Semitism.
>It's not rocket science, BYHO
More like phrenology....
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Chris Morton
>If your attitudes rub off on enough New Zealanders then eventually there will be
>sufficient pressure on members of government to change our law and then we will
>be in the horrific situation you are in.
Sounds like Abu Musab al Zarqawi talking about democracy and women's rights,
doesn't he?
Ken Ehrett
wrote:
>You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
>neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
Your statement as usual makes no logical sense. There are a whole
host of behaviors carried out in secret that people would object to
that are perfectly legal under the law. I would object to a pedophile
secretly living in my neighborhood and yet local authorities move them
into neighborhoods secretly all the time. I would object to someone
infected with AIDS keeping his secret in my neighborhood especially if
he or she were a child playing contact sports with my children that
lead to open wounds. These sorts of behavior are far more of a threat
to me or my family than a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed
weapon for self protection. My next door neighbor is a far greater
threat to me on a Saturday night when he's driving home from another
drunken party than anyone carrying a gun. Instead of worrying about
who is packing heat in your neighborhood you should concentrate a lot
more on looking both ways before crossing a street just in case one of
your like minded gun banning cretins is more focused on his
conversation on a cell phone than his driving.
slate_leeper
wrote:
>"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>> Yes, but US homicide rates are historically the highest for a
>> wealthy industrialized country. Our murder rates are more
>> like those in so-called third-world countries where the law is
>> corrupt and democratic processes are scarce.
>
>> You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole of
>> violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
>> country, but when you look at their homicide rates and ours,
>> they make our country look like a combat zone.
>
>All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
>violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list (if
>it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn violent
>simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt with is
>violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership is barking up
>the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
>
The FBI has posted a list of factors affecting the crime rates in
differing areas. There are 20 listed, including such things as
minority population percentage, effectiveness of police, climate,
employment rate, etc. Firearms did not make the list at all.
-dan z-
- -
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
pohak...@gmail.com
I would be prepared, myself, to suggets that crimes are committed by
criminals.
Law abiding citizens, with our without guns, tend not to commit crimes.
We both are so logical.
Yet one of us seems very careful to pose the question with severe
limits that tend to prejudice the reader against gun owners, while the
other against criminals.
Which of us do you suppose is which?
Are guns evil, or is crime?
0:->
edi...@netpath.net
>The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
>with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
Get out of denial. If what you were saying had any truth to it,
murder rates in America wouldn't vary so widely by neighborhood in the
same city - as it shares the same gun laws! Nor would federal
statistics show black Americans commit murder at EIGHT times the rate
European-Americans do - and die of murder at FIVE times the rate
European-Americans do.
Face reality. America's problem is young black men - not guns.
Greg Procter
BTMO wrote:
Two hours drive.
>
>
> > If we add "defensive handguns" to this mix of serious crime then there may
> > well
> > be bodies littering the footpaths.
>
> Hell yeah. The armed robber might be laying with a sheet over him, and the
> police could be hearing from his family how he was a "nice boy who never did
> anything wrong, and just fell in with a bad crowd, and anyway, it is
> society's fault".
OTOH, the situation you seem to be suggesting is you fumbling under your jacket
for your hand-gun while faced with a hyped-up gunman already pointing a sawn off
shotgun at you and those around you. Were I one of those caught while waiting in
line for the teller, I sure as hell wouldn't thank you for your heroics and I
wouldn't appreciate getting sprayed with the edge of the shot blast that cut you
to ribbons.
Didn't you say somewhere in another post that individual incidents shouldn't be
the basis of emotional decisions or somesuch?
Greg Procter
BTMO wrote:
I really don't look forward to the time when gun deaths in NZ approach the
number of road deaths here, which ratio seems to be considered acceptable
by yank gun nutters.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg Procter
BTMO wrote:
Yeah BTMO, I've noticed you're not too hot on basic logic!
Greg Procter
BTMO wrote:
> "Greg Procter" <> wrote
>
> >> Just an observation. "guns cause murder", "the US's gun culture
> >> propogates
> >> violence", etc, etc.
> >
> > The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for
> > those
> > with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
>
> And how would you go about taking the (from memory) 80 million handguns out
> of American hands? And how does the fact that gun ownership is (apparently)
> increasing in the US, while crime rates are (apparently) decreasing there
> fit into your theory?
I thought I'd made it clear that I accept that yank gun paranoia as being
reasonable in their situation.
There is no _instant_ answer to reducing the number of hand-guns in
circulation, that could only happen _if_ the population wanted it to happen and
then only over 40-50 years.
>
>
> > Further, the more law abiding vigilanties proportionately that have
> > hand-guns,
> > the more likely those with criminal tendencies will consider that they
> > need
> > protection from those vigilantees.
>
> You know, Greg - most people put the horse and the cart around the other
> way...
Yeah, but they want to go the other way. As a society the US isn't in agreement
as to which direction they want to head.
>
>
> > It's not rocket science, BYHO
>
> That's for damn sure.. Watch out when you are in Nelson next.. apparently
> there is a gunman with a sawn off shotgun still on the loose there...
There's always going to be some nutter somewhere who has overdosed on US TV!
Greg Procter
John P wrote:
<slap slap>
They are law abiding until the _moment_ they break the law.
You're playing semantics by deleting the "law abiding" from the list of "law
abiding" the moment they stop abiding by the law.
It's a bit like listing car drivers as such only when the car is actually
moving, or direction indicators on cars as only working when the lamp is
glowing.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Anthropy
<bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:43 -0600, "John P" <John...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>>> Yes, but US homicide rates are historically the highest for a
>>> wealthy industrialized country. Our murder rates are more
>>> like those in so-called third-world countries where the law is
>>> corrupt and democratic processes are scarce.
>>
>>> You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole of
>>> violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
>>> country, but when you look at their homicide rates and ours,
>>> they make our country look like a combat zone.
>>
>>All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
>>violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list (if
>>it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn violent
>>simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt with is
>>violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership is barking up
>>the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
>>
>
>
>The FBI has posted a list of factors affecting the crime rates in
>differing areas. There are 20 listed, including such things as
>minority population percentage, effectiveness of police, climate,
>employment rate, etc. Firearms did not make the list at all.
>
Any chance of a link to this "list of factors" otherwise one could
construe you are just making up stuff or at the least being selective
with the truth.
Robin Hood Zoro
John P
>> That is correct... If they committed assaults, they would not be law
>> abiding, therefore, only law abiding gun owners don't commit assaults as
>> well as ALL law abiding gun owners don't commit assaults.
> <slap slap>
> They are law abiding until the _moment_ they break the law.
I don't get how this merits discussion. It's right up there with "Something
made of plastic is not glass". You are exactly right, a law abiding gun
owner cannot be a law abiding gun owner if he doesn't abide by the law. It's
like being a criminal... commit one crime and all of the sudden, everyone
labels you a criminal. Go figure.
> You're playing semantics by deleting the "law abiding" from the list of
> "law
> abiding" the moment they stop abiding by the law.
Correct. That's how it works. Oddly, most law abiding gun owners never cross
the line to change their status from law abiding to criminal.
> It's a bit like listing car drivers as such only when the car is actually
> moving, or direction indicators on cars as only working when the lamp is
> glowing.
Or, if you're laying on the ground flapping your arms, you're not flying...
Or, if you are sleeping you are not awake, but the moment you wake up, you
are not sleeping anymore....
Or, if you are talking, you are not silent, but the moment you quite talking
and making any type of noise, you are silent....
I can't believe this even requires discussion.
Larry J.
<John...@comcast.net> said:
> "Groggy Procter" <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in a message
>
>> It's a bit like listing car drivers as such only when the car
>> is actually moving, or direction indicators on cars as only
>> working when the lamp is glowing.
>
> Or, if you're laying on the ground flapping your arms, you're
> not flying... Or, if you are sleeping you are not awake, but the
> moment you wake up, you are not sleeping anymore....
> Or, if you are talking, you are not silent, but the moment you
> quite talking and making any type of noise, you are silent....
>
> I can't believe this even requires discussion.
You're beginning to understand what it's like discussing anything
with Groggy. How do you think he got that name..?
Anthropy
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
Face reality, America's problem is institutionalised racism
highlighted most recently in America's attitude to the dying blacks of
New Orleans.
In a country where you are considered a second class citizen just
because you have a different colour skin, advancement up any social
ladder is going to be hard. As New Orleans showed the majority of
America's blacks are considered scum by the ruling whites of America
so it's no wonder that those who have least and are denied access to
normal paths of social advancement have the most need to commit crime
just to survive.
Greg Procter
"Larry J." wrote:
> Opening his mouth and inserting both feet, Groggy Procter
> <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> dared to mumble:
>
> > Of course these things concern me - you yanks concern me and
> > your attitudes and arguments rub off onto gullible New
> > Zealanders.
>
> I thought you Nee Zoolanders were free..?
We are free Larry, even to the extent of being allowed to absorb
irresponsible and immoral yank "culture".
>
>
> Are you the self-appointed gate-keeper, Groggy..?
Someone has to try!
(Oh, I forgot, you yanks don't believe in responsibility)
pohak...@gmail.com
Anthropy wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2005 09:29:17 -0800, "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
> >Greg wrote:
> >>The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
> >>with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
> >
> > Get out of denial. If what you were saying had any truth to it,
> >murder rates in America wouldn't vary so widely by neighborhood in the
> >same city - as it shares the same gun laws! Nor would federal
> >statistics show black Americans commit murder at EIGHT times the rate
> >European-Americans do - and die of murder at FIVE times the rate
> >European-Americans do.
> > Face reality. America's problem is young black men - not guns.
>
> Face reality, America's problem is institutionalised racism
> highlighted most recently in America's attitude to the dying blacks of
> New Orleans.
Face reality. Poverty is the problem, and using any disparity, race
included, to keep the powerful in power. We have not, socially, moved
out of the middle ages when there was a manor house, and the rest of
humanity served, one way or the other.
> In a country where you are considered a second class citizen just
> because you have a different colour skin, advancement up any social
> ladder is going to be hard.
Geez I hope you're not a brit. Imagine your embarassment when you take
out some time to read the history books on the British Empire.
> As New Orleans showed the majority of
> America's blacks are considered scum by the ruling whites of America
Ah, you misunderstand. The ruling "whites" or those of any color that
colonize their populations are considered exploitable resources, and
the scum part is left as a tool for them to use on the ignorant that do
not get the real issues of classism.
"Race" is a profitable tool used by those in power to keep us from
THEIR throats and at each others. Whatever difference we have, be it
race, or religion, or slight economic disparity in all but the
powerful, they will use it. And do.
> so it's no wonder that those who have least and are denied access to
> normal paths of social advancement have the most need to commit crime
> just to survive.
Well, if you are pointed to the US as you seem to be, you must
understand. Of all countries this one offers more opportunities to do
more than just survive. While it's not anywhere near an equal chance,
it's far more equal than anywhere else. Pity the "coloreds" that live
in brit controlled countries. They are as ghettoized and marginalized
as any you will find here and mostly moreso.
I doubt a black person in the US would care to trade places with an Abo
in Austrailia, or any black in the ghettos of England.
Both viewpoints being addressed by this and the prior poster are BS.
And ignorance that should be punished, it's so blatant.
How DO you manage to miss the use of bigotry the powerful make against
all the rest of is, even the smug safe feeling whites? Or weenies in
other countries that have so long been oppressed they have become blind
to it?
When ARE you going to get that we are the same in all things except the
superficial and it's the superficial we stupidly pay attention to while
ignoring the use the powerful put our ignorance to?
Kane
Greg Procter
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <4382C0DC...@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter says...
>
> >The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
> >with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
Certainly - the number of viruses etc being disseminated, hacking etc porn and the
like is vastly greater today than it was thirty years ago.
>
>
> The higher the number of computers in circulation, the easier it is for thos
> with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
>
> Groggy, doesn't support people who exchange kiddie porn over the net, DOES he?
Strange question - I'd be quite happy to castrate you if you're involved in such
filth.
>
>
> >Further, the more law abiding vigilanties proportionately that have hand-guns,
> >the more likely those with criminal tendencies will consider that they need
> >protection from those vigilantees.
>
> Pretty clear whose side Groggy's on.
You yanks are pathetic - there aren't just two sides to this debate. Get over your
hang-ups and your pathetic paranoia - I'm a gun owner with a functioning brain.
> He wants to protect the rapist from the
> rape victim.
That really is pathetic.
> But misogyny is often the hallmark of the anti-gunner... along
> with racism and anti-Semitism.
>
Hmmm - US racisim - gun-nutters - it's all the blacks who are the problem ...
>
> >It's not rocket science, BYHO
>
> More like phrenology....
You've reached that level??? My guess is your family hasn't yet left the safety of
the trees.
Greg Procter
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <4382BCED...@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter says...
>
> >If your attitudes rub off on enough New Zealanders then eventually there will be
> >sufficient pressure on members of government to change our law and then we will
> >be in the horrific situation you are in.
>
> Sounds like Abu Musab al Zarqawi talking about democracy and women's rights,
> doesn't he?
More like George Bush - when are you going to allow democracy? Women's rights?
Greg Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2005 02:32:30 GMT, The Lone Weasel <lonew...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
> >neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
>
> Your statement as usual makes no logical sense. There are a whole
> host of behaviors carried out in secret that people would object to
> that are perfectly legal under the law. I would object to a pedophile
> secretly living in my neighborhood and yet local authorities move them
> into neighborhoods secretly all the time. I would object to someone
> infected with AIDS keeping his secret in my neighborhood especially if
> he or she were a child playing contact sports with my children that
> lead to open wounds. These sorts of behavior are far more of a threat
> to me or my family than a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed
> weapon for self protection.
You're into paedophilia and extramarital homosexuality?
> My next door neighbor is a far greater
> threat to me on a Saturday night when he's driving home from another
> drunken party than anyone carrying a gun.
He may well be carrying a gun while driving home from a drunken party -
those options aren't exclusive.
> Instead of worrying about
> who is packing heat in your neighborhood you should concentrate a lot
> more on looking both ways before crossing a street just in case one of
> your like minded gun banning cretins is more focused on his
> conversation on a cell phone than his driving.
Or your drunken neighbour might well be having a fit of "road rage"
driving home while nursing his loaded gun at school closing time - these
things aren't exclusive.
Greg Procter
slate_leeper wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:14:43 -0600, "John P" <John...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
> >
> >> Yes, but US homicide rates are historically the highest for a
> >> wealthy industrialized country. Our murder rates are more
> >> like those in so-called third-world countries where the law is
> >> corrupt and democratic processes are scarce.
> >
> >> You get these anecdotes from the NRA about what a hellhole of
> >> violence England has, or Japan or some other developed
> >> country, but when you look at their homicide rates and ours,
> >> they make our country look like a combat zone.
> >
> >All valid points. However, there are a number of contributing factors to
> >violence. I suspect the presence of guns comes in very low on the list (if
> >it makes it on the list at all). Non-violent people do not turn violent
> >simply because they have a gun. The issue that needs to be dealt with is
> >violence. Attempting to deal with "the issue" of gun ownership is barking up
> >the wrong tree and does nothing to solve the real problem.
> >
>
> The FBI has posted a list of factors affecting the crime rates in
> differing areas. There are 20 listed, including such things as
> minority population percentage, effectiveness of police, climate,
> employment rate, etc. Firearms did not make the list at all.
Might FBI members be "pro-gun"?
The Lone Weasel
<news:09g6o1l0mvhdh96gg...@4ax.com>:
> On 22 Nov 2005 02:32:30 GMT, The Lone Weasel
> <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
>>neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
>
> Your statement as usual makes no logical sense.
It makes perfect sense.
[begin perfect sense]
Proposition H Firearm Ban
Choice Votes %
Yes 89,696 57.91%
No 65,185 42.09%
www.sfgate.com/politics/election/2005nov/sanfrancisco.shtml
[end perfect sense]
> There are
> a whole host of behaviors carried out in secret that people
> would object to that are perfectly legal under the law. I
> would object to a pedophile secretly living in my
> neighborhood and yet local authorities move them into
> neighborhoods secretly all the time.
Sex offenders are registered in every state, AFAIK. The list
is public information.
http://www.freeprf.com/sexoffenders.html
Next.
Greg Procter
pohak...@gmail.com wrote:
> Then gun related crimes are the only ones you consider notable?
>
> I would be prepared, myself, to suggets that crimes are committed by
> criminals.
Certainly - that is pretty much the definition of "criminals".
However, those "criminals" may well have been (Johns) "Law abiding
criminals" up until the moment they commenced their crime.
>
>
> Law abiding citizens, with our without guns, tend not to commit crimes.
Again, that is pretty much the definition of "Law abiding citizens".
A moment later and they are criminals.
>
>
> We both are so logical.
>
> Yet one of us seems very careful to pose the question with severe
> limits that tend to prejudice the reader against gun owners, while the
> other against criminals.
>
> Which of us do you suppose is which?
>
I've just pointed out the severe limits you are placing on the discussion.
>
> Are guns evil, or is crime?
>
A gun is a tool, designed to enable killing. (almost absolute)
A crime is an action which we define as being socially unacceptable. (a
movable and moving target)
Evil is a philosophical concept.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg Procter
"edi...@netpath.net" wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> >The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
> >with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
>
> Get out of denial.
Pardon?
If there were no guns, there would be no gun related crimes. That's pretty basic.
> If what you were saying had any truth to it,
> murder rates in America wouldn't vary so widely by neighborhood in the
> same city - as it shares the same gun laws!
Get the silly idea out of your tiny skull - guns don't of their own volition kill
people. (I'm assuming we're talking mostly about murder)
Hand-guns are a tool for killing people - they facilitate that action, just as a
hammer facilitates putting a nail into wood. Both tasks are made much easier by
having the right tool. Sure other tools could be used, a hand-gun makes a clumsy
hammer but it will do the job - a hammer can be used for killing people but it is
clumsy in that task.
> Nor would federal
> statistics show black Americans commit murder at EIGHT times the rate
> European-Americans do - and die of murder at FIVE times the rate
> European-Americans do.
> Face reality. America's problem is young black men - not guns.
You're avoiding socio-economic factors in your hurry to be a card carrying racist!
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg Procter
John P wrote:
> "Greg Procter" <Pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in a message
>
> >> That is correct... If they committed assaults, they would not be law
> >> abiding, therefore, only law abiding gun owners don't commit assaults as
> >> well as ALL law abiding gun owners don't commit assaults.
>
> > <slap slap>
> > They are law abiding until the _moment_ they break the law.
>
> I don't get how this merits discussion. It's right up there with "Something
> made of plastic is not glass". You are exactly right, a law abiding gun
> owner cannot be a law abiding gun owner if he doesn't abide by the law. It's
> like being a criminal... commit one crime and all of the sudden, everyone
> labels you a criminal. Go figure.
So if it's so obvious, why do you keep presenting it as though it were proof of
God's second coming?
>
>
> > You're playing semantics by deleting the "law abiding" from the list of
> > "law
> > abiding" the moment they stop abiding by the law.
>
> Correct. That's how it works. Oddly, most law abiding gun owners never cross
> the line to change their status from law abiding to criminal.
>
That's a great story, but do you feel it has any relevance to anything?
>
> > It's a bit like listing car drivers as such only when the car is actually
> > moving, or direction indicators on cars as only working when the lamp is
> > glowing.
>
> Or, if you're laying on the ground flapping your arms, you're not flying...
> Or, if you are sleeping you are not awake, but the moment you wake up, you
> are not sleeping anymore....
> Or, if you are talking, you are not silent, but the moment you quite talking
> and making any type of noise, you are silent....
>
> I can't believe this even requires discussion.
I can't believe you brought it in to the discussion - why?
Greg Procter
Anthropy wrote:
and there was me thinking it was just Editor who was a racist!
Chris Morton
Before you were born.
Why do you want women to be beaten, raped and murdered?
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>> In article <4382C0DC...@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter says...
>>
>>>The higher the number of hand-guns in circulation, the easier it is for those
>> >with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
>
>Certainly - the number of viruses etc being disseminated, hacking etc porn and
>the
>like is vastly greater today than it was thirty years ago.
So of course Groggy wants to take everyone's computer.
>> The higher the number of computers in circulation, the easier it is for thos
>> with criminal intent or tendencies to obtain them.
>>
>>Groggy, doesn't support people who exchange kiddie porn over the net, DOES he?
>
>Strange question - I'd be quite happy to castrate you if you're involved in such
>filth.
Not strange at all. And note that Groggy doesn't say he wants to take the
computers away, merely that he wants to mutilate someone... probably with his
teeth.
>>>Further, the more law abiding vigilanties proportionately that have hand-guns,
>> >the more likely those with criminal tendencies will consider that they need
>> >protection from those vigilantees.
>>
>> Pretty clear whose side Groggy's on.
>
>You yanks are pathetic - there aren't just two sides to this debate. Get over
>your
>hang-ups and your pathetic paranoia - I'm a gun owner with a functioning brain.
There are ONLY two sides, freedom and your side. You're a liar with a
malfunctioning "brain".
>> He wants to protect the rapist from the
>> rape victim.
>
>That really is pathetic.
That's why I pointed it out. You're pathetic for holding such beliefs.
>> But misogyny is often the hallmark of the anti-gunner... along
>> with racism and anti-Semitism.
>>
>
>Hmmm - US racisim - gun-nutters - it's all the blacks who are the problem ...
Thanks for proving my point.
What do you blame the Jews for?
>> >It's not rocket science, BYHO
>>
>> More like phrenology....
>
>You've reached that level??? My guess is your family hasn't yet left the safety
>of
>the trees.
More racism.
Scratch an anti-gunner find a Klansman.
Chris Morton
>Pardon?
>If there were no guns, there would be no gun related crimes. That's pretty
>basic.
If there were no people, there would be no crimes at all.
>Get the silly idea out of your tiny skull - guns don't of their own volition
>kill
>people. (I'm assuming we're talking mostly about murder)
Not to hear idiots like you tell it.
>Hand-guns are a tool for killing people - they facilitate that action, just as a
>hammer facilitates putting a nail into wood. Both tasks are made much easier by
>having the right tool. Sure other tools could be used, a hand-gun makes a clumsy
>hammer but it will do the job - a hammer can be used for killing people but it
>is
>clumsy in that task.
How many times was Joe Orton shot?
Chris Morton
>I thought I'd made it clear that I accept that yank gun paranoia as being
>reasonable in their situation.
If it's reasonable, it isn't paranoia, dumbass.
Chris Morton
>
>On 22 Nov 2005 02:32:30 GMT, The Lone Weasel <lonew...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You don't have a right to carry guns secretly when your
>>neighbors reject that kind of behavior.
>
I'm thinking the Lone Klansman has similar feeling about gays, Jews, etc.
If he doesn't like what you do that doesn't bother others, he wants you hanging
from tree. Too bad for him that he doesn't know who has guns.
Larry J.
> Assthrobby wrote:
>> On 22 Nov 2005 09:29:17 -0800, "edi...@netpath.net"
>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> In a country where you are considered a second class citizen
>> just
>> because you have a different colour skin, advancement up any
>> social ladder is going to be hard.
>
> Geez I hope you're not a brit. Imagine your embarassment when
> you take out some time to read the history books on the British
> Empire.
Oh, he's a brit, all right. We can only hope that he's not
typical...