Standard Gun-Freak Argument Shot Down, so to speak
Chris Stromberger
will find some other way to carry out their insane plans...with a
knife or whatever" We've all heard the gun-freaks spout that one a
million times.
So...let's look at two recent news items (copied from Yahoo! News):
In London, England, where gun-fetish is low: "A man was charged with
attempted murder Monday after police said he stormed naked through a
Roman Catholic Mass in a sword-wielding rampage, injuring 11 people."
Hmmm...compare this to the incident in Fort Worth, USA, where packing
heat is a fucking religion all its own: "In September a 47-year-old
loner killed seven people in a Fort Worth, Texas, Baptist church and
then shot himself to death."
Death Toll
----------
London: 0
Texas: 7 (the perp doesn't count)
Barry B Wood
Does ANYONE here know how to argue WITHOUT invoking the Strawman?
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
> Standard Gun-Lover rhetoric: "take away the guns and the crazy people
> will find some other way to carry out their insane plans...with a
> knife or whatever" We've all heard the gun-freaks spout that one a
> million times.
BTW, please define "gun-freaks"
Cheers
Barry
Skid Mark
constitution?
I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you would have
wanted a gun....
Chris Stromberger
<chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu> wrote in
message
news:6E07DCF6B8F20862.64562D4E...@lp.airnews.net...
> Standard Gun-Lover rhetoric: "take away the guns and the crazy people
> will find some other way to carry out their insane plans...with a
> knife or whatever" We've all heard the gun-freaks spout that one a
> million times.
>
jason carr
<chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu> wrote:
>Standard Gun-Lover rhetoric: "take away the guns and the crazy people
>will find some other way to carry out their insane plans...with a
>knife or whatever" We've all heard the gun-freaks spout that one a
>million times.
So you're not saying that the argument itself is shot down[0], but
rather that the killling-efficiency of a gun is higher, right?
I'd agree.
Now (serious question) how can we find common ground here? What else
can agree on? The necessity of identifying and treating dangerous
people? I'm open-minded, I think. Let's see what we've got in
common, rather than what seperates us.
jc
http://www.mousetrap.net/~mouse/guns.html
[0] the nudist did, in fact, use other weapons as predicted
--
L.V.X., frater mouse
work - http://www.mousetrap.net/ngs/ cgi, database backends
play - http://www.mousetrap.net/~mouse/ the Great Work, Honda
Civic wagon and Spree scooter, eBay FAQ, guitar
Current auctions:
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=mo...@mousetrap.net
Chris Stromberger
>So this is your "proof" we should disregard an admendment to the
>constitution?
I never said anything like that. I just presented some facts. Two
very similar incidents...
>
>I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you would have
>wanted a gun....
Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
Barry B Wood
>> would have wanted a gun....
>
> Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
>"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
In instances like Littleton, the killing doesn't stop until *someone*
arrives on the scene with a weapon, be it police or armed citizens.
Case Study: Killeen, Texas.
George Hennard crashed a pickup truck through the front of a Luby's
Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, on October 16, 1991, got out with two
semiautomatic pistols and methodically killed 23 people in 10 minutes
before police finally arrived and killed him.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia, who watched as her mother and father were shot to
death by Hennard, said later that she had left a pistol in her car
outside the cafeteria because Texas law forbade carrying a weapon.
From where she lay, she said, she had a clear shot at Hennard early on -
and would have taken it. "We were sitting ducks and that just makes me
so blasted mad," said Dr. Gratia, a chiropractor. "I've got a right to
protect myself." http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176n.html#15
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
>> I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
>> would have wanted a gun....
>
> Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
>"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
Case Study: Anniston, Ala.
Two months later, two armed robbers herded 20 customers and employees
in an Anniston, Ala., Shoney's restaurant into a walk-in cooler and held
the manager outside at gunpoint. Then they spotted Thomas Glen Terry, a
customer, hiding under a table and began shooting at him. Unlike the
situation in Texas, Terry, who had a permit, was carrying a .45 caliber
automatic handgun. He shot back, killing one robber and wounding the
other. The manager and the hostages were released. unharmed.
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176n.html#16
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
>> I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
>> would have wanted a gun....
>
> Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
>"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
Thats what people like Chris Stromberger are hoping for, of course...
hoping that the psycho shoots SOMEBODY ELSE -- ANYONE ELSE -- until
police can arrive on the scene with their own weapons.
Not only does he want to take away your right to defend yourself, he
hopes that in a crisis YOU will be shot instead of him, whilst he
cringes behind a 5 year-old child muttering about "gun-freaks".
How noble of him...
Cheers
Barry
Barry B Wood
> > I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
> > would have wanted a gun....
>
> Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
> "let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
On second thought, you're right. You shouldn't carry a concealed weapon,
you should carry chalk instead. That way, when the police finally arrive,
you can help them draw lines around all the dead bodies while protesting
"there was nothing I could do to save them!".
[avoiding making eye contact with yourself in the mirror. Sleep well.]
Cheers
Barry
Eric
-snip-
> Dr. Suzanna Gratia, who watched as her mother and father were shot to
> death by Hennard, said later that she had left a pistol in her car
> outside the cafeteria because Texas law forbade carrying a weapon.
> From where she lay, she said, she had a clear shot at Hennard early on -
> and would have taken it. "We were sitting ducks and that just makes me
> so blasted mad," said Dr. Gratia, a chiropractor. "I've got a right to
> protect myself." http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176n.html#15
If I'm not mistaken she was the lady who actually owned a .38 but left it in
her car because as a good citizen she didn't want to break the law by bringing
it in. Like you said, she lamented later on how many lives she could have
said because she said hiding under a table, she had a perfect shot at that
guy. Given, this was before the days of the CHP. As for the original
argument, yes it's harder to kill more people with a sword but we have to deal
with reality. The millions of guns that exist aren't going to disappear from
the criminals or idiots hands so making honest citizen rely on a boot knife
and cell phone is a little unfair IMHO. (all 2nd Amendment arguments aside)
Eric
=
Remove ~ to reply!
Bobb Waller
<chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm...compare this to the incident in Fort Worth, USA, where packing
>heat is a fucking religion all its own:
A fucking religion is that one where you have an erotic crossing of
yourself?
Fucking religion where can I meet the nuns of same?
Please remove NOSPAM from signature when replying.
Tonto Goldstein
carry law?
My guess is that there are also fewer carjackings when the carjacker is not
certain that the car-owner is unarmed.
I don't own a gun, but I'm glad many of my law-abiding neighbors do.
Am I still a "gun freak"?
-------------------------------
"Barry B Wood" <fen...@utdallas.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.991130...@apache.utdallas.edu...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
> >> I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
> >> would have wanted a gun....
> >
> > Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
> >"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
>
> In instances like Littleton, the killing doesn't stop until *someone*
> arrives on the scene with a weapon, be it police or armed citizens.
>
> Case Study: Killeen, Texas.
> George Hennard crashed a pickup truck through the front of a Luby's
> Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, on October 16, 1991, got out with two
> semiautomatic pistols and methodically killed 23 people in 10 minutes
> before police finally arrived and killed him.
>
> Dr. Suzanna Gratia, who watched as her mother and father were shot to
> death by Hennard, said later that she had left a pistol in her car
> outside the cafeteria because Texas law forbade carrying a weapon.
> From where she lay, she said, she had a clear shot at Hennard early on -
> and would have taken it. "We were sitting ducks and that just makes me
> so blasted mad," said Dr. Gratia, a chiropractor. "I've got a right to
> protect myself." http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176n.html#15
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
> >> I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
> >> would have wanted a gun....
> >
> > Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
> >"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
>
> Case Study: Anniston, Ala.
> Two months later, two armed robbers herded 20 customers and employees
> in an Anniston, Ala., Shoney's restaurant into a walk-in cooler and held
> the manager outside at gunpoint. Then they spotted Thomas Glen Terry, a
> customer, hiding under a table and began shooting at him. Unlike the
> situation in Texas, Terry, who had a permit, was carrying a .45 caliber
> automatic handgun. He shot back, killing one robber and wounding the
> other. The manager and the hostages were released. unharmed.
> http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176n.html#16
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
> >> I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
> >> would have wanted a gun....
> >
> > Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
> >"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
>
Kalli
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:31:46 -0600, Chris Stromberger posted:
> //snip comparison of apples and oranges//
> Then go live in London.
With that logic, he might just as well convert to Catholicism.
Barry B Wood
> I agree, and didn't crime go down in Florida after they passed a
> concealed carry law?
Yes. And not only for Florida:
When Citizens Can Protect Themselves
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/may98c.html
"The violent crime rate is 81 percent higher in states that do not have
concealed-carry laws that in those that do.
Robbery is 105 percent higher and murder is 86 percent higher where
law-abiding citizens are denied the right to carry a concealed gun.
Among other crimes, assault is 82 percent higher, and rape is 25
percent higher.
Between 1977 and 1994, for each year a concealed-carry law was in place,
murder rates dropped 3 percent on average, with robberies and rapes each
down 2 percent -- demonstrating that the longer the law is in place, the
more effective it is.
Lott [also] found that a passive victim is more likely to be seriously
injured than one who resists with a gun. His findings are detailed in his
new book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws."
A newer, final version of the Lott/Mustard study has been published in the
Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997). It is
available as a PDF file at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf.
Cheers
Barry
Chris Stromberger
[snip many instances where guns helped]
I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
>
>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
>>> I bet if you were one of the people in church on those days you
>>> would have wanted a gun....
>>
>> Nope. That would qualify me as a "gun-freak". I'm not one of the
>>"let's arm the teachers" gun freaks.
>
>Thats what people like Chris Stromberger are hoping for, of course...
>hoping that the psycho shoots SOMEBODY ELSE -- ANYONE ELSE -- until
>police can arrive on the scene with their own weapons.
Negative. Your knee-jerk gun-freak slippery slope paranoid reaction
is incorrect. I'm hoping that we can attain a state where the psychos
have such a hard time getting a gun that they pick a sword instead. I
realize this is no easy task, but perhaps its worth sacrificing some
of your "rights" to collect killing machines in order to perhaps save
a life in the future. That's what the selfish gun freaks cannot
fathom. I'm not advocating taking away all guns either...you can
still collect your death toys. I'm also fairly certain that nothing
will change quickly anyway, with people like you around. It may take
several generations to mitigate this US gun fetish...but isn't it
worth trying something other that what's in place now? Haven't your
read the papers? Once a month there's a mass killing with a gun in
this country. Passing out more guns won't help, in my opinion.
>
>Not only does he want to take away your right to defend yourself, he
>hopes that in a crisis YOU will be shot instead of him, whilst he
>cringes behind a 5 year-old child muttering about "gun-freaks".
>
>How noble of him...
>
>Cheers
>Barry
Nope. I don't want anyone to get shot. That's the point. You gun
freaks are convinced that *someone* MUST get shot. Just listen to
yourself. Be it an innocent victim or the psycho, nothing ends until
a bullet finds a human in your violent world.
Tonto Goldstein
OK, I'm interested. Do it.
---------------------------------------
J G DeBerry
Chris Stromberger wrote:
> I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
> law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
>
Ok, please do. I don't believe you. You are officially challenged
to put up or shut up.
JdB
Chris Stromberger
>
>OK, I'm interested. Do it.
>
>---------------------------------------
>
>Chris wrote:
>
>I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
>law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
>
>
Oh come on now. I'll find some for you, but are you going to sit
there with a straight face and imply that this will be hard to find?
Do you ever read the papers? Children accidentally firing guns into
their sibling's skull...road rage killings (there was one in Austin
just a week ago)...just the other day a woman was convicted of murder
in a road rage incident that may have resulted in a mild scuffle had
she not been packing heat, at the insistence of her gun-freak
husband...etc.
More coming.
You may argue that a road rage killing is not an instance of a gun in
a law abiding citizen's hand. I will argue that the road rager was a
law abiding citizen until the moment he fired the trigger. It is the
presence of the gun that made him a criminal. No gun, no crime
(certainly no murder).
Chris Stromberger
>
>
>Chris Stromberger wrote:
>
>> I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
>> law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
>>
>
>Ok, please do. I don't believe you. You are officially challenged
>to put up or shut up.
>
>JdB
HA HA HA!! "I don't believe you." What a gun freakish response!!
Wow. Talk about having bliners on.
Tonto Goldstein
". No gun, no crime
(certainly no murder)."
Are you serious? Weren't six Baylor students killed by ONE car a couple of
months ago? Cars in the wrong hands can and do murder. I would argue that
the guy in Killeen could have killed just as many people by using his car
(er, uh truck) as his weapon. All he would've had to do is increase his
speed when he rammed through the front windows of the restaurant. If he had
entered the restaurant doing 60 mph rather than 6 mph, many would've been
killed in the blink of an eye.
Again, I don't own a gun, but I'm glad many of my law-abiding neighbors do.
Am I a "gun freak"?
--------------------------------
"Chris Stromberger"
<chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu> wrote in
message
news:C635C75EB9528B82.952A834D...@lp.airnews.net...
> "Tonto Goldstein" <newsgro...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >
> >OK, I'm interested. Do it.
> >
> >---------------------------------------
> >
> >Chris wrote:
> >
> >I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
> >law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
> >
> >
>
J G DeBerry
JdB
Chris Stromberger wrote:
> J G DeBerry <jde...@airmail.net>:
>
> >
> >
> >Chris Stromberger wrote:
> >
> >> I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
> >> law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
> >>
> >
Jim
> I'm hoping that we can attain a state where the psychos
>have such a hard time getting a gun that they pick a sword instead. I
This is where I don't understand. How is that to be accomplished ?
In the case of the Wedgewood church shooter, he sounds as if he might have
been a paranoid schizophrenic, but went undiagnosed and untreated. He
purchase and ownership of firearms seems to be legal under ANY conceivable
legal proscriptions other than outright ban. I becomes a bit difficult in any
case to stop people who *might* become dangerous.
>realize this is no easy task, but perhaps its worth sacrificing some
>of your "rights" to collect killing machines in order to perhaps save
>a life in the future.
I am not a gun rights advocate, but rather a civil rights advocate.
Which rights shall we sacrifice in order to protect the public ? Clearly the
stated second amendment right, but to be safe, how about giving up the right
to be free from arbitrary search ? Just to make sure you aren't hiding a gun.
Random searches of homes...blockades of traffic...random searches on the
street....never know who might be packing.
>..but isn't it
>worth trying something other that what's in place now?
Now here is something important. The question is what to change. It
seems to me that on each and every occasion that violence is committed with a
gun, the "knee jerk" (to use one of your favorite terms :-) ) reaction is to
pass new laws to restrict firearms. It seems to me that by so doing, we are
forcing ourselves to overlook the real problem. It is not that we have a gun
culture...it is that we have a mass murder culture. Guns have always been
available in this culture...moreso in the past than in the present. Lee
Harvey Oswald ordered his gun by mail for $19.98. Yet the sort of violence
that you protest is increasing after the time that gun laws became more
restrictive. Something has changed alright, but it seems to me that the
something has to do with the people. For whatever reason...people have
accepted the increase of violence. I don't know what the answer is...maybe
that's why gun control is so appealing to so many people...it is easy. Easier
anyway than attempting to understand what is really happening in society and
desiring to get to the root of it.
>Nope. I don't want anyone to get shot. That's the point. You gun
>freaks are convinced that *someone* MUST get shot. Just listen to
>yourself. Be it an innocent victim or the psycho, nothing ends until
>a bullet finds a human in your violent world.
I'm with you. I'm against violence. Unfortunately, there is a
violent streak in humans...and I'm sure that violence will exist until past my
death, anway. But what society is about is socializing these vile
impulses...controlling them...and that is what is braking down in my view.
Sorry for the prolonged rant.
-----
To reply by email, you must know that I am not a flasher
Jim
rage ?" Is this not a fairly new phenomenon (as a general thing, I mean. I
know there have always been isolated examples.) ? Is it due to overcrowding ?
Altered expectations ?
Nevertheless, shootings such as this, as abhorrent as they might be,
would not occur unless something is wrong in the mind of the shooter. What
was she thinking ? Was she in fear ? Why ? How did the victim of the
shooting behave in this situation ?
Something is wrong in a society in which this level of rage occurs.
In article
<C635C75EB9528B82.952A834D...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
Stromberger <chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu>
wrote:
>...road rage killings (there was one in Austin
>just a week ago)...just the other day a woman was convicted of murder
>in a road rage incident that may have resulted in a mild scuffle had
>she not been packing heat, at the insistence of her gun-freak
>husband...etc.
-----
Chris Stromberger
>
>OK, I'm interested. Do it.
>
>---------------------------------------
>
>Chris wrote:
>
>I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
>law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
>
>
-----------------------
Here's a laughable op ed piece from an obvious gun freak bragging
about how few people have been killed in gun accidents recently. From
The Oregonian, 9/99.
"The Earl Blumenauer opinion piece, "For once, put children above
special interests" (June 1), spins an emotional tale that leaves the
reader with the impression that America's youth are in the middle of a
gun-accident epidemic.
"However, according to U.S. government statistics, quite the opposite
is true. In the last reporting year, 1996, there were 1,400 accidental
gun deaths nationwide for adults and children combined, an all-time
low (National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety
Council)."
This is so absurd...it's bizarre how someone could have such a twisted
gun-centric view of the world. ONLY 1400 needless deaths! Yipee!
Please note, apologists, that the above was written by a gun freak,
not by a biased anti-gun freak (I'm not above calling myself names).
So the stats are not in dispute, I would think, since they are cited
by one of your own.
OK, so that's 1400 instances of needless gun death. You want more?
-----------------
11/22/99
"The mother of a student wounded in the Columbine High School massacre
walked into a pawn shop on Friday, asked to see a handgun, loaded it
and then killed herself."
Getting access to a gun is no harder than buying some milk at a
grocery store. A needless death due to ridiculously easy access to
guns and ammo.
-----------------------------------
7/99
"An eight-year-old Chilhowie child died after receiving a CO2-powered
BB gunshot to the head.
"Christopher William Camper died Monday, June 28, at Kingsport
Hospital due to head wounds from the BB gunshot. Camper was at a
friend's house in Bristol when the accident occurred. An adult on the
premises reportedly fired the shot that caused Camper's death. The
adult's name has not been released by Bristol police. Charges most
likely will not be filed since Camper's death was ruled accidental."
----------------
11/17/99 "HOUSTON (Reuters) - A 15-year-old boy was in critical
condition on Wednesday after being shot in the face at a high school
some 25 miles southeast of Houston, authorities said"
"'As I understand it, a kid had brought it to school and was showing
it off to some other kids when it accidentally discharged,' Dickinson
police officer Ron Morales told Houston television station KTRK
Channel 13."
I can hear it now--"but, but, but, that death is OK because the kid
was not a law abiding citizen because he brought a gun to school."
Pick nits if you wish. There is a difference here between this kid
and someone committing murder, which is the distinction I am trying to
make.
-----------------------
There is the Halloween incident some years back, featured on Dateline
or some similar show, where an Asian kid goes to the wrong house to
attend a Halloween party and is blown away by the gun-freak who lives
at the house, thinking the kid is a ninja robber or something.
------------------------
This one I mentioned in another post, but it deserves another look:
The case of Shirley Henson, who was indicted for murder recently due
to her road rage killing of another woman. She was indicted, from
what I read, because she had alternatives (one being to drive away) to
killing the woman who had parked her car and was on foot approaching
Henson's car. Instead, Henson decided to kill her. It's a bit ironic
because Henson's husband had insisted that she pack heat, being the
gun freak that he is, and now she may serve time for that idiotic
decision. Not to mention she has the needless death of another human
on her conscience for the rest of her life.
I think all road rage shootings are perfect examples of the dangers of
the gun freak mentality.
That's a few for you. I'll post more later if I find some interesting
ones.
Chris Stromberger
>Easier said than done, huh?
>
>". No gun, no crime
>(certainly no murder)."
>
>Are you serious? Weren't six Baylor students killed by ONE car a couple of
>months ago? Cars in the wrong hands can and do murder. I would argue that
>the guy in Killeen could have killed just as many people by using his car
>(er, uh truck) as his weapon. All he would've had to do is increase his
>speed when he rammed through the front windows of the restaurant. If he had
>entered the restaurant doing 60 mph rather than 6 mph, many would've been
>killed in the blink of an eye.
>Again, I don't own a gun, but I'm glad many of my law-abiding neighbors do.
>Am I a "gun freak"?
>
Not this tired argument. Guns have one purpose--to kill. Cars have
one purpose--to transport.
See the difference?
It's clear if you *think*.
To answer your question: Yes, anyone who pulls out the "well other
stuff kills people so I guess we should just ban it also huh?"
argument definitely qualifies as a gun freak.
Chris Stromberger
>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:31:46 -0600, Chris Stromberger
><chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu> wrote:
>
>>Standard Gun-Lover rhetoric: "take away the guns and the crazy people
>>will find some other way to carry out their insane plans...with a
>>knife or whatever" We've all heard the gun-freaks spout that one a
>>million times.
>
>So you're not saying that the argument itself is shot down[0], but
>rather that the killling-efficiency of a gun is higher, right?
>
Yep. That's a fair assessment. It does matter that the nudist did
not use a gun. That's it.
>I'd agree.
>
>Now (serious question) how can we find common ground here? What else
>can agree on? The necessity of identifying and treating dangerous
>people? I'm open-minded, I think. Let's see what we've got in
>common, rather than what seperates us.
I'm willing.
Chris Stromberger
[rant snip]
>
> Sorry for the prolonged rant.
Thank you for a well-reasoned rant.
Gordon Burditt
>one purpose--to transport.
A given object has about as many purposes as there are people.
Guns can be used to kill (including people, animals, and spammers),
to make people hand over their money without killing, to make people trying
to make you hand over your money to go away (without killing),
as a sex toy (which James Bond film was that?), as something to
buy and sell to make a lot of money, as something to steal and
pawn, as an investment to make money, to permanently remove your
email address from a spammer's list, etc.
Cars can be used to transport, as a murder weapon, to kill spammers,
as a portable place to have sex, as a place to meet a girl with no
parents around, to impress people, as an investment to make money,
as something to steal and fence, as a place to live, as a battering
ram to destroy a spammer's computer (and the spammer), etc.
All of these uses are valid (even if not legal) reasons for someone
to acquire one in the first place.
>To answer your question: Yes, anyone who pulls out the "well other
>stuff kills people so I guess we should just ban it also huh?"
>argument definitely qualifies as a gun freak.
Well, I suppose that makes me a "gun freak". I'm a strange kind of
"gun freak", who has never fired a real gun, doesn't own one,
and doesn't particularly want to own one.
You mean you're not in favor of sword registration?
Gordon L. Burditt
Jim
<Some examples of tragic death by firearm snipped>
If all guns are made to disappear instantly...whatever disturbance of
the mind or soul that caused these things remain. I really think we need to
devote some serious attention to that aspect of the problem.
Jim
> Guns have one purpose--to kill. Cars have
>one purpose--to transport.
>
>See the difference?
Well., maybe it isn't quite that simple. There are people who like to
shoot targets, skeet, etc. Some appreciate the fine mechanisms of guns. I
have no idea what percentage that might be...but at least let's avoid
demonizing one another.
Barry B Wood
> ...knee-jerk gun-freak...paranoid...killing machines...
> selfish gun freaks...death toys...gun fetish...gun freaks
The fact that you must resort to such emotional rhetoric to support
your position only underscores how weak that position is. You are
emotional and irrational.
> Haven't your read the papers? Once a month there's a mass killing with
> a gun in this country. Passing out more guns won't help, in my opinion.
Well, your opinion isn't worth much. The relevant study on this is:
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed
Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement (April 1999,
University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working
Paper No. 73). http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637
"The effect of 'shall-issue' concealed handgun laws, which give adults the
right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record
or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one
states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we
studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%.
Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%."
http://www.kc1.net/jacq/lott.htm
Sorry, but your enlightened "opinion" just doesn't stack up against
the experts in the field and all their peer-reviewed studies.
Cheers
Barry
Kalli
> "Tonto Goldstein" <newsgro...@yahoo.com>:
> >OK, I'm interested. Do it.
> >Chris wrote:
> >I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
> >law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
> Oh come on now. I'll find some for you, but are you going to sit
> there with a straight face and imply that this will be hard to find?
Burden of proof is on he who made the claim, Chris. [HINT: *you*]
> Do you ever read the papers? Children accidentally firing guns into
> their sibling's skull
Children aren't law-abiding citizens, per se. They're more or less an
extension of their parents responsibility while they're minors, so ...
in essence, the parents weren't abiding by any law when they allowed a
gun to fall in the hands of any child.
Your point was ... ?
Tonto Goldstein
*Tonto sighs and gives up*
-------------------------
Barry B Wood
> I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
> law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
No. You cannot.
http://adnetsolfp2.adnetsol.com/ssl_claremont/gsp/gsp60.cfm
" The National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), conducted by Gary Kleck and
Marc Gertz in 1993, has yielded the most accurate estimate of defensive
gun use to date. ...The survey revealed that between 1988-1993 civilians
used guns in self-defense 2.2-2.5 million times per year, saving between
240,000-400,000 lives each year. Based on their results, Kleck and
Gertz estimated that the number of defensive gun uses is three to four
times that of illegal gun uses."
Start citing now...let me know when you approach 240,000 per year [yawn].
Cheers
Barry
Barry B Wood
Oh wait. You said "instances", not lives.
Can you count to 2.2 million? Enjoy... [and don't forget to eat].
Cheers
Barry
Barry B Wood
> Oh come on now. I'll find some for you, but are you going to sit
> there with a straight face and imply that this will be hard to find?
http://adnetsolfp2.adnetsol.com/ssl_claremont/gsp/gsp60.cfm
"...between 1988-1993 civilians used guns in self-defense
2.2-2.5 million times per year..."
[straight face, sitting]...Yes Chris, it will be hard for you to
find 2.2 million instances "where the presence of a gun in a law
abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death" (your words).
Start counting....
Cheers
Barry
Barry B Wood
> one purpose--to transport....It's clear if you *think*.
So why don't you?
You are crippled with the same liberal emotionalism that blames *tools*
for the actions of people. Guns are tools to be used in self-defense
against criminals and tyrants. Cars are tools to be used to transport.
Both tools have been mis-used to kill innocents. But since you have an
irrational fear of firearms, you blame the object and not the person
abusing it.
You'll be happy to learn that "hoplophobia" (irrational fear of weapons)
has been recognized as an illness by the AMA, is treatable, and is now
covered by most HMOs. Get thee to a psychiatrist!
If you REALLY want to find ways that will stop stop gun violence,
familiarize yourself with and support:
1) "PROJECT EXILE" where we actually start prosecuting criminals for
all the federal gun laws they break -- http://www.vahv.org/Exile/
2) "CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS",
by John R. Lott and David B. Mustard. It is the most comprehensive
study ever done on crime and guns, covering every county in the United
States for a 16 year period. Lott is a seasoned veteran at statistical
research, with over 75 peer reviewed papers published, including this one.
The original paper is available for free at:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html
There are also links there to the major items of criticism against it,
and Lott's rebuttals to that criticism (which mostly consist of "That'd
be a good point if I'd done that, but I didn't.") -- Terry Austin.
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
> "In the last reporting year, 1996, there were 1,400 accidental gun
> deaths nationwide for adults and children combined, an all-time low"
> This is so absurd...it's bizarre how someone could have such a twisted
> gun-centric view of the world. ONLY 1400 needless deaths! Yipee!
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
John R. Lott, Jr. author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime
and Gun Control".
"Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings,
there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns
increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who
obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely
careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of
accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such
accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under.
However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some
perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million
guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is
much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning,
and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents
than from accidents involving guns.
Also:
http://users.erols.com/dsmjd/rkba/no_smoking_guns.htm
"Nationally, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms deaths each year --
far fewer than the number of deaths attributable to medical errors or
automobile accidents. The national death rate from firearms has
declined even while firearm ownership has almost doubled in the last
20 years (figure at http://www.ncpa.org/ba/gif/firearms.gif ), and
22 more states have liberalized right-to-carry laws:
* The fatal firearm accident rate has declined to about .5 per 100,000
people -- a decrease of more than 19 percent in the last decade.
* The number of fatal firearms-related accidents among children fell
to an all-time low of 185 in 1994, a 64 percent decline since 1975.
Conclusion. Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase
in gun ownership. Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry firearms
for self-protection led to the negative consequences claimed by critics.
In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime rates and increased the
general level of knowledge concerning the rights, responsibilities
and laws of firearm ownership."
Simplified just for you, Craig -- deaths from firearms have DECLINED
while ownership of same has DOUBLED. Another one of your "opinions"
is proven false. Are you ready to open your mind up?
Cheers
Barry
Chris Stromberger
>On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Chris Stromberger wrote:
>> ...knee-jerk gun-freak...paranoid...killing machines...
>> selfish gun freaks...death toys...gun fetish...gun freaks
>
>The fact that you must resort to such emotional rhetoric to support
>your position only underscores how weak that position is. You are
>emotional and irrational.
Those terms do not indicate "emotionality" or "irrationality". They
are accurate and objective.
>
>> Haven't your read the papers? Once a month there's a mass killing with
>> a gun in this country. Passing out more guns won't help, in my opinion.
>
>Well, your opinion isn't worth much. The relevant study on this is:
You just lost me there. I feel that my opinion is worth as much as
anyone else's, even yours.
>Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed
>Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement (April 1999,
>University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working
>Paper No. 73). http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637
>
>"The effect of 'shall-issue' concealed handgun laws, which give adults the
>right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record
>or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one
>states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we
>studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%.
>Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%."
>http://www.kc1.net/jacq/lott.htm
>
>Sorry, but your enlightened "opinion" just doesn't stack up against
>the experts in the field and all their peer-reviewed studies.
How do your stats stack up against the bodies left in Fort Worth?
>
>
>Cheers
>Barry
Chris Stromberger
>Chris Stromberger wrote:
>
>> "Tonto Goldstein" <newsgro...@yahoo.com>:
>> >OK, I'm interested. Do it.
>
>> >Chris wrote:
>> >I can cite as many or more instaces where the presence of a gun in a
>> >law abiding citizen's hands resulted in a needless death.
>
>> Oh come on now. I'll find some for you, but are you going to sit
>> there with a straight face and imply that this will be hard to find?
>
>Burden of proof is on he who made the claim, Chris. [HINT: *you*]
Jeez, you gun freaks are an impatient lot. A potentially deadly
combination.
>
>> Do you ever read the papers? Children accidentally firing guns into
>> their sibling's skull
>
>Children aren't law-abiding citizens, per se. They're more or less an
>extension of their parents responsibility while they're minors, so ...
>in essence, the parents weren't abiding by any law when they allowed a
>gun to fall in the hands of any child.
>
>Your point was ... ?
Here comes the nit picking. My point was to make a distinction
between criminals acting with a gun and guns involved in incidents
where there was no criminal intent, where had no gun been available,
no lives would have been lost. The distinction is between a criminal
who knows he will murder and uses a gun to achieve that end, and a
child, let's say, who is innocently playing with a gun with no intent
to harm anyone. Do you see the difference? I apologize for my vague
phrasing that led you into your utterly ridiculous assertion above.
Can you agree that the mere presence or availability of a gun can be
the single factor determining life or death in some otherwise harmless
situations? That's my point. That's all. I think it's undeniable.
I'll also agree that guns are not the sole source of many of these
problems. That's obvious. But I will contend that they are too easy
to get a hold of and that's not a good thing. It should be very,
very, very difficult to get a murder machine like the one used at
Columbine, for example. Very very very difficult.
You asked what my point was, so there it is!
Something I'm curious about...I wonder if there is any stat on how the
Tek-9 (I'm not a gun freak, so forgive me if I misspell the name) is
used. Of all of them manufactured, how are they being used? X% by
target shooters, Y% by gangs, Z% by drug traffickers, etc. I'd be
very curious to see that. How many people have died due to a bullet
from that gun? What percent of Tek-9s made are used primarily for
murder? Probably a lot, but I don't know. Maybe not. If it's a lot,
it seems so odd to me that we don't get outraged at the manufacturer.
Their profits are what we normally label as "blood money". Why
doesn't anyone care?
Forgive the rambling...
Jim
>I'll also agree that guns are not the sole source of many of these
>problems. That's obvious. But I will contend that they are too easy
>to get a hold of and that's not a good thing. It should be very,
>very, very difficult to get a murder machine like the one used at
>Columbine, for example. Very very very difficult.
>
>You asked what my point was, so there it is!
And this is where I, a non-gun freak have a problem. Something has
changed in society since guns are less available now than previously, yet for
reasons that remain unaddressed, their use in very inappropriate ways (road
rage, school and church shootings, not to mention postal shootings) has
increased.
My big concern is that by devoting so much attention to guns, we are
distracting ourselves (as a society) from whatever the *real* problem(s)
is(are).
Chris Stromberger
>Guns are tools to be used in self-defense
>against criminals and tyrants.
So no gun made is created for the purpose of murder? They're all made
for the noble purpose of self defense? The Tec-9, with its
fingerprint resistant grip, compact size, rapid fire, is not a tool
designed for murder?? Is it fingerprint resistant so it will resist
unsightly tarnishing? Or is it so you won't be charged by the police
for the high crime of self-defense? Your assertion above is the
ultimate mantra of the gun worshipper.
>Simplified just for you, Craig -- deaths from firearms have DECLINED
My name is not Craig.
Tonto Goldstein
grip, like a golf club. I guess the same fingerprint resistancy of a golf
club grip could be said to be providing cover for the outraged golfer who
beats the drink girl to death with his club. :-)
----------------------------------------
Eric
-snip-
>You are crippled with the same liberal emotionalism that blames *tools*
>for the actions of people.
And that, my friends, is the bottom line!
Eric
=
Remove ~ to reply!
Jim Lancaster
> Barry B Wood <fen...@utdallas.edu>:
>
> >Guns are tools to be used in self-defense
> >against criminals and tyrants.
>
> So no gun made is created for the purpose of murder? They're all made
> for the noble purpose of self defense? The Tec-9, with its
> fingerprint resistant grip, compact size, rapid fire, is not a tool
> unsightly tarnishing? Or is it so you won't be charged by the police
> for the high crime of self-defense? Your assertion above is the
> ultimate mantra of the gun worshipper.
>
>
>
> My name is not Craig.
>
>
"Finger Print Resistant" is to keep the oils from your hands, not just the
fingers, from tarnishing the gun (which leads to rust spots). It does not
keep law enforcement agencies from lifting fingerprints from the gun. From
what I hear, the Tec-9 is mostly for looks and is pretty useless for
criminals or self defense as they jam frequently. Most of the deaths and
injuries at Columbine were from the shotguns, not the Tec-9.
On another note, I agree with another poster that focusing on "Gun Violence"
is missing the boat. According to the Justice Departments NCVS survey of
crime victims, only 9.3% of violent crimes are committed with any type of
firearm. Plus, prior to 1968, ANYONE with the money (even 13 year olds)
could legally buy a gun. Contrary to the news reports, it is harder to
LEGALLY buy a gun. That doesn't mean they can't be illegally obtained -
just as easily as heroin or cocain.
Regards,
Jim Lancaster
Barry B Wood
> But I will contend that they are too easy to get a hold of and that's
> not a good thing. It should be very, very, very difficult to get a
> murder machine like the one used at Columbine, for example. Very very
> very difficult.
How about we ENFORCE the laws already on the books? Why aren't we?
"It is also critical to realize that 6,000 kids brought weapons to school
in 1997 (according to the Dept. of Education), in complete violation of
the federal Gun-Free School Zones law -- calling for at least five years
in prison -- but the kids were just sent home. One of these was Kip
Kinkle, who came back the next day to commit most of the crimes listed"
http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/columbin.htm
Do you think we need more guns laws? Here is a list of all the laws
broken at Columbine. Let me know what "new & improved" law would've
succeeded where these failed...
Premeditated murder
Murder
Attempted murder
Aggravated assault
Assault with a deadly weapon
Assault and battery
Assault Threatening and intimidating
Conspiracy to commit felony
Conspiracy to commit misdemeanor
Aiding and abetting
Providing firearm to minor
Providing handgun to minor
Possession of firearm by minor
Possession of handgun by minor
Possession of firearm by minor without federally required permission slip
from parent or guardian
Use of firearm or bomb to commit murder that is federally prosecutable
Possession of NFA weapon (sawed off shotgun)
Manufacture of NFA weapon
Brandishing a gun
Brandishing a bomb
Possession of bomb making materials
Possession of explosives
Possession of explosives by minor
Possession of explosives with malicious intent
Making of explosives
Placing of explosives
Use of explosives
Concealed carry without permit
Gun on school grounds
Another gun on school grounds
Yet another gun on school grounds
Possession of ammunition on school grounds
Fraudulently obtaining guns and ammo
Discharging firearm in city limits
Discharging firearm on school grounds with reckless disregard for another
person's safety
Disturbing the peace
Committing a hate crime
Multiple counts of all of the above
Conspiracy to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into New York City
You also have aggravating circumstances and anything a reasonable
Colorado prosecutor could no doubt add to this list. For instance,
Colorado law includes two to six years for the parents if they allowed
the boys to possess a firearm, knowing of substantial felony risk."
Cheers
Barry
Kalli
> Kalli wrote:
> >Burden of proof is on he who made the claim, Chris. [HINT: *you*]
> Jeez, you gun freaks are an impatient lot. A potentially deadly
> combination.
Interesting you label me a gun freak, when I've not even expressed my
opinion on the subject. Don't you think you're assuming quite a bit?
Do you really presume to know full well my position on gun ownership
just because it was pointed out that it's up to you to validate the
so-called point you attempted to make, but have yet to substantiate?
Barry B Wood
* Barry B Wood wrote:
* Guns are tools to be used in self-defense against criminals and tyrants
>
> Your assertion above is the ultimate mantra of the gun worshipper.
That assertion puts me in the company of William Blackstone, Thomas
Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexis de Tocqueville.
Thank you for the compliment.
I also find myself wanting to ask if you have ever studied history?
Your arguments demonstrate an embarrassing degree of ignorance.
OBE perhaps?
Cheers
Barry
"William Blackstone, in his classic "Commentaries", considered the right
to bear arms the "natural right of resistance and self preservation" and
viewed the right as necessary "to restrain the violence of oppression."
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/howard.html
"As Aristotle tells us, in his fourth book on Politics, the Grecian
states ever had special care to place the use and exercise of arms
in the people, because the commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms:
the sword and sovereignty ever walk hand in hand together." (Nedham)
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/haladopt.html
Kalli
[Barry questions Chris' place in the food chain]
> OBE perhaps?
OBE?
One bad epple? nahhh
WTF is OBE? AFAIK, & IIRC, [IANAL] OBE ain't PC.
Barry B Wood
> Barry B Wood wrote:
> [Barry questions Chris' place in the food chain]
>
> > OBE perhaps?
>
FWIW, OBE is PC [ATLTP] ;)
Cheers
Barry
Barry B Wood
> > My name is not Craig.
Alright Chris...they say even a clock is right twice a day,
so I'll concede this one point to you.
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Jim Lancaster wrote:
> On another note, I agree with another poster that focusing on
> "Gun Violence" is missing the boat. According to the Justice
> Departments NCVS survey of crime victims, only 9.3% of violent
> crimes are committed with any type of firearm. Plus, prior to
> 1968, ANYONE with the money (even 13 year olds) could legally
> buy a gun.
Hi Jim. I agree that the root of the problem is not only guns.
An interesting topic of research might be tracing our culture's
growing appetite for violence since 1968. A quick tour through
today's television talk-shows, Hollywood movies, and video games
might reveal that [thesis]: we are being conditioned to respond
to conflict with brutality and violence.
Of course, its not just our entertainment culture -- the problem
of growing violence likely has multiple sources -- but it couldn't
hurt to attack the problem from different directions.
Cheers
Barry
Digitali Binar
<fen...@utdallas.edu>, confessed to the following crimes:
>Alright Chris...they say even a clock is right twice a day,
>so I'll concede this one point to you.
>
A normal clock is correct _all_ day. I think to what you refer is the
'broken clock' that is correct twice a day in spite of the fact that
it is broken. . .
dB
Bill Gross
To a certain extent this issue is clouded by a segment of the
population who are involved in this issue who seem to express the
opinion that people aren't really bad. If they do something evil, the
cause must be something else not the person involved. That makes it
very easy to attack the weapon.
I think back in the 1930s H. L. Menken once said, "that for every
complex, difficulties problem there is a simple wrong answer." I
probably mangled that quote.
On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 14:36:10 GMT, mos...@flashER.net (Jim) wrote:
>In article <BE7999C35202EB56.10A1C376...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris Stromberger <chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu> wrote:
>>I'll also agree that guns are not the sole source of many of these
>>problems. That's obvious. But I will contend that they are too easy
>>to get a hold of and that's not a good thing. It should be very,
>>very, very difficult to get a murder machine like the one used at
>>Columbine, for example. Very very very difficult.
>>
Chris Stromberger
>Chris Stromberger wrote:
>* Barry B Wood wrote:
>* Guns are tools to be used in self-defense against criminals and tyrants
>>
>> Your assertion above is the ultimate mantra of the gun worshipper.
>
>That assertion puts me in the company of William Blackstone, Thomas
>Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexis de Tocqueville.
>Thank you for the compliment.
>
>I also find myself wanting to ask if you have ever studied history?
>Your arguments demonstrate an embarrassing degree of ignorance.
>
What a pompous ass you are!
Chris Stromberger
>> Chris Stromberger wrote:
>> > My name is not Craig.
>
>Alright Chris...they say even a clock is right twice a day,
>so I'll concede this one point to you.
>
>On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Jim Lancaster wrote:
>> On another note, I agree with another poster that focusing on
>> "Gun Violence" is missing the boat. According to the Justice
>> Departments NCVS survey of crime victims, only 9.3% of violent
>> crimes are committed with any type of firearm. Plus, prior to
>> 1968, ANYONE with the money (even 13 year olds) could legally
>> buy a gun.
>
>Hi Jim. I agree that the root of the problem is not only guns.
[snip]
A chink in the armor!
Barry B Wood
> Barry B Wood <fen...@utdallas.edu>:
> >Chris Stromberger wrote:
> >* Guns are tools to be used in self-defense against criminals and tyrants
> >>
> >> Your assertion above is the ultimate mantra of the gun worshipper.
> >
> >That assertion puts me in the company of William Blackstone, Thomas
> >Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexis de Tocqueville.
> >Thank you for the compliment.
> >
> >I also find myself wanting to ask if you have ever studied history?
> >Your arguments demonstrate an embarrassing degree of ignorance.
> >
>
> What a pompous ass you are!
Sure. But then I'm not the one calling everyone a "gun freak". You are.
You want to dial down the rhetoric and discuss this issue like an adult?
If so, you'll find that I can be very civil and courteous.
Until then, you really have no right to cry/whine/pout -- you've been
vilifying sensible & reasonable people as "freaks". Now your feelings
are hurt? LOL.
Cheers
Barry
Barry B Wood
> My name is not Craig.
Chris Stromberger
>On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:44:40 -0600, Chris Stromberger
><chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Not this tired argument. Guns have one purpose--to kill. Cars have
>>one purpose--to transport.
>
>What kind of statement is that?? I suggest you make decision
>based on facts and not emotional feelings.
>
>"Guns have one purpose--to kill" Wrong! Can you support
>this so called fact?
>
>"Cars have one purpose--to transport." Wrong again. Were you
>educated and the university of sound bites?
>
>You are coming off as someone who has a unfounded fear of
>inanimate objects. Are you fearful of pencils, lawn mowers
>and tricycles also?
>
>I have heard some very good anti-gun arguments before but
>your not presenting one thats rational.
You make no points.
Aimless
Chris Stromberger wrote in message
<59E14ED6F9415727.27459A15...@lp.airnews.net>...
>nt...@iafdw.com:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:44:40 -0600, Chris Stromberger
>><chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Not this tired argument. Guns have one purpose--to kill. Cars have
>>>one purpose--to transport.
>>
>>What kind of statement is that?? I suggest you make decision
>>based on facts and not emotional feelings.
>>
>>"Guns have one purpose--to kill" Wrong! Can you support
>>this so called fact?
So please list any other purposes for guns. Doorstop? Scrap metal?
I'm eager to hear this. What do you use your guns for? Unclogging the drain?
Removing stubborn stains from your laundry perhaps?
Please, explain.
Paul Barnett
Aimless <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:s77hj7i...@corp.supernews.com...
> So please list any other purposes for guns. Doorstop? Scrap metal?
> I'm eager to hear this. What do you use your guns for? Unclogging the
drain?
> Removing stubborn stains from your laundry perhaps?
> Please, explain.
How about punching holes in paper targets? It's about as productive as
rolling a 10-16 pound ball down a lane and trying to knock down 10 pins, or
trying to put a ball in a hoop, or trying to get a different ball past 11
guys for up to 100 yards. But, some people enjoy the sport, either just for
the personal challenge or in competition with others.
Mark
<chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu>
followed up with:
>nt...@iafdw.com:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:44:40 -0600, Chris Stromberger
>><chris.st...@mmt.bellhowll.com.cut_here.gov.org.com.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Not this tired argument. Guns have one purpose--to kill. Cars have
>>>one purpose--to transport.
>>
>>What kind of statement is that?? I suggest you make decision
>>based on facts and not emotional feelings.
>>
>>"Guns have one purpose--to kill" Wrong! Can you support
>>this so called fact?
>>
>>"Cars have one purpose--to transport." Wrong again. Were you
>>educated and the university of sound bites?
>>
>>You are coming off as someone who has a unfounded fear of
>>inanimate objects. Are you fearful of pencils, lawn mowers
>>and tricycles also?
>>
>>I have heard some very good anti-gun arguments before but
>>your not presenting one thats rational.
>
>You make no points.
That was the point he was making. Thanks for making the Reader's
Digest verision!
Cheers!
Mark
Mark
but have drawn down on 4 guys about to loot my kids and I who were
camping. I have racked the action back and aimed at kids about to
shoot up my house, I have had my hand on my pistol ready to draw on a
guy who moved in on me from the bus stop while I was busy at the ATM.
How many more incidents never happened because punks knew I was armed
and ready?
Kennedy's car has still killed more people than my gun.
Cheers!
Mark
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:58:43 -0600, "Paul Barnett" <ne...@ptb.org>
followed up with: