This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavior
makes you wonder:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death
Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the terrorists
in India who have motives relatively more noble, by comparison, than sheer,
unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited here.
Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
1967.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Swingman wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote
>
>
>>Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
>>are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.
>
>
> Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no argument
> there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal immigrant population
> is currently armed to the teeth? Especially with the Mexican drug cartel
> increasingly more active *inside* our border.
>
> Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not going to
> consider.
>
Can you still legally purchase fully automatic weapons in Texas??? ;-)
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and
displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might
expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social
"norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a
competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few
items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting
tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life savages
who succumbed to it.
The store's policy is tantamount to incitement to riot and deserves censure
at best. What do they expect when they pull stunts like dangling raw meat
over the heads of a pack of starving wolves for several days, letting it be
known that _only_ the first , fastest, highest jumping wolf will actually get
the gravy?
People - "the people of today" - just aren't that clever or evolved. They
watch reality T.V. They subscribe to political correctness. With the
stripping away of the currently defined "civilization" facade, they bay for
gladiatorial blood or shovel other people into gas ovens for a popular ideal.
They believe in things which are provably untrue and are willing to put to
death anyone who will not accept their ludicrous superstitions. They steal
from other people, attack total strangers purely to enjoy the experience and
drive motor vehicles with total disregard for the comfort and safety of
anyone outside the vehicle. They are savage, brutal and oftentimes only held
in check by fear of reprisals for not conforming to the acceptable norm.
This, among all the compassion, selfless love and splendid and glorious stuff
which balances it out, is the ever-present dark side of the contemporary
human condition. How can we, with impunity, provoke such humankind with
tantalizing evil such as these first-past-the-post "sales" where the
combatants have been psyched-up to believe that the stakes are so damned
high?
We can't. We can't play exploitative games like this and shirk the
consequences. What has happened is the inevitable result of the deliberate,
cynical manipulation of consumers into a competitive position. It will happen
again unless this consumerist model is rethought to accommodate the
volatility of the manipulated resource. Wal-Mart and similar concerns must
reassess their entire strategy and, if they still wish to entertain shoppers
with a competitive element in the hunting and killing of seasonal bargains,
then they must do it in a way that cannot engender physical aggression.
Yes, the people surging into the store were stupid, savage animals but it was
the store's poorly conceived hysteria-raising crowd-damming manipulating of
them that made them that way. Wal-Mart are as much the killers here as
anyone.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 02:42:30 +0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> I especially like the part in our Constitution that says "all men must
> compete for bargains at holidays sales"
> No one made them get up to go to the store, be it Wal Mart, Best Buy, JC
> Penney, etc.
It's next to the bits that say that in order to be accepted/admired by your
peers:
> You must wear clothes and hairstyles that fashion dictates are the norm or
> better still, will become the norm in the very near future while maintaining
a slight edge or
>difference that will persuade everyone else to follow suit yet enhance your
alpha status
>(Meanwhile, you must certainly own a necktie or two.)
>
>You gotta have the very latest ipod, cellphone, satnav to survive.
>
>A city child cannot be educated unless conspicuously driven right to the
school door in a military
>or big-game hunting vehicle.
>
> You should proclaim belief in a monotheistic religion from the following
limited options... (C,P,J,X,Y,Z...)
>
> You can have any political views you like, but definitely not _that_ one.
and many, many more things that are not actually written down but
nevertheless are "rules." Some are very loose and need only be followed by
those seeking some sort of alpha or celebrity status, Close behind are those
which to transgress would only have you labelled as "uncool" or "unusual"
in some way. Disregarding others would maybe have you considered as
"harmlessly eccentric" and maybe regarded more or less suspiciously. Yet
others would be very dangerous not to go along with. A lot depends on where
(and when) you are and whom you're with.
This stuff doesn't have to be written down. It still provides leverage on
society.
I agree that nowhere does it say that man must be a sheep, herded by market
forces, manipulated by the marketing industry and driven by advertising to
consume or behave in a certain way - but look around you and tell me it ain't
necessarily so. Were it not, we would not have seen the tragedy that kicked
this thread off.
Look around you and tell me people are _really_ free.
I really wish you could.
"Swingman" wrote
> This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavior
> makes you wonder:
>
The "aberrant behavior" is just normal holiday shopping madness. And this
sort of thing has happened at walmart before. Which is why I will not go
near any of those mob type of sales. Women, in particular, become a
frenzied mob when their are limited bargains available. I wonder what the
evolutionary biologists would say about this.
There was a case locally, a few years ago, in a parking structure at a mall.
The season was Christmas and parking was scarce. A parking space opened up
and a woman driving her car darted into the spot. There was another woman,
carrying packages, walking by. She got run over. The individual who ran her
over ran into the mall to go shopping, leaving her victim laying on the
cement with packages scattered.
Witnesses ran to her aid and called the police and the medics. Sho was
transported to a hospital and the police waited for the hit and run driver.
She came out of the mall and became very indignant when placed under arrest.
Her explanation, "Parking was hard to find and she got in my way."
These kinds of holiday madness events occur every year. Sad to say, but that
is the way it is.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
eliminate
> by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
but
> tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
> church to get in.
I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference between
the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that
they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something *is*
enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:46:43 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because
>> it
>> stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name
>> supposed
>> to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to
>> mean in
>> the context of this discussion?
>
> "Saturday night specials": AKA: Typically low cost, low quality hand
> gun.
>
> Beyond that, you are on your own.
>
I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why you
introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the
discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> But ... do us a favor and try to keep that sharia bullshit on that side of
> the ocean!
Yeah, well it's up here in Canada and has been approved in one or more
places from what I've heard. And, I too think that it's out of place
alongside Canadian law. I don't profess to know the finer details about
Sharia law, but every time I read or hear about it, the topic seems to be
something to do with a woman getting ripped off in some way.
On Nov 28, 4:25=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped to amplify my incessant desire to throw my hands up in the
air and screaming: DOESN'T ANYBODY THINK ANYMORE???"
>
> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
> 1967.
>
Most went back home when amnesty was announced.
In the meantime, I would have fed and clothed you and given you a warm
place to sleep.
Just long enough until you had an opportunity to sort out what was
troubling you.
There *IS* a difference between a coward and a conscientious
objector.
.
.
.
I will never understand what that difference is.
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:45:26 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> Of course a person with a gun and willing to use it at the right place and
> time might have had a beneficial affect. And if hitler had been strangled at
> birth, the second world war might not have happened. That's the benefit pf
> hindsight isn't it? By your resoning, if everybody ran around with a
> sub-machine gun in their back pocket, nobody would die anywhere. Right? What
> a pile of crap. All you'd end up with is pockets of citizens warring with
> each other.
Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that? At
the same time, you have radical elements who will use guns, knives and even
airplanes to accomplish their objectives. Your point fails you on this
one.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:36:53 -0600, Swingman cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote
>
>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
>> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.
>
> Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no argument
> there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal immigrant population
> is currently armed to the teeth? Especially with the Mexican drug cartel
> increasingly more active *inside* our border.
>
> Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not going to
> consider.
Point taken, but again - it's a point about a criminal elelment - not a
point about either the right to bear arms, or law abiding citizens. That
criminal element is not going to be affected by any of Lew's proposed
legislation. In fact the only element that is going to be effected, is the
legal element.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:06:12 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
>> today -
>> they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They
>> buy them
>> on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.
>>
>> The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with
>> tactics
>> that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't
>> affected
>> by prices, inconveniences, etc.
>
> Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?
>
> As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.
>
> Lew
I'm sure he knows well that raising the price of ammo and guns does little
to impact the criminal element. It seems only you think it will. The cops
and the politicians like to push this stuff because it gets them feel good
points with the non-thinkers out there in public land who feel the just
have to see something done - anything...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:30:09 -0500, J. Clarke cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> The states that I'm aware of with full-auto bans are California,
> Connecticut, and maybe New York (I'm not clear on whether the Sullivan
> Act applies to the whole state or just NYC). However the Feds have
> outlawed sales to citizens of any made or imported after 1986, and
> between that and the transfer tax the prices have gone through the
> roof.
>
Full auto ban is a federal thing, not a state thing. I think you need to
research your data further. I'd like to offer a specific correction to
your understanding, but to be honest, I don't know it myself. The Feds
banned full auto (except for certain license holders) decades ago. Maybe
back in the 30's or so?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:13:20 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>
>> I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why
>> you
>> introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the
>> discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.
>
> An example of a market segment that would be significantly impacted by
> a large increase in ammunition costs.
>
Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns today -
they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They buy them
on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.
The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with tactics
that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't affected
by prices, inconveniences, etc.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
> to be concerned about.
You could very well be right and I hope that's so. But, consider that I live
in Canada, I've only been down to the US twice and a number of years ago at
that. All I have to go on is what I read and what I hear, much of it might
be the same as heard and read elsewhere around the world. If I'm as wary as
I am and I live in a society so closely similar to that of the US, then what
fears are surfacing (real or imagened) in other parts of the world,
especially where society is so much different?
> I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
> by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
> concealed carry permits in the US.
Yeah, those damned ornery moose carry pretty big guns. :)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> There is a whole shitload of difference between runamuk
> sports-fucks and greedy killers.
Not really since a significant portion of the mob grows as it moves and many
use the crowd simply as a means to steal.
If you suddenly came upon a swarm of people running to a hole in the wall of
a bank and scooping up handfuls of cash, would you be tempted to do the
same, even for a split second? I'm willing to admit that I'd seriously
consider it before discarding the idea.
Obviously, it's never happened to me so I can't say for sure what I'd do
under those circumstances, but I hope I'd resist the temptation.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:25:54 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavior
>makes you wonder:
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death
>
>Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
>prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the terrorists
>in India who have motives relatively more noble, by comparison, than sheer,
>unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited here.
>
>Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
>1967.
The frenzy is worldwide, so you'll see it in Canada too. Many more
deaths in car accidents near malls and heart attacks due to the
shopping craze. I avoided stores today.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> been a little while and the facts aren't available yet. It took less time
> for the media to have the complete life history of Joe the Plumber.
It might make a decent human interest story to find out in a year or so what
has happened to Joe and see how it correlates to his situation during the
election.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place
>
> Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
> requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
> only very rare circumstances.
> In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?
A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.
http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In other words, you think most people shouldn't be allowed to have them.
>
>You'd be right.
>
>> That makes you anti-gun.
>
>Maybe for your country. I'm Canadian. For our country, it's perfectly normal
>for the vast majority of Canadians never to have even held a gun before.
How sad.
>That's something you'll never be able to understand ~ just the same as I
>might never be able to completely understand the American need to be armed.
No, you probably never will.
>
>> Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them is
>> simply not plausible.
>
>Your opinion. I guess that makes you fallible just like everybody else.
>
Fallible, yes. Gullible, no.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
>> > resisting an oppressive government.
>
>> Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
>> going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
>> now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!
>
>Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago?
Incorrect. Rights are not created by government; rights are inherent. We have
them simply because we are human. Government's function is to preserve the
rights which we already have. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these
rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
> Please
>tell me how they make sense in today's society?
They make as much sense now as they ever have.
>Like or not, the government
>of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years
>ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be
>significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in
>mind.
Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.
> The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
>government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.
And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side..
Maybe, but so what?
> "average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale,
> apparently. What *is* average?
You're right about that. I don't have a very good opinion of humanity in
general. Despite thousands of years of culture and development, at the drop
of a hat, man will turn into greedy, self indulgent animals without a shred
of consideration for their fellows. *That's* what I consider average. So no,
don't expect me to support arming people based on personal choice.
"Charlie Groh" wrote:
> You're still on the arrogant side...you consider the
> "average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale,
> apparently. What *is* average?
Nah, that position is left to the TV entertainment programming
geniuses.
Newton Minnow had it right more than 40 years ago.
Lew
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:27:40 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
>> To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
>of
>> someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
>> shooting experience.
>
>Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
>you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
>cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
>having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
>There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
>concerned.
>
>Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
>of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
...the *laws* don't negate responsibility, the criminal part of our
culture does. The *laws* are fine as written, the problem is in the
enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side...you consider the
"average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale,
apparently. What *is* average?
cg
>
>One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
>anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
>case.
>
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2:27 pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
>>> To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
>> of
>>> someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
>>> shooting experience.
>> Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
>> you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
>> cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
>> having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
>> There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
>> concerned.
>>
>> Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
>> of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
>>
>> One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
>> anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
>> case.
>
> Give it up. NObody has EVER been able to make Miller see anything
> other than his own (often wrong) viewpoints. You, my friend, are
> wasting your time. I'd put him close to par with Timbo The Hot Air-
> inflatable Clown.
You honor me deeply by association with one of the few clear thinkers
in this blabfest. And its good to know that I bug you enough that
you feel the need to invent pet names of aggravation.
Game ... set ... match (as always).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Is anyone [ Y - A - W - N ] still reading this [ Y - A - W - N ]
> thread?
You're here so apparently your life is pretty boring.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:
> http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_az.htm
>
> Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
> is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.
What does that training entail? There's two types of training. I can see
basic gun training as learning how to safely handle a gun and perhaps some
target shooting so when one uses a gun, they at least have a decent chance
of hitting what they're aiming at.
Then there's the dozens of hours of situational training where one learns
how to handle dangerous situations. Learning when a situation is
threatening, how to possible avoid that threat or handle the situation with
the possibility of minimizing violence and the need to shoot someone ~
similar things like that.
Don't you think the situational training is at least if not more important
to know and learn than the basic training? The average person on the street
has very little idea of how to extricate themselves from a dangerous
situation other than shooting someone. Is it different in the US? Have you
all been exposed to so much violence that you have the instincts to know
what's best for most situations?
Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>>> There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike
>> you
>>> with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of
>> expecting
>>> other people to buy them for me.
>> What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
>> paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
>> back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
>> the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
>> Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?
>
> Yes, there is indeed a difference: you can (and from some of the comments
> you've made about your own health issues, probably *do*) receive much more
> back from that program than you put into it. I, on the other hand, get what I
> pay for, and no more -- and if what I *want* is more than I can afford, I'm
> *not* expecting my fellow citizens to pick up the tab for the difference. Is
> that so hard to comprehend?
>>> Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?
>> I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
>> average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
>> handle a firearm in the proper way.
>
> And therefore (in your opinion) shouldn't be allowed to have one.
> Thus depriving him of the means of defending himself.
>
>> Maybe it's difference for most people in
>> the US. You tell me.
>
> No, I think it's a question of philosophical differences between you and me,
> and, by extension, between typical Canadians and typical Americans (if there
> is such a thing, on either side of the border). We don't trust our government
> to do what's in our interests -- including protecting us from predators. When
> seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
>
>> Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
>> doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
>> everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?
>
> Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
> sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience with
> firearms, you'd understand that too.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled several years ago that the
average citizen DOES NOT have a Constitutional right to PERSONAL police
protection. The Police are there to protect society not the indivicual.
Dave N
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In other words, you think most people shouldn't be allowed to have them.
You'd be right.
> That makes you anti-gun.
Maybe for your country. I'm Canadian. For our country, it's perfectly normal
for the vast majority of Canadians never to have even held a gun before.
That's something you'll never be able to understand ~ just the same as I
might never be able to completely understand the American need to be armed.
> Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them
is
> simply not plausible.
Your opinion. I guess that makes you fallible just like everybody else.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened
society.
> Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...
Then it wouldn't be an enlightened society would it? :)
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
>> To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
>of
>> someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
>> shooting experience.
>
>Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
>you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
>cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
>having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
In other words, you think most people shouldn't be allowed to have them.
That makes you anti-gun.
>There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
>concerned.
Hardly.
>Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
>of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
You're clearly ignorant of our firearms laws.
>
>One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
>anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
>case.
Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them is
simply not plausible.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something
that
> was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.
Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
from others.
Comment?
> And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them
as walking around tools available to the general public.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy.
>
> You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.
Yeah, but he's Canadian. That puts him miles above someone like you.
Upscale wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's
>>> about resisting an oppressive government.
>
>> Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever,
>> it was going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had
>> degenerated to by now and clicked on the above quoted post which
>> actually made sense!
>
> Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago?
> Please tell me how they make sense in today's society?
How? In /exactly/ the same way they made sense all that long time ago.
It's not important that you do or don't understand, and may be helpful
for you to know that at this point it may be more of a cultural than
societal issue.
> Like or not, the government of today is not the same type of
> government that existed all those years ago. Oppression today, even
> if it existed to a marked degree, would be significantly different
> than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in mind.
Beware of showing the same arrogance of which you earlier accused
someone else.
Your assumption in your second sentence is false.
> The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
> government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general
> public.
I think your vision is at fault - or, at the very least, incomplete.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
> > resisting an oppressive government.
> Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
> going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
> now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!
Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago? Please
tell me how they make sense in today's society? Like or not, the government
of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years
ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be
significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in
mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
> To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
of
> someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
> shooting experience.
Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
concerned.
Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
case.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike
you
> with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of
expecting
> other people to buy them for me.
What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?
> Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people in
the US. You tell me.
Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?
You keep on and on about defending yourself. Is everybody in so much dire
peril of being attacked that they have no choice? Is that the type of
society you live in? If so, I'd be gone in a flash. You might consider it an
illusion, but I feel safe when I go out. It's just my viewpoint, but there's
a lot of nut jobs out there. If firearms were relatively easy for anybody to
get, then I'd start being more fearful than I am. Sure, I try to be fully
aware of what's going on around me when I go out, but I'm not going to treat
it as an atmosphere of fear. I don't call that living.
I trust in our police force to do their job and do it well. Yes, I know they
can't be everywhere at once, but I do feel protected for the most part. If I
didn't then I might feel as you do and want to be armed. But, I'm not at
that point yet. Maybe in the future.
I guess it all comes down to existing circumstances. Maybe if I lived in US
society and not Canadian, I'd feel more comfortable with guns being as
prolific as they are. But the fact is that I'm Canadian and I live pretty
much in the centre of Canada's largest city. Many people crowded together
where things are more likely to happen is a much greater catalyst than
someone living in the country. Having many guns around to me anyway, is like
throwing gasoline on any potential fires that might crop up.
That's it. I'm done. Have a good day.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
> sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
with
> firearms, you'd understand that too.
So now you're going to be patronizing? I've had and have considerable
experience with firearms, rifles, target rifles and hand guns. I've also
owned all three at one time or another including having a transport permit
to take the hand guns to the gun range. 22-250 target rifle, Colt 45 hand
gun, browning challenger 22 and a few other odds and ends. I have not had
nor ever desire to have a concealed carry permit, something that is
exceeding difficult to get in Canada.
Perhaps that's not sufficient for what you consider experience, but if
that's the case I pity you for thinking more experience than that is needed.
Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
anything
> about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I
don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm
willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy. He
makes the occasional trip to Toronto. Him I would agree to meet. What it if
he agrees to be arbiter?
You said this would be interesting, take it one step further. I ask you
again. What would it take to prove otherwise while maintaining a certain
level of my privacy?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Fallible, yes. Gullible, no.
Here's another name for you. You're a coward. I've given you the opportunity
to prove me a liar as you called me (would that be what you call descending
to personal insults Doug?) and I guess you're backing down on it because
you're apparently not man enough to take me up on my challenge.
You can't take the chance I was telling the truth because apparently you're
too immature to deal with the possibility of admitting you were wrong. Hey,
no surprise there at all. You need your gun to prop up what little manhood
you might have.
(If anybody finds me dead, you might consider that Doug grew some balls and
showed up at my front door).
Are we having fun yet? :)
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to
> enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance
> requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be
> confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to
> see difference.
Really? You could use the same flawed logic to not pay income tax. Everybody
who has, pays their share. Without taxes, you wouldn't have your
infrastructure or your society for that matter. All you'd have is the
complete anarchy of everybody out for themselves and none of the great
accomplishments that your country has done as a group.
The difference between you and me is that I value the importance of health
above most everything else. You value what you can get and keep, by
firepower if necessary. You value individual rights and accomplishments
while casually tossing aside the great things that can be done as a group
and a country. That makes you greedy, selfish and all consuming.
Unless you're been dealing with a serious, long term health problem for a
large portion of your life, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of
understanding. And don't for one second suggest that just because someone
close to you has experienced what I'm talking about, you understand. There
is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something
> that
>> was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.
>
> Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
> that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
> hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
> from others.
>
> Comment?
>
Not Doug, but funny thing about health insurance vs. our Bill of rights.
The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to
enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance
requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be
confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to
see difference.
>> And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
>
> In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having
> them as walking around tools available to the general public.
Yep, like keeping the peasants in line, eh? Either by the armed
government or armed criminal thugs, pretty much the same result.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:
>> http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_az.htm
>>
>> Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
>> is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.
>
> What does that training entail? There's two types of training. I can see
> basic gun training as learning how to safely handle a gun and perhaps some
> target shooting so when one uses a gun, they at least have a decent chance
> of hitting what they're aiming at.
>
> Then there's the dozens of hours of situational training where one learns
> how to handle dangerous situations. Learning when a situation is
> threatening, how to possible avoid that threat or handle the situation
> with
> the possibility of minimizing violence and the need to shoot someone ~
> similar things like that.
>
> Don't you think the situational training is at least if not more important
> to know and learn than the basic training? The average person on the
> street
> has very little idea of how to extricate themselves from a dangerous
> situation other than shooting someone. Is it different in the US? Have you
> all been exposed to so much violence that you have the instincts to know
> what's best for most situations?
>
> Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
> down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.
Is anyone [ Y - A - W - N ] still reading this [ Y - A - W - N ]
thread?
Dave in Houston
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
>> >with firearms, you'd understand that too.
>> >Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.
>
>> Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...
>
>Then you are a fool.
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims of
someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
shooting experience. To put it bluntly, I think you're lying about that.
>Let me ask you. What if I was able to prove some of it
>to your satisfaction? What would it do to this discussion?
That ought to be interesting...
>
>> So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would you
>> imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in the
>> trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?
>
>You're so gung ho about self protection. If everybody has a gun, then why
>haven't you ramped up your protection to outdo everybody else?
All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing anything
about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
>That's partly
>why I asked the question and also because it *was* a ridiculous question to
>ask. Of course, you bit on it right away.
>
So you only said that for "effect". Riiiiiiiiight.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:56:28 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Groh" wrote:
>
>> ...need a little more here...is not my perception reality?
>
>Not really.
>
>... I would counter with the thought that it's not "reality" to try
>to
>> compare experience...
>
>Experience, other than as a point of reference, has nothing to do with
>it.
>
>> ...just got through dealing with 300 others of my age group trying
>> to
>> relive a very physical and wonderful part of our lives...believe me
>> when I say I know of what you speak...
>
>Which should prove the point you have lost a couple of steps over the
>years.
>
>>...true, but I stay strong (carpenter by trade and still do things
>> that require strength) and agile...last marathon was 2 years ago and
>> still under 5 hours (actually under 4, but I missed a turn! LOL)...
>
>Congratulations, but strength is not the issue, it is reaction time.
>
>> I don't think I would be lucky, my friend...I think I would be
>> prepared. That said, I'm not out looking for confrontation, but if
>> it
>> comes to my doorstep it'd better be ready to learn how to fly... the
>> hard way.
>
>What makes you think you would recognize a problem before it was too
>late?
>
>Chances are it won't be a direct assault.
>
>Look at the poor 75 year old woman in Orange County this week.
>
>Tied up in the trunk of her car for 2 days.
>
>Strictly a sneak attack.
>
>> Attitude has a lot to do with self-preservation, would you agree to
>> that?
>
>Attitude is 90% of most endeavors.
>
>> ...time is what you make of it, neh?
>
>Absolutely.
>
>Lew
...done with the tit-for-tat, Lew. You have your POV and I have mine
and that's the beauty of it all. I'm comfortable where I'm at, sounds
like you are too...
cg
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
>anything
>> about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
>
>I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
>apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
>thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I
>don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm
>willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy.
You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
> average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
> to
> handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
> in
> the US. You tell me.
Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
> Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
> doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
> everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?
Why, indeed. The 2nd amendment is decidedly not about home defense or
sporting arms. To blame you personally would be misguided and useless. It's
enough to note that your fearful bleating is of the same note and tenor that
led to the restrictions and bans we have today. So, let me ask you. Why
should a government fear their citizens keeping weapons that would be
effective against main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers?
> You keep on and on about defending yourself. Is everybody in so much dire
Nope. And it also is not about the quality of beef at the supermarket.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <JF1%[email protected]>, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
>>> average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
>>> to
>>> handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
>>> in
>>> the US. You tell me.
>> Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
>
> Where??
>
> Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
> permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
> investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.
>
> Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
> on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
> is.
Missouri has a concealed carry law that requires both class room
training and range skills testing. Costs about US$120.
In article <JF1%[email protected]>, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
>> average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
>> to
>> handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
>> in
>> the US. You tell me.
>
>Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
Where??
Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.
Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
is.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <JF1%[email protected]>, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
>>> average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
>>> to
>>> handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
>>> in
>>> the US. You tell me.
>> Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
>
> Where??
>
> Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. <snipped>
Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
>> sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
>with
>> firearms, you'd understand that too.
>
>So now you're going to be patronizing? I've had and have considerable
>experience with firearms, rifles, target rifles and hand guns. I've also
>owned all three at one time or another including having a transport permit
>to take the hand guns to the gun range. 22-250 target rifle, Colt 45 hand
>gun, browning challenger 22 and a few other odds and ends.
Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...
>I have not had
>nor ever desire to have a concealed carry permit, something that is
>exceeding difficult to get in Canada.
*Those* claims, on the other hand, I believe without reservation.
>
>Perhaps that's not sufficient for what you consider experience, but if
>that's the case I pity you for thinking more experience than that is needed.
>Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.
So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would you
imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in the
trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:52:48 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Groh" wrote:
>
>> OK...I have 6 decades down and hopefully a couple or three to
>> go...grew up in wonderful Orange County, CA...Dismaland, you know,
>> the
>> Tragic Kingdom. Pretty idyllic growing up...not so now, but
>> livable,
>> yanno?
>
>These days, you would be lucky to have access to the shooting range on
>Katella ave.
...nope, walk right in, brother...
>
><snip>
> >.... I
>> mentioned earlier, yup.) and didn't own a handgun until 3 years
>> ago...'cause it helps me feel like I can protect myself and my
>> property.
>
>Ah yes, the clash between perception and reality.
...need a little more here...is not my perception reality? I know we
have different takes and all...
>
>Since I have a few years on you, BTDT (keep the T-Shirt), I'll offer
>the following:
...I would counter with the thought that it's not "reality" to try to
compare experience...
>
>The brain still thinks you are an 18 year old stud.
>
>Totally invincible.
>
>OTOH, the body tells a different story.
...just got through dealing with 300 others of my age group trying to
relive a very physical and wonderful part of our lives...believe me
when I say I know of what you speak...
>
>The reflexes are not totally shot, but you have lost a couple of
>steps.
...true, but I stay strong (carpenter by trade and still do things
that require strength) and agile...last marathon was 2 years ago and
still under 5 hours (actually under 4, but I missed a turn! LOL)...
>
>Faced with a confrontational situation with some dumb 20 year old
>hoodlum, you would be lucky if he didn't take your pea shooter away
>from you and put it where the moon doesn't shine before you knew what
>happened.
I don't think I would be lucky, my friend...I think I would be
prepared. That said, I'm not out looking for confrontation, but if it
comes to my doorstep it'd better be ready to learn how to fly... the
hard way.
Attitude has a lot to do with self-preservation, would you agree to
that?
>
>Father time is not kind.
...time is what you make of it, neh?
cg
>
>As my mother often said, "...time brings changes we must learn to
>accept."
>
>Lew
>
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:52:26 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> are those exceptions who "go postal and all," but I submit to you the
>> unrealized/underreported statistics of "protection" or "deterence" by
>> far outweigh those anomolies.
>
>Ok, then I have no choice except to acquiesce to your opinion/experience.
>And, I'll admit that even though I like to think I'm cognizant of what's
>going on through my friends and connections, I could well be truly unaware
>of what's really happening. You just can't ever know for sure can you?
>
>> produce missunderstandings for those reading a thread for the first
>> time...not to mention those who've written those (may be) relevant (to
>> them) words. Dig? You're a smart fellow...
>
>Yup, that's one of the serious downfalls of this means of communication.
>Talking in text will never approach all the inflections and idiosyncrasies
>we experience when talking to someone in person.
>
>Pax
...heh, OK then. Take your last sentence, though...it sounds like
you're responding/commenting (agreeing?) to what I've written about
usenet protocol, and our faulty system of communication here, yet you
truncate my words? Hopefully it's an old dog/new trick thing!
I have respect for your opinion...after all, different circumstances
produce different people.
cg (and pax to you, too)
"Charlie Groh" wrote:
> ...need a little more here...is not my perception reality?
Not really.
... I would counter with the thought that it's not "reality" to try
to
> compare experience...
Experience, other than as a point of reference, has nothing to do with
it.
> ...just got through dealing with 300 others of my age group trying
> to
> relive a very physical and wonderful part of our lives...believe me
> when I say I know of what you speak...
Which should prove the point you have lost a couple of steps over the
years.
>...true, but I stay strong (carpenter by trade and still do things
> that require strength) and agile...last marathon was 2 years ago and
> still under 5 hours (actually under 4, but I missed a turn! LOL)...
Congratulations, but strength is not the issue, it is reaction time.
> I don't think I would be lucky, my friend...I think I would be
> prepared. That said, I'm not out looking for confrontation, but if
> it
> comes to my doorstep it'd better be ready to learn how to fly... the
> hard way.
What makes you think you would recognize a problem before it was too
late?
Chances are it won't be a direct assault.
Look at the poor 75 year old woman in Orange County this week.
Tied up in the trunk of her car for 2 days.
Strictly a sneak attack.
> Attitude has a lot to do with self-preservation, would you agree to
> that?
Attitude is 90% of most endeavors.
> ...time is what you make of it, neh?
Absolutely.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.
Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an
> oppressive
> government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.
I have to say, that is entirely the point. Kudos. Except that I stand on the
other side of the same line. To put it in very few words, it's the will to
resist that's a problem, not the popguns and peashooters that they allow us.
It isn't the firearms lending a prop for a "delusion of confidence". It's
the mindset of resisting wrong doing, violently if need be, that causes one
to seek out and acquire the tools to do so. Much as one acquires a saw to
cut wood, the perceived need precedes the purchase, not the other way
around. (If it matters to you, I own more handsaws than I do firearms.)
What's the opposite? What is so wrong with cowering behind your mattress and
dialing 911 when things go bump in the middle of the night? Briefly, by
abdicating responsibility for your physical safety and the sanctity of your
home, you had already bought in on the big lie, a "delusion of confidence",
of a benevolent and effective goverment. I don't share your delusion. And
while this simple difference in opinion shouldn't divide us, your vocal
opposition to my way of living does. I have never once tried to deprive you
of your right to think as you do. Why should you feel so free to do so to
me? (That's a rhetorical question. I already know why, but I wonder if you
do.)
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike
>you
>> with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of
>expecting
>> other people to buy them for me.
>
>What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
>paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
>back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
>the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
>Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?
Yes, there is indeed a difference: you can (and from some of the comments
you've made about your own health issues, probably *do*) receive much more
back from that program than you put into it. I, on the other hand, get what I
pay for, and no more -- and if what I *want* is more than I can afford, I'm
*not* expecting my fellow citizens to pick up the tab for the difference. Is
that so hard to comprehend?
>
>> Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?
>
>I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
>average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
>handle a firearm in the proper way.
And therefore (in your opinion) shouldn't be allowed to have one.
Thus depriving him of the means of defending himself.
>Maybe it's difference for most people in
>the US. You tell me.
No, I think it's a question of philosophical differences between you and me,
and, by extension, between typical Canadians and typical Americans (if there
is such a thing, on either side of the border). We don't trust our government
to do what's in our interests -- including protecting us from predators. When
seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
>Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
>doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
>everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?
Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience with
firearms, you'd understand that too.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:56:03 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side..
>> >
>> >Maybe, but so what?
>>
>> ...so it colors whatever you say with bias. I figured loooong ago
>
>Then you could say that about everybody. Anybody with a personality has
>their own sense of self-worth which they project to others and could be
>considered arrogance.
>
>> plenty of *bad* folks out there relish the though of an unarmed and
>> vulnerable *you!* And, no, they might not be as smart as you, either.
>
>I don't know how old you are Charlie, but maybe you can relate. I'm 54. When
>I went to school, just like any other school of any time and place, there
>were bullies, people to be afraid of. You dealt with that as you were able.
>But, nowhere in my experience in all the schools I attended were there
>students that felt the need to be armed. I'm talking about knives. These
>days, kids are carrying knives (and sometimes guns) into school, when they
>go shopping, wherever. ~ All with the thought that they need to be armed for
>protection. Guns are a simple extension of that thinking. Going about your
>life day to day while living in an atmosphere of fear is a terrible way to
>live.
OK...I have 6 decades down and hopefully a couple or three to
go...grew up in wonderful Orange County, CA...Dismaland, you know, the
Tragic Kingdom. Pretty idyllic growing up...not so now, but livable,
yanno? I do my craft, do alot of photography, teach high schoolers
how to march (marching band) and on the side contract for a living.
Got a little education...went to war in lovely SE Asia and got to fly
helo-co-peters (shot more rounds in a minute than most people would
shoot in a lifetime...this is also where I had that epiphany I
mentioned earlier, yup.) and didn't own a handgun until 3 years
ago...'cause it helps me feel like I can protect myself and my
property.
>
>Thinking smart and being careful is advisable anywhere. The need to carry
>armament tells me there's something intrinsically wrong with society. That's
>how I feel. Obviously, many disagree with me. It's their right to think that
>way, but for Christ's sake, give me the same right.
There *is* something wrong with society, man, and *my* opinion is that
whatever it is, it ain't gonna run me down. There are a LOT of folks
like me, by FAR the huge majority who will never have to pull a
trigger at anything other than a man target or a tin can. Sure there
are those exceptions who "go postal and all," but I submit to you the
unrealized/underreported statistics of "protection" or "deterence" by
far outweigh those anomolies.
cg
BTW...you have points, surely...however,it's a grave usenet protocol
error to snip-out pieces of preceding posts (it's OK if so noted by
<snip> even though frowned upon). That practice could and does
produce missunderstandings for those reading a thread for the first
time...not to mention those who've written those (may be) relevant (to
them) words. Dig? You're a smart fellow...
>
"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> are those exceptions who "go postal and all," but I submit to you the
> unrealized/underreported statistics of "protection" or "deterence" by
> far outweigh those anomolies.
Ok, then I have no choice except to acquiesce to your opinion/experience.
And, I'll admit that even though I like to think I'm cognizant of what's
going on through my friends and connections, I could well be truly unaware
of what's really happening. You just can't ever know for sure can you?
> produce missunderstandings for those reading a thread for the first
> time...not to mention those who've written those (may be) relevant (to
> them) words. Dig? You're a smart fellow...
Yup, that's one of the serious downfalls of this means of communication.
Talking in text will never approach all the inflections and idiosyncrasies
we experience when talking to someone in person.
Pax
"Charlie Groh" wrote:
> OK...I have 6 decades down and hopefully a couple or three to
> go...grew up in wonderful Orange County, CA...Dismaland, you know,
> the
> Tragic Kingdom. Pretty idyllic growing up...not so now, but
> livable,
> yanno?
These days, you would be lucky to have access to the shooting range on
Katella ave.
<snip>
>.... I
> mentioned earlier, yup.) and didn't own a handgun until 3 years
> ago...'cause it helps me feel like I can protect myself and my
> property.
Ah yes, the clash between perception and reality.
Since I have a few years on you, BTDT (keep the T-Shirt), I'll offer
the following:
The brain still thinks you are an 18 year old stud.
Totally invincible.
OTOH, the body tells a different story.
The reflexes are not totally shot, but you have lost a couple of
steps.
Faced with a confrontational situation with some dumb 20 year old
hoodlum, you would be lucky if he didn't take your pea shooter away
from you and put it where the moon doesn't shine before you knew what
happened.
Father time is not kind.
As my mother often said, "...time brings changes we must learn to
accept."
Lew
In article <IBX%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
> >anything
> >> about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
> >
> >I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
> >apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
> >thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I
> >don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm
> >willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy.
>
> You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.
Uh-oh. That'd be libel.
Expect some paperwork on that soon. You're about to find out how well
connected I am south of the border.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 2:27 pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
> >>> To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
> >> of
> >>> someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
> >>> shooting experience.
> >> Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
> >> you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly
> >> the
> >> cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
> >> having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
> >> There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
> >> concerned.
> >>
> >> Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant
> >> sense
> >> of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
> >>
> >> One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
> >> anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
> >> case.
> >
> > Give it up. NObody has EVER been able to make Miller see anything
> > other than his own (often wrong) viewpoints. You, my friend, are
> > wasting your time. I'd put him close to par with Timbo The Hot Air-
> > inflatable Clown.
>
> You honor me deeply by association with one of the few clear thinkers
> in this blabfest. And its good to know that I bug you enough that
> you feel the need to invent pet names of aggravation.
> Game ... set ... match (as always).
Dream on, Fuckface. It is YOU who is infatuated with ME. Now go play
with somebody else. I have very little time for you.
On Dec 10, 2:27=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
> > To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the clai=
ms
> of
> > someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensiv=
e
> > shooting experience.
>
> Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion tha=
t
> you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly t=
he
> cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
> having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
> There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant se=
nse
> of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
>
> One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
> anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
> case.
Give it up. NObody has EVER been able to make Miller see anything
other than his own (often wrong) viewpoints. You, my friend, are
wasting your time. I'd put him close to par with Timbo The Hot Air-
inflatable Clown.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
> >with firearms, you'd understand that too.
> >Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.
> Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...
Then you are a fool. Let me ask you. What if I was able to prove some of it
to your satisfaction? What would it do to this discussion?
> So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would
you
> imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in
the
> trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?
You're so gung ho about self protection. If everybody has a gun, then why
haven't you ramped up your protection to outdo everybody else? That's partly
why I asked the question and also because it *was* a ridiculous question to
ask. Of course, you bit on it right away.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.
>
> There you go again, unable to debate *anything* without descending to
personal
> insults directed at your opponent.
>
> Grow up.
Well then, I'll call you another name. You're a hypocrite. Truly, your
presumed arrogance is overwhelming. You feel free to throw an insult in
Robatoy's direction but immediately jump on me for doing the same to you.
You're living in an immature child's fantasy world where you feel free to do
as you please but cry like a baby when someone does it to you.
Grow up? Try looking in the mirror for once in your life, you little baby.
Charlie Groh wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:32:31 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>>> People still
>>>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next
>>>>>> problem -- now
>>>>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and
>>>>>> banning knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm>
>>>>>> [You just can't make this stuff up].
>>>>>
>>>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required
>>>>> to
>>>>> be worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>>>>
>>>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have
>>>> one
>>>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want
>>>> boxing
>>>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>>>
>>> Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding
>>> fathers saw as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw
>>> it a little differently than you:
>>>
>>> http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
>>
>> OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up
>> arms.
>> Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the
>> post revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing
>> up.
>
> ...so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if
> they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14
> back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times
> have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence
> haven't...yet.
In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just
participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a
result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its
accomplishment.
And before you say something stupid about tanks, consider that the
crews have to get out of them sometime and the crews have families and
both the crews and their families live in the same country in which
the insurrection is taking place.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <JF1%[email protected]>, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
>>> average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
>>> to
>>> handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
>>> in
>>> the US. You tell me.
>> Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
>
> Where??
>
> Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
> permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
> investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.
>
> Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
> on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
> is.
Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_az.htm
Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something
>that
>> was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.
>
>Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
>that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
>hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
>from others.
>
>Comment?
There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike you
with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of expecting
other people to buy them for me.
>
>> And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
>
>In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them
>as walking around tools available to the general public.
Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?
"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side..
> >
> >Maybe, but so what?
>
> ...so it colors whatever you say with bias. I figured loooong ago
Then you could say that about everybody. Anybody with a personality has
their own sense of self-worth which they project to others and could be
considered arrogance.
> plenty of *bad* folks out there relish the though of an unarmed and
> vulnerable *you!* And, no, they might not be as smart as you, either.
I don't know how old you are Charlie, but maybe you can relate. I'm 54. When
I went to school, just like any other school of any time and place, there
were bullies, people to be afraid of. You dealt with that as you were able.
But, nowhere in my experience in all the schools I attended were there
students that felt the need to be armed. I'm talking about knives. These
days, kids are carrying knives (and sometimes guns) into school, when they
go shopping, wherever. ~ All with the thought that they need to be armed for
protection. Guns are a simple extension of that thinking. Going about your
life day to day while living in an atmosphere of fear is a terrible way to
live.
Thinking smart and being careful is advisable anywhere. The need to carry
armament tells me there's something intrinsically wrong with society. That's
how I feel. Obviously, many disagree with me. It's their right to think that
way, but for Christ's sake, give me the same right.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:04:50 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Groh" wrote:
>
>> You're still on the arrogant side...you consider the
>> "average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale,
>> apparently. What *is* average?
>
>Nah, that position is left to the TV entertainment programming
>geniuses.
>
>Newton Minnow had it right more than 40 years ago.
>
>Lew
...and Marshal McLuhan: "The Medium is the Message"...but it's not
some grand cabal, doncha know. ( Interestingly, given the "sides
taken" in this thread, McLuhan is/was Canadian...).
>
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:45 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side..
>
>Maybe, but so what?
...so it colors whatever you say with bias. I figured loooong ago
that there were a helluva lotta really smart people on this planet of
ours...what produced that epiphany isn't germane here, the fact that I
*got* that concept most assuredly is.
>
>> "average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale,
>> apparently. What *is* average?
>
>You're right about that. I don't have a very good opinion of humanity in
>general. Despite thousands of years of culture and development, at the drop
>of a hat, man will turn into greedy, self indulgent animals without a shred
>of consideration for their fellows. *That's* what I consider average. So no,
>don't expect me to support arming people based on personal choice.
...but that isn't the point. The point is *defense* against those who
have an illegal means of arming themselves against *you* and *I*...and
it doesn't really matter where on this continent, eh?! (...couldn't
resist, LOL). Whatever you think of your fellow man, rest assured
plenty of *bad* folks out there relish the though of an unarmed and
vulnerable *you!* And, no, they might not be as smart as you, either.
cg
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy.
>>
>> You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.
>
>Yeah, but he's Canadian. That puts him miles above someone like you.
>
There you go again, unable to debate *anything* without descending to personal
insults directed at your opponent.
Grow up.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing
> anything
>> about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
>
> I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly
> apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for
> thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if
> I
> don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line.
> I'm
> willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy. He
> makes the occasional trip to Toronto. Him I would agree to meet. What it
> if
> he agrees to be arbiter?
>
> You said this would be interesting, take it one step further. I ask you
> again. What would it take to prove otherwise while maintaining a certain
> level of my privacy?
Speaking only for myself, and presuming others might feel the same, it isn't
worth even the crust on my one day old PBJ sandwich. It might be worth
something to you, however, as your earlier "ramp up" escalation comment
makes you look churlish, foolish, and ill informed.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:22:42 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
> resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just
> participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a
> result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its
> accomplishment.
Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!
What are the odds? :-)
On Dec 9, 9:56=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> > You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
> > belong to them.
> > Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
> > as artificial as this ...
>
> I'm buying you a history book with large print and small words.
Now, now, Timbo,,, no need for insults. I guess Clarke's bait /was/
too shiny to resist, eh?
>
> I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
> truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...
>
Ah yess. the Zionist party line. Boy, did you ever buy into that,
hook, line and sinker.
It was supposed to be God's decision when the Jews were allowed back
into their land, NOT the Bauer's.
But this topic cannot be discussed intelligently, regardless of your
eloquence, when your head is THAT far up your ass.
And the way you talk about muslims, makes you a bigot.
No more from me on this one, Timbo.
r
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
> truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...
In a firearm troll thread? ;) Fer sure not at all required, but always
welcome for the difficulty points.
On Dec 9, 6:48=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Groh wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:27:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Markem wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not
> >>>> so
> >>>> much any more. =A0I think it would good to have a mandatory
> >>>> marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. =A0But it would
> >>>> never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
> >>>> wingnuts would make if you tried.
>
> >>> Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
> >>> students to graduate.
>
> >>> Now where will this end up
>
> >> I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military
> >> training
> >> for everybody. =A0Not service--there's additional training if they
> >> actually get called up--but training as part of the normal
> >> education.
> >> Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
> >> paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a
> >> plan.
>
> > ...don't the Swiss have something similar? =A0No question, though,
> > they
> > take their weapons home; for the duration. =A0We don't hear much about
> > the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
> > and required...interesting juxtaposition...
>
> And in Israel people regularly get shot up, blown up, and otherwise
> killed, but not by people who are legally armed and despite the best
> efforts of the Israeli government the people they don't want to be
> armed seem to be getting all the weapons they want.
>
You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
belong to them.
Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
as artificial as this ...
On Dec 9, 11:55=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Till the next time you feel the need to purge yourself of
> an anti-Semitic swipe. =A0Why not go whole hog and take
> a whack at the Amer-Indians that cohabit your nation,
> or the blacks, or the brown people or the Asians. =A0You
> may as well get it all off your chest. =A0It will feel good
> to take off the hood and just be what you are without
> restraint ...
>
Just when I thought you couldn't get any lower...
Charlie Groh wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:27:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not
>>>> so
>>>> much any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory
>>>> marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. But it would
>>>> never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
>>>> wingnuts would make if you tried.
>>>
>>> Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
>>> students to graduate.
>>>
>>> Now where will this end up
>>
>> I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military
>> training
>> for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
>> actually get called up--but training as part of the normal
>> education.
>> Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
>> paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a
>> plan.
>
> ...don't the Swiss have something similar? No question, though,
> they
> take their weapons home; for the duration. We don't hear much about
> the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
> and required...interesting juxtaposition...
And in Israel people regularly get shot up, blown up, and otherwise
killed, but not by people who are legally armed and despite the best
efforts of the Israeli government the people they don't want to be
armed seem to be getting all the weapons they want.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
>>> belong to them.
>>> Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
>>> as artificial as this ...
>> I'm buying you a history book with large print and small words.
>
> Now, now, Timbo,,, no need for insults. I guess Clarke's bait /was/
> too shiny to resist, eh?
>> I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
>> truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...
>>
> Ah yess. the Zionist party line. Boy, did you ever buy into that,
> hook, line and sinker.
Absolutely not. There are any number of thing wherein I disagree
with Israel's actions. But to blame them for the current mess is
absurd. They aren't remotely the bad guys in the region.
>
> It was supposed to be God's decision when the Jews were allowed back
> into their land, NOT the Bauer's.
> But this topic cannot be discussed intelligently, regardless of your
> eloquence, when your head is THAT far up your ass.
Your anti-Semitism is well noted here and thus your unwillingness
to respond to factual discourse not surprising.
>
> And the way you talk about muslims, makes you a bigot.
>
I have no particular problem with Muslims (it *is* capitalized)
as a group. I merely cited *facts* about the Muslims of that
region, none of which makes me remotely a bigot:
1) They are disproportionately violent in that region compared
to the other inhabitants - to the tune of 30x. This
makes them "scumbags" for failing to honestly attempt
to make peace - something Israel has done repeatedly.
2) The Muslims of the region *are* tribal. That's why there's
so much internecine violence. It seems that Sunnis and Shias
would much rather kill each other than even Jews or Christian
"infidels".
3) They have no GDP of any significance outside of oil and the
bulk of the actual labor is performed by foreigners.
Which of these facts do you find indicative of bigotry?
I assure you that none was intended. I was primarily
focused on flattening your vicious (and often demonstrated)
hatred of ... you know ... <whispering in Robotoy's tone
of voice and terminology> "the money lenders".
> No more from me on this one, Timbo.
>
Till the next time you feel the need to purge yourself of
an anti-Semitic swipe. Why not go whole hog and take
a whack at the Amer-Indians that cohabit your nation,
or the blacks, or the brown people or the Asians. You
may as well get it all off your chest. It will feel good
to take off the hood and just be what you are without
restraint ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:27:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Markem wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so
>>> much any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory
>>> marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. But it would
>>> never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
>>> wingnuts would make if you tried.
>>
>> Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
>> students to graduate.
>>
>> Now where will this end up
>
>I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military training
>for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
>actually get called up--but training as part of the normal education.
>Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
>paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a plan.
...don't the Swiss have something similar? No question, though, they
take their weapons home; for the duration. We don't hear much about
the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
and required...interesting juxtaposition...
cg
>--
Robatoy wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't
> belong to them.
> Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks
> as artificial as this ...
>
I'm buying you a history book with large print and small words. The
above is a vast trivialization of the issue. Here's a clue: The land
they occupy was mostly given them by the UN in 1948. The rest of it
they took while being *attacked*. They have since offered to return it
(Camp David Accords, for example) in exchange for a durable peace,
only to have it rebuffed by the Islamic tribal scumbags who need an
enemy or they'd turn on each other in a heartbeat.
Here's a bit more reality for you:
Israel's neighbors have about 500x the land, but say that it is
Israel's job to make room for the "Palestinians" - a people without a
distinct racial identity that are, in fact, mostly Hashemites - the
folks living in modern *Jordan*, not historic Israel. They want a
nation that is *22 miles wide* to solve a problem that they, the oil
rich multi-billionaires with huge amounts of land, refuse to address.
When the Jews were given the land in 1948, it was almost entirely
undeveloped and ran at a very low level agrarian subsistence. Today it
has modern technology, highways, schools, water, and flushing toilets.
Suddenly the "Palestinians" claim it is theirs. Moreover, the Jews
manufacture goods, export and import things, and generally run a
more-or-less modern economy. Their hundreds of millions of neighbors
on the Arab peninsula sit around doing nothing, while foreigners drill
and process their oil reserves. If you take petrodollars out of the
equation over there, the entire Arab peninsula outside of Israel has a
total GDP less than Denmark's - a very small nation by comparsion.
Prior to 1948, when the word "Palestinian" appeared on a birth
certificate or password, as often as not, it referred to a Jew born in
that region.
There are some 350-400 million Arabs & other Muslims living in the
region with less than 10 million Jews. But the Jews are the ones cited
as being a problem all the time by folks like you.
In the time since the modern state of Israel was formed, something
like 100,000 people have died in Israeli-Muslim conflict - that's
soldiers AND civilians on all sides. In that same period of time, over
3 *million* Muslims have butchered *each other*, yet somehow it ends
up being Israel's fault. The truth is that if they shut down the
Jewish state tomorrow, not much would change - it might possibly even
get worse - because the primary source of the violence is the tribal
Islamists that infest that part of the world.
I'm not Jewish, nor particularly defending Israel here, but I think the
truth ought to have some small currency in this discussion ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:32:31 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>> People still
>>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem --
>>>>> now
>>>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
>>>>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
>>>>> make this stuff up].
>>>>
>>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
>>>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>>>
>>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
>>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
>>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>>
>> Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
>> as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
>> differently than you:
>>
>> http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
>
>OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms.
>Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
>revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.
...so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if
they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14
back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times
have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence
haven't...yet.
cg
>
>You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at
>http://www.lizmichael.com/biograph.htm. Interesting stuff.
>
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
On Dec 8, 9:25=A0pm, Markem <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
> >any more. =A0I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
> >gun safety class in high school. =A0But it would never happen; imagine t=
he
> >noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.
>
> Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
> students to graduate.
>
I'm all for that! Wimmin too! And upon completion, allow them to take
their weapon of choice home.
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The gang bangers will still shoot each other but at least they will know
> that you don't hold the gun sideways and they will be able to miss the
> innocent bystanders.
Depends on who he's shooting at. If he's shooting at you, then by all means,
let him hold the gun sideways. And when he's shot by someone else, at least
he can say he was being fashionable when he was shot down.
Markem wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
>> any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
>> gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
>> noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.
>
> Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
> students to graduate.
>
> Now where will this end up
>
> ::stir::
>
> Mark
I recommend a mandatory fire arms training course. Mandatory completion
and minimum target score to graduate.
The gang bangers will still shoot each other but at least they will know
that you don't hold the gun sideways and they will be able to miss the
innocent bystanders.
Dave
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:42:53 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> >There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened
>society.
>
>> Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...
>
>Then it wouldn't be an enlightened society would it? :)
After reading you for awhile, I think you have good
intentions/reasoning at heart...what we have are two similar cultures
with a couple of *major* differences, and I'll leave that right there.
However, your statement above smacks of arrogance...don't be offended,
I think we all are that way in one situation or another...but that
mindset is what is taking both cultures over piecemeal: basically one
aspect of society, usually the one in control, telling the other
what's good for him...because, of course, we (the minority) don't know
what's good for *us*; we don't think very well and need to be led by
the enlightened.
cg
Markem wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so
>> much any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory
>> marksmanship and gun safety class in high school. But it would
>> never happen; imagine the noise the politically correct left
>> wingnuts would make if you tried.
>
> Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
> students to graduate.
>
> Now where will this end up
I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military training
for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
actually get called up--but training as part of the normal education.
Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a plan.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:40:22 -0700, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
>any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
>gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
>noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.
Could require a military boot camp semester for all high school
students to graduate.
Now where will this end up
::stir::
Mark
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
> down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.
Think of it as meaningful in the same sense that driver education is
meaningful in relation to a drivers license. It amounts to squat. Forget I
mentioned it. I agree with that entirely.
OTOH, the parallels are appropriate at many levels. Suppose I didn't like
automobiles. Mortality and morbidity rates are on my side. Explain to me
your need to own an operate private transportation.
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EaO%k.6509
>> To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims
> of
>> someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive
>> shooting experience.
>
> Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that
> you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the
> cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody
> having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit.
> There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm
> concerned.
Another manifestation of the "I Know What's Good For Everybody Else"
syndrome. "Everybody" cannot get a gun in the US, nor can "Everyone"
carry - concealed or otherwise. But it's convenient to prop up these
ideological strawmen in the face of contrary facts - stunning coming
from someone who does not "cheat {or] lie". But, as always, you
and yours love your self anointed role as Saviors Of Mankind and
*you* of course should get to decide just who fits into what
category. It's precisely because of the liberty robbers with
that attitude that the US Framers made personal gun ownership
an explicitly protected right.
>
> Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense
> of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
The latter statement is absurd on its face and can only be uttered by
someone with a complete lack of (or completely sophomoric) understanding
of US laws, how power is divided between states and the Fed government,
and just what firearms laws are in place in the US. To legally purchase
a firearm in the US, you are under Federal, State, and sometimes local
government scrutiny. Ditto purchasing ammo. If and when you discharge
the weapon - whether in a range or at an intruder - you are once again
under the supervision, and potentially the lockup of the state and local
authorities respectively. Lethal force is legal in the US in only the
narrowest of circumstances - defense of life and/or property, and even
these vary considerably by State.
Then again, crimes tend to be committed by ... criminals ... for whom
no amount of law makes much difference.
>
> One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
> anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
> case.
>
>
You support theft - we established that long ago in your vigorous
defense of taking from some citizens and giving to others. This
is a kind of cheating.
I can't speak to the lying issue - you seem truthful enough, however
utterly wrong you are on most issues.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Doug Miller wrote:
<SNIP>
>> One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting
>> anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this
>> case.
>
> Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them is
> simply not plausible.
Not necessarily. Almost without exception, lefty ideologues think they
are above the huddled masses (the rest of us) and feel no particular
compunction in granting themselves permission to do and own things
they feel others should be forbidden from doing/having. It is entirely
possible our dear Upscale wants for himself that which he wishes to
deny others. The examples of such behaviors on the left are numerous
(and nauseating). Among them, we find Our Savior Of The Earth, Al
Gore, flying around in private jets. Our Savior Of The Downtrodden,
Michael Moore, living the life of a wealthy millionaire. And, of
course, Our Savior Of Everything, Comrade St. Obama, denying the
average citizen (or trying to) the same protections afforded by
firearms that he personally possesses (and we all pay for). They're
not really liars - they're arrogant hypocrites...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Nov 30, 6:14=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Upscale" wrote
>
> > important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
> > population and society have changed significantly.
>
> But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
> human nature has not changed one iota. =A0:)
>
Absolutely right.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10
> other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?
Happens in gang fights all the time. One person pulls out a gun and then so
do all the others. But then, they're gangs and that's not what you're
referring to.
However, if you and a dozen friends were all armed and your best friend
pulled out a gun to defend himself, there's a excellent chance you would
too. If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip by,
wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too? If your first
inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun
in the first place? Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're
prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're
prepared to take different steps.
"Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the
>>> world, guns
>>> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain
>>> that?
>>
>> What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain,
>> Australia,
>> Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just
>> because the US
>> has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically
>> include the
>> rest of the civilized countries around the world.
>>
>> Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe"
>> theory eh?
>>
>>
>
> Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!
>
> You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom
> door.
>
> Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
> whispers.
> At least two people have broken into your house and are moving
> your way.
> With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick
> up your shotgun.
> You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and
> open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
>
> One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
> brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The
> blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams
> while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
> As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in
> trouble.
>
> In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few
> That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make
> them useless. Yours was never registered.
> Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
> They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of
> a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to
> worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to
> manslaughter.
>
> "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
>
> "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
> "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
>
> The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local
> newspaper.
>
> Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two
> men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and
> relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep
> down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims"
> have been arrested numerous times.
>
> But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't
> Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career
> criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on,
> the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the
> international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
>
> Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll
> probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been
> burglarized several times in the past and that you've been
> critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending
> the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that
> you would be prepared next time.
>
> The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in
> wait for the burglars.
>
> A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been
> reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you
> take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works
> against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean,
> vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of
> all charges.
>
> The judge sentences you to life in prison.
>
> This case really happened.
>
> On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England,
> killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
> convicted and is now serving a life term.
<snip>
Perhaps not .....
It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that
he served two thirds of a five year term before being released on
July 28th 2003.
Han wrote:
> jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote in news:z-
> [email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
>>> cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
>>> greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!
>>>
>> Ummmm... They don't call us old FARTS for no reason.
>> j4
>>
> I don't think you can win a farting contest with a pig or a cow. If you
> could, I wouldn't know what to call you <grin>.
Instead of j4 it might be C4. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>
> You people in Canada can do as you please -- gun control has
> really worked
> out well for Britain and also Australia where violent crime is up
> now that
> the criminals know the people are unable to defend themselves.
>
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
"Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect"
"In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per
100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate."
On Nov 28, 2:25=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavior
> makes you wonder:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death
>
> Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
> prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the terrori=
sts
> in India who have motives relatively more noble, by comparison, than shee=
r,
> unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited here.
>
> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
> 1967.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Of course it's worth saving, but I think it'll take a major "paradigm
shift" (sorry) regarding economic growth, personal values and birth
control. Not bloody likely, eh? The love of money, and that amazing
effect that our gonads (and religion) can impose, are some of the
culprits. One of the worst things: fear of other cultures' mixing, or
just their proximity, in our societies! Tom
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10
> > other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?
>
> ...<snip> If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip
by,
> wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too?
Not if you wish to survive the situation.
>If your first
> inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun
> in the first place?
Deeply flawed premise... Pulling out one's weapon is the second thing to do.
Ducking behind cover is first. If possible, running a VERY short distance
to cover is a good way to get to that cover. Running far is a good way to
get shot in the back by a bad guy or a cop.
> Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're
> prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're
> prepared to take different steps.
Poppycock.
Prepared or not, if you are not armed, your choices are more limited. Duck,
hide, evade, and sneak are the ONLY options left. For people who are not
young, agile, or otherwise similar to soldier material, running to evade is
not a viable option.
Whether armed or not, the first defense is to avoid places where psychos and
junkies frequently go hunting victims.
When that does not work, the armed individual (defender) must use guile,
skill, calm judgment, and great care to survive. The initial aggressor (bad
guy) has most of the advantages.
A situation of that kind went the right way one night in Alabama a few years
ago. An armed older ("senior") fellow and his family were at a restaurant
eating. Bad guys entered and held the patrons at gunpoint to rob them.
Hoping to not increase the danger to his family, the armed older fellow was
going to go peacefully along with being robbed. Then the bad guys began
herding people into the freezer room of the restaurant. Knowing that other
recent robberies had occurred where the victims were murdered in the freezer
rooms in restaurants, the armed older ("senior") fellow drew his weapon and
shot the robbers, killing 2 of them. A couple of "good guy" people were
wounded (bullets can pass completely through bad guys and hit other people),
but no "good guys" died. The dead and wounded bad guys were later
identified as the murderers in the previous restaurant robbery/killings. A
horible nightmare was minimized by a peace loving, armed man.
It happens all the time in situations where no shots have to be fired, but
those seldom get reported.
Bless that armed older fellow who had his gun on him and used it.
Desperation, guts, a gun, and no place to "run and hide"... in Life and
Death situations, the real world is infinitely variable, but seldom like
abstract mental constructs (dreams based on limited or erroneous
information), TV, or movies.
Axel
In article <[email protected]>,
Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> The police would like to put cameras up in all the popular tourist
> destinations and then the privacy idiots emerge and swarm around like
> bees complaining about lack of privacy. Yet, they're the first ones to
> scream about lack of police protection when someone rips them or their
> business off.
Well, the UK has, I am told, more security cameras per head of population,
than any other country in the world but we still have many problems.
Due to "human rights" it seems the thugs have more rights than the
victims. There seem to be regular reports in the newspapers of public
spirited people trying to make a stand and being banged up by the courts
while the offenders get off scot free. We, as householders, have no rights
to protect our property and can do little in self defence.
I don't have a problem with cameras but I do object to UK government plans
to monitor all internet traffic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-black-boxes-will-collect-every-email-992268.html
--
Stuart Winsor
Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/show08/MUGshow.html
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> But ... do us a favor and try to keep that sharia bullshit on that side
> of the ocean!
I'm afraid it's one of the problems caused by having a labour (left wing)
government and who the idiots are who keep voting them back I don't know
but it aint me!
--
Stuart Winsor
Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/show08/MUGshow.html
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of
> the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest
> citizen.
Quite so. The UK has really strict gun laws but it make not one iota of
difference to the criminal fraternity.
--
Stuart Winsor
Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/show08/MUGshow.html
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... and from what I have read, you are really at the mercy of the
> thugs. Honest citizens cannot be armed and cannot even defend themselves
> without being prosecuted, while the thugs don't get very heavy sentences.
Correct.
--
Stuart Winsor
Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/show08/MUGshow.html
On Nov 28, 4:28=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> tom wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2:25=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavio=
r
> >> makes you wonder:
>
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death
>
> >> Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
> >> prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the
> >> terrorists in India who have motives relatively more noble, by
> >> comparison, than sheer, unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited
> >> here.
>
> >> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada i=
n
> >> 1967.
>
> >> --www.e-woodshop.net
> >> Last update: 10/22/08
> >> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> > Of course it's worth saving, but I think it'll take a major "paradigm
> > shift" (sorry) regarding economic growth, personal values and birth
> > control. Not bloody likely, eh? The love of money, and that amazing
> > effect that our gonads (and religion) can impose, are some of the
> > culprits. One of the worst things: fear of other cultures' mixing, or
> > just their proximity, in our societies! Tom
>
> =A0 Say what? =A0The only left talking point you missed was re-distributi=
ve
> change.
>
> =A0 Aside from greed, the rest of your rant has no application to the pro=
blem
> discussed.
>
> =A0 Overpopulation caused people to trample someone?
>
> =A0 Economic growth caused people to stampede?
>
> =A0 Religion caused people trying to get to a sale to act like a mob?
>
> =A0 Xenophobia caused people to do this?
>
> =A0 A cogent argument that unbridled greed along with lack of moral and
> religious underpinnings led to the kinds of behaviors observed could be
> made here; your talking points don't seem to even address the problem.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Think about it, neighbor. It's all (not just the stampede) about
money, power, real estate and culture. Religion had nothing to do with
this Christmas sale, of course(smirk). Perhaps one might trample
someone to get that special toy for his or her progeny. Gonads, that
is. Legacy. Culture. And the general question of "Should it be saved"
needs to address it's (Whatever "it" may be, still being unspecified)
leading problems. So think globally. However, I'm thinking about a big
sailboat, and leaving anyway. Vote Libertarian! So very far right, I
appear left. Nomex donned. Tom
DiggerOp wrote:
>
> "Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
... snip
>> Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!
>>
>> You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom
>> door.
>>
>> Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
>> whispers.
>> At least two people have broken into your house and are moving
>> your way.
>> With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick
>> up your shotgun.
>> You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and
>> open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
>>
>> One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
>> brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The
>> blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams
>> while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
>> As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in
>> trouble.
>>
... snip
>>
>> The judge sentences you to life in prison.
>>
>> This case really happened.
>>
>> On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England,
>> killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
>> convicted and is now serving a life term.
> <snip>
>
> Perhaps not .....
>
> It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that
> he served two thirds of a five year term before being released on
> July 28th 2003.
Oh, that is just soooo much better. I'm sure anybody who has protected
themselves from attack (or will protect themselves from attack) will be
glad to hear that saving oneself will only result in 40 months in jail.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown
> that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and
> less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.
That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And if
it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to the
US ones?
Even though every shooting in Toronto, Canada gets great press, the
statistics released by the police definitely show that the crime rate is
going down every year. It only sounds worse because of the sensation of
crimes done by the press.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:48:02 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
>> to be concerned about.
>
>You could very well be right and I hope that's so. But, consider that I live
>in Canada, I've only been down to the US twice and a number of years ago at
>that. All I have to go on is what I read and what I hear, much of it might
>be the same as heard and read elsewhere around the world. If I'm as wary as
>I am and I live in a society so closely similar to that of the US, then what
>fears are surfacing (real or imagened) in other parts of the world,
>especially where society is so much different?
>
>> I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
>> by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
>> concealed carry permits in the US.
>
>Yeah, those damned ornery moose carry pretty big guns. :)
...hahahaha, yup, but being from SoCal I wouldn't know for sure. What
I *do* know for sure is that by far most of the gun crimes are a
result of gang activity, at least in this area. People with
unlicensed/stolen weapons are the ones that *use* them on others, *so*
not the legal owners, as I am. Unfortunately it's far too late in
this country to put the toothpaste back in the tube...to take away our
"legal" weapons would open a pandora's box of crime perpetrated by the
elements who have the "illegal" weapons...piles and piles of 'em.
Just my .02
cg
>
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Of the two links you cite above, only one really rises the the "normal
> citizen who decided to carry a gun that day" The case of the two men
> returning still falls under a pre-meditated act.
While the period of time necessary for pre-mediation to exist varies to a
certain amount, leaving a bar angry and coming back within a few minutes
doesn't fall into the pre-meditation category as far as I'm concerned. He
was angry when he left and was still under the same cloud of anger when he
came back and pulled the trigger. Nevertheless, it's obvious whatever I say
or what proof I provide isn't going to change your mind.
> cases that appear to get a great deal of highly charged press, you are not
> informed of the many times when a law abiding citizen with a gun prevents
> violence to themselves or loved ones.
That statement is meaningless. The reason why it happens so rarely up here
is that the vast bulk of the general public don't own or have access to guns
to use as a means of self defence. You might state that information of that
type is kept from public knowledge so people don't get the idea of arming
themselves, but you'd be wrong. I worked with Metro Police for a period and
a close friend of mine, was a sergeant with them at the time. If that type
of thing was happening, I'd have heard about it.
You live where you live and I live here. There's a number of reasons for my
knowledge and experience here to be in excess of what you might believe to
be true, but that's your choice. Believe what you like.
Stuart wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of
>> the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest
>> citizen.
>
> Quite so. The UK has really strict gun laws but it make not one iota of
> difference to the criminal fraternity.
>
... and from what I have read, you are really at the mercy of the thugs.
Honest citizens cannot be armed and cannot even defend themselves without
being prosecuted, while the thugs don't get very heavy sentences.
A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown
that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and
less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?
What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.
Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
>
> Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
> armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
> These were two people bent on mayhem.
Garbage. You make it sound like they went home, got the gun and came back.
They were kicked out of the club and returned *minutes* later. They were
average citizens out for a good time and decided to punish a bouncer for
throwing them out. Result, an innocent person was shot down by a person who
lost his temper.
Why don't you ask me how I know many of the intricate details? I live 300
yards from the Brass Rail. I've talked to a number of the staff who work
there since I see many of them around the area on a frequent basis.
I live in downtown Toronto. I play there and I work there. I experience it
every day. I know what goes on and am fully aware of the volatile nature of
many people here. And, I'm certainly not paranoid about it, just fully
realistic.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs
and
> criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
> fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
> who decided to carry a gun that day".
I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof? The
links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search. Assuming I
spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will there be.
Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question*
that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to
shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar
were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had
been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to say
that they were out just to cause trouble.
I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday
parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need to?
I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.
Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting incidents
above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved
> > around people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong
place
> > at the wrong time.
> In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?
Yes, I can do that. It will take me a little time to find the news articles,
but from memory one shooting was a guy who took a bullet in head that was
meant for a bouncer who ejected a patron from a bar/strip club. The owner of
the gun was licensed to own the gun for target shooting. He was not licensed
to carry.
The second that comes to mind was a woman standing outside a club so she
could smoke a cigarette and took a bullet from some guy who decided to spray
the entrance to a club after he was ejected.
I've got a few more in mind, but I'll have to read up on the details a
little more.
And a question for you. Will three recent examples suffice? And when I do
post the supporting data for assertion, what will it gain? Will you suddenly
admit to being in error in this discussion or will the information just be
depicted as some unusual anomaly?
"Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Now that's funny.
On Dec 3, 11:35=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Actually - no. =A0Here in the US, and in other places around the world,=
guns
> > are commonplace. =A0Yet - no warring citizens. =A0How do you explain th=
at?
>
> What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
> Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the=
US
> has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
> rest of the civilized countries around the world.
>
> Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?
Of course it does. EVERYbody knows that it is The Netherlands which is
at the centre of the universe.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>
> Too early for casualty reports.
>
> The mess in India continues.
>
> What the hell is this world coming to?
>
> Lew
>
Read up on it at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toystoreshooting29-2008nov29,0,5989270.story
We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What Swingman talks about is greed. NOT alcohol-induced
> sports-fucks who were never really 'right' anyway.
Not as much as one might think, at least not the two times I've witnessed
it. Sure, there were the alcohol induced segments of people doing the smash
and grabs, but for the most part, it's been perfectly sober citizens using
the mob mentality as an opportunity to steal.
I call that greed. Maybe you're talking about a different type?
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why
> you
> introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the
> discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.
An example of a market segment that would be significantly impacted by
a large increase in ammunition costs.
Nothing sinister.
Lew
"Upscale" wrote
> important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
> population and society have changed significantly.
But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
human nature has not changed one iota. :)
Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon
volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like
"Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ...
English translations abound:
http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#balzacho
All characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in
the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ... :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
>> has nothing at all to do with the point
>
... snip
>
> I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved
> around people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place
> at the wrong time.
Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
only very rare circumstances.
> While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved
> in a number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done
> by ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day.
In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?
> There's really only one way to deal with that.
>
> And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
> relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
> frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
> down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look
> into getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.
>
> I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
> knowledge I do have about living in US society.
That reflects a very limited knowledge of life here.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
> today -
> they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They
> buy them
> on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.
>
> The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with
> tactics
> that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't
> affected
> by prices, inconveniences, etc.
Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?
As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
> firearms that they have never shot?
I guess you assume they will never be shot.
As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your definition
of "benefits".
A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.
> And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
> percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you
> believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?
I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.
>And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
> weights?
Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but
impossible.
The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat
ballast was a total PITA.
Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.
Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a
> given
> year? And how many people are shot with them?
You tell me.
> Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem
> that
> exists.
Be my guest.
> So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?
Don't think so.
Lew
Han wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484
> @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
>> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>
>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>
>> The mess in India continues.
>>
>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>
>> Lew
>
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
> to pass examinations in firearm safety,
Kind of like the literacy tests in the south?
> mental stability, and have never
> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s).
It's already illegal for anyone who has been judged incompetent, been
convicted of a felony (including sale of a firearm to unauthorized persons)
to possess a firearm.
> Anyone who fails
> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
Have you heard of the National Instant Background Check? Before
purchasing a firearm, that database is consulted and if any of the
conditions stated above, plus a few more such as outstanding restraining
orders, arrest (not necessarily conviction) for domestic violence, and
several others are encountered, the sale is refused.
>
> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
>
Wouldn't it be better if California had more liberal carry laws in which
the gunmen (already committing an illegal act) didn't know who might be
armed and put a stop to their mayhem?
> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And
> laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.
I sometimes wonder when I see the likes of our Congress.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What I'd like to see is a significant portion of a mob arrested and hit with
>really severe fines or imprisonment appropriate to the crime and then have
>their pictures and names plastered in the local newspaper. Not five or six
>arrests like usually happens, but 100-200 arrests, enough to make people
>think twice about using mob mentality to steal or destroy.
The problem is that the people at the front that could see things are likely being pushed
by the rear columns that do not know what is going on.
Wes
"Tom Bunetta" wrote
> Out of concern for the public at large,
>
> I withheld the statistics on lawyers
>
> for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!
ROTFLMAO! ... good one, Tom.
But it might be the other way around. Brought to mind the video of that
lawyer, and a disgruntled client with a pistol, dancing around a tree a
couple of years back.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place
>>>
>>> Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
>>> requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
>>> only very rare circumstances.
>>
>>> In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that
>>> assertion?
>>
>> A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.
>>
>> http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
>> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
>> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
>> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
>> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx
>
> Just so we make sure we're talking about the topic at hand, how many of
> those were the result of non-criminals carrying weapons who just got into
> an altercation? To be fair, I was able to count one for sure and perhaps
> a second. While tragic, it doesn't seem to warrant the level of fear you
> seem to have.
I stopped reading after the first link. Here's a real juicy quote from that,
and gives it real credibility:
"The percentage of students who reported experience with gun violence was
low in both Torontoand Montreal, both as victims (7.1% vs. 4.7%) and as
aggressors (3.0% vs. 2.5%)."
One in 14 Toronto students are victims of gun violence?
What a rabid bunch of nut jobs. If that truly is the case, the problem is
already out of control. But I'd bet that it's not, and it's only the
gun-phobes allowing themselves to spin out of control. They barely,
demonstrably had a tenuous grasp of reality as it was.
"Bored Borg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and
> displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might
> expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social
> "norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a
> competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few
> items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting
> tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life
> savages
> who succumbed to it.
>
> The store's policy is tantamount to incitement to riot and deserves
> censure
> at best. What do they expect when they pull stunts like dangling raw meat
> over the heads of a pack of starving wolves for several days, letting it
> be
> known that _only_ the first , fastest, highest jumping wolf will actually
> get
> the gravy?
>
> People - "the people of today" - just aren't that clever or evolved.
> They
> watch reality T.V. They subscribe to political correctness. With the
> stripping away of the currently defined "civilization" facade, they bay
> for
> gladiatorial blood or shovel other people into gas ovens for a popular
> ideal.
> They believe in things which are provably untrue and are willing to put to
> death anyone who will not accept their ludicrous superstitions. They steal
> from other people, attack total strangers purely to enjoy the experience
> and
> drive motor vehicles with total disregard for the comfort and safety of
> anyone outside the vehicle. They are savage, brutal and oftentimes only
> held
> in check by fear of reprisals for not conforming to the acceptable norm.
> This, among all the compassion, selfless love and splendid and glorious
> stuff
> which balances it out, is the ever-present dark side of the contemporary
> human condition. How can we, with impunity, provoke such humankind with
> tantalizing evil such as these first-past-the-post "sales" where the
> combatants have been psyched-up to believe that the stakes are so damned
> high?
>
> We can't. We can't play exploitative games like this and shirk the
> consequences. What has happened is the inevitable result of the
> deliberate,
> cynical manipulation of consumers into a competitive position. It will
> happen
> again unless this consumerist model is rethought to accommodate the
> volatility of the manipulated resource. Wal-Mart and similar concerns must
> reassess their entire strategy and, if they still wish to entertain
> shoppers
> with a competitive element in the hunting and killing of seasonal
> bargains,
> then they must do it in a way that cannot engender physical aggression.
>
> Yes, the people surging into the store were stupid, savage animals but it
> was
> the store's poorly conceived hysteria-raising crowd-damming manipulating
> of
> them that made them that way. Wal-Mart are as much the killers here as
> anyone.
>
You sound like SWMBO ... to your credit. :)
I normally snip. but the above deserves repeating.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DiggerOp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> <snip>
>>
>> Perhaps not .....
>>
>> It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that he
>> served two thirds of a five year term before being released on July 28th
>> 2003.
>>
> So my sister informed me AFTER I posted.
> Tom
I'm reasonably sure I woulnd't consider (only) 40 months in prison
appropriate if I was in similar circumstances.
todd
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
>> has nothing at all to do with the point
>
> Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?
>
>> Think you can get your head around that?
>
> I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
> person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.
>
> Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want
> and
> generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
> citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper
> and
> happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my
> neighbours
> packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
> does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
> generally well balanced society.
>
> As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of
> the
> beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
> general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't
> make
> sense.
>
> I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved
> around
> people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
> wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
> number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
> ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
> really only one way to deal with that.
>
> And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
> relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
> frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
> down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look
> into
> getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.
>
> I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
> knowledge I do have about living in US society.
The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
to be concerned about. I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
concealed carry permits in the US.
todd
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out
> of
> the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest
> citizen.
Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather
impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.
Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies who
have to clean up the mess after a shooting.
And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type
pieces.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 30, 8:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come
>> up with anything just now...
>
> I can't think of any myself
>
>> NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't
>> think of anything there either...
>
> Finally got us out of Indochina.
>
> Ended the draft.
>
> Drafted and signed the first nuclear limitation treaty with Russia
> (the SALT treaty).
>
> Opened the first American dialogue with the Chinese (a communist!)
> government.
>
> Created the EPA.
>
> Sent the brilliant Henry Kissinger to the middle east to get Egypt,
> Syria and Israel to stop fighting. He was successful.
>
> Then... in an unprecedented case of believing one's own bullshit
> combined with a stew of paranoia, arrogance, and stupidity, he got
> involved in Watergate. He will be remembered for nothing else. In
> many ways, I think Nixon was a terribly warped man.
Flawed. And very afraid of people. Saw him up close and personal (face to
face) at a rally in Toledo in 1960. The fear was palpable.
"Robatoy" wrote
> Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.
I truly do not have a dog in the fight, but I would caution to let history
decide that. The media, providing the masses the information upon which the
judgment is currently based, is as equally despicable as any politician.
And "the masses" are basically responsible for the very post that started
this thread.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
> eliminate
>> by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
> but
>> tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
>> church to get in.
>
> I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
> between
> the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that
> they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something
> *is*
> enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
> important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
> population and society have changed significantly.
>
>
Take Nigeria, for example ...
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world,
>> guns
>> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?
>
> What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
> Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the
> US
> has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
> rest of the civilized countries around the world.
>
> Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?
>
>
Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In
the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes
it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both
thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to
the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are
privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours
was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest
you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you
talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an
unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities
acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve
to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin
Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The
national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving
burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several
times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their
lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you
told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for
the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as
your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to
convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one
burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now
serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British
Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of
1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control",
demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned
handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable,
or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up
law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up
all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The
Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away
most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant
gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was
no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or
robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no
fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen
most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private
citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered
and licensed. Kind of like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
Swingman wrote:
[snippage throughout]>
> Still, since my oldest daughter is married to a POME and lives in Sheffield,
> I am partial to the country. :)
>
Is that one of these?
POME Palm Oil Mill Effluent
POME Prisoner Of Mother England
POME Product Of My Environment
POME Philosophy of Mathematics Education (journal)
POME Point of Market Entry
POME Point of Main Effort
POME Principles of Motion Economy
POME Prisoner of Her Majesty of England
miswired minds...
jo4hn
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
>>>> out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
>>>
>>> Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
>>> to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
>>> shooters.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards
>>> Han
>>> email address is invalid
>>
>> Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
>> standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so
>> I'm not jumping to conclusions.
>
> I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else was
> hurt by flying bullets.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know it was
pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you know there was
flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be shooter No 1 waited
until there was no one else in range. We don't know that and yet you say it
was pure luck. I don't believe it.
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because
> it
> stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name
> supposed
> to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to
> mean in
> the context of this discussion?
"Saturday night specials": AKA: Typically low cost, low quality hand
gun.
Beyond that, you are on your own.
Lew
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
> eliminate
>> by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
> but
>> tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
>> church to get in.
>
> I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
> between
> the right to bear arms and the right to free speech,
One day, one might rely on the other.
> despite the fact that
> they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something
> *is*
> enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
> important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
> population and society have changed significantly.
And you know what, there is a mechanism to change anything that is outdated.
If someone wants to remove the 2nd amendment, they can go through the
defined process. But they're not going to backdoor it with the moronic idea
of taxing ammo.
todd
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
> RE: Subject
>
> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>
> Too early for casualty reports.
>
> The mess in India continues.
>
> What the hell is this world coming to?
>
> Lew
I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
Hey, my opinions are mine!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>>
>>> RE: Subject
>>>
>>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
>>> entered a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east
>>> of downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>>
>>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>>
>>> The mess in India continues.
>>>
>>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should
>> have to pass examinations in firearm safety,
> Kind of like the literacy tests in the south?
No, ability to use the instrument desired in a manner that is safe to the
user and others. I have no objection to people having guns if they are
used and stored in a safe manner. Well, I still think it would be a
little too easy for an "accident", but US law says apparently that you
are allowed a firearm.
>> mental stability, and have never
>> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
>> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s).
>
> It's already illegal for anyone who has been judged incompetent, been
> convicted of a felony (including sale of a firearm to unauthorized
> persons) to possess a firearm.
>
>
>> Anyone who fails
>> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>
> Have you heard of the National Instant Background Check? Before
> purchasing a firearm, that database is consulted and if any of the
> conditions stated above, plus a few more such as outstanding
> restraining orders, arrest (not necessarily conviction) for domestic
> violence, and several others are encountered, the sale is refused.
Yes, I have heard of the NIBC. Also, that it is easily circumvented in
some states/cases. That's why I think a license is a good thing.
>> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not
>> qualifying.
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be better if California had more liberal carry laws in
> which the gunmen (already committing an illegal act) didn't know who
> might be armed and put a stop to their mayhem?
No, I don't think we should have multiple participants in a shootout.
This case is a good example. Do you really want 10 other people to pull
out handguns and start shooting at each other in a crowded department
store?
>> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should
>> have to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and
>> have never been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent
>> overtones, including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s).
>> Anyone who fails any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>
> Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of
> the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest
> citizen. Anyone who knew they couldn't pass the exam would just get a
> gun on the black market.
I guess I am still too much of a 60's idealist ...
(see X-face)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do precisely
> what(?) to prevent these types of incidents?
Well, where do the guns to commit crimes come from? If everyone has
guns, then it is easy to steal some. If not everyone has guns, and those
that do lock them up well, then (maybe) there will be fewer guns to
commit crimes with.
> Do you really feel that
> the perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession of
> a gun?
No I don't think the bad guys worry about legal possession, but see
above.
> Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of
> thinking that does nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to
> impare those who aren't your typical, or even your remotely typical
> culprit.
Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're trying to say.
Let me just paraphrase what's happened in NYC a numbver of years back.
Police were told to get after farejumpers (people who didn't pay the fare
for the subway, mainly). This way a lot of people left their illegal
weapons at home, after they or their friends had them nabbed by the
police. Either as a result, or because of changing demographics or
because of other reasons, the crime rate went down. I happen to believe
that nabbing bad guys had something to do with it. So good laws and good
law enforcement will help. It's not the whole thing, of course. And
laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.
I'll crawl back into my hole now ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:I0iYk.7171$as4.4091
@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> And
>> laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.
>
> I sometimes wonder when I see the likes of our Congress.
>
Agreed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>> and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
>> killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
>> understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store
>> and you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have
>> truly lost your soul somewhere.
>> j4
>
> I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each
> other and hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they
> did, but they did not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit any.
> Perhaps they spent hours at a shooting range and learned how to aim.
> Maybe they should get the Darwin Sharpshooters Award.
>
> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out.
> Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want to
know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
shooters.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
>>> out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
>>
>> Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
>> to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
>> shooters.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
> standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so
> I'm not jumping to conclusions.
I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else was
hurt by flying bullets.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
>>>>> out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
>>>>
>>>> Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
>>>> to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of
>>>> the shooters.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Han
>>>> email address is invalid
>>>
>>> Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
>>> standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so
>>> I'm not jumping to conclusions.
>>
>> I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else
>> was hurt by flying bullets.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know it
> was pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you know
> there was flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be shooter
> No 1 waited until there was no one else in range. We don't know that
> and yet you say it was pure luck. I don't believe it.
>
There were 2 shooters who shot each other dead. That's really the only
relevant facts that I know. (Yes, they were provoked by their wives, or
whatever the relationships were). In such a case I think it is indeed
pure luck that eithere only 2 shots were fired, or all the other shots (I
don't know the number fired) went either totally in the object of each
shooter or completely wide of anyone.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:54:17 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these
> pearls of wisdom...:
>
>> On Dec 3, 11:35 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the
>>>> world, guns are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do
>>>> you explain that?
>>>
>>> What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain,
>>> Australia, Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace.
>>> Just because the US has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't
>>> automatically include the rest of the civilized countries around the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory
>>> eh?
>>
>> Of course it does. EVERYbody knows that it is The Netherlands which
>> is at the centre of the universe.
>
> And foolish me - I had overlooked the fact that those 6 countries
> constituted the civilized world.
There is indeed a line of thought that in the late 1500s early 1600s the
modern concepts of trade, economics, science and arts were fleshed out in
the Low Countries. Helped of course by the expulsion of Jews from Spain,
and the better location for worldwide trade than the seat of the
Renaissance.
Disclaimer: I'm Dutch by birth, and now US citizen.
Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote in news:z-
[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
>> cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
>> greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!
>>
>
> Ummmm... They don't call us old FARTS for no reason.
> j4
>
I don't think you can win a farting contest with a pig or a cow. If you
could, I wouldn't know what to call you <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jay Pique wrote:
>> I think there needs to be far more vigilante justice doled out.
>
> Not a good idea. That's how the Klan got started.
>
> Armed self defense is not vigilante justice.
Oh, sure...run to the worst-case scenario. I'm thinking about more of a
Charles Bronson sort of vigilante. ;-)
todd
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:u3h%[email protected]...
> This has been around.
>
> Enjoy
First time for me. Thanks.
>
>>............................................................
> A BILL to Regulate the HUNTING & HARVESTING of ATTORNEYS
...
> Minutiac-Advocating Chicken-Shits: ......... 4
Likely, "Minutiae-..."
"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
> and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
> killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
> understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
> you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly lost
> your soul somewhere.
> j4
I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each other and
hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they did, but they did
not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit any. Perhaps they spent
hours at a shooting range and learned how to aim. Maybe they should get the
Darwin Sharpshooters Award.
Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out. Let's
get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs
> and
>> criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
>> fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
>> who decided to carry a gun that day".
>
> I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof?
> The links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search.
> Assuming I spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will
> there be.
>
> Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question*
> that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to
> shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar
> were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had
> been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to
> say that they were out just to cause trouble.
>
Of the two links you cite above, only one really rises the the "normal
citizen who decided to carry a gun that day" The case of the two men
returning still falls under a pre-meditated act. We have had similar cases
in the US where angry people return to a place from which they have been
bounced in a vehicle traveling at high speed with the intent to run down
the doorman and others.
> I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday
> parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need
> to? I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.
>
What you've already provided shoots down your assertion, while a very
small number of cases may occur (some of which, as stated above are simply
because the gun was the closest tool), your links indicate that the largest
number of such deaths are a result of getting caught in gangland or
drug-related violence -- both of which will not be resolved by disarming
regular citizens. As I asked before, for the small number of the other
cases that appear to get a great deal of highly charged press, you are not
informed of the many times when a law abiding citizen with a gun prevents
violence to themselves or loved ones.
I'd much rather take my chances with being able to defend myself while
have a vanishingly small chance of encountering something such as you
describe than being made into an unarmed victim in a disarmed populace.
You people in Canada can do as you please -- gun control has really worked
out well for Britain and also Australia where violent crime is up now that
the criminals know the people are unable to defend themselves.
> Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting
> incidents above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out
> there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the
> right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.
I can't argue with that, except to say that maybe the means of self defense
should be changed if that is at all possible.
> Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those
> citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today
who
> would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to
do
> so.
No argument.
> Just because the excuses given for
> that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of
> tyrannical behavior has not changed.
I agree.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> "JAHEESUS!" said the lifeguard, "Mate. The potato goes in front!"
Now, *that one* made me laugh. Here it is almost 3:30 am and the neighbours
must be wondering what all the laughing was about. :)
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up?
And
> > if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate
to
> > the US ones?
> The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the
source,
> you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
> <http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181>
I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole
purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.
> <http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html>
Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased
national statistics?
> 2006 piece citing some Canadian information
> <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html>
Same comment as above. The personal view of a single individual who has set
up a website for blogging his opinion.
Sorry Mark, the above sources only make one question it further. I'll have a
look around for some statistics that project a more unbiased and widely
studied point of view.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
> to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>
> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
>
> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Plenty of laws exist. The problem is that people don't always obey the
law. Making more laws won't help in that situation.
On Nov 30, 8:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come
> up with anything just now...
I can't think of any myself
> NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't
> think of anything there either...
Finally got us out of Indochina.
Ended the draft.
Drafted and signed the first nuclear limitation treaty with Russia
(the SALT treaty).
Opened the first American dialogue with the Chinese (a communist!)
government.
Created the EPA.
Sent the brilliant Henry Kissinger to the middle east to get Egypt,
Syria and Israel to stop fighting. He was successful.
Then... in an unprecedented case of believing one's own bullshit
combined with a stew of paranoia, arrogance, and stupidity, he got
involved in Watergate. He will be remembered for nothing else. In
many ways, I think Nixon was a terribly warped man.
> I'm sorry, but I'm still in awe of Reagan.... yea yea yea.. he wasn't
> perfect either... but he was COOL!
Why be sorry? He was waaaay cool. He was far from perfect, (kinda
like the rest of us...) but he was the right guy at the right place at
the right time. The lefties were in tears as they thought he was too
conservative, and the righties thought he wasn't conservative enough.
After all the years of the country joyfully tearing itself to pieces,
it was neat to be "proud to be an American" again. IIRC, when he ran
for re-election, he was so popular with the public he only lost one
state in the Union.
Sadly, I don't think we will ever see the likes of him again.
Robert
"Mike Marlow" wrote
> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.
Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no argument
there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal immigrant population
is currently armed to the teeth? Especially with the Mexican drug cartel
increasingly more active *inside* our border.
Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not going to
consider.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
> has nothing at all to do with the point
Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?
> Think you can get your head around that?
I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.
Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want and
generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper and
happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my neighbours
packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
generally well balanced society.
As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of the
beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't make
sense.
I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved around
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
really only one way to deal with that.
And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look into
getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.
I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
knowledge I do have about living in US society.
On Nov 28, 5:17=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Upscale" wrote:
> > More than once, I've seen Leaf's fans or some other sports fans
> > marching up Yonge Street, smashing store windows and looting
> > everything on
> > the way.
>
> As in soccer (their football) fans across the pond, especially in the
> UK.
>
> Lew
There is a whole shitload of difference between runamuk sports-fucks
and greedy killers.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> By what mechanism?
>
> Simple.
>
> As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
> participants.
>
> At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be reduced
> since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost of a usable
> weapon.
Someone's already thought of that:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#topic=Comedy%20Movies&url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DeFcVwDw4YLE
Dave in Houston
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
> prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the
terrorists
> in India who have motives relatively more noble, by comparison, than
sheer,
> unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited here.
>
> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
> 1967.
Hmmm. Not sure that would make much difference. Maybe not price riots at
stores, but we have our own set of idiots up here that should be shot and
pissed on. More than once, I've seen Leaf's fans or some other sports fans
marching up Yonge Street, smashing store windows and looting everything on
the way.
There's a number of advantages living close to downtown Toronto, but then
there's the times I've felt like going out with a baseball bat to crack
people in the kneecap (mostly under 30 years of age) for looting their way
up the street using mob mentality as the sole excuse.
The police would like to put cameras up in all the popular tourist
destinations and then the privacy idiots emerge and swarm around like bees
complaining about lack of privacy. Yet, they're the first ones to scream
about lack of police protection when someone rips them or their business
off.
This whole damned world is screwed up worse than I could ever have imagined.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
>> today -
>> they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They
>> buy them
>> on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.
>>
>> The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with
>> tactics
>> that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't
>> affected
>> by prices, inconveniences, etc.
>
> Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?
>
> As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
I'd rather see what Joe Arpio thinks.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
> > population and society have changed significantly.
>
> But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
> human nature has not changed one iota. :)
>
> Absolutely right.
Lord of the Flies. Guess it comes down to we're basically animals at heart
and doomed to always be so.
On Nov 29, 4:49=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > There is a whole shitload of difference between runamuk
> > sports-fucks and greedy killers.
>
> Not really since a significant portion of the mob grows as it moves and m=
any
> use the crowd simply as a means to steal.
>
> If you suddenly came upon a swarm of people running to a hole in the wall=
of
> a bank and scooping up handfuls of cash, would you be tempted to do the
> same, even for a split second?
No, Absolutely NO. It ain't mine, I ain't taking it.
No exceptions.
Ever.
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484
> @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
> > RE: Subject
> >
> > As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
> > a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
> > L/A), and are shooting up the place.
> >
> > Too early for casualty reports.
> >
> > The mess in India continues.
> >
> > What the hell is this world coming to?
> >
> > Lew
>
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
> to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>
> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
>
> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
Yes, your opinions are yours *S*.
Criminals don't have sensitivity training, weapons training, scruples,
morals..yadda, yadda.
Sooo.. MY idea, is that in order to be equal to the enemy, one must
think and behave like one. IOW, get a gun when you can, to hell with
regulations. The biggest fear I have, is a government that tries to
disarm its population. What COULD they be up to?
If I am to believe that I have nothing to fear, then nobody should fear
my .50 calibre. It is in good, safe, well-trained hands.
I take care of my stuff, you take care of yours.
And if you know what you're doing, a .50 calibre can take out an Apache
helicopter, talking to it won't work. <G>
On Dec 4, 6:57=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Headline in today's NY Times: =A0From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
> cut emissions. =A0Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
> greenhouse gases. =A0Eat less meat!
>
Then, for an alternate source of protein, I like to eat romano- or
kidney beans.
Eat enough of those, and there won't be a pane of glass left in your
greenhouse.
*smirk*
r
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > marching up Yonge Street, smashing store windows and looting
> As in soccer (their football) fans across the pond, especially in the
> UK.
What I'd like to see is a significant portion of a mob arrested and hit with
really severe fines or imprisonment appropriate to the crime and then have
their pictures and names plastered in the local newspaper. Not five or six
arrests like usually happens, but 100-200 arrests, enough to make people
think twice about using mob mentality to steal or destroy.
On Nov 30, 7:59=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>
> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up=
?
> > And
> >> > if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correla=
te
> > to
> >> > the US ones?
>
> >> The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the
> > source,
> >> you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
> >> <http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=3D4181>
>
> > I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole
> > purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.
>
> =A0 While I certainly agree that they have a one-sided point of view, and=
I
> will admit that I have often pointed out biased sources by others in
> various discussions, the issue here was not the point of view expressed,
> but the statistics cited. =A0In this case, the statistics can be pretty w=
ell
> relied upon to be what is in the FBI report (I just wasn't going to go
> digging for that report). =A0One thing regarding NRA statistics -- you ca=
n
> pretty well be sure they are correct because the other side spends a grea=
t
> deal of time fact-checking anything the NRA cites or states. =A0If the NR=
A
> cites were off by a single digit, the media would be all over them for
> making up facts. =A0The media treatment of the NRA is quite unlike the
> media's treatment of other groups with whose views the media agrees, thos=
e
> groups can make up whatever figures they like (e.g. # of homeless, degree=
s
> of global warming, # of people hungry or impoverished, dangers of eating
> certain types of food, etc.) with little or no fear of being called out o=
n
> it.
>
> >> <http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html>
>
> > Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbias=
ed
> > national statistics?
>
> =A0 Don't disagree that parts of this are an opinion piece, however, the
> history and statistics cited are consistent with historical events and
> other news reports.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Give it up, Mark. You are looking silly now.
You can no longer defend that cluster-flub you're been rooting for.
Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A bit of more recent history. For those who think disarming the
populace
> is a good idea, read very carefully the accounts of what happened in
Mumbai
> last week. Just a couple of armed citizens (heck, one or two armed police
> officers with ammunition) could have prevented a lot of savagery.
(Rest of the crap snipped)
Of course a person with a gun and willing to use it at the right place and
time might have had a beneficial affect. And if hitler had been strangled at
birth, the second world war might not have happened. That's the benefit pf
hindsight isn't it? By your resoning, if everybody ran around with a
sub-machine gun in their back pocket, nobody would die anywhere. Right? What
a pile of crap. All you'd end up with is pockets of citizens warring with
each other.
The police officers here *are armed*. There *are* any number of swat teams
availalable here that *are* ready to act quickly. They *are* armed and have
plenty of ammunition.
Don't for one second compare what happened in Mumbai to law and order here
in North America. The situations and conditions are completely different and
not even close to being comparable.
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:02:30 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> By what mechanism?
>
> Simple.
>
> As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
> participants.
>
Typical of legitimate participants, Not so with respect to the criminal
element.
> At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
> reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost
> of a usable weapon.
Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because it
stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name supposed
to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to mean in
the context of this discussion? Why introduce a red herring that has
nothing at all to do with the matter at hand?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Nov 30, 8:44=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.
>
> I truly do not have a dog in the fight, but I would caution to let histor=
y
> decide that. The media, providing the masses the information upon which t=
he
> judgment is currently based, is as equally despicable as any politician.
>
> And "the masses" are basically responsible for the very post that started
> this thread.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come
up with anything just now...NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't
think of anything there either...
.
.
.
I guess if we wait long enough, Bush43 did something right...but it's
hard to imagine what that could have been....
I'm sorry, but I'm still in awe of Reagan.... yea yea yea.. he wasn't
perfect either... but he was COOL!
"Upscale" wrote >
> "Swingman" wrote
>> But ... do us a favor and try to keep that sharia bullshit on that side
>> of
>> the ocean!
>
> Yeah, well it's up here in Canada and has been approved in one or more
> places from what I've heard. And, I too think that it's out of place
> alongside Canadian law. I don't profess to know the finer details about
> Sharia law, but every time I read or hear about it, the topic seems to be
> something to do with a woman getting ripped off in some way.
Purposely not dignified with a capital letter.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Nov 28, 4:25=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavior
> makes you wonder:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death
>
> Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
> prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the terrori=
sts
> in India who have motives relatively more noble, by comparison, than shee=
r,
> unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited here.
>
> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
> 1967.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Yea, I read the responses from many of this group, and they are all
missing the point.
What Swingman talks about is greed. NOT alcohol-induced sports-fucks
who were never really 'right' anyway.
MY interpretation of Swingman's post is about the demon GREED. NOT out-
of-control OVER-enthusiastic loons.
.
.
I am at a loss of words. All I can hope for is that the death of that
Walmart employee was some freak of circumstance...but my heart tells
me that it was more sinister than that. It WAS about somebody willing
to leave a path of destruction to get what they wanted. Devil-be-
damned. The killer(s) would make nice KBR(Haliburton) employees.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
> demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't
> have
> the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your ass.
The basic statement was that by imposing a significant increase in the
sales/use tax it would reduce the available market.
Your failure to understand that sounds like a personal problem.
Perhaps you might want to try Econ 101 to resolve.
Trying to introduce extraneous intellectual bullshit not withstanding,
the base statement still stands.
I'm out of here.
Lew
Swingman wrote:
> Especially with the Mexican drug cartel increasingly more active
> *inside* our border.
>
> Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not
> going to consider.
To put the Mexican drug wars in perspective, last week it was reported
that there were more fatalities in Mexico than in the total MidEast
theater.
37 in TJ alone which included at least 4 decapitations.
Nobody goes to TJ for the weekend these days.
Lew
"Robatoy" [email protected]> wrote
>=20
> <SNIP>=20
>=20
> And if you know what you're doing, a .50 calibre can take out an =
Apache=20
> helicopter, talking to it won't work. <G>
>=20
Seems to me that it would all depend upon what the poiny thing in your =
arms is saying and whether or not what is being said is having an =
impact upon the object of your dissertation.
Also seems to me a .50 could make real believers out of most miscreants.
P D Q (G)
Han wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
>> entered
>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of
>> downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>
>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>
>> The mess in India continues.
>>
>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>
>> Lew
>
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should
> have to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and
> have never been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent
> overtones, including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s).
> Anyone who fails any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
Under Federal law no person who has been convicted of a felony or been
adjudicated criminally insane is allowed to own a firearm, so you
pretty much have what you want.
It used to be that being committed would be a block, but the courts
struck that down.
Passing examinations in order to exercise a right has a very bad
reputation in the US, where such tests were used to bar minorities
from voting.
> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not
> qualifying.
In which case it becomes a privilege and not a right.
>
> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 +0000, Han wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484
> @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
>> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>
>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>
>> The mess in India continues.
>>
>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>
>> Lew
>
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
> to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>
> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
>
> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
Extend that to drivers license too. Road rage is more dangerous with more
horse power than any gun and fools can take out groups with one aim and
action. There are a lot of dummies with keys. Fewer carry loaded guns
wherever they go. If they do carry a gun, if sober it might be better to
run you over. That might fly as an accident in court.
A shooting always looks like malice.
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>>>
>>>> RE: Subject
>>>>
>>>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
>>>> entered a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles
>>>> east
>>>> of downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>>>
>>>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>>>
>>>> The mess in India continues.
>>>>
>>>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>
>>> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one
>>> should
>>> have to pass examinations in firearm safety,
>> Kind of like the literacy tests in the south?
>
> No, ability to use the instrument desired in a manner that is safe
> to
> the user and others.
You've missed the point. If one has to pass examinations then the
examinations can be used in a discriminatory or unreasonably
restrictive manner--in parts of the US they were used to prevent
minorities from voting--the tests were designed in such a manner that
the scoring was a judgment call, and in the judgment of the scorers no
black person was literate no matter what answere he gave while any
white person was literate even if he couldn't read. In parts of the
US there have been requirements for such examinations to be taken in
order to be allowed to own a firearm. The tests were given very
rarely in unexpected places with no prior announcement and the number
of applicants allowed at any given session was very small--in effect
the only people who were allowed to own firearms were those who had
enough political influence to be informed by word of mouth.
> I have no objection to people having guns if
> they are used and stored in a safe manner. Well, I still think it
> would be a little too easy for an "accident", but US law says
> apparently that you are allowed a firearm.
Accidental shootings in the US are quite rare. More people die in
bicycle accidents than in firearms accidents, but we place no
restriction on the ownership of bicycles (and we should--an amazing
number of bicyclists don't seem to be aware that they are expected to
obey traffic laws).
>>> mental stability, and have never
>>> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
>>> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s).
>>
>> It's already illegal for anyone who has been judged incompetent,
>> been convicted of a felony (including sale of a firearm to
>> unauthorized persons) to possess a firearm.
>>
>>
>>> Anyone who fails
>>> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>>
>> Have you heard of the National Instant Background Check? Before
>> purchasing a firearm, that database is consulted and if any of the
>> conditions stated above, plus a few more such as outstanding
>> restraining orders, arrest (not necessarily conviction) for
>> domestic
>> violence, and several others are encountered, the sale is refused.
>
> Yes, I have heard of the NIBC. Also, that it is easily circumvented
> in some states/cases. That's why I think a license is a good thing.
Oh, how is it "easily circumvented"? The only manners I am aware of
by which it has been "circumvented" are straw man sales, which are
felonious crimes, and private party transactions which are not
regulated mainly because Congress knows damn well that trying to
regulate them has about as much likelihood of success as an attempt to
herd cats.
A requirement for a license would not prevent either class of sale.
Further, according to the US Constitution and to the US Supreme Court,
the ownership of firearms is a right, it is not a privilege, and so is
no more subject to licensing than is free speech.
>>> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not
>>> qualifying.
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better if California had more liberal carry laws in
>> which the gunmen (already committing an illegal act) didn't know
>> who
>> might be armed and put a stop to their mayhem?
>
> No, I don't think we should have multiple participants in a
> shootout.
> This case is a good example. Do you really want 10 other people to
> pull out handguns and start shooting at each other in a crowded
> department store?
Many states in the US have "must issue" carry permit laws that state
that anyone who applies for a carry permit must be issued one unless
he is a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm.
Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10
other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
> entered
> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of
> downtown
> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>
> Too early for casualty reports.
Two casualties, the guy that drew the gun and the guy that he drew it
on. If the second guy hadn't screwed up then there'd be one.
No "shooting up the place".
> The mess in India continues.
>
> What the hell is this world coming to?
About what it always was only between the press and the Internet
things get more sensationalized.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do
>> precisely
>> what(?) to prevent these types of incidents?
>
> Well, where do the guns to commit crimes come from? If everyone has
> guns, then it is easy to steal some. If not everyone has guns, and
> those that do lock them up well, then (maybe) there will be fewer
> guns to commit crimes with.
Lock it up as well as you want to, if someone wants it they will steal
it. Pass a chain through a window, run it around the gun safe, hook
it to the trailer hitch on your truck, drive away, and the safe comes
right out, through the wall. Toss it in your truck and drive off and
open it at your leisure.
Then there are the firearms that disappear from police evidence
lockups.
Then there are the ones that come in with the drugs.
>> Do you really feel that
>> the perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession
>> of
>> a gun?
>
> No I don't think the bad guys worry about legal possession, but see
> above.
What of it? Iraq was a police state before the US invaded, and yet it
seems, despite Saddam's best efforts before the US arrived and the US
military occupation's best efforts since, that any Iraqi who wants a
gun (or bomb or RPG or just about any other kind of weapon) has one.
>> Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of
>> thinking that does nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to
>> impare those who aren't your typical, or even your remotely typical
>> culprit.
>
> Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're trying to say.
>
> Let me just paraphrase what's happened in NYC a numbver of years
> back.
> Police were told to get after farejumpers (people who didn't pay the
> fare for the subway, mainly). This way a lot of people left their
> illegal weapons at home, after they or their friends had them nabbed
> by the police. Either as a result, or because of changing
> demographics or because of other reasons, the crime rate went down.
> I happen to believe that nabbing bad guys had something to do with
> it. So good laws and good law enforcement will help. It's not the
> whole thing, of course. And laws like the voting/literacy laws were
> not good laws.
Nabbing bad guys is fine. But I don't see what it has to do with
guns.
> I'll crawl back into my hole now ...
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out
>> of
>> the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the
>> honest
>> citizen.
>
> Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather
> impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.
And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
firearms that they have never shot?
> Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies
> who
> have to clean up the mess after a shooting.
And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you
believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?
> And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type
> pieces.
Which presumably you've never shot if you don't have any problem with
a box of shells costing 250 bucks.
By the way, how much tax would you charge on a can of powder or a box
of primers? And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
weights?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
jo4hn wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
>> entered
>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of
>> downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>
>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>
>> The mess in India continues.
>>
>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
> Read up on it at
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toystoreshooting29-2008nov29,0,5989270.story
>
> We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?
What, military occupation and the declaration of martial law?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
>> firearms that they have never shot?
>
> I guess you assume they will never be shot.
So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at 10
bucks a shot?
> As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your
> definition
> of "benefits".
>
> A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.
Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few less
innocent people being shot"?
>> And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
>> percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do
>> you
>> believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?
>
> I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.
So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you believe
that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?
>> And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
>> weights?
>
> Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but
> impossible.
Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?
> The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat
> ballast was a total PITA.
Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel behind
the tire store.
> Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.
>
> Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.
Uh huh.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>> and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two
>>> people
>>> killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you
>>> to understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded
>>> store and you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup.
>>> You
>>> have truly lost your soul somewhere.
>>> j4
>>
>> I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each
>> other and hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they
>> did, but they did not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit
>> any.
>> Perhaps they spent hours at a shooting range and learned how to
>> aim.
>> Maybe they should get the Darwin Sharpshooters Award.
>>
>> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
>> out.
>> Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
>
> Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
> to
> know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
> shooters.
If they're using typical handguns it's a pretty safe place to
stand--duck down behind the guy and he makes a good shield.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on
>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd
>>>>> want to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind
>>>>> one of the shooters.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Han
>>>>> email address is invalid
>>>>
>>>> Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
>>>> standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios
>>>> so
>>>> I'm not jumping to conclusions.
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one
>>> else
>>> was hurt by flying bullets.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards
>>> Han
>>> email address is invalid
>>
>> That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know
>> it was pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you
>> know there was flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be
>> shooter No 1 waited until there was no one else in range. We don't
>> know that and yet you say it was pure luck. I don't believe it.
>>
> There were 2 shooters who shot each other dead. That's really the
> only relevant facts that I know. (Yes, they were provoked by their
> wives, or whatever the relationships were). In such a case I think
> it is indeed pure luck that eithere only 2 shots were fired, or all
> the other shots (I don't know the number fired) went either totally
> in the object of each shooter or completely wide of anyone.
If there's "pure luck" it might be that the luck was that both
shooters had been practicing regularly so that they hit what they were
aiming at.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>
>> So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at
>> 10
>> bucks a shot?
>
> Not relevant.
It is to the question of whether they have shot the gun they are
carrying. You asked me why they would not have shot it and I gave a
reason.
>
>> Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few
>> less
>> innocent people being shot"?
>
> It might.
By what mechanism? "It might" is not or should not be sufficient
justification for legislation.
>> So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you
>> believe
>> that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?
>
> Read and try to understand what was written.
You're the one who said that it was better than the _nothing_ that we
have now.
>> Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?
>
> They get processed by authorized hazmat organizations.
Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used
wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of brand
new wheel weights?
>> Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel
>> behind
>> the tire store.
>
> These days it is a hazmat operation.
In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire
store in the US.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> By what mechanism?
>
> Simple.
>
> As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
> participants.
>
> At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
> reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the
> cost
> of a usable weapon.
So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a given
year? And how many people are shot with them?
Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem that
exists.
>> Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used
>> wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of
>> brand
>> new wheel weights?
>
> The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.
>
> Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim
> them for another purpose.
So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?
>> In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire
>> store in the US.
>
> Totally unnecessary.
>
> The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.
>
> Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves
> to
> hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.o
Then you need to get out more.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a
>> given
>> year? And how many people are shot with them?
>
> You tell me.
Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't have
the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your ass.
>> Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem
>> that
>> exists.
>
> Be my guest.
Why should I prove that your solution addresses the problem that you
claim exists?
>> So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?
>
> Don't think so.
Then how is it that buying wheel weights at a store for purposes of
casting bullets for reloading purposes is not cost effective when you
are charging your ten dollar a bullet tax?
You really don't seem to have even tried to think this idea of yours
through and when challenged to do so you fall back on glib responses
and attempts to shift the burden of proof. I am curious as to why you
are so resistant to examining your own views.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
>> demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't
>> have
>> the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your
>> ass.
>
> The basic statement was that by imposing a significant increase in
> the
> sales/use tax it would reduce the available market.
You have not demonstrated that "reducing the available market" will
accomplish any desirable societal objective.
> Your failure to understand that sounds like a personal problem.
>
> Perhaps you might want to try Econ 101 to resolve.
>
> Trying to introduce extraneous intellectual bullshit not
> withstanding,
> the base statement still stands.
>
> I'm out of here.
Oh, if it were only so.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Nova wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote
>>
>>
>>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the
>>> world, guns are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.
>>
>>
>> Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no
>> argument there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal
>> immigrant population is currently armed to the teeth? Especially
>> with the Mexican drug cartel increasingly more active *inside* our
>> border.
>>
>> Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not
>> going to consider.
>>
>
> Can you still legally purchase fully automatic weapons in Texas???
> ;-)
The states that I'm aware of with full-auto bans are California,
Connecticut, and maybe New York (I'm not clear on whether the Sullivan
Act applies to the whole state or just NYC). However the Feds have
outlawed sales to citizens of any made or imported after 1986, and
between that and the transfer tax the prices have gone through the
roof.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Especially with the Mexican drug cartel increasingly more active
>> *inside* our border.
>>
>> Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not
>> going to consider.
>
> To put the Mexican drug wars in perspective, last week it was
> reported
> that there were more fatalities in Mexico than in the total MidEast
> theater.
>
> 37 in TJ alone which included at least 4 decapitations.
>
> Nobody goes to TJ for the weekend these days.
Except Nancy Botwin <grin>.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out.
>> Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
>
> Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want to
> know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
> shooters.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone standing
behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so I'm not jumping
to conclusions.
Doctors vs. Gun owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So,statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
REMEMBER, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - DOCTORS DO
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large,
I withheld the statistics on lawyers
for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!
Tom
<snip>
>
> That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And
> if
> it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to the
> US ones?
><snip>
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From
1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939
to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,
44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms
are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them
in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this datum on the US evening news, or hear
politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are
'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America
because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun
control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible
victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill
is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.
1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to
fight, he'll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics
suck.
3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
4. W hen seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas
Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying
and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they
don't make a 46.'
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous
regularity.
7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a
lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your
pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble,
I would have brought my rifle.'
8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY
KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!
But wait, there's more!
I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in
the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!'
To which I said, 'Of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She
then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?'
My reply was,
'No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching
fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded
too.' To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like
having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are
too, please forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments may contain
privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient or believe that you may have received this communication
in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the
copy you received without printing, copying, retransmitting, disseminating,
or otherwise using the information. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------
One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social
networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1735 - Release Date: 10/20/2008
2:52 PM
"Bored Borg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and
> displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might
> expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social
> "norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a
> competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few
> items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting
> tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life
> savages
> who succumbed to it.
I especially like the part in our Constitution that says "all men must
compete for bargains at holidays sales"
No one made them get up to go to the store, be it Wal Mart, Best Buy, JC
Penney, etc.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> By what mechanism?
>
> Simple.
>
> As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
> participants.
>
> At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be reduced
> since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost of a usable
> weapon.
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.
todd
Tom Bunetta wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And
>> if
>> it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to
>> the US ones?
>><snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
>
... snip of history
A bit of more recent history. For those who think disarming the populace
is a good idea, read very carefully the accounts of what happened in Mumbai
last week. Just a couple of armed citizens (heck, one or two armed police
officers with ammunition) could have prevented a lot of savagery. Instead,
the populace was reduced to being a bunch of unarmed, helpless sheep whom
these monsters were able to slaughter at will. The cameraman who got the
pictures of one of the savages made the statement that he wished he had a
gun instead of a camera.
<http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mumbai-photographer-i-wish-id-had-a-gun-not-a-camera-armed-police-would-not-fire-back-14086308.html>
He also made the statement that the policemen wouldn't fire on the
terrorists. There is some speculation that the police may have had guns
but no ammunition.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <Nx1%[email protected]>, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
>2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting
>politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was
>deleted from the Congressional Record.
LOL -- wonder who that was. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Dan Burton
(R-Indiana).
The point is valid, though: all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many empty promises if we the
people lack the means to compel the government to honor those guarantees
should it ever become reluctant to do so on its own.
jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> People still
>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
>>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
>>> make this stuff up].
>>
>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
>> need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
>> controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times
>> as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>
> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use:
> to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves,
> you can't fire your gun.
Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
differently than you:
http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> ...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
> for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
> long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?
Well, I'd have to agree with you, because nobody except the police are
registered to carry weapons. The only other registration that goes on here
is to own a gun and a permit to transport it to places like a gun club. And,
it's even more difficult than ever to get those permits.
> This is a great example of drugs (alcohol) and guns don't mix.
That's one point that I'm trying to get across. When you add alcohol to any
situation, it usually exacerbates it. If the population at large has the
right to bear arms and they're more guns around, what happens when alcohol
is thrown into the mix?
> I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
> was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
> prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that
Things *have* changed since the 70's, everywhere. There's an attitude of
entitlement and "don't screw with me" that seems to be very pervasive. When
I was a kid, a fight was using your fists and you might get the crap beat
out of you, but you usually lived. It seems when there's a fight these days,
someone always has a gun or a knife and a fight often results in someone
dying. It's just not the same anymore and I feel for kids in school who have
to deal with this shit day in and day out.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
one of them.
Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
Until then, shove it.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
> use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
> anyone including the US.
Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
at will?
I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
neighbours.
> With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
> isn't easily available to you.
That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
with it.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> People still
> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
> make this stuff up].
Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as
fists are a dangerous weapon.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:54:19 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 7, 12:35 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>> > "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
>> >> use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
>> >> anyone including the US.
>>
>> > Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
>> > best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
>> > spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
>> > a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
>> > relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
>> > one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
>> > at will?
>>
>> You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
>> > by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
>> > neighbours.
>>
>> "beep, boop, boop"
>>
>> "911. What's your emergency?"
>>
>> "Someone is breaking in my front door!"
>>
>> "Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."
>>
>> "STOP! THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... KABOOM"
>>
>> "This is 911 - what was that noise?... hello.....hello"
>>
>>
>>
>> >> With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
>> >> isn't easily available to you.
>>
>> > That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
>> > other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
>> > with it.
>>
>> Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
>> best in modern day US.
>
>A few years ago, Ted Nugent was doing his show on his radio station in
>Detroit, a station I would listen to quite often.
>There had been a rash of car-jackings in the Detroit area. Ted (or a
>guest on his show, I don't recall) suggested that if a driver was in a
>bad neighbourhood to put his gun on his lap, pointing at the door.
>When a car-jacker would approach, just plug the bastard, right through
>the door.
>That in fact happened a couple of times. News travels fast and from
>then on, any carjacker deep-down knew he could be approaching a target
>that would shoot his balls off.
>The car-jackings went way down in a hurry.
>
>I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes,
>cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off.
>Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the
>occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything
>else I can think of.
>
>Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.
>
>That is wrong.
...hear here!
cg (I can't believe I spelled "defense" *defence*...must be in the
water...).
jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>> People still
>>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem
>>>>> -- now
>>>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and
>>>>> banning
>>>>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just
>>>>> can't
>>>>> make this stuff up].
>>>>
>>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
>>>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>>>
>>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
>>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
>>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>>
>> Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers
>> saw as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
>> differently than you:
>>
>> http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
>
> OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms. Or
> do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
> revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.
You didn't read it all:
SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to
life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right
to defend them in the best manner they can."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion
for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private
self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since
you
> already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun
> laws?
Obviously, they've happened because even though the laws are restrictive,
guns were still available. Yet, here are wanting to make more guns available
and more easily? The only possible end result is that things like that would
happen more. There's no way you can argue that point.
While a number of gun crimes result because of firearms stolen from
collectors, a sizable amount of them have happened because of guns smuggled
up from the US.
And to Doug who jokingly suggests that baseball bats, screw drivers,
chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned, all of those
things have other other uses while hand guns have one use. A deadly use that
can be effectively wielded from a distance ~ not even closely comparable to
the examples you used Doug.
And of course for John Clarke, it makes perfect sense to legalize guns for
millions so the four Olympic shooters in the country can practice their
craft. Well thought out reasoning John.
> shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to
what
> is a very small problem?
It's an increasing problem, not a small problem.
> causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all
> citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about.
Kids
> used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons:
You do have a point there, but for one thing. Population sizes and societal
values have changed to a great degree. People weren't as packed together
like sardines in the cities as they are today and there's been an extremely
large influx of immigrants into Canada. When I went to school, if there was
a fight, it was a fist fight. I wouldn't have dreamed of pulling out the
pocket knife I had in my back pocket and I've never carried a gun of any
type for the purpose of protection. Those values are different these days.
I won't argue for one second that just removing guns is going to solve all
the problems that exist. I never suggested that for one second. However, it
will help while also attending to the root causes of why a number of people
use guns to solve their problems.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:35Â pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>> > "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
... snip
>
> I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes,
> cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off.
> Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the
> occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything
> else I can think of.
>
> Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.
>
> That is wrong.
Wow, we actually agree on something. IIRC, shortly after you all had
instituted some of your latest draconian gun laws, there were reports that
home invasion robberies had increased by a significant percentage due to
the fact that the bad guys knew they were most likely approaching soft
targets. Is that still the case, or has that moderated?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> People still
>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem --
>>>> now
>>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
>>>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
>>>> make this stuff up].
>>>
>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
>>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>>
>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>
> Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
> as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
> differently than you:
>
> http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting
politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was
deleted from the Congressional Record.
jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> People still
>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
>>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
>>> make this stuff up].
>>
>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
>> need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
>> controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times
>> as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>
> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use:
> to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves,
> you can't fire your gun.
How do you know about my gun? - a pump bb/pellet rifle. Next you'll
claim I kill or maim innocent pigeons while secretly removing my boxing
gloves!
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
>
> And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
> lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
> Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
> laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
> are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
> great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
> one of them.
>
> Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
> or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
> bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
> Until then, shove it.
>
>
My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.
With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> People still
>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
>> make this stuff up].
>
> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
> need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
> controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as
> fists are a dangerous weapon.
All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use:
to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves,
you can't fire your gun.
J. Clarke wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> People still
>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem
>>>> -- now there are people in England seriously discussing regulating
>>>> and banning knives.
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm>
>>>> [You just can't make this stuff up].
>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to
>>> be
>>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>
> So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition
> have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?
>
Practice practice practice.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
>
>And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
>lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
>Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
>laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
>are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else?
One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are,
insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are,
> insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...
I'm sure you feel your way is right for you. That's not how this discussion
originated. My part in it originated with my stating that innocent bystander
shootings were a popular news item *in Canada* and I got an argument. I've
always had Canadian firearm laws in mind when I've posted. As usual, the
conversation somehow turned to what's best for people in the US. Maybe
that's not arrogance, but it sure seems to be something akin to it because
again, the discussion has been twisted to what US citizens feel.
If what I said sounded otherwise, that was not my intention. I've always
stated I felt our firearm laws were sufficient for Canadians and argued
against the US style of firearms laws *for Canadians*. You can do as you
want down in the US. It's not my country, it's yours.
On Dec 7, 12:35=A0pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> My goodness! =A0My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a sin=
gle
> >> use of guns to "kill and maim". =A0I made no mention of what was best =
for
> >> anyone including the US.
>
> > Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included wha=
t's
> > best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so pl=
ease
> > spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'=
d use
> > a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
> > relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really on=
ly
> > one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be a=
rmed
> > at will?
>
> You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.
>
>
>
> > I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer =
close
> > by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friend=
s and
> > neighbours.
>
> "beep, boop, boop"
>
> "911. =A0What's your emergency?"
>
> "Someone is breaking in my front door!"
>
> "Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."
>
> "STOP! =A0THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... =A0 KABOOM"
>
> "This is 911 - what was that noise?... =A0hello.....hello"
>
>
>
> >> With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a g=
un
> >> isn't easily available to you.
>
> > That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge a=
bout
> > other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go f=
ar
> > with it.
>
> Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
> best in modern day US.
A few years ago, Ted Nugent was doing his show on his radio station in
Detroit, a station I would listen to quite often.
There had been a rash of car-jackings in the Detroit area. Ted (or a
guest on his show, I don't recall) suggested that if a driver was in a
bad neighbourhood to put his gun on his lap, pointing at the door.
When a car-jacker would approach, just plug the bastard, right through
the door.
That in fact happened a couple of times. News travels fast and from
then on, any carjacker deep-down knew he could be approaching a target
that would shoot his balls off.
The car-jackings went way down in a hurry.
I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes,
cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off.
Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the
occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything
else I can think of.
Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.
That is wrong.
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
>> use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
>> anyone including the US.
>
> Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
> best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
> spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
> a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
> relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
> one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
> at will?
You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.
>
> I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
> by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
> neighbours.
"beep, boop, boop"
"911. What's your emergency?"
"Someone is breaking in my front door!"
"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."
"STOP! THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... KABOOM"
"This is 911 - what was that noise?... hello.....hello"
>
>> With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
>> isn't easily available to you.
>
> That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
> other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
> with it.
>
>
Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
best in modern day US.
jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> People still
>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem
>>> -- now there are people in England seriously discussing regulating
>>> and banning knives.
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm>
>>> [You just can't make this stuff up].
>>
>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to
>> be
>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>
> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition
have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
jo4hn wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>> People still
>>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next
>>>>> problem
>>>>> -- now there are people in England seriously discussing
>>>>> regulating
>>>>> and banning knives.
>>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm>
>>>>> [You just can't make this stuff up].
>>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to
>>>> be
>>>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
>>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
>>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>>
>> So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition
>> have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?
>>
> Practice practice practice.
Yes, if you want that gold medal you do have to practice, practice,
practice, but what does that have to do with your point?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Upscale wrote:
> And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
> lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
> Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
> laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
> are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
> great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
> one of them.
>
> Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
> or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
> bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
> Until then, shove it.
>
The countries who most often whine and moan about the US and its
"arrogance" are often the countries who would be whining and moaning
with a German or Russian accent were they not living in the shadow of
our protection. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <Nx1%[email protected]>, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
>> 2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting
>> politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was
>> deleted from the Congressional Record.
>
> LOL -- wonder who that was. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Dan Burton
> (R-Indiana).
>
No I don't think that it was Dapper Dan.
> The point is valid, though: all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by
> the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many empty promises if we the
> people lack the means to compel the government to honor those guarantees
> should it ever become reluctant to do so on its own.
In a compromise the original Congress agreed to adopt amendments to the
Constitution to cover certain rights that were left out of the original
document. These became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
What most people don't know or realize what became the 1st amendment was
originally the THIRD of thirteen resolutions that were submitted to the
13 states. The first resolution became the 2nd amendment upon
ratification by 7 states. You can look up the dates yourself.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:46:15 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
>>
>> Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
>> armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
>> These were two people bent on mayhem.
>
>Garbage. You make it sound like they went home, got the gun and came back.
>They were kicked out of the club and returned *minutes* later. They were
>average citizens out for a good time and decided to punish a bouncer for
>throwing them out. Result, an innocent person was shot down by a person who
>lost his temper.
...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?
This is a great example of drugs (alcohal) and guns don't mix.
>
>Why don't you ask me how I know many of the intricate details? I live 300
>yards from the Brass Rail. I've talked to a number of the staff who work
>there since I see many of them around the area on a frequent basis.
>
>I live in downtown Toronto. I play there and I work there. I experience it
>every day. I know what goes on and am fully aware of the volatile nature of
>many people here. And, I'm certainly not paranoid about it, just fully
>realistic.
I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that
particular molecule I marvel at the drinking culture...but not so much
at how easy it is to lose control because of its influence...
cg
>
>
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> ...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
>> for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
>> long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?
>
> Well, I'd have to agree with you, because nobody except the police are
> registered to carry weapons. The only other registration that goes on here
> is to own a gun and a permit to transport it to places like a gun club.
> And, it's even more difficult than ever to get those permits.
>
So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since you
already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun
laws?
>> This is a great example of drugs (alcohol) and guns don't mix.
>
> That's one point that I'm trying to get across. When you add alcohol to
> any situation, it usually exacerbates it. If the population at large has
> the right to bear arms and they're more guns around, what happens when
> alcohol is thrown into the mix?
>
You act as if guns and/or alcohol are recent innovations and that only now
citizens are getting access to guns. The exact opposite is true and
societies now have less guns on a per capita basis than in the past. Yet
somehow, the population in years past wasn't decimating itself in drunken
shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to what
is a very small problem?
>> I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
>> was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
>> prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that
>
> Things *have* changed since the 70's, everywhere. There's an attitude of
> entitlement and "don't screw with me" that seems to be very pervasive.
> When I was a kid, a fight was using your fists and you might get the crap
> beat out of you, but you usually lived. It seems when there's a fight
> these days, someone always has a gun or a knife and a fight often results
> in someone dying.
Some of that gang-related stuff. Again, guns are hardly a new
innovation -- perhaps it's time to use some of that energy being used to
restrict peoples' freedom by restricting a tool and start to work on what
is causing the behavior and attitude instead. What is so laugh-in-your
face funny (again, but for the serious consequences) is the notion by gun
ban advocates that somehow guns have just appeared on the scene and are now
causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all
citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about. Kids
used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons: gun club, show and
tell, and to hunt on the way home after school. There weren't wild
rampages then, so guns aren't the problem, why do you think banning them
now would be the solution?
The whole idea that by banning an inanimate object along with the
accompanying unintended consequences and side effects will somehow solve
the problems you describe above would be laughable if it weren't so darn
serious for the peasants (what disarmed citizens become) who are subjected
to such regulations. The gun control part is just part of the total
package -- just look to England. After disarming the citizens, the next
step was the idea that "a few farthings worth of x is not worth someone
losing their life over" and now you have the case where defending oneself
in one's own home leads to jail time for the person doing so. People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
make this stuff up].
All deaths are tragic, society seems to be onto this notion that somehow
the world can be made completely safe through the application of various
laws and restrictions. The problem is that those laws and restrictions have
other various serious consequences and side effects. Where I grew up, and
where I live now, law enforcement is a minimum of 30 minutes (most likely
45 minutes) away -- you are proposing disarming people like myself and
putting us at the mercy of those who are already breaking the law. Mighty
compassionate of you.
> It's just not the same anymore and I feel for kids in
> school who have to deal with this shit day in and day out.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Oh, I'll be happy to take you up on that challenge -- just not with
Robatoy as
> referee.
>
> How about Tim Daneliuk instead?
Sure, you fly him up to Toronto. While ideologically, Tim is an <expletive>,
you're nothing more than a cut rate flim-flam artist. You suggesting Tim
while thinking that I'd turn him down shows that you have no intention
whatsoever to take me up on my challenge. A simple picture with me and Tim
is all it would take to validate the truth. Hell, I might even get along
with the guy if I met him in person.
Your problem is you think you're being clever while failing miserably at it.
You need to grow up and be a man. As it is, all you've done is demonstrate
that mentally, you've yet to experience puberty.
Obviously, you don't have anything tangible to offer, so this thread is
finished as far as I'm concerned until if or when you come back with
something worthwhile.
Go ahead, you can have the final response.
On Dec 11, 8:43=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Oh, I'll be happy to take you up on that challenge -- just not with
> Robatoy as
> > referee.
>
> > How about Tim Daneliuk instead?
>
> Sure, you fly him up to Toronto. While ideologically, Tim is an <expletiv=
e>,
> you're nothing more than a cut rate flim-flam artist. You suggesting Tim
> while thinking that I'd turn him down shows that you have no intention
> whatsoever to take me up on my challenge. A simple picture with me and Ti=
m
> is all it would take to validate the truth. Hell, I might even get along
> with the guy if I met him in person.
>
> Your problem is you think you're being clever while failing miserably at =
it.
> You need to grow up and be a man. As it is, all you've done is demonstrat=
e
> that mentally, you've yet to experience puberty.
>
> Obviously, you don't have anything tangible to offer, so this thread is
> finished as far as I'm concerned until if or when you come back with
> something worthwhile.
>
> Go ahead, you can have the final response.
I am advised that, as the plaintiff, I am no longer to participate in
any discussion involving Doug Miller's libelous utterances against my
person.
Not that I will miss him much.
r
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Fallible, yes. Gullible, no.
>
>Here's another name for you. You're a coward. I've given you the opportunity
>to prove me a liar as you called me (would that be what you call descending
>to personal insults Doug?) and I guess you're backing down on it because
>you're apparently not man enough to take me up on my challenge.
Oh, I'll be happy to take you up on that challenge -- just not with Robatoy as
referee.
How about Tim Daneliuk instead?
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 11, 8:43 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Oh, I'll be happy to take you up on that challenge -- just not with
>> Robatoy as
>>> referee.
>>> How about Tim Daneliuk instead?
>> Sure, you fly him up to Toronto. While ideologically, Tim is an <expletive>,
>> you're nothing more than a cut rate flim-flam artist. You suggesting Tim
>> while thinking that I'd turn him down shows that you have no intention
>> whatsoever to take me up on my challenge. A simple picture with me and Tim
>> is all it would take to validate the truth. Hell, I might even get along
>> with the guy if I met him in person.
>>
>> Your problem is you think you're being clever while failing miserably at it.
>> You need to grow up and be a man. As it is, all you've done is demonstrate
>> that mentally, you've yet to experience puberty.
>>
>> Obviously, you don't have anything tangible to offer, so this thread is
>> finished as far as I'm concerned until if or when you come back with
>> something worthwhile.
>>
>> Go ahead, you can have the final response.
>
> I am advised that, as the plaintiff, I am no longer to participate in
> any discussion involving Doug Miller's libelous utterances against my
> person.
You have your own person? I thought slavery was illegal, even in
Canada. Boy did I miss something ...
>
> Not that I will miss him much.
>
> r
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are,
>> insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...
>
>I'm sure you feel your way is right for you. That's not how this discussion
>originated. My part in it originated with my stating that innocent bystander
>shootings were a popular news item *in Canada* and I got an argument. I've
>always had Canadian firearm laws in mind when I've posted. As usual, the
>conversation somehow turned to what's best for people in the US. Maybe
>that's not arrogance, but it sure seems to be something akin to it because
>again, the discussion has been twisted to what US citizens feel.
You're perhaps too quick to see "arrogance" and "twisting the discussion" in
what is probably no more than the natural result of the geographic
distribution of the contributors to this newsgroup, i.e. more here from the
U.S. than from the rest of the world combined.
>
>If what I said sounded otherwise, that was not my intention. I've always
>stated I felt our firearm laws were sufficient for Canadians and argued
>against the US style of firearms laws *for Canadians*. You can do as you
>want down in the US. It's not my country, it's yours.
I'll keep that in mind.
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> People still
>>>> die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem --
>>>> now
>>>> there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
>>>> knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm> [You just can't
>>>> make this stuff up].
>>>
>>> Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
>>> automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
>>> objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
>>> worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
>>
>> All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
>> use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
>> gloves, you can't fire your gun.
>
> Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
> as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
> differently than you:
>
> http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms.
Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.
You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at
http://www.lizmichael.com/biograph.htm. Interesting stuff.
mahalo,
jo4hn
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at
> 10
> bucks a shot?
Not relevant.
> Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few
> less
> innocent people being shot"?
It might.
> So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you believe
> that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?
Read and try to understand what was written.
> Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?
They get processed by authorized hazmat organizations.
> Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel
> behind
> the tire store.
These days it is a hazmat operation.
Lew
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:48:16 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
>> has nothing at all to do with the point
>
> Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?
I simply responded to the fanatical statement about warring citizens if
guns were more commonplace.
>
>> Think you can get your head around that?
>
> I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
> person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.
You have an interesting definition of stressed. I'm not surprised at it
though. I've watched your comments in enough of these off topic diatribes
here to realize you are much like Lew in that both of you delight in
darting conversations off to the side with irrelevant red herrings, and
then you try to turn the focus back on those who catch you at your game.
My guess is that is really quite stressful for you. It's really quite
evident in the manner in which you quickly resort to the ad-hominem
tactics.
>
> Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want and
> generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
> citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper and
> happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my neighbours
> packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
> does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
> generally well balanced society.
>
> As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of the
> beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
> general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't make
> sense.
Maybe you have a temper that is more out of control than the majority of
the people around you, and that causes you to see everyone else through
your own eyes. The reality is that people already do own guns, they
already do experience the stresses, anguishes and turmoils of life, and
they do not go for those guns as a coping mechanism. The argument that
they may is what does not make any sense.
>
> I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved around
> people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
> wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
> number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
> ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
> really only one way to deal with that.
What constitues "a fair amount", and what are the references for this?
>
> And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
> relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
> frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
> down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look into
> getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.
>
> I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
> knowledge I do have about living in US society.
The last statement is the most accurate one you've made in this thread.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:46:34 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls
of wisdom...:
> On Nov 28, 5:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Upscale" wrote:
>>> More than once, I've seen Leaf's fans or some other sports fans
>>> marching up Yonge Street, smashing store windows and looting
>>> everything on
>>> the way.
>>
>> As in soccer (their football) fans across the pond, especially in the
>> UK.
>>
>> Lew
>
> There is a whole shitload of difference between runamuk sports-fucks
> and greedy killers.
Really? And what would those differences be? The end result in this case
could just as easily happen in the case of runamuck sports-f*cks. In fact
- it has.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484
> @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
>> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>
>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>
>> The mess in India continues.
>>
>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>
>> Lew
>
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
> to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
>
> The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
>
> Hey, my opinions are mine!!
And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do precisely
what(?) to prevent these types of incidents? Do you really feel that the
perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession of a gun?
Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of thinking that does
nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to impare those who aren't your
typical, or even your remotely typical culprit.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> RE: Subject
>>>
>>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
>>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
>>> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>>
>>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>>
>>> The mess in India continues.
>>>
>>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>> Read up on it at
>>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toystoreshooting29-2008nov29,0,5989270.story
>
> Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
> Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this intended
> to make it sound like a movie scene.
>
> No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.
>
> Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact that
> more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:
>
> "... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"
>
> "... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."
>
> " ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
> angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted, slamming
> her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "
>
>
> Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
> reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy writing
> their Hollywood script.
>
>
>
>> We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?
>
and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly
lost your soul somewhere.
j4
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place
>>
>> Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
>> requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
>> only very rare circumstances.
>
>> In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?
>
> A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.
>
> http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx
Just so we make sure we're talking about the topic at hand, how many of
those were the result of non-criminals carrying weapons who just got into an
altercation? To be fair, I was able to count one for sure and perhaps a
second. While tragic, it doesn't seem to warrant the level of fear you seem
to have.
todd
Upscale wrote:
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
> eliminate
>> by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
> but
>> tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
>> church to get in.
>
> I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
> between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the
> fact that they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because
> something *is* enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean
> that what was important then is necessarily important now. During the past
> 300 years, population and society have changed significantly.
Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out
there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the
right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.
Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those
citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today who
would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to do
so.
You may say that you see a moral difference between the right to free
speech and the right to bear arms -- there are those who see the right to
free speech as something that is outmoded and should be subject to
strict "guidelines" that prevent giving offense to various protected
groups.
The fact is, that there are those now who say that the freedom enshrined
in the Constitution is no longer relevant and that the Constitution is an
impediment to the government exercising more control over our lives (for
our good of course -- it's always for our good). *That* is exactly why the
Constitution was established as it was -- to protect us from those who
would enslave us "for our own good". Just because the excuses given for
that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of
tyrannical behavior has not changed.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 +0000, Han wrote:
> I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
> to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
> been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
> including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
> any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of the
possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest citizen.
Anyone who knew they couldn't pass the exam would just get a gun on the
black market.
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:14:11 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Upscale" wrote
>
>> important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
>> population and society have changed significantly.
>
>But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
>human nature has not changed one iota. :)
>
>Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon
>volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like
>"Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ...
>English translations abound:
>
>http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#balzacho
>
>All characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in
>the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ... :)
Yep. Started reading Gibbon again shortly after the election and it
is actually giving me some hope that we have actually made some
progress.
tom
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> By what mechanism?
Simple.
As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
participants.
At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost
of a usable weapon.
> Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used
> wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of
> brand
> new wheel weights?
The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.
Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim
them for another purpose.
> In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire
> store in the US.
Totally unnecessary.
The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.
Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves to
hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.
Lew
I previously wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
> entered a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east
> of downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>
> Too early for casualty reports.
>
> The mess in India continues.
>
> What the hell is this world coming to?
>...........................................................
The reports are in.
Seems two women got into a "cat" fight, hair pulling, the whole bit,
inside the store.
The men accompanying the women were each packing heat (Just what you
need to go to the toy store) which they pulled out and shot and killed
each other as the fight escalated..
Darwin rules.
Lew
Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped to amplify my incessant desire to throw my hands up in the
> air and screaming: DOESN'T ANYBODY THINK ANYMORE???"
>> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
>> 1967.
>>
> Most went back home when amnesty was announced.
> In the meantime, I would have fed and clothed you and given you a warm
> place to sleep.
> Just long enough until you had an opportunity to sort out what was
> troubling you.
> There *IS* a difference between a coward and a conscientious
> objector.
> .
> .
> .
> I will never understand what that difference is.
A coward won't. A CO won't but goes anyway. During WWII a CO corpsman
won the Medal of Honor for his actions but would not even take basic
rifle training in boot camp.
Many supposed CO's from Vietnam were cowards though. They didn't want to
go period.
jo4hn wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> RE: Subject
>>>>
>>>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
>>>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
>>>> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>>>
>>>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>>>
>>>> The mess in India continues.
>>>>
>>>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>> Read up on it at
>>>
>>
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toystoreshooting29-2008nov29,0,5989270.story
>>
>> Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
>> Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this
>> intended to make it sound like a movie scene.
>>
>> No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.
>>
>> Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact
>> that
>> more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:
>>
>> "... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"
>>
>> "... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."
>>
>> " ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
>> angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted,
>> slamming her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "
>>
>>
>> Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
>> reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy
>> writing their Hollywood script.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?
>>
> and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
> killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
> understand.
Ya know, I didn't miss that. I get that, nowhere in my commentary above
did I minimize that. I took exception to the sensationalism, not the
incident.
> Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
> you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly
> lost your soul somewhere.
Oh, BS. The actual facts should have been enough. Two idiots chasing
each other through a crowded store shooting at each other is a terrible
thing. I get that. What I don't get is why the LAT spent most of the
writeup with superfluous tripe like, " Most shoppers headed to the Toys R
Us in Palm Desert on Friday morning clutching their "door buster" ads and
their shopping lists. At least two men walked into the busy store armed
with their guns." instead of providing some detail on who those two men
were. Were they gang-bangers? Did they have prior arrests? Were they
just peaceful law-abiding citizens for whom something just snapped? Why
were the two couples feuding? Again, was there a gang connection, or was
it just neighbors who had a running dispute? You know, those would have
been kind of pertinent facts. Please don't try the excuse that it's only
been a little while and the facts aren't available yet. It took less time
for the media to have the complete life history of Joe the Plumber.
I've lost my soul? BS -- it's papers and reporters like the LAT that have
lost theirs.
> j4
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Lew Hodgett" wrote
> To put the Mexican drug wars in perspective, last week it was reported
> that there were more fatalities in Mexico than in the total MidEast
> theater.
Certainly not the Mexican's fault ... just that the media has yet to
contrive a way to blame it on Bush. Stay tuned ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Found this one tonight.
Lew
>........................................................
From: "jo4hn" <[email protected]>
Subject: OT Humor: Monday's smut
Date: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:56 PM
Ole and Sven, were holidaying on the beach in Australia while on
vacation, and Sven couldn't seem to make it with any of the girls. So
he asked the local lifeguard for some advice.
"Mate, it's obvious," says the lifeguard, "you're wearing them old
baggy
Minnesota style swimming trunks that make ya look like an old geezer.
They're years outta style. Your best bet is to grab yourself a pair
of
Speedos - about two sizes too small - and drop a fist-sized potato
down
inside 'em. I'm tellin' ya man...you'll have all the babes ya want!"
The following day, Sven hits the beach with his spanking new tight
Speedos, and his fist-sized potato . Everybody on the beach was
disgusted as he walked by, covering their faces, turning away,
laughing,
looking sick!
So Ole went back to the lifeguard again and asked him, "Vat's wrong
now?" Sven still isn't picking up babes.
"JAHEESUS!" said the lifeguard, "Mate. The potato goes in front!"
:-)
jo4hn wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
>> a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
>> L/A), and are shooting up the place.
>>
>> Too early for casualty reports.
>>
>> The mess in India continues.
>>
>> What the hell is this world coming to?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
> Read up on it at
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toystoreshooting29-2008nov29,0,5989270.story
Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this intended
to make it sound like a movie scene.
No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.
Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact that
more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:
"... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"
"... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."
" ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted, slamming
her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "
Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy writing
their Hollywood script.
>
> We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place
>>
>> Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
>> requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
>> only very rare circumstances.
>
>> In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?
>
> A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.
>
Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs and
criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
who decided to carry a gun that day".
> http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
The only documented case here was someone paralyzed during a "gangland
hit". That's not your average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day as
you had previously asserted.
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
These were two people bent on mayhem.
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
This one might pass that criteria. It's interesting to read the highly
incendiary writing employed by the reporters. It appears that someone is
attempting to sway public opinion to support yet more gun control measures
(as in they won't be happy until all law-abiding citizens are disarmed).
My guess is that there are few or no reports when those law abiding
citizens deter or stop a crime because they are armed. Or, it gets
relegated to a back page story with an obligatory quote from a police
officer that they don't encourage citizens to arm themselves for
protection.
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
Not enough detail in many of these stories to fully assess, but those with
some detail belie your assertion that this was the result of "law abiding
citizens who decided to carry a gun that day". Significant number either
gang or drug-related, others look like the result of a pre-meditated crime.
> http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx
Again, a nice incendiary "it's all the fault of the guns" article.
Especially like the picture of someone holding a gun up while wearing latex
gloves -- it gives the impression that if one actually were to handle the
gun bare-handed, all of the evil in the gun would seep into the person
handling it. Again, this does not match your assertion that a "fair amount
of these shootings are the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that
day." In fact, the article says just the opposite: "Last year's scourge of
gun violence, which was capped off by the fatal shooting of Jane Creba, an
innocent teen who was hit by a stray bullet in a gang shootout on Boxing
Day while shopping in the Yonge-Dundas area, was largely the result of gang
wars, police say. This fall's spate of shootings is a different beast,
according to police, fuelled by drug deals gone bad and personal beefs
between members of the same street gangs".
With the exception of one article, none of these articles point to your
assertion that a fair amount of gun deaths are the result of the average
citizen just deciding to carry a gun that day. Even in the case of the one
article, there is no evidence that this is the only time that person was
armed.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
tom wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2:25Â pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This country, that is ... ever increasing examples of aberrant behavior
>> makes you wonder:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death
>>
>> Here's hoping the security camera's were working and can be used to
>> prosecute these idiots, who are arguably more despicable than the
>> terrorists in India who have motives relatively more noble, by
>> comparison, than sheer, unmitigated, selfish, consumer greed exhibited
>> here.
>>
>> Really fucking hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
>> 1967.
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> Of course it's worth saving, but I think it'll take a major "paradigm
> shift" (sorry) regarding economic growth, personal values and birth
> control. Not bloody likely, eh? The love of money, and that amazing
> effect that our gonads (and religion) can impose, are some of the
> culprits. One of the worst things: fear of other cultures' mixing, or
> just their proximity, in our societies! Tom
Say what? The only left talking point you missed was re-distributive
change.
Aside from greed, the rest of your rant has no application to the problem
discussed.
Overpopulation caused people to trample someone?
Economic growth caused people to stampede?
Religion caused people trying to get to a sale to act like a mob?
Xenophobia caused people to do this?
A cogent argument that unbridled greed along with lack of moral and
religious underpinnings led to the kinds of behaviors observed could be
made here; your talking points don't seem to even address the problem.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Stuart"
> Well, the UK has, I am told, more security cameras per head of population,
> than any other country in the world but we still have many problems.
>
> Due to "human rights" it seems the thugs have more rights than the
> victims. There seem to be regular reports in the newspapers of public
> spirited people trying to make a stand and being banged up by the courts
> while the offenders get off scot free. We, as householders, have no rights
> to protect our property and can do little in self defence.
>
> I don't have a problem with cameras but I do object to UK government plans
> to monitor all internet traffic.
I'm not surprised. Years ago, when I lived the UK (early 60's), it was
always surprising to me that when anyone was stopped on the street, one of
the two 'Bobbies' who did the stopping would walk off a few yards with his
walkie-talkie, and, in two minutes knew who owned your house, what you paid
in taxes, whether your telly license was up to date, where you worked, how
much you made, and what your blood type was.
Still, since my oldest daughter is married to a POME and lives in Sheffield,
I am partial to the country. :)
You guys always seem to be about 5 to 10 years ahead of us in cultural and
social issues, both good and bad, from TV programs to privacy issues.
Besides, there is nothing more pitiful/shameful on earth than the piss poor
attempts our TV industry makes to mimic even the BBC's programming.
But ... do us a favor and try to keep that sharia bullshit on that side of
the ocean!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
This has been around.
Enjoy
>............................................................
A BILL to Regulate the HUNTING & HARVESTING of ATTORNEYS
372.00
372.01 Any person with a valid Texas state rodent or armadillo
hunting license may hunt and harvest attorneys for
recreational and sporting (non-commerical) purposes.
372.02 Taking attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The
use of United States currency as bait; however, is prohibited.
372.03 The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is
prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven
in reverse. If an attorney is accidently struck and killed
by a motor vehille, the dead attorney should be removed to
the roadside and said vehicle should proceed to the nearest
car wash.
372.04 It is unlawful to chase, herd or harvest attorneys from a
power boat, helicopter or fixed wing aircraft.
372.05 It is unlawful to shout "WHIPLASH", AMBULANCE" OR
"FREE SCOTCH" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.
372.06 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW,
Mercedes or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday
afternoons.
372.07 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of
courtrooms, law libraries, health clubs, country clubs,
yacht clubs or hospitals.
372.08 If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary
to have a license to hunt, trap or possess the same.
372.09 It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter,
accident victim, physician, chiropractor or tax accountant
for the purpose of hunting attorneys.
372.10 Bag limits per day:
Yellow-Bellied Sidewinders: ................ 2
Two-Faced Tortfeasors: ..................... 1
Back-Stabbing Divorce Litigators: .......... 3
Horn-Rimmed Cut-Throats: ................... 2
Minutiac-Advocating Chicken-Shits: ......... 4
Honest Attorney: ........................... Protected
(Endangered
Species)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:54:17 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> On Dec 3, 11:35 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
>>> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?
>>
>> What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
>> Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
>> has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
>> rest of the civilized countries around the world.
>>
>> Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?
>
> Of course it does. EVERYbody knows that it is The Netherlands which is
> at the centre of the universe.
And foolish me - I had overlooked the fact that those 6 countries
constituted the civilized world.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"DiggerOp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
>
> Perhaps not .....
>
> It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that he
> served two thirds of a five year term before being released on July 28th
> 2003.
>
So my sister informed me AFTER I posted.
Tom
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown
>> that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and
>> less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.
>
> That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And
> if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to
> the US ones?
>
Several cites:
The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the source,
you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
<http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181> Key summary:
"Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared
to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent,
murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11
percent. "
Effect of gun laws in England and the idea that people should not protect
themselves or others, they should rely upon society to protect them:
<http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html>
> Even though every shooting in Toronto, Canada gets great press, the
> statistics released by the police definitely show that the crime rate is
> going down every year. It only sounds worse because of the sensation of
> crimes done by the press.
2006 piece citing some Canadian information
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html>
Those were few that were found in a few minutes of looking
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Upscale wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up?
> And
>> > if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate
> to
>> > the US ones?
>
>> The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the
> source,
>> you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
>> <http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181>
>
> I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole
> purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.
>
While I certainly agree that they have a one-sided point of view, and I
will admit that I have often pointed out biased sources by others in
various discussions, the issue here was not the point of view expressed,
but the statistics cited. In this case, the statistics can be pretty well
relied upon to be what is in the FBI report (I just wasn't going to go
digging for that report). One thing regarding NRA statistics -- you can
pretty well be sure they are correct because the other side spends a great
deal of time fact-checking anything the NRA cites or states. If the NRA
cites were off by a single digit, the media would be all over them for
making up facts. The media treatment of the NRA is quite unlike the
media's treatment of other groups with whose views the media agrees, those
groups can make up whatever figures they like (e.g. # of homeless, degrees
of global warming, # of people hungry or impoverished, dangers of eating
certain types of food, etc.) with little or no fear of being called out on
it.
>> <http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html>
>
> Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased
> national statistics?
>
Don't disagree that parts of this are an opinion piece, however, the
history and statistics cited are consistent with historical events and
other news reports.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:35:56 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
>> are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?
>
> What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
> Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
> has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
> rest of the civilized countries around the world.
>
> Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?
WTF??? Where does that crap come from? You made a blatently stupid
statement, and I called you on it by demonstrating that in the US and other
parts of the world guns are commonplace. Yet - there is not a warring
citizenry as you so foolishly claimed. Then... you come back with this???
Just what in the hell does this response have to do with anything? Oh - I
know - it's just a dig at the US and the second ammendment, right? Making
foolish digs like this does nothing more than expose your jealousy for what
you don't have.
Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point - which... now read really
slowly... guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not create a
warring society.
Think you can get your head around that?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10
>> other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?
>
> Happens in gang fights all the time. One person pulls out a gun and then
> so
> do all the others. But then, they're gangs and that's not what you're
> referring to.
Like you said...not exactly the topic at hand.
> However, if you and a dozen friends were all armed and your best friend
> pulled out a gun to defend himself, there's a excellent chance you would
> too. If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip by,
> wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too? If your first
> inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun
> in the first place? Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're
> prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're
> prepared to take different steps.
As my father says, "and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle". You can
make all of the "if" statements you want, but the fact is that it just
doesn't happen.
todd