What say you anti-gun-control guys now?

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This is a brand new song...we haven't recorded it yet, but we're going to now." - John Flansburgh

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited March 01, 2000).]
 

The child had previously made death threats against the girl, standing on her desk, screaming at her, and spitting. 'Discipline problem' is probably a bit mild a descriptor.
The child's father is doing time in prison, for what I'm not certain.
The child's mother is living with his 'uncle.'
The weapon used was one of several in the house, ALL STOLEN. The gun had been reported stolen sometime last year.

Not exactly the kind of environment that generally leads to an angelic cherub, is it?

I will, however, be watching this with interest, especially for the racial angle.

See, although I haven't seen the kid, his 'uncle' was on TV, and is a black guy. The little girl was white.

Now you know, if this had been the reverse case, Sharpton and Jackson and the vultures would be all over this like feathers on a goose. So, it'll be interesting, at least in a grim, cynical way, to see if anyone like Al Sharpton gets involved in this one, and what they have to say. (Is there a white Al Sharpton in the house?)

None of the roughly ten thousand gun laws in existence could have stopped this. Neither could any of the ones ever proposed by Clintonians, short of HCI's call for total confiscation. And then the little so-and-so would probably have stolen a baseball bat or a knife instead, or maybe built a pipe bomb.

(just as an aside, nobody ever DID get back to me on those London statistics...)

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

------------------
We did it on the floor,
We did it by the door,
We did it all night,
We did it under a light,
So how about for tonight we do it some more...

 

The problem, as I see it, is that we ideally want our justice system to carry out two chief aims. The first is to protect the rest of us from the criminal element, whether through incarceration, execution, or rehabilitation. The second is to somehow punish the criminal, or "teach them a lesson", as it were. The first is rather easy in this case to carry out. Isolate the boy from those he might do harm to. The second is where it all gets tangled. Ask ten different people and you'll get ten different answers. As a vastly exaggerated example, there will be some who might claim that the boy's problem comes from living in a society where women and men are allowed to intermingle as equals. To others, the problem is that the child wore mixed fibers and was allowed to eat meat from animals with cloven hoofs. I'm not putting force either as sound or even likely arguments, but merely as a worst case example to show how deep the conflict can run.

Ultimately, I think we would all agree that the goal is to prevent this boy from ever repeating such an act. But as to what path should be taken to get there... *shrug*

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

2) Ability to act on these violent impulses.
When they get in a "killing mood" these people will grab whatever weaponry they can and use it until someone stops them forcibly - frequently by killing them, which they may wish to hapen anyway.

Given:
It is unlikely that in the short-term society will be able to prevent some individuals from becoming so alienated that they are consumed by desires for retribution.

Hypothesis:
It is logical, therefore, to limit their access to weaponry that will allow them to maximise their violence.

Rationale:
The argument that everyone being armed equalises the balance of power is sophistry. The element of surprise will always allow the person to take down at least a few before anyone can intervene. It may indeed provoke him into procuring a superior arsenal to ensure he gets to kill more people. Down this road we have those who stockpile sub-machine guns, mortars and explosives. Should everyone be armed with semtex to deter bombers?

By reducing the number of guns in circulation, and limiting their sale by necessity must make it harder for people on the edge to get guns. Yes, they may steal one, or come by one through illegal means. But this would be made progressively more difficult for them as the "gun culture" is reduced and people become less used to seeing them everyday not just on TV, but strapped to the belts of their policemen. If nothing else, restrictions on ownership of guns would prevent all the accidental deaths of kids who blow their heads off because their parents forgot to lock the box they keep the "family gun" in.

A final point to levvy against those who seek universal arming. What does it say about a society where its memebrs trust each other so little that they are perpetually on the brink of "drawing" on each other?

I hope I have given your brains something to chew upon.

------------------
"No way man!
I've served my time in hell, and I ain't going back...
Not without a fight!"

[This message has been edited by Montgomery (edited March 02, 2000).]
 

I did not say "Pro-Gun", I merely stated "Anti-Gun-Control". There's no way in hell in which we'll ever know if lack on gun control would have contributed to this. We don't know where this gun came from at all, other than the fact that the gun was stolen, but who stole it, and from whom.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

 

------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns

"You need a license to drive a car, to own a dog... hell, you need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

(Keanu Reeves, fount of wisdom... whodathunkit?)

------------------
Dane

"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky
 

------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
 

"Guns don't kill people,
People kill people."

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
 

>"1) You have people who get mad enough or insane enough to want to wreak bloody vengeance against any representative of humanity they come across. This is not confined to America; hell I've felt like it on occasion. It merely manifests itself more strongly there because of the nature of your society. Private stresses accumulate on individuals, but the rest of society continues on oblivious, and to the eyes of the person in question, uncaring. In less well off countries the stresses are felt by wider groups; families, or even whole nations if the stresses are economic. Hence there is more of an outlet for frustrated emotion and the consolation of "being in it together"."

The 'stressed out' defense? Are you kidding?
Yes, 'stress' is definable as 'the urge to throttle the living hell out of someone who desperately deserves it.'
However, 'being human' is defined as 'not doing so.' Except in cases of physical assault, use of physical force is never justifiable. I don't give a damn HOW bad they feel. I've probably felt worse. People who set out to 'wreak bloody vengeance' should not be treated as we would human beings. rather, they should be treated as any other mad animal would be, and destroyed with all haste. This is not compassionate, but it is practical. It will save more lives than it takes.

"2) Ability to act on these violent impulses. When they get in a "killing mood" these people will grab whatever weaponry they can and use it until someone stops them forcibly - frequently by killing them, which they
may wish to hapen anyway."

True. So why deny our ability to give them what they want? Swiftly and easily?

"Given: It is unlikely that in the short-term society will be able to prevent some individuals from becoming so alienated that they are consumed by desires for retribution."

Perhaps. This, too, is a matter left to the individual's self-discipline. It is not society's job. Nor is it "society's" fault. All sentient beings make their own choices, know right from wrong, and should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions. Again, this falls back under 'behave yourself.'

"Hypothesis:
It is logical, therefore, to limit their access to weaponry that will allow them to maximise their violence."

True, up to a point. Identical access to the same weaponry will allow me to minimise their violence, should I be present.

"Rationale:
The argument that everyone being armed equalises the balance of power is sophistry. The element of surprise will always allow the person to take down at least a few before anyone can intervene. It may indeed provoke him into procuring a superior arsenal to ensure he gets to kill more people. Down this road we have those who stockpile sub-machine guns, mortars and explosives. Should everyone be armed with semtex to deter bombers?"

It may be sophistry. However, it is also true. This has been shown REPEATEDLY in communities where 'pro-gun' legislation has passed, and been followed by a precipitous drop in the crime rate.
You will notice also that the LACK of a balance of power did not prevent the columbine students from dying en masse. Nor did it prevent Klebold and Harris brom building some NINETY bombs out of legal materials.
It should also be noted that you are now attributing logical reasoning to people whom, in your first points, you claimed were maddened by stress. Your 'road' is a dead-end. Here's another point: no matter HOW many guns a thug carries, he will eventually have to pause to reload, or switch weapons. This produces 'free time' in which an armed defender may take him down. However, if no armed defender is present, it's simply 'waiting to die' time.

"By reducing the number of guns in circulation, and limiting their sale by necessity must make it harder for people on the edge to get guns. Yes, they may steal one, or come by one through illegal means. But this would be made progressively more difficult for them as the "gun culture" is reduced and people become less used to seeing them everyday not just on TV, but strapped to the belts of their policemen. If nothing else, restrictions on ownership of guns would prevent all the accidental deaths of kids who blow their heads off because their parents forgot to lock the box
they keep the "family gun" in."

You canot reduce guns in circulation. All you can do is reduce the number that are possessed by law-abiding private citizens. Criminals DO NOT TURN IN THEIR GUNS!
You also seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the resilience of steel. Guns, taken care of, can last for CENTURIES.
It is a good point you make, about the policeman. Tell me, how easily is it to get the 'element of surprise' on a cop? A friend of my father's jokingly remarked once that if they banned guns, and he needed one, he'd simply go out one dark night and waylay a beat cop with a brick. A crook can do this. TWO could do it much more easily.
The 'kids blowing of their own heads' scenario is already extremely rare, (there is no 'All the kids') and now happens only among the fatally irresponsible. From a purely genetic point of view, this is a good thing, for it prevents passage of stupidity. And since gun locks require the gun to be unloaded in the FIRST place, they are worse than useless.

"A final point to levvy against those who seek universal arming. What does it say about a society where its memebrs trust each other so little that they are perpetually on the brink of "drawing" on each other?"

I don't know. What does it say about a society that refuses to defend itself against agression? Of a society that surrenders to lawlessness? Oh, yes, I know, it says "On this spot was once a city."
I don't seek universal arming... I seek universal opportunity to defend and protect oneself.

I also know that the confiscations and registrations you describe have been sucessfully implemented before... in Germany shortly prior to WWII and in Soviet Russia, not that it really matters.

"I hope I have given your brains something to chew upon."

Yes. Chewed and spit out again.
I am not compassionate. I am merely practical.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

(Well, not really, but I'm in a contrary mood.)

On a more serious note, First, one might point out that, had Columbine been limited to homemade bombs, the death toll would have stood at a large zero, all else being equal. (Whether or not all else would be equal is, of course, up for debate.)

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

Excerpts from contemporary sources:

Surgeons work through night
By Ginny McKibben
Denver Post Staff Writer
April 22 - Surgeons at six area hospitals worked through the night Tuesday to save the lives and preserve the futures of 22 students wounded in the worst school shooting in U.S. history�

�Mark and Shari Schnurr said their 18-year-old daughter, Valeen Schnurr, was thankful for the prayers she received. She had nine shrapnel wounds in her chest�

�The descriptions of wounds suffered by students indeed sounded like the result of warfare: Chests impaled with shrapnel�

Homemade bombs cheap, easy to build
By David Olinger
Denver Post Staff Writer
April 23 - The crude bombs that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris carried into Columbine High School could have been assembled in an afternoon with less than $200 worth of materials, according to a federal official at the crime scene.

These were very simple devices,'' said Larry Bettendorf, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent assigned to the case. "If you had all of your components all ready, you could probably assemble these in a couple of hours.''

[description of 20-pound gas bomb follows]

�According to Bettendorf, all the other bombs found inside the school were much smaller - encased either in CO2 cylinders, which are sold at sporting goods stores, or in short sections of galvanized steel pipe, sold at hardware stores. The galvanized pipes, about 6 inches long, "are already threaded on both ends, and you can buy the end caps'' at a hardware store as well, he said.
Their fuses were "just simple cannon fuse'' sold by the roll at sporting goods and hobby stores, and set to explode with ease, he said. "Strike-anywhere-type of matches were already taped to the fuses.''

 

Then again maybe we could all carry axes. One wonders why we don't have drive by axings.

------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns

However, as I said, had the situation been without guns, then perhaps more bombs might have been used. But I was only addressing the issue that, as things were, no one was killed by them.

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

------------------
"No way man!
I've served my time in hell, and I ain't going back...
Not without a fight!"

You can now continue to argue about how everyone having their own personal arsenal makes me and the society in which I live in safer.

------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns

Criminals are 75-80% less likely to commit a home invasion if they believe the homeowner possesses a gun and is willing to use it.

Roughly the same percentage would not approach a potential victim they believed to be carrying. Almost NONE would approach a victim they KNEW to be carrying.
Can you blame them? Getting killed generally isn't on the bad guy's agenda.

Firearms, the use and display thereof (because most of the time simply showing it is enough) continue to be used in the prevention of 1-2 million crimes a year in the United States.

Average police response time is 15 minutes, often more in large urban areas. A lot can happen in 15 minutes. Two Dexter's Lab cartoon shorts, for one. Also, roughly the time required to break a door down, (or pick a lock), enter, murder the occupant, loot the place, and depart. And that's IF anybody called the cops in the FIRST place. Generally, when the cops are called, by then it's too late.

If you want to be safe, you've got to make YOURSELF safe. Noone can do it for you.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

That being said, I've always been of the (probably uninformed but nonetheless very fixed) opinion that the REAL reason our forefathers wrote the second amendment was as a check on the government. In other words, giving the average citizen the right to keep and bear arms makes the government (local, state, or national) think twice about using an armed force to supress them. And while I may trust the current government to preserve my rights even if I'm not "holding a gun to their head," I do NOT trust tomorrow's government to do the same. (Perhaps it's sad that I'm not willing to place more faith in people...) So I'm in a bit of a quandry.

I have read that in Switzerland (a country where all males are required to perform military service) that those belonging to the military reserves are given their assault rifles to keep with them at home, rather than store them in a central location. (Note that this is a relatively large percentage of the population.) I cannot provide primary or secondary sources to back this up, but if it's true, I wonder how they manage to keep things controlled so nicely. (Edit: Check out the Swiss Armed Forces website. The page this link goes to describes their compulsory service policy and IMPLIES that those whose duties require weapons keep them in their homes. I recognize it's weak evidence; if you can find anything that proves either way I'd be very interested in seeing it. Here's the link: http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/e/armee/auftr/index.htm .)

------------------
Dane

"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky

[This message has been edited by Dane Simri (edited March 03, 2000).]
 

As you say thought, that only applies to the USA. You can't say that we in the UK would have the eqivalent of 1-2 million less crimes a year if we armed our citizens?

BTW, what London statistics were you interested in First?

------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
 

(Woah, let me step off the soap box now.)
 

I was hoping that someone close to the situation could possibly supply us with actual "primary source" -- that is, what the police reports say, not what the press says -- statistics concerning such information, since its veracity could determine the course (and outcome) of the argument, not to mention whether I trust that source's data anymore.

I have also, incidentally, heard the same things about Australia's recent confiscation, but to a lesser degree. I hope to get verification on that, as well.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Eddie the Eagle's Guide to Gun Safety

------------------
The above post was mulled-over, composed, and posted during time Tom would have better spent on his plethora of homework and homework-related exercises. Now don't you feel special?

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
 

------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!

- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:

[This message has been edited by Alshrim Dax (edited March 03, 2000).]
 

Still, most people in the UK are pretty much completly against the idea of legalising firearms.

------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
 

The psycho was a known problem, yet the people who are supposed to protect the rest of us from such people did nothing. Why? That's what I'd like to know.

Do you see a commonality beginning to form that relates all these incidents, as well as many others that are NOT turned into major news events? PRIOR HISTORIES.

The danger in this issue is letting your emotions take the upper hand. When that happens, you cannot think clearly and rationally about things. You end up posting a lot in caps and boldface, too.

You're right, Canada is not the US. The US has vastly greater population and pop. density.
California ALONE contains more people than the entirety of Canada, (32,666,550 vs 31, 006, 347, according to my 2000 World Almanac).
The Population Density (and thusly potential for conflict) in Canada is far less, being 8 per sq.mi, vs oh, 247 per sq mi. in Pennsylvania (same almanac)

So a greater per capita crime and incident rate is inevitable.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

The Eddie Eagle parody posted above is funny, but propaganda. If you really think that way, you need to apply for membership in the laughing academy -- the world's just too dangerous for you.

Here's a link to a firearms safety website:

------------------
"Going to church does not make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonalds's makes you a hamburger."
--[Source unknown.]
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/

Why? Because ordinary citizens shouldn't be allow to own any kind of fire arms in the first place.

No matter what kind of justifications these "pro-fire arm" people can come up with, dealing violence with violence is just not right.

All those "restriction of freedom" are just a load of $h1t. When you have lunitics and criminals shooting in the street, to hell with freedom to own a fire arm, man, safety come first!

This is just a vicious circle, people want more guns for their so called "protection", and the next thing you know, more guns are available in the market for those "trashes of society" to take advantages of.

So, people, please put a stop to it, if not for you, then for your children's sake.
 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

Besides, what happens after you outlaw guns? I'd get a knife, and learn how to throw it. You can do a lot of damage at a long range. There's a kung-fu class not to far from here. Do you have any idea how many people a good martial artist can kill with the proper training? There's no way to prevent people from being killed violently. The only thing you can do is give them the best chance to defend themselves they can have.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

Human know that we can never be perfect, but do we stop trying to reach perfection?

Law enforcements know that society will never be rid of crimes, but do they just stop protecting us?

So, what the hey, illegal guns are out there no matter what, so who gives a damn. Hell, there's always going to be lunitics out there shooting and killing, if we can't stop them, why even try?
 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

So, I ask you, do you want to risk your safey because of few non-important rights, or stop the problem at the source with minimal cost?

I can promise you that the world will be a much safer place to live in without fire arms, and for all you pro fire arm people out there, can you promise the same?
 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

Makes ya wonder why some towns, even way back then, had ordinances prohibiting cow-pokes from bringing guns into towns. That certainly must have prevented those cow-punchers from exercising their Constitutional right to militia duty on the town square.

I'll even bet someone must have carried a sign:

"Guns don't kill people, drunken cowboys shooting up the town kill people."
------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited March 07, 2000).]
 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

Given that far more people are killed each day by automobiles, by your reasoning the following restatement is perfectly logical.

"We know that most people may be responsible enough to own a [car], but whether you agree or not, there's aways going to be people steping out of the line. It is not the general population that's causeing all the troubles nowaday, but rather these [speeders, drunk drivers, people who use cars to commit crimes].

So, I ask you, do you want to risk your safey because of few non-important rights, or stop the problem at the source with minimal cost?

I can promise you that the world will be a much safer place to live in without [cars], and for all you pro [car] people out there, can you promise the same?"

Simply put, you DO NOT punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. This is WRONG.

Incidentally, you may be interested to understand that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm. That's why you can't sue the police for arriving too late to keep the bad guys off of you, even if you'd already obtained a restraining order and called the police in advance.

The police, unless they are physically present (and sometimes not even then) cannot prevent crimes from occurring. They can only follow-up, after the fact. By then, it's usually too late. You're robbed, beaten, or dead, depending. Prevention is up to YOU, the potential victim. You can either give UP your ability to defend yourself, and trust to the 'mercy' of the homicidal maniac, the ability of the police to catch a crook, the ability of the prosecutor to get a conviction, and the ability of the prison system to keep them there.

Now I don't know about you, but that's entirely too many people of dubious ability to trust already.

Yes, in an armed society, you have the potential for someone to go on a rampage. But you have that anyway. However, you also have a much higher potentiality of an armed citizen bringing such a rampage to an abrupt halt, as has happened SEVERAL times recently, but you don't hear about those on the news, for various reasons.

My father , brother and I all own guns. We practice, obey the rules of gun safety, and are fairly good shots. My father is a qualified marksman.

We have never, in ANY of our lifetimes, had an "incident" involving guns that was are fault.

We have each, on occasion, displayed (but fortunately never had to fire, yet,) our weapons to defuse a potentially hostile situation in our favor.

(An example: my brother used to deliver pizza. Sometimes he made runs to a particularly bad part of town. At one particularly bad neighborhood, he was walking from his car to his delivery, when he was approached by three -as he described them- 'mean-looking punks.' Balancing the pizza with one hand, my brother put his keys in his pants pocket -- in a sweeping gesture that brushed back his jacket and displayed his hip holster. The three stopped in their tracks, whispered for a moment, then quickly turned and walked away, glancing over their shoulders.)

And before you ask, no, they did NOT turn out to be the people who had ordered the pizza.

This is reason enough.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

I haven't heard any kids driving drunk and killing ppl in the streets .. But in the last 6 months I've heard of 4 stories of kids possessing guns and killing 1, 2 and as high as 4 ppl and injuring others .... The two are apples and oranges ...

------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!

- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:

Alshrim: Lots of kids are killed in car accidents, though.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited March 07, 2000).]
 

But the one thing I don't understand is how people can compare guns to automobiles.

Sure, people die because of both.

But most deaths by car accident are just that. Accident.

When's the last time someone took a car to school and tried to run over the students in the school?

When's the last time someone took a gun to school and tried to shoot the students in the school?

Sure, cars and guns both kill. But when guns are involved, for the most part, it's intentional.

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
 

It is my assertion that drunk driving IS intentional.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

How common are these compared to intentional car murders? How many times has an entire classroom dies INTENTIONALLY (Nos because their bus crashed) due to an automobile.

It's fucking oranges compared to fucking apples.

Oh well. I'm just glad I live in Canada, where I can go to school and not worry about whether or not I'll still have the back of my skull intact because I looked at some guy funny.

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 07, 2000).]
 

Just about anywhere in the world, if you're without a car, then your mobility is pretty much crippled. The primary function of a house hold car is not as a weapon, but rather as a transportation device.

How about guns? If you do not own a gun, would it limit any of your everyday activities? And let's look at this at another point, is gun really a weapon of destruction, or a neccessary tool for us to get on with our life?

You can argue that guns is a mean of deterrance, but deterrance itself is not a positive thing.

Right is not fundimental and is define by law. It can be taken away if the governing body see fit, so when "the right to own a gun" endanger the general public, the big guys sitting in the office can take it away, and I won't blame them for it.

I guess when it come down to it, it's either a choice of "right" or "safety". I personally think that it is sometime neccessary for the needs of the many to out weight the needs of the few, if it means some of us have to give up our guns to help decreasing the crime rate and see less people dying because of it, then go ahead.

If you think that occational "child shooting" and gang warfare with guns is unavoidable because illegal arms is going to be out there no matter what, or maybe you think that rights is way more important then human life and should not be sacrafice, sure, it's your choice.

Although I do think that America's high crime rate have something to do with it's fire arm system, after all, America does have one of the higher crime rate in the G7 countries.
 

Man, stop for a sec, and think about how many horrible things you could do with guns compare to the good thing you could do with it!

I think I made my point.

Yeah, and the media always reports everything that happens everywhere.

"Oh well. I'm just glad I live in Canada, where I can go to school and not worry about whether or not I'll still have the back of my skull intact because I looked at some guy funny."

Unless someone has an illegal gun.

"Man, stop for a sec, and think about how many horrible things you could do with guns compare to the good thing you could do with it!"

I could commit a crime. Or I could stop a crime. Seems pretty balanced to me.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

Blue, that makes no sense whatsoever. The lunatics with illegal guns are stopped by the law-abiding citizins with LEGAL guns.

"So, I ask you, do you want to risk your safey because of few non-important rights, or stop the problem at the source with minimal cost?"

1: UNIMPORTANT RIGHTS?!?! You, sir, are either a complete blithering idiot, or rediculously sheltered. What happens if your government decides to VIOLATE your rights? How do you stop them? What happens when someone tries to break into your home and kill you? How do you stop them?

2: Again, it wouldn't stop the problem. There'd still be illegal guns out there, and shootings like the six-year-old would still happen.

3: You think it would only require minimal cost to eliminate the .25 BILLION guns in this country? See point one, sentence two.

"deterrance itself is not a positive thing"

Think about that for a second, would you, Blue? If you have any shred of intelligence, I'm sure you'll realize it's really stupid. First's brother could very well be dead right now if it weren't for the deterrent of his having a gun.

"Right is not fundimental"

To which I respond "We hold these truths to be self-evident... that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

"[Rights] can be taken away if the governing body see fit"

Is this what they teach in Cannadian schools? Power flows from the people to the government, not vice versa. The government doesn't give us rights. We give the government rights. The rights of the GOVERNMENT can be revoked at any time, but the government can not revoke the people's rights.

"I guess when it come down to it, it's either a choice of "right" or "safety"

"You can have freedom, or you can have security, but don't count on having both at the same time," eh? What you don't realize is that security is an illusion. If you give the government the power to make you secure against all other threats, what secures you against the government? I'll take freedom, thanks.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

The people with anti-gun viewpoints are too stubborn to view this argument from the other side.

The people with pro-gun viewpoints are too stubborn to view this argument from the other side.

I don't care anymore. I'm not going to be able to change the world, so I'm not going to try - well, not here, at least. It's not worth it.

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
 

So, what do you propose, people taking laws into their own hands with guns? That sound like total anarchy to me. I mean, why have police and law around? "WE" are always responsible and fair, "WE" are capable of playing judge, jury, and persecutor all at the same time, if some suspicious people are walking around, forget about phoneing the police, let's just take our guns and shoot them all!

If deterrance is a good thing, then hey, we should go back to the era of Cold War, since that it's the biggest "deterrance" in the history of mankind. Deterrance involved a balance of horror on both side by equal amount of force, if you think that's appropreate, well...no comment on that one.

If .25 billion dollars worth more then all the lifes lost because of gun related incidents, then God save us! It seem to me that money certainly MEAN A LOT for some people! And who says that the cost of gun related incidents are not more then the cost of recycle and prohibit them?(not that I'm religious or anything, and no offence, it's just an expression)

If not to ban fire arm, can you came up with a better and sure way to combat gun related incidents? Hey, I'm all ears, if u can come up with a good solution, then by all means, keep the guns. Answer this question before debating or quoting the minute detials!

One last thing, rights(not fundimental freedoms) are meant to be changed, because customs and value are changing through the passage of time. Guns certainly are creating massive negative impact in our life today, so "gun right" should be change, or maybe even voided!

If their lives are at stake due to a person or persons trying to infringe on their rights, then they have every legal and moral right to kill the person. It's called "self defence". Would you prefer that people just LET themselves get shot, or LET their houses get robbed? That seems to be what you're infering.

"If not to ban fire arm, can you came up with a better and sure way to combat gun related incidents?"

Well, since we've already shown that banning firearms would be completely unenforcable, and would actually EXPAND the number of gun-related crimes, I suggest you come up with one that could actually work in any possible scenario first. Then I'll decide whether to counter it or not, depending on whether it's a good idea, and get back to you.

"Guns certainly are creating massive negative impact in our life today..."

First, care to quote your statistic on how many crimes are prevented with guns every year?

""WE" are always responsible and fair, "WE" are capable of playing judge, jury, and persecutor all at the same time, if some suspicious people are walking around, forget about phoneing the police, let's just take our guns and shoot them all!"

You might want to actually pay attention to what I said. This has nothing to do with it.

"If .25 billion dollars worth more then all the lifes lost because of gun related incidents, then God save us! It seem to me that money certainly MEAN A LOT for some people! And who says that the cost of gun related incidents are not more then the cost of recycle and prohibit them?"

Same answer to this one. I have no idea how you made this connection. Is English not your first language?

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
 

As to the arguments about cars as compared with guns, the logic does not hold. Driving is seen as a privilege, which is not a right. Therefore, the state of California can make all drivers wear seat belts, make motercycle drivers wear helmets, and take someon's car away after being convicted of drunk driving.

What the argument in here is about the absolute right to own, possess, and use firearms.

Oh, and since I live in the birthplace of road rage, dear old Los Angeles, let me just say that most of what I have seen that would classify as such, we see drivers using a firearm to shoot at the other moterist.

------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
 

And the reason California can pass laws dictating what you have to do to drive there is that you're driving on public property. A four-year-old could legally drive around a private parking lot. That's a big difference from a law saying you can't have a gun on private property.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
 

Frank and First of Two: You're both making undefended analogies. We're not talking about cars, or oranges, or even lunatics, but guns specifically. Such analogies as you have both been drawing can be, at times, useful, but you've provided absolutely no evidence linking your analogies to the issue at hand.

Omega: Your argument seems to be "Guns shouldn't be banned because only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns." Please explain to me then why all laws should not be banned, because only law-abiding citizens obey them.

BlueElectron: Your argument seems to be that guns are causing a great deal of otherwise avoidable death. In order to convince me, you need to present some sort of evidence that those deaths occured either solely because of access to a gun, or that access to a gun was the deciding factor in said death.

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

Let's stick to the topic .... If a kid kills another kid; if a guy takes a gun and starts shooting innocent people because of a twisted agenda or claims that he's been wronged by his company and everyone in it should die .... IT'S A FREAKIN' PROBLEM AND THE MEDIA SHOULD COVER IT

As it is ... people say there isn't a problem .. The arguement here is that it's not a problem cuz more people get killed in auto accident ... BIG FLIPPIN' DEAL !! SOMEONE GOT SHOT BY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD HIS HANDS ON A GUN !!! When that person, child or psycho, got their hands on that gun ... it was with an intend to kill, injure, scare ... And it's a problem .. the media is covering it cuz it IS a problem and something needs to be done about it.

ask yourself this ... When Joe Blow gets up for work in the morning, gets in his car, loose control, hit a pedestrian, and kills that person ... was that his intent??? NO!

But, that 6 year boy, took the gun to school ... what was his intent with that gun ... OH ... he didn't want to kill anyone .... NOOOOOOOOO ... He just wanted to scare someone .... but if he had a fake gun .. or a super-soaker ... to scare that girl... would the girl be alive today .. yes ... and why is she not alive today ... BECAUSE A 6 YEAR OLD BOY GOT HIS HANDS ON A REAL GUN ... HOW DID HE GET HIS HAND ON THAT GUN???? THAT'S THE PROBLEM He got his hands on a real gun ...

Let's not belittle the death of this innocent girl by saying her death is just another death like those in automobile accidents ... She was shot!!! For nothing ...

------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!

- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:

[This message has been edited by Alshrim Dax (edited March 08, 2000).]
 

Protection: BULL-SHIT!!
Protect against what? Do you expect an armed psycho shootin' at you every day???
I live in Holland, guns are illegal here and I feel safe nevertheless.

------------------
"Si vis pacem, para bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war)
- Vegetius
Prakesh's Star Trek Site

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

 

It's almost instinct. I never liked guns, and never will. Those who grew up with a gun in their house will always be for them and will never back down. Those of you who want statistics to prove to them that guns ARE dangerous, I'm sure you'd never accept it even with all the proofs in the world. Just like I'll never accept that guns are a necessity.

This question is never ever gonna be resolved. You can never know all the facts and you can't change society to see if it would work better otherwise. We're trapped in a sorry world folks.

When I look at debates like this one, and think of all the crimes and problems of our world, I'm always reminded of how much I hate humans. Sometimes, I just wish there would be a huge meteor, a big earthquake or another doomsday thingy to wipe us of the Earth. We're a plague as a race, and I have no more faith in humans than I have in guns. Enough said.

------------------
-If you took that broomstick out of your tail-pipe once in a while, you might have some FUN for a change!
*Rattrap - Beast Wars*

-Let the Fates land where they may!
*Megatron - Beast Machines*

[This message has been edited by TerraZ (edited March 08, 2000).]
 

Alshrim: Actually, maybe the problem we should be addressing is why a 6-year-old felt the need to kill someone.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

Theft, for example, by definition harms someone. Yes, only criminals will now commit theft, but it serves no conceivable useful purpose for a law abiding citizin should do so, and thus should be outlawed. Owning a gun in itself HARMS NO ONE, serves an extremely useful purpose as demonstrated, and thus should not be outlawed. Your analogy is flawed.

But the analogy of cars is legetimate, to some degree. You have a legitimate reason to own a car, even though you can kill people, both on purpose and accidently. In fact, you can do it with more impunity, since a bullet can be traced to a specific kind of gun, but running over someone with a car leaves no such evidence, except possibly tire tracks, which are far harder to trace.

"BECAUSE A 6 YEAR OLD BOY GOT HIS HANDS ON A REAL GUN ... HOW DID HE GET HIS HAND ON THAT GUN????"

Well, someone in the house he was living in stole it, then left it somewhere where he could get to it, that's how. No gun law would have prevented him from getting the gun. It's already illegal to steal a gun, or anything else for that matter. The "owner" of the gun chose to ignore the laws.

"It should not be possible for a six-year old to get his/her hands on gun."

Do you have any suggestion as to how to prevent it? The gun was illegally obtained. Existing laws didn't prevent the six-year-old from getting the gun. What makes you think tougher ones would?

"Protection: BULL-SHIT!! Protect against what?"

Well, how 'bout people like the "thugs" in First's example of his brother? How 'bout the possibility of the government trying to take your freedoms? Do you just not believe that these things happen? And Jay says I'M sheltered.

"I live in Holland, guns are illegal here and I feel safe nevertheless."

If I'm not mistaken, there was a shooting in one of your schools a few months back. Apparently, even in a country as small as yours, outlawing guns can't eliminate crime with guns. Just think what would happen if we tried it in a country THIS size, and with 250 million guns already in circulation. It simply wouldn't work!

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

You know, I'm willing to listen to rasoned arguments from the other side, but so far all I've heard is badly-researched rhetoric by people who are far too emotional for their own good. You can have heart attacks that way.

As a favorite joke recalls: There was a fundie minister whose wife looked over his sermons, making annotations where she felt he needed help. At a particular point, she wrote "weak argument. Shout loud."

IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT BOLSTERED BY TYPING HALF OF IT IN CAPS! INSTEAD, IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A CRAZY PERSON! CALM THE HELL DOWN!!!

UM: as I gather it from the Almanac and other sources:

Total Homicides by firearms, all ages, all races: 14,037, or .00005% of the US population. Does not include the significantly smaller accident and suicide rates, nor shootings of criminals.

They don't have statistics for crimes prevented vs. total crimes involving firearms. It'll probably take me a while to come up with the figures on that one. But if we believe that one life saved is enough to ban them, why can't we believe that one million crimes prevented is enough to keep them?

What these people who get all their information from watching the news is: News has to SELL. BAD news sells better than good news, so that's mostly what you hear. They find a story, latch onto it, and pump, pump, PUMP it up. You only hear about tragedy because that's what SELLS. That's what they WANT you to hear, so that they can keep you glued to the TV, watching the commercials, buying the sponsor's products. You people really have no idea how easy it is to manipulate people by choosing what information to give and what to withhold.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

The attitude down there is really screwed. People are dying every day from gun violence, and the attitude is "So what, people die every day". The point is that you can prevent six year olds being killed who have their whole lives to look forward to. Instead, their deaths are acceptable because gun ownership is a 'right'. Excellent, so that makes it worthwhile.

------------------
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

Of course, you were probably never physicially attacked by someone intent on doing you serious physical harm and/or making off with your valued possessions. (Like the saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.)

THAT brings me to another question. You anti-gunners, you 'we should all just be nice and peaceful' folks. Tell me, what would YOU do if you were suddenly confronted by a shiv-weilding crackhead who'd decided to divest you of your wallet, and perhaps a couple pints of vital bodily fluid, just to make sure you don't report him?

What would YOU have done in my brother's place? Fight? Three-on-one? Run, and probably get caught? Fumble with the keys to the false security of your car while they approached? Try to reason it out with people who probably would have dropped out of elementary school if they could?

Praying doesn't work in these kinds of conditions, kiddies.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

there's no use of debating no more. Both side are set at their way

Pro-gunners think the world is and will be a safer place with more guns circulating around in the market.

Anti-gunner think the world is already bad enough and will get worst if more guns are going to be made for the general public.

I don't think you'll find any pro-gunners saying that the solution is more guns.

Generally, pro-gunners say that the solution is harsher sentences for those who DO yous guns unlawfully, plus education, plus attacking the root problems that actually CAUSE people to commit (well, there's only ONE real 'cause,' and that's personal choice, but beyond that we have factors like unemployment, lack of parental care and supervision, drug abuse, and other things that can't be solved by simply enacting legislation) crimes.

Generally, anti-gunners believe that laws can make their problems go away, so that the solution is more laws (never mind the trouble they have enforcing the existing ones.) That banning things is a solution in and of itself has been disproven convincingly (to anybody with a functional cerebral cortex) by failed alcohol prohibition, the 'drug war' and the fact that ALL the people who've used guns in these news stories were ALREADY breaking dozens of laws. Historically, attempts at banning things tend to backfire.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

That is one of the first things that I agree with you on ... and I think you're right! Maybe the issue isn't so much the guns... maybe the world should start looking at why people feel the need to kill one another.

First: MY BOLD LETTERS CAUGHT YOUR ATTENTION !! That was the intent.

Simon: without guns, people would find different way to kill someone else.

First: you said: Generally, anti-gunners believe that laws can make their problems go away, so that the solution is more laws

I'm an anti-gunner ... don't see a need for a joe-blow to own one ... The laws aren't really the problem .... It peoples attitudes that are!!! That's been my arguement since the beginning of this thread!

First also asked: THAT brings me to another question. You anti-gunners, you 'we should all just be nice and peaceful' folks. Tell me, what would YOU do if you were suddenly confronted by a shiv-weilding crackhead who'd decided to divest you of your wallet, and perhaps a couple pints of vital bodily fluid, just to make sure you don't report him?

He'd have to catch me to get it... Being a crack-head, I doubt he'd keep up ... and if he did, I'd give him what he wants ... Never been put in that position .. I've had a guy try to take my cell phone from my hip-belt ... big-ass guy too ... kick him sqare in the nuts and ran like hell !!! Noone got killed, I have my cell phone ... what's left to say .. maybe if this bastard had a gun, he woulda shot me ... then I'd be a statistic just like that little girl and maybe you'd be talking about me in here ...

Let me reverse the question .. What would you do if some asshole points a gun at you a threatens to blow your brains out??? Would you still think ... "Hey..it's this guy's right to own this gun ... " As you piss yourself.

I don't know what else to say .. I'm not trying to be a prick here .. Please understand that!

------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!

- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:

Well, it's not his right to threaten you.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
 

------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!

- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:

I'm sure I'll be the one to piss my pant

^.^
 

Omega: "Theft, for example, by definition harms someone. Yes, only criminals will now commit theft, but it serves no conceivable useful purpose for a law abiding citizin should do so, and thus should be outlawed."

Wha-huh? Let me see if I can trace your argument here.

Only criminals commit theft.
Law abiding citizens do not commit theft.
Therefore theft should be outlawed.

The first and the second are true by defintion. But your conclusion doesn't seem to have anything to do with those statements. If theft is not outlawed, criminals will still commit theft, but citizens who we would call "law abiding" will not, yes? If so, you seem to be saying that behavior is not affected by law. However, if this is true, then law is an unnecessary concept. If I will still obey the principle without the law, and if criminals will still break the principle with the law, then the law has no meaning. (Actually, while thinking about this, I wonder if you wouldn't have to make a few distinctions between laws. For instance, personally, I find murder to be an abhorrant concept, law or no law. However, if there were no speed limits, I can't honestly say that I'd keep my speed below, say, 70 mph, even though I know that slower speeds are safer. One could, then, argue that the use of guns is more like murder than it is speeding. In other words, that people who would not break a law against guns still would not if there was no law, even if they would violate other principles. But that's another debate, I think. What do you think?)

------------------
"You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil."
--
Gene Ray, Cubic
 

A gun is a deadly tool. Just as they help the good guys stop the bad guys (often without anyone being killed), they also help the bad guys take someone's wallet or shoot up a rival gang-member's house. The credible threat of deadly force tends to get people's attention. No doubt about that. Like every instrument of power, a firearm can be used for good or ill. The issue is not whether guns are good or evil, or even whether they should be banned or not. The issue is this: what do you think people are like? What do you think I am like?

If you think everyone's a predator, you want to see them disarmed. If you think most people are not predators, you must realize that disarming the prey is not a good strategy to discourage predators. As I've heard anti-hunters proclaim "If the deer carried rifles, hunting would be a lot less popular." (Yeah, but I'll bet it'd be a lot more challenging! )

It's a matter of respect. If you believe everyone else is a closet homicidal maniac, of course you want to ban guns! If you believe that the majority of people are responsible for their actions, and that the responsible use and display of firearms under the right circumstances prevents crime and saves lives, then it makes no sense to ban them. You'd just be ensuring that predators who want to do you harm will know you have no defense against them. Of course, you don't want to say that, after all, if you do, it makes you sound like one of those potentially murderous misanthropes you're afraid of.

------------------
"Helping Tomorrow Feel Superior by Scoffing at Yesterday."
--James Lileks [Motto of The Institute of Official Cheer.]
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited March 09, 2000).]
 

The fact that a child died is what it always is -- a tragedy. The question asked, however, was whether people in favor of gun ownership felt that this kind of tragedy justifies banning guns.

In fact, I don't. The nominal gun owner (read: "thief") in this case was breaking the law by possessing a stolen firearm. He violated safe gun practices by keeping this weapon where a six year old child could get it. Even if this child was not a little homicidal maniac, he could have accidentally killed himself by improperly handling the gun.

If guns were not legal, the police would still not have known the gun was in that man's possession until it was too late. The anti-gunner might protest "But he would not have been able to get a gun in the first place!" I respond that if he wanted a gun so bad he had to steal one, I'm sure he would have obtained one illegally anyhow.

Heroin is illegal but there are those who manufacture it anyway because others will buy it (also illegally). Manufacturing firearms is no more complicated than manufacturing illegal drugs. The basic materials required to make them are quite easily obtained. While you're at it (banning guns, that is), you'd better put iron, steel, bronze, brass, sulpher, saltpeter, and charcoal on your list of "controlled substances".

A child is dead. The anti-gun crowd seems not to care that a child has killed another child just for spite. They do not care that the gun he used was left where he could easily get it. They don't care that the murder weapon should never have been in that home in the first place, since it was stolen. They seem almost happy that someone who ought to be alive today is dead. If that child were alive today, they could not crow "How many must die?" They use it as an opportunity to advance an agenda that has as its most fundamental element the idea that no-one can or should be trusted.

Whether guns ought to be banned is still not the issue.

--Baloo

------------------
"Helping Tomorrow Feel Superior by Scoffing at Yesterday."
--James Lileks [Motto of The Institute of Official Cheer.]
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited March 09, 2000).]
 

"Hey you, shoot that kid so I can say how bad guns are."

Rhetorical nonsense.

------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
 

My point was simply a question: How do we keep guns out of reach of children, and potential nutcases? I don't have the answer, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone does ... : Check this story out ...:

4 dead in fire ambush
Firefighters in shock after one of their own guns down comrades at blaze

By AP
MEMPHIS, TENN. -- Firefighters responding to a house fire yesterday were ambushed by an off-duty Memphis firefighter who stepped out of the garage and began shooting, authorities said.

Two firefighters and a sheriff's deputy were killed and a woman was found dead in the garage.

The suspected gunman, Fred Williams, was wounded and was undergoing surgery, Police Director Walter Crews said. A bystander also was wounded, but not seriously.

If you can't trust the local firefighter .. who can you trust??

------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!

- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:

[This message has been edited by Alshrim Dax (edited March 09, 2000).]
 

CNN employs Army Psych-ops personell.
Didn't know that, did you?

What's Psych-ops for, you might ask? The dissemmination of selected information (read: propaganda), disinformation, and psychological warfare.
They were extensively operative under the 'crisis' in Kosovo (O nuts, I'm starting to sound like DT!)

To paraphrase a line from ST:V, What does CNN need with a psychological warfare unit?

And how many other newsorganizations have them?

The more I learn, the more paranoid I become. Note:

Gingrich was in, Clinton was out, Anti-terrorism legislation was floundering. BOOM! Oklahoma City.

Colorado was just about to pass, by a wide margin, a concealed-carry permit law. BOOM! Columbine.

Trigger lock and further post-Columbine useless anti-gun legislation stalls in Congress. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Kid shoots another kid in Michigan, and a couple other loonies go at it, too.

I'm not saying it's NOT just a set of odd coincidences, but it IS odd...

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

True, but they have things in common that make the analogy valid. They both serve a nesecary purpose, they're both incredibly dangerous, and they're both the instruments of many deaths every year. The analogy stands.

You didn't quite understand my argument, Sol. The point was that theft DIRECTLY harmes someone, and that it serves no conceivable useful purpose. Therefore, it should be outlawed. This is contrasted to guns, where owning a gun does NOT harm someone, and serves a very useful purpose. Therefore, it should NOT be outlawed.

There are going to be people that break any law you can come up with. If you outlaw guns, there are still going to be people who have or get guns. And people who ignore one law are likely to ignore more than one law, and thus use the guns. But if you DON'T outlaw guns, those same people are going to have guns, but are far less likely to use them, since their potential targets might be armed as well. Does that make more sense?

"It's a matter of respect. If you believe everyone else is a closet homicidal maniac, of course you want to ban guns! If you believe that the majority of people are responsible for their actions, and that the responsible use and display of firearms under the right circumstances prevents crime and saves lives, then it makes no sense to ban them."

This is a facet of the typical liberal viewpoint. I, as a conservative, have faith in people's ability to do what's good for themselves, and believe that they are basically good. Liberals don't, and their attitude toward gun control as Baloo described above is a symptom of that.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh

 

Take welfare. Conservatives don't think people need it, because we believe that they CAN make it on their own, and have the evidence to back that up. Liberals, OTOH, DON'T think people can make it without help. Which one's more trusting in human ability and intelligence, now?

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

Fascism and Communism. That's where it's at.

At least with Fascism, people don't bitch about having guns because it's in such-and-such political documents.

You argue with the government, and...bam, you don't have to worry about protection anymore.

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
 

------------------
Dane

"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky
 

And what the heck does that assertion have to do with the price of a pych-ops unit at CNN? Or with the price of oranges in Santa Monica for that matter?

------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
 

I'll try to be as concise as possible. *L*

Guns by their nature are a tool of man. They are used to kill. There's no going around that. So, where is the tool needed and where is it NOT needed? Farms, where they need to cull animals? Yup, that's a good spot. For park rangers who may face dangerous animals? There's another good spot. In every home? Not necessary at all.

People have the right to protect themselves from robbers who are armed. However those same weapons that are understandably used for defence can also be used for offence. Here's the problem then. What is more important, a persons right to life or a persons right to bear arms? There's a case of attrition here. Lets say that every year (for example) 50 people die from madman related shootings. However lets also say that 5000 die from crime related shootings. (Illegal guns always occur). And lets also say that in that same year 3000 citizens are saved from death by their personal weapons.

The two figures that matter here are the 50 dead from madmen, and the 3000 saved. As much as I hate to say it, if 50 people die in any given year due to madmen, and 3000 people are saved then that is an acceptable loss. So I do agree that removing the tool would save lives when madmen go on shooting sprees. However in a violent society, it would also cost lives.

I bet both Republicans and Democrats are going to hate me now *L*. But partisan politics is rather crap

------------------
Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".

Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".

-From some movie.

[This message has been edited by Daryus Aden (edited March 09, 2000).]
 

------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
 

Jay: The point is you seem to be arguing from the POV of someone who gets all his information through the TV. You can't TRUST the TV.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh

 

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

 

Still, my poor education is such that I can handle the remote well enough to switch from local news news station to local news station.

------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited March 10, 2000).]
 

------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven

[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited March 11, 2000).]
 

I won't go into the pro or anti things, but I do want to address one of Omega's point. The one that actually made me have togo and change trousers:

"Besides, what happens after you outlaw guns? I'd get a knife, and learn how to throw it. You can do a lot of damage at a long range. There's a kung-fu class not to far from here. Do you have any idea how many people a good martial artist can kill with the proper training? There's no way to prevent people from being killed violently. The only thing you can do is give them the best chance to defend themselves they can have."

Okay, two points. Are you REALLY saying that if guns were banned, everyone would suddenly take up Karate? Then the US should ban gus immedietly, if for no other reason that it might help it's growing obesity problem.

Part of First's arguments is that guns can prevent crime without ever being fired, just by their physical presence. Hell, they got rid of the Type 1 phaser on TNG becaus it couldn't be seen, and so had no dramatic impact.
People rob stores carrying guns. Staff fear for their own lives. They hand ovber money.
People rob stores wearing white pjamas, and standing like Bruce Lee. Store Clerks fall over laughing.

Also, people are LAZY. You live in the US for christ's sake, a country that could win the Olympic Lazy event if it existed. People are not going to spend several hours learning how to take the head of aman at 30 metres with a knife. Nore are they going to spend hours learning how to kick really hard.

Oh, and the best way to defend yourself would be to walk around in bullet-proof armour, carrying a thermonuclear device. Or get bit by a radioactive spider. I can see that happening.

And another point:

"'I live in Holland, guns are illegal here and I feel safe nevertheless.'

If I'm not mistaken, there was a shooting in one of your schools a few months back. Apparently, even in a country as small as yours, outlawing guns can't eliminate crime with guns.

Jeez, there was a conclusion you could have lept to there, but for some reason you jumped right over it, and landed firmly in "crap-argument city".

There was a shooting a few months back. Big deal. There was a shooting in an English school at one point in the 90s.
Now, how many shootings have their been in Holland over the past decade? How many have their been in the UK? Right, now how many have their been in the US? (Allowing fo rthe freater population, obviously).

You talk about outlawing guns in Holland in the present tense. That's the problem. It's past tense. guns ARE illegal in Holland and in the UK. You can go an entire day without meeting people who are packing heat. You know that the odds are no-one in your street has a gun. And most criminals don't too. Guns have't entered every pore of our society. Which brings me onto my final point.

"Just think what would happen if we tried it in a country THIS size, and with 250 million guns already in circulation. "

250 million guns. 250,000,000. Owned by both the criminals, and the innocent members of the public.
Quite frankly, you've dug yourself into a hell of a hole there. And I don't see you climbing out of it anytime soon.

------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
 

Anyway, I recently read an statistical article in a psychological journal (I told you, I read EVERYTHING) that compared the crime rate, population factors such as total population and population density of certain countries, and it said that, all things being equal, given the current rate of "school shootings" (that's what this USED to be about, remember?) in the US, a country like, say, Sweeden could expect a similar incident about every fifteen years or so. I assume the same holds true for Holland.

I'm still awating concrete confirmation or denial of the London statistics. I don't get to talk to the British police often, so I'm pretty much stuck here.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

"More people steel cars in Scotland than in France, but if we take into account the bigger crime-rate in Scotland, then it's actually equal."

What's the population of the US? What's the population of the UK? How many school shootings are there a year in the US?

------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System