Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
... After looking over the California Code, I see that it is apparently no longer legal to carry openly without a permit. I guess I live in an even LESS free state than I thought, and apparently Ed Huntress has even more to be happy about. :-( None of the irrational gun laws in the US makes me happy. Sorting out fact from fiction makes me happy. As for guns, I know better than to get into one of these gunfights, but I was bored this weekend, and made the foolish move of reacting to one of Gunner's more egregious taglines. g And you may be interested that I was an unpaid lobbyist in NJ over a decade ago, on behalf of the NJ affiliate of the NRA, fighting against our truly brainless "assault rifle" laws. So don't make the mistake of thinking I'm an advocate fighting for tougher gun laws. FWIW, I happen to like the background checks. I also happen to like freer concealed carry, although not, for example, in courtrooms. g Open carry is a throwback to a time that never was, but if the gun nutz enjoy having that thing hanging down there, and if they're not criminals or nuts, it's no big deal to me. I've carried a pistol open while hunting in Michigan (resident), Pennsylvania (non-resident) and Arizona (non-resident), and it never freaked anybody out when I walked into a diner with the thing, so there are some places where it fits without trouble. Just gimme the facts. We can make good decisions with accurate facts. Playing games with statistics, like "Andrew Ford" did, and like we see going on now in this thread, does not lead to good decisions. Ed Huntress |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:28:21 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:44:23 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in message news FWIW, The CDC, in what was called an "unusual moment of candor" recently reported that gun legislation does not have a statistically significant influence on gun crime in the US. If I can find the article I will post a link to it. Well, that would be refreshing to see, John. If you happen upon it, I would like to see it. But don't go out of your way for it. Good lord Ed..I thought everyone had seen that one... http://www.rense.com/general42/laws.htm US Report Fails To Link Gun Laws To Violent Crime By Paul Simao 10-3-3 Gunner, Looks familiar but I am not certain this is the exact article. The story, however, is identical and that was the issue. The thing that originally caught my attention was the "unusual moment of candor comment" in what I read. Why should it be "unusual" for the CDC to be candid with the public? WTF is THAT all about! The CDC had been pushing very loaded attempts of gun control, per the Clinton Administration over the past 15 or so years. They cherry picked their data and passed it on as Truth, and were caught at it. So the next study was done with an honest attempt to get to the heart of the matter..and came up with the new data..hence the Candor part..they had been caught with their pants down in the middle of a lie and admitted it. Gunner "People who want to share their religious or political views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." - unknown John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco Portland www.machiningsolution.com "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Ah, Richard, I haven't had time to respond to your earlier message, but I will, and you'd be wise, I think, to avoid getting too cocky about it. Take all the time you want, Ed. I'll keep on responding to your other posts that you *do* seem to have the time for. I'm retired....I have lots of free time and I love a good "discussion". You were wrong that D.C. wasn't in the proper place in the tallies I gave, and you've been more than a bit selective in the way you chose your states. I think what's his name earlier accused me of being "selective" on my numbers....but considering that I cited absolutely nothing but what Gunner's quote said and what you three had accused him of lying about.... See, you lot always do that while you loudly bemoan the fact that others might do the same. You call an easily proven quote "a lie" and then you re-interpret it to say exactly what *you* want it to say. See your earliest posts in this thread for examples. In this case, you quoted only what *you* defined as "open carry states" while totally ignoring half of the quote in question ie "able to purchase, strap on, and carry without a permit of any kind" etc. You then went off on some meaningless tangent about "per capita" and populations etc that had no basis in the original discussion....but you did oh so easily try to change the topic. The topic was and is Gunner's quote....you called him a liar for it. Feel free to disprove his quote and prove your point. I believe I proved mine. Yes, I have documentation. So chill a bit while I get some work done, and we can take this up. Meantime, be ready with your sources of information, eh? You're saying you doubt my numbers or you doubt the actual laws mentioned? The murder numbers are available in multiple places....I found three and I believe I cited the one I used earlier. The laws mentioned are from the NRA-ILA site. Feel free to disprove either. ral Ed Huntress |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Don't you watch Faux News? That is the style of today's conservative
reporting. Take an insignificant fact, twist it a little, add a few false assumptions for support and spew it out as "news". -- Glenn Ashmore & the opposing 95% liberal media doesn't )?? Greg Sefton |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
I have my own ideology, which some people don't like. It's based
on the idea that the facts are more important and more valuable than comfortable and unsupportable beliefs -- Each side of these (arguments) always has their own set of "facts". Like biblical arguments ). Greg Sefton |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +0800, Old Nick wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:48:14 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote something ......and in reply I say!: errr. I think Ed talked of looking at _populations_ and murders. It's people that do the murders What???? People???? Not GUNS? , not states...more people more murders. What?????NOT GUNS????? Anti-gun people have been saying "It's GUNS!!!!!" for years. :/ It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
yourname wrote:
Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? I'd say you're odds of finding an idiot to argue with in Mass are through the roof. ral |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation, and yet has the highest
murder rate per capita of any city. --Tim May And Miami & NYC have similar laws & are right up there in murder rates. Greg S. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
yourname wrote:
I disagree. Without the rules we have here, we would not know if you are a felon or not, are taking anti psychotics etc. With no permit requirements, we just don't know. Absolute and utter bull****. That's what the "instant background check" was supposed to do....why do you suggest anyone might need a permit? If a cop pulls over a guywith a car full of guns, how is he supposed to know he's a felon or not. Having a car full of guns isn't illegal in most states except under certain circumstances. Since it's assumed that it's not illegal (if it were, the issue of the "felon or not" is pointless), why should your cop even care? Gun permit would come in pretty handy about then. So would a lawyer and a copy of the Constitution. Oh, and if David Koresh is your hero, you aint as smart as you sound Why do you say that? ral |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562335,00.html
Obviously ignore the leftist editorialism, but a few facts in there Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:31:29 GMT, yourname wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:40:12 GMT, yourname wrote: Sorry my numbers are a few years old. I need a new Almanac People who fear reasonable gun control are mis informed. Define Reasonable gun control. More or less what we have here. I think you have a point on must versus may. In Mass the local cheif is the authority, some won't give out a carry permit. I think that is wrong. I will be the first in line to stop anyone from taking YOUR right to carry away. I just want to know who you are Its really none of your business. I disagree. Without the rules we have here, we would not know if you are a felon or not, are taking anti psychotics etc. With no permit requirements, we just don't know. Sure you would know. If you attempted to purchase a firearm via any legal source, you would not pass the InstaCheck or any other of the mandated checks, so would not be able to purchase one legaly. As to the other sources..you will never be able to stop that. See the War on Drugs. And you would know that most states are so far behind in their paperwork, background checks are not up to snuff. Of course you agree with background checks.........\ If a cop pulls over a guywith a car full of guns, how is he supposed to know he's a felon or not. All felons are in the NCIC data base. Simply running the guys DL# will show if he is a felon or not. If he is a felon any posession of a firearm is unlawrful. Gun permit would come in pretty handy about then. Which gun permit are you refering to? CCW or permit to own? In most states, you dont need a permit to own or even perchase. You walk into a gun store, pay the money, they run your id through a computer, in 5 min or less the FBI gives a go or no go. You pay your money, and leave with it. Other states have up to a 10 day waiting period before you take it home. Few states have a permit to purchase. You need an FID card in Mass to purchase gun or ammo. Pretty much a must allow permit, unlike the permit to carry I live in a safer state than most non permitting states,. and if you lived here, you would be safer, and could have all the guns you want. I think that is a pretty good deal. And there are others whom live in much safer states, with open carry, shall issue ccw, no permits etc. Looks like its largely dependant on the make up of the population, no? Well then why are you going on about gun laws? Perhaps, but as i stated before, there are few safer states to live in. To review, only NH, ND, and Ia have lower murder rates[I alway use murder since i~2/3 are gun related and they are usually reported, having a body laying around and all] Only IA has 2 cities with pops of over 100k, Mass has 4, and a dozen more that are close. When I sit in my best friends living room drinking a beer, my feet rest on a metal locker full of guns and ammo, locked and way too heavy to drag anywhere. I think he keeps too much ammo for safety, but that is just my opinion. Just the fire issue, not the having of it. Ammo is pretty safe in a fire . Oh, and if David Koresh is your hero, you aint as smart as you sound Koresh was a nutball, whom was executed along with 80 odd men women and children for the sake of making political brownie points and increased funding, over a tax issue. If you are not aware of that..you aint as smart as you sound. Again, if you think it is OK not to respond to a federal warrant, then you are way to paranoid for polite company. Not only is it polite to answer the door, it is considered rude to set your kids on fire to make a point. Any [non arab] who thinks they are going to disappear into the gov'ts black hole is in need of a little more lithium in their diet. Did the FBI and ATF **** up? Ya think? The possibility that a bunch of civil servants with guns might just make a mistake would usually be enough for me to come out with hands up and have a conversation till we get the misunderstanding figured out. Had he done so, he would have himself a nice little lawsuit going right now, and a nice pile o cash coming his way. A bunch of wacked out cult members would be deprogrammed and living in Cleveland right now. Expecting a bunch of guys in windbreakers making 35.3 a year to make all the right decisions when dealing with full blown psychos in unrealistic. The majority of americans do not view him as worthy of defense. his decisions defined the day in the end, he wished to die, as true messias do, and he did Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:52 GMT, yourname wrote:
Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1 I should add... North Dakota has InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1 Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand. "In countries like Japan and England, where handguns are banned or heavily regulated, the murder rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S. Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made. The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate. In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S. But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate. Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US." Btw..the murder rate currently in the US is 5.5, so we have a lower rate of combined homicides and suicides than Japan. As has been stated before, its not the guns, its the culture. Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... FWIW, The CDC, in what was called an "unusual moment of candor" recently reported that gun legislation does not have a statistically significant influence on gun crime in the US. If I can find the article I will post a link to it. Well, that would be refreshing to see, John. If you happen upon it, I would like to see it. But don't go out of your way for it. Good lord Ed..I thought everyone had seen that one... http://www.rense.com/general42/laws.htm I'm sure it's at the top of your reading list, Gunner, but not mine. g -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com... http://www.rense.com/general42/laws.htm US Report Fails To Link Gun Laws To Violent Crime By Paul Simao 10-3-3 Gunner, Looks familiar but I am not certain this is the exact article. The story, however, is identical and that was the issue. The thing that originally caught my attention was the "unusual moment of candor comment" in what I read. Why should it be "unusual" for the CDC to be candid with the public? WTF is THAT all about! That sounds like editorializing by the writer of whatever you read. What it's about is bad journalism, unless they documented a previous lack of candor, with specifics. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... The CDC had been pushing very loaded attempts of gun control, per the Clinton Administration over the past 15 or so years. They cherry picked their data and passed it on as Truth, and were caught at it. So the next study was done with an honest attempt to get to the heart of the matter..and came up with the new data..hence the Candor part..they had been caught with their pants down in the middle of a lie and admitted it. Gunner But who was it who used the word? Was it in an editorial, or did it purport to be straight reporting? -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Gunner says...
The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S. H'lo?? Who's in there??? I think Michael Moore has hijacked gunner's user ID and is posting from there. Where is gunner, and what have you *done* with him!! LOL. It almost sounds here like you're saying, the answer to our problems isn't at the barrel of a weapon, but rather by reducing ethnic differences and racial friction. That we should throw down our arms and sing "kum-ba-ya" a few times and have a big group hug, and this will make the murder rate go down like it did in japan. Dang. Maybe those pesky liberals are right after all! Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [ ... ] And don't discount the strength of the pro-gun cultural battle. The strongest case for it, IMO, is an article written by a Washington lawyer named Jeffrey Snyder. The article is titled "A Nation of Cowards." It's all over the web and it's very worth reading, IMO. Then read an intelligent response to it by George Will, titled "A Nation of Cowards?" It, too, is on the web. I'd give you the URLs but I think Gunner has them set up as keyboard macros, and he'll beat me to it. g Please *do* post the URLs. Gunner would post the whole web page from each side, not just the URLs. :-) Well, "A Nation of Cowards" will get you about a thousand hits and a thousand transcripts of it g, but the link to Will's column at Geocities has broken. I don't know where to find it. Maybe Gunner does. I know it's been distributed with Time magazine's approval, because I'm the one who got their approval. Ed Huntress |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:52 GMT, yourname wrote: Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1 I should add... North Dakota has InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID largest city is 86k people, mass has 8 such, with enough pop in those 8 cities alone to make 2 N Dakotas, yet my 99 numbers [apples to apples, eh] put their murder rate at 1.6, not so big a spread. Bet if you took the numbers from mass with all cities over 86 k removed we would look even better. Either gun laws matter or they don't. If they do, then I haven't seen any evidence that there is higher crime in gun law states, quite the opposite. Perhaps there is less need for permitting with instant background checks, but I'll bet you weren't crazy about those either. "Gun Nuts" fight all gun laws. That is stupid and unjustified. "Anti Gun Nuts" want all guns outlawed. That is stupid and unjustified. We are the moderates. Rant all you want, we run the place. Go siddown |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/...2-table04.html
newer fbi stats. there are more states with lower murder rates than Mass now, the smaller pops seem to fluctuate more. Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:52 GMT, yourname wrote: Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1 I should add... North Dakota has InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1 Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand. "In countries like Japan and England, where handguns are banned or heavily regulated, the murder rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S. Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made. The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate. In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S. But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate. Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US." Btw..the murder rate currently in the US is 5.5, so we have a lower rate of combined homicides and suicides than Japan. As has been stated before, its not the guns, its the culture. Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:08 GMT, yourname wrote:
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562335,00.html Obviously ignore the leftist editorialism, but a few facts in there Yup..a few fact there, mostly wrong and misinterpret ted. The two major factors in the decreasing homicide rates in the US was the enactment of the Three Strikes Laws, and the number of states which passed Shall Issue laws. The third most important reason was mandatory sentencing and reduced plea bargaining. Gunner Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:31:29 GMT, yourname wrote: Gunner wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:40:12 GMT, yourname wrote: Sorry my numbers are a few years old. I need a new Almanac People who fear reasonable gun control are mis informed. Define Reasonable gun control. More or less what we have here. I think you have a point on must versus may. In Mass the local cheif is the authority, some won't give out a carry permit. I think that is wrong. I will be the first in line to stop anyone from taking YOUR right to carry away. I just want to know who you are Its really none of your business. I disagree. Without the rules we have here, we would not know if you are a felon or not, are taking anti psychotics etc. With no permit requirements, we just don't know. Sure you would know. If you attempted to purchase a firearm via any legal source, you would not pass the InstaCheck or any other of the mandated checks, so would not be able to purchase one legaly. As to the other sources..you will never be able to stop that. See the War on Drugs. And you would know that most states are so far behind in their paperwork, background checks are not up to snuff. Of course you agree with background checks.........\ If a cop pulls over a guywith a car full of guns, how is he supposed to know he's a felon or not. All felons are in the NCIC data base. Simply running the guys DL# will show if he is a felon or not. If he is a felon any posession of a firearm is unlawrful. Gun permit would come in pretty handy about then. Which gun permit are you refering to? CCW or permit to own? In most states, you dont need a permit to own or even perchase. You walk into a gun store, pay the money, they run your id through a computer, in 5 min or less the FBI gives a go or no go. You pay your money, and leave with it. Other states have up to a 10 day waiting period before you take it home. Few states have a permit to purchase. You need an FID card in Mass to purchase gun or ammo. Pretty much a must allow permit, unlike the permit to carry I live in a safer state than most non permitting states,. and if you lived here, you would be safer, and could have all the guns you want. I think that is a pretty good deal. And there are others whom live in much safer states, with open carry, shall issue ccw, no permits etc. Looks like its largely dependant on the make up of the population, no? Well then why are you going on about gun laws? Perhaps, but as i stated before, there are few safer states to live in. To review, only NH, ND, and Ia have lower murder rates[I alway use murder since i~2/3 are gun related and they are usually reported, having a body laying around and all] Only IA has 2 cities with pops of over 100k, Mass has 4, and a dozen more that are close. When I sit in my best friends living room drinking a beer, my feet rest on a metal locker full of guns and ammo, locked and way too heavy to drag anywhere. I think he keeps too much ammo for safety, but that is just my opinion. Just the fire issue, not the having of it. Ammo is pretty safe in a fire . Oh, and if David Koresh is your hero, you aint as smart as you sound Koresh was a nutball, whom was executed along with 80 odd men women and children for the sake of making political brownie points and increased funding, over a tax issue. If you are not aware of that..you aint as smart as you sound. Again, if you think it is OK not to respond to a federal warrant, then you are way to paranoid for polite company. Not only is it polite to answer the door, it is considered rude to set your kids on fire to make a point. Any [non arab] who thinks they are going to disappear into the gov'ts black hole is in need of a little more lithium in their diet. Did the FBI and ATF **** up? Ya think? The possibility that a bunch of civil servants with guns might just make a mistake would usually be enough for me to come out with hands up and have a conversation till we get the misunderstanding figured out. Had he done so, he would have himself a nice little lawsuit going right now, and a nice pile o cash coming his way. A bunch of wacked out cult members would be deprogrammed and living in Cleveland right now. Expecting a bunch of guys in windbreakers making 35.3 a year to make all the right decisions when dealing with full blown psychos in unrealistic. The majority of americans do not view him as worthy of defense. his decisions defined the day in the end, he wished to die, as true messias do, and he did Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:52:04 GMT, yourname wrote:
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:52 GMT, yourname wrote: Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1 I should add... North Dakota has InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID largest city is 86k people, mass has 8 such, with enough pop in those 8 cities alone to make 2 N Dakotas, yet my 99 numbers [apples to apples, eh] put their murder rate at 1.6, not so big a spread. Bet if you took the numbers from mass with all cities over 86 k removed we would look even better. And this proves what? That Eastern City dwellers are more prone to homicide? Or has much larger minority groups that tend to skew the homicide figures by murdering more? Think hard on what you just claimed..you cannot win either way..... Either gun laws matter or they don't. If they do, then I haven't seen any evidence that there is higher crime in gun law states, quite the opposite. Perhaps there is less need for permitting with instant background checks, but I'll bet you weren't crazy about those either. Of course I wasnt happy with those. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? "Gun Nuts" fight all gun laws. That is stupid and unjustified. "Anti Gun Nuts" want all guns outlawed. That is stupid and unjustified. We are the moderates. Rant all you want, we run the place. Go siddown Im sure that the Department of Justice agrees with you . Seems that they have decreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (along with Emerson btw). Odd that the Antigun nuts have claimed the opposite for years. They, as you indicated..are not moderates..however..the Moderates have never tried to put the brakes on the errosion of our gun rights. It took the Gun Nuts to do this. Most of us gun owners pragmaticly have no problem in the main, with InstaCheck. We do have a problem with registration, and bans of "ugly guns" , and waiting periods. I should mention, I live in California..where most of the fun guns are totally banned, yet across the border in every direction except due South, they are sold openly and enjoyed. Firearms purchases between any party, dealer or not, must go through a FFL, a 10 day waiting period is in effect and of course there is at minimum..a $35 charge for the paperwork and holding the firearm until the waiting period is up. When one wants to buy a firearm from a dealer or individual at a gun show..and that person has travelled from 800 miles away..its not worth the effort to travel the 800 miles to go pick up your $50 22, with the $35 added charge. Many states have an InstaCheck terminal at the show, seller and buyer pay the $5 to run the check, and you go home with it. The Antis, or course hate this. Do you as a Moderate have a problem with this? Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:08 GMT, yourname wrote: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562335,00.html Obviously ignore the leftist editorialism, but a few facts in there Yup..a few fact there, mostly wrong and misinterpret ted. The two major factors in the decreasing homicide rates in the US was the enactment of the Three Strikes Laws, and the number of states which passed Shall Issue laws. The third most important reason was mandatory sentencing and reduced plea bargaining. Gunner First, you would have to compare 3 strike states vs non 3 strikes, not what we were after . Second, you have shown no connection between shall issue permits and lower murder rates. Third mandatory sentences usually cause a rise in plea bargains, the state holding leverage to get the accused to plead to a lesser offense. That said, murder rates dropped because of demographics. There were fewer babies born in around 76 to 82, so there were less 18-24 year olds around 2000, since they do a large percentage of the crimes, their lack cause a drop in crime. Neither right nor left can claim victory. Maybe the Trojan company or whoever makes the pill. What is relevant[to the argument anyway] is rates in one state vs another. I still don't see any positive correlation between higher gun ownership and lower murder rate, still mostly the opposite |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 1 Dec 2003 11:38:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S. H'lo?? Who's in there??? I think Michael Moore has hijacked gunner's user ID and is posting from there. Where is gunner, and what have you *done* with him!! LOL. It almost sounds here like you're saying, the answer to our problems isn't at the barrel of a weapon, but rather by reducing ethnic differences and racial friction. That we should throw down our arms and sing "kum-ba-ya" a few times and have a big group hug, and this will make the murder rate go down like it did in japan. Dang. Maybe those pesky liberals are right after all! Jim The murder rate in Japan was never high. Unless you consider the odd Shogun or two butchering his subjects in a off hand fashion. They btw..were no allowed arms of any sorts. Which is why the martial arts were developed. As to the Liberals ..whom do you think have propped up Diversity, MultiCulturalism, and given a pass to poor behavior of minority cultures? Ill not post the cites, for fear some Libby might make a claim of racism..but look at the FBI stats and tell me whom are committing the most murders. Then tell me the Libs want to stop this by putting down the hammer on the guilty parties. Id have to say..that the Libs are largely responsible for much of the crime rate. And of course..care to do a survy of which political party the violent criminals in prison belong to? Chuckle Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:18:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [ ... ] And don't discount the strength of the pro-gun cultural battle. The strongest case for it, IMO, is an article written by a Washington lawyer named Jeffrey Snyder. The article is titled "A Nation of Cowards." It's all over the web and it's very worth reading, IMO. Then read an intelligent response to it by George Will, titled "A Nation of Cowards?" It, too, is on the web. I'd give you the URLs but I think Gunner has them set up as keyboard macros, and he'll beat me to it. g Please *do* post the URLs. Gunner would post the whole web page from each side, not just the URLs. :-) Well, "A Nation of Cowards" will get you about a thousand hits and a thousand transcripts of it g, but the link to Will's column at Geocities has broken. I don't know where to find it. Maybe Gunner does. I know it's been distributed with Time magazine's approval, because I'm the one who got their approval. Ed Huntress http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Am...ll_cowards.htm http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/4284 "Posted on Thursday, November 8, 2001 at 06:32 AM by spwenger In a comment to an earlier posting of a link to George Will's editorial on the meaning of the Second Amendment someone questioned the statement that Geroge Will had not always held his current "individual right" position. Here's a more specific statement from Neal Knox's Firearms Coalition Alerts List mailing of November 6: George Will's column this weekend, citing the Fifth Circuit's "persuasive" Emerson decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right, marks a near-complete turnaround for the usually conservative pundit. In 1992 he had enough faith that the Second Amendment meant something that he wanted it repealed, but in 1994 Jeff Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" essay began bringing him around. Looks like the 5th Circuit finished the reversal. He wrote this weekend that President Bush, by issuing alerts of further terrorist attacks, and calling for greater public vigilance, had in effect deputized the entire populace. "So this is an appropriate time to revisit the most fundamental -- the philosophic -- reason why both the right and the fact of widespread gun ownership reflect a healthy dimension of America's democratic culture." Very good, George. " From what I can gather searching the net. Mr. Wills has requested his rebuttal be removed as he has changed his mind. I can only find one reference to this however. Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:47:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:48:42 GMT, Carl Byrns wrote: I see much ado, about per hundred thousand deaths, etc etc..but the statement was largely true on the face of it. Shrug..cherry picking is not something unique to the Right...lol..far from it. Damn. Now I owe Ed a bagel. BTW- "largely true" isn't the same thing as "true". If 50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50% armed states do..thats pretty darned good, dont you think? Not really. Let me repeat: Criminal activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not. The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50% armed states do" is meaningless because it doesn't define how the homicides are committed- a sidearm is just about useless during a drive-by or being killed by a drunk driver (which is capital murder in some states). On the other hand, a pistol is right handy when some coked-out loser tries for your wallet. Now if you can produce a factual statement to the effect that sidearms PREVENTED so many deaths, then you have solid data. -Carl |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
unless there was a chinge in gun laws in the time period, I would say it
is largely irrelevant. May urban areas are experiencig an uptick in crime, some think because criminals are getting out Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:07:03 GMT, yourname wrote: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/...2-table04.html newer fbi stats. there are more states with lower murder rates than Mass now, the smaller pops seem to fluctuate more. This refutes Its the Culture, exactly how?? Btw..I notice that Mass has gone from 2.2 to 2.5. Seems like more gun laws are really working, hey? And North Dakota went from 1.1 to .8 Odd how that happens.....G Maryland went way up. Now there is a hotbed of gun rights too..... http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/maryland Permit required to purchase any firearm Permit required to own a handgun Full registration No practical ccw No shall issue "In MD it is almost impossible for a non-resident to get a permit. For that matter most MD residents can't either. To add to this. On the Maryland State Police page under Laws on Handguns the following note is contained in Maryland Law about whom and what may be carried on or about a person. Article 27 SEC. 36B This section is constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the State's police power. And it does not violate the Second Amendment because that Amendment is not applicable to the States. Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 44 Md. App. 132, 407 A.2d 763 (1979). Body Armor Laws can be found in Maryland laws CRIMINAL LAW : TITLE 4. SUBTITLE 1. § 4-106 & § 4-107. Chemical Spray Laws can be found in Maryland Law TITLE 4. SUBTITLE 1. § 4-101. Maryland Constitution, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS: Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government. Art. 29. That Standing Armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the Legislature. (There is no provision relating to the right to keep and bear arms.) From the MD Attorney Generals FAQ Page: Does Maryland recognize handgun carry permits issued by other states, and how can I transport my handgun through Maryland? Questions regarding the transportation of handguns or handgun permits should be directed to Assistant Attorney General Mark Bowen at e-mail: or 410-653-4228" (btw the answer to this..is No. no fair traveler law). Gunner Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:52 GMT, yourname wrote: Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1 I should add... North Dakota has InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1 Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand. "In countries like Japan and England, where handguns are banned or heavily regulated, the murder rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S. Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made. The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate. In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S. But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate. Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US." Btw..the murder rate currently in the US is 5.5, so we have a lower rate of combined homicides and suicides than Japan. As has been stated before, its not the guns, its the culture. Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
eople, mass has 8 such, with enough pop in those 8 cities alone to make 2 N Dakotas, yet my 99 numbers [apples to apples, eh] put their murder rate at 1.6, not so big a spread. Bet if you took the numbers from mass with all cities over 86 k removed we would look even better. And this proves what? That Eastern City dwellers are more prone to homicide? Or has much larger minority groups that tend to skew the homicide figures by murdering more? Think hard on what you just claimed..you cannot win either way..... No it means that population density is a factor in crime, what did you think it meant? In north dakota you have to find someone to kill them. The fact that with much lower population density that the rate is as high as it is means more people as a percentage of population are looking. Either gun laws matter or they don't. If they do, then I haven't seen any evidence that there is higher crime in gun law states, quite the opposite. Perhaps there is less need for permitting with instant background checks, but I'll bet you weren't crazy about those either. Of course I wasnt happy with those. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The part that does not include "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" Read the constitution and you will see no mention of private militias, only gov't ones. No mention of defense against crime. either. If the White house wants to go to the supreme ct with their bs, let 'em, probably get laughed out. strict constructionists have their bad points too "Gun Nuts" fight all gun laws. That is stupid and unjustified. "Anti Gun Nuts" want all guns outlawed. That is stupid and unjustified. We are the moderates. Rant all you want, we run the place. Go siddown Im sure that the Department of Justice agrees with you . Seems that they have decreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (along with Emerson btw). Odd that the Antigun nuts have claimed the opposite for years. They, as you indicated..are not moderates..however..the Moderates have never tried to put the brakes on the errosion of our gun rights. It took the Gun Nuts to do this. Most of us gun owners pragmaticly have no problem in the main, with InstaCheck. We do have a problem with registration, and bans of "ugly guns" , and waiting periods. I should mention, I live in California..where most of the fun guns are totally banned, yet across the border in every direction except due South, they are sold openly and enjoyed. Firearms purchases between any party, dealer or not, must go through a FFL, a 10 day waiting period is in effect and of course there is at minimum..a $35 charge for the paperwork and holding the firearm until the waiting period is up. When one wants to buy a firearm from a dealer or individual at a gun show..and that person has travelled from 800 miles away..its not worth the effort to travel the 800 miles to go pick up your $50 22, with the $35 added charge. Many states have an InstaCheck terminal at the show, seller and buyer pay the $5 to run the check, and you go home with it. The Antis, or course hate this. Do you as a Moderate have a problem with this? Gunner It is my opinion that if the whole country ran like mass, there would be less availability of guns to the criminal, and those who want them legally would still be able to get them. I agree with must permit in most cases I can think of. I think assault weapon bans are stupid, but probably legal. I think if you expect the Supreme Court to uphold a personal right to carry, I have a bridge to sell you. I do not feel safer when there is a gun in the room. I think if you got what you wanted, the police would need tanks to patrol the streets. I think if the left got what they wanted, I would need a tank to drive down the street. I think there is a big difference between restrict and deny. The only time I wish I had a gun is now so I could shoot the damn squirrel that thinks he is moving into my house. i think it is time to go home |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Tom Quackenbush wrote: yourname wrote: yourname wrote: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562335,00.html Obviously ignore the leftist editorialism, but a few facts in there SNIP What is relevant[to the argument anyway] is rates in one state vs another. I still don't see any positive correlation between higher gun ownership and lower murder rate, still mostly the opposite Well, I guess you've better eyesight than I. The article you cited says: "While Massachusetts has the security of knowing we have the toughest gun laws in the nation, we're surrounded by states that have some of the weakest laws: Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire," Jacques said. "So ultimately, federal protections are very much needed because guns know no borders or boundaries." I agree that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire border Massachusetts and that they place less restrictions on gun ownership. I certainly don't see how the logical conclusion is that more Federal laws are required, based on those facts. Using your figures for number of murders by firearm per 100,000 people, Vermont and New Hampshire, at least, compare favorably to Massachusetts. Other states don't compare favorably. wasn't referring particularly to that article. Crime tends to occur in cities. Those states have no big cities, thus one would expect lower crime. with a density of less than 10 per square mile. it is tough to get within shooting distance of another person in N Dakota. With a density of nearly 800 per square mile it is tough to get out of shooting distance in Mass. I don't see a positive or negative correlation between the murder rate and gun control laws. If there is one, it seems well camouflaged by a multitude of other factors. R, Tom Q. Tend to agree on the whole, twas the other side braggin that started it all out |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Gunner says...
Id have to say..that the Libs are largely responsible for much of the crime rate. Of *course* you would. That's your *job*. And of course..care to do a survy of which political party the violent criminals in prison belong to? Where did they bury the survivors then? Convicted felons cannot vote. So their political preferences don't seem that important. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... From what I can gather searching the net. Mr. Wills has requested his rebuttal be removed as he has changed his mind. I can only find one reference to this however. I'd be very surprised if George Will has anything to say about it. The copyright was held by Newsweek (I've been saying Time; that's just age on my part, it was Newsweek). It may have reverted to him but it's still in their archives. Here's what you can get from Newsweek archives for free. The rest will cost you $2.95. g November 15, 1993 Newsweek Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'? GEORGE F. WILL JEFFREY SNYDER's TIMING IS EITHER PERFECT OR PERFECTLY awful. Just as there seems to be a coalescing consensus that the keys to controlling violent crime are more police and fewer guns, along comes Snyder to trouble the conscience of anyone who thinks so. In his essay 'A Nation of Cowards" in The Public Interest quarterly, he argues, with a potent blend of philosophy and fact, as follows: "Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it,... -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"yourname" wrote in message . I do not feel safer when there is a gun in the room. This view is subject to change when a large, determined, violent criminal (or even a small, wormey creep), who has been pumping iron for the last 10 years in the pen, decides to bust your front door down. Or in any number of other circumstances where you cannot defend yourself or your loved ones with your bare hands, or any impromptu sticks, clubs, ect. readily within reach at the time. Or, when your loved ones are left to their own defenses, regardless of their age, strength or infirmity. With a firearm "in the room", my aging Mother has a fighting chance against the young, strong predator. Without it, we are planning the funeral. The same can be said for my much younger, and fit daughter. And a lot of other folks as well. JTMcC, who feels much safer when there are multiple firearms in the room, manned by law abiding good guys that know how to shoot. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
... Maybe he wrote a couple of variations? All the references I've found are for his article in the 15 November 1993 Newsweek article, titled "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?". A search of the Newsweek archives will turn it up, but they require that you register and pay $2.95 to retrieve the text. http://archives.newsbank.com/newsweek Jeez, if I'd read ahead to your message, I could have saved some effort. Yes, that's the piece. It's just a one-page editorial. Ed Huntress |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
And of course..care to do a survy of which political party
the violent criminals in prison belong to? Where did they bury the survivors then? Convicted felons cannot vote. So their political preferences don't seem that important. Jim Felons vote in chicago, jesse jackson makes frequent trips to cook county jail getting inmates registered to vote as was reported on chicago news broadcasts, there is video tape of his efforts. His son is a democratic congressman for illinois, to bad there is no way to determine what percentage of his voter base are former cook county jail inmates, i bet they all support gun control as congressman jackson does. Best Regards Tom. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:58:42 GMT, yourname wrote:
eople, mass has 8 such, with enough pop in those 8 cities alone to make 2 N Dakotas, yet my 99 numbers [apples to apples, eh] put their murder rate at 1.6, not so big a spread. Bet if you took the numbers from mass with all cities over 86 k removed we would look even better. And this proves what? That Eastern City dwellers are more prone to homicide? Or has much larger minority groups that tend to skew the homicide figures by murdering more? Think hard on what you just claimed..you cannot win either way..... No it means that population density is a factor in crime, what did you think it meant? In north dakota you have to find someone to kill them. The fact that with much lower population density that the rate is as high as it is means more people as a percentage of population are looking. Hummm...then you are claiming that the per 100,000 figure means nothing? The folks in North Dakota manage to find each other well enough to ****, else the population would be plummeting. Please advise what population density has to do with the murder rate? Japan has a far higher population density, than does Mass. One also should mention that its a given that the inhabitants of North Dakota have far more firearms than those living in Mass. So it it was the guns, of course, they would all be dead. Either gun laws matter or they don't. If they do, then I haven't seen any evidence that there is higher crime in gun law states, quite the opposite. Perhaps there is less need for permitting with instant background checks, but I'll bet you weren't crazy about those either. Of course I wasnt happy with those. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The part that does not include "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" Read the constitution and you will see no mention of private militias, only gov't ones. No mention of defense against crime. either. If the White house wants to go to the supreme ct with their bs, let 'em, probably get laughed out. strict constructionists have their bad points too So the Second amendment only applies to the National Guard? Which btw..was formed in 1907. TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. Next Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia" As to the term Well Regulated.... Well regulated according to Princeton's Wordnet means: "orderly adj, 4: marked by or adhering to method or system, a well regulated life." The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm Militia "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, .... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American .... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788. "How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." — Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps. If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist. — Edward Livingston Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. — Mao Zedong, Nov. 6, 1938, Selected Works, Vol. 2 The meaning of "militia" The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise. When we are alone, we are all militias of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty." So my friend...you are yourself indeed a member of the milita. If you were called up tommorow..could you field the proper equipment? Just wondering...chuckle Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:28:25 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote: "yourname" wrote in message . I do not feel safer when there is a gun in the room. This view is subject to change when a large, determined, violent criminal (or even a small, wormey creep), who has been pumping iron for the last 10 years in the pen, decides to bust your front door down. Or in any number of other circumstances where you cannot defend yourself or your loved ones with your bare hands, or any impromptu sticks, clubs, ect. readily within reach at the time. Or, when your loved ones are left to their own defenses, regardless of their age, strength or infirmity. With a firearm "in the room", my aging Mother has a fighting chance against the young, strong predator. Without it, we are planning the funeral. The same can be said for my much younger, and fit daughter. And a lot of other folks as well. JTMcC, who feels much safer when there are multiple firearms in the room, manned by law abiding good guys that know how to shoot. Hear Hear!! Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Robert Sturgeon says...
That harm is obviously not offset by any societal advantages. It's not so much harm, you could further and say, "effort." Because I think many states do indeed expend a great deal of effort and taxpayer money on this topic, and apparently (if the statistics are to be belived) to no real great end. I am sure if you press them very closely, you will get the answer, "yes our elephant repellent works great, we have very few elephants here." Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:27:55 GMT, yourname wrote:
unless there was a chinge in gun laws in the time period, I would say it is largely irrelevant. May urban areas are experiencig an uptick in crime, some think because criminals are getting out Getting out of what? Out of prison? You mean they all go home at the same time, sorta like when your unit gets shipped back to the states? Or did they all get convicted for the same length of time, at the same time, and they are all back on the street simaltainiously? Is it irrelevant that your crime rate has risen, even though you have rather draconian gun control, and yet that of a state that has virtually none, has fallen? Is there some big change in population densities over those two years, as you claim is the root cause? Just wondering....G Gunner Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:07:03 GMT, yourname wrote: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/...2-table04.html newer fbi stats. there are more states with lower murder rates than Mass now, the smaller pops seem to fluctuate more. This refutes Its the Culture, exactly how?? Btw..I notice that Mass has gone from 2.2 to 2.5. Seems like more gun laws are really working, hey? And North Dakota went from 1.1 to .8 Odd how that happens.....G Maryland went way up. Now there is a hotbed of gun rights too..... http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/maryland Permit required to purchase any firearm Permit required to own a handgun Full registration No practical ccw No shall issue "In MD it is almost impossible for a non-resident to get a permit. For that matter most MD residents can't either. To add to this. On the Maryland State Police page under Laws on Handguns the following note is contained in Maryland Law about whom and what may be carried on or about a person. Article 27 SEC. 36B This section is constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the State's police power. And it does not violate the Second Amendment because that Amendment is not applicable to the States. Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 44 Md. App. 132, 407 A.2d 763 (1979). Body Armor Laws can be found in Maryland laws CRIMINAL LAW : TITLE 4. SUBTITLE 1. § 4-106 & § 4-107. Chemical Spray Laws can be found in Maryland Law TITLE 4. SUBTITLE 1. § 4-101. Maryland Constitution, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS: Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government. Art. 29. That Standing Armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the Legislature. (There is no provision relating to the right to keep and bear arms.) From the MD Attorney Generals FAQ Page: Does Maryland recognize handgun carry permits issued by other states, and how can I transport my handgun through Maryland? Questions regarding the transportation of handguns or handgun permits should be directed to Assistant Attorney General Mark Bowen at e-mail: or 410-653-4228" (btw the answer to this..is No. no fair traveler law). Gunner Gunner wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:52 GMT, yourname wrote: Of course you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in Arizona than in Mass[8 murders per 100k vs 2,1999] That makes all those gun nuts happy exactly why? Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1 I should add... North Dakota has InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1 Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand. "In countries like Japan and England, where handguns are banned or heavily regulated, the murder rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S. Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made. The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate. In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S. But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate. Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US." Btw..the murder rate currently in the US is 5.5, so we have a lower rate of combined homicides and suicides than Japan. As has been stated before, its not the guns, its the culture. Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:05:26 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote: If 50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50% armed states do..thats pretty darned good, dont you think? Not really. Let me repeat: Criminal activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not. The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50% armed states do" is meaningless because it doesn't define how the homicides are committed- a sidearm is just about useless during a drive-by or being killed by a drunk driver (which is capital murder in some states). On the other hand, a pistol is right handy when some coked-out loser tries for your wallet. Now if you can produce a factual statement to the effect that sidearms PREVENTED so many deaths, then you have solid data. -Carl God I love having a straight man...G "There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually." As to side arms being used in drivebys..one would assume you are unaware that the majority of such are done with handguns, with a lesser number being done with : 1. Mossberg Mod 60 22 rifle as the most used 22 rifle 2. Various 12 ga. shotguns (with the Mossberg 500 series being the most commonly used 3, a very small number of fully automatic weapons (unlawful ones btw) Now the crux of the matter is: The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50% armed states do" is meaningless Is that a true statement or not. Yes or no? Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:09:11 GMT, yourname wrote:
Second, you have shown no connection between shall issue permits and lower murder rates. http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/s...cw.4sep95.html http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws. In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience: "What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes." http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm Today, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system. States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings: • While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. • Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. • States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. • There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. • For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%. • Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men. • The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. • The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area. • The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns." Gunner "No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:28:25 GMT, "JTMcC" wrote: JTMcC, who feels much safer when there are multiple firearms in the room, manned by law abiding good guys that know how to shoot. Hear Hear!! Gunner Long as that room aint your local doughnut shop, and I aint armed g Otherwise, Im gonna go have lunch someplace else. -- SVL |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? | UK diy | |||
Deep drawing of aluminum bottle | Metalworking | |||
Deep hole drill profile question | Metalworking |