On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:30:09 -0500, J. Clarke cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:




The states that I'm aware of with full-auto bans are California,
Connecticut, and maybe New York (I'm not clear on whether the Sullivan
Act applies to the whole state or just NYC). However the Feds have
outlawed sales to citizens of any made or imported after 1986, and
between that and the transfer tax the prices have gone through the
roof.


Full auto ban is a federal thing, not a state thing. I think you need to
research your data further. I'd like to offer a specific correction to
your understanding, but to be honest, I don't know it myself. The Feds
banned full auto (except for certain license holders) decades ago. Maybe
back in the 30's or so?


--

-Mike-

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Especially with the Mexican drug cartel increasingly more active
*inside* our border.

Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not
going to consider.

To put the Mexican drug wars in perspective, last week it was
reported
that there were more fatalities in Mexico than in the total MidEast
theater.

37 in TJ alone which included at least 4 decapitations.

Nobody goes to TJ for the weekend these days.

Except Nancy Botwin grin.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Lew Hodgett" wrote

To put the Mexican drug wars in perspective, last week it was reported
that there were more fatalities in Mexico than in the total MidEast
theater.

Certainly not the Mexican's fault ... just that the media has yet to
contrive a way to blame it on Bush. Stay tuned ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?

On Dec 3, 11:35*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. *Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. *Yet - no warring citizens. *How do you explain that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?

Of course it does. EVERYbody knows that it is The Netherlands which is
at the centre of the universe.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By what mechanism?

Simple.

As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
participants.

At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be reduced
since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost of a usable
weapon.

Someone's already thought of that:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#...53DeFcVwDw4YLE

Dave in Houston

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world,
guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the
US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?



Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In
the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes
it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both
thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to
the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are
privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours
was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest
you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you
talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an
unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities
acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve
to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin
Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The
national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving
burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several
times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their
lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you
told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for
the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as
your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to
convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one
burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now
serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British
Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of
1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control",
demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned
handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable,
or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up
law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up
all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The
Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away
most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant
gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was
no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or
robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no
fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen
most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private
citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered
and licensed. Kind of like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:35:56 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?

WTF??? Where does that crap come from? You made a blatently stupid
statement, and I called you on it by demonstrating that in the US and other
parts of the world guns are commonplace. Yet - there is not a warring
citizenry as you so foolishly claimed. Then... you come back with this???
Just what in the hell does this response have to do with anything? Oh - I
know - it's just a dig at the US and the second ammendment, right? Making
foolish digs like this does nothing more than expose your jealousy for what
you don't have.

Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point - which... now read really
slowly... guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not create a
warring society.

Think you can get your head around that?

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:54:17 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

On Dec 3, 11:35*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. *Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. *Yet - no warring citizens. *How do you explain that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain, Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just because the US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory eh?

Of course it does. EVERYbody knows that it is The Netherlands which is
at the centre of the universe.

And foolish me - I had overlooked the fact that those 6 countries
constituted the civilized world.
--

-Mike-

"Tom Bunetta" wrote in message
...

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the
world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain
that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain,
Australia,
Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace. Just
because the US
has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't automatically
include the
rest of the civilized countries around the world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe"
theory eh?



Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom
door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving
your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick
up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and
open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The
blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams
while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in
trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few
That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make
them useless. Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of
a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to
worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to
manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local
newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two
men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and
relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep
down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims"
have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't
Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career
criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on,
the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the
international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll
probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been
burglarized several times in the past and that you've been
critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending
the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that
you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in
wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been
reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you
take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works
against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean,
vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of
all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England,
killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
convicted and is now serving a life term.
snip

Perhaps not .....

It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that
he served two thirds of a five year term before being released on
July 28th 2003.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point

Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?

Think you can get your head around that?

I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.

Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want and
generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper and
happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my neighbours
packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
generally well balanced society.

As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of the
beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't make
sense.

I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved around
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
really only one way to deal with that.

And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look into
getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.

I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
knowledge I do have about living in US society.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point

Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?

Think you can get your head around that?

I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.

Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want
and
generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper
and
happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my
neighbours
packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
generally well balanced society.

As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of
the
beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't
make
sense.

I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved
around
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
really only one way to deal with that.

And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look
into
getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.

I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
knowledge I do have about living in US society.

The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
to be concerned about. I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
concealed carry permits in the US.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
to be concerned about.

You could very well be right and I hope that's so. But, consider that I live
in Canada, I've only been down to the US twice and a number of years ago at
that. All I have to go on is what I read and what I hear, much of it might
be the same as heard and read elsewhere around the world. If I'm as wary as
I am and I live in a society so closely similar to that of the US, then what
fears are surfacing (real or imagened) in other parts of the world,
especially where society is so much different?

I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
concealed carry permits in the US.

Yeah, those damned ornery moose carry pretty big guns.

Mike Marlow wrote in
:

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:54:17 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these
pearls of wisdom...:

On Dec 3, 11:35*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Actually - no. *Here in the US, and in other places around the
world, guns are commonplace. *Yet - no warring citizens. *How do
you explain that?

What exactly do you call "commonplace"? In Canada, Britain,
Australia, Japan, China, The Netherlands, guns ARE NOT commonplace.
Just because the US has guns enshrined in its constitution doesn't
automatically include the rest of the civilized countries around the
world.

Guess that rocks your "The USA is the centre of the universe" theory
eh?

Of course it does. EVERYbody knows that it is The Netherlands which
is at the centre of the universe.

And foolish me - I had overlooked the fact that those 6 countries
constituted the civilized world.

There is indeed a line of thought that in the late 1500s early 1600s the
modern concepts of trade, economics, science and arts were fleshed out in
the Low Countries. Helped of course by the expulsion of Jews from Spain,
and the better location for worldwide trade than the seat of the
Renaissance.

Disclaimer: I'm Dutch by birth, and now US citizen.

Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
[snip]

Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!


Ummmm... They don't call us old FARTS for no reason.
j4

"DiggerOp" wrote in message
...

"Tom Bunetta" wrote in message
...
snip

Perhaps not .....

It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that he
served two thirds of a five year term before being released on July 28th
2003.

So my sister informed me AFTER I posted.
Tom

"Tom Bunetta" wrote in message
...

"DiggerOp" wrote in message
...

"Tom Bunetta" wrote in message
...
snip

Perhaps not .....

It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that he
served two thirds of a five year term before being released on July 28th
2003.

So my sister informed me AFTER I posted.
Tom

I'm reasonably sure I woulnd't consider (only) 40 months in prison
appropriate if I was in similar circumstances.

todd

jo4hn wrote in news:z-
:

Han wrote:
[snip]

Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!


Ummmm... They don't call us old FARTS for no reason.
j4

I don't think you can win a farting contest with a pig or a cow. If you
could, I wouldn't know what to call you grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
jo4hn wrote in news:z-
:

Han wrote:
[snip]
Headline in today's NY Times: From Hoof to Dinner Table, a new bid to
cut emissions. Methane from cattle and pigs are big contributors to
greenhouse gases. Eat less meat!

Ummmm... They don't call us old FARTS for no reason.
j4

I don't think you can win a farting contest with a pig or a cow. If you
could, I wouldn't know what to call you grin.

Instead of j4 it might be C4.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

DiggerOp wrote:


"Tom Bunetta" wrote in message
...

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
.... snip
Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom
door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving
your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick
up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and
open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The
blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams
while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in
trouble.

.... snip

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England,
killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
convicted and is now serving a life term.
snip

Perhaps not .....

It seems his sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and that
he served two thirds of a five year term before being released on
July 28th 2003.

Oh, that is just soooo much better. I'm sure anybody who has protected
themselves from attack (or will protect themselves from attack) will be
glad to hear that saving oneself will only result in 40 months in jail.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Upscale wrote:


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point

.... snip

I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved
around people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place
at the wrong time.

Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
only very rare circumstances.

While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved
in a number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done
by ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?

There's really only one way to deal with that.

And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look
into getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.

I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
knowledge I do have about living in US society.

That reflects a very limited knowledge of life here.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:48:02 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"todd" wrote in message
The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
to be concerned about.

You could very well be right and I hope that's so. But, consider that I live
in Canada, I've only been down to the US twice and a number of years ago at
that. All I have to go on is what I read and what I hear, much of it might
be the same as heard and read elsewhere around the world. If I'm as wary as
I am and I live in a society so closely similar to that of the US, then what
fears are surfacing (real or imagened) in other parts of the world,
especially where society is so much different?

I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
concealed carry permits in the US.

Yeah, those damned ornery moose carry pretty big guns.


....hahahaha, yup, but being from SoCal I wouldn't know for sure. What
I *do* know for sure is that by far most of the gun crimes are a
result of gang activity, at least in this area. People with
unlicensed/stolen weapons are the ones that *use* them on others, *so*
not the legal owners, as I am. Unfortunately it's far too late in
this country to put the toothpaste back in the tube...to take away our
"legal" weapons would open a pandora's box of crime perpetrated by the
elements who have the "illegal" weapons...piles and piles of 'em.

Just my .02

cg

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:48:16 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point

Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?

I simply responded to the fanatical statement about warring citizens if
guns were more commonplace.


Think you can get your head around that?

I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.

You have an interesting definition of stressed. I'm not surprised at it
though. I've watched your comments in enough of these off topic diatribes
here to realize you are much like Lew in that both of you delight in
darting conversations off to the side with irrelevant red herrings, and
then you try to turn the focus back on those who catch you at your game.
My guess is that is really quite stressful for you. It's really quite
evident in the manner in which you quickly resort to the ad-hominem
tactics.


Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want and
generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper and
happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my neighbours
packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
generally well balanced society.

As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of the
beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't make
sense.

Maybe you have a temper that is more out of control than the majority of
the people around you, and that causes you to see everyone else through
your own eyes. The reality is that people already do own guns, they
already do experience the stresses, anguishes and turmoils of life, and
they do not go for those guns as a coping mechanism. The argument that
they may is what does not make any sense.


I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved around
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
really only one way to deal with that.

What constitues "a fair amount", and what are the references for this?


And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look into
getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.

I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
knowledge I do have about living in US society.

The last statement is the most accurate one you've made in this thread.

--

-Mike-

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved
around people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong
place
at the wrong time.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?

Yes, I can do that. It will take me a little time to find the news articles,
but from memory one shooting was a guy who took a bullet in head that was
meant for a bouncer who ejected a patron from a bar/strip club. The owner of
the gun was licensed to own the gun for target shooting. He was not licensed
to carry.

The second that comes to mind was a woman standing outside a club so she
could smoke a cigarette and took a bullet from some guy who decided to spray
the entrance to a club after he was ejected.

I've got a few more in mind, but I'll have to read up on the details a
little more.

And a question for you. Will three recent examples suffice? And when I do
post the supporting data for assertion, what will it gain? Will you suddenly
admit to being in error in this discussion or will the information just be
depicted as some unusual anomaly?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place

Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
only very rare circumstances.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?

A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.

http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place

Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
only very rare circumstances.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?

A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.

http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx

Just so we make sure we're talking about the topic at hand, how many of
those were the result of non-criminals carrying weapons who just got into an
altercation? To be fair, I was able to count one for sure and perhaps a
second. While tragic, it doesn't seem to warrant the level of fear you seem
to have.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
...
"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place

Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
only very rare circumstances.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that
assertion?

A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.

http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx

Just so we make sure we're talking about the topic at hand, how many of
those were the result of non-criminals carrying weapons who just got into
an altercation? To be fair, I was able to count one for sure and perhaps
a second. While tragic, it doesn't seem to warrant the level of fear you
seem to have.

I stopped reading after the first link. Here's a real juicy quote from that,
and gives it real credibility:

"The percentage of students who reported experience with gun violence was
low in both Torontoand Montreal, both as victims (7.1% vs. 4.7%) and as
aggressors (3.0% vs. 2.5%)."

One in 14 Toronto students are victims of gun violence?

What a rabid bunch of nut jobs. If that truly is the case, the problem is
already out of control. But I'd bet that it's not, and it's only the
gun-phobes allowing themselves to spin out of control. They barely,
demonstrably had a tenuous grasp of reality as it was.

Upscale wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place

Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and
requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under
only very rare circumstances.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?

A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.


Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs and
criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
who decided to carry a gun that day".



http://www.citynews.ca/news_18719.aspx

The only documented case here was someone paralyzed during a "gangland
hit". That's not your average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day as
you had previously asserted.


http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx

Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
These were two people bent on mayhem.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_28462.aspx

This one might pass that criteria. It's interesting to read the highly
incendiary writing employed by the reporters. It appears that someone is
attempting to sway public opinion to support yet more gun control measures
(as in they won't be happy until all law-abiding citizens are disarmed).
My guess is that there are few or no reports when those law abiding
citizens deter or stop a crime because they are armed. Or, it gets
relegated to a back page story with an obligatory quote from a police
officer that they don't encourage citizens to arm themselves for
protection.


http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17122.aspx

Not enough detail in many of these stories to fully assess, but those with
some detail belie your assertion that this was the result of "law abiding
citizens who decided to carry a gun that day". Significant number either
gang or drug-related, others look like the result of a pre-meditated crime.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4381.aspx

Again, a nice incendiary "it's all the fault of the guns" article.
Especially like the picture of someone holding a gun up while wearing latex
gloves -- it gives the impression that if one actually were to handle the
gun bare-handed, all of the evil in the gun would seep into the person
handling it. Again, this does not match your assertion that a "fair amount
of these shootings are the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that
day." In fact, the article says just the opposite: "Last year's scourge of
gun violence, which was capped off by the fatal shooting of Jane Creba, an
innocent teen who was hit by a stray bullet in a gang shootout on Boxing
Day while shopping in the Yonge-Dundas area, was largely the result of gang
wars, police say. This fall's spate of shootings is a different beast,
according to police, fuelled by drug deals gone bad and personal beefs
between members of the same street gangs".

With the exception of one article, none of these articles point to your
assertion that a fair amount of gun deaths are the result of the average
citizen just deciding to carry a gun that day. Even in the case of the one
article, there is no evidence that this is the only time that person was
armed.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx

Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
These were two people bent on mayhem.

Garbage. You make it sound like they went home, got the gun and came back.
They were kicked out of the club and returned *minutes* later. They were
average citizens out for a good time and decided to punish a bouncer for
throwing them out. Result, an innocent person was shot down by a person who
lost his temper.

Why don't you ask me how I know many of the intricate details? I live 300
yards from the Brass Rail. I've talked to a number of the staff who work
there since I see many of them around the area on a frequent basis.

I live in downtown Toronto. I play there and I work there. I experience it
every day. I know what goes on and am fully aware of the volatile nature of
many people here. And, I'm certainly not paranoid about it, just fully
realistic.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs
and
criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
who decided to carry a gun that day".

I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof? The
links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search. Assuming I
spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will there be.

Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question*
that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to
shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar
were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had
been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to say
that they were out just to cause trouble.

I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday
parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need to?
I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.

Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting incidents
above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.

Upscale wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs
and
criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
who decided to carry a gun that day".

I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof?
The links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search.
Assuming I spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will
there be.

Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question*
that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to
shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar
were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had
been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to
say that they were out just to cause trouble.


Of the two links you cite above, only one really rises the the "normal
citizen who decided to carry a gun that day" The case of the two men
returning still falls under a pre-meditated act. We have had similar cases
in the US where angry people return to a place from which they have been
bounced in a vehicle traveling at high speed with the intent to run down
the doorman and others.


I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday
parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need
to? I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.


What you've already provided shoots down your assertion, while a very
small number of cases may occur (some of which, as stated above are simply
because the gun was the closest tool), your links indicate that the largest
number of such deaths are a result of getting caught in gangland or
drug-related violence -- both of which will not be resolved by disarming
regular citizens. As I asked before, for the small number of the other
cases that appear to get a great deal of highly charged press, you are not
informed of the many times when a law abiding citizen with a gun prevents
violence to themselves or loved ones.

I'd much rather take my chances with being able to defend myself while
have a vanishingly small chance of encountering something such as you
describe than being made into an unarmed victim in a disarmed populace.

You people in Canada can do as you please -- gun control has really worked
out well for Britain and also Australia where violent crime is up now that
the criminals know the people are unable to defend themselves.



Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting
incidents above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

You people in Canada can do as you please -- gun control has
really worked
out well for Britain and also Australia where violent crime is up
now that
the criminals know the people are unable to defend themselves.


http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...736501,00.html

"Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect"

"In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per
100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate."

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Of the two links you cite above, only one really rises the the "normal
citizen who decided to carry a gun that day" The case of the two men
returning still falls under a pre-meditated act.

While the period of time necessary for pre-mediation to exist varies to a
certain amount, leaving a bar angry and coming back within a few minutes
doesn't fall into the pre-meditation category as far as I'm concerned. He
was angry when he left and was still under the same cloud of anger when he
came back and pulled the trigger. Nevertheless, it's obvious whatever I say
or what proof I provide isn't going to change your mind.

cases that appear to get a great deal of highly charged press, you are not
informed of the many times when a law abiding citizen with a gun prevents
violence to themselves or loved ones.

That statement is meaningless. The reason why it happens so rarely up here
is that the vast bulk of the general public don't own or have access to guns
to use as a means of self defence. You might state that information of that
type is kept from public knowledge so people don't get the idea of arming
themselves, but you'd be wrong. I worked with Metro Police for a period and
a close friend of mine, was a sergeant with them at the time. If that type
of thing was happening, I'd have heard about it.

You live where you live and I live here. There's a number of reasons for my
knowledge and experience here to be in excess of what you might believe to
be true, but that's your choice. Believe what you like.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:46:15 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18533.aspx

Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
These were two people bent on mayhem.

Garbage. You make it sound like they went home, got the gun and came back.
They were kicked out of the club and returned *minutes* later. They were
average citizens out for a good time and decided to punish a bouncer for
throwing them out. Result, an innocent person was shot down by a person who
lost his temper.

....IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?

This is a great example of drugs (alcohal) and guns don't mix.

Why don't you ask me how I know many of the intricate details? I live 300
yards from the Brass Rail. I've talked to a number of the staff who work
there since I see many of them around the area on a frequent basis.

I live in downtown Toronto. I play there and I work there. I experience it
every day. I know what goes on and am fully aware of the volatile nature of
many people here. And, I'm certainly not paranoid about it, just fully
realistic.

I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that
particular molecule I marvel at the drinking culture...but not so much
at how easy it is to lose control because of its influence...

cg

"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?

Well, I'd have to agree with you, because nobody except the police are
registered to carry weapons. The only other registration that goes on here
is to own a gun and a permit to transport it to places like a gun club. And,
it's even more difficult than ever to get those permits.

This is a great example of drugs (alcohol) and guns don't mix.

That's one point that I'm trying to get across. When you add alcohol to any
situation, it usually exacerbates it. If the population at large has the
right to bear arms and they're more guns around, what happens when alcohol
is thrown into the mix?

I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that

Things *have* changed since the 70's, everywhere. There's an attitude of
entitlement and "don't screw with me" that seems to be very pervasive. When
I was a kid, a fight was using your fists and you might get the crap beat
out of you, but you usually lived. It seems when there's a fight these days,
someone always has a gun or a knife and a fight often results in someone
dying. It's just not the same anymore and I feel for kids in school who have
to deal with this **** day in and day out.

"Charlie Groh" wrote:

I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit.

I still remember Peter Ustinov's description of Toronto:

"New York as administered by the Swiss".

Quite a compliment about the clean and tidy way you find things in
Toronto.

Lew

Upscale wrote:


"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?

Well, I'd have to agree with you, because nobody except the police are
registered to carry weapons. The only other registration that goes on here
is to own a gun and a permit to transport it to places like a gun club.
And, it's even more difficult than ever to get those permits.


So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since you
already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun
laws?



This is a great example of drugs (alcohol) and guns don't mix.

That's one point that I'm trying to get across. When you add alcohol to
any situation, it usually exacerbates it. If the population at large has
the right to bear arms and they're more guns around, what happens when
alcohol is thrown into the mix?


You act as if guns and/or alcohol are recent innovations and that only now
citizens are getting access to guns. The exact opposite is true and
societies now have less guns on a per capita basis than in the past. Yet
somehow, the population in years past wasn't decimating itself in drunken
shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to what
is a very small problem?



I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that

Things *have* changed since the 70's, everywhere. There's an attitude of
entitlement and "don't screw with me" that seems to be very pervasive.
When I was a kid, a fight was using your fists and you might get the crap
beat out of you, but you usually lived. It seems when there's a fight
these days, someone always has a gun or a knife and a fight often results
in someone dying.

Some of that gang-related stuff. Again, guns are hardly a new
innovation -- perhaps it's time to use some of that energy being used to
restrict peoples' freedom by restricting a tool and start to work on what
is causing the behavior and attitude instead. What is so laugh-in-your
face funny (again, but for the serious consequences) is the notion by gun
ban advocates that somehow guns have just appeared on the scene and are now
causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all
citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about. Kids
used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons: gun club, show and
tell, and to hunt on the way home after school. There weren't wild
rampages then, so guns aren't the problem, why do you think banning them
now would be the solution?

The whole idea that by banning an inanimate object along with the
accompanying unintended consequences and side effects will somehow solve
the problems you describe above would be laughable if it weren't so darn
serious for the peasants (what disarmed citizens become) who are subjected
to such regulations. The gun control part is just part of the total
package -- just look to England. After disarming the citizens, the next
step was the idea that "a few farthings worth of x is not worth someone
losing their life over" and now you have the case where defending oneself
in one's own home leads to jail time for the person doing so. People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

All deaths are tragic, society seems to be onto this notion that somehow
the world can be made completely safe through the application of various
laws and restrictions. The problem is that those laws and restrictions have
other various serious consequences and side effects. Where I grew up, and
where I live now, law enforcement is a minimum of 30 minutes (most likely
45 minutes) away -- you are proposing disarming people like myself and
putting us at the mercy of those who are already breaking the law. Mighty
compassionate of you.



It's just not the same anymore and I feel for kids in
school who have to deal with this **** day in and day out.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as
fists are a dangerous weapon.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as
fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use:
to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves,
you can't fire your gun.

jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times
as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use:
to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves,
you can't fire your gun.

How do you know about my gun? - a pump bb/pellet rifle. Next you'll
claim I kill or maim innocent pigeons while secretly removing my boxing
gloves!