On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:11:05 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:46:23 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
As is the case with all of the emotional non-thinking anti-gun folks out
there. If they stopped the bleed from their heart for just a moment, and
thought just a little bit about the nice fuzzy stuff they were spouting,
they'd realize the folly of it all. The bad guys scare them, so because
they don't know how to deal with that, they seek to legislate the good guys.
Just plain dumb.

Ask yourself where the guns come from that the criminals have? The
obvious answer is that they come from people like you who insist on
their right to ownership.

A very large number are smuggled into countries, yours and ours.


It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

What would the criminals do if their guns were taken? Pick up sticks,
bats, knives, swords, steel balls, rocks, and whatever else was handy
at the time they felt like being criminals. Your gun laws haven't
solved anything, Uppy.


People keep insisting with their cockeyed logic, that if legal
ownership of guns was outlawed, then only the criminals would have
guns. The sad fact is that without legal owners of guns to initiate
the process of guns being brought into the community, the criminal
element wouldn't be able to get guns. That's just common sense.

Right, like the Drug Czar has completely stopped drugs, Prohibition
stopped all alcohol use, and Dubya stopped all terrorism. Where is
YOUR common sense, sir?


I fully realize that it's highly unlikely that gun ownership will ever
be outlawed in the US. The fact is that many of you are too high and
mighty on personal rights and too lacking on common sense. Universal
gun ownership is just part of that lack of common sense. And, that's
your cross to bear.

How so? There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA today and
cars kill more people than guns do. Where's the beef?

I'd prefer less violence here, but guns are merely tools. It's the
-criminals- who are the problem, not their tools. Think on that.

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:24:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
What would the criminals do if their guns were taken? Pick up sticks,
bats, knives, swords, steel balls, rocks, and whatever else was handy
at the time they felt like being criminals.

It's replies like the one above that continue to show the flaws in the
gun argument.

Guns are and always have been, in a class of their own. They kill
easily from a distance. Everything else you've mentioned above either
takes luck to kill someone or involves close proximity of two people
to kill. Guns also kill easily by anyone. Everything else you've
listed above takes some skill, luck and often some muscle to kill on
the spot.

Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives. Perhaps you'd like to regale me with
tales of mass killings by use of knives, swords and arrows and then
offer up comparison amounts of killing when guns came on the scene.
The fact is that they don't compare. War and killing entered a whole
new dimension when guns appeared in history.

Say what you want, but you can't refute very much of what I've said
above.

Upscale wrote:

Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives. Perhaps you'd like to regale me with
tales of mass killings by use of knives, swords and arrows and then
offer up comparison amounts of killing when guns came on the scene.
The fact is that they don't compare. War and killing entered a whole
new dimension when guns appeared in history.

Say what you want, but you can't refute very much of what I've said
above.

No, I can't refute it - but I can expand it. As my old mentor, in
introducing me to the concept of "Quality Control Thinking," taught, one
applies the "What then?" test.

You have a point that banning guns would almost eliminate gun deaths, so
suppose a gun ban were put in place. What then? Probably half the guns in
the country would be turned in. That leaves about 100 million in storage
somewhere where their owners would be reluctant to announce their presence.
These would, over the course of many years, attrit down to a negligible
number. But during those many years, the populace would be at the mercy of
the criminals using guns.

Another Quality Control Thinking test is to evaluate the premise. You
apparently start with the axiom that deaths attributed to guns are to be
avoided. I disagree. The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are, in the
main, good. Leaving aside the justifiable homicides (police shooting of
criminals, self-defense, etc.), very many gun homicides involve spouses or
gang-bangers killing someone they simply don't like. If the victim wasn't
liked by the shooter, chances are we wouldn't like them either, so that's a
plus. In addition, the shooter is destined for the grey-bar hotel, another
plus. So, when a gun homicide occurs, most of the time we get two
knuckle-draggers off the street.

You also claim the only purpose of gun is to kill or injure something. Not
so.

* Guns are used for recreation, including target shooting. It's even an
Olympic sport!
* Historical artifacts - the dueling pistols used by Hamilton-Burr, the
Glock owned by Sadaam Hussein, "Machine Gun" Kelley's Tommy Gun, etc.
* Investment
* Collecting - like stamps or locomotives

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:24:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
What would the criminals do if their guns were taken? Pick up sticks,
bats, knives, swords, steel balls, rocks, and whatever else was handy
at the time they felt like being criminals.

It's replies like the one above that continue to show the flaws in the
gun argument.

Guns are and always have been, in a class of their own. They kill
easily from a distance. Everything else you've mentioned above either
takes luck to kill someone or involves close proximity of two people
to kill. Guns also kill easily by anyone. Everything else you've
listed above takes some skill, luck and often some muscle to kill on
the spot.


Ok - so there's a couple of differing scenarios wrapped up in what you are
suggesting. One is the gang type battles and killings and the other is the
accosting of innocent victims not related to gang type issues. In the case
of gang battles, they typically do take place in closer proximity than you
suggest. Yes there are drive by shootings, but they are markedly in the
minority. This type of long distance confrontation is dwarfed by the street
level rumble. In fact, more damage is done with chains, knives, clubs, etc.
than by the use of guns. A large percentage (and I do not know the
number...) of gun related gang killings are execution style killings - at
very close range. This type of killing could as easily be accomplished with
any other means besides a gun.

Typical shootings - especially at the street gang level require a great deal
of luck. Sure the gun kills easily, if it is pointed in the right
direction, but marksmanship is not a recognized trait of gangs. Most
shootings take place at a distance of 7 yards or less. Check into it -
that's precisely the reason police forces focus their range time at these
distances. Guns do indeed require a far greater degree of skill to be
effective, than you portray with your statement above.

So - in the matter of accosting innocent victims, those are almost all at
very close range where a knife, or physical prowess, or the mere qualtiy of
intimidation would prove equally effective. Of course the glaring exception
to this would be sniper activity, and simple blasting at crowds from a
distance. Sniper activity requires a fair degree to a high degree of skill,
depending upon the weapon of choice and the distance involved. That too
speaks against your assertion that guns kill easily by anyone.


Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Valid statement, but irrelevant. Self protection and hunting are valid
reasons and purposes for killing. What does it matter if a tool was
designed to kill, or if a tool designed for another use, is used to kill?
It's the act of killing that is the problem, not the gun. More guns are
used to kill in an acceptable way, or for simple sporting use, than are used
to kill in an illegal manner. Why would that not cause you to be more
concerned for the motivations and the issues surrounding such things as gang
activity or other criminal activity, than on the gun itself?



Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives.

Drive by shootings certainly get a lot of press, but they number few
compared to more face to face confrontations between gangs.

Perhaps you'd like to regale me with
tales of mass killings by use of knives, swords and arrows and then
offer up comparison amounts of killing when guns came on the scene.

I'd ask you to regale us with the overwhelming number of drive by shootings
that result in innocent bystanders or other innocents being killed. Yes - I
do understand that happens and I don't dismiss that, but I'm specifically
challenging your reference to drive by shootings as if they are very
commonplace.


The fact is that they don't compare. War and killing entered a whole
new dimension when guns appeared in history.


Rape, pillage, and plunder was a concept that long preceeded the gun. The
ability of bad guys to intimidate and overwhelm innocents has long
prevailed. The tool has never mattered. Well armed - equally armed
societies were better able to protect themselves from onslaughts from
enemies since time began. Criminals of all sorts play on helpless victims.
Take away the helpless part of that, and the criminal goes elsewhere.

Say what you want, but you can't refute very much of what I've said
above.


Actually - what you've said above is pretty easy to refute. It's not very
well informed with respect to typical illegal gun use, not at all informed
with respect to the level of skill required for effective gun use, and it
completely ignores the nature of the criminal element that has existed far
longer than the gun has existed. The biggest problem to me is that you
completely ignore the fact that a well armed citizenry is a very effective
deterrent to the criminal.

--

-Mike-

Upscale wrote:

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:24:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
What would the criminals do if their guns were taken? Pick up sticks,
bats, knives, swords, steel balls, rocks, and whatever else was handy
at the time they felt like being criminals.

It's replies like the one above that continue to show the flaws in the
gun argument.

While I agree that it is one of the weakest pro-gun arguments, it hardly exposes
flaws in the others.

Guns also kill easily by anyone. Everything else you've
listed above takes some skill, luck and often some muscle to kill on
the spot.

That's why the old Colt was called "The Equalizer".


Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives.

Yeah, it's tough to do a drive-by with a knife.

But this does lead to question: "Why do people do drive byes?" It's because of
illegal drugs. OK, some are done for random reasons or even no reason at all.
But most are business disputes.

Because drug sales are outside the law, they are outside our system of
contracts. Therefore, markets, territories, and agreements must be enforced
with force. It is the same thing that is causing the violence along the Mexican
border, in Columbia, as well as the gang wars in our cities.

While illegal drugs are hard on the users and folks around them, so are most
dependencies, like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. Outlawing alcohol and
gambling didn't work. Why do we think it works for other dependencies?

-- Doug

On Feb 4, 6:59*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

While illegal drugs are hard on the users and folks around them, so are most
dependencies, like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. *Outlawing alcohol and
gambling didn't work. *Why do we think it works for other dependencies?

-- Doug

Excellent question. Even though the individual's use may not have a
direct effect on another person, the tentacles that support his/her
habit do weave their way through the fabric of the criminal sub
culture and consequently affect all of us.

Upscale wrote:

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:24:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
What would the criminals do if their guns were taken? Pick up sticks,
bats, knives, swords, steel balls, rocks, and whatever else was handy
at the time they felt like being criminals.

It's replies like the one above that continue to show the flaws in the
gun argument.


Do tell. Oh wait, you are going to ...

Guns are and always have been, in a class of their own. They kill
easily from a distance. Everything else you've mentioned above either
takes luck to kill someone or involves close proximity of two people
to kill. Guns also kill easily by anyone. Everything else you've
listed above takes some skill, luck and often some muscle to kill on
the spot.


So, you advocate rule and domination by the strong then? For the sake of
argument, you now have a society in which all guns have been eliminated and
criminals have now moved to knives and sticks. That eliminates ranged
weapons since, if in your ideal society like Great Britain, you've also gone
after bows and crossbows. You now have a society in which the strong
criminal can overwhelm anyone who is smaller and weaker than he is.
Criminals tend to prey upon those they view as weak, so now you have exposed
the old and frail, the weak and/or disabled, and those physically small to
the predation of these criminals and have provided no means for them to make
the battle equal.

Not the kind of society in which I care to live, thank-you.



Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives. Perhaps you'd like to regale me with
tales of mass killings by use of knives, swords and arrows and then
offer up comparison amounts of killing when guns came on the scene.
The fact is that they don't compare. War and killing entered a whole
new dimension when guns appeared in history.

Say what you want, but you can't refute very much of what I've said
above.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Feb 5, 12:44*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:


* *So, you advocate rule and domination by the strong then? *For the sake of
argument, you now have a society in which all guns have been eliminated and
criminals have now moved to knives and sticks. *That eliminates ranged
weapons since, if in your ideal society like Great Britain, you've also gone
after bows and crossbows. *You now have a society in which the strong
criminal can overwhelm anyone who is smaller and weaker than he is. *
Criminals tend to prey upon those they view as weak, so now you have exposed
the old and frail, the weak and/or disabled, and those physically small to
the predation of these criminals and have provided no means for them to make
the battle equal. *

* Not the kind of society in which I care to live, thank-you. *

*Having a cartoon-grade vision of a thug, tippy-toeing up behind a
little old lady out walking her 2 pound doggie, She's packing a cross-
bow under her coat.*

The Ted Nugent Morning Show on 102.7 FM in Detroit was on my dial
quite often 'back-in-the-day'.
One day, after a rash of car-jackings had occurred, Uncle Ted
suggested that the best thing was to keep a loaded gun on your lap and
drill the attacker right through the car door, right into the
culprit's groin. The reaction from the public went from outrage to
"good idea Uncle Ted!" Regardless, after a couple of shot-off groins,
the carjackings almost stopped completely. I guess walking up to a car
with the intention of stealing it, but not knowing if you're going to
have to sit down to pee for the rest of your life, would tend to make
one think. I liked what Ted had to say back then, but now he's gone
too far right...and yes, there is such a thing as too far right, to
wit:

-----------------------news article------
On April 15, 2009, Nugent appeared onstage with his guitar in San
Antonio, TX, as part of Glenn Beck's coverage of the Tax Day Tea Party
protests on the Fox News Channel. He hosted the show with Glenn Beck,
and played music for the protestors at the Alamo.

----------------------end of article--------

Obviously, Uncle Ted has lost his mind. (Dogs/fleas etc.)

On Feb 5, 9:42*am, Angela Sekeris wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:44*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:



* *So, you advocate rule and domination by the strong then? *For the sake of
argument, you now have a society in which all guns have been eliminated and
criminals have now moved to knives and sticks. *That eliminates ranged
weapons since, if in your ideal society like Great Britain, you've also gone
after bows and crossbows. *You now have a society in which the strong
criminal can overwhelm anyone who is smaller and weaker than he is. *
Criminals tend to prey upon those they view as weak, so now you have exposed
the old and frail, the weak and/or disabled, and those physically small to
the predation of these criminals and have provided no means for them to make
the battle equal. *

* Not the kind of society in which I care to live, thank-you. *

*Having a cartoon-grade vision of a thug, tippy-toeing up behind a
little old lady out walking her 2 pound doggie, She's packing a cross-
bow under her coat.*

The Ted Nugent Morning Show on 102.7 FM in Detroit was on my dial
quite often 'back-in-the-day'.
One day, after a rash of car-jackings had occurred, Uncle Ted
suggested that the best thing was to keep a loaded gun on your lap and
drill the attacker right through the car door, right into the
culprit's groin. The reaction from the public went from outrage to
"good idea Uncle Ted!" Regardless, after a couple of shot-off groins,
the carjackings almost stopped completely. I guess walking up to a car
with the intention of stealing it, but not knowing if you're going to
have to sit down to pee for the rest of your life, would tend to make
one think. I liked what Ted had to say back then, but now he's gone
too far right...and yes, there is such a thing as too far right, to
wit:

-----------------------news article------
On April 15, 2009, Nugent appeared onstage with his guitar in San
Antonio, TX, as part of Glenn Beck's coverage of the Tax Day Tea Party
protests on the Fox News Channel. He hosted the show with Glenn Beck,
and played music for the protestors at the Alamo.

----------------------end of article--------

Obviously, Uncle Ted has lost his mind. (Dogs/fleas etc.)

This in error sent from my lovely, sweet wife's account. It takes more
than one coffee to see who last used the laptop in the upstairs
office.


*IDJIT!* *slaps self*

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, you advocate rule and domination by the strong then? For the
sake of argument, you now have a society in which all guns have been
eliminated and criminals have now moved to knives and sticks. That
eliminates ranged weapons since, if in your ideal society like Great
Britain, you've also gone after bows and crossbows. You now have a
society in which the strong criminal can overwhelm anyone who is
smaller and weaker than he is. Criminals tend to prey upon those they
view as weak, so now you have exposed the old and frail, the weak
and/or disabled, and those physically small to the predation of these
criminals and have provided no means for them to make the battle
equal.

Not the kind of society in which I care to live, thank-you.


Time for the reminder: God made men; Samuel Colt made men equal.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:26:50 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:24:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
What would the criminals do if their guns were taken? Pick up sticks,
bats, knives, swords, steel balls, rocks, and whatever else was handy
at the time they felt like being criminals.

It's replies like the one above that continue to show the flaws in the
gun argument.

What, are you looking in a mirror? You misspelled "gun-control
argument".


Guns are and always have been, in a class of their own. They kill

We're not talking about guns here. YOU TOOK 'EM AWAY, REMEMBER?
We're discussing criminal activity. Keep up, will ya?


easily from a distance. Everything else you've mentioned above either
takes luck to kill someone or involves close proximity of two people
to kill. Guns also kill easily by anyone. Everything else you've
listed above takes some skill, luck and often some muscle to kill on
the spot.

Don't be absurd. A grandmother could kill you on the spot with her
knitting needle or a pencil. A quick swat to the larynx with anyone's
hand could kill an attacker in seconds. It doesn't take a gun to kill,
Uppy. There are thousands of ways, and the criminal population seems
to know them all.


Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Go look at stats. Defensive use of weapons numbers about two million
per year. You might be able to dispute the total number, but the fact
remains, millions of people are safer because they are armed. NONE of
these people do harm to others unless attacked, either. Look it up.
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)


Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives.

First off, drive-bys are merely one facet of gang killing. If guns
were taken away, they could always use pellet guns, spearguns, or
slingshots to exactly the same effect. Do you dispute this?


Perhaps you'd like to regale me with
tales of mass killings by use of knives, swords and arrows and then
offer up comparison amounts of killing when guns came on the scene.
The fact is that they don't compare. War and killing entered a whole
new dimension when guns appeared in history.

Now you're talking wars, not criminal activity. Stay on topic, please.
And for mass deaths, try Charles Manson (knives), the Texas chainsaw
guy (chainsaw), Osama bin Laden (bombs), and Jonestown (koolaid). I'm
sure there are many more who didn't use guns.

Oh, I believe that genocides in Rwanda and Central America were mostly
carried out with sticks, spears, and machetes because guns were too
expensive for the entire armies.


Say what you want, but you can't refute very much of what I've said
above.

I certainly did. You (and your gun-controlling ilk) never answer the
hard questions. You assume, wrongly, that, deprived of a gun, a
criminal will be all nice, peaceful, and happy.

You're dead wrong, and with that attitude, it'll be easy for the
killer if and when your time comes. How do you feel about that?
wink

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:10:37 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Feb 4, 6:59*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

While illegal drugs are hard on the users and folks around them, so are most
dependencies, like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. *Outlawing alcohol and
gambling didn't work. *Why do we think it works for other dependencies?

-- Doug

Excellent question. Even though the individual's use may not have a
direct effect on another person, the tentacles that support his/her
habit do weave their way through the fabric of the criminal sub
culture and consequently affect all of us.

Kinda like "government"?

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:26:50 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

... . snip

Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Go look at stats. Defensive use of weapons numbers about two million
per year. You might be able to dispute the total number, but the fact
remains, millions of people are safer because they are armed. NONE of
these people do harm to others unless attacked, either. Look it up.
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)


Couple of recent examples:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

http://forthardknox.com/2009/12/10/c...ot-be-charged-
for-fatally-shooting-home-intruder/

Listening to the 911 call is sobering in several ways. In the first
place, contrary to many gun-fearing gun control advocates, this illustrates
the fact that gun owners aren't blood-thirsty rednecks just waiting for a
chance to unload on some hapless petty criminal. Secondly, is the real-life
object lesson of the adage "when seconds count, the police are only minutes
away". There is no telling what this drug addict would have done had she
been unarmed. About the same time as this event, an episode on one of the
cable channels (Discover, TLC, ...) aired that related the story of a young
woman killed by a drug addict who talked himself into her home and brutally
killed her using a clothes iron until the handle shattered in his hands.
All for the tips she had gotten that evening so he could buy another hit.






Why don't you tell me how criminals who don't have guns will do their
drive by killing with knives.

First off, drive-bys are merely one facet of gang killing. If guns
were taken away, they could always use pellet guns, spearguns, or
slingshots to exactly the same effect. Do you dispute this?


Perhaps you'd like to regale me with
tales of mass killings by use of knives, swords and arrows and then
offer up comparison amounts of killing when guns came on the scene.
The fact is that they don't compare. War and killing entered a whole
new dimension when guns appeared in history.

Now you're talking wars, not criminal activity. Stay on topic, please.
And for mass deaths, try Charles Manson (knives), the Texas chainsaw
guy (chainsaw), Osama bin Laden (bombs), and Jonestown (koolaid). I'm
sure there are many more who didn't use guns.

Oh, I believe that genocides in Rwanda and Central America were mostly
carried out with sticks, spears, and machetes because guns were too
expensive for the entire armies.


Say what you want, but you can't refute very much of what I've said
above.

I certainly did. You (and your gun-controlling ilk) never answer the
hard questions. You assume, wrongly, that, deprived of a gun, a
criminal will be all nice, peaceful, and happy.

You're dead wrong, and with that attitude, it'll be easy for the
killer if and when your time comes. How do you feel about that?
wink

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:26:50 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

.. . snip

Everybody keeps mentioning how criminals will go to knives if guns are
not available and that comment also shows the flaws in the gun
ownership argument. Knives have and always have had a number of uses.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose only and that's to
kill or injure. Maybe a few might take up guns for hunting or target
practice, but that doesn't take away from what guns are designed to
do.

Go look at stats. Defensive use of weapons numbers about two million
per year. You might be able to dispute the total number, but the fact
remains, millions of people are safer because they are armed. NONE of
these people do harm to others unless attacked, either. Look it up.
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

Couple of recent examples:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

Excellent. How do you like the way the TV station described the
self-defense act? "...and he started shooting.", as if he were one of
the perps.


http://forthardknox.com/2009/12/10/c...ot-be-charged-
for-fatally-shooting-home-intruder/

Good for her!


Listening to the 911 call is sobering in several ways. In the first
place, contrary to many gun-fearing gun control advocates, this illustrates
the fact that gun owners aren't blood-thirsty rednecks just waiting for a
chance to unload on some hapless petty criminal. Secondly, is the real-life
object lesson of the adage "when seconds count, the police are only minutes
away".

Exactly. I listened to 11 minutes of the tape and they still hadn't
arrived. That's precisely why the public needs to have access to arms.


There is no telling what this drug addict would have done had she
been unarmed.

She likely would have been beaten and raped at the minimum. He sounded
awfully violent and angry.


About the same time as this event, an episode on one of the
cable channels (Discover, TLC, ...) aired that related the story of a young
woman killed by a drug addict who talked himself into her home and brutally
killed her using a clothes iron until the handle shattered in his hands.
All for the tips she had gotten that evening so he could buy another hit.

Humans are capable of anything. In this case, it's really sad.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:50:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

It's easy to quote some of the cases where someone has used a gun to
protect themselves from from some drug crazed person.

And it's just as easy for me to quote the opposite, where guns have
led to accidental deaths.

Or how about I quote the statistics for innocent people being shot in
the US every year.

And I quote:
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Care see the statistics for gun deaths of children?
Look at the statistics for guns in the US.

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under
age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other
industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more
likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit
suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm
accident than children in these other countries
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Does that say *anything* to you? How many gun owners out there
properly lock up their guns? How many children could have been saved
by the simple use of a gun lock? Gun ownership is not as black and
white as most avocates paint. Buy a gun and you have self protection
at hand whenever it's needed. A purely ridiculous assumption. How many
gun owners out there have gone and bought their $200+ costing guns but
fail to buy the $1000+ plus proper safe to store it? Too many. Or
perhaps they don't buy the safe because they want the gun they easily
obtained should they be attacked? I'm willing to bet the amount is
much less than those unprotected guns that are stolen every year and
then wind up on the open market.

Berate me all you want, but the fact is that it works both ways. More
guns out there for protection, means more guns in the hands of people
who shouldn't have them.

I've never once said that guns haven't been useful in those cases
where one needs to project themselves. But, consider your example of
the woman defending herself? In reality, it's much more likely that
the druggy is the one who is going to have (and use) a gun, an easily
obtained gun. ~ A gun that was stolen from someone else who just
wanted to protect themselves.

As I said, it works both ways and no matter how much you or anyone
else wants to argue for gun ownership, there's always examples of
cases where a simiarly reversed argument can and does apply.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:50:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

It's easy to quote some of the cases where someone has used a gun to
protect themselves from from some drug crazed person.

And it's just as easy for me to quote the opposite, where guns have
led to accidental deaths.

Actually, it's not nearly as easy, since the former outnumber the latter by
several orders of magnitude.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html estimates 2.5 million defensive
uses of firearms per year in the U.S.

Or how about I quote the statistics for innocent people being shot in
the US every year.

Please do.

Also please specify who qualifies as "innocent people" by your definition too.
Mine would exclude burglars shot by homeowners, gang members shot by other
gang members, drug dealers shot by rival drug dealers, and so on.

Note that the *total* number of firearm homicides in the U.S. in 2006 [most
recent year for which I could find statistics] was 12,791
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Even if *all* of them qualified as "innocent" victims that figure is still
outnumbered by the defensive uses by a ratio of approximately 200:1.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:06:11 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Even if *all* of them qualified as "innocent" victims that figure is still
outnumbered by the defensive uses by a ratio of approximately 200:1.

And based on a conservative US population of 300,000,000 people, your
flippant response of 200:1 amounts to 1,500,000 people.

I guess like usual, they're just statistics and you don't care much
about that just as long as it's not you eh Doug?

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:06:11 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Even if *all* of them qualified as "innocent" victims that figure is still
outnumbered by the defensive uses by a ratio of approximately 200:1.

And based on a conservative US population of 300,000,000 people, your
flippant response of 200:1 amounts to 1,500,000 people.

You obviously need to read more carefully.

Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:06:11 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Even if *all* of them qualified as "innocent" victims that figure is
still outnumbered by the defensive uses by a ratio of approximately
200:1.

And based on a conservative US population of 300,000,000 people, your
flippant response of 200:1 amounts to 1,500,000 people.

I guess like usual, they're just statistics and you don't care much
about that just as long as it's not you eh Doug?

You are both correct. Various academic studies show there are between 2 and
5 million defensive uses of firearms per year. One Department of Justice
survey estimated between 1.5 and 23(!) million defensive gun uses per year.

PDF
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Of course that study was done in 1994, so there's probably more today.

And *I* care. That's why I carry TWO guns. Plus a shotgun in the car.

Since 2001, I have been involved in three defensive uses of a firearm. Twice
in Home Depot parking lots when I was approached by dissolute sorts, not
only carrying weapons (tire iron once and a 2x4 the other) but refused to
heed my command to "Stop! Come no closer!"

California, an anti-gun state in general, catalogs
gangland killers and victims from drive buys.......
if under 21 are children...

e.g. they might have a rocket launcher and machine gun
in their hands and on their back but are babies if shot.

Simple as that to screw up stuff.

The CDC is just as anti-gun as the libs.

Martin

Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:50:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

It's easy to quote some of the cases where someone has used a gun to
protect themselves from from some drug crazed person.

And it's just as easy for me to quote the opposite, where guns have
led to accidental deaths.

Or how about I quote the statistics for innocent people being shot in
the US every year.

And I quote:
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Care see the statistics for gun deaths of children?
Look at the statistics for guns in the US.

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under
age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other
industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more
likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit
suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm
accident than children in these other countries
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Does that say *anything* to you? How many gun owners out there
properly lock up their guns? How many children could have been saved
by the simple use of a gun lock? Gun ownership is not as black and
white as most avocates paint. Buy a gun and you have self protection
at hand whenever it's needed. A purely ridiculous assumption. How many
gun owners out there have gone and bought their $200+ costing guns but
fail to buy the $1000+ plus proper safe to store it? Too many. Or
perhaps they don't buy the safe because they want the gun they easily
obtained should they be attacked? I'm willing to bet the amount is
much less than those unprotected guns that are stolen every year and
then wind up on the open market.

Berate me all you want, but the fact is that it works both ways. More
guns out there for protection, means more guns in the hands of people
who shouldn't have them.

I've never once said that guns haven't been useful in those cases
where one needs to project themselves. But, consider your example of
the woman defending herself? In reality, it's much more likely that
the druggy is the one who is going to have (and use) a gun, an easily
obtained gun. ~ A gun that was stolen from someone else who just
wanted to protect themselves.

As I said, it works both ways and no matter how much you or anyone
else wants to argue for gun ownership, there's always examples of
cases where a simiarly reversed argument can and does apply.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:34:04 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:50:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

It's easy to quote some of the cases where someone has used a gun to
protect themselves from from some drug crazed person.

2 million.


And it's just as easy for me to quote the opposite, where guns have
led to accidental deaths.

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html shows 776
accidental firearms deaths in 2002, and crime is down since then.
Maybe accidents are, too. So, what do you notice?

That's right. Guns are used 2,577.32 times more for self-defense. And
that's only the tip of the iceberg. Consider how many people don't
report NOT being mugged because they happened to be armed themselves.



Or how about I quote the statistics for innocent people being shot in
the US every year.

Please do. And what did you find? Ayup, most of them were shot by
our friends, the cops.

What about innocent people being killed in auto accidents? It's a
minimum of 4 times higher, and those are licensed drivers.



And I quote:
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."

What a smarmy, self-serving, nonsensical bunch of words THAT is.
Parse it for me, will ya?


http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Suicide is a self-inflicted wound and people kill themselves without
guns all the time, too. Find a valid stat, please.


Care see the statistics for gun deaths of children?
Look at the statistics for guns in the US.

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under
age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other
industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more
likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit
suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm
accident than children in these other countries
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Hayseuss Crisco, Uppy. That wide range of 0-19 puts them directly
into gang ages. Take gang deaths out of there and watch the stats fall
to nearly nothing, comparatively.

Other than gang violence/suicide/homicide, more kids die from
_falling_ _down_ than they do from guns. "A firearm was reported to
have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those
occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were
reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and
3%, as intention undetermined." works out to about 250 kids killed by
one of 235 million guns. That's a one in a million chance.

http://gunsafe.org/position%20statem...nd%20crime.htm
Better breakdown here. Please read it all, about 5 minutes worth.


Does that say *anything* to you? How many gun owners out there
properly lock up their guns?

Properly disciplined children are taught about guns and how not to
touch them. How many of these (few) children are gangbanger siblings,
where the banger leaves his gun out on the table, hmm?


How many children could have been saved
by the simple use of a gun lock?

A few. How many lives have been wasted because the keys weren't near
the gun when someone broke in? It cuts both ways.


Gun ownership is not as black and
white as most avocates paint. Buy a gun and you have self protection
at hand whenever it's needed. A purely ridiculous assumption. How many
gun owners out there have gone and bought their $200+ costing guns but
fail to buy the $1000+ plus proper safe to store it? Too many. Or
perhaps they don't buy the safe because they want the gun they easily
obtained should they be attacked? I'm willing to bet the amount is
much less than those unprotected guns that are stolen every year and
then wind up on the open market.

OK, finally, one I'll give ya. Not all guns are properly secured.


Berate me all you want, but the fact is that it works both ways. More
guns out there for protection, means more guns in the hands of people
who shouldn't have them.

And no guns out there means 2 million more successful muggings, rapes,
and murders every year. Which is worse, and why?
Convince me, eh?


I've never once said that guns haven't been useful in those cases
where one needs to project themselves. But, consider your example of
the woman defending herself? In reality, it's much more likely that
the druggy is the one who is going to have (and use) a gun, an easily
obtained gun. ~ A gun that was stolen from someone else who just
wanted to protect themselves.

No, but you said guns were designed only for one thing and you want to
take all guns away from people so they CAN'T protect themselves.
What's the difference that you didn't make that particular statement?


As I said, it works both ways and no matter how much you or anyone
else wants to argue for gun ownership, there's always examples of
cases where a simiarly reversed argument can and does apply.

But look at your skewed stats. sigh

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:34:04 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:50:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

It's easy to quote some of the cases where someone has used a gun to
protect themselves from from some drug crazed person.
.... snip


I've never once said that guns haven't been useful in those cases
where one needs to project themselves. But, consider your example of
the woman defending herself? In reality, it's much more likely that
the druggy is the one who is going to have (and use) a gun, an easily
obtained gun. ~ A gun that was stolen from someone else who just
wanted to protect themselves.

Umm, that story WAS reality, that woman saved her life through the
defensive use of a firearm. Your world would have denied her that ability
and she would have wound up dead whether by firearm or by blunt force trauma
(as the counter-example provided in the same posting illustrated), but dead
none the less.



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:18:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
Since 2001, I have been involved in three defensive uses of a firearm. Twice
in Home Depot parking lots when I was approached by dissolute sorts, not
only carrying weapons (tire iron once and a 2x4 the other) but refused to
heed my command to "Stop! Come no closer!"

Ok,then let me ask you something. As a bonafide, legal gun carrying
citizen, how do you explain those three defensive uses happening? In
all seriousness, I'm 55 and have *never* had the need to defend myself
in public from some miscreant on the street and neither has anyone
else I know. The worst that's happened is being asked for money by
some panhandler.

Most of you know that I use a wheelchair. Wouldn't that make me a
more desirable target? I'm out in public on a regular basis, cut
across parking lots when it's convenient and generally interact with
the public just as much as anyone else. Yet here I am up in Canada's
largest city where for the most part very few own guns and aren't in
the habit of carrying weapons of any kind.

Most gun adocates that are taking part in this thread, claim to have
guns for self defense. What is there in the US that mandates the need
for that self defense? While I'm not going to claim it never happens
up here in Canada, it sure as hell seems to be a lot less than what
happens in the US.

Can you hazard some guess why that might be?

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:54:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Umm, that story WAS reality, that woman saved her life through the
defensive use of a firearm. Your world would have denied her that ability
and she would have wound up dead whether by firearm or by blunt force trauma
(as the counter-example provided in the same posting illustrated), but dead
none the less.

I never claimed the story wasn't reality and your perceived ability to
know the future is bull**** at best. You don't know she would have
been killed at all. It's just a possiblity that freaks like to prefer
to imagine as real.

Isn't it funny that most of you gun nuts use examples of terrible
crimes you've read about or happening to you to support your
arguments, while those who oppose gun ownership don't seem to have
these terrible crimes happening anywhere in their neighbourhood?

You make your entire country sound like a dangerous one to live in.
Why would you want to live in such a place? Maybe you should move
somewhere else. Sounds like you prefer to live where there's constant
danger, looking for the opportunity to use your guns.

You really are screwed up aren't you?

"Upscale" wrote in message
news

Most gun adocates that are taking part in this thread, claim to have
guns for self defense. What is there in the US that mandates the need
for that self defense? While I'm not going to claim it never happens
up here in Canada, it sure as hell seems to be a lot less than what
happens in the US.


Most gun advocates participating in this thread have claimed self defense as
one of multiple reasons for gun ownership. That is quite different from
your statement above. Nothing in the US mandates the need for self defense.
It is more of an independence within our citizens that does not chose to
surrender our own protection to others. We feel responsible for our own
lives in many different ways, and do not rely on others to provide for us.
Why would that be such a problem for anyone else?

--

-Mike-

Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:18:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
Since 2001, I have been involved in three defensive uses of a
firearm. Twice in Home Depot parking lots when I was approached by
dissolute sorts, not only carrying weapons (tire iron once and a 2x4
the other) but refused to heed my command to "Stop! Come no closer!"

Ok,then let me ask you something. As a bonafide, legal gun carrying
citizen, how do you explain those three defensive uses happening? In
all seriousness, I'm 55 and have *never* had the need to defend myself
in public from some miscreant on the street and neither has anyone
else I know. The worst that's happened is being asked for money by
some panhandler.

Why do illegals concentrate in Home Depot parking lots? Because that's where
the jobs are. I'm guessing panhandlers and desperate thieves likewise pick
parking lots because that's where the easy money is. In fairness, the two
incidents in the HD parking lots may have been innocent panhandlers. Since
each was carrying a potential weapon, I wasn't about to gamble.



Most gun adocates that are taking part in this thread, claim to have
guns for self defense. What is there in the US that mandates the need
for that self defense? While I'm not going to claim it never happens
up here in Canada, it sure as hell seems to be a lot less than what
happens in the US.

Can you hazard some guess why that might be?

I'm no sociologist but it could be because you have a lesser percentage of
humanity's dregs than we. People in Kansas and Oklahoma have a lot more
tornado shelters that the folks in Winnipeg. The city of Chicago has more
snow plows than does Miami.

You often hear the argument (from either side) that "Country "X" has
more/less guns per capita than the U.S. and they have less/more crime!" For
every country you can name that has fewer guns and less crime, I can find
one with the reverse. What causes crime, in my view, is the social fabric of
the society, not the presence or absence of guns. There's more crime in
Mexico and England where guns are illegal than in Switzerland where
everybody has a firearm. There's more crime in the U.S. where handguns are
plentiful than in Canada where they're not.

It's not the ratio of guns to people; it's the ratio of street goblins to
good citizens that determines the crime rate.

The carrying of weapons, I believe, is a response to a perceived threat and
not that an imaginary threat is the rationale for carrying weapons.

Upscale wrote:

Isn't it funny that most of you gun nuts use examples of terrible
crimes you've read about or happening to you to support your
arguments, while those who oppose gun ownership don't seem to have
these terrible crimes happening anywhere in their neighbourhood?

How many residential fires have happened in your neighborhood? If zero or
close thereto, why do you have fire insurance?


You make your entire country sound like a dangerous one to live in.
Why would you want to live in such a place? Maybe you should move
somewhere else. Sounds like you prefer to live where there's constant
danger, looking for the opportunity to use your guns.

Fires happen anywhere. In some places more than others.

And exactly what's wrong with "looking for the opportunity to use your
guns?"


You really are screwed up aren't you?

Heh! Come to Texas and say that to just about anybody you meet.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:55:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Most gun advocates participating in this thread have claimed self defense as
one of multiple reasons for gun ownership. That is quite different from
your statement above.

Be honest Mike. The claim for gun ownership for self defence purposes
is almost universal. At least it has been by everyone here who states
they approve of gun ownership.

Nothing in the US mandates the need for self defense.

So now you're denying the need for guns? How do you explain then the
apparent proliferation of crime that HeyBub and others have claimed to
have experienced? It certainly doesn't happen near as much in Canada
where guns are the extreme exception, not the norm.

And before you say it, being in a wheelchair makes me more vulnerable
than most. For that reason I'm forced to be more aware than most. It
makes me rely on myself long before I might have to surrender my
protection to others. ~ Still doesn't make me uncomforable enough to
want every law abiding person to have the right to gun ownership.

Yet, everybody advocating gun ownership here keeps quoting examples of
having needed their gun or others with having needed a gun.

It is more of an independence within our citizens that does not chose to
surrender our own protection to others. We feel responsible for our own
lives in many different ways, and do not rely on others to provide for us.

And you expect everybody to believe that that pile of self delusion?
Of course you rely on others for protection. Initially, you might
defend yourself (as anyone would) in a given situation, but in most
cases where a crime happens, the police and the justice system is
there to back up your protection.

What I perceive is that gun ownership for the most part is a right in
the US and most of you are damned if *anybody* is going to take away
that right.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:10:10 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
How many residential fires have happened in your neighborhood? If zero or
close thereto, why do you have fire insurance?

Because it's so cheap it just common sense to have it. Additionally,
all mortages that I've seen demand fire insurance.

But, you've made a valid point. And you're the first one to say
something about guns that actually makes sense. Your life is more
important than anything else, so why not protect it? Can't argue with
that.

I can still see some reasons not to like universal gun ownership, but
I'll have to re-evaluate many of my beliefs based on what you've said.

On Feb 8, 8:22*am, Upscale wrote:


What I perceive is that gun ownership for the most part is a right in
the US and most of you are damned if *anybody* is going to take away
that right.

Maybe it *is* about rights rather than guns.
And defense isn't always about people. My brother-in-law has noticed a
few coyotes hanging around his backyard. He's out in the country side
and the smell of a 10 pound ****zu must have attracted them. So, when
he walks the dog, he packs heat. Has he ever had to use it? Yes, when
a pick-up with a couple of hooligans demanded his wallet.....
I can take my dog for a walk at 3 AM and feel completely safe. I would
never even think of doing that 10 minutes from here in Port Huron
Michigan.
You dress for the cold, you arm for the heat. It is *I* who wants to
be able to make that decision and *I* do not want to be spoon fed what
it takes for me to protect myself and mine. Some clown crawls through
my basement window in a black suit, he leaves in a black bag. It is my
right.
When people are upright, laws aren't needed. When people are not
upright, laws are broken.

Would society be better off if there were no guns at all? Most
likely.... but it's too late for that dream.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 05:51:29 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:
Would society be better off if there were no guns at all? Most
likely.... but it's too late for that dream.

Well, a point HeyBub made resonated with me and I have to re-evaluate
many of my gun beliefs. At the very least, it means that I won't be
arguing pro or con very much for gun ownership any more.

Guess an almost old dog can learn something new.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 05:51:29 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:
Would society be better off if there were no guns at all? Most
likely.... but it's too late for that dream.

Well, a point HeyBub made resonated with me and I have to re-evaluate
many of my gun beliefs. At the very least, it means that I won't be
arguing pro or con very much for gun ownership any more.

Guess an almost old dog can learn something new.

I'm curious what point that was.

In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Upscale
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 05:51:29 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:
Would society be better off if there were no guns at all? Most
likely.... but it's too late for that dream.

Well, a point HeyBub made resonated with me and I have to re-evaluate
many of my gun beliefs. At the very least, it means that I won't be
arguing pro or con very much for gun ownership any more.

Guess an almost old dog can learn something new.

I'm curious what point that was.

Never mind. I just hadn't read far enough into the thread.

On 2/8/2010 7:03 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:18:54 -0600,
wrote:
Since 2001, I have been involved in three defensive uses of a
firearm. Twice in Home Depot parking lots when I was approached by
dissolute sorts, not only carrying weapons (tire iron once and a 2x4
the other) but refused to heed my command to "Stop! Come no closer!"

Ok,then let me ask you something. As a bonafide, legal gun carrying
citizen, how do you explain those three defensive uses happening? In
all seriousness, I'm 55 and have *never* had the need to defend myself
in public from some miscreant on the street and neither has anyone
else I know. The worst that's happened is being asked for money by
some panhandler.

Why do illegals concentrate in Home Depot parking lots? Because that's where
the jobs are. I'm guessing panhandlers and desperate thieves likewise pick
parking lots because that's where the easy money is. In fairness, the two
incidents in the HD parking lots may have been innocent panhandlers. Since
each was carrying a potential weapon, I wasn't about to gamble.



Most gun adocates that are taking part in this thread, claim to have
guns for self defense. What is there in the US that mandates the need
for that self defense? While I'm not going to claim it never happens
up here in Canada, it sure as hell seems to be a lot less than what
happens in the US.

Can you hazard some guess why that might be?

I'm no sociologist but it could be because you have a lesser percentage of
humanity's dregs than we. People in Kansas and Oklahoma have a lot more
tornado shelters that the folks in Winnipeg. The city of Chicago has more
snow plows than does Miami.

You often hear the argument (from either side) that "Country "X" has
more/less guns per capita than the U.S. and they have less/more crime!" For
every country you can name that has fewer guns and less crime, I can find
one with the reverse. What causes crime, in my view, is the social fabric of
the society, not the presence or absence of guns. There's more crime in
Mexico and England where guns are illegal than in Switzerland where
everybody has a firearm. There's more crime in the U.S. where handguns are
plentiful than in Canada where they're not.

It's not the ratio of guns to people; it's the ratio of street goblins to
good citizens that determines the crime rate.

The carrying of weapons, I believe, is a response to a perceived threat and
not that an imaginary threat is the rationale for carrying weapons.

This post, by all rights, should end the debate. Nothing more can be
said ... or that makes more sense, that is!

IOW, it is the threshold filter for the bozo bin. If you can argue with
this, you're a bozo.

Goodnight, Gracie ...

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

On Feb 8, 8:58*am, Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 05:51:29 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

wrote:
Would society be better off if there were no guns at all? Most
likely.... but it's too late for that dream.

Well, a point HeyBub made resonated with me and I have to re-evaluate
many of my gun beliefs. At the very least, it means that I won't be
arguing pro or con very much for gun ownership any more.

Guess an almost old dog can learn something new.

HeyBub isn't always unreasonable. At least he does his homework.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:55:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Most gun advocates participating in this thread have claimed self defense
as
one of multiple reasons for gun ownership. That is quite different from
your statement above.

Be honest Mike. The claim for gun ownership for self defence purposes
is almost universal. At least it has been by everyone here who states
they approve of gun ownership.


To be sure. My point was not that this claim did not exist (even in a
universal way), but that it is part of a small list of reasons that are
voice equally. One will typically find advocates claim three common reasons
for gun ownership - self defense, hunting, and sport shooting (collecting
being a somewhat distant fourth reason). Of those three, across the world
of gun ownership, I believe self defense is the lesser quoted by advocates.
It may not seem so to those who favor gun control, but that would likely be
because of the focus of conversations that develop between those who are pro
and those who are anti.


Nothing in the US mandates the need for self defense.

So now you're denying the need for guns? How do you explain then the
apparent proliferation of crime that HeyBub and others have claimed to
have experienced? It certainly doesn't happen near as much in Canada
where guns are the extreme exception, not the norm.

No - you're taking my statement out of context. I was responding
specifically to your previous comment, which used the phrase "mandates the
need for self defense". I'm not seeing the comments from HeyBub or any
others as reflecting a proliferation of crime. I've seen them reference a
few things, but I've more seen them simply state the realities of crime.
I've not seen them suggest it is any greater here in the US than other
places, just a difference in who should be responsible for their own
protection against any level of crime.


And before you say it, being in a wheelchair makes me more vulnerable
than most. For that reason I'm forced to be more aware than most. It
makes me rely on myself long before I might have to surrender my
protection to others. ~ Still doesn't make me uncomforable enough to
want every law abiding person to have the right to gun ownership.


I understand that. I do not see boogy-men lurking around every corner
either, despite that I have guns as well as a CCW. I could carry a hand gun
any time I wish (with some limited exceptions), but just don't feel the need
to do so in my day to day life. That said - there is a diffrerence between
me feeling that way, and the potential at some level, where my ability to
protect myself and family remains on my list of must haves in this world. I
may never have to exercise that ability, but I'm sure not going to surrender
it. More importantly, I'm not going to surrender that ability because
someone else (and this certainly does not single you out), feels I don't
need that capability, or should not have it, simply because they chose to
put their faith other places.


Yet, everybody advocating gun ownership here keeps quoting examples of
having needed their gun or others with having needed a gun.

Only because the conversation took that twist. The anti's kept driving
their points against self defense, so the pro's drove their points in favor.
There have though, been several mentions of sporting and hunting uses as
well. I know there have, because I have voiced them myself.


It is more of an independence within our citizens that does not chose to
surrender our own protection to others. We feel responsible for our own
lives in many different ways, and do not rely on others to provide for us.

And you expect everybody to believe that that pile of self delusion?
Of course you rely on others for protection. Initially, you might
defend yourself (as anyone would) in a given situation, but in most
cases where a crime happens, the police and the justice system is
there to back up your protection.

Delusion? Why would you suggest such a thing? I don't deny the backup
capability of police agencies, but that completely misses the point. That
initial self protection you reference above, is specifically the capability
that gun advocates (those who advocate self defense as part of their
reasoning), are speaking of. It's that initial self defense that is often
the most critical. Self defense is very much a part of the justice system -
it is provided for under our laws, and our court systems. Why would you
call that a delusion?



What I perceive is that gun ownership for the most part is a right in
the US and most of you are damned if *anybody* is going to take away
that right.


You can perceive what you wish - that's one of the beauties of perception...
you can hold it any way you wish. Why though, would you consider that
position to be anything less than proper? Whether you like it or not, it is
indeed written into the very foundation stones of this country. It has not
been proven to be problematic in over 200 years of history in this country.

If you take the position that there are social ills that are proving to be
problematic, I would certainly agree, and have stated so from the outset of
this thread. I would further contend that there are even bigger problems
with the management of those social ills - that criminal element aspect I
have spoken of in this thread. Those are areas where I believe the root of
the problem can better be addressed. As I have stated before - treating the
symptom never resolves the problem. Treating the symptom affords us an
opportunity to say "well, at least we did this...", but that is nothing more
than a conscience pleaser. It in fact, is an admission of failure in
addressing the problem - it still exists. Blinders, wishful thinking and
all that stuff.

With respect to the social ills, crime and all that stuff - the negative end
of the spectrum in gun ownership discussions, this boils down to the point
that we already have a plethora of gun related laws that provide for the
security of law abiding citizens. The criminal element is present, as it
has been throughout time, and by definition, they don't abide by laws. In
fact, so much so that they don't abide by the laws of supply and demand.
They find the way to get what they want. They do so today, and the number
of guns found within the criminal element that have come from legitimate gun
owners (break ins, etc.), is far dwarfed by the number of guns smuggled in
via other illegal channels. Further curtailing the rights of legal gun
owners will do nothing to address the criminal element.

The biggest hurdle to the argument for further restrictions on private gun
ownership is that for over 200 years, legitimate gun ownership has not
proven to be a problem. The fears often expressed by those in favor of more
control, or even the outright outlawing of private gun ownership, have
simply not been demonstrated in that entire 200 year history, or even within
a more recent timeslice. Therefore, any new legislation, registrations, or
administration of legal firearm ownership hold no promise of bringing relief
to the problems that do exist.

--

-Mike-

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:10:10 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
How many residential fires have happened in your neighborhood? If zero or
close thereto, why do you have fire insurance?

Because it's so cheap it just common sense to have it. Additionally,
all mortages that I've seen demand fire insurance.

But, you've made a valid point. And you're the first one to say
something about guns that actually makes sense. Your life is more
important than anything else, so why not protect it? Can't argue with
that.

I can still see some reasons not to like universal gun ownership, but
I'll have to re-evaluate many of my beliefs based on what you've said.

Well sir, I give you a tip of the hat. Not because I favor gun ownership,
but because this is what dialog is all about in general. People express
viewpoints, exchange ideas, and sort plow their way through a matter. It's
when any one person - on either side, can recognize a thought, or a position
that they did not intuitively hold themselves, as a result of that dialog,
that the dialog becomes meaningful. So much better than the often found
****ing in each other's soup mode.

It's when people on either side of a discussion can express this type of
discovery about the views of another, that I believe the long, drawn out
threads are worth the time they consumed.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:56:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
a more recent timeslice. Therefore, any new legislation, registrations, or
administration of legal firearm ownership hold no promise of bringing relief
to the problems that do exist.

Can't take exception to most of what you've said and since I've
reconsidered some things, I'm not even going to try. Have a good day.

"Upscale" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:56:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
a more recent timeslice. Therefore, any new legislation, registrations,
or
administration of legal firearm ownership hold no promise of bringing
relief
to the problems that do exist.

Can't take exception to most of what you've said and since I've
reconsidered some things, I'm not even going to try. Have a good day.

Check yer mail


--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Well sir, I give you a tip of the hat. Not because I favor gun
ownership, but because this is what dialog is all about in general.
People express viewpoints, exchange ideas, and sort plow their way
through a matter. It's when any one person - on either side, can
recognize a thought, or a position that they did not intuitively hold
themselves, as a result of that dialog, that the dialog becomes
meaningful. So much better than the often found ****ing in each
other's soup mode.

It's when people on either side of a discussion can express this type
of discovery about the views of another, that I believe the long,
drawn out threads are worth the time they consumed.

I too have learned from this exchange. Maybe I should be glad to have
stoked the fires some. So, recapping: I still won't run out to buy a gun
or go practicing any time soon. But I have gotten a deeper respect for the
postion that firearms correctly possessed and used can be good.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid