Ever have one of those weeks? *sigh* Ever since Monday I've had problems with my computer, especially with trying to use the Internet on it. It all started off with marathon Blue Screen of Death sessions, then moved onto the rough time I had installing EarthLink 5.0, then went to the headache of dealing with Netscape 4.6 (on the EL CD-ROM) because it wasn't saving the newsgroup subscriptions or saving the e-mails/posts I'd done to the "sent" folder, then to having to download and install Netscape 4.73, and now I still get those Blue Screens of Death at least once per session but now with the added headache of having to start all over again with the newsgroups (trying to mark most of them read but not all of them lest I skip over something I didn't read). At the one DD message board I go to all the time I've been feeling increasingly unwelcome because I'm a second generationer and I just happen to think Duran Duran's latter-era music sounds better than their earlier material. My left thumb's locking up on me. I overslept this morning and had to seriously rush in order to make it on time to work. I realized my supervisors don't think I'm supposed to be back at OJT (on-the-job training; I was back because I thought that's what I had to do when I came back from my leave of absence), and I had to do a QA review with a supervisor and had to listen to my frickin' ugly voice on some taped calls. I have to work on Tuesday and Wednesday (grrrrr, I didn't want them to approve the schedule change but I was too late to do anything about it!!) and then come back home and get ready for Dallas on Thursday (paperpusher, this time I'm sending you a FULL review...hopefully I can do the same thing I did last year). I don't want to go to work tomorrow. I had wanted to stop at an area church after work today to do some praying and reconnecting with my spiritual self but they frickin' locked it up and I ended up having to sweat it out at an outdoor praying area thingy. Last week it was just too damn hot, I hate that it's been unrelentingly sunny for over 30 days straight, I will kill someone if it's unrelentingly sunny for another 30 days, I hate our local newspaper, and right now I'm getting an upset stomach over eating dinner way too late (even though it was a salad).
"Lady Interference" wrote in message news:[email]...
[snip tale of woe piled upon woe]
You have my sympathy! Hope next week's better.
Well, thanks. I too had a brush with the Blue Screen Of Death this week, and spent seven and a half hours of my (one) day off restoring my PC to working order. Installing Autoroute Express 2001[1] was the trigger. <sigh>
Oh, yeah, and in the small hours of this morning, I was awoken by the burglar alarm going off, and had a merry time searching for an intruder, then trying to establish just *why* the alarm went off.
He who will have a nap as soon as this morning's duties are finished, Martin.
[1] Initial impression: some of the features that were so useful in ARX2000 aren't there in ARX2001, <bitter irony> but they have added a European phrasebook, so that's all right then. </bitter irony>
oh dear... only PC problems here have been LAN connections playing silly buggers and dad fucking things up to prove mum wrong over a petty argument. *sigh* men.
that sounds fun. well hmmm. i went to london yesterday. we wandered around, i burnt myself with other people's cigarettes, and we went to see a play ('woman in black'; it was good), then went home. i fell asleep on jordan's shoulder on the train, aww.
"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]...
Your sympathy is appreciated! 8-)
<sigh> People! ;-)
Especially since I got such a dose of adrenalin that it took more than two hours to get back to sleep, and had to be up by eight this morning. <sigh> <yawn> Well, at least I didn't *find* an intruder.
<cues music: "Perfect Day">
Aww, sounds like a really nice day. You deserve more like that. Okay, the burning yourself bit might have been omitted, but you know what I mean! 8-)
Hey not all men are like that some of us do know what we are doing with computers :)
Humm could have been worse, just before I moved out of my flat (which was above the local chip shop), it was broken into (the hop that is), at 2am, and the friut machine stolen. By the time I had reported to the police etc, it was aboth 3.30am, needless to say I warned my boss first thing that I may be a little ratty with people that day :)
Indeed though wh *IS* Jordan, I know it's not "our" Jordan, your boyfriend perhaps ? You don't have to ans if you don't want to :)
Ah somple way to solve that format it and install Linux / FreeBSD / NetBSD/ OpenBSD/ OS/2 / BeOS :)
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 05:30:14 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
I had a long bout of BSOD and was just about to reformat and reinstall, when the 'I love you' thing happened. I downloaded the update for my virus scanner, which then informed me that I had picked up a nasty. Removing the buggy bug dropped my BSOD count to the normal, once or twice a week range.
Humm I rmeber descovering a virus like that I had just bought that B&B Do U game, I installed it from CD and it would crash when ran from my hard drive but work ok if run from the CD. Turned out to be the Win-CIH virus wich made the exe on the hard disk barf, but of course could not write to a CD- ROM. <Spod Mode>Dunno why we call them CD-ROMs for after all they are not memory but backing store </Spod Mode>
Family Drags me to Seattle for a wedding, best of all it's at a Fundementalist church, and at what was apprently the wedding ceremony the minister starts ranting about Klintoon, oral sex and homosexuality and the meaning of the white dress.
The Wedding Reception was brutal, I have never been so board in my 17 years. although me and my little sister were bumped to first class on the return flight.
Monday,
Get call at 7:15am, from Advertising Agency where I sorta work, the Network Administrator and total linux feind gets up and quits to goto some dot com left mail and webservers in disarray, I have to try to figure out this damn mess just so I can save everyones email and the web content. I don't know Linux, I hate Linux, I think that Linus guy should be executed for subverting Unix; Eventually I give up and manually save every thing to my Jaz Drive from a Web Browser. And call the employees individually and ask them to read their email on the server
There till 5:00am Tuseday morning setting up Windows 2000 Server, IIS and Exchange. Along with AppleShare IP and WebTen on the Macintosh side.
Get $80 Speeding Ticket driving home, I was going 140km/h on the freeway at 5 FUCKING AM
Tuseday,
Sleep till mid afternoon, brothers retarded friends over watching MuchMusic and MTV at easily 320 .dcb, Goto Scary Movie with Friends, It Sucked,
Wensday,
Had to goto High School for Sophmore openhouse, of the 470 new students almost half are American Immigrants so they can be looking forward to the "Royal Froshing" in September, School getting new indoor tennis courts, yeah! however tyranical principal Mrs.Lee is still there. Damnit!
Most of the Sopmores look like Britney Spears or the members of N'Sync. and several of the girls look like the very well might have breast implants. Pathetic,
Although I am myself an immigrant, there is something about the influx of Americans to this area that really bugs me.
However, My Powerbooks CD-ROM drive decides to die, I take it to a Apple dealer for warranty service.
Thursday,
Grabbed by security leaving electronics store, these dunb fucks seemed to think my Palm Pilot was stolen, They appear to be unaware the model of Palm Pilot I have has not been sold for quite some time. Held by mall secuirty for over an hour manager of store notices my palm is not stolen. In the mean time my parking metre had expired and I got another traffic ticket.
Friday,
Contacted by Mac dealer, Learn my Powerbook needs to be sent to Apple, Meaning it will probably be 2-3 weeks before I get it back
Saturday,
Went to the Fantastiks, one of my favorite plays with my mother, Second Row seats, However these two fat peices of shit who were practially oozing out of their seats were infront of us, I mean this womans backflab was practically in my lap
Sunday,
This afternoon, I have to go golfing with my father, his boss and his daughter I hate golf, it is the most idiotic, boring, pointless game, has anyone relised their is nothing remotely interesting about hitting a little plastic ball with a graphite rod?
American Immigrants? What country do you live in? I'm a sophomore. And although I'm not immigrating to wherever you live, rest assured I'm not made of silicone nor do I look like Britney Spears. Not that I'm ugly, but I'm not blonde, and I don't dress like a total slut.
Canada, According to the United Nations the best country in the world. People from Albania to Zimbabwe want to live here.
This is really macrabe, but just after the Columbine Masacare property values in this area sky rocketed, because this area is very popular with Americans fleaing the United States, Since the masacare almost 40,000 families primarly from Ohio, Texas, Maryland and California have moved to this area. My neighborhood is now known as Little Baltimore.
And almost a third of the kids at my high school are American nationals. I am a senior, when I was sophmore, there were only about two dozen yanks here.
I guess it doesn't really bother me, I can't really I am not even Canadian, but these people are top quality people, my only complaint would be the "Valley Girls" from California, it would seem the cooler climate has shrunk their already undersized brains.
I figure when Bush is elected president I figure Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand will be over run by inteligent Americans fleaing the burning wreck of the United States like the audiance fleaing a Pauly Shore movie.
silicone
and I
Did you hear she said "I don't dress like this to look sexy, I just wear these cloths so I don't get hot while I am dancing, I don't know why boys are turned on by it"
Yes, she is a really bright one, maybe she can get brain implants
<ATF Agent> Full cavity searches go deep on them ! </ATF agent>
(This will go totally over the heads of anyone who han't seen B&B Do America).
Though I can understand the bitterness at the strip search.
<Rant> Yeah and then that idiot of a presedent IMHO goes and says an idiotic thing like "Doom and other games are responsible" (paraphrase), it's not like the free avalability of guns, or the lack of control by the parents oh no, it's the video games, just like it was the horror films before them, hey Clinto want to buy a clue ? </Rant>
Phill just expressing an opinion and does *NOT* repeat *NOT* want to satrt another anti-US thread.
When you show a bunch of bitter misfits who crave attention, that the way to have attention lavished on them is to murder people, I wonder exactly what reaction you should expect....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
It's a slam (and far from my most vicious one) on the news media for not merely reporting on mass murders by juveniles, but giving them all of the glamour formerly only accorded to Hollywood premiers.
People like Kip Kinkel DESPARATELY crave attention. So, what does the media do? It dotes on every mass murderer in a way that should make Brad Pitt green with envy.
The news media are doing everything humanly possible to make the Kip Kinkels of the world want to kill people to gain attention, and if not by gunfire, then by fire, poison, anthrax, or a cricket bat.
But there's a dollar (and a Pound, etc.) to be made, and NOTHING can possibly stand in the way of that. The news media is a business, no more, no less than Brown & Williams or Smith & Wesson, and they have no more or less concern for the public welfare than people who make and sell, cigarettes, guns, hamburgers or mousepads. Anyone who tells you different is naive or a liar.
I agree with virtually nothing that Bill Clinton has ever said. My .sig is a dig at the gun control movement and the racism which underlies much of it.
Kip Kinkle the kid who went nuts in a school in Oregon had a gun and was pissed off.
Uphere at a high school earlier this year this 17 yearold who was mad that he was 17 and still a virgin when around attacking people with a baseball batt. If he had access to a gun he would have used it. Where guns are not easily avaiable such as Canada, UK, Europe school yard killing sprees are rare.
There are just as many pathetic losers in Canada and England as there are in the United States, the differance is ours are NOT armed.
Where the fuck does this gun fetish come from, does it make up for something missing in your life, does it give you some sort of perverted satasfaction? Or do you really think redcoats are about to pour over the boarder and free your slaves?
Wake up, America is fucking joke, From the president to busy getting head to do much of anything NAME ONE POSITIVE THING THE KLINTOON ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE, When the US starts talking about Human righs the rest of the world laughs, When it comes to Human rights the US is in the same leauge and Iran and Vietnam. More people are killed in New York in a year than are murdered in Canada and England COMBINED
Hell, before to long the New York police will be more dangerious than the actuall criminals
In Canada last year three people were eaten by polar bears, only 2 kids were killed while at school, and neither by gunfire,
In the United States 40,000,000 have NO HEALTH COVERAGE PERIOD! that is more than the entire population of Canada, And 100,000,000 people have unadaquate coverage. Every American family is living financially on the edge, all it takes is one serious illness to bankrupt an otherwise comfortable family. The medical mafia has a stranglehold on the United States, I am on a perscreiption Minocylien, an anti-biotic that controls a nasty bacteria that has made a home for it's self in my stomach. It costs $22 for a months supply. In the United States it would cost almost $130. Somewhere someone is making a huge fucking profit on the backs of sick people. People have to chose between medicine and FOOD!
In the US when someone says "Patient Dumping" that means HMO's dropping clients that are not profitable, in Canada Patient dumping means a charter bus full of Americans being dumped outside a Canadian hospital.
Do you know why American companies need to recurit so agressivly overseas? two reasons, One. Americas shitty schools can't produce enough skilled people and those that it does produce are leaving by the plane load.
Hmm, gee I could stay in America and risk having my children blown away in the classroom of their run down school, pay Astronomical premiums for Medical Insurance that can drop me at any moment, live in a gated community because I don't want crack whores walking off my my VCR every other night and have crooked carpet bagging politicans who would probably take money from NAMBLA if it were offered. Or I could move away.
I am really glad you enjoy living in that immoral perverted cesspool you call a country, Please stay there
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:13:02 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:
And concentration camps, gas chambers, and mass graves AREN'T rare.
Not only are they armed, they end up in government service.
How many people did Kip Kinkel kill?
How many people did Klaus Barbi kill?
Where does your desire to protect rapists and fascists come from? Is it the sting of the lash you crave, or the feel of the handle?
I'm more concerned with the NYPD.
I can't think of a single worthwhile thing the Clinton administration has done. Oddly enough, that fact doesn't inspire me to want to give it a monopoly on the means of armed force.
What do you mean WILL be?
In NYC, if the cops ask you to sell them illegal drugs, you'd damned well better have some dope to sell them. For the price of a seance, Patrick Dorismond can tell you what happens if you don't.
How many people are there in Canada? The United States. Comparing raw numbers between vastly different populations is a typical rhetorical trick.
I'd rather have no health coverage than have the government which ran the Tuskegee experiments and built Manzanar in charge of it.
Certainly, when it comes to torturing young Somali boys to death, we can't hold a candle to Canada.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
I could go through and flippantly respond to every outrageous point you made, but I somehow don't think it would be worth the effort (except to maybe amuse people).
I sincerely hope that you think this way just from what you see on the evening news. It's obvious that the message you've gotten about the U.S. is skewed toward the kind of tripe offer by the media. I have lived in the U.S. my entire life and I have never seen most of the things you mention first hand. I am not particularly priveldged or wealthy in material and my life is hardly sheltered. It is also obvious that you have some sort of prejudice against the U.S., which is fine and doesn't bother me, in fact I feel better knowing that a citizen of another country is so insecure about his own home that he has to publically trash the one I live in - makes me think that we have things here that you want.
While you make a lot of good points about some issues (like there are too many guns here), your anger and hatred make me want to throw you off the nearest bridge (and that is bad, considering the most violent I get is when I mow the lawn).
And as for Canada, it seems like a wonderful place, but I've never been there and I don't really know what it's like there - so I'm not really qualified to judge, am I.
"The Contentious Objector" wrote in message news:%q2g5.105435$[email]...
Why bother? It would be lost on you anyway.
I happened to read your prior post which led to Mike's reply. Let me fill you in on something: in a mailing list that I'm part of there's a Canadian guy who often talks about the ways in which Canada is better than the United States. Except when he does it, he uses reason and logic and facts and figures. All you did was just rant and post an inflammatory message.
Of the two, guess who's more likely to win me over to his viewpoint? Here's a hint: it ain't you.
The problem with that logic is that you can't really prove any of the things you said. Where are the Americans that are fleeing the country? I've known a whole lot of people and I've never even heard of, let alone met, anyone who has moved out of the country because they didn't like it in this countries. I've heard of people moving to others regions of the U.S. because they didn't like it in this particular place, but they always have stayed in the U.S.
And that's just one example. I get the feeling you completely missed my point (and Americans are dumb, right - a lot of the schools I've scene, and yes, even the public ones, are doing excellent jobs), you are so clouded by your own ignorance to even try to see the good in the United States (and it doesn't help that you've probably have been fed negative stereotypes your whole life). Sure, we have a lot of problems here - but what place doesn't. Can you honestly believe that no leader of Canada has ever cheated on their spouse? This isn't even condoning all the crap that has happened - but it's the way life is everywhere. I bet if you averaged out the severity of all the problems in Canada and the U.S., both countries would probably look very similar by those numbers. But there is one distinction, the United States, whether any of us like it or not, is the center of attention for the entire world because we are the "big dogs" right now. Extra scrutiny and attention is paid to our problems by outsiders; some because they want to see how we handle it, so they can consider using that method for their own similar problems, others because, like you, they want to see the U.S. self-destruct (and when that doesn't happen exactly when they would like, they look for conspiracies).
It's one thing to be proud of where you live, it's another thing completely to have to put down other nations to feel that pride.
What makes you assume that he didn't have "access to a gun?" In most places where guns are illegal, they can still be bought on the black market.
On the other hand, ordinary citizens are also more vulnerable to criminals in such areas.
Are you talking about the 2nd Amendment?
No, but guns _do_ protect people from criminals.
(criminals, of course, will have guns whether they're illegal or not).
Um ... no and no?
I guess that "fucking joke" is your term for "leading world power?"
Nothing. What does that have to do with America in general?
"Laughs" must be your term for "follows our lead and overthrows one repressive regime after another ..."
You mean, except for the fact that our civil rights are protected under the law, which is enforced? Oh, gee, that kind of makes your whole statement look kinda stupid ...
What does this have to do with "human rights?" Unless you want to argue that they were killed by the _government_, that is ... ?
We've got you beat as regards the polar bear threat, obviously.
I'm sure that being killed by means other than gunfire is _ever_ so much nicer ...
Has it occurred to you that if nobody was profiting from making the medicine, the medicine wouldn't be made at all?
yeah, but who has 'access' to the black market? if you're 17 and perhaps shy, who do you ask? just walk up to random people and say "excuse me, do you have a gun i can buy?"
and less likely to be murdered by criminals with guns.
says who? most murders and other violent crimes in this country (where guns are more or less illegal) are - correct me if i'm wrong - not carried out by with guns.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:08:04 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
I suspect the same way shy 17 year olds buy drugs.
And more likely to be murdered by the government because they're a Jew, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, or gay, or a socialist, or a trades unionist, or....
So then it's ok if somebody's murdered as long as it isn't with a gun?
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Drugs are a lot more common than guns. I'm 17, and i would know whom to buy drugs from, if i wanted drugs. I know people who take drugs, and people who sell drugs. I don't know anyone who owns guns, or sells them. Most of my friends occasionally use or have used drugs - none of my friends use guns, ever.
Eh? ::laughter:: How would guns solve this problem?
That has nothing to do with what i said, or what you said before. You said all criminals will have guns, and i said not necessarily. How did you get from there to "So then it's ok if somebody's murdered as long as it isn't with a gun?"??
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:50:22 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
That you know of.
If you wanted a gun you could get one. Depending upon the drug, guns are a much more easily produced commodity. Sten guns cost the British government approximately $7.00 a piece to produce during WWII. Modern submachineguns are much cheaper and easier to produce, the ONLY large piece of solid metal now required being the barrel. Everything else is cheap easy to produce sheetmetal stampings.
It is now effectively impossible from stopping people from having machineguns if they want them, unless you set up a Luddite police state which forbids people simple tools.
If you wanted a gun you could get one, even if you had to make it yourself, and you could make a pretty sophisticated one if you wanted.
How does being a helpless victim solve it? Read Solzhenitsyn. He's right. Chekists and the Gestapo were cowards who profitted from exploiting the helpless. If hunting Jews and "wreckers" had been dangerous, there would have been far fewer people willing to do it. Look at the example of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. When they attacked the SS with only a few old pistols, the SS ran screaming from the Ghetto like frightened schoolgirls. That wasn't what they'd signed on for. They'd enlisted to beat up old Jews, not to get shot.
Actually, I didn't say it. But any criminal who WANTS one will have one. It's 14th century technology. Unless you're going to go the Khmer Rouge route, there's no way to stop them.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
You're speaking from an American perspective. Gun discussions on the Net are pointless really because the cultural gulf between us is too great for the points people are making to have relevance to the people they're addressing. To you guns are things you've handled and perhaps used, but to most of us in the UK guns are an abstract subject much like talking about Lawndale. (I don't think I've even seen a gun in real life apart from in a museum or military display etc.)
To say that if you wanted a gun you could get one is like saying that if you wanted your own whale you could have one. Sure, a few people might be interested but the perceived difficulties would deter most from even thinking about it. Furthermore guns are associated with violence and most people keep as far away as possible from real life violence. A large amount of violence and crime is subcultural, and the easiest way of avoiding trouble is to avoid mixing with the wrong people. In the UK, people who knew where to buy a gun would definitely be the "wrong people", and to have such people in your circle of acquaintances would certainly put you at an increased risk of violence which I'm sure would outweigh any defensive benefit gained by owning a gun.
I don't doubt that many criminals would know who to ask if they wanted a gun, but the crime statistics suggest that most of them don't in fact have guns. The fact is that guns simply don't exert the same fascination over British people as they do Americans.
And Chris is American. What a great type of person to get the American perspective -- an American.
Unless someone has to defend their standpoint on the personal ownership of guns. If what you said is true and there is such a "cultural gulf" in this realm, why not have those who do not live in this culture refrain from making any comments? There are enough assertive and dissenting voices in this one country here to carry on an intellectual conversation about things *WE* have experience in dealing with.
So basically if someone from the UK (or indeed any other such country) said that owning guns is wrong, they're basically talking out of their arse, hm? So why have people gotten heart attacks over some of the viewpoints expressed by some of the Americans here?
I know I'm not pro-gun ownership nor against gun ownership. I've never owned a gun before. But I have experienced certain events in my life which have lent credit to the pro-gun ownership cause *and* the anti-gun ownership cause. And some of these have involved guns.
Okay, point taken. However, never underestimate the pushiness of someone driven to accomplish something.
But this is something that is UNIVERSAL. Almost NO one wants to be associated with violent acts, unless the person is a psychotic individual, and there are psychos EVERYWHERE. It just happens to be that a number of individuals here feel like liberating the second amendment protects them from violence by enabling them to be just as armed as the criminal.
Of course they would be "the wrong people". In the UK, gun ownership is illegal. Whenever someone knows how to do something illegal, of COURSE they would be totally wrong. For the defenders of the second amendment here, this is living proof that gun-restricting laws would be detrimental to the society we live in because it would automatically make outlaws of upstanding citizens of the community. And besides, would a criminal anywhere where gun ownership is illegal be deterred by the fact that gun ownership is illegal? I mean, they're already going to perform an illegal act anyway, and likely it would be something major like a homicide or armed robbery.
I think some noncriminals would know too.
And the reason the criminals probably don't arm themselves is because they probably know they can overtake someone in the UK with considerably less force than that. Some simple clubs to the head and ta-da, unconscious victim. Learn some simple self-defense moves and you can outwit the majority of people who are themselves trying to defend themselves without the aid of a firearm. By allowing upstanding members of the community who follow the letter of the law to own guns, the laws upholding the second amendment make it harder for the criminals to overpower a potential victim without going for guns themselves.
Guns really don't fascinate me. It's holding to the ideals of the country I live in and recognizing just how good I have it to be living here that fascinates me. (Unless the American people vote for a ticket that includes the TRULY dreadful Dick Cheney, in which I'll have to look forlorn and disappointed at the populace and mourn for the imminent death of personal liberty.)
LI (wondering if the newsgroup could start bashing another country because this whole "bash the US/Americans" business is getting OLD)
Apologies go beforehand to LI, I usually have the greatest respect for your POV, as you have seemed an intelegint and well imformed person, in general I'd say that you are one of the people on here I feel more comfortable with.
[email] (Lady Interference) wrote in :
He is also rather IMHO, opinionated, short sighted, and has tried to twist my words on several times in these treads to make me appear like I'm supporting something I'm not. I most strongly object to this.
Why not indeed, then we could avoid all the vitriolic flame wars on here.
I guess you are reffering to Alli and myself in this ? No we are entitled as anyone here is to our POV, that's the free speach which we all defend I'm afraid. Besides show me one post where I said that gun ownership was wrong, I may have said that in the UK it is illeagal, that is *NOT* the same thing.
I have not owned a gun, and yes I could quite leagally in the UK, it's just that it is somewhat more restricted, and I can't cary it loaded in public.
I personally like the situation as it is in this country.
This is indeed true, though UK law as far as I can tell tries to seriously discourage this.
True enough.
Ever heard of tht ballance of terror & MAD (mutually asured destruction), this is IMHO similar sort of argument. A better solution is to not have the weapons available in the first place don't you think ?
This is partly the case, some weapons are indeed illeagal, however you are alowed to own some weapons (a Shotgun) for example, but these have to be registered, and kept under strictly controled conditions. (kept UNLOADED, in a locked secured cabenet, fixed securely to a main wall, and the amunition kept also locked in a DIFFERENT location, though this can be in the same building). Also you are inspected to ensure complience with this by the police yearly I believe. ,
Well when we banned several types of weapon here, we had an amnesty where anyone that possessed such a weapon could surender it without any fear of prosicution, it's actually quite amazing some of the things that where surrendered :)
Maybe the fact that the sentance for a robbery involving a firearm is somewhat more serious than for one not involving a firearm ?
Maybe.
Ah so it's better that one or other party potentially winds up dead ? I know that this may also be the case with the club, but IMHO far less likley.
You mean the right of a completely untrained individual to carry with them leathal force, which is what it boils down to ?
Err read some of Chris' posts he does a fair abount of bashing of the UK/Europe as well as a couple of attacks that for me are boardering on personal swipes.
Phill.....who *IS* seriously considdering either killfiling someone for the first time ever, or quitting a.t.d. for the forseeable future, yeah I know cirtain people would be glad to see me go.
"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...
the
If it's a choice between these two options, I hope you don't choose the latter.
You and I have very divergent views, Phill, on some fundamental issues; or so ISTM. But I've always found that we've been able to enter into courteous and respectful dialogue (I hope that's how it's looked from your POV too). So I would be sorry to see you quit atd.
Indeed, but we can agree to disagree, without resulting to name calling :)
Yeah it has for the most part been very interesting talking to you, and most of the other people on here, and hey you've cleard up some of my pre- conceptions on cirtain subjects, which has to be a good thing :)
I'd be sorry to go, but I like it on here most of the time but we have had a couple of threads recently that have almost errupted into flame wars, guess it proves you really shouldn't descuss polotics in public :) though we did religion and didn't fall out over that :)
Actually, the problem is that Chris is less idealistic. Chris recognizes, along with Jordan and myself, that rights are meaningless if one doesn't have the legitimate ability to defend those rights. And we happen to believe that there are certain rights people have despite what government says, thus, the legitimate ability to defend ourselves must extend beyond the government itself.
You say that people gain rights through proclamations and laws and such. I say that nobody has any right they are unwilling to defend. You can philosophise all you want about it, but what it ultimately comes down to is that the guy with the majority of the guns has the power. By spreading the guns about through the people, you ensure that attempting to enforce one's position through force will destroy more than it gains, ensuring that any such victory is phyrric. If one concentrates the guns at one central power, nothing can stop it.
I maintain it is our guns that ensure your freedom.
Almost cirtainly, I am a self-admitted idealist :) But I do feel, as I believe does Mike Quinn, that Chris has taken our words and twisted them to say something that we clearly did not mean.
Ah but the point everyone forgets, is that I have never said you shouldn't be able to defend them.
I can partly agree with the fact that we must have some ability to defend ourselves that is not govenment controled, I just don't think that this needs to extend to having to arm myself to achieve that.
I would probably agree with you on that, but there are other ways of defending such rights besides taking pot shots at people.
Errm do you mean "maintain our freedom" ? If not could you please explain how your guns maintain our freedom ?
I expect you'd fit in well in Yugoslavia, where the population decided that the gun and not the political process was the way to settle matters of how their country should be governed. Personally I wouldn't want to live in such a country. Similarly this attitude persisted for a long time in Northern Ireland. It's notable that when the IRA finally came to the peace table it was not because guns had enabled them to realise their political ideals but because they'd concluded after more than two decades of armed struggle that guns could *not* achieve this. So they stopped using guns and started using the negotiation table, and guess what, it proved a much more successful way of defending their principles than guns ever did.
Certainly he'd SURVIVE. If you don't do that, not much really matters, after all.
No, the GOVERNMENT decided that. The people were dragged along. Those who could not or would not defend themselves were run over by those willing to use force for their own ends. Does the name "Srebrenica" ring a bell? Do you think the inhabitants were better off for not having been able to defend themselves?
There wouldn't have been an independent Ireland without the use of guns and violence by the Irish. Until the Irish started killing the English, the English were quite content to oppress the Irish, Catholics in particular. Britain would NEVER have negotiated independence without violence. It had no reason to.
That's not "civilization", it's a Disneyized view of history, without connection to reality.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
The way it all started was the Serbs in Kosovo were unhappy with their lot and decided to take matters into their own hands. The Yugoslavian government sent Milosevic to calm things down and persuade them that their grievances would be better addressed through peaceful means. However he saw a bandwagon that would further his political ambitions and instead of trying to calm them down he encouraged disorder by championing their cause, stirring up Serbian nationalist sentiments across the country. This resulted in Milosevic being elected president of Serbia, and the rest is history.
A decade on, the wheel has come full circle. Yugoslavia has fallen to pieces and the Serbs of Kosovo are now in a worse position than when they started. Had they had the forbearance to negotiate peacefully with their fellow Kosovars instead of taking the law into their own hands, things might have turned out better for them. Certainly they could hardly have turned out worse.
In other words, you're saying that the stronger side beat the weaker side. This tells us little about the merits of solving political disputes by armed struggle rather than diplomacy. In fact it tells us nothing much about anything.
What they took into their hands was the throats of the Kosovars. The Kosovars, not thinking this was a good idea, fought back. What would you have them do? Be murdered?
They didn't take the law into their own hands. They WERE the law, courtesy of the government of the Yugoslav Federation. It's just like Germany. After 1933, the SA weren't thugs, they were POLICE.
It tells you that if you can't protect your own life, it doesn't matter what you believe.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
When the "political process" (democracy) breaks down, the return to the system that it replaced (rule by direct rather than merely threatened force) tends to be swift.
The IRA got major concessions from Britain because America, acting on domestic political expedience (large Irish minority here) was willing to betray her long-term ally (Britain) and pressure her towards making such concessions. IMO, many of those goons you released because we pressured you to will be killing and maiming people for a long time, until you recapture them.
I think the transition is usually slow enough that it could be halted if there was a will; most countries have civil disorder from time to time and nearly always the situation is resolved well before the entire country faces descending into anarchy. I think the rule of law is unlikely to be replaced by gun law in most developed countries. For most of us it's simply not an issue, and certainly not an eventuality we need to prepare for. This is the situation in the EU anyway, and of course there are many stable democracies in the rest of the world too.
Civilization *does* require armed military and police forces; it just gets better results by using them only to protect rather than to conquer. A nation which abandoned protection-by-force entirely would be at the mercy of the first thug to come along. -IdentityCrisis
Actually, I think it *was* the police that was doing it. And of corse, nationalism has always caused problems that can't be solved simply by dominating the scene militarily.
Additionally, the other side probably would've never negotiated in the first place had they, themselves, not gotten tired of fighting, as well.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:22:21 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Maybe my ideals are different.... : )
Then you concede the ability to defend yourself from someone who IS armed. Being Black in the United States, I don't have even the SLIGHTEST confidence in the government's DESIRE to defend me, nevermind it's ABILITY.
And I've had plenty of personal experience to back this up.
Not when the people who want to take away your rights are willing to use force, and don't care if you like it.
That's one of the things which I've noticed about people who describe themselves as anti-gun, or who question the limits of self-defense. They tend to have grown up in somewhat sheltered circumstances, and seem to believe that social disapproval is sufficient to stop people from doing bad things... and indeed among their social circles, it may be. But when you put someone like Josef Stalin... or Charles Manson in front of them, they not only can't deal effectively with them, they can't even comprehend them, since nobody they've ever met would either be willing to murder tens of millions of people to prevent DISAGREEMENT with them, nor to kill less than a dozen people to try to start a race war.
They're not necessarily bad people, but they're people who confronted with the true face of human nature, they retreat into denial.
The fact is that there are people like Richard Ramirez (the "Night Stalker") and they LIKE to hurt people and don't see anything wrong with it.
If you're not willing to deal with them in kind, you either concede ownership of yourself to them... or to somebody else who is willing to deal with them as required. And if the government isn't there to effectively protect you, if you won't do it yourself, concede your right to live.
I think that's what he means.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On 09 Aug 2000 02:18:04 GMT, [email] (IdentityCrisis1) wrote:
Nah, I'm a liberal ex-Democrat. I just don't spend all of my time trying to figure out ways to have the goverment impose my likes and dislikes on other people.
I believe in live and let live. Obviously, robbery, rape and murder (not to mention oppression, slavery and genocide) don't qualify. I don't believe that people have a duty to be exploited in such ways, and should resist by any means necessary, NOT limited to mere pleas for mercy.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
If it could be made to work, yes. But as Chris pointed out earlier, guns, bombs and the like are simply too easy to make/acquire in an industrial society. The laws of physics are not going to change to remove this inconvienience for us.
Well "relitivly easy" yes, but for the most part in the UK strongly discouraged, you want to buy a gun/explosives ligitimatly you'd better have a licence/good reason. Yeah I know that things are easier to get on the black market these days, and for the most part I would say that it mostly does work here, you may of course disagree.
Indeed, then again it's also true that the average physics Alevel /university student, given the right materials could make a nuclear device, the thing that stops them is the cost/dificulty in obtaining the correct raw materials :)
Oh everything from knives/machettes(sp?) up to a world war one tripod mounted belt fed warer cooled machine gun, in mostly operational condition. Actually IIRC, a lot of the stuff that was handed in was stuff that people had brought back as 'suveneers' from the war :)
Illeagal/controled ones yes. They also carry resonably severe penalties for possesion/supply. Thi interesting point to note IIRC, is that if I go out and buy an amount of say canabis, and am caught walking home with it, I'm in possesion, if I see police officer coming towards me and swallow it (apart from having a real weird time for the next few hours :) ), I'm not technically in possesion :)
No but a lot harder to obtain than just going into a shop and buying, and I would also imagine from my fairly primitive ballistics/firearms knoledge that such a weapon if not made very carefully could be more of a danger to the person using it, than the person they where attempting to use it on.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:23:06 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
But people still used drugs, don't they? Well certainly British music industry executives, anyway. : )
No. Blowback submachineguns which fire pistol ammunition are trivially easy to produce and require no fine tolerances. In fact fine tolerances are SHUNNED by smg designers for reasons of reliability. You just need a big, heavy bolt. And the bolt doesn't even need to be made of homogeneous steel. It can be a stamping filled with lead, with a little "tit" at the front to strike the primer.
Guns are 13th century technology.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Yeah they do, infact there is growing support in the uk for the decriminalisation of canabis, but that's a whole other argument.
Humm that is (obviously :) ) contrary to what I expected why is it that they are more reliable when not made to tollerence ? Would it be something to do with the ammunition also having to be mad to fine tollerences and you need to make much *more* of that, which would I suppose drive the price up.
So it's the mass that's more important than the material right ? yeah that make sense.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:09:18 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Geeze, and you didn't even catch my dig at contemporary British music! : )
I'm for drug legalization. Take all the drugs you want. If you can handle them and support yourself, fine. If you can't handle them and support yourself, quit. If you can't handle them, can't support yourself and don't want to quit, starve.
I won't insult people's intelligence by trying to protect them from themselves. In return, I expect them not to insult mine by pretending they think I'll give them a penny to get high.
Submachineguns aren't precision weapons. They're area weapons. They aren't meant to shoot 1 minute of angle at 100 yards. They're meant to hit what you'd call an infantry "section" at 100 yards, closer to 50.
Guns with fine tolerances tend to be exquisitely accurate... and extremely unreliable in field conditions. Compare the respective reputations for reliability of the M16A1 and the AK47. The latter, when properly maintained can consistently obtain head shots with iron sights at 300 meters. I know, most of my hits (and I got mostly hits) on the 300 meter popup target were head shots. At the same time drop it in the mud and it becomes a short, fragile, expensive, spear. The AK47 can hit a GROUP of men at 300 meters, SOMEWHERE in their bodies. Drop IT in the mud and it fires as well as it would in one of Intel's chip fab clean rooms. I once fired a Chinese made AK47 on full auto until the wooden handguard caught fire and started to smolder. I pulled the 75 round drum, cleared it, and set it on a sandbag. Five minutes later I was shooting silhouettes with it again.
Guns like the Sten and the follow-ons to the MAC10 have extremely loose tolerances. They're made so that dirt falls out of them as their fire, rather being jammed into the mechanism. A useful byproduct of such tolerances is EXTREME ease of manufacture.
Cheap sheet steel. That's all you need. The Sten gun cost his Majesty's forces all of $7.00 a piece during WWII. The simplified MAC10 types are cheaper to make in current dollars.
Which means it is effectively impossible to stop people from making the most modern sorts... at least not without the sort of Luddite police state that would have warmed Pol Pot's heart. That of course hasn't stopped people from telling me that they would indeed favor bans on or licensing of privately owned machinetools.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
No, but then again I pretty much agree with the modern stuff, time was when being in the charts involved having some musical skill and actually *PLAYING* some instruments, not just snapping on a face mike, and prancing about on stage to some innane tune. Hell most of the bands I now like have been going for at least 20 years some longer :)
I guess that's fair, and fits in with everything else you have said baout other things :) Personally I find it ludicrous that a drug that has medicinal pain relief uses (canabis), and is no more harmfull than tabaco, in some ways less, I mean who'd wanna smoke 60 joints a day :) and probably less harmfill than Alcohol, both of which are quite leagal (assuming you are old enough 16for tabaco, 18 for alcohol), is illeagal.
Reasonable I suppose, then again if they where leagal, I suppose supply & demand would force the price down, also the govenment could make money by taxing them.....as a frind of mine once said "Can I have a packet of Marlboro Highs please" :)
True enough I suppose, go for the area effect :)
More of a sniper type weapon then, where the user isn't expected to get into close contact with the enemy.
Ah you meant the former then :) as you said the latter above and then mentioned the AK47 below :)
That's not a bad idea....firing an AK47 in Intel's chip rooms :)
Feck :) yeah I guess the metal body would tend to wam up...with all the heat generated by the charges propelling the bullets, the friction of the bullets etc.
Let it cool down....being carefull not to touch the very hot metalwork :)
Ah, yeah I see now, yeah that would be an advantage when you are firing several hunndered rounds/min.
Asuming of course that you have the facilities to do so....I personally don't though I would guess that a lot of people would, after all as you saiy it's just basic workshop material.
Yeah that would be silly, as I would guess that not many of us would well here anyways, want to use them to make guns.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:27:35 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
And you haven't heard me talk about AMERICAN music! Other than fusion, about all I like is Steely Dan and Warren Zevon.
Actually, I meant the FORMER, not the latter. The M16 can be VERY accurate... and very unreliable.
That's not especially good accuracy though. The SMLE and M1903 Springfield were easily capable of it. The "contemptibles" and the US Marines slaughtered Germans in the open, at considerably greater ranges during WWI.
Yes.
I'd rather fire it in Microsoft's boardroom! : )
And the gas system, which gets VERY hot.
It cools down quickly... more quickly than an M16A1, whose barrel is mostly enclosed by a metal lined, plastic handguard.
All you need is a sheet metal break.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Are you aware of just how _many_ things can be fairly easily made to explode?
I really don't think that you need a "license/good reason" to buy ...
petrol,
fertilizer,
aerosol cans,
scrap metal,
a large container,
batteries,
and an alarm clock,
but with those items and information freely available online I, or indeed anyone with two brain cells to rub together, could make one hellacious device, one easily capable of killing a dozen or more people if set off at, say, a football game or in a bus terminal at rush hour.
The device I just envisioned doesn't use any physics that Morse didn't know. It became technically possible with the invention of the battery. Before then you'd have had to use a slow match for the fuse.
I would hope so :) I studied A level chemistry though it was over ten years ago :)
You can leagally only buy petrol, if it's going directly into a verhicle, or a specially designed container, of not more than a couple of gallons. Ok yeah that is enough to do a reasonable amount of dammage I will grant.
Ok yeah point taken.
I suppose but the point I was making was that do do such involves the person wishing to purpitrate such an explosion, to actually do some research, go out and obtain several different ingreedients, and put them together without blowing themselves up in the process. It's not like I can just go down the local store and buy 3 sticks of dynamite and a bottle of Nitro please :)
True I suppose, but again my point was it's not as easily available, I mean you can theoretically at least turn any substance into any other, doesn't mean that it's practical to do so. (Ok yeah I realise that what you say above is quite practical).
Oh and you forgot nataral gas which we have in reasonably easy supply, this is great if I want to demolish my hosue but perhaps not as portable :)
Unless some agency also checks your _consumption_ of the petrol, this isn't a problem given patience. Just buy petrol multiple times in legal amounts.
Hmm, you could take a compressor pump and put it in a cannister, and attach this to your bomb for an even more spectacular bang (though natural gas explosions aren't actually all that destructive by comparison with other types of explosion; this would be mostly a scattering agent for something else nasty. Take some concentrated insecticide or rat poison powder and pack it around the casing; going into open wounds that ought to increase the severity of any injuries ...
Nah it's not that bad :) actually the leagal requirement is more of a protecting people from themselves sort of thing, to make sure any container that contains this highly flamable liquid** is designed to do so....
**Yeah I know it's the vapor that burns but you know what I mean :)
True, but again takes as you say patience :)
Though there was a house that's actually not that far from here (bout half a mile), that was pretty much demolished by a gas explosion back in the 80s
Or even I am lead to believe flour, will burn very well and very quickly if finely devided, as it would be if backed round such a gas bomb.
First, it seems that CO accomplkished what he was trying to ;)
I'd have to agree with this - and not only on this issue, there are loads of very good arguments on bothy sides of every issue like this, and that is what makes it hard to come to a consensus on any of them.
Another problem is that the a lot of people simplify the problem two the two extremes. For instance, for guns it seems that either you want everyone to have one or no one to have any. Where's the middle ground? Personally, I don't have a problem with a woman who is about to be raped putting a bullet in her would be assailants chest. So, if someone feels they need a gun to protect themself, and they are responsible in it's use, it is their right in this country. However, there is more than enough room for compromise. Why does anyone need to have more than a couple of guns to protect themself? Why should people be allowed to build up their own little arsenals, it's not like they could fight off the army even if they wanted to? How can there be a loophole that allows people to get guns without background checks? None of these things would even come close to infringing on anyone's right to have a firearm. I think a couple of simple common sense things could go a long way to curtail a lot of the crap that goes on with guns, if people on both sides of the debate would be willing to reach some common ground.
One more thing: I don't carry a gun because I feel so much safer without one - but that's just me.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:42:24 -0700, Michael J. Quinn wrote:
Why should anyone care how many guns I have? What difference does it make? I can go through three guns in just one match. That doesn't even count defense guns.
Can you define an "arsenal"? And what do you care if I have one?
The only way to ensure 100% compliance with background checks is to impose registration. Registration virtually always results in bans and or confiscation. I invite your attention to Chicago. Years ago, I legally owned guns in Chicago. Tell me what I'd have to do to LEGALLY move back to Chicago with my handguns. I think you'll be a bit surprised.
It's a matter of choice. If you don't want a gun, you shouldn't own one. At the same time, you shouldn't be trying to prevent other people from owning guns. I'm not gay. I don't waste all of my time running around telling people not to be gay. If they're gay, that's fine with me. Neither being gay, nor owning a gun innately harms other people.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
if you have more than one it increases the likelyhood that your children, or your young cousins, or whoever, are going to find your guns and play with them. it also increases the likelyhood that if you have a psychotic episode you'll have a gun to hand.
he doesn't want to get shot?
what if he doesn't want to take the risk of being shot?
not innately, no, but if the general public does not wish to take the risk of other people owning guns then guns should be banned. whether the general public wishes to take the risk of other people owning guns is arguable, but if they didn't it'd be violating democracy not to illegalise guns.
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:13:37 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Can you explain the mechanism by which this works? Can you explain how it's easier to find two guns than one? Is it like Uranium?
Cops always have at least one gun around. Aren't you afraid of them having psychotic episodes? Of course the NYPD seems to be mostly lucid when they shoot unarmed men *19* times.
I can shoot him with one. Explain the difference.
Then he'd better move out of virtually every industrialized nation on earth. And he'd damned well better not be a Black man in New York City reaching for his wallet.
If the general public thought that gays were a threat, not putting them in concentration camps would be "violating democracy". That's the really nice thing about NOT having a democracy, but a republic embodied in representative democracy. Pure democracy is two Nazis and a Jew voting on the ingredients of soap. I wouldn't want to live in such as system, and wouldn't hesitate to do everything I could to pull it down. Apartheid was pretty popular with White South Africans. Did that make it a good thing?
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:33:43 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
That assumes their in different places. How is it easier to find one gun in one place, than three guns in one place?
I still don't understand the mechanism.
Then given their behavior, why aren't you campaigning to disarm them?
You can't seem to explain how my having ten guns is more of a "problem" than my having one. If you're solely concerned about my ability to kill one person, why would you allow me even ONE gun?
What if the majority of people in America doesn't want homosexuality to be legal? Do you support anti-sodomy laws?
What if they don't want women to vote? Would you support a repeal of the Women's Suffrage amendment?
Even you don't believe that. Do the names Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell and Lou Sheldon ring a bell? SOMEBODY must have thought gays were a threat, otherwise there wouldn't be any anti-sodomy laws. What do you think the Stonewall riot was about? A Confederate general?
Why would they ask Black South Americans about things happening in South Africa?
I don't recall anyone asking me before they passed the handgun ban in Chicago. I don't recall being consulted regarding the Brady Bill or so-called "assault weapon" ban.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Yes it does assume they're in different places, because sometimes they would be.
I'm hardly campaigning to disarm *anyone*. I live in a country where my chances of being shot are low, and there's little i can do about americans shooting each other.
You said "And what do you care if I have one?", and then "I can shoot him with one". I don't follow.
If the majority of people in America doesn't want homosexuality to be legal then they're stupid, but they can illegalise it if they want. Psychopaths with guns are inarguably more dangerous than homosexual psychopaths. It's not the american public's business if people are (consentually) sodomising each other, it IS the american public's business if people are running around shooting people.
Women voting does not harm anyone.
"Even" me?
Frankly, no. Well, OK, I know of Pat Buchanan.
Ehh, bullshit. They just didn't like gays. How could ANYONE think that gay sex was likely to kill them, even if they were not participating?
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:46:18 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Why?
When are those times?
I suppose it depends upon what country in which you live. Historically, one has an excellent chance of being shot or gassed... by the government in a number of European countries.
You attributed some GREATER danger of being shot to my having more than one gun. In what way is it greater? Are you saying I'll imitate some John Woo movie and come out with guns in BOTH hands? Anyone with a minimal knowledge of guns would know that that would LESSEN the likelihood that I'd hit anyone.
It's NOT the American public's business if I own guns without unlawfully harming others, any more than it's their business if two men or two women mutually agree to have sex.
How does my owning a gun HARM anyone?
Yes, I find it impossible to believe that you believe your own statement. Are you denying that there are people who think that homosexuals are a threat? On what do you base that astounding statement?
Do you think he has a favorable opinion of homosexuals?
They claim it spreads disease and harms society. Therefore they favor anti-sodomy laws. I disagree with them. That doesn't mean they don't exist. And I might just point out to you that the Nazis thought they were enough of a threat to GAS them.
Then that pretty much invalidates that part of your argument, since you don't appear to know too much about contemporary issues relating to gays, nor their historical genesis.
So then guns can't be banned until somebody ASKS me?
The answer is "no".
Case closed.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
why not? sometimes people keep stuff in different places.
well if we check a load of gun owners houses, probability dictates that *some* of the time the guns are going to be in different places in the house.
UK.
did i?
anyone with a minimal knowledge of *hands* would know that. :)
but you CAN harm others with guns. if two men have sex in their bedroom, the chances of them harming anyone else are negligible.
people get shot by people with guns. if the people did not have the guns, the killed people may not have been killed. how do i know you aren't a potential murderer? i know you're innocent until proven guilty, but when you shoot me it's kinda late for me to prove you guilty and confiscate your gun.
a minute amount of people (i'm excluding the psychotic here, you understand) must believe that homosexuals are violent and dangerous and liable to kill them.
there's a difference between distaste for (even hatred of) gay people and belief that gay people will kill you.
more than smoking, or normal sex? perhaps i'm overestimating the intelligence of the general population (this is possible) but, really.
That was more of a trend than a deep-set belief that they would directly *kill* them.
I'm sure that *really* harms my argument about gun control.
As for contemporary issues relating to gays: well, I didn't see it on the news, and I've never read about it, and none of my bi/gay friends mentioned it to me, so either it's not that contemporary or it's fairly unimportant.
Asks everyone who would be affected by the ban, duh.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:37:22 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
In other words, you don't really have a reason.
But you can't quantify this in any meaningful way. That's not a rational basis for limiting someone else's rights.
I've seen the British police engaged in some interesting behaviors. In terms of brutal, pointless beatings, the NYPD has nothing on London bobbies. And I've seen the video to prove it.
Yes.
I have a hard enough time shooting with ONE gun, and using the SIGHTS!
That's not what religious fundamentalists say. They say that they molest children and destroy society. I don't believe them, but I don't believe what you say about guns either. Why should I believe one false assertion and not another.
My OWNING a gun causes people to get shot? It isn't necessary for me to pick it up and pull the trigger... nevermind load and aim it.
You seem to have a hard time with "innocent until proven guilty". Is there any limit to the rights you would negate based on contingency?
Most serial killers couldn't operate if they weren't free to travel. Are you going to impose internal passports of the sort the Soviet Union had?
So now it's changed from "none" to "a minute amount"? I think you're DRASTICALLY underestimating the number of people who think gays are a threat.
...or molest children, or "destroy society", etc., etc., etc. You really do have a limited perception of anti-gay sentiment.
What you're saying is that you can't believe that people motivated by irrational beliefs, think in an irrational way.
Look up the name "Ernst Roehm".
It harms that part of it, doesn't it?
I'll bet THEY know. Why don't you ask them?
You mean like women who would have to fightfight with 200lb. rapists? Sure thing.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
sodomy itself is not molesting children, and anti-sodomy laws just prohibit anal sex (correct me if i'm wrong) regardless of the gender of the participants.
your owning a gun increases the likelyhood that your nextdoor neighbours will be shot.
travel is more useful than it is dangerous.
what difference does it make, in democratic terms?
accusations of child molestation i've heard, but only from one or two people. *most* people (by far), do not believe that gays are anything worse than "gross".
it's a little too irrational, and of all the people i've spoken to about homosexuality none have ever claimed that homosexuals are out to get them. while there may be some people who think that, they are a tiny minority.
why?
what part of it? you brought it up in an analogy about homosexuality.
it's hardly worth the effort.
how about the women who would be shot by said 200lb rapists if the rapists thought they were reaching for a gun?
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:07:45 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
A interesting attitude. Do you favor police brutality?
Are you conceding are the argument or merely disdaining your own part in the discussion?
But they say that that's what homosexuals do. Of course there's no more basis for that, than claiming that my having two handguns is more of a danger to you than my having one... or none.
Really? In what way?
I don't see any more danger to my neighbor in my JUST owning a gun, than there is to his children if I were JUST a homosexual. Irrational fear and bigotry should not be pandered to.
Tell that to Ted Bundy's victims.
If you were legally tied to your workplace and couldn't move or travel without government permission, it'd be very difficult for you to be a serial killer.
Truth isn't determined by vote... if it was, if 51% of the population voted to proclaim Jews "children of Satan", that'd make it so.
Again, you fail to understand the purpose of constitutions and bills of rights. If 51% of the voting population votes to repeal the 13th amendment, does that mean that I should VOLUNTARILY become a slave?
Really? Have you done a survey? Where? Manhattan... or Phenix City, Alabama?
I think you're extremely naive.
Gee, that's funny. I used to know somebody who stated in no uncertain terms that homosexuals were out to destroy the United States.
Look him up and find out.
Which you were unable to refute, largely due to a fundamental lack of knowledge.
I think you don't WANT to know.
How about the women who would be shot by 200lb. rapists so that they couldn't testify against them?
Again, you seem to prefer the certainty of victimization over the chance that resistance might fail.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
i was disdaining your claim. i can't see how you would imagine that the word "whatever" implies either of your suggestions.
i don't reckon a *majority* of people believe that.
statistically.
i'm sure they'd agree.
if you were legally tied to your workplace and couldn't move or travel without government permission, it'd be very difficult for you to do your job in many cases.
irrelevant. what difference does the change from "none" to "a minute amount" make, in democratic terms?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:16:39 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
A while back, the NYPD shot an unarmed man *19* times. His only "weapon" was a wallet.
Do you see a problem with that or not?
Not too long ago, several undercover NYPD cops stopped two men on the street and tried to by drugs from them. When the two men refused and told them to "p*** off", the cops picked a fight with one of them which ended in his being shot and killed. He was unarmed.
Do you have a problem with such behavior by police, or not?
Then what DOES it imply? Clearly you had a reason for saying it.
I don't care. At one point a "majority" of the population believed that I was innately inferior to White people. That doesn't make it so, nor does it confer upon me a moral duty to obey any laws premised on that belief.
HOW?
That it was better that they be dead so that he could travel freely?
Are you sure?
Millions of Soviet citizens did their jobs just fine under those circumstances. Those who couldn't, could be closely monitored to ensure that they weren't doing anything wrong.
See how simple that is?
What are "democratic terms"?
You made an absolute statement. All I have to do to negate it is to find a SINGLE counter example. I did.
Dictatorships are built on the willingness to abridge rights first on absolute criteria, then on progressively more vague considerations. Look up the term "social prophylaxis". It's where you're headed in the discussion.
Why not? Please explain in "democratic terms".
Really? I'm the one who seems to know what anti-gay people REALLY think, and don't hide from it.
You would if you were gay and lived in Alabama. Or don't gays in Alabama count?
I only need to know one to refute your argument. Of course I've heard far more than one. I happened to know THIS person very well and she was absolutely sincere.
It has to do with guns, Jews, homosexuals, and the uses of power.
This is a debate of sorts. If you can't justify your claims, they are invalidated.
That's wilfull ignorance. It's one thing not to know something. It's quite another not to WANT to know something because it challenges a pre-conceived notion... especially if you're developing doubts about that notion.
Self-deception is the worst kind.
I'm not sure you know what your point is.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
of course, but i still don't see how police brutality relates to guns. if the guy'd had a gun, he might have shot a policeman and then been shot himself.
"i think you misinterpreted something i said, and don't care enough to check."
no, but the majority generally wins.
what do you mean "HOW?"? if nobody has guns, nobody will be shot. if people own guns, people around them will occasionally be shot.
that it was better that they be dead and *people* could travel freely, than nobody being able to go abroad without government permission.
well ok. rather inefficient, it seems.
well ok, i changed my position slightly. as i believe i said.
you don't have to "volunteer". you may be forced, however.
that was you speaking. :)
of course they count, but there's nothing i can do about idiots in alabama.
my argument was that most people don't think that.
ok.
nahh, i just can't be bothered asking anyone. especially as most of my friends are on holidays at the moment.
that one doesn't have an innate "right" to gun ownership, and that the people who don't want people to have guns, well, have a point.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:54:09 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
So if somebody should die, it should be him and not the cop?
Why?
What does it imply?
Not if it wants to take my rights away, certainly not without a fight.
But you have no way, short of a Luddite police state to prevent people from having guns.
And again, you've changed you argument from number of guns to NO guns.
But then they'd be alive. It's better for Bundy to travel and them to die?
See also "economies of scale".
I don't recall you saying it before, but you have now.
And I can kill anyone who comes ot enslave me. In fact, I can act preemptively if necessary.
As indeed I would.
I recognize no durty to allow myself to be enslaved in order to protect the slave master.
You can recognize that they ARE idiots, and that they DO affect the lives of other people, rather than just shrugging.
That's what you argument has BECOME. Of course you don't specify most people WHERE. You seem to want to pretend that Alabama doesn't exist.
Ask them when they come back. Maybe you'll learn something.
My right to own guns in inherent in my right to self-defense. The only "point" is see coming from most anti-gun people is that others have a duty to be victims if they can't get some government employee to protect them.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
[ a lot of stupid, paranoid, off-topic gunloon crap that doesn't belong in this newsgroup, snipped. ]
Now Christopher. You behave yourself here, or I'll go tell Volt and Rack and the Weasels where you dragged your thoroughly kicked butt off to. Picking on High School kids is low, even for you.
Confine your abysmal fucking posts to Daria-related topics, and I'll hold my nose and keep my word. If you don't; I'll delurk explain life to you. I mean it.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:07:45 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
You lose.
You realize, Alli, that you are implying that Chris, personally, is likely to shoot an innocent person, or that he lacks the responsibility to keep his guns in a safe place. Would you care to make this accusation directly?
If one doesn't know how to use a gun, one shouldn't carry one. And if you are the first to pull, you're likely to be the first to shoot. The 200 lb rapist is not concerned with a length of steel tubing; it is a considerably different length he is concerned with. And so long as the woman doesn't miss, she wins.
Either way, she has *no* chance without the gun. That, and the rapist acts with impunity. Personally, if the potential loss was greater than the likelyhood of death, I would take that gamble. Your problem, Alli, is that you simply cannot imagine actually being able to defend yourself. For you, the likelyhood of death is *always* greater than the potential loss. I would argue the same is true of Contentious Objector. The idea of self defense is so foreign to both of you that you presume it is more sensible for one to simply suffer the injustice in silence, and hope the government will help you in the end.
And this is why I would willingly give up my gun if the repealing of the 2nd amendment ever made it through the proper channels. If that ever happened, our society would truely have reached the point where the vast majority have no legitimate use for weapons. Whether I would stay in this country would depend on whether it was an enlightened society that resulted, or an abusive government ruling over a depraved society of victims. From what you say, Britain seems to be closer to the former. But remember: you couldn't affored to disarm yourselves were it not for our military power stablizing international relations. Or at least, so it was during the Cold War. What lies ahead is a bit fuzzier.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 17:35:52 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Yet you do not deny the implication.
Do you deny it?
And I think *more* rapes could be stopped by the first victim having a gun. In the case of an acquaintance who got drunk and overly ambitious, simply having a gun pointed at him could be a rather severe wake up call. In the case of a stranger's attack, not only does the initial victim not get raped, his subsequent victims *also* don't get raped; he's dead.
Now the second scenario is easily avoidable: just don't leave your house (or other well lit buildings) at night. But I think that, for some, being afraid to leave the house at night is not an acceptable alternative.
Few rapists are likely to persist in their attempt once a gun has been drawn by the victim. The likeliest behavior on their part is "running away", even if they too have firearms. The next likeliest behavior would probably be trying to shoot it out ... of course, unless they were focusing on their gun _at the moment that their intended victim drew it_, they are likely to lose the ensuing shootout. And whatever happens next, the sound of gunshots means that the police will be on the way (in most localities), so the rapist cannot continue his attempted rape unless he is _very_ stupid.
however, if the rapist is your step-dad who comes into your bedroom at night, or your husband, you aren't going to be holding your gun when he attacks you.
In that case, if there's a gun in the house that you have access to, I wouldn't sell life insurance to the "step-dad", whether or not he gets to complete the rape. And few juries would convict in this situation.
Very few rapes are of wives by husbands.
No, but he has to then live in the same house with someone who hates him and has a gun. Not a safe situation!
Perhaps, perhaps not. But *some* definitely will. Is the fact that many women might get raped anyway, by itself, any reason to ensure that those who could otherwise defend themselves will be arbitrarily rendered powerless? -IdentityCrisis
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:38:59 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
It doesn't matter if he's armed. Neither of us gets to commit rape, so long as we just BEAT the victim. Again, I've never had much trouble NOT raping anyone, and I doubt you have either.
My god-sister is dead. She wasn't shot. She was stabbed. And again, nobody has a right to rob or rape someone so long as they don't carry a gun to do it.
I suppose the choice is behind US weapons or Finlandization. Certainly I've seen my share of Brits who preferred the latter. Of course I once talked to a Dutchman who thought that they were better off with the Nazis, he hated Americans and American influence so much.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:37:22 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
You assume that gun owners are irresponsible. There are only two places where it is responsible to keep guns: on your person, and in a locked cabinet, or, better yet, a safe. This may, of corse, differ according to the area. Areas where the vast majority are responsible regarding firearms might keep guns out more. Places where there are more people ignorant abaout guns need better security to make sure there aren't any idiots hurting themselves, or perhaps criminals stealing the weapons.
no, i assume that a significant proportion of gun owners are irresponsible, based on my experience with people in general and the observation that a significant proportion of people in general are irresponsible.
I wasn't going to contribute again to this thread, something about not wanting to bang my head against a brick wall. But I felt that I should comment on a couple of things.
[email] (Christopher Morton) wrote in :
[Snip]
So we should remove all bans on everything ? so perhaps we should ignore any majority desision that is passed, so tell me what is the point of the democracy that people are always going on about ? Besides these are different cases....Not having anti-sodomy laws, which AFAICT *ALSO* apply to male-female anal sex, and women having the right to vote are about making people equal, owning a deadly weapon, is IMHO not, though no doubt you will say that it is.
Tell us all Chris what is this magical gift you seem to have that allows you to reach inside the heads of people several thousand miles away from you and determine what they believe or don't believe ?
Probably passed by a load of religious fundies, you know the sort that believe in an eye for an eye, that go literally interpreting the bible. (sorry Martin, no offense intended to you, I am pretty cirtain form past descussions that you are not one of these :) ).
Where you living there at the time, if not why the hell would they ask you ?
Yeah I know I'm gonna catch some flack for this, I'm pretty much past caring now. Yes I know I've twisted and mis interpreted some of what has been said, well that makes two of us.
Perhaps this is a sign that this thread should be put to rest and we should all go discuss something else ok ? Because lets face it we are never going to get agreement here, so lets just agree to disagree ok, and get on with something else.
Phill. All views are my own and nobody else's so there !
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:41:49 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Owning guns gives women an equal right to say NO.
Gun control is the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb. men.
Now I certainly realize that there are people who think that given the choice between being resisting with lethal force or being raped (which is forced sex through the use or threat of lethal force), a woman should let herself be raped to protect the rapist. I don't happen to be one of those people.
Of course too, I've had people who considered themselves sane, tell me that it was better for the Jews of Europe to walk tamely into the gas chambers because violent resistance would have been "undignified".
Because unless that person lives in a coalmine, the rants of anti-gay people are widely exposed to view, and I find it supremely difficult to believe that they haven't heard them.
Exactly. And they think gays are a "threat". Now why should the bigotry of those who hate people who own guns be catered to any more than the bigotry of homophobes?
Because my home of record at the time was in Chicago. I happened to be stationed at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. I can never move back to Chicago, because I'm certainly not going to give up my property and my rights for the dubious "honor" of living under the thumb of racists, anti-Semites and common thieves.
Feel free to continue your drubbing in talk.politics.guns. : )
I usually don't RAISE these issues in unrelated groups, but I won't let mistatements go unchallenged.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
<Butthead> Kick him in the nads Beavis </Butthead> :)
No I don't believe in not resisting (yeah I know that you didn't specifically name me :) ), but also I don't think that anyone should have to end up dead, there are other ways to protect onself that are not perminently harmfull to the potential perpetrator. Also you definition of rape is IMHO innacurate, a better definition might be "sex where one of the parties is unwilling", which would also cover someone going out getting someone drunk (or drugged) and then having sex without their concent, which involves no threats, no leathal force whatsoever.
That I have to aggree would be a pretty stupid thing to say, this is one place where organised and didnified resistance would be justified, after all they where effectivley at war (if you can see what I mean).
Please rember that Alli, is after all only 17, and besides in the UK, there is less outward bigatory about gays, so she may well have not come accross such opinions. I guess as much as anything I was objecting to you saying this as a statement, as though it absolutely must be true the way you said it the first time rather than the explanation of your opinion as you explained the second time.
I can see your point, however, gays in themseleves do not, harm people by being what they are anymore than hetrosexuals do, I agree there are people who think that they do, by spreading desease like AIDS for ex, while this may have been the case early on with AIDS, after all being homosexual brought no chance of getting pregnant so why use contraception ? but I think that most gays these days are probably a little more carefull than that.
[snip!]
Ah ok, I see makes more sense now :)
Reasonable I suppose, after all part of being "free" is being able to make desisions like that for yourself.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:47:42 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
BANG!
Gee Beavis, what's that hole doing in your chest? It looks like a... HUH HUH HUH HUH!!!!!! : )
I don't care if it's permanently harmful to the perpetrator. Nobody NEEDS to rape. Nobody rapes because he's hungry. Nobody rapes because he can't pay his rent. Men rape because they like to hurt women.
I was speaking in terms of violent, forcible rape.
But I had someone tell me exactly that. Such people remind me of the young women who send marriage proposals to serial killers. They have an innate love of evil, degradation and exploitation.
I hear these things EVERY day, or see them somewhere. I guess you haven't heard of Dr. Laura yet..., lucky you!
Actually, gay men in San Francisco appear to be returning to the most risky behaviors of the '70s. Don't know why. Of course I don't know why people shoot heroin either.
Service members may maintain their original home of record.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Yeah but by then it's too late the deed has been done, so it's no longer a case of self defense, more a case of revenge. I hope you're not telling me you would support that ?
i have heard it said incidentally that this is one of the more effective methods of avoiding rape. i can see that that might be true. ;)
99% of anti-gay crap i have heard has been either "the bible says it's evil" (the godhatesfags.com type) or "i don't care what people do in their own homes, but they shouldn't kiss in public" (the "i'm not a homophobe" type) or "ewww, that is like sooo gross, how could you want to fuck another girl? ewwww" (the thirteen-year-old type).
what about that 110lb women should only be raped and/or robbed by 210lb men, rather than shot? (if she's got a gun, he's going to have one too, and he's going to be holding it to her head before she can reach for her bag.)
i've heard plenty of anti-gay rants (from my family for one; and being neither homophobic nor straight myself we often disagree about such issues) and i've never heard anyone say that gay sex kills anyone but gays who have sex with HIV-infected gays.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:42:48 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
I reject absolutely the idea that she should be raped or robbed AT ALL.
First you don't know if he's going to have a gun? You have NO control over that. You only have control over what YOU do.
Secondly, violent criminals choose those whom they think will NOT resist. They don't expect resistance. When faced with armed resistance, they usually split.
What you're arguing is that it's better to be CERTAIN that you'll be robbed or raped, than to have the POSSIBILITY that you won't be able to defend yourself.
Then you live a sheltered life.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:12:23 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
What do you mean it can't be helped?
Are you saying that she can't defend herself, or that she SHOULDN'T?
Again, you have no control over what he does, only over what YOU do. He may or may not have a gun. You don't have a duty to let yourself be raped, regardless. If he attempts to rape you, he should expect to be harmed.
You shouldn't carry a gun in a bag. You should carry a revolver with a shrouded hammer or a hammer without a spur in your pocket. Your hand should be on the gun, in your pocket. When he makes contact, press the muzzle firmly against him and pull the trigger until he is no longer a threat.
Maybe you need to as well.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:17:16 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
What was the point of the comment? It must have had some point? What was it?
But how could he know? Are you wearing a sash that says "I'm carrying a gun"? If you ARE, then he's far more likely to AVOID you. That's been shown by a number of means, including statistics and interviews with violent criminals. They AVOID people who may resist with guns. They're COWARDS. They want the risk to be YOURS.
Apparently neither to a number of my female acquaintances, since that's EXACTLY what they do.
And why would anyone expect that you could fit a PURSE into your pockets? A S&W Centennial or a Taurus despurred .38 is quite small.
You obviously know nothing about guns.
Apparently quite a few women disagree.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:08:14 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Possibly... if you don't qualify it any more than that, since you're also throwing in the people murdered at Babi Yar, executed in the cellars of the Lubyanka and killed at the Battle of the Somme.
Don't feel bad, most discussions I've had with people who supported gun control were like talking to Jerry Falwell about evolution. : )
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Jumping in here, yes, it's true that there may be times when your only choices are to be raped or killed. But that's not *every* time. The rapist might *not* have a gun, or you may see him stalking you and have time to prepare. If you're going to be attacked one way or the other, but having a gun gave you a 50% chance of being able to protect yourself, wouldn't that be worth carrying it?
Is this a problem with *all* women's clothing, or just the stuff you choose to wear? -IdentityCrisis
A lot of muggers, rapists etc. have to nerve themselves up to attack. Part of this consists of staring at their intended victim, trying to evaluate her vulnerability. During this phase, there is often time to ready a concealed weapon.
This is indeed true, after all rember being able to fend them off with superior force, is only treating the problem not the cause, a better solution would be to have a society where crime was at a minimum. Yeah I know I'm an idealaist :)
He did indeed, an assumption which may well be true for the US, though is probably less true in the UK.
(assuming that I was in the above situation, which hopefully none of us will ever be in). It would probably depend on weather I though he was goona shoot me even if I co-operated, in which case you'd have nothing to lose. But generally I guess most people would answer no to this question.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:53:59 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Nah, you've just had one too many pints of [admittedly superior] British ale. : )
US Justice Department statistics show that you are least likely to be injured by a violent criminal if you resist with a firearm, FAR less likely than meekly submitting in fact. Robbers aren't SAS men. They're SCARED of getting hurt. Having to fight for $10 is too much like work. They usually run.
And the ones who don't won't be missed.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
"Would possibly already exist" I think would be a better way to put it, after all there are people who are interested in maintaining the status quo :) But you will conceed that "fending off by superior fire power" is only treating the problem, not the cause ?
I'm saying that we don't know how to "have a society where crime is at a minimum." We do not know what causes crime, aside from "evil", and we don't know how to eliminate "evil". (*)
(*) It's been argued that "poverty" or "ignorance" causes crime, but there's no clear correlation between anti-poverty or educational programs and reductions in the crime rate. It seems more likely that some factor in human or cultural nature causes poverty, ignorance, AND crime. But we aren't sure what that factor is, and even if we were that doesn't mean that we could modify it. The factor might be something so personal that to pre-emptively alter it would be a massive violation of the civil rights of the people being "altered."
When one cannot treat the cause, one must do what one can to reduce the problem at a later stage.
Not necessarily. Having studied basic philosophy and economics over the past few monthes I've come to some conclusions.
Every living creature seeks to prosper materially. Material greed is, in fact, the second strongest and most inclusive of all human drives. There's nothing evil about greed in and of itself; without this drive we wouldn't survive. Good and evil come into play depending on how you go about satisfying your greed.
There are three ways to prosper materially: theft, charity and production. Theft is taking (or otherwise disposing of) what's not yours without the rightful owner's permission, through physical force. Charity is giving away what's yours in exchange for nothing. Production is producing (and usually trading) your own goods through your own effort to get what you want.
Now consider that all creatures must adapt to their environment or perish. In a human society, this means that people will tend to turn to whichever of the three above paths they believe they will most prosper from with the least effort. But which path is most profitable depends on what your society rewards and what it punishes. When the law looks the other way while criminals steal (or worse, passes laws *protecting* criminals), theft is rewarded, since it's easier to take than to create. When society exalts the needy and demands that the rich give to them, begging is rewarded, since it too is easier than production.
But neither theft nor charity is possible unless production comes first; without production, there's nothing to beg or steal. This means that whenever crime is rewarded or charity is forced the *producers,* as a consequence, are punished by having what they worked to earn taken from them. Enough of this and people will adapt their behaviour by going the easier routes of theft and begging. This increases the strain on the remaining producers, which prompts *more* of them to change over, which increases the strain on the *remaining* producers, etc. until there's nothing left to beg or steal and civilization collapses.
The ideal, "minimum-crime" society would therefore have to make production the most profitable route by consistently punishing thieves (on both sides of the law), *not* taxing citizens for welfare programs (or anything else other than essential government functions) and not artificially restricting production and trade through regulations.
This form of government has been known about for quite some time; it's just never been tried, because it would mean that each of us would have to earn our own keep, rather than being able to exploit others against their will. It's name is laissez-faire capitalism.
On 12 Aug 2000 13:37:09 GMT, [email] (IdentityCrisis1) wrote:
Please read the entire message before responding.
There's a flip side to this coin. Men of wealth always have more influence over government than others. There are two reasons for this. On one hand, if you have lots of money, people are likely to do what you would prefer, hoping to get some of your money (either in rightfully paid taxes, which are evadable by the rich), or in direct bribes. The *other* reason is the same reason they got rich in the first place: intelligence and resourcefulness. They can rise to the top of government in the same way they rise to the top economically.
What this means is that the rich have some ability to decide what is and isn't a "crime", thus being able to perpetuate their position of power if they so choose. Even if they don't, once someone has established wealth, short of a complete social breakdown, such people, and their heirs, are generally able to hold on to such wealth without as much effort as it took to earn it.
Feudal Europe is, of corse, a worst case scenario. Families that became wealthy during the Pax Romana used that wealth to shore up their power, at the expense of everyone else, after the collapse that occurred. On the flip side, these people were really the only one's presenting any kind of order at the time, so they wealthy do have their uses, if they use their power right.
This is why I favor anti-trust laws (once you have that position of power and wealth, you should conduct your business in only the most ethical manner, or give others a chance to gain wealth the same way you did), and programs designed to give those who have fallen into "institutional" poverty a chance.
Note that I do *not* support outright handouts, at least, not on any permanent basis. Educational funds targeted at the poor (though not specifically "minorities") can give those who would otherwise suffer as a result of their parents' ability, or choices, a chance.
It has been tried, albeit unknowingly. A long time ago.
It devolved into feudalism.
What, you thought the first monarchs were born into power? Nay, they were simply the first people to accumulate/produce sufficient wealth to buy power. Once they had it, they traded some of it to those who would become the minor nobles.
Yes, but HOW did they accumulate wealth? There's a fundamental difference between getting by trade or production and getting it by bashing somebody's brains in, then claiming that other people's property and labor are yours by dint of birth.
I think you'll find that in most instances their paradigm was of the warrior rather than the merchant.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
The fact that both were used as means to get out of the production/trade cycle is irrelevant to the initial state.
Besides, even if you do convince me I'm wrong on this, you will also convince me that you are supporting an untried, untested and therefore *completely* theoretical concept.
Much like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin did, back in Russia.
They were as confident of success as you and IDCrisis are now.
And you make nutrients... which leeches, mosquitoes and liver flukes live off of.
By that logic, they didn't create the system, they destroyed it and replaced it with parasitism.
Production?
Their theories flew in the face of logic and observed reality... so they just killed everybody who didn't marvel at the commissar's new clothes and dared to say he was naked.
I'm confident that the answer to 2+2 isn't to shoot everyone who doesn't say that it's 5.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Before I address your specific points, let me explain *exactly* what the basis for a fully capitalist society is.
The use of physical force comes in three flavors: coercive, definsive and retaliatory.
Coercive force is disposing of the life, liberty or property of another without their completely voluntary consent. It includes every form of assault and theft. Government agents as well as criminals can be guilty of this.
Defensive force is the use of force to stop someone attempting to use coercive force, whether it's a woman fighting off a rapist or a bank guard shooting a hold-up man. However, force only qualifies as "defensive" so long as it is being used to prevent an act of coercive force *in progress,* and only against those using force. It does *not* apply to a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, or a bank guard chasing an escaping robber through crowded streets with a gun. That falls into the third category.
Retaliatory force is the act of finding and punishing a user of coercive force after the fact. This kind of force, if left uncontrolled, is how private blood feuds get started. Clearly no society can stand if everyone is expected to judge and punish wrongdoings for themselves, or die trying.
That's where a government comes in. A laissez-faire government recognizes that the coercive use of force (whether by the government or anyone else) is *always* wrong and the definsive use of force is *always* right. Aside from providing defensive force against invaders (military) and settling disputes (law courts), the government's main function is to place the control of retaliatory force under objective rules (police).
Now, having said that...
Not a problem in a laissez-faire government. To regulate or involuntarily tax anyone requires the use or threat of coercive force, and is therefore the government is not permitted to do it. Therefore, it is not possible to gain an economic advantage over your competitors by controlling the government.
All the corruption of our own leaders is made possible because the public believes the idea that it can be morally justifiable to sacrafice one person's interests to another's against his will. Once you discard the idea that involuntary human sacrafices are justifiable, the acid test for political corruption becomes easy - if you try to use the government's guns against someone who did not use coercive force for *any* reason, you're corrupt and need to be impeached and imprisoned immediately. Every politician, policeman and soldier in a laissez-faire society would be required to understand and commit to this principle before even being accepted for the job.
And before you say it, yes, a country *can* survive on a system of voluntary taxation, provided you don't think that "voluntary tax" is synonymous with "handout." The government simply sells it's services to those who want them, like any other buisiness. For example, if you want your contracts legally enforced you could pay a percentage of the total value of the goods being exchanged as a "contract tax." The money would then go to pay for the court system, which you could then call on if the other party breaches the contract. You would not be required to pay the tax, but then you would not have any legal recourse if cheated; you would simply lose out. As long as the percentage is kept the same for everyone, this is equally accessible to people of all wealth levels, and provides the rich, who sign multi-million dollar contracts, far *more* incentive to pay taxes than the less-wealthy who are making $20 credit-card purchases. Similair taxes could be made for police and military protection.
As an added bonus, this *requires* the government to stay efficient - otherwise people will find alternatives to purchasing the government's services. For example, exchanging goods through a trustworthy third party rather than trusting to contracts and courtrooms.
Once the possability of exploiting the government for unearned wealth or power is removed, there is no incentive for you to try and advance in the government, unless you actually *want* to do the job right. And in that case, the intelligent and resourceful are exactly the people you want at the top.
Nope. Remember, only the use of coercive force (or the improper use of retaliatory force) can (and *must*) constitute a crime under laissez-faire. The government's task is only to *identify* (not define) what constitutes such a use of force, and to set the appropriate procedures and punishments. There would be differant sub-sections of the law for dealing with various types of crime, such as theft of physical property vs. theft of intellectual property vs. pollution vs. personal assualt, but a politician would not, for example, have the power to say that forced sexual contact (rape) was legal or that *unforced* sexual contact was criminal.
Again, no. If they ceased to be competitive they would start to lose out to their competitors. It might take them a while to lose it *all,* but they would not be "holding on to it."
Feudalism, like every form of society besides laissez-faire capitalism, pure anarchy or a mass grave, is a *mixed* economy, an unstable hybrid of statism and capitalism, and the abuses are made possible by the statist elements, not the capitalist ones. A purely capitalist government does not permit you to do *anything* at someone else's expense, unless they're *willing* to pay (in which case it's not a moral problem). I'm not a student of history, but this sounds more like it started from anarchy than from capitalism. True economic feudalism (read: unbreakable monopolies) requires the use of physical force to prevent competition, which is not a privelige available on the free market.
"Ethical" behaviour consists of not using coercive force. As long as you don't, any mistakes you make are paid for only by yourself and those who willingly choose to take the risk of dealing with you. Your levels of power and wealth are irrelevant to this; coercive force is *wrong,* regardless of who it is used by or against.
To hold someone to arbitrarily stricter standards than his neighboors is a *punishment.* To hold them to such for being more productive than their competitors is to punish them for the "crime" of succeeding honestly. Did Bill Gates get rich by holding a gun to people's heads and demanding that they deal with him on his terms, or because people decided, of their own free will, that of all the choices available to them the one he offered was the best they could get for their money?
This does not encourage more people to become productive, it discourages *all* production, by making people afraid to succeed.
You mean, by convincing your employers/employees/customers that you are worth dealing with? Why do your competitors need laws to arbitrarily limit your options or punish or discredit you for succeeding in order to convince people to deal with them instead of you? Perhaps because they could *not* convince people without such a club?
At whose expense? Such programs have to be funded by tax dollars taken by force from those who worked to earn the money, to be given to those who *didn't* earn it. Remember what I said about punishing success?
If giving them a chance is your purpose, then you should know that they will have far more chances under laissez-faire capitalism than under any other type of government. And they won't have to sacrafice other people to get those chances.
On 29 Aug 2000 16:13:19 GMT, [email] (IdentityCrisis1) wrote:
<snip massively>
Given the absolute banning of coercive force, this could work. How one goes about getting a society to stop attempting to coerce is entirely beyond me, but in the realm of theory, this works well enough.
This would, like any other grand idea, require a massive committment from the people to the ideals behind it. Without that, all you end up with is a shell of an idea, people giving lip service while directly contradicting it with their actions. Much like the constitution of the United States, today. It was written by some guys who had a big, great idea, but we have yet to see if it would actually work or not. Why? People.
*Thank you* for actually saying that instead of just dropping the thread. :)
For a moment I was afraid I might be trying to debate another Kyle (neither using or acknowledging facts or logic). I'm still waiting for him to define the term "human" in another thread. :7
Which is exactly why we don't have pure capitalism today. Capitalism's worst enemies aren't among it's detractors, but among it's so-called defenders, most of whom try to defend it on the *wrong* moral grounds (such as claiming that it's benefiting the poor is what justifies it) or just, as you say, pay it lip service. Such people discredit not only themselves but, by association, capitalism as well... effectively stabbing it in the back.
It did work, for a while. Consider how far and how fast America came up in wealth and power compared to several-thousand-year-old nations. Unfortunately, the founders didn't apply their principle of equal, individual rights consistantly, allowing the government certain economic controls, *restricting* the rights of certain classes of people, etc.
Guns equalize the size and strength disparity between men and women. "God made men, but Colt made them equal."
Criminals look for easy prey, not gunfights. (*) Also, if they get in close (as they must to rape someone), the advantage of the gun is reduced.
(*) For excellent reasons. A gunshot will bring the police fairly quickly, forcing the abortion of the criminal act. A wounded citizen can await the paramedics; a wounded criminal is in _real_ trouble even if he has only a minor wound. Finally, unless the criminal is an expert shot, he doesn't have the same advantage over even a small armed victim that he would if both were armed. (The advantage of surprise is partially negated by the fact that it is not as easy to "cover" someone as shown in the movies, particularly if you are either clasping them close (as in rape) or asking them to reach for objects in their pockets (as in a mugging); in the case of burglary the advantage is decidedly with the homeowner!).
If the "bloke" is trying to take what is in your bag, or the bag itself, he can't keep his attention focused on keeping you covered. Not as easy as you think.
"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...
None taken, Phill, none taken.
Your certainty is not misplaced. 8-)
As to the topic, well, first, a meta-comment. It's not surprising that in a group whose participants are mostly from the USA, the (off) topics reflect current issues in US political debate.
As to the matter of a Constitutional right to bear arms, I'm just pleased to live in a country whose armed forces long ago reached a level of professionalism that made it unnecessary to rely on citizen militias for national defence. So for us, "A well regulated Militia... necessary to the security of a free State" does not depend on having members of the general public "keep and bear Arms." American readers will recognise the quotation.
If the defence of the realm did depend on citizen militias, then the unavoidable cost in human suffering of a general right to own firearms might be considered by some as a necessary sacrifice at the altar of <Ms Li, reverentially> National Security. </ML,r>
I say the cost in human suffering is unavoidable, since: - some firearm owners will have criminal intent - some will be deranged or become deranged - some will fail to secure their weapons against unauthorised use - some will lack the necessary maturity to use them responsibly - some will use them for purposes other than to defend "the security of a free State" - some will fail to undertake adequate weapon training
<aside> When the defence of Britain did depend on militias rather than on professional armed forces, weapon owners were required to maintain their weapons, and to maintain their own skills by regular training. Perhaps someone whose history is more recently learned than mine can remind me what the penalty was for missing weekly archery practice? If gun ownership is necessary in the USA, how about 4 hours compulsory weapon training every week for every gun owner? </aside>
By saying that I'm glad to live in a country where the human cost of general firearm ownership was long ago judged to outweigh any national security benefit, I'm not passing judgement on the USA. Whether the security of the USA still depends on citizen militias keeping and bearing arms is for those who live there to judge, not me.
I do understand that some USA residents base their claim to a right to bear firearms *not* on the second amendment, but on a perceived need for individuals to resist crime with deadly force. I'm pleased to live in a country whose police forces - most of whose officers do not carry firearms - can cope moderately well without relying on firearm-carrying citizens. Again, it's for those who live in the USA to judge whether, in an America without general ownership of guns, the enforcement of American law could be left to American law enforcement agencies.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:31:37 +0100, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
You mistake the purpose of having an armed citizenry. It's not because the military might be too weak. It's because it might be too STRONG.
A standing army is a grave danger to any democratic republic, and you can fill pages with the ones brought down by them. The name "Oliver Cromwell" does come to mind.
Who watches the watchers?
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:31:37 +0100, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
That's something that's always nagged at me, though considering the volatility of the topic, I've been afraid to ask. :-) Here in the United States, we're required to take and pass certified classes to drive a car, we require licenses to drive a car, we require that automobiles be registered with the state in which we live, and we must renew licenses and registrations every few years (sometimes requiring additional training if we fail to pass a simply driver's exam). I'm sure that Britain, Canada, and other nations have the same or similar laws.
Now, since guns have the potential to do considerably more harm than cars (due to their size and portability), I'd be all for requiring gun owners to do the same thing as we must do with driver's licenses and car registrations. At the very least, it would require that gun owners be knowledgable in the use of a firearm, and to maintain that knowledge over the years. Why some of the more radical "gun nuts" claim that this would be "the first step in taking away our rights" is beyond me... unless, of course, they finally spotted those black helicopters hovering above their houses. ;-)
Seriously, I'd be interested in hearing a mature, rational explanation of why some gun owners and "right to bear arms" supporters think that this is a bad idea; to me, it seems to be a reasonable compromise. *I'D* certainly feel better knowing that gun owners were knowledgable in the use of their weapons, and must keep that knowledge and their skills fresh and sharp (and yes, I know that responsible gun owners would do this themselves; it's the IRRESPONSIBLE owners that make me nervous as hell).
Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: The Internet's Premiere Website for Daria Fans
New, easy-to-remember URL: http://www.outpost-daria.com
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:31:05 -0400, Martin J. Pollard wrote:
That's an interesting theory. A 2lb. gun and do more harm than a 4000+lb. car?
Yeah just like the people who think that poll taxes, "literacy" tests, and grandfather clauses could be used to restrict people's voting rights. Yep, people like that are paranoid....
There is no compromise on the anti-gun side, just faster and slower timetables for confiscation.
I suggest you look into "registration" in Chicago. I used to live there before I joined the Army.
Could you tell me what it would take for me to LEGALLY move back there, WITH my handguns? Tell everyone, I think it'll be very educational....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:49:27 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
[... majority of message deleted for brevity ...]
Christopher, since I'm now convinced that what people here are saying about you is true, I'll not bother telling you a fucking thing. You are the epitome of the "paranoid gun nut," and I won't waste my time trying to hold a rational argument with someone who's incapable of doing the same.
Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: The Internet's Premiere Website for Daria Fans
New, easy-to-remember URL: http://www.outpost-daria.com
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:02:00 -0400, Martin J. Pollard wrote:
Translation:
Either you can't answer the question, or WON'T because the answer would be embarrassing to you.
And it is most certainly true that I will not just accept unsupported, irrational, and contradictory arguments in favor of creating a government monopoly on the means of armed force.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Uh, reality check - you haven't answered a lot of the questions people have posed to you either. Does that mean you can't answer them?
You only have one example that you use over and over, you get mad at things that you can't really dispute, and you aren't arguing the points that people are bringing up. Why would anyone want to argue with you?
You see you're arguing on emotion alone (I'll let you guess which ones). Take a lesson from Jordan, I disagree with him, but he's trying to actually argue the points, instead of going straight to anger.
So, I'm with Martin, if you're not going to debate rationally and if you'r egoing to repeat the same stuff that I didn't buy the first time, it's not worth my time to argue with you.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:06:37 -0700, Michael J. Quinn wrote:
I haven't given you the answers that you wanted. That's different from NOT answering.
How many examples do I need?
I'm not accepting your starting premises, which are faulty. I have no duty to construct an argument based on YOUR assumptions.
I'm arguing on verifiable fact and personal experience. You're arguing on received propaganda.
I'm arguing the points. I'm not arguing your assumptions. Nor will I.
Apparently your definition of "rational debate" is to accept your fundamental premises. I can't blame you, certainly that's the only way you could ever make a point. The trouble is that your arguments are based on fundamentally false premises. I can't stop you from arguing that 2+2=5. That doesn't mean that I have to balance my check book based on that premise, nor indeed do I have to accept it as the basis for a discussion of New Deal economic policies.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
But you have the same answer for everything (at least that's how it *seems*).
And your premises are bullet proof (excuse the pun)? We both think what we think is right, I don't exactly have a monopoly on pigheadedness.
Whatever.
Propaganda that I have vocally rejected in the other thread (and your "facts" aren't any more/less verifiable than any of the "facts" I have - anyone can manipulate anything to promote their side, and you're just as guilty). I obviosly can't speak of your personal experience, maybe that's another reason I should shut up, because any personal experiences that I've had can't possibly be as valid.
How can you argue something that doesn't exist?
Bullshit, if I'm doing that then you're doing the same thing.
That's your opinion, and you have a right to it, that also doesn't mean I have to buy you premises either.
And I can't stop you, either :)
Well, I sort of apologized for the tone of the post you were responding to, but now it seems that it wasn't deserved - you're just out to insult everyone that disagrees and that's a problem that I can't help you with anyway. So now, I'm going to do what I said I was going to do and get out of this, because it's obvious that no one is convincing anyone of anything.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:02:12 -0700, Michael J. Quinn wrote:
I have the appropriate answer for a particular question. Again, I have no duty to argue from YOUR basic assumptions.
I'm pro-abortion. Why on earth would I argue with an anti-abortionist on the basis that meaningful human life begins at conception?
But I'm not getting complaining that your argument doesn't rest on premises that you don't believe in the first place. I refute your argument and its logical basis. I don't tell you to argue from MY point of view. There's no reason why you should.
Oh, that's much bigger than a "whatever". Lurk in talk.politics.animals for a couple of days. You'll quickly understand what a fundamental disconnect of worldviews is all about. Do you expect those opposed to animals "rights" to frame their arguments on the basis of the mere ability to experience sensation conferring rights to an entity? Do you expect pro-animal "rights" people NOT to?
Neither of us has any duty to accept without question, the fundamental assumptions upon which the other's argument is based.
Your personal experiences are valid for YOU.
You clearly have different fundamental premises than I do. That being said, you don't have any obligation to change them unless you want to. Neither do I.
I'm not telling your to argue from a different point of view. I'm telling you that your point of view is skewed. Whether you change it is up to you. I'm certainly not going to waste time getting upset because you don't.
But I'm not complaining that you aren't arguing from my point of view. I'm just stating that you aren't. I deal with your arguments, and their fundamental premises as come upon them.
You could shoot me. : )
How have I insulted you?
I haven't called you any names.
I haven't questioned your intelligence.
I haven't questioned your honesty.
What I have done is refuse to argue from your basic assumptions. That annoys a lot of people. Just ask the religious fundamentalists who've cried in frustration because I won't address the issue of homosexuality and gay rights in terms of scripture.
Don't feel bad. You are neither the first, nor will you be the last person to not immediately grasp this concept.
As I said, I had no intent to insult you, and don't believe that I have. What I have done is question your core values. That scares people. I recall a character on a certain animated TV series who does that a lot... she seems to be quite unpopular with most of the other characters.... : )
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Maybe "insulted" is too strong, maybe condescension was better. I felt (wheter it was justified or not) that I was being talked down to, and that does make me very uncomfortable (even if it is partly imagined).
True, it does because it makes you actually think about it. Then again, I'm more open to things that oppose my initial beliefs (more than you might think after this whole blow up). Like I said (and not to beat a dead horse any further), I don't have any problem with any one owning a gun if they know what they are doing with it. It just feels like something has to be done. But if I were in a position to help make a decision about what, I would want to hear every possible position from every angle that exists before doing anything.
See what I mean about condescension?
It doesn't really scare me, but I don't think about it that much. Actually, the best way to open a dialogue about anything is probably what happened here by trying to point out possible flaws in thinking with the "other side" (in reality, we are all on the same side though). However, I don't think our opinions on this particular issue differ from mine as much as you think.
True enough, except the people whose core beliefs she challenges are lot closer to brain dead than anyone here :)
I prefer the 100% freedom, 100% accountability approach myself. Let 'em own and carry whatever they want, but if they hurt any innocent bystanders (even by accident) and it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court, cook 'em. On pay-per-view. After a massive promotional ad campaign.
Assuming this is consistently and competantly enforced, any gun owner with two or more brain cells to rub together will soon either take it upon themselves to master their weaponry's use and safety procedures or decide that they don't need to be armed so badly after all. -IdentityCrisis
Yes but a car is not *DESIGNED* to kill or injure people, it does so occasionally by acident, or design. A gun is *DESIGNED* to kill people, that's what the critical difference is. Though I've no doubt that there are statistics that prove driving is more dangerous than shooting.
Well we had a poll tax here in the early 90's and yes we where required to pay it if we where over 18, though to be fair as with it's replacement, the community charge, if you where on low income (for example a student, or unemployed), then you got a fairly substantial rebate on it. The only people who suffered and could not vote where those who refused to pay it.
What is the problem with literecy tests I don't see the relevance. And what is a grandfather clause ?
I will not comment on this not being a US citizen.
Just for the recold, are you still in the Army, or ex-army, I realise that you may not want, or are forbidden form answering that :)
His point being that some of the people who own guns in the US are not trained in their use, since you have had military training I personally would have no problem with you owning a gun since you obviously have been trained how to use it.
Can't comment on this never having been near Chicago :)
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:08:48 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
But they always manage to kill more people than guns. It appears that you're more concerned with the design than the effect.
Sometimes it's necessary to kill people. If for instance, the cowards of the neo-Nazi National Alliance who threatened to murder me were to come to my home, I would not defend myself with an ironing board or a microwave oven. I would defend myself with my Glock.
Explanation: In the southern United States, a "poll tax" was the tax required to be payed before one VOTED. Poll taxes were imposed in order to prevent poor Blacks from voting.
"Literacy tests" were required prior to voting. For some odd reason, the literacy tests administered to Blacks seemed to be in Greek, Latin or other languages other than English.
A grandfather clause was a section in applicable voting law that says that you may not vote unless your grandfather had the right to vote. Please explain to everyone the effect of such a law on a Black man living in Alabama in 1871... and in 1881... and in 1921....
Read the editorial page at http://www.washingtonpost.com occasionally. I guarantee you will see at LEAST one call for the banning of handguns... EXCEPT for government and the well connected.
I'm no longer in the Army. At the time I was Executive Officer of a Basic Training Company.
I belong to a shooting club near my home. I would put the worst shot there up against any military personnel except service shooting competitors, and DEFINITELY against any cop. Cops are far and away the WORST, and most dangerous shots, and regarding firearms, some of the LEAST knowledgeable people I've ever known.
It's a crime to possess an unregistered handgun.
Oddly enough, they've been "out of forms" at least since Ronald Reagan was president.
I think you can understand that if somebody lies to you often enough, you, start to lose your trust in them....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:09:21 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Guns benefit the general public. Certainly I was benefitted by having a gun when somebody tried to run me and a friend off of the interstate in the middle of the night. We already had a car, it didn't appear to be much of a deterrent to the guy who was trying to kill us.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
whether guns benefit the general public more than they are a danger to it is arguable, and to find out we'd have to ask the general public.
the following is from a post made on alt.music.manics by TnT a while ago:
----begin quote---- Had to research this, spent most of the day collecting and analysing stats from the Home Office and FBI from 1996 (the most recent comparable stats). Just thought some of you might find this interesting.
1996
----
U.S. Homicide rate - 7.4 per 100,000 (FBI stats) U.K. Homicide Rate - 1.3 per 100,000 (683 murders in a population of 52010000 - HO)
No. | % of total homicides
----------------------------
U.S. Murders by Firearm - 13,262| (67.5%)
Knife - 2692 | (13.7%)
Blunt Object - 917 | (4.7%)
Other - 2778 | (14.1%)
No. | % of total homicides
----------------------------
U.K. Deaths by Firearm - 22 | (3.2%) (This from the BBC, not
sure of it's accuracy!)
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:09:17 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
But you don't seem to want to ask them about cars. Why is that?
And once again, my rights are not contingent upon the whims of others. If you ask them whether slavery should be reestablished, do you think I'll willingly become a slave if they say "yes"?
You should notice that we kill far more people than the UK by ANY means.
The desire to single out one METHOD seems odd to me.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:03:14 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
But that is the point. You cannot possibly imagine cars being banned, because "everybody" likes cars, or at least, the vast majority. But, can you imagine the majority supporting the removal of the rights of a minority? I don't have to imagine, just know history. Most recently, it happened in Germany (to stick to the Western World), when the Jews were ultimately slaughtered wholesale in Germany. Earlier than that, it was in the good ol'e US of A, where the vast majority of people in the southern states supported the maintainance, first, of official negro slavery, then, of official segregation.
Even earlier than that, there was Revolutionary France, where one could be killed simply because one's parents just happened to be nobles.
And don't think your country can be left out of this. Hav you ever heard of Oliver Cromwell? Believe it or not, he, or rather, his ideals, are alive and well in Religeous America.
What about recent Serbia? Realize that Milosovich was *elected*. And he didn't even tear down the election machinery after he was, as Hitler did.
Bad things can happen under a popular regime. The only thing that ensures that such things will *not* happen is if the greatest worry of the government is that such an act will destablize the whole system, resulting in civil war. And if they do, I, personally, prefer civil war to wholesale injustice.
Which is why he must be armed. Such a law would neve get established in the first place if the people in power worried that enforcing a law would result in considerable loss of life.
Actually, here in California, there are laws that make the ownership of a large number of weapons illegal. I just discovered that, technically speaking, my dad is an outlaw. He owns a .22 automatic pistol with a detatchable magazine. That is illegal in the State of California.
I can imagine cars being banned, incidentally. There's a small but growing movement of people who hate cars as transportation devices, and (in the name of "environmentalism" would _love_ to ban most private citizens from owning them. My biological half-brother is one of them. There's a bunch of them over on soc.history.what-if.
Incidentally, when you ban a "victimless crime" (like the mere _ownership_ of guns) you make it easier to ban the next one. Eventually you find someone who considers something you consider harmless worth banning. That's how Prohibition happened in the USA.
a significant number people have said that they would.
of course. cars kill a lot of people, but most people believe that they are too useful to do realistically without. water also kills many people, but it is necessary.
Quick point, here... They can't *make* him function as a slave. They can kill him for resisting, but as long as he's willing to kill or be killed rather than surrender he's not going to be of much use to them. -IdentityCrisis
No but sporting uses aside, which I BTW have absolutely no problem with. Guns have no additional purpose other than being used to kill or injure, cars do, you point a gun at someone it is assumed that you intend to harm someone, you get into a car there is far less chance that harming someone is the intended outcome. (Yes I realise that you can use a car as a leathal weapon also).
Yes I will agree with this, despite my earlier comments about "without the other person's concent", which I meant in terms of crime and stuff within normal peacetime society, and not under other extenuating circumstances, like for exaple being at war, or a hostage situation which I believe where your at the time counter-arguments.
I suppose in the US you would be quite at liberty to do so, though one would hope that in a civilised society you would not have cause to need to do so.
Ah yeah that would be a little unfair on the black citizens.
Right again a double standard, yep I agree this is wrong.
The effect is pretty obvious, under normal circumstances your family would never get to vote and you cirtainly wouldn't (assuming your grandfather could not), infact the only way that your family would get to vote is if a female married a person that could vote correct ? And I am in agreement this is wrong, I don't think anyone on a.t.d would disagree on this one.
Ok, might give it a look.
Ok thanks :)
So you are a proficient bunch then :) which is good, as you are probably less likley to shoot someone (yourselves included) by accident.
Well american cops anyways, I believe the UK ones that are alowed to use firearms, are specially trained to do so by police firearms experts, and also required I believe to retrain etc to keep their skills up to scratch.
That in itself is IMHO reasonable, providing (allowing for the laws of your country), that they provide a suitable way of doing so, both for citizens within the city buying a new gun, and for someone wishing to move into the ciry and bring a firearm with them.
Ah, I think I see your point with that bit of explanation.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:14:54 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
1. Being able to kill or injure someone is sometimes a necessary thing, especially when that someone knows it. The person who was trying to run a friend and me off the road (and several other people besides) stopped doing that when I pointed a loaded HK93 at him. Had he continued to endanger our lives, I would have shot him, and been perfectly justified in doing so. I don't have any duty to let anyone gratuitously harm or kill me. Without the gun, we'd have been helpless.
2. Pointing a car at someone certainly presents a reasonable threat of death or serious injury. Certainly the accident statistics bear that out.
You as an individual have the right to respond to the imposition of lethal force with lethal force. If not, that means you have the duty to die in order to preserve the life of someone attempting to murder you, a situation analagous to the Nuremberg or Dhimmi Laws
Who says neo-Nazis are "civilized"? Who says that their goal is civilization?
I have no duty to let them murder me in order to prove how "civilized" I am.
A bit.
But what you fail to understand is that EXACTLY the same sort of deceit is the coin of the realm for the gun control movement in the United States. I registered the guns I had in Chicago when I was younger and more naive. They required re-registration while I was serving in the Army. Now I can never go back.
It seems to run in two week cycles. It's almost become a parody of "Carthago delenda est!"
I've never seen an accident on the range. Cops, and Military Policemen are absolute menaces. A LOT of them get killed playing quickdraw. The lucky ones only shoot mirrors, refrigerators and televisions.
American cops qualify at most quarterly. The NYPD once had to hire a marksmanship instructor in order to teach their officers what the front sight was for. None of them appeared to know.
Deceit and dishonesty are the sine qua non of the American anti-gun movement... along with racism and misogyny.
I've been at this for the better part of thirty years. I've heard all of the lies. I've heard all of the half-truths, evasions, and deceptions. I've had "nigger" screamed at me til the cows came home because I wouldn't support repressive gun controls aimed primarily at Black people when a White man told me to. I won't shock and disturb you with the exact quote in one of my .sigs, but if you like I'll email it to you. It came from a White man who didn't like being contradicted on the subject of gun control... and oddly enough, it came in response to my question to him about why he was using imputed homosexuality as an insult.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Maybe, but on the whole it is more likeley that a person would be making such a potentially leathal attack against you if they have easy access to a firearm. As most other methods of potentially leathal attack require close physical contact which would put them in more danger. e.g. it's much harder to stab someone from 5m than it is to shoot them (yes I know you can throw a knife but still harder IMHO than aiming a gun and fireing it).
Depends what you define as easy, for instance and without wanting to get into a UK vs US debate, I waould say that in the US on the whole, anyone has easier access to a firearm, than in the UK. Yes I realise that I could for example get a shotgun licence, buy a shotgun quite leagally, and then use it to do a bank job, but I'd be pretty stupid IMHO to do so.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:21:10 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
One advantage Britain has (as it always seems to have in matters of "civilization") is the fact that it is an island. You guys can check your guns at the docks, much like you once could stop invaders in the sea, or on the beach. We have plenty of land routes to ship guns by, through Mexico if necessary. Europe should soon be experiencing an influx of Eastern European arms, if they haven't already. There are different geo-political realities here.
<Churchill> We will never surrender ! </Churchill> :)
True I suppose, yeah geography does have some part to play in it, though with the builing of the channel tunnel, things are going to change a bit, though we can still I suppose check people coming off the trains we already do to stop people smuggling other things in.
Humm...wonder what would have happened if the tunnel had been there in 1940, I suppose we'd have just blown it hp half way and flooded it.
On 08 Aug 2000 11:12:08 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Which is, of corse, the problem. This country is too damned big. This is why I think Euros who support that EU thing are fools, all of them. They don't know how good they had it, with small countries based on law and large alliances based on convention.
Personally, there are a lot of western states (referring to "states" as used in the U.S. political system) I would like to see divided up if it were constitutionally possible. Ever hear of the State of Jefferson? I also think that places like L.A., and other major metropolitan areas, could be their own states reasonably. That would make the people the *first* line of responsibility for the people in power in those areas. I think it is the size of our states, and our union, which supports such regimes. And even if that is *not* the case, at least I wouldn't have to worry about it, being in Fresno, CA, and all.
Injustice cannot be stopped everywhere. At least, with small republics, it may be stopped some places through the efforts of a few. A world government would be the ultimate tragedy.
Though the way the descussion has been going on round here I can't say I blame you :)
In the UK, we are required to be :-
18 years or over (car), or 16 (motorcycle below 400cc).
Pass a written test proving that we know the rules of the road.
Pass a driven (or ridden) test proving that we can operate said vehicle properly.
Pass both above tests *WITHIN* 2 years of each other.
You are alowed to drive a car on a learner's licence, but you must have a qualified driver who is over 21 and has 3? years driving experience with you at all times. And you are allowed to ride a motorcycle below 125cc on a learners licence but you must have first completed "Compulsary Basic Traning" to show that you can control the bike etc, and you must take your full test withing 2 years (I believe).
Well again I can only speak for the UK, but here we are allowed to own firearms, though we are restricted on the types we can own, for example it is ok to own a shotgun, but illeagal I believe to own an automatic machine gun. But, we must :-
1) Apply for a licence, and be deemed responsible enough to own a gun,
basically this I think boils down to being mentally stable, and not
ever having been involved in any illegal activity relating to firearms.
2) Keep the firearm in a securly locked enclosure, which I believe must be
securely fixed to a wall or bulkhead.
3) Keep the ammunition seperate from the weapon.
4) Submit to a check of above conditions by the police once a year.
We may not carry a firearm in the open (so if we are transporting it, it must be in a caring case or the like), and *MUST* not be loaded whilst on public property. It is also I believ an offense to fire a farearm within such and such (can't rember the exact distance, something like 20 meteres) of a public highway.
I'm not sure what the law says about being trained to use such a privatly owned firearm, but I would imagine that most of the people in this country who do own such a firearm will have had at least some training in how to use it properly, as much as anything to stop them shooting themselves in the foot :)
IMHO Simple, paranoia.
Besides they are not helicopters, you did not see anything, everybody move along now.... :)
To be honest such a system would be advantagous as you said because it would mean that the owners of the firearms are less danger to themselves let alone anyone else (cirtainly from the training POV). My guess is that the radicals think that having to be licenced, is another way for "Big Brother" to keep track of them who they are and what they are doing, for a start there may be other reasons.
I'd be interested in a mature descussion, I don't know what the chances of getting one are however.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:31:25 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Yeah, if you believe that there's a plan for gun confiscation, you'd probably believe that the US government would take an entire ethnic group off of the West Coast and put them in racial concentration camps in the interior. Only a nut would believe something like THAT could happen....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Although I agree with you that training and licensing gun owners would be sensible, as would secure storage which we have in the UK which helps keep guns out of the hands of children and burglars. You can argue that:
o Cars kill because of inexperience and stupidity. Very common but they can be countered by training, testing and licensing.
o Guns kill when there is a will to do so. Rather rare but there's not much you can do about it.
This is utter c**p. The number of people killed accidentally by guns demonstrates the need for some sort of training but I think this argument accounts for the present anomalous situation.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:54:57 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:
The number of people killed in firearms accidents in the United States has shown a steady decline throughout the past century (20th) and continues to decline. There ISN'T any crisis of accidental shootings, at least not in the United States.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:33:43 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Personally, if ever 3/4 of Congress (or is that 2/3?), and 3/4 of the state legislatures ever voted to do away with the 2nd amendment (or if it was done using the as-yet unused convention method), even though I voted against it, I would willingly give up my gun. However, I will not stand for politicians deciding to simply fudge the issue by pretending that it doesn't exist, or that it means something other than what it does.
do you think i should trust all gun owners to store their guns safely?
yeah, but if you have to run upstairs to get the nearest gun (which is less likely if there are several), the potential victim may have escaped and you may have calmed down by the time you've got the gun.
he might: a. be a psychopath; b. hate mike; c. fire the gun accidentally in mike's direction; d. store the gun badly so that someone else can get at it; e. go psychotic;
see above, somewhere. it doesn't really matter anyway.
no, i just remember that insecticide, gasoline and knives have uses other than killing, and that life would be a little more difficult if we couldn't cut our dinner up before eating it.
Actually for the most part insecticide is designed to kill :) but only the insects :)
Actually you'd be supprised :)
Actually that is quite an interesting paralell, but another whole can of worms and I don't think we need two imotive threads on here at the moment, this one is already radiating more heat than light :) I suppose the answer to the above will depend on how strongly you support the free speach debate, though as I have said before I would say that almost nobody (myself included, hell I am human after all :) ), who puports to support free speach does, they don't want members of the above listed groups to have it for example.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:28:06 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Ever heard of Zyklon-B? : (
That's why they make Glocks with plastic frames! : )
But once you limit everyone's rights preemptively in order to prevent those things, the scope of the restrictions inevitably expand. Catherine MacKinnon then wants to ban ALL sexually explicit material in order to control all discourse on sex and gender. Religious fundamentalists want to ban all discussion of evolution and abortion. Politicians want to ban all criticism of their party.
Giving government that kind of power is like handing a ranting schizophrenic a hand grenade with the pin pulled.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
It'll kill people, too, in enough concentration. "Insecticide" is, for the most part, highly diluted nerve gas. The reason it can be diluted to a point where it won't harm humans (unless they guzzle the stuff) but will kill bugs is that insects have simple book lungs which open directly to the outside world; we have complex breathing passages which filter out airborne contaminants, and the concentration isn't enough to do much damage through our skins.
But examine the warning labels on a can of Raid sometime. You'll notice that one of the warnings is not to get the crap on your skin. That's because it _can_ hurt you through your skin, just not easily because the nerve poison is _so_ dilute. It _will_ make you sick if you do something like spray a room with the windows closed; that's why when you "bug bomb" you're supposed to leave the premises.
as far as i'm concerned you're not really *using* them particularly. well you are, but not in a "useful" manner. umm.
well perhaps he didn't feel like carrying his gun. he *is* a lunatic, after all. :)
a computer has protected me from harm. it made me stay indoors most of the time, instead of staying outside and getting sunburnt. :)
no, i want the public to be able to decide whether or not the ability to own guns will be limited. i myself am not particularly keen on the idea of my next-door neighbours, and the yobs i used to go to school with, owning guns, but if the people want guns they should have them. and vice versa.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:58:24 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Useful to WHOM?
I am entertaining myself and enhancing my skill in using a firearm which I may need to use to defend myself.
That's useful to me. I don't much care what anyone else thinks about it.
Just not an effective one!
I don't think I could have thrown a PC far enough and with enough force to stop the guy from running me off the road. It isn't very intimidating either. A loaded rifle on the other hand.... : )
Then why not have them limit the right of homosexuals to have sex with people of the same sex, or for women to go about without wearing a chador?
See how simple that is. If you don't want a gun, you shouldn't be forced to have one. I shouldn't be denied one, absent some felonious act on my part.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Guns have uses other than unprovoked aggression. They can also be used in self-defense.
Life would be _much_ more difficult if only cops and crooks were armed.
A murderous lunatic may very well do so. And he only needs to have it on him when he gets the urge to kill. And he's very unlikely to be deterred against having it on him by any laws that aren't insanely draconian.
In your judgement. In the judgement of those who want to limit computer use (and believe me, there are _plenty_ of those on the fundamentalist right), they don't.
Same thing with guns. Those who want to own them believe that the benefits outweigh the risks.
If it's ok to ban guns, it's equally ok to ban computers.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 19:16:29 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
If I need to defend myself, I'm going to REALLY need to defend myself. Not being able to pare an apple is a somewhat lesser dilemma than not being able to make someone stop stabbing you.
It depends upon whom you ask. National Public Radio here did a series on racial violence in Europe. One of the stories was about Black and Asian immigrants in British housing estates who were attacked in their homes by axe-wielding skinheads. I suppose being murdered is a bit difficult.
What if the "people" want chadors and female circumcision?
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
yeah, but *everybody* not being able to pare an apple, *ever* would just be damn annoying. :)
i have never heard of asian or black immigrants anywhere around here being attacked in their homes by axe-wielding skinheads. there are a lot of asian immigrants in this area, and well, there's some racism but not often of that scale. attacks must happen, but it can't be very often.
Ah but as you know, having a gun is not the only way of stopping someone stab you, admittedly it is probably one of the more efficient ways :)
So just eat the damned apple skin and all, that's what teeth are for :)
For the most part no.
I have heard of cases such as the one Chris mentions, however I have also heard of the reverse, of the blacks attacking the asians, of the asians attacking the blacks etc. What irritates me sometimes is that racisim isn't just whites against non-whites, it can be any group against any other group. I believe he gave the example of the Chicargo blacks hating the Jews there.
Excuse my ignorance I understand the female circumsision bit, but WTF is a chador ?
Ah that thing. Yes I have seen them being worn in Coventry as I believe it has a reasonably large Muslim population. (Large in respect to the other asians in the city).
On 09 Aug 2000 02:27:38 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
I recall an NPR story about how the French public school system was FORBIDDING Islamic girls from wearing the chador. Something about overt shows of religion, or some such....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Which is odd in direct contrast British (state) schools have to have a christian religious assembly once every so often (I think it's once a week, may be daily though). Which is downright ludicrous, considdering the amount of non-christians in the UK, though I believe the non-christians do have the right to opt out as it where. Am I right in assuming that this cannot happen in US schools due to seperation of church & state ?
Ah you got that right then :) (not that I'm implying that you got everything else wrong before anyone jumps on me :) ). Always bugged me that it was like that here, after all there are so many other faiths here now, and there are church** run schools for those who's parents considder they want their childeren to go to a school with a "religious element". Is that allowed in the US ?
Dammit I wish Martin hadn't unsubscribed, he coulda helped on this one :)
**By church I mean, church or other religious body depending on religion in question.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:27:58 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
There are private schools which are run by religeous organizations. They must simply demonstrate the ability of their students to retain some sort of licence (don't precisely know the details). The parents of children who go to these schools end up, in theory, paying double for school costs since not only do they pay the taxes which support public schools, they also must pay whatever tuition is required.
This is changing in several places, where a "voucher" program is being tested. Due to the horribly inefficient nature of the U.S. school system, many areas are allowing people to allocate the education dollars directly to the educational institution of their choice.
Yeah I guess the same is pretty much the same here, people paying twice, though I don't actually know, I think the church schools in the UK are pretty much funded by the churches themselves and are therefore fee-less, then again in the UK, it's mostly the biger religions that can fund their own schools.
That's reasonable I suppose, after all if your child attends "Laaawndale High", it seems silly to be paying for "Hope High School" :)
(Spot the ref, some of the longer term fans *SHOULD* get it).
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:31:05 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
It certainly can't LEGALLY happen, and the Supreme Court has ruled in that regard within the last month or so. Unlike the UK, we don't have a state church, and such is expressly FORBIDDEN by our constitution.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Humm, I'll agree that you got that right, whilst I agree that people should have religious freedom, I dont think there should be a link between church & state, which is the reason IMHO for some of the UK's whakyer laws :)
For example, it used to be illeagal to buy a Bible on a Sunday, as it was a book, but perfectly ok to buy Playboy...go figure :)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:04:29 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
The problem with some religious people is that they confuse the right to practice their religion with the right to IMPOSE it on others, by force if necessary. I once had a girlfriend who stated authoritatively one day that there should be MANDATORY Baptist prayer in the public schools, and if the Catholics, Jews and Muslims didn't like it, they could go to PRIVATE school. She wasn't very pleased with my response....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:07:21 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
That's not solely a religious people's problem. Lots of people think like that. It's just most evident in religion because that's where people have the strongest beliefs.
Although I thank you profusely for saying "some religious people"
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:15:27 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
How about this answer: Me, Jordan, Christopher, and ever other gun-toting person who actually cares about people's rights. Clearly, you will not be among us.
This sort of aggressive home-invasion race-rioting would be almost impossible in most parts of America under most circumstances. The home invaders would wind up dead in the streets.
(Note: in the 1870's, Southern States passed the first state-level American gun control laws. Their purpose: to disarm blacks so that the Klan could do pretty much just what those skinheads did in Britain. Though, of course, the _Klan_ had firearms. Not that gun control would have prevented that, since the Klan also had the local constables and sheriffs on their side).
As is the case in Iran and parts of Africa, respectively.
MUCH less often. Which doesn't mean as much as you might think, because when you need to defend yourself, you REALLY need to defend yourself. You can't ask your assailant "Excuse me, I'm not ready for you. Could you come back later when I have a gun?"
There are whole types of rioting which are a lot less likely in America, or at least parts of America where people are customarily armed. For example, during the LA riots, the mobs who invaded Koreatown were successfully repelled by shopowners who went onto their rooftops with rifles.
Neither will banning guns. Well, it _will_ help career criminals.
What if "the people" (meaning the majority) want something outright evil? Like a Judenrein nation, for example.
Ah well here's one of the critical differences between the UK and the US, we are not supposed to "take the law into our own hands", which would technically mean that sniping from the rooftops was just as illeagal. (Assuming that guns where leagal to use of course). This is the idea of having a police force which for the most part does it's job reasonably well under the circumstances.
Maybe not, but I don't see any more 'carrear criminals' here that on average for the rest of the industrialised world.
Sorry to be pedantic but define "evil" that is after all a relative term also. What exactly do you mean by "Judenrein" if it's what I think it is ( (a jewish free state achieved by mas murder) then yes our definitions of evil are in agreement, and I would considder it a bad thing.
What do you do when you are endangerd and the police force is _not_ protecting you? Would you honestly prefer that the Koreans have submitted to pogrom? Would you argue that we should have prosecuted them for defending their neighborhoods from murderous invasion?
Deliberate violation of the "natural rights" (life, liberty, and secure enjoyment of one's property) of another.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:25:03 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
It's worked that way in practice for me. I don't think I would have been helped by driving all the way to Ft. Knox from St. Louis to get a gun to protect myself from the guy who was trying to run us off the interstate in Missouri.
What are you supposed to do? Let someone burn you to death in your business or dwelling?
The LAPD are sniveling cowards. When things got rough they RAN. Apparently they like beating men lying prone on the ground more than fighting armed rioters. Trucker Reginald Denney was rescued from the mob by a group of Black people who stood on the running boards of his truck as he drove blind, following their instructions. They tried REPEATEDLY to flag down LA cops who sped by them in full retreat, ignoring their pleas for assistance.
My life doesn't become forfeit merely because the cops pee their pants at the thought of confronting somebody NOT in handcuffs.
Do you think that you have a duty to be murdered if a cop can't be bothered to "protect" you, even if he's watching you be set upon?
Oh yeah, in case you didn't know it, in the United States there is NO legal duty whatever for the police to protect any individual. If a cop watches you as you are dismembered with a chainsaw, neither he nor the police department have ANY legal liability.
That's not what I'm hearing. I hear that your violent crime rate is sky-rocketing.
Judenrhein(sp) would be "pure of Jews". Judenfrei would be "free of Jews". Same difference. In either case, the Jews have the absolute moral right to defend themselves from extermination, by whatever means are necessary, including lethal force.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On 08 Aug 2000 10:34:19 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
It's illustrative to compare the anti-Korean riots in Tokyo after the Great Kanto Earthquake of '23, and the anti-Korean riots in LA during the Rodney King disturbances.
In both cases, the police whistled a merry tune and looked the other way while the Koreans were set upon.
Of course in LA, they had Swedish Mausers and Korean Daewoo semi-automatic rifles. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out in which riot the Koreans incurred the LEAST amount of casualties.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
But you can't really trust all widget owners to store there widgets properly either. That isn't really a valid reason to ban guns, because if it were, it could be used as a valid reason to ban anything.
Real lunatics rarely cool down on their own (and real lunatics should be nowhere near anything that could even possibly be used as a weapon).
But then again, I could be threatening him directly, which *could* be a good reason. BTW, I hope there is no one out there that wants to shoot me for any reason.
Heheheh :) Actually I've never played on Won, tend to stick to UK & European servers as they tend to be faster for me (as I only have a modem at the mo, hopefully I'll be getting DSL at the end of the year).
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:11:58 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Be glad that Ameritech isn't one of your DSL choices. Once you've got it, it's pretty good, but getting there is like low crawling through broken glass. There are times when you wonder if the destination is going to justify the trip.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Humm we are having similar problems with BT here in the UK, they are faffing about and not getting the service sorted, and until they are forced to unbundle the cables sometime next year, all ISPs have to run the service over their cables, with their equipment. What is angering a lot of people at the moment, is that for the cheapest optioin of connecting a single computer to the net, they are only offering a USB device, which means tough luck if you run anything other than Win 9x or Win 2000 (though Linux drivers are being developed, whic I do plan to use).
Mind you I'm probably going to wait till the end of the year, when hopefully they will have got the service running properly and ironed out all the bugs :)
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000 20:11:50 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Ameritech tried to set up a USB DSL device on my system, and couldn't make it work. Locked the system up EVERY time. I ended up with the ethernet version. I've bought and downloaded the Linux version of the Enternet 300 software and am working on tightening up the security on my prospective Linux gateway/firewall even as I type this. Just got done printing out a bunch of security alerts.
Now that I have DSL, I have a little archiving project in mind for a certain racist in tpg who thinks that X-No-Archive will keep his words from coming back to haunt him. And maybe it did... before DSL; large, cheap hard disks; and CDROM burners! : )
I'm thinking of a searchable Jim Kennemur (Voltai) archive on my website. : )
I'm sure a search of his posts using the terms "nigger" and "lawn jockey" would prove VERY interesting....
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:49:41 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Really?
I've gone through a case and a half of ammunition (@7500 rounds) in less than a year. And that's just .22 long rifle ammunition. It doesn't count .45ACP and .38 Special for my other pistols, or rifle ammunition.
Have I killed some astonishing number of people?
Or am I misusing my guns by NOT killing anyone?
Or is your statement both untrue AND irrelevant?
Do you get angry? Do you you have knives? How come you don't stab people when you get angry at them?
My god-sister's boyfriend stabbed her to death. She wasn't shot, but she's still dead.
Then is it preferable that it be certain that he kills me wrongfully because I can't defend myself, than there be the vague possibility that I might shoot him?
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
what exactly did you "use" your guns for, then? was it anything particularly useful?
you tell me.
no.
if i had been beaten by my husband for 30 years, i might be angry enough to kill him. however it is somewhat more difficult to kill with a knife than with a gun.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:09:06 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
I won my class (Sharpshooter) in the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Pistol League. I'm leading my current class (Expert) in our summer club league.
It was useful to me.
Who decides what's "useful"?
Not being gay, I don't find homosexuality useful in MY life. I'm sure George Michael has a different take. Not desiring to interfere in the activities of people who don't do me harm, that's fine with me.
Let's assume that I only killed with 1/3 of my shots fired. Don't you think you might have heard SOMETHING about it?
Then either I've killed a LOT of people or I'm misusing my guns.
Which is it?
It wasn't more difficult for my god-sister's boyfriend.
Of course if your husband beat you for 30 years, perhaps at some point you ought to have said, "stop". If he wouldn't, you'd have every right to stop him in the act by whatever means were necessary. You don't have a duty to let someone physically harm you in any way. At the least you should have left.
It's absolutely relevant. There weren't any guns present and she's dead.
Either I can have the ability to defend myself or I can abjure it. If I abjure it, he then has the option of killing me without meaningful resistance.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Alli, first off, if he were beating on you for thirty *seconds* you'd have the right to defend yourself. That you'd even consider waiting three decades before *maybe* get angry enough to do something about it doesn't say much for your sense of self-worth.
Second, you might not have to shoot at all. Just the sight of a gun might stop him.
Third, if he persists in an unjustified attack when you've got a gun in his face, why should you *not* shoot him, even if it's only in the leg to disable him? Even if you *don't* feel like doing future generations a favor by disinfecting the gene pool a little, why do you feel obligated to take the beating? -IdentityCrisis
I don't think she was, she was just illustrating the point with an extream example. And it is supprising in how many situations a woman will 'tollarate' this sort of behaviour for such a long time, no matter how wrong it is.
Maybe.
Partially disable him, after all if he's also armed he could still shoot back if he wanted to, even shot in the foot :)
Err I kinda have a prob with this statement, prolly not what you meant, but wasn't 'trying to disinfect the gene pool' what the Natzi's where trying to do, by exterminating the Jews ?
I don't think se does, she was just showing by example.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:53:45 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
One of my upstairs neighbors used to regularly bang his wife/girlfriend's head on the floor. When I figured out what was going on, I started calling the cops on him every time I heard her hitting the floor. She'd never press charges.
The last time, the cops showed up and left again because she denied everything. Then while I was upstairs at a friend's place looking at one of his target rifles, I saw the moron climb out on the window ledge, as if to jump. It was REALLY tempting to put him out of everyone's misery with a .308 to the head from that scoped target rifle, but I called the cops instead. They came to get him and he started kicking one of them when he tried to pull him in. The cop, whom I'd competed with in rifle matches, yanked him inside and "counseled him" vigorously. The girl had to be taken to the hospital. I don't know if she EVER pressed charge. The cops did.
You never shoot to "disable". You shoot to stop, which is center of mass or head. If the person isn't dangerous enough to kill, he isn't dangerous enough to shoot at all.
Shooting people isn't like in the movies. They have a tendency to be maimed or killed. You should never take your own life less than seriously, but you shouldn't do that with anyone else's either. If nothing else, it'll tend to keep you out of jail.
True, but we both know there's a fundamental difference. Being a wife beater has quantifiable harms associated with it. I can't say the same thing about being a Jew.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Well, if she *chooses* to take it when she has alternatives, that's her option. But that doesn't mean that she's under any moral *obligation* to take it.
It's a chance worth taking, when compared to the certainty that he *won't* stop otherwise.
Yes, but the Nazis initiated the use of force against those (the Jews) who had forced no one. That put *them* in the wrong. A wife-beater is usually the one initiating the use of force, putting *him* in the wrong. The wife-beater's wrong-doing may not be on the same scale as that of Hitler's, but the principle (harming innocent victums) is the same.
I'd like to know how many things people that live around me have that can kill me. And I don't just mean guns, I want to know where all the cars, crossbows, rocks, lawn mowers, whatever are that might be able to hurt me.
A lot of difference. More guns to steal, more opportunities for accidents, more possibilities for people to stumble upon them who shouldn't be near them.
But, I also wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. While I wouldn't recommend anyone having a lot of superflous guns, I don't really think that there should be any legislation setting any limit for gun ownership. I was more thinking along the lines of limits on how many guns any person could buy at any time, like two guns a month (or whatever). Something that would put a hamper on gun running. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, there has been at least one case that I can remeber occurring (the specifics escape me) in my area where a man had bought large quantities of guns legally and then sold them on the black market. It turned out that a disproportionate amount of these guns ended up being used to commit crimes.
You realize that that is a stupid question. Would you want to live next to someone who had hundreds of firearms? Sure, it probably would scare away the criminals, but who would protect you from the guy with the guns?
Why? Someone goes to buy a gun, they do a background check. If the person passes they get to buy a gun. Where does registration come in to the equation? They do background checks on most gun buyers now without registration, how would making it mandatory require registration?
Asking for clarification (I'm not trying to be a smart ass): You mean registration of guns, only? Because my car is registered, no one has ever tried to take it away from me, even for a good reason.
ago,
Good surprised, or bad surprised? ;)
First, I thought I was trying to be sympathetic with both sides of this issue, obviously I didn't do that well enough. Second, I wouldn't try to prevent people from owning guns, it's in the constitution (and there is absolutely NO WAY the 2nd amendment could be repealed, and it shouldn't be). Third, some one has to do something, the way things are now obviously isn't working very well - the only problem (and disagreement) is how to change things for the better. And the problem with this is that neither side will budge on anything, gun nuts want unlimited access, anti-gun nuts want to get rid of all of them, when in reality neither is really possible. The majority of gun owners, who are responsible, shouldn't be penalized, but there is a limit to freedoms spelled out in the constitution (ObDaria: you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater).
My point is that it's a very complex issue with no simple answer that everyone can be happy with, but people do for the simple answers because they don't want to give in, just like any other issue that polarizes like this one.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:28:01 -0700, Michael J. Quinn wrote:
You seem like a VERY inquisitive fellow... intrusive actually. To be honest, I feel MUCH more threatened by someone who wants to know EVERYTHING about his neighbors than somebody who just owns a gun.
How am I going to have "accidents" with more than one gun at at time? Juggling them?
Again, what difference does it make? If I have twenty now, how will my buying three today make a difference.
"Gun-running" is something the BATF by and large doesn't bother to prosecute. After all, "gun-runners" might shoot them. It's a lot easier and safer to try to entrap people into committing technical violations of law at their behest.
Too, they don't seem all that concerned about cops selling confiscated guns out of evidence rooms either.
Yes. Actually, I'd like to BE someone who had hundreds of firearms. Would you care to contribute to the "Buy Chris Morton One of Each Kind of Luger" fund?
If I have "hundreds" of guns, how is that more "dangerous" than TWO? Can I shoot "hundreds" of guns simultaneously?
And why would I need to be protected ANYWAY? I'm a lot more concerned about the NYPD and LAPD than 99% of gunowners I've known. None of them has shot anyone for NOT selling them drugs.
If I buy a gun from YOU, how does anyone know whether a background check was done? Besides, the FBI is illegally keeping the records. That's why I buy ALL of my guns from individuals.
When you can point out an organization called the National Coalition to Ban Automobiles, you might have a point.
Not that many people want to ban cars... yet.
Aside from that, if I drive on private property, I need neither license nor registration. Talk to somebody who lives on a farm some time.
It depends upon whether you like deceit, corruption and racism. : )
I know a number of people who DO want to prevent anyone other than the rich, the politically connected, and those of the "right" race or ethnicity from owning guns. You might not be one of them, but there are quite a few who think that way.
Unless it's on fire. : )
My point is that most of the anti-gun comment I see arises out of ignorance, malice, or both. I don't see any malice in what you say, but I submit that you don't necessarily understand the purposes of gun control in the United States, nor how it is implemented.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
You are twisting my words (in a very paranoid fashion, I might add). I don't want to know "EVERYTHING about [my] neighbors," I just want to know what they might have that can possibly hurt anyone - what is so unreasonable about that?
It's probability - the more guns you have to clean, the more of a chance that one of them go off if you screw up while doing it (I'm saying you'd screw up, but everyone makes mistakes once and a while). I guess I shouldn't have a problem with that - you'd only be hurting yourself.
want to take myself down to that level>
Ohmigod, we agree on something, they should prosecute them! But why not make it a little harder for it to happen in the first place?
Then they should be (like I said, I feel I'm being sympatheic to both sides here).
Yes what?
Heheh, funny.
That's not the point and you know it, more possible instruments of crime (not just gun, anything that can be used in a crime) equals more chance of a crime, unless the possesor has the security capability of a small army (and sometimes that isn't even good enough). And I'm not saying you would commit a crime, and you don't have to be able to fire all of the guns at once.
If you don't need protection, why do you need a gun? (Cheap shot, I know)
That 1% id the part everyone is worried about.
Anther symptom of your paranoia. Though maybe it's because all of the police officers you've met have been bad ones.
This doesn't even make sense (to me).
That should be against the law, to buy guns from individuals (and I realize it would be tough, if not impossible, to enforce)
More paranoia. How do you know what the FBI is doing? That doesn't mean they aren't doing it - just I don't know.
I think I'll start a "Ban SUV" club ;)
Someone, anyone, wants to ban cars. That is news to me (seriously).
I know that, but one of the reasons I don't like the car analogy (and sort of regreted bringing it up) is that it isn't even remotely the same. It rings hollow if either side brings it up, because it's apples and oranges.
Well if they're all lying, corrupt racists in Chicago, then I best stay away :)
No, everyone should have the same legal access to guns, I don't just want the rich people to have them - they have too much power as it is. The "politacally connected" are the people we should be trying to vote out of office (which is why I'm less than thrilled about the two "big horses" in the presidential race). I would never argue that people of certain ethnicity should be barred from this or any right just for that reason. That would be akin to being a klansman, and we should be trying to get rid of people like that before the corrupt politicians.
Of course ;)
I don't think anyone should be trying to take guns away completely in America, like others have said, there are plenty of places to go that are relatively gun free, if that's what you want, but you will also probably lose some other freedoms that you had here. To me, I'd rather take the risk of being shot and stay her and have relatively more freedom.
And my point is that there has to be some sort of comproimise, and not everyone has to be 100% happy with it (that is what compromise is) because the problem is bad. It's probably not half as bad as the media would have us believe, but it is bad. I don't agree with a lot of the ways the extreme left want to control guns, in the same way I don't like the way the extreme right wants no restriction at all. It is a right in the constitution that we all should have.
All I would ask, is for people on the extremes of both side to be a little less stubborn and at least try to listen to what the other side is saying, because both sides have their share of valid points (and their share of stupid ones).
And I take back some of the comments in the other thread, largely because I was angry and I hadn't read every message yet, I apologize to anyone I offended.
And for the record, I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican, I don't really like any of them.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:38:52 -0700, Michael J. Quinn wrote:
"Paranoid"? Oh yeah, that would be somebody who would believe that the FBI would illegally spy on Dr. Martin Luther King.
And just HOW do you plan to find out what I might have "that can possibly hurt anyone"? House to house searches?
What's unreasonable about it? Try reading the 4th amendment.
I don't clean loaded guns. This just reinforces the fact that support for repressive gun controls is borne both of factual ignorance and paranoia. You want to know what's in everyone else's home, and you call ME paranoid?
You're not making it harder. You're only violating the rights of the innocent.
Trading liberty for the illusion of security results in neither.
But they WON'T. It's dangerous and they're cowards. They'd rather spend their time hosting racist jamborees and holding seminars on how to commit perjury.
Yes, I'd like to live next door to somebody who has hundreds of firearms, Lugers and Mauser broomhandles is possible. Failing that, M1903 Springfields and European top break revolvers.
But absolutely serious. I'm not afraid of guns. One or one thousand, it makes utterly no difference to me.
No, I don't know it. Certainly you haven't made the case.
The your argument is based on a vague contingency. Rights shouldn't be abridged on the basis of vague contingencies.
I don't need protection from somebody who merely owns guns. I need protection from people who would do me harm. Are you saying I need protection from someone who collects Enfield muskets, but NOT from somebody who does home invasions armed with a machete?
But you're NOT concerned about the NYPD and LAPD? Maybe you don't need to. Maybe you aren't Black.
The last ones Amadou Diallo met were bad ones. He's dead.
Look up the name Patrick Dorismond. Look up why the NYPD shot him to death.
Then why pass a law that's impossible to enforce? I certainly won't obey it.
Because they're being SUED for it. Because they ADMIT it.
Apparently anything which contradicts you is born of "paranoia".
And I'll buy an SUV just to defy you.
There are Kaczynski style Luddites around who want to ban cars.
I guess you voluntarily fell on THAT sword. : )
The ones in charge are. The Whites are racists. The Blacks are anti-Semites. It's a cesspool with highways running through it.
But that's the sine qua non of the gun control industry as I've experienced it. If I had a dime for every time one of them called me a "nigger" for refusing to blindly support gun control, and for pointing out the racist history of gun control in this country, I'd be able to buy Georg Luger's personal carbine with coinage.
But they ARE trying to do that, and both the ends and means are authoritarian and racist. Look at Daley's attempts to have warrantless searches in public housing in Chicago.
The anti-gun side isn't interested in compromise, only a total ban for anyone not of the privileged classes or their servants.
When I've got people screaming "nigger" at me, threatening my life, and email bombing me, the last thing I need to stop being is "stubborn".
To a large extent, the Republicans and Democrats are opposite faces of the same counterfeit coin.
I don't want a ban on abortion OR guns.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Sometimes being paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :)
Good point, more for a feeling of security. I know that there is no way I can know about all of the things out there that could hurt me. And I agree that I'd rather not know and live under relative freedom than live in a police state.
You don't, but you're a responsible guy (oh no, feeling of being backed into a corner). I guess you're right about this, anyone stupid enough to clean their guns while they're loaded deserves to shoot themslef in the foot. I don't really have any desire (or obligation) to protect the stupid from themselves.
Don't you want to know what people near you are doing that could possibly hurt you? At least so you could protect yourself from it. It seems live more of a survival instinct than anything.
How?
Is there any proof that it wouldn't work? (if there is, it's a bad example)
And they wonder why people (especially young people like myself) are apathetic and cynical towards the political process. It's so corrupt that you can't swing a dead cat without hitting something corrupt.
I'm not really scared of guns either, I'm more scared of the crazy people (and I'm not talking about you, you're obviously not crazy) that might get them.
I don't think it's vague. It may end up being wrong, but it feels straightforward.
No, I'm not asking for anyone to give up their firearms for purposes of protection. I just don't see why anyone would need so many firearms to protect themself, like you said, you couldn't fire them all at the same time anyway (This isn't even a question of law here, I wouldn't want to limit the amount of guns anyone could own - that would be very unconstitutional - I just don't understand it).
I'm not concerned that they are going to shoot me, more because I don't live in NY or LA and have little reason to go to either place. I AM concerned that the police do sometimes (more often than we want to believe sometimes) go way over the line in "doing there job" especially in those places. If Rodney King had a gun and shot those "officers" that brutally beat him, I wouldn't really feel bad for them - they would have gotten what they deserved (which would have been more than what they did get). Now I just feel bad that they got away with it without learning any lesson.
Another point I might add, maybe I don't fear the police, because, in the town I live in, most of the police are good people that haven't had a lot of problems with overstepping the authority of what they should do. (For the record, I live outside, but not too far from Philadelphia - and I'm not talking about Philly cops, I don't really know any of them and I've heard/seen good and bad things about them)
You're right. That was totally inexcusable and shouldn't happen (and is another reason why people like me start to lose faith in the system).
Sorry, didn't know that nugget.
I thought that was obviously a joke.
They would be at least as dangerous as anything or anyone else
Yes, I did :)
I've never been there, can't comment on it. I'll take your word for it (it wouldn't completely surprise me anyway).
They are wrong.
I can understand your passion on this subject even more now (and being passionate is a good thing).
They shouldn't be allowed, that's why we have to vote the whole bunch of them out of office, and then vote out the people that replace them until they get the idea that this kind of stuff isn't acceptable.
Talk about an uphill battle ;)
That sucks and is worse than the gun violence.
That's true, but you have to admit the pro gun side is just as unwilling sometimes.
Which is why, if I do choose to vote this year, I couldn't vote for either Gush or Bore with a clear conscious.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:35:32 GMT, Mike Quinn wrote:
The nice thing about the United States government is it's infinite capacity to disappoint and disgust! : )
And when you allow the government to protect people from themselves, you inevitably need someone to protect you from the government.
But you don't want to know what they're DOING, you want to know what they HAVE. I don't think you can come up with a non-intrusive way of doing that.
And once you do it for guns, why can't you do it for pornography or "subversive" materials?
The only way to do what you want is through intrusive surveillance.
Is there any evidence that it WOULD... without violations of the 4th and 5th amendments?
One of the most chilling, cynical and bizarre comments I've ever heard was Bill Clinton telling people they had no RIGHT to be cynical. Pure Twilight Zone....
I'm more afraid of cops with guns. They have little skill and less judgement. And they think they're above the law.
You don't suspect any person of any specific wrongdoing.
That's the essence of tolerance, to leave people alone who do things you don't understand, but which don't harm you.
A naked man is no more erotic to me than a sheet of plywood. I still accept that there are men who are attracted to other men. I don't see any reason to interfere with any consensual relationships they might have.
That's where you differ from some of the tpg crowd. Some of them are just consumed with malice for any and everyone, but Black people especially. For them, government isn't the consent of the governed, but some kinky S&M game.
I'm from Chicago. The Chicago PD is so dirty, you can smell them coming.
But they got away with it... and another bunch got away with murdering Patrick Dorismond, and for NOT selling them drugs too.
That sends a real message, huh?
Plaintiffs lost in federal court. I think they're appealing.
So was the reply... sort of.
I once showed a girlfriend here in Cleveland, a "Chicago Magazine" article on an aide to the [Black] at the time acting mayor. One of his aides was distributing audiotapes accusing Jews of injecting Black children with AIDS. The charges were shown to several Black city council members... who professed to find the charges "credible". Whites in city government are no better.
It gets even more surreal, since according to them, I can't POSSIBLY be Black, since I don't let them assign my opinions to me.
Why do you think they're so afraid of the internet? I remember a number of years ago, one of the establishment news columnists was indignant that nobody "controlled" what was put on the internet.
Not to hear some people tell it. I should be able to vote to waive YOUR 4th amendment rights without your consent... or so they'd have it.
And why not? There's not "compromise" on the other side. In a compromise BOTH sides give up something. What has Charles Schumer offered to give up?
I absolutely can't vote for Gore and I have my doubts about Bush.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
That old joke is always good for a chuckle, but's it's still pretty niave to believe that government conspiracies can never happen.
No, it just proves that we're both working on theory that either can't be proved or hasn't been proved yet.
Why the hell not? Anything remotely political evokes cynicism from (and I'm guessing) three quarters of the population, the rest of the people either don't care one way or the other about anything, are really dumb or are the types that are a little bit too eager to go to either political party's convention. And those groups aren't even mutually exclusive.
They would be part of those crazy people (the bad ones). To be honest, where I live is fairly lazy. A couple of months ago, I had to call 911 because there was a drunk passed out in a park nexy to my yard (we decided to call 911 for the ambulence, the guy wasn't moving and he looked like he might have been close to death - he wasn't really much of a threat when we called) and within minutes about ten officers were at my house with the ambulence. My point is, if that many officers had the time to make sure a drunk wasn't dead, then not much is happening.
Heh heh :)
That bad police aren't punished like they should be.
Sorry... sort of :)
I think they might just be afraid that someone smarter than themselves that also has different veiws :)
More of the, "afraid of what you don't understand" stuff that we're all guilty of once and a while, the only problem is that some of these people might be able to do something large about it.
That's like trying to control the sea :P
That's what I'm saying, I don't blame you for not giving in until the other side shows they're willing to too. If there's any problem with it, is that it a creates a stalemate, where nothing could be done, even if both sides would agree to whatever.
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:09:41 GMT, Mike Quinn wrote:
There's always *someone* reasonable running for president, though he usually doesn't make the big press (or any press). I'll be mining the 'net for info about lesser known cantidates.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:01:05 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
Actually, just to disagree with Chris on something, I do think that gun registration, properly implemented, is a good idea. So long as it is made known that the purpose of said registration is not to limit gun ownership, but rather to ensure that the proper location of weapons is known, and that any weapons found outside said places (now what is that gun doing *here*?) is prosecutable. People would still have access to their guns if they were needed, but any guns found outside their hands (such as the hands of a thief, or someone who purchased it illegally) would be sufficient for illegal suspicion. This would ensure that the guns are owned only by those that have nothing to hide.
So under this system, Chris would have nothing to fear. There would be a simple matter of a routine background check at the beginning (probably just scan for outstanding warrants, to make sure), slap some numbers on, and go on their way. No need to continue investigating this, unless a gun is found in the hands of someone other than Chris, during a crime, and was *not* reported stolen. If it was reported stolen, it would be a simple matter of returning the guns and advising him to take better precautions against theft. Perhaps a clause could be inserted for people who's guns are repeatedly "stolen."
There is the problem that a central gun registry gives the feds the information required to carry out a full scale disarmament. But under this system, the second amendment still stands, even better than under the gun limitation laws. For while it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it also includes the phrase "well regulated militia." Not only that, but even if a disarmament law were illegally enacted, people still have their guns for just such an eventuality...
Yes but he was basically saying that if a British person wanted to buy a gun they could just go out to their friendly street-corner black market gun dealer and buy one. But he was talking from an American perspective, his comment showing the cultural gulf I was talking about. The difference between Britain and America isn't our laws but our culture. It's not that we have strict laws on gun ownership, it's that we don't have a gun culture. As Alli said: "people just *don't have guns* here".
Chris's response is that I could make my own gun. But why should I want to? I've thought about how my life would have been different if I'd owned a gun, and guess what? The difference is that I would have one gun's worth less money. There has not been single occasion in my life where a gun would have been of any use to me. Maybe if I lived in America it would be different, but I don't, and like most people here I feel safer living in a largely gun-free society, where even the police prefer not to carry guns.
I was responding to the notion of people having guns here though. If people in the US feel they're better off owning guns that's ultimately up to them. But it's a mistake to imagine that what is right for the USA is right for another country. You can't validly apply a concept from one culture to another without doing lengthy analysis of the knock-on effects. To suggest that someone here would be safer if they had a gun to defend themself against an attacker is superficially plausible but in reality it could only take place in the context of an enormous cultural change, the outcome of which may easily be the opposite of what was intended.
The same point could be made about all laws though. Doubtless many laws are passed just so politicians can feel productive, but some seem to work. Another way of looking at it though is that laws are an expression of the culture they come from: perhaps the fact that most criminals don't have guns here is not because of the laws but because they are part of the culture which made those laws.
I said nothing about streetcorners. I can't buy drugs on a streetcorner in Rocky River, OH. Want to bet I can't get them here in some other way?
You kind of remind me of a friend's Korean fiance, who when the Village People were explained to her, stated solemnly, "I think there are no people like that in Korea!"
I expect that you'd be really surprised by what you actually can get, and the effort (or lack thereof) required.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:25:32 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
As if Al Gore would be any better. Personally, I think the best thing that could result from this election is the votes getting so split among third parties and independents that it gets thrown into Congress. *That* would make a statement. ;-)
I threw the first stone a few messages back... ;-)
Only if you can BUILD a whale in your basement with minimal effort.
The "perceived difficulties" are just that... perceived.
That didn't work for me the night somebody tried to run a fellow army officer and myself off of an interstate highway about 01:00 in the morning. It was showing him the automatic rifle that reminded him of pressing business elsewhere.
I suppose it would depend upon what you considered more dangerous, knowing the "wrong people", or not having any meaningful way to defend yourself from the "wrong people" whom you meet not by design.
Nor are you apparently afforded the autonomy that we are.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Well yes and no, it's not like we have gun dealers standing on street corners selling guns (yes we do have drug dealers, but so does the US).
Err that *WAS NOT THE UK* and besides assuming that those groups had had access to guns, it probably would not have helped them, remember part of the point of all the propoganda was to turn the common people against them, and use them to expose the "victimised people".
Please if you are going to continuse this argument, rember that we are not (yet :) ) a "United states of Europe" just beacuse siad things happenbed in one European country does not mean that we are all guilty of them.
As for socialisim, well the US doesn't exactly have a very good record where that is concerned does it now ? (ok yeah I know there are subtle differences between Socialist and Communist, but the point is still I think valid).
No that's not what Alli is saying, I think the point she is getting at is that beacause there is much less chance of a firearm being involved you (or the criminal for that matter) are less likley to wind up dead, and IMHO I have no more right to shoot a potential attacker dead than he does me, someone is still dead.
There aren't any crack dealers on the streets of Rocky River that I've seen. Think I can't by drugs here if I want them?
And tell me how they would have been WORSE off. When you're subject to genocide, your first priority shouldn't be to protect the thugs who want to wipe you out.
Not having socialism is a benefit.
That's where you're wrong. What is robbery or rape other than the threat of lethal force in order to compel the handing over of property, or engaging in sexual contact?
If you weren't in fear of your life, why would you give someone your wallet or let them rape you in the first place? Don't want to get shot attempting rape? Don't attempt rape.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Yes they may be able to be bought on the black market but they are not nearly so readily available. Also cirtainly in the UK, IIRC the law is structured ina a way that the sentence (assuming criminal is cort and convicted), for carying out a crime with a gun is much heavier than for just doing the crime without the gun. Also the lack of frr availability means that joe pissed off teenager can't just go 'borrow' daddy's gun and go on a rampage.
This is IMHO false logic, considder a criminal who wants to mug me knows I may be carrying a gun, so they are also armed, they are gonna attack me assuming that any move I make is to go for my gun and they are going to shoot first. Ok, so without gun I may get mugged and money stolen, but at least I don't end up in hospital or worse than that dead (Jim!).
Also in this country (UK) criminals on the whole are less likeley to be armed with guns, because of above dificulty in obtaining them.
Ah yes the "right to bear arms", while that looking at the US in a historical context I can see why this was origianlly part of the constitution, but it IMHO makes no sense now in a (supposedly) civilised country.
Could you explain the logic behind this.
No criminals *MAY* have guns, depending on the crime they intend to commit, also if guns are illeagal to own without a licence for ex, then anyone caught with a gun, and without a licence has already broken the law and can be arrested.
[Snip!]
I think he/she was refering to the internal state of the country, not the fact that it is a world power. The US may be a "leading world power" but it is far from perfect, better than some places, but worse than others. Just to make things clear, I don't think the UK is perfect either, no where is, but I guess I think I'm on the whole better off here than there. You are of course free to disagree.
Well just to ad my 2p, (or 3.2c :) ), peronally I didn't object to anything Clinton did in his private life what I objected to ws the fact that the presedent of a world power lied in court under oath, that sends very clear messages about the trostworthyness of the current presedent, hell at least Nixon had the good grace to resign. The point being if Clinton lied obout Monica under oath what else would he be prepared to lie about ?
By which you obvioulsy mean "goes around trying to bully any country it doesn't agree with" Ok, I will agree that some of the action the US has taken has been perfectly valid (Gulf War for ex).
Yeah but look back into the US' not too distant past and we find that this has not always been so.
It doesn't it's a seperate and quite valid point, one of the reasons that I personally feel much safer in general living in the UK.
Yeah but such "acts of God" would happen no matter what the society living in the country, his/her point was that more people are killed in the US due to crime and the like, than in Canada/UK.
No being killed in any way is not nice, but living in a country where on the whole I'm not likley to be shot walking down the high street does give one a little peace of mind. For exaple, in Coventry, UK where I live I can only rember one incidence of a shooting in the last 10 years, and only about 2 or three in my lifetime. I kinda think this does support my points on free availability of guns.
No, that's not entirely true, it could be made at cost, after all medicine is for the best part an investment in your country's people after all you are not going to be able to do well as a country if all your population is dying of some desease or other cause there's no medicine/vaceenes to treat it.
The problem with this theory is that it's JUST theory, unsupported by observed reality.
In the United States, when criminals fear that their potential victims might be armed, they find other areas where it's safer to ply their trade.
In fact, the LAST thing a mugger does is expect resistance. They consistently choose victims whom they think WON'T resist. US Justice Department statistics show that by far, the safest course of action to avoid death or injury when being robbed is to to resist with a firearm. These are stupid, cowardly people who exploit the weak. Fighting for their money is too much like work.
And if you don't think you can get hurt being robbed by someone without a gun, you should talk to the Mexican guy my father knew who got his face slashed with a straight razor because he "didn't have enough money".
And that totally leaves aside the issue of rape and women's self-defense from it. Gun control is premised on the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.
There's virtually no difficulty in obtaining them, and they're getting EASIER to get, with a flood of East European weapons.
A country in which people are expected to be willing victims of violence and exploitation isn't civilized. It's corrupt, decadent and morally repugnant.
This country has had racial concentration camps in my mother's lifetime. Don't EVER think there'll be a time in which I don't have a gun of some kind.
If someone attempts to use lethal force against you, you have the ability to deter him, or react with lethal force if necessary. Otherwise, you have only the option of being a helpless victim.
So what you're saying is that criminals aren't worried about the penalties for robbery, rape or murder, but they tremble in fear over a gun rap? I doubt even you believe that.
Everything the United Kingdom had to offer us, we already had when we forcibly ejected you... for trying to take it away.
Absolutely ANYTHING.
I object not so much to his adultery as to its venue. If the boss walked in on my and found me getting head from a co-worker, I'd be fired instantly. Clinton's actions displayed a profound contempt for everyone but himself.
You might want to throw in WWII and the Korean War.
As bad as the United States has been, it can't hold a candle to the so-called "civilized" nations of Europe. We've had racial concentration camps in this century. We haven't had mass shootings or gassings. That requires the patina of European "civilization".
How many people were murdered in Rocky River, OH in the past 12 months? We're virtually awash in guns, and I'm one of the major culprits! : )
Living in a country where I'm not expected to roll over and be a victim gives me a lot of peace of mind.
Made at cost by WHOM? Are you going to conscript people to formulate and distribute medicine?
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
As soon as I send this message I am going to jump in my car and drive down to Montana and load up with every weapon I can find.
I figure I am going to buy a matched set of Glocks, a 9mm Ar-15 with intergrated silencer and flash supressor. Maybe a nice shotgun and while I am down there I think I am going to look into having a 50.cal machinegun mounted on the drivers side of my car.
and while I am at it I am going to build a shirne to Charlton Heston and start the first Canadian Chapter of the NRA.
And while I am at it I am going to donate all my designer clothing to the Salvation Army and stop by an army surplus store and buy an all new wardrobe and for special occasions I am going to order some clothing from the "Dukes Of Hazzard" catalouge
Alllllright,
Chris, Can you name a single daria episode from season two and write a brief abstract of it?
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:45:56 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:
They've been a lot of fun for me. Probably even saved my life once, when somebody tried to carjack me and a friend on the interstate.
Why go to Montana?
There are a few good gun dealers in Canada.
I recommend Glock 22s. Get the Pachmyer adjustable rear sights. They're very reasonable.
A "silencer" inherently suppresses flash by its nature.
Aren't machineguns prohibited weapons in Canada?
You'll probably want to stick with a Maadi-Griffon bolt gun.
Personally, I'd rather have twin shrines to Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly. To each his own....
Canada already has a gun rights organization, albeit a rather ineffectual one, the NFA.
I like jungle fatigue pants. They're quite comfortable when it's hot. Field pants are great when it gets cooler.
I don't really keep track of them by season. I just know the ones I like. One of my favorites is the most recent one. I missed the first few minutes of it because I was late getting back from the range. I really enjoyed the interplay between Jane, Tom, and Daria. It was typical Quinn for her to be disturbed that she was being stalked by a computer "geek" rather than being disturbed about being stalked at all. Unlike other people, I don't necessarily see the end of the relationships between the three. I don't think that Daria or Jane is willing to lose their friendship over Tom, especially when Daria isn't really chasing after Tom anyway. The Jane-Tom relationship is fundamentally different from the Daria-Tom relationship and neither is mutually exclusive. Besides, let's be honest, we haven't seen any evidence of a particularly strong relationship, emotional or physical between Jane and Tom anyway. By her own admission, all they seem to do is hang out and veg out. I don't see any fundamental reason why the two relationships can't co-exist.
I'm pretty partial to "Misery Chick" too. I went to college with a boat load of "Tommys" and "Kevins", even though we didn't have a football team.
The episode where Daria's cousin got married was also excellent. She and Aunt Amy are from the same mold, although Amy has gotten old enough to mellow somewhat.
I'm also partial to the episode where Daria read to (and frightened) the elderly. It was an object lesson to Daria of just how far out of the mediocre mainstream she is, and the price that one can pay for being intellectually honest instead of popular.
Actually, there have been very few episodes I didn't like at least somewhat. The one with the mythical holiday characters was pretty bad, as was the "murder" mystery. Still even they were better than 99% of what's on TV.
So, Shawn. Need any recommendations on holsters? I like Galco for shoulder holsters. When it comes to belt holsters, I tend to be a traditionalist. Stick with Bianchi or Safariland. I'm sure either one has an excellent holster for a Glock 22. Oh, and remember to get Hogue "Hand-alls" for your Glocks. They make it MUCH easier to hold onto them when you're shooting service ammo.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Ok, I'll accept that but that assumes the "right to own a gun", the same would *NOT* be true in the UK.
Maybe but far less chance than winding up dead IMHO.
Oh so the fact that he's trying to rape her makes it ok for her to blow his bollocks off yes ? ok, it may be self defense but it's still unlawfull killing. Ok the threat of a gun may make him run away, but lets face it most women in a rape situation are frightened, people when frightened on the whole would tend to lash out without thinking hense he'd get shot. I'm sorry if your response to this is going to be "well he'd deserve it" then we better end this descussion now. By the way just to make things crystal clear here, i *AM NOT SUPPORTING RAPE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM* what I am saying is that no man or woman has the right to take the life of another without the other's concent.
But the point is that they are not nearly as easy to obtain as in the US, I can't go into the city center prove I'm over 18 and just arm myseflf with enough deadly force to run a small army :) (ok yeah I know that's an exadration). Also as I said before being caught in public with an unlicenced gun, is also a criminal offense, and even if it is licenced it is also illeagal to have it loaded.
I'm not expected to be a "willing victim", I'm also not (as) likley to go commit accidental murder in the name of self defense.
I pity your country I really do.
Err but the whole point is that in a country with somewhat more strict gun laws than you have we don't have as many people trying to use leathal force, so there is no justification for owning and carying a gun.
No what I am saying is that the UK law IIRC, peanalises a criminal somewhat more strongly if a gun is involved in the crime. and please leave my beliefs out of this.
And this has presisely what to do with my or Objector's above statements ?
Indeed, at least we agree on something.
This is probably true, lets face it he should have been impeeched, but I think that they where oh so scared of how bad this would look, that they didn't IMHO :)
Don't know enough history about the Korean war, but I believ cirtainly in WWII the US only got involved in a millatry sense when it was attacked by Japan, up until then it was sending us supplies, but not actual troops and the like... humm what was it you said about "overthrows one repressive regieme or other" ? ok that's not quite what we and France where trying to do but it was the ultimate outcome, yes we probably wouldn't have done it without US help, but then again the US would prolly have come off a lot worse without this convenient staging post called the UK :)
I presume you are refering to the rounding up of the Japaneese citizens during WWII ?
Well if you are refering to the gassing of the Jews during WWII, then I think you'll find that that wasn't the British but the Germans, something which I think you'll find that modern day Germans are on the whole damned ashamed of.
Ok, I am willing to concede that some places have worse statistics than others, I do know that parts of New York are perticually bad. Does anyone have any figures on this like violent crimes, compared to population ? I'd be reasonably convinced until proven otherwise that no of shootings/gun crimes per hundered people (or whatever) is higher in the US.
No one is here expected to be a victim. That is your opinion you are entitled to it, but it is unfortunatly (speaking of the UK anyway), completely wrong.
[Snip!] I'm not getting into the whole capitalisim argument again.
Pretty much anywhere where a semblance of tool use prevails.
Why would the criminal take any other POV?
I assume the right for women not to have their clitorises involuntarily removed, even in those places where bad laws permit forced clitoridectomy.
So you're saying you should be willing to accept being physically mutilated in order to protect the life of the person doing the mutilating?
That's slavery.
She should aim for center of mass. No point in risking a miss and wounding a bystander.
It's not unlawful killing in the United States. That's because we believe that men shouldn't be able to use physical force or its imminent threat to compell women to have sex with them.
What should the woman do if she doesn't WANT to have sex, and he won't take no for an answer?
Does she have a DUTY to let herself be raped in order to protect HIM?
Ok, I don't have any problem with him getting shot. It's easy for him to avoid getting shot, after all. Don't commit rape!
But a man has a right to have sex with a woman without her consent? That's what you're saying. You'd allow him to threaten lethal force to compell her to have sex, but you wouldn't allow her to use lethal force to prevent it. It seems you've chosen sides, and not the woman's side either.
Do the police and military have the "right to take the life of another without the other's concent(sic)? Or did Tommy first have to get Fritz's permission at El Alamein in order to shoot, bayonet, shell or burn him to death?
Did the SAS first get the permission of the terrorists who invaded the Iranian embassy before they shot them? Is there some kind of form they have to have someone fill out before they shoot them between the eyes with a Browning High Power?
Actually you can. You just can't do it legally, which means that you're a helpless victim, by law.
How many "accidental" murders in the name of self defense are you aware of in this country?
Not only are you expected to be a willing victim, if you try to be anything else, you will be prosecuted.
Your country had concentration camps in before my mother was born. You had them for the refugee Jews of Europe when she was a young girl.
Your pity counts for very little.
No, you just MIGHT have fewer people doing it with guns, but even that's iffy. What you're saying is that it's ok for someone to stab or beat you to death, so long as they don't shoot you.
More strongly than for murder or robbery? And he cares WHY?
The attempt to place the UK on some kind of high moral pedestal is risible.
And I see him lie MUCH more than you do.
No, the problem was that the Republicans had a lot of dirty laundry and the Democrats were threatening to expose it.
I'm proud to be neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
1. Do a little casual reading on North Korea. We used to say in the 2nd Infantry Division, "The DMZ isn't hell... but you can see it from there."
2. The United States was illegally helping the UK long before we were attacked by the Japanese. It was a US Navy officer flying in a Lend Lease Catalina who spotted the Bismarck before the Swordfish of HMS Ark Royal disabled her stearing gear. We broke our own laws to help you. We were also involved in an active shooting war with German U-boots. In fact we rammed one.
3. If France and Britain had even half-heartedly backed Czechoslovakia, the war could have been avoided, or at least postponed until Britain was really read to fight it. The Czechs had equipment the equal or better of most of what the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe fielded. Certainly you faced a lot of it when the Germans pushed you into the sea in 1940.
Yep. Not a whole lot of American citizens of German, Italian, Bulgarian, Romanian or Hungarian descent ended up behind barbed wire.
But you miss the point. It's DANGEROUS to do things like that here. Nobody knew how anyone would react.
And why do these places always have the strictest gun laws?
And I'll bet you that there are places in London, most people wouldn't go in the daytime. I'd walk through Rocky River at any time of the day or night, and it's hardly a rural area.
If you are not permitted to defend yourself, you are a helpless victim.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
??? - British criminals are braver? Why? They may be less likely to have a gun, but so are their victims, and the police.. They are in fact probably _less_ likely to get killed in the commission of crimes than are American criminals.
Yes, actually. Would you prefer the outcome of an innocent victim being raped to the outcome of a criminal getting shot?
The issue is whether or not the firing of the gun constituted "excessive force" on her part. Note: the fact that she was being threatened with rape at the time is considered a _major_ extenuating, mitigating, or even justifying circumstrance in most jurisdictions!
Why exactly _wouldn't_ he "deserve it?"
Does he have the right to violate her sexuality without _her_ consent?
A "right" that you are not permitted to defend is meaningless.
Um, some of those European countries that you're by implication praising in contrast had _worse_ than "racial concentration camps" over the same time period.
A point, here... You're speaking as though rights were something granted as a privelige by a government, to be suspended or withdrawn at it's convienience. Yet by that logic, every atrocity ever commited by a government would qualify as "right."
A person's *rights* exist independantly of the government's will. It's only a question of whether the government respects those rights or violates them.
Consider the implications of that stance.
There are (to my knowledge) three basic theories concerning the morality of physical force:
1) Might always makes right, 2) might always makes wrong, and 3) there is a code of ethics proper to man that doesn't revolve around might; might is wrong when used to violate it, but right when used to protect against or punish those who violate it.
Apply each of these three theories to the woman-being-raped scenario.
Under the first theory, the rapist's might gives him the right to rape the woman, *IF* he can get away with it. But by the same token, the woman has the right to blow his head off for trying it, and would be right to do so if *she* can get away with it. Conclusion - the woman has the right to kill anyone, anytime and for any reason if she has the ability to do so and get away with it. As does the rapist. As does the government. As does anybody else.
Under the second theory, the rapist is wrong but the woman has no right to defend herself; her only ethical option is to be a willing victem. Additionally, the police have no right to punish the rapist, since that would also involve the use of force. The rapist is free to do anything he wants to anybody he pleases so long as he chooses to be evil, until he goes up against someone else who decides to be evil as well. Conclusion - since all the essential functions needed for a government to protect it's citizens from violence (police, military, law courts) depend on the use of force and since civilization can't survive without these functions, the only moral course is to offer one's self up as a willing victem to any and every passing thug and watch the civilized world go up in flames.
Under the third theory, if we assume that rape is a violation of ethics, then the same reasons that make it wrong for him to rape make it *right* for the woman to defend herself. Conclusion - the woman is entitled to kill her attacker in self-defence with a clear conscience.
Based on your statement above, I assume that you subscribe to the second theory. Is that what you really believe? That civilization (and all the benefits it provides) is inherantly evil, since it requires force to protect? Because that's the logical conclusion of that line of thought.
Or have I missed something? Please correct me if I've misinterpreted you or am missing a fourth theory...
I realize you'll probably take offense to this statement but that fact is that you *are* supporting it, by claiming that it should not be permitted to defend against it.
Neither does anyone have the right to rape. But in this situation one or the other's gotta give. Who deserves to suffer more, the innocent woman did nothing, or the guilty man who's trying to violate her rights? -IdentityCrisis
WILL YOU LOT PLEASE TAKE NOTE I did *NOT* say that said woman should not resist, or defend. I meely said that I didn't think it was right for her to use leathal force.
So you are saying that the innocent have the right to take another's life ? Well excuse me but does that not make them guilty of what in the UK we would call "manslaughter" (i.e. no premeditated murder).
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:39:12 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
Why not? The rapist is threatening or using lethal force.
That's what I think you're overlooking.
YES, if that's what it takes to preserve hers. Does she have a duty to die to preserve HIS life?
In the United States, you may respond to lethal force with lethal force. It's called self-defense. If you kill him, it's called justifiable homocide. US law doesn't impose upon anyone a duty to be a victim of unlawful violence, even by the police.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Why is it not "right for her to use lethal force?" Are you saying that, even if she has a gun, she is honor-bound to let herself be raped rather than risk killing her assailant?
I'm saying that people have the right to use lethal force to stop a violent felony in progress. The moral right, regardless of the local legal code.
On 31 Jul 2000 11:53:01 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
The town I used to live in, Berea, has at least one machinegun collector. There's been ONE murder of which I'm aware, since 1986... and that was somebody's kid from Cleveland, illegally attending highschool there.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Actually, I'd wager he's got some contempt for himself too, even if he doesn't consciously realize it. How much respect can you really have for yourself when you're willing to blow away your claim to any shred of integrity in front of the entire world? I take comfort in the hope that some small, neglected corner of his brain he probably realizes just how low he's sunk. -IdentityCrisis
What actually happens is that, in areas where citizens are known to carry or even own guns, criminals avoid confrontational crimes. This is because any such crime carries the risk that either the criminal or the victim will wind up severely injured. The first case (criminal severely injured) the criminal wants to avoid for obvious reasons; the second case (victim severely injured) the criminal wants to avoid because it will result in a manhunt for the criminal.
First, the money to expand facilites in order to produce greater quantities at lower prices per unit requires must be taken out of profit, as with researching newer and better drugs and techniques. Investors will also stay clear if they have nothing to gain. Kill profit and you kill expansion and improvement, but *not* the population growth that will make more and more expansion necessary.
Second, the more profit there is in a given field the more and higher-quality people are attracted to it, and as profits drop the best people are driven away first. I wouldn't spend most of a decade paying for the privilege of training to be a doctor if knew I'd end up earning only my barest sustenance, when I could get a job stocking shelves next week and end up with more spending money left over at the end of the month.
Third, when controls, taxes and subsidies are removed and each business is expected to stand or fall on it's own merits, it's the companies that offer the *best* overall deal who will attract and keep the most customers, not the ones who scalp suckers for every fast penny they can get. In the long run, the free market is the best protector.
Forcing medicine to be produced and distributed at cost would eventually leave you with a dirt-poor industry with incompetants manufacturing low-quality or outright useless or dangerous products, most likely kept only in existance through subsidies that will ultimately cost the taxpayers far more than the higher price of the medicine would have in the first place. -IdentityCrisis
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:13:02 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:
You condemn yourself with these statements. What is it that made this particular person a pathetic loser? Is it the fact that he was hitting people with a baseball bat? Or perhaps it was because he was upset about being 17 and still a virgin (I would agree with you if it were that, or the former). But I have a strong feeling that you consider such persons losers because they are, for example, "17 and still a virgin."
How old are you, ContObj? If you are the sort who holds the opinion that a 17 year old virgin is a loser, particularly if you are as vocal about it in person as you are about your opinions in this forum, prepare to be among the first victims of the next "pathetic loser with a weapon."
I do not agree with their methods. I do, however, know their pain. Oh, and for the record, I am a 22 year old virgin, just so you can know my bias.
Actually, I think the big problem is that very few people, including the people in this country, really remember why we are supposed to keep our guns. There are merely some who know that we should, don't understand why, but continue to religeously assert this right. This is the reason we are continually derided by foreigners for insisting on this; the people in charge of this cannot explain why they support this, at least, not without looking without complete anarchists.
Democracy has it's roots in an armed populace. In ancient Greece, it is hypothesized that the practice of voting was the result of the observation that when two armed mobs went at it, it was usually the more numerous one that won. So, people generally agreed that the more numerous group would carry the decision.
Rome, another place which is noted for the use of voting to make decisions, also centered this around it's military institutions, which was little more than an armed, and well trained, Roman citezenry.
After the fall of the Empire, it was in England that this practice became a popular means for decision making. Note that, while the continent's military institutions were largely conposed of professional mercenaries, England (because their geographical position they could afford this) continued to rely upon an armed populace for national defense. The two coincide once again. Indeed, on the Continent, where professional mercenaries were the backbone of military power, absolute monarchies became the latest and greatest fad. Not that Charles II, IIRC, didn't try, nor his brother, James. They couldn't, because military power was more distributed.
I am going to make a blanket charge, Contentious Objector. I say that the *only* reason your countrie(s) can afford to disarm their people is because we, the most militarily powerful country in the world, do not. You have little to fear from foreign invasion, because the system of military alliances (with the U.S. at the head) prevents this. You have little to fear from a dictator from within taking advantage of a military inbalance because you don't have much of a military to enforce opressive decrees; also because WE defend your borders. You can afford to live without guns because we keep them, and use them properly in foreign matters. We shoulder your military burdons.
Face it, wise-ass. Canada is a leech.
But I will give you this. The armed populace as a fundamental basis for democracy makes less sense now than it once did, since weapons of mass destructions are cheaper these days. Even a semi-automatic weapon can cause much more damage in the hands of an individual than a muzzel-loader ever could, or even a six shooter.
This merely makes one guy with a gun even more capable of making a statement. If there''s a crazy guy with a gun, it makes us realize that we can't just ignore those people;. something must be done. If some "geek," "nerd," "brain," or "loser" with a gun starts shooting his clasemates, it makes teenage injustices, particularly where upheald by athletically concious administrations, the topic of the day. Yes, a bunch of morons will blame the video games. These are the people who refuse to believe that their own children might be contributing to the problem; them, and the ones who think they can make some money off the lawsuits.
I don't think any country can produce enough technical professionals to feed the current need. We just happen to be the ones with the infrastructure and the money to actually hire these people.;)
I would rather have to face these dangers (which are actually much less than the media would have you believe, and easy enough to avoid, if you aren't a complete moron) than live in a country where the government makes every decision for me, and, at any moment, could (and maybe does, from time to time) just say "fuck the voters", since there's really nothing an unarmed populace can do against a government with a loyal and disciplined military force.
If he does he's on the wrong newsgroup. Consider the show's main character :)
Yep. Elections are (mostly) peaceful and (mostly) non-destructive "civil wars". Take away the arms and you take away one reason for the elections. A disarmed populace is easier for a dictator to control.
Note that when the legions were professionalized, and the citizens began abandoning the practice of arms, soon it was only the LEGIONS' "votes" which counted.
"School yard killing sprees" are very rare, and (compared to the whole national murder rate) insignificant. They have happened in other countries, too, most notably Britain and Israel.
Not by fellow pupils though. There was one by some crazed man several years ago in Scotland, which led to a change in the handgun laws here... in fact that's the only one involving guns I can think of. There have also been a few knife attacks, also by adults, mostly mentally ill I think (a machete attack in a primary school a few years ago springs to mind--no-one was actually killed, but several pupils and a teacher were quite badly injured). In fact I can only think of two cases in the last decade that involved people actually being killed, and no cases at all where it was done by pupils.
Speaking of pupils making life awful for other pupils....
There was a recent sex/torture case in Singapore where a group of 14-18 year old youngsters (the majority of whom were girls) ganged up on a 14 year old girl and started to physically torture her by kicking/hitting/scalding her, and forced her to perform several indecent sexual acts -- one of which consisted of performing oral sex on a dog. The entire physical torture was done over a period of 17 days. Yes, I'm disgusted too.
The link is here for more information: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/primenews/pri6_0725.html
This brings the saying "Kids can be so cruel" to a whole other dimension.
Cheers, Nicole Lee
http://www.neekole.com
"I'm the master of the zing zang zoom!" -- Conan O'Brien
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov
"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson
Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN
Oh man, that is so absolutely awful. I hope the girl who went through this will come out of it okay.
Thanks for the link, Nicole.
No kidding. Also, it brings to light the fact that children are cruel all over the world. Cruelty does not discriminate based on nationality. There are heinous human rights abuses which top anything the modern US has gone through. And since my brain's still an excited jumble from last night and I'm trying to get back on schedule from the long road trip to Dallas, that's basically all I have to say about that for now.
LI (very happy to live in the States, thankyouverymuch)
I think American should just stay the fuck out of Europe,
At Heathrow some of my friends in the Aliens line got stuck behind some redneck who had brought an entire arsenal with him and the customs officer was trying to explain to him politely you can't carry an SKS assult rifle in the UK. I am kinda curious how he got the weapons on the plane as checked luggage in the first place.
I think there should be a football hooligan welcomming commitee at each majot aeroport to welcome Americans to England!
Huh? Who died and appointed you Supreme Expert on European Affairs? If AmericanS (you forgot the "s") should "just stay the fuck out of Europe", you might as well start barring other countries from getting in. Next up...your ever-loving Canadian ass. Oh yeah, and Mexico too. And why not those pesky Japanese? And it'll go from there until Europe becomes so insulated and isolationist that it'll crumble. Oh...so you secretly hate Europe and think this'll be the thing that'll topple it...ah, I get you. Shame. I really like Europe.
You are such a bad liar. None of the airports in the US would've let an American (or indeed anyone) come through the terminals with any armed weapon, or indeed any weapon at all. And the US strongly discourages travel to countries where similar measures are not taken. AND, with the exception of huge megatropolises, overseas travel requires at least one layover. So the "redneck" (which opens up another can of worms) wouldn't have even made it past the gate of the first airport he used to travel to London.
1. What the hell is "majot"? Oh yeah. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle wishes you would refrain from calling it "black". 2. It would be doubtful the "football hooligan welcomming [huh? is that different from 'welcoming'?] commitee [again, is that different from 'committee'?]" would even be able to make it past the airport gates. And doubtful anyone in the airport would want to work with one of them.
LI (still proving herself a better proofreader even while exhausted, famished, and just generally angry)
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:46:49 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
They always hate us... til the Germans get their backs up.
Back when the cup was held in Chicago, I invited a couple of snotty Brits in talk.politics.guns to go run wild in the neighborhood around Commiskey Park, the way they do in minority inhabited housing estates in the UK. I asked them whether the name "Isandlhwana" rang a bell. : )
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Yeah, I did hear that. Like anyone would take her seriously anymore. :)
*krimren* c.a.t.a.t.o.n.i.a it's all over the front page/you give me road rage/racing through the best days/and it's up to you boy driving me crazy/thinking you may be losing your mind/
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:31:56 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:
The United Nations says a lot of things, including "Zionism is racism"... of course when the Germans were trying to make Zionism impossible, the ones saying it were nowhere to be found.
...if they can't get into the United States.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
It's not as if she has any choice in the way she dresses. It's probably all worked out by some team of publicists/image makers from the record company. Her role in life is essentially to just do what they tell her. The presence or absence of a brain is pretty irrelevant.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:00:10 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:
Yeah, everyone knows that the speed laws no longer apply at 5am...
As someone who is overweight himself (and has been fighting it all his life, I might add), I feel that a hearty "fuck you" is in order for your intolerance. Rather than exercise any of a thousand options open to you, you instead decide to let your hate fester until you spew it all over the rest of us. I pity you.
Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: The Internet's Premiere Website for Daria Fans
New, easy-to-remember URL: http://www.outpost-daria.com
Cant rember what the conversion factor is from Kilometers to Miles, but asuming 140Km/h is faster than 100M/h then in the UK what you would have got was an instant ban from driving (can't rember if it's 1 or 2 years), cirtainly you'd have got points on your licence, get more than 12 (I believe), and again a ban. So I guess you should considder yourself lucky it was just a fine.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:17:04 -0400, Martin J. Pollard wrote:
<snip>
Amen ;)
Cheers, Nicole Lee
http://www.neekole.com
"I'm the master of the zing zang zoom!" -- Conan O'Brien
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov
"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson
Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:22:29 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry I offended you by my desire to agree with someone else.
Fuck off.
Cheers, Nicole Lee
http://www.neekole.com
"I'm the master of the zing zang zoom!" -- Conan O'Brien
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov
"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson
Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN
Err has this group really sank to the depths where we start throwing petty insults at each other come on people we are all adults we don't need to do this ok ?
You know, Nicole, if you rock my world one more time I'm going to have to form a fan club for you. "No need to be scared, you're gonna be so happy, I'll build you a shrine so you can be my icon." (*) That response just rocked so freakin' hard it's almost impossible to believe! The sarcasm...the finishing "eat shit and die"-like snarl...perfection. Wowness.
LI (claps v. enthusiastically for Nicole)
*: Anyone who can name the name of the artist, the song, and the album it comes from will most definitely pick up 1,000,000 brownie points from me.
I went through like 5 search engines with that lyric, srolled down a page with every Duran Duran lyric ever written (the particular song was at the bottom, so I had to read through all the songs) and *finally* found it, at which point I realized someone had already replied to the original post with the title and artist.
Also, what are brownie points?
*krimren* c.a.t.a.t.o.n.i.a it's all over the front page/you give me road rage/racing through the best days/and it's up to you boy driving me crazy/thinking you may be losing your mind/
Damn. I've still only got the 15 I earned my first week or so here. Massive inflation, or are you just very, very good at racking those things up to hand out like this? Perhaps one of Mrs. Bennet's economic diagrams would enlighten me...
Now now, Nicole. I agree with Contentious. I mean, I agree with you. AAGH! No matter what opinion I hold I must agree with SOMEONE!
<mind explodes>. :D
Contentious, Nicole has _many_ good and well reasoned opinions of her own. Sometimes, they result in her agreeing with other people. Learn to live with it. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement is just plain silly!
Hey, No Fair, I am also over weight, I would say by about 30lbs, although it stems from my diet and exercise habits that would make Richard Simmons weep.
These women were huge, like the woman in the Mumu in Cafe Disafecto and uhh, umm, yeah, uhh you know the one with the hippies.
However I do apologize, refering to them as "Fat Shits" was innapropriate
No that's not problems with the computer, the computer is fine it is doing just what Microsoft tells it to :) The prob is the crappy software :) Hehehe install Linux and your BSOD will disappear (unless you use the BSOD screen saver in X-Windows, as I do :) ). But I do know how you feel, just spent a week trying to get one of our Sun Servers back up after a disk crash.
Humm don't rember any probs with Netscape 4.6, have had a couple with 4.7 but they are usually fixed by a reboot. Did you try completely un- installing and re installing that sometimes helps :) Besides IMHO I don't really like Netscape for Mail/News, but that's just a personal preference, I can see why some people would have the attraction for it.
Humm I use a news reader called X-News, it is beta at the moment but apart from the occasional GPF, it is fine, and unlike Netscape/Outlook I can make it open articles and groups full screen instead of thread at top, article at bottom that the other two use, though again this is just personal preference.
I believe you can get it from http://xnews.3dnews.net
Well technically I'm a fist generationer, I was around when the band first made it big and rember them being in the charts all the time, didn't really get into them until about 5 or 6 years ago tho. I tend to like stuff from all of the albums that I have heard, and all of it has equal merit, besides it's all relative to the ears of the listner. Strange though alt.music.rush has the exact same subject band's old/new music being better etc, so it's not just DD :)
Perhaps a squirt of WD40 would fix this :)
Hey yeah can def relate to that, though since we have flexi-time that's ok, I was in for my core hours, so was not technically late.
Hey we all sound weird on tape, though I am imformed that I don't sound the same on tape, as I do talking :) so at least others don't have to hear the awfull version of me all the time :)
What's happening in Dalas then ? ok if it is a DD concert, sorry, but I'd only really pay attention to see if they where touring over here, as it's the one that I'd be likley to be able to get to :) Dalas is a long way for me to go to see a band that where formed only 20 miles away from where I live :)
Sorry for my ignorance, but could you have not gone home and locked yourself in a quiet room to pray, or do you attach some special significance to being at the church (on holy ground ?). At leas then you wouldn't have had to stand out in the heat :)
Hey quit complaining :) we're lucky if we get sun for 30 minutes straight never mind 30 days :) ok that is an over-exaduration :) and I don't like hot weather either, it does my temper absolutely no good at all, and I sunburn, perhaps I was a vampire in a previous existance :)
My you are having a bad time of it LI, you have my simpathies :)
Humm freking Sun Solaris, one of the damn disk dies and, another stays write protected no matter what I do to it I hate computers :)
Does that count :)
Phill.
Why do I keep typing CTRL-KX in windows programs :) (for those of you that are not old computer hackers, that's the exit and save from the old Dos and CP/M wordprocessor Wordstar, but the text editor I use for Unix [joe] uses it also. ).
Yeah it's really easy it's just a couple of lines in one of the .ini files in the windows directory, remind me when I'm back at my PC and I'll psot the info :)
Personally I have the satanic screen of death, dark red on black :)