Political Discussions.

Well, there seems to be a lot of political bickering around here (how it relates to Daria, I'm not quite sure) Is is possible to consolidate it all into a single thread (such as this one) so that people who want to talk about Daria can simply ignore it?

In article , Fong Chih wrote:

Certainly it is possible. The question is is it necessary? Have we not already thrashed the subject to death? (That might seem holier than thou on my part, but I'm getting slowly sick of the whole thing, especially as it is obvious that the various views are somewhat intransigent...)

Besides... the Simpsons just started... :�

In article , [email] says...

---

No. That's not how newsgroups work. You can still choose to not read threads you don't like. That's what I do.

Daria is a cartoon that comments on real life. This means that characters will occasionally comment on something political that affects them. Daria is not Bugs Bunny.

L&R

In article ,

Now there's the making of a fanfic if ever I heard it!!! :)

Yeah, even Bernie would be able to read that one! :)

In article , [email] says...

THE DARIA HALLOWEEN SHOW

Ms. Liu and the local Police Chief sponsor a Halloween costume dance, to get the High School kids off the street Halloween night. Everybody is invited, including Daria -- who characteristically refuses to dress in costume.

Kevin and Brittany don't get it, so they come dressed as a quarterback and a cheerleader.

The Fashion Club goes nuts trying to find sleek color-coordinated costumes. They settle on Cinderella costumes -- wicked stepmother; two stepsisters; cinderella.

Jane blows everyone away, dressed as a flamingo dancer.

So they go to the dance. A mysterious bunny shows up, asking all the girls " eeeeehhhh, what's up, Doc?" and dancing two or three steps with them in a jokey way, and then leaving. All the girls go, "....eeewwww...." in various characteristic ways, but find the rabbit harmless, and even go along with the act. At least the rabbit will dance with ALL the girls (even Andrea), when lots of the boys are too shy. Daria is self-conscious, and ducks the rabbit most of the night.

Jane grabs Mack and says, "let's tango!" She procedes to start to put on a swell (but G-rated) show, leading Mack around a little, while showing off some fancy steps nobody knew she could do.

The strains of 'bunnies from Hell' start as the hyperactive bunny finally catches up with Daria. He shoots a confetti popgun and grabs Daria. He waltzes a surprised Daria right out of the confetti cloud, does a couple of turns, twirls her out, and then lets her go while she is still spinning. He shouts "That's all, folks!" and hops away.

The DJ announces, "OK everybody, it's time for the last Dance!" Everybody take off your masks? Jane comes over to Daria and says, "Had enough bunny ghouls for one night?"

Daria says, "I think I'll go ask the rabbit to dance...."

Jane says, "What? I thought you knew! The rabbit was UpChuck!"

Daria replies, "I can't help it. I just wuv dat waskally wabbit!"

MWump

In article ,

"I don't ask questions, I just have fun!!!" - Bugs Bunny, "Rabbit Every Monday"

That's All, Folks! :)

(Or is it?)

chika wrote in message news:[email]...

*Screeching violins* *Scream*

"Fong Chih" wrote in message news:...

Right. Here's a topic:

Top 5 scumbags:

• Jesse Jackson
• Rosie O'Donell
• William Jefferson Clinton
• Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Barbra Streisand

Keep in mind they were all decent people at one time. Long ago, that is, when they were infants. See what growing up surrounded by politically correct liberals can do to one's character?

MW

In article , [email] says...

---

You silly little boy. You want me to jump down your throat, now? Would that make you feel better? Or would you just settle for my list that would include a bunch of non-Daria names that I think would make *you* mad?

I'm not going to do either, for now. Instead, I'll just remind you that this post has absolutely nothing to do with Daria.

Those of you who like Mike and don't like all the 'politics' on the group in the last few weeks; take another look at Mike's post. Tell me again, who's politicizing the group.

By the way, I'm not Bernie, either.

L&R

PLONK!

That's the sound of you making my killfile. How dare you insult Rosie O'Donell, she has done so much for kids and for the American people with her crusade to make sure we don't have to live in a world of gun violence. The Daria fan community is really showing it's true colours.

In article , MsGeek <"msgeek"@spamcop.net (MsGeek)> says...

---

You don't have to PLONK anybody. Mikey's silly little post was directed solely at me; to make me mad. I took care of it.

You don't have to like me, either. Be like a Klingon: Pick your own fights, for your own reasons, but make them good reasons. Laugh at all the others.

L&R

Besides, after Rosie fired her bodyguard just because he uses a gun, I put her on my "Stupidest people of all time" list. I mean, how can the guy protect Rosie and her kids from dangerous people without a gun, especially if the attacker is probably packing more heat?

Chris Smith
        Http://www.wvinter.net/~cws/dariafuqbeta.txt
        The Unofficial Daria Frequently Unasked Questions

P.S.: Isn't it about time the PLONK be retired from service?

The Outsider wrote in message news:FjQX6.872$[email]...

Give him body armour, good training and a night stick.

put

especially

Heh, the body armor alone will be an invitation to violence, and even if the armor is concealed, there's nowhere to hide the nightstick.

Sorry, try again.

Chris Smith

The Outsider wrote in message news:9gYX6.890$[email]...

the

Who said anything about concealed?

Remember the threat is a detterent.

Mark Whickman said:

And I'm sure the body armor and night stick would protect the _bodyguard_ from most gun-toting lunatics.

Rosie and her kids, however, would be out of luck, as they have no body armor, and the bodyguard, lacking a missile weapon, could do little to prevent the lunatic from attacking them at anything but point blank range.

Now, while, for Rosie, this would be "evolution in action" (since she fired the _armed_ guard for his "armed" status), it's kind of hard on the kids, isn't it?

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

from

It, unfortunately, saved Prince Charles. Most useful in a crowd as it's against the law of human rights to attempt to fire in a crowd.

armor,

the

Which is where almost all attacks occur.

Mark Whickman said:

Why is this "unfortunate?" What good purpose would have been served had Prince Charles been murdered by someone?

armor,

Even at point-blank range, the bodyguard's job would be rendered more difficult by his lack of armament.

Furthermore, Rosie _firing_ her guard for having a gun is simply insane.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

Prince

The world would be safe from maurauding ears.

the

difficult

A gun can't be fired unless absolutely necessary now, even by police, in all countries which have signed one of the recent human rights bill. Use of reasonable force is no longer legal.

I agree on that point.

Mark Whickman said:

What does this have to do with protecting someone from an attacker armed with a gun? In that case, it _would_ be "absolutely necessary."

Anyway, America never signs those silly treaties.

I think you meant UNreasonable :)

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

all

with a

Don't count.

I don't think it would count anyway.

No, to say "use of reasonable force" is no longer acceptable.

Mark Whickman said:

So, in most European countries, you are required to let yourself be killed rather than break the law?

Glad I don't live in one of _those_ places!

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

Not quite. Only as a last resort. And most attackers will fire from crowds, where it's near impossible to fire back.

You'd just have to put up with British rail.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:23:27 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

You are allowed to kill in self defence, but you have to show that you had a reasonable expectation that you would be killed. A man was jailed for murder for shooting a burglar, but there are others who weren't even prosecuted. _____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

Martin Edwards said:

That's reasonable. It's not that different over here, though in some states the presumption is that you are in mortal fear if confronting an armed burglar, even if he hasn't actually attacked yet.

In article , [email] says...

You'd be lucky if you did. they have much lower gunshot and murder rates.

Several European countries now have higher average per-capita incomes than the US does. Most countries have better health care AND have lower tax rates. Most countries are very democratic and certainly hold National Elections more fairly than we do these days. Sweden, Norway and Denmark lead the world in per capita internet connections, with about 60% of the population wired up to the Internet. England is close behind, and was in the lead a couple years ago. I love European web sites like the BBC and Deuche Welle and Radio Nederland.

"Reasonable Force" is a legal term that has been part of Common Law forever. I doubt that Great Britain has set it aside. You might be surprised to learn that US Common Law also recognizes the 'Reasonable Force' principle -- and no one here has the right to use more than 'Reasonable Force' to do anything. That means you can be charged with Murder if you kill an unarmed trespasser.

L&R

In article ,

It hasn't been totally set aside, just that it can't be used in a gun related case as a sole reason for use. The problem is that it is part of one of the more dubious sections of law that was brought in quickly as a result of a shooting in a school a few years ago. The trouble is that it has meant a suppression of what was a legal industry (e.g. gun clubs etc.) whilst it has done nothing to address the illegal industry (gun smuggling and so on). However, in this case, basically you could read it as the use of guns no longer falls into the category of "reasonable force", so there has to be other mittigating circumstances or else...

chika wrote in message news:[email]...

I have one thing to say, this groups been really good at being able to discuss the issue of guns without descending into name calling etc.

I'm impressed.

[email] (Mark Whickman) wrote in :

Heheheh you should have been here about this time last year :)

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith wrote in message news:[email]...

Oh dear.

Now I'm scared.

In article ,

Hiya, Scared! I'm Chika! :)

[email] (Mark Whickman) wrote in :

Just do a search on Deja/Google and you'll see what I mean things got quite heated for a while, I think you'll find that the normally controversial subjects seem to generate quite heated discussions round here, specifically Gun Control, Abortion and Comunisim :)

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith wrote in message news:[email]...

Ah, now I see why our trollish friends keep making reference to abortion.

"Mark Whickman" wrote in :

Yeah I definatly seem to rember the abortion debate getting quite heated.

Phill.

In article , [email] says...

[email] (Love and Rockets) wrote in :

Err anyone that's ever seen a picture of me or has ever met me knows that I'm most definatly not bald ! (well not yet anyways !).

Keep taking the tablets mate, I'm sure they'll let you out of Broardmoor(sp?) one day.

Phill.

For Phill: sp. Broadmoor. For non-UK readers: an asylum for insane criminals. Yes, they still are called that in N. America. _____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

[email] (Martin Edwards) wrote in :

still

Yeah I figured I spelled it wrong :) My spelling's always been crap.....

"We don't need no education...." no but perhaps you need lessons in grammar :)

Phill.

Gun control aktivists forget that guns don't kill people. People kill people. However, they are so indoctrinated by liberal activism that they truly believe people are no longer responsible for their actions, and there's always something (or someone) else at fault, who should bear the consequences. Rosie and her cronies would be more than happy to do away with "the right to bear arms in a well formed militia" but thanks to the founding fathers, that one's there to stay. Those who don't like it should feel free to emigrate to a country of their choice where guns are illegal. After one night's sleep, they will wake up to the cruel reality of criminals bearing illegal arms anyway, while they won't be able to defend themselves, should the need arise. Banning guns will only hurt law-obiding citizens such as myself, while gang members could give a rats ass about it. I am a proud handgun owner, go to the range weekly to practice my target, and yet pray to God that I will never get to use any of my weapons. Of course there are lunatics out there who still think they live the days of the Wild West. Just like there are lunatics who wish to strip me from my Constitution-guaranteed right to bear arms.

A few weeks ago, I got the following forwarded to me by a friend. Some of you may have gotten this message yourselves (as it might have circulated around the Net a few times...), but here it is, anyway.

Regards, MW

------------------------------------------

Dear God,

Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado?

Sincerely, A Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student,

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely, God

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And we said, OK.........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself".

And we said, OK.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said, an expert should know what he is talking about, so we won't spank them anymore......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning..............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea.............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then some wise school board member said since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea...........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.

And we said, doesn't matter what anybody, including the President, does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good..........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.

And we said, we have no problem with that....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the internet.

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech.............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence and illicit sex...

And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder suicide, and satanic themes........

And we said, it's just entertainment and it has no adverse effect and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, and why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with......

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Mike Wilson wrote in message news:[email]...

etc.)

smuggling

use

there

It helps to have an efficient tool for the job though. Not so easy with dried noodles.

Mark Whickman wrote:

but it's very easy to kill someone with a knife (well, maybe not a butter knife, but y'know... ~_^), so why haven't we banned those?

what about baseball bats? damn, bludgening someone to death with one of those wouldn't be too hard.

c'mon, if you *really* wanted to, you could kill someone with almost anything. and an "efficient tool" does not necessarily equal guns, as knives, etc are also pretty damn efficient.

ja ne hotaru

hotaru wrote in message news:[email]...

They can be used for carving meat, slicing bread, cutting plastic.

It's a lot harder than people imagine.

Not really.

The point is they have another intentional use, and you really need to go at someone with a knife or know where to hit.

In article ,

Who says that you can't use a butter knife? Indeed how do you effectively ban knives when they have so many uses? An art scalpel can cut your throat as easily as it cuts paper, but how do you stop it being used for the former? Bans don't always work.

People refer to "wrapping in cotton wool", but stuff enough of it down your throat and your life is in danger...

Chika said:

I, for instance, am an online auctioneer. I buy books cheap and sell them online for more money.

I need to carry boxes, tape, and a knife or scissors for this purpose.

Were I a violent looney, I could easily murder people with my blade.

Of course, were I a violent looney, I could also murder people bare-handed -- I'm a big, strong guy.

What this boils down to is that weapons aren't the problem. Violent people are the problem.

On 22 Jun 2001 00:24:48 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Why are many times more people blown away every year in the US than in Canada? _____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

Martin Edwards said:

If by "blown away" you mean shot, it's cuz guns are harder to get in Canada.

If you mean "murdered" (and I think the murder rate is more relevant than the gun murder rate here), then it's largely our Southern Legacy. The American Southerners and Southern-descended Americans, black _and_ white, tend to be more violent than the American Northerners.

I'm not entirely sure why _this_ is so, but I think it's a combination of the South having had a larger Scots Highland and Anglo-Irish component in its colonization, and the legacy of slavery. If you read up on the history of slavery, not only did it brutalize the slaves, it also forced the masters to remain armed, vigilant, and ready to use force at the drop of a hat.

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote in message news:[email]...

Canada.

the

be

Plus there's the part about all humans subconsciously are made to be savages. It's becoming harder for a human to create something, and becoming more easier to destroy. Everything is becoming so delicate now that pretty much anything (A relationship, a right, a possession, and even life itself) can be easily destroyed. All it takes is a gun, a knife, a fist, a word, sometimes even a simple thought is all it takes to destroy something meaningful.

the

to

Only a fraction of them. Some owners (Maybe most, that I don't know) actually took care of their slaves and fed them well.

The Outsider wrote in message news:dfNY6.12$[email]...

of

its

of

masters

They got the best out of them that way. They were an expensive investment.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in message news:...

So you're admitting that gun control in Canada is somewhat effective in keeping guns away from "criminals?"

This strikes me as weird. Are you saying that access to guns could not explain the increased the murder rate even if Canadians and Americans are equally violent? I would think that given two cultures with about equal propensities towards violence, the one access to more effective killing weapons will have a higher murder rate. And I also would think that guns are more effective killing weapons than knives (not that it's impossible to kill with a knife but, historically there are plenty of examples of how much more effective guns are than knives at killing)

Also I have been under the impression that American Northerners have higher overall murder rates and gun murder rates than Canadians. But that's just an impression. I could be wrong.

So now my first question for you:

What if somehow it turns out that restricting access to guns would decrease the overall murder rate. How many lives would have to be saved per year before the benefits, in your opinion, of saved lives outweigh the violation of the principle that everyone should be allowed to carry weapons?

Second question:

Should this right to carry weapons extend past handguns to machine guns and stinger anti aircraft missiles for those who can afford them? Or even to nuclear weapons? The principle that everyone should be allowed to carry weapons, in your opinion, should extend to which classes of weapons? (and why)

Super Rah

Rasheed said:

Somewhat -- and it's _far_ more effective at keeping guns away from honest citizens, making criminals more relatively powerful.

Oh no, it would. But Americans are _more_ violent on the average than Canadians, because the population of "Americans" includes American Southerners, and Americans of Southern descent (white and black, though in the north it's mostly black).

I'd also expect less of a differential between the black and white crime rate in Canada than we see in the American North, because the Canadian blacks mostly came North before the American Civil War, while the American Northern blacks mostly came North in the 20th century, and thus are closer to violent Southern cultural roots. I have no idea if this expectation really pans out in the statistics, though.

Hard to say. Remember, you'd also have to factor in civilian lives _saved_ owing to criminals deterred or shot by legally owned guns. But there's a point at which I'd accept the gun control -- I'm not a fanatic on the issue.

In some social environments, yes. I could see this for a civilization of dispersed habdwellers in the Oort Cloud, for instance (right to bear nuclear weapons).

Not in the contemporary American one, though! We're a tad too crowded :)

I'd limit it on the basis of the potential for accidental or insane actions to cause mass murders. (That's why for the dispersed Oort Cloud civilization, right to bear nuclear arms might make sense, though it wouldn't on a planetary surface).

Incidentally, automatic _small arms_ aren't as much more dangerous than semi-automatic small arms as Hollyweird would have you believe. An untrained man firing an automatic rifle on full burst will see the vast majority of his shots miss as the weapon rides up, and he'll empty his whole magazine in a second or two.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in message

Of course, if gun control is somewhat effective at keeping guns away from criminals, criminals become _far less_ relatively powerful than armed professional law enforcement since gun control laws don't apply to on duty police.

More violent measured how? By the amount of murders?

Once you admit that other things being equal, easier access to more effective weapons would be enough to explain a higher murder rate, (as you have) this stuff about the South and the Civil War and cultural roots seems less and less relevant to a discussion about arms control. I'm going to snip a lot of that.

Whoa, are you seriously saying that you believe lax gun control results in a net _saving_ of life because criminals are deterred and shot by civilians who own guns legally? I'm sure it has happened but the idea that amateur law enforcement outweighs the amount of murder resulting from easier access to guns for criminals is just ridiculous.

And then we also have to factor in legally owned guns whose owners then become criminals, legally owned guns that are acquired by criminals, and legally owned guns that kill accidentally.

I don't believe that a rational person could say that lax gun control results in a net saving of civilian life in America. If that's what you believe, I don't know what to say.

So where is that point? One life? 100? You'll know it when you see it?

Hmmm, how much potential for accidental or insane actions to cause mass murders should a weapon have before you accept control of that weapon?

Rasheed said:

I don't think it's _very_ effective at keeping guns away from criminals, and most of the time policemen are not at the scenes of crimes.

Southerners,

Among other measures, yes.

It's relevant because it is part of the reason why America has higher murder rates than Canada.

It means that the difference in gun laws isn't the whole explanation.

Yes.

Why? A criminal can avoid the police while committing a confrontational crime, but he cannot avoid the citizenry, because his intended victim is one. If the law allows his victim to be armed, he cannot be sure that any particular victim he's chosen is unarmed. Hence he is less likely to attempt a violent crime in the first place.

Studies have actually shown the exact result that you claim is "ridiculous."

Very rare.

Common, but gun control doesn't really help here, as in the absence of legal civilian owned guns the major sources become purchases from the black market, which acquires them from corrupt cops and military personnel.

Rare.

Not only do rational persons believe it, but the most recent studies confirm it statistically. When gun control laws are tightened, the murder rate goes _up_, and vice versa.

What, nobody's ever pointed this out to you before?

Very effective, somewhat effective, compared to what? Do you have numbers? If not the only difference between "very effective" and "somewhat effective" is how you are deciding to describe the situation for the purpose of this argument.

, and most of the time civilians don't choose to carry weapons. Many times civilians who may be carrying weapons are told to keep their hands where the criminal, who has the element of surprise, can see them.

So Americans have more murders than Canadians because Americans are more violent. How do we know Americans are more violent? Easy because they commit more murders.

Not being the whole explanation isn't enough. If for cultures with a given propensity towards violence, reducing access to effective murder weapons would reduce the amount of murders, (that's the part you admitted), we're not left with much of an argument against gun control.

If you say so. Have a cite?

Martin Luther King was murdered by a gun purchased legally by someone who wasn't a criminal until after King was dead. Same for Kennedy. Same for the students at Columbine. Same for many gun murders committed by people without prior criminal records. Far from very rare, especially in areas without gun control.

The black market in New York acquires legal guns from Virginia and Ohio. National gun control would basically dry the black market up in New York. Guns owned by cops and military personnel are relatively easy to keep track of. The black market in Montreal is most likely acquired in the US rather than by Canadian cops and military.

Probably about as rare a amateur law enforcement foiling murders by unexpectedly pulling out guns.

Cite?

Rasheed said:

Compared to its effectiveness at keeping guns out of the hands of potential victims, with the obvious result.

That is _not_ what I admitted. Reducing access _on the part of the general population_ to guns, while not greatly affecting access on the part of criminals to guns, may very well _increase_ the murder rate, because now criminals are emboldened and empowered to commit more heinous crimes.

No -- they'd just find other sources of supply.

Actually, it's quite common for guns confiscated by the police to wind up sold on the black market. The FBI discovered this when they instituted a gun tracking program somewhere down South, I think New Orleans or Houston.

Right now it is.

Incidentally, given that this isn't _global_ gun control, what prevents criminals from smuggling guns into America from abroad, if America instituted nationwide gun control?

Actually, no. The key is that it isn't "amateur law enforcement," but rather people defending _themselves_ who are _very_ likely to foil crimes. Not because they're screamingly competent, but rather because they are there, on the scene, and fighting mad at their attackers.

The original question was why are fewer people blown away in Canada than the U.S. Your answer in part was that if by blown away the asker meant shot, the reason is because it is harder to get guns in Canada. Look it up.

Sources unavailable now? You won't even admit that the price would go up and the amount of guns available at a given price would be less if the _most important present source_ is cut off? What can I say?

This doesn't strike me as an insurmountable problem. First, the amount of guns available that way is most likely smaller than the amount of guns bought legally out of state. Second, even if they aren't taken care of well now in, say New Orleans, doesn't mean they cannot be taken care of well.

I'm sure there will be some guns smuggled in if there is national gun control. How much will a smuggled gun cost though? Will you admit that the amount of guns on the streets would be less if they had to be smuggled in than if they are available in VA?

There is effectively nationwide gun control of automatic weapons. How many of them are on the streets? What prevents criminals from smuggling machine guns into America from abroad, now that America instituted nationwide gun control?

Will you agree that there are at least some crime scenarios where civilian deterrence will not apply? At least sometimes, the victim is caught and victimized before there is any chance to pull a weapon out in response. Will you agree that there are some crimes for which attempting to disarm the criminals is more effective than allowing the civilians to choose to arm themselves.

One thing about law abiding civilians is that most don't feel any urge to arm themselves. Without mass hypnosis, you are not going to be able to create parity between criminals and law abiding civilians in terms of guns.

But anyway,

You said you're not a fanatic and there is a point at which you would accept gun control. I'm not a fanatic either and there is a point at which I would say don't bother try gun control. Let's try to agree.

By about what percentage would you say the black market supply of guns should be decreased before you agree it is a good idea?

I believe that if the black market supply of guns could be reduced by 50% over say 5 years that would be a great net societal gain even if it requires a full disarmament of civilians. And don't forget that I've said nothing about disarming the main deterrent of crime, the professionals.

I'm sure you disagree. What percent would you agree to? Would you still disagree if it was given that the black market could be reduced by 99%?

I believe that cutting off the legal supply of guns would, over a few years, reduce the amount of guns on the black market by at least 50%. I'm sure you disagree. How much do you think the supply would fall? Only by 1%? Even though presently nearly all guns on the black market were at one time purchased legally in the United States?

In article , [email] says...

Admirable attempt to negotiate a constructive compromise. However; you are dealing with an ideology issue here; not a social issue. To change this person's stand on gun control, you will have to change his position on politics in general. I doubt that can happen.

* * * *

In terms of guns, I'm for them if they work and against them if they don't. From what I see; they don't, except for hunters, collectors, the Infantry and Republican politicians. It is quite simply insane to ignore the harm that guns do, and the added harm that guns do when we collectively ignore the first problem.

If there were a way to license guns without giving the Police or the Courts more power than they already have, I'd be for it. There probably is, and I hope it comes soon. If the NRA is as mature as it is serious, then it would take its detractors seriously and try to negotiate a fair compromise, instead of its current Neo-Fascist stonewall that it thinks is working.

In the US today, we kill as many people with guns as we do with cars. 40% of all homicides happen because of domestic disputes -- mostly Husbands and wives; triggers pulled in anger. This figure doesn't even count kids or accidents. We license guns appropriately and that goes away. The NRA could fix this little problem if it wanted to. It doesn't. We call them 'gunloons' for a reason.

L&R

Love and Rockets said:

Most of the homicides you're talking about are committed by people who are already convicted felons, and hence are not eligible for licenses even under the present system.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

under

What about the 40% part?

Mark Whickman said:

already convicted felons, and hence are not eligible for licenses even

Most of that "40%" killed in "domestic disputes" are killed by friends or family who are previously convicted felons. What, you don't think criminals have loved ones?

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

are >

criminals

I can't believe that.

In article , [email] says...

---

I just *hate* gun control threads. If it weren't for the incredible honor of participation and all the friends I make along the way, I'd completely ignore them.

I am glad you 'can't believe' something in a gun control thread. Now I have company.

The good news is, we don't have to 'believe' anyone. You certainly don't have to believe *me.*

We can look this stuff up for ourselves now. I probably should post some links, but in the meantime, the FBI site is very good. There are criminology departments all over the country that have good statistics posted. While I don't like the NRA; their web site is well-maintained and can be informative.

I tend to use www.google.com for my searches, but there are plenty of other good search engines.

L&R

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:43:34 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

Please do. It's obvious you have nothing to contribute to the actual debate. If you have anything to say about gun control itself, go ahead. So far, all your comments have been on the thread itself.

In article , [email] says...

---

Now, now. If you can't play nice, we'll have to ask the Fashion Club to perform an emergency makeover starting with a nice, long spanking.

L&R

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:33:32 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

Uhh huh huh, uhh huh huh huh. Uhm... Tiffany get's to do the spanking, right? Mh-heh.

And On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:49:54 +0100, "Mark Whickman" replied::

Believe it. Many of the people I've worked with have had criminal records. In fact, most of the young men who grow up in poor neighborhoods have criminal records, and many of the women do, too. Mostly drug charges. One guy I worked with was an ex drug dealer and gang banger (Bulldogs). He now has a family and works his ass off to support them. Really decent guy, actually.

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

or

I know people closely who have convictions right up to armed robbery and mass drug importing. And they don't use guns at all. (The robbery was done with a 14 inch machete).

Mark Whickman said:

Armed robberies, in America, are very rarely committed with machetes. The reason is that the storeowner may well have a firearm.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

done

Cut off his hand first then >:->

"If you disable the enemies hand, the enemy cannot push a button" - S.T.

In article , Mark Whickman wrote:

Then you eat the banana, thus disarming him! :)

In article , [email] says...

Love and Rocket said:

False.

In most cases of homicides resulting from domestic disputes, the shooters are people with previous criminal records. This should not be surprising -- normally speaking, a well-adjusted, non-violent person does _not_ shoot a family member in a fit of rage, and the sort of person who is crazy and violent enough to do so usually winds up hurting someone else before he hurts members of his own family. Hence, the shooters in these cases are _already_ legally incapable of owning or using firearms.

Legally.

Which strikes to the heart of the problem, which is that criminals don't obey the laws in the first place, and hence no law can disarm criminals. All laws can do is disarm honest citizens -- making the criminals relatively more powerful.

In article , [email] says...

Thank you very much, Jordan. You just made my point.

The gun used in a domestic dispute might very well belong to a law-abiding citizen. If a family member of that citizen uses the gun, it is still used during the dispute; it is used because it was available; and it was not used during the commission of another felony. In other words; if the gun hadn't been there to work damage so efficiently, a life might have been saved.

In *ANY* case, Jordan, the FBI stat I quoted ALLOWS for your objection by carefully defining what a 'domestic dispute' is (and is not). You carefully and disingenuously ignored the statistic, its very credible source (the FBI), and the very easy conclusion to draw, that 40% of 50,000 is too damned many deaths to occur that could easily be prevented.

According to the FBI, "most" shooters in "domestic disputes" are NOT felons.

* * * *

You still aren't coming close to addressing the other problems that have been raised here.

L&R

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

obey

laws

If I was a criminal, out to rob you, I would not give you chance to draw that gun *attack you from behind in the dark* If I was a criminal out to steal from you I'd wait until you were on holiday, leaving your house empty. If I wanted to do anything worse I'd smash your collarbone so there's no way you could point the gun at me.

Mark Whickman said:

Some criminals do. But it's not as easy or automatic a thing to carry off properly as you imagine. A real fight is a rather chaotic affair. And an intended victim may notice you een if you don't want to be noticed.

That is what _most_ professional burglars do. One thing that civilian gun ownership does is force criminals to change their MO's from confrontational crime (mugging, robbbery, home invasion) to non-confrontational ones (burglary, pickpocketing). This is a _good_ thing, as it reduces the overall level of violence, and it's the main reason why gun control laws usually _cost_ lives.

That is _much_ harder to do than you imagine, requiring a precise understanding of martial arts and anatomy. Again, a fight is a chaotic affair, and things cannot be planned that precisely unless one is _very_ skilled.

A criminal who has that level of skill doesn't need to carry a gun, either -- if he can reliably break someone else's collarbone in a fight, he can easily overpower a victim bare-handed!

(Fortunately, most criminals are not black belts!)

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

Then you should get a proper job.

confrontational

(burglary,

lives.

Bollocks.

way

understanding

things

The British police did it for the past 150 years only using a truncheon. A hard blow anywhere between the shoulder and the neck will fracture it. Easiest way is grab the attacking arm with your defesive and swing over the head.

either --

easily

But he would rather carry a gun if he could get one.

Mark Whickman said:

All criminals should.

I don't know where you're getting this notion that street criminals are abnormally skilled at stalking or violence, anyway. They aren't -- they're just more willing to attack people than most people are.

That makes certain assumptions about what the other guy is doing, as shown by your statement regarding an "attacking arm." Incidentally, if the other guy has a gun and you don't, you may wind up getting _shot_ trying to pull this maneuver off.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]... =

by

guy has

Close quarters you use your attacking arm to knock the gun arm out of the way, then pull in close and smack knee into chest or groin. The time taken to reaim the gun is longer than that needed to disable someone like that.

Mark Whickman said:

You can indeed _try_ this move, and its a technique that will work if carried off right, and if the target cooperates. But, because real antagonists are not tackling dummies, the target may fail to cooperate. The obvious counter to that particular move is a half-turn away from one's opponent, with the gun drawn back out of his reach, and then fired.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

taken

carried

not

that

drawn

I said close quarters. Which is where the attack tends to occur. Grasping to perform a disabling move prevents a standard rotate out manouveur.

Love and Rockets wrote in message news:[email]...

Which is worrying considering only about 30% of gunshots are fatal within crash time.

In article , [email] says...

---

yes. we gotta find that guy who keeps shooting himself and crashing into cars or he'll get all of us.

(raises eyebrows; exits stage left)

Rufus T. Firefly

Love and Rockets wrote in message news:[email]...

within

Aiiiii......

*audible groan*

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:34:19 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

I think Jordan knows it too (though I'd argue someone likely to become violent in a domestic dispute, particularly a male, has likely become violent in a non-domestic dispute as well, and as a result, probably has a previous criminal record). But that's not the can of worms I want to open.

What it comes down to is an issue of trust. Do you trust your government to protect you from crime? More importantly, do you trust your government to have all the guns?

In most countries, that answer is yes. Definately in the UK, and most assuredly in most of Western Europe, people generally trust, and rely upon, their government. Why shouldn't they? Government has always existed, and, though it hasn't always been perfect, it's better now than ever before, probably.

To go to the *other* extreme, imagine a place like Mexico, where corruption is practically the official form of government, or various countries in South America or Africa, where the governments are still disputed. The idea of gun control is probably totally alien to those places, though most assuredly, their governments are trying their damndest to disarm everybody else. Probably so they can loot them and escape to somewhere else.

The reason the US is the last Western state to allow it's citizens to keep and bear arms is rooted in it's history. The original English colonies were the dumping grounds of misfits, the "sturdy poor," religeous outcasts, freebooters, restless young men. The people that went there gew up on the philosophy of John Locke and the like, respecting concepts like proportional representation, constitutional government, etc. When Britain moved past those old fogies (resulting in rotton bouroughs, the concept of... virtual representation?), Americans were left "behind."

The people who came to American came from many countries, for no purpose other than to make some money, get some land, raise a family, maybe get rich, maybe not, all without having to worry about feudal politics, high taxes, european wars, and such. Though there was certainly a great deal of politics in the colonial assemblies, the population that voted them wouldn't have them wouldn't have anything to do with any laws or taxes that weren't absolutely necessary to maintain order. With all the free land out there, the only poor were those too lazy to spend some time working, make some money, and buy land at dirt cheap prices. Hence American economic attitudes, and our "underdeveloped" social support net. But that's another discussion entirely.

People needed guns, of corse. With hostile native tribes a continual threat, a general lack of effective law enforcement (hard to do in a frontier society), and wild animals that can be threats without guns, and a source of food and income if you had guns, guns were a necessity. But there's more to it than that.

Most of the population also believed in the militia ideal. The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America starts, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Now, most would say that an army can protect a state as well as or better than a militia, and that in this, the Founders were mindless idealists. But they didn't say "security of a State." They said, "security of a *free* State." Allow me to explain.

The bulk of the English population that settled there did so during Cromwell's time. Just before Cromwell, Charles I had attempted to turn the country back to Catholocism. He had to act carefully, quietly, lest his actions prompt an armed insurrection. Had he had an army, and a disarmed population (the very thing the kings of France, the most despotic monarchs of the era, had), it would've been a simple matter to outlaw Protestantism and reinstate Catholicism. As it was, he was killed. Cromwell's army certainly had a great deal to do with this, but he got his arms from somewhere.

Of corse, Cromwell's reign wasn't peachy for most. He was successful, but enacted some rediculous laws. He was able to do this because he had a powerful, disciplined, and loyal army. That, and the militia was neglected during his reign.

The lesson learned by Americans was that militias are adequate for fighting wars that actually matter (actually defending the country, or fighting with honorable allies), and bad for fighting "vanity wars" and oppressing the populace. Armies, on the other hand, are excelent for fighting wars that matter, fighting wars for the vanity of the ruler, *and* oppressing the populace. This reasoning stuck all the way until World War II. Before then, the Army was dismantled right after a given war, and only a small officer corps was maintained. For local defense, the states, and the armed People, were relied upon.

Of corse, even the U.S. will eventually come to trust and rely upon government. Our urbanization will make this only inevitable, but, it is not yet complete. I intend to defend my second amendment rights in any way reasonable, both in my voting habits, and, if neccessary, in opposing the government physically if it tries to disarm the populace prematurely (assuming I can find a good militia group to join). There are still places where people *need* guns (particularly with mountain lions adapting to living alongside people).

But, if there ever comes a time when 3/4 (or is that 2/3? It's been a while) of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures can *agree* that the People no longer need guns, I will willingly lay down my arms.

Daryl Sawyer said:

That was my point. The policy of legally disarming convicted felons already legally disarms most people likely to become murderous in a domestic dispute. Murder is very rarely committed by licensed gun-owners.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

already

dispute.

The problem is, those who are criminals tend to stay outside the law. So trying to disarm just them is very hard.

Mark Whickman said:

Trying to disarm them at all is very hard. Disarming the law-abiding only mildly inconveniences criminals in their attempts to get guns, and vastly increases the relative power of armed criminals when confronting civilians. And the police cannot be everywhere.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

civilians. And

Do you think you could be armed at all times for every necessity?

And would you have time to draw on someone with a gun jammed into your lower jaw?

Mark Whickman said:

No.

But then, the crime rate does _not_ consist of me, personally, being repeatedly mugged.

The problem, from the criminal's perspective, is that he doesn't know whether or not any _particular_ prospective victim is armed.

If he tries to customarily engage in confrontational crime against a population of which even 1 in 20 or so is even occasionally armed, he runs a very high risk of getting shot.

No.

And thus, the teleporting telepathic criminals would run roughshod over even an armed population.

Meanwhile, ordinary armed criminals face the problem that surprising someone to the degree needed to get into that position is _not_ automatically easy, and that people _other_ than their intended victim may intervene against them.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

repeatedly

whether

That doesn't matter, if he's desperate enough to rob anyone he's not going to worry all that much whether you're armed or not.

lower

Someone grabs you from behind and sticks the gun in your jaw. You aren't likely to see someone if they're smart.

Mark Whickman said:

Why do you assume that someone must be "desperate" to rob anyone, and that this desperation gives him infinite morale?

1) What you have just described is almost physically impossible. There are a lot of good places to stick a gun in from behind, but the "jaw" is not one of them.

• Muggers are not necessarily the smartest people -- almost by defintion.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

going

this

Desperation breeds courage.

a

of

Are you thick or something. Hand round mouth gun into jaw pointing muzzles straight at brainstem.

But he must be pretty smart to get the gun on the mystical black market.

Mark Whickman said:

this

In reality, robberies are often deterred by armed victims. Criminals are _generally_ not known for their courage. I strongly suspect that your notion of criminals is much-romanticized.

Nor, really, for their desperation. I'll ask you again -- why do you assume that a criminal must be "desperate" to rob someone, any more than an honest man be "desperate" to work at his (legal) job. Robbery, after all, is just a "job" to the criminal.

of

No, but your very next line is about to demonstrate that you don't have a very good sense of anatomy ...

You hae just described an incredibly awkward posture for the criminal to assume; one which has a _very_ easy counter (twist criminal's hand away from a line with your head, as he has no strength in his arm held in that position), and an aiming task which is not only difficult (how exactly does the criminal turn his hand completely around and point the aiming line _through your face_ at your "brainstem") but very likely, if the gun goes off, to result in the criminal shooting _himself_ in the head! Even if you don't, you're going to break your wrist -- with your hand bent like that, the recoil will all be taken by the bones in your hand and at the junction of hand with wrist. Oh -- and you're giving your intended victim a chance to grab your gun arm before you can even get the gun pointed anywhere near him in the first place.

I suggest you study either martial arts, or anatomy, or both. Oh, and don't ever take up armed robbery. The cops are going to laugh at you when they wheel you into the hospital with your arm broken and your own bullet embedded in your skull.

Seriously -- you watch too many movies -- the move you described sounds like something a Hollywood "tough guy" would do because it looks dramatic.

Your implicit claim that black markets don't exist, and that it's hard to get illegal substances on them, demonstrates your complete lack of anything resembling "streetwise". You've previously demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge of wrestling, firearms handling, and anatomy.

I really suggest you stop -- you're making the anti-gun position look worse than it really is. For instance, if you get the drop on someone from behind, it really _is_ easy to mug them -- just not the way that you described it.

(Hint: keep the gun _behind_ your victim, pointed at his spine. Even if the victim turns to engage you, you have a very good chance of either shattering his spine or striking a major organ. And you won't break your own wrist or shoot yourself in the process, either!)

Dear Mark,

In general, if you _ever_ have to fire a handgun, make sure that you are holding your wrist and arm in a position where the recoil is transmitted back into the arm and the strong, flexible assemblage of forearm and elbow and upper arm can act as a recoil brake.

Do _not_ twist your wrist into an awkward position. You will make aiming utterly impossible, and the recoil could dislocate your wrist or even shatter some of the bones.

If you are fighting with a handgun against someone who is unarmed, or armed only with a melee weapon, remember that your advantage derives from the fact that you have a _ranged_ weapon. If you let your enemy get within the circle of your arms, he can very easily push the gun out of line with himself, and there is very little you can do to stop him because the leverage is entirely against you in such a position.

And do not, repeat not, get your notions on firearms safety or handling from Hollywood movies. Another tip is that you should never try to fire a pistol in that sideways grip so popular in recent films. Not only will you miss almost every shot (the recoil will make the gun track in the direction opposite the hand you're gripping it on), but if you're trying to hold it two-handed (the best way if you mean to actually hit anything), you may very well, depending on the specific design, be spraying hot ejected cartridges into your own off-hand.

Also, on wrestling in general (grappling someone is a wrestling move) ...

Fancy grapples are very difficult to execute unless you know what you're doing. Never position your body so that the leverage favors the person you are grappling. The move you described earlier is a badly done half-Nelson, and there are two very obvious ways to slip the grip -- dropping under it, or pushing the gripping hand out. Both will work well in this situation. A third method, which is not as instictive, is to bend forward rapidly while gripping your arm -- this will flip you right over the intended victim, a move that will knock some of your wind out done on a gym mat, and done onto a concrete pavement is likely to be considerably more harmful!

What's worse, since you are shoving something scary looking at the victim's head, even if you catch him by surprise he may reflexively slip your hold. This is easy for him given the leverage situation (unlike a real half-Nelson you are affording him plenty of space to grip your arm from the inside), and the natural "avoid things coming at your face" reaction may totally override his fear of the gun -- he may not even realize what you've shoved at him until after he's started moving.

Furthermore, it takes longer to decide to shoot someone and pull the trigger than you realize, unless you approached your victim with the pure intent of killing him (in which case why bother with the elaborate hook-around-the-head, you should just shoot him in the base of his skull, which if done right is always fatal). You have to realize that the victim is resisting, then decide to pull the trigger, then do it -- and in the position you are standing in, you are going to pull the trigger _after_ the gun is pointing in the wrong direction.

This is going to:

(1) Break your wrist, causing you to drop the gun and rendering you incapable of punching him with your best hand,

(2) Give the victim an adrenal surge, so that he's going to proceed to beat the crap out you (who are now defenseless owing to your busted wrist and lost gun), and

(3) Perform the function of alerting the police, who will probably get there as your intended victim is stomping you a bit. When they find out what's going on, they are going to laugh at you a lot as they cart you off to prison. This is undignified, and what is a mugger without his dignity?

Just an idiot with a gun he doesn't really know how to use, that's all.

In article , [email] says...

[snipped]

---

All of this is just wonderful to read, but what does it have to do with whether regulating gun ownership and use would lower the crime rate?

This is marvellous detail, Jordan. I am sure you also know Hells' own amount about specific guns, their strengths and weaknesses, their performance, their history, and such. All of this is detail, though, and is not relevant to the gun regulation issue.

Gun Control is not a technical issue: We don't have a gun problem because not enough people can strip and clean an M-16. Gun Control is a SOCIAL issue: We DO need to know about the circumstances that lead to a shooting, and how a neighborhood is affected when someone is shot. We need to know whether our normal reactions to an event like that actually resolves or aggrivates the problem.

L&R

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

going

that

notion of

assume

honest man

"job"

They'd do something else if they could.

aren't

are a

one

very

Unfortunately I have A level biology and an honorary distinction from a university hospital.

from a

position),

criminal

face_

the

to

taken

and

you can

The natural human reaction is instant freeze. The inside of the skull will stop all but a very heavy bullet due to the angle of impact. Grabbing the mouth hard stops the head from turning due to the choke reflex, and pulling out of it is amazingly painful if the lower lip gets caught, far more painful than a broken arm. This is the method the KGB used to steal information from traffikers.

don't

wheel

your

I'd use a hammer and smash the victims face in before they could get the gun out, no murder charge and no risk.

like

defintion.

get

In terms of firearms I've only handled an assault rifle, a heavy machine gun and a light howitzer.

worse

behind, it

Smack the person on the head so they're unconcious.

the

shattering

Easiest and most lethal is hand around the throat and pistol aimed at 60 degrees through the bottom of the skull to give the exit wound at the apex of the skull. If the person elbows or moves the pistol gets fired straight into the brainstem by reflex.

Failing that just knee cap them.

Mark Whickman said:

What makes you think that?

This does _not_ sound like an easy thing to do from behind, against someone who is free to move. This does also not sound like something that a random mugger would think of doing.

How is this going to avoid a murder charge, or a risk? If you kill him, you've committed murder. If you don't kill him, you have a pissed off injured victim happy to testify against you and see you locked up for a long stretch.

And what is the victim doing while you are hammering his face in? A lot of your plans seem to be assuming rather passive victims.

That's very nice, but you don't seem to understand that a handgun has recoil. Firing it in the position you're suggesting will break your wrist, and the forces involved won't go light on you because of your military service.

Right. _From behind_, presnented forward, not by looping your arm around him.

If the criminal hypes himself up to do that, the chances are he'll wind up doing this, and killing him, which leads to ...

There is actually a good reason why most armed criminals do not shoot, and are _not_ very ready to shoot, their victims.

When a criminal shoots his victim, he has just committed aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon. If his victim dies, it is at _least_ second degree murder. The reason why is that the shooting occurred in the context of a felony crime (the armed robbery).

A mugger who employs a tactic that practically ensures that he is going to shoot or even kill most of his victims will have a very short career. The level of violence he's displaying will put him at the head of the Wanted List; forensics will focus diligently on his identity, and he will be caught. Possibly killed -- he's a very violent criminal, and the police will be a bit twitchy. But in any case, if caught, he won't see daylight again.

Muggers, and robbers in general, know this. They are _not_ as "desperate" as you imagine -- they basically just lack the morality that prevents most of us from taking the "easy" solution to getting money -- namely taking it from someone else.

They want to get money, not shot or put in prison for life. Hence they are generally quite _reluctant_ to shoot or to kill, though in the excitement of a crime they may forget this. If they kill even _one_ victim, they are setting themselves up to spend a long time in prison.

That is why it's quite possible for the victim to reverse the drop on a robber. He is actually more "desperate" than the robber is -- to the robber, it's just a job.

This is also why criminals are deterred by guns. If they fear that a victim may be armed, the easiest solution for them is to seek out another victim. If they fear that _any_ victim may be armed (concealed-carry law) then the easiest solution for them is to try another line of criminal occupation. Burglary instead of home-invasion or armed robbery, for instance.

Criminals are _not_ fanatical, fearless holy warriors. In fact, most of them _are_ (in the famous words of a fictional character) "a superstitious, cowardly lot," and thus they are _far_ easier to deter than you imagine.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

will

pulling

someone who

mugger

gun

you've

victim

your

gun

recoil.

apex

him.

are

assualt

felony

level

bit

as

us

of a

setting

robber.

just

victim may

they

them

cowardly

On

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

will

pulling

someone who

mugger

gun

you've

victim

If this is a shop raid, you go in wearing relatively anonymous clothes and a jacket bought from a charity shop. The hammer is easily concealed up the arm and you approach the till as if buying something then go for it. It's very hard to remember someone's face, especially if the shop assistant is male. The knockback will render the victim unconcious and its a quick hand in the till and legit.

your

And you seem to think everyone has a cocked and loaded gun in their hands.

gun

recoil.

I don't have military service.

A nit has to be picked from an otherwise excellent post. Charles was not a Roman Catholic but stood four square for what we now call the Church of England. The point of contention was that he wanted to control the Church through the bishops. Certainly the services were on the ornate side, if you have been to an Episcopalian service you will have some idea, and his queen was a Catholic. Both of these would have annoyed the Puritan on the street, but the nub for political Puritans like Cromwell was the government question. _____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

In article ,

No, Charles was quite definately a protestant. The reason why the Catholics lost out by Charles being deposed, however, was really a matter of "better the devil you know", since the Puritan movement were far stricter about the persecution of Catholics than Charles or his father, the queen being a good point.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:40:22 +0100, chika wrote:

Right.
_____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

If I remember correctly, King Charles was overthrown because he offended the Puritans -- not for being a secret Catholic, as was alleged, but for going "rrr, fiesty" to Oliver Cromwell's wife. Oliver won all the football games, and the Royalists, or "Lawndalers" as they were called, were forced to flee to France. This also led to a rupture with the Moorish ambassador, Mack, who had been playing with the Lawndale team.

Is it clear now?

On 01 Jul 2001 08:39:26 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

He later settled in Cannery Row, Monterey, Calif., if I remember rightly. _____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

In article , Jordan S.

Nope, you don't quite get the correct picture. Charles was overthrown for trying to raise taxes without the consent of the people, i.e. the parliament, the body which Cromwell would remodel into what we now know as the Westminster Government. It was just that the Puritans were in the right place to take advantage of what was occurring to invoke their views, since Cromwell, far from seeing himself as a dictator or the voice of God or whatever, was reluctant to see himself as anything other than a servant of God. And since football had not yet been invented (Rugby Football and Association Football ddn't happen for a few years yet and that thing you have in the US didn't pop up until much later), Olly would be far more likely to be playing something more archaic like bowls or croquet, or if they were heading towards France, petanque!

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:06:31 GMT, [email] (Martin Edwards) wrote:

I seem to remember reading something along the lines that Charles was in the habit of putting professed Catholics in positions of power, and had a longstanding deal with the king of France that if he managed to bring England back into the Catholic fold, he'd pay Charles a considerable amount of money (which would aid him in establishing a mercenary army sufficient to quiet the objections of his opponenets). Or was it another king? Certainly wasn't James, since he was openly Catholic. I think I may be twisting some threads around here.

In article ,

You could be. James was a real problem, considering his own heritage (i.e. he was only put on the English throne because Bess could never be bothered to get her leg over... what her daddy might have said!!!) but his religion put Charles in a difficult position from the get-go, especially as the two were hardly what you might call model family! Having said that, James I/VI was an odious little man (short, fat, thpeech impediment). I still say the Scots did it just to wind us up!!!

In article , [email] (Daryl Sawyer) writes:

You're thinking of James II, who was deposed in the glorious revolution. (That, in 1688, was England's last constitutional upheaval.) He was dealing with Louis XIV, the sun king. During Charles I's reign France was under the control of Cardinal's Richelieu and Mazarin. James II was openly catholic, but that wasn't a problem until he had a son.

--- Matter is fundamentally lazy:- It always takes the path of least effort Matter is fundamentally stupid:- It tries every other path first. That is the heart of physics - The rest is details. Robert

I haven't heard that one myself, but it could have been Charles II. If so he was playing the king of France along. He was a Catholic, but did not admit it until he was dying, precisely because of the trouble it would cause. With consummate cynicism, he actually allowed Catholic agents to be executed. _____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

Seriously ...

Charles I was the king who was executed after losing the English Revolution to Cromwell. Charles II was the monarch who restored the Stuarts to power, and was a secret Catholic.

Charles Ruttheimer III was king of nothing, though I'm sure he wishes he was. Why? Because it's _good_ to be the King! :)

I guess that makes them undisarmable "criminals", who have a magic black market that can materialize guns regardless of the laws that apply to the rest of the society. Maybe they'll be deterred by the next door neighbor. If the neighbor is an armed civilian, the angry husband or wife may refrain from shooting their spouse because the neighbor my hear the gunshot and run over and shoot him in revenge.

You said there is a point at which you would be in favor of gun control and I asked what that point is. What I did not do is tell the point where I would be against gun control. Here goes:

If it is not practical to reduce the supply of criminal guns by 25% over 5 years, I am 100% against any effort being wasted on the attempt.

If enforcing gun control would use so much of the police's resources that they would not be able to enforce other laws and deter other crimes, I am 100% against gun control under those circumstances.

Now for fun, hypothetically, what conditions would have to hold true for you to be in favor or gun control?

Rasheed said:

No.

It makes them criminals who are _already_ legally disarmed, who buy their illegal guns on the quite real, non-magical black market in firearms.

I didn not make that claim.

I don't know, realistically, if reducing the supply by a mere 25% could help.

The reason why is that right now, a criminal may own more than one gun. If the supply drops 25%, the price is going to rise at _least_ 25%, and thus a criminal with an arsenal is tempted to sell some of his weapons. The result is that any criminal who wants a gun still owns one, and the danger to society is not noticably increased.

I see this being a problem too. One _big_ problem is that, because of the Constitutional issues involved, a lot of gun owners won't surrender their weapons -- they'll instead report them "stolen" or "destroyed", and stash them somewhere. Now the law has created a whole new class of "criminals," who are honest citizens in every other respect, but are now being drawn by the law into the black market.

Remember Prohibition?

I'd say it would have to be able to reduce the number of crimnals _owning guns_ by 90% or more, and have the vast majority of the population actively supporting and helping to enforce the law. Which is _never_ going to happen in America.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

So, are you saying that the inability to effectively enforce a particular law is a valid argument for the abolition of the law? If that's so, it also brings up a few other interesting implications.

In any case, will you at least agree that, as it makes little sense for anyone to own an item they are unable to use and can possibly cause harm to others, that guns licences should be at least as hard to get as driver licences, and that gun registration and ownership should be as closely monitered as car sales and transactions.

(It would also make sense to only legalize guns which are appropriate for self defense and "recreation".)

Fong Chih said:

Absolutely. Unenforceable laws erode respect for the law in general.

I wouldn't mind that.

But, right now, that would mean making guns _easier_ to legally purchase in most of our big cities -- are you aware of that?

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

I particular, I was reffering to the near unenforcable anti-drug laws which have lead to large amount of wars, but have seen little to no headway. By your logic, then leagilization of drugs is in order.

I might as well mention the terriost camps, in particular Osma bin Laden's (sp), who we try, but are unable to, destroy. Would our inability to eliminate the terroist threat be reason to abandon our efforts?

As for making guns easier to purchace, I'm not sure what you mean. To get a Drivers Licence, you need extensive periods of training, and tests to deomnstrate that you know how to use it safely. Each car is also tagged for identification and transffering a car is very clearly noted. If only sales of guns are as strictly enforced.

Fong Chich said:

I totally agree.

We have not yet even _tried_ to eliminate it. I think we should make a try of it, and see who is destroyed: us or them.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

which

By

All right, I'm slightly confused here.

Why are you against Gun Control again? Do you beleive that theoretically guns SHOULD be controled, and that the only reason why we shouldn't pass laws is because they will be ineffectual, or do you beleive that gun control is a bad thing?

Actually, you know what? Go on beleiving whatever you want to beleive. You evidently have given this some thought in order to subscribe to such an . . . unconventional . . . philosophy. It's not often that one finds someone who opposes gun control (a traditionally conservative view) and the supports legalization of drugs (a traditionally liberal view) While I do not agree with your philosophy, I beleive that it is merely a matter of opinion and degree (of course, no one thinks that laws should be 100% enforcable in order to be enacted, but obvioiusly your tolerance of ineffectiveness is far less than others.)

Please don't take offense, but at first I thought that you were yet another conservative nutso which I would derive great pleasure in crushing, but since you don't base your theories on "conservative nutsoism" I will concede that you have a point, though it is diffrent from mine.

Personally, I think that even imperfect enforcement will still lower the amount of guns which belong to criminals (just like imperfect drug enforcement reduces the amount of drug users, as opposed to that of tobacco which has NO regulation), while a good licencing system will ensure that those who can use guns safely can own one. It is also a question that if a goverment in essence admits it's inability to enforce it's own laws by repealing said law, does that limit that government's legitamency as the ruling body of our country?

Fong Chih said:

Because it disarms honest citizens, and fails to disarm criminals, thus making the problem of crime worse.

I think it's an inherently bad thing, because it is the banning of a thing which is in itself harmless (weapon ownership). It is justified in the case of some classes of weapons (such as heavy military weapons) because of the extreme hazard that such weapons, in the hands of the insane or incompetent, may pose to innocents, coupled with the lack of any real civilian purpose for such weapons (a .50-caliber machinegun is too big and bulky and overpowered for either hunting or self-defense).

Note that if the situation were different, such weapons might well have a legimate defensive purpose. If farmers had to deal with large dinosaurs, I'd have no problem with civilian .50-cal machinegun operation. Or, in another case, weapons restrictions might have to be more stringent. If we lived in a space hab, any weapon capable of piercing the outer hull and creating a decompression hazard would have to be severely restricted.

(If we lived in _individual_ space habs, millions of miles apart, one hab to a family, and personally operated powerful spacecraft, _nuclear_ weapons and heavy energy cannon might have legitimate self-defense purposes, as ship or hab [address])

It's fairly standard libertarianism. I'm basically a libertarian conservative.

William F. Buckley Jr, who's somewhere between a religious and a libertarian conservative, also opposes gun control and supports drug legalization, generally speaking. And he's fairly mainstream -- he helped _found_ the modern conservative movement, back in the 1950's.

I'm ok with gun _licensing_, if it's carried out honestly -- in other words, if under normal circumstances it is a simple formality. My only problem with gun licensing is when it's used to prevent honest citizens from acquiring guns.

Part of the reason why is that I grew up in New York City, a place with very strict gun control -- and plenty of violent, gun-toting criminals. A very common sort of news report there is of the shopowner who successfully beats off an armed robbery attempt -- and is promptly arrested for using a gun to do so. The inherent injustice of such a situation, in which a man is forced to choose between breaking the law or submitting to an illegal and immoral attack, struck me at an early age.

As I got older, I learned something about the actual history of gun control. The earliest large scale effort at gun control, in America, took place in the post Civil War South. The specific "problem" was this: lots of black veterans of the Union Army returned home from the war and failed to give white men "proper respect." Some of them even tried to vote! And if you tried to whup `em into place, well, they'd brought their rifles with them.

That's right: the original form of gun control was a deliberate attempt to disarm blacks so that they would be vulnerable to beatings and lynchings. And it worked, too.

The famous Sullivan Act, the first major piece of gun control legislation in the North, was passed in the early 20th century. Here, the "problem" was this: gangs were robbing shipments on the docks, and the dockworkers began to carry guns to beat off the robbers. The gangs were political supporters of the New York City mayoral administration of the day (I think it was Jimmy Walker's, though my memory is foggy now, I read this all years ago), and got the law passed to keep their members from being shot.

And so, the second major milestone of gun control took place _specifically_ to disarm potential crime victims. It wasn't advertised as such, but it worked, too.

In the 60's and 70's, gun control focused on banning cheap handguns, which were called "Saturday Night Specials." This was a polite version of the original slang, which was "_Niggertown_ Saturday Night Specials." In other words, the purpsoe of this legislation was to disarm minorities.

And it passed, and worked -- where the honest urban poor were concerned. It of course did little or nothing to disarm criminals, even minority criminals, who simply invested a little more money or effort in getting their hands on guns. To a robber, a gun is a working tool -- he'll scrimp on something else before he gives up his gun. The effect was to cement criminal control of the slums. I saw _that_ happen _firsthand_ in New York City.

Gun control laws have a demonstrated extreme capacity for deliberate abuse by the powers that be, in order to keep down perceived threats from out-groups. They also produce severe secondary effects, owing to the Law of Unintended Consequences. That's why they're, generally speaking, pragmatically bad, and should be resorted to only when the class of weapon being banned is so exceedingly dangerous to innocent bystanders in the proposed use that the need to protect the citizenry at large supersedes the civil-libertarian interest in protecting the right to bear arms.

Better to repeal an unenforceable law than to present the spectacle of the law being routinely disobeyed. As the saying goes, "Don't give an order that won't be followed," and the same goes for nations.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:42:11 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

??

Oh, I see! Your problem is that you think: 1. anti-gun control=conservative. 2. anti-drug control=liberal 3. Jordan supports both (as do I). So what the hell are we?

;)

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

Fucked up? :)

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

Actually, I thought that you had diffrent ideas about why you're against gun control. As I said, I thought that it was based on "conservative nutsoism" Since no conservative nutso would support legalization on drugs, you must have diffrent reasons. Hence the question.

In article ,

Ever heard of the Monster Raving Loony Party? ;)

On 29 Jun 2001 05:05:21 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Here in genteel, conservative England, people openly smoke dope on buses. The only people remotely bothered by prohibition are public employees, who are in double jeopardy. Should we legalize dope?

_____________________________

******Martin Edwards.******               |

_____________________________

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

Martin Edwards said:

Yep.

In article ,

Suits me! Oooh! Certainly Sir! Four Rizla Spliff? King Size? OOH!!!

To get the majority of our politicians to even talk about it sensibly would be an achievement!

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:01:28 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

The most unjust law is the unenforced law. It is followed only by men for whom law is a matter of concience, and enforced only when needed as a lever against an otherwise innocent man.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in message news:...

How does the quite real black market resupply itself when the current most important source, legally purchased guns, is cut off? That's where the magic starts to come in.

An increase in price means fewer guns at equilibrium under almost all market conditions. Except of course, the magic market that you believe exists for guns but can't explain why.

Like the prohibition of assault rifles? The one that has made assault rifles nearly unattainable by criminals?

Anyway stopping new sales is enough to cut of the source of the black market without confiscating guns already owned.

Let's talk about 90% or more. Do you believe that reducing the number of criminals with guns by, say, 50% would not lead to a net decrease in murders of civilians?

If the answer is no, then you are willing to tolerate a higher number of civilian murders for some principal. What is the principal that you believe is more valuable than civilian life?

If the answer is yes, and you believe decreasing the amount of armed criminals in _half_ would not lead to a net decrease in murders, let's hear why. And some things to remember: 1. As I've said the professional detterent of crime would not be disarmed and would see their relative strength compared to criminals _double_. 2. Today most civilians do not carry arms and don't want to be bothered. 3. A criminal in a society where all civilians have been disarmed still cannot be 100% sure that a prospective victim is unarmed because the prospective victim may be another criminal. 4. There are some categories of crime that are immune to deterence by armed civilians. One example is crimes of passion between family members. The 50% decrease will certainly reduce all of the categories that aren't effected by civilian deterrence.

Rasheed said:

The obvious sources are:

• Corrupt authorities,

• Greedy machinists, and

• Foreign suppliers.

The name of the "magic" is "organized crime." The magicians did a similar trick with booze in the 1920's, and are performing to packed crowds with a number of controlled substances today.

Yes, it does.

But the _number_ of "fewer guns" may be more than enough to arm the criminals.

ROFLMAO!!!!

Explain to me what an "assault rifle" is, and just why a criminal would want one?

For the benefit of foreign readers: the "assault rifle" bill banned a number of weapons because they were scary looking. Most of these weapons were large, difficult to conceal, and thus utterly useless to most types of crimnal. And the kind of criminal they would be useful to would be professional assassins or violent radicals, who would be unlikely to be deterred by any law against them.

Depends -- how difficult is it for honest citizens to get gun licenses under your proposed regime?

If you _totally_ disarm honest citizens, the answer may well be "no" because now armed criminals need _only_ worry about the police.

Furthermore, I'll point out that to reduce the number of criminals with guns by, say, 50%, you would have to reduce the number of weapons in circulation by _far_ more than 50%. I'm not knowledgable enough in the statistics of gun ownership to know just how much more.

This particular deterrent is _not_ a positive factor; it _increases_ the social status of criminals because honest citizens must then find criminal protectors if the police are not responsive enough. This is more than a theoretical problem: look at the LA gang problem.

I'm not totally sure about that. If you were an abusive husband, would you feel safe beating your wife if you knew she had access to a handgun?

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

feel

One problem with leaving the defense of civillians up to the civilians is that it has an "every man for himself" type of air. In the case of civillian gun ownership being a method of deterrence, then those without guns will be at a comparative disadvantage.

In any case, the common person becomes MUCH more dangerous. Now some might say that it is a good thing, which will deter criminals. However, it may also cause the criminals to become more agressive in their behavior, as the potential target(s) must be assumed to be armed and dangerous, thereby justifying pre-emptive strikes. Also, any confrontation between two parties armed with deadly weapons, where each party is worried for his/her safety, generally produces deadlier results than if only one party was armed.

As my self defense teacher said, the best way to defend youself from someone who wants to attack you is to give them what they want. Essencially, throw the money and run while they pick it up. It is not very heroic, but it IS the safest thing to do. Making an agressive move (be it with a gun, or a knife, or your fists) and people will be hurt. If you have a gun and your opponent doesn't, then it's fine. The other person (if he's smart) wiull surrender. If both parties have guns however, then someone is going to end up with a bullet, possibly both.

Now if somone WANTS to own a gun, and shows that he/she can be responsible for the weapon, then fine. However, a concern is that society will degenerate to a point in which one NEEDS a gun, resulting in a return to the Wild Wild West.

In a related note, it also places a large amount of power (and responsibility) in the hands of the Americian public. Now some people might think that it's a good thing but . . .

Would you trust someone like Kevin Thompson (there ARE people out there like him) with a gun?

Fong Chih said:

Indeed.

That's not what I argued for, though.

What I argued was _not preventing_ civilians from defending themselves if they need to. That is very different from arguing that there should not be a police force which has the official job of doing so.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:40:51 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

This is democracy's last line of defense.

Kevin doesn't have the malice neccessary to murder. And as for accidental shooting, even Kevin could understand that when you pull the trigger, someone might die. And as to him acting foolish with a gun to "look cool" (like the motorcycle incident), *anybody* would quickly tell him to put it away (and preferably back in it's locked cabinet, or better yet, safe), and I think he would.

And, of corse, there ARE people out there like him... in our law enforcement agencies.

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

I don't know about that. People do really stupid things sometimes, especially after a enough drinks with the guys until your brain is completely filled with alcohol and testosterone. Then there is the possibility that he might try to play the hero, and meet with his usual sucess rating.

In any rate, my point is that there are many non-criminal civillians who should never own guns.

Your point? With so many law enforcement agents out there, it is probably statistically true that some of them out there who have the intellegence of Kevin. However, with the increased requirements for being a law enforcement officer (as opposed to being a citizen of your country) the percentages of Kevins in the agencies are much lower than that of the general population.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

trick

number of

The situation is very different. Any fool can make booze by letting veg rot and anyone with a basic grasp of chemistry or agriculture can make almost every nown drug.

Organized crime did not produce booze at the quality, quantity or price the legal market was able to. It does not produce illegal drugs as well as the legal market could. In fact organized crime is almost never as efficient at producing anything as the legal markets. (Because of the resources they have to expend avoiding the law) I thought you were claiming that ending the legal market would not affect the final quantity available to criminals. If I was wrong, pardon me.

So we agree that ending the legal market for guns will decrease the number of guns in the black market.

The thing about price mechanisms is that what they do is decide who gets a scarce resource and who does not. It is not easy to imagine a scenario in which the price of guns goes up (even on the black market) and there are no criminals who want guns but are unable to get them. In other words, decreasing the amount of guns on the black market certainly will result in some criminals no longer having access to guns, the only question is how many.

For gang wars, assault rifles are superior to pistols. For protecting criminal enterprises from other criminals, assault rifles are superior to pistols. For holding of police, assault rifles are superior to pistols. Any time you aren't worried about concealment of the weapon on your body assault rifles are superior. Good thing criminals can't get them.

When you say that reducing the amount of criminals with guns by 50% would still lead to the same net amount of murders if the civilians are disarmed, you are saying that currently armed civilians are deterring 50% of all murders, or one for each murder that still occurs. When you say that the point at which the benefits of armed civilians is surpassed by the benefits of disarmed criminals is 90% disarmament of the criminals you are saying that currently armed civilians are deterring 9 murders for every murder that is now occurring.

Do you believe that this miraculous deterrent would work in Canada and reduce Canada's murder rate by 90%? Do you believe that if the UK armed its civilians, with the larger illegal black market that would enable, then the UK's murder rate would go _down_ by 50% or even 90%?

And you say the reason the US still has more murders than other industrialized countries is because we're more violent. Twice as violent? Nearly ten times as violent?

Do you believe that guns available in households with abusive husbands increases or decreases the amount of murders in those households?

Rasheed said:

You're quite right. But the quality isn't a problem -- a criminal's gun is to intimidate, not engage in a heavy shootout, as a criminal who does that is _dead_. The quantity isn't much of a problem either -- the criminal need only buy _one_. As for price, it's a tool of his trade, so he has to buy one.

Indeed -- but this is almost irrelevant, unless the number is decreased _very_ drastically, because criminals will still have guns.

Sure it is. No way are you going to raise the price of simple handguns above a few thousand in 2000 constant dollars, no matter what you do -- and a criminal will get that sort of money by mugging old ladies until he's saved up enough from their social security money. He need not worry about being stopped during this process, because said old ladies are disarmed -- thanks to you -- and can't put up much resistance to a hefty assailant.

You've failed to define what an "assault rifle" is. But if you mean an _automatic rifle_, absolutely not.

Once you've fired a weapon on automatic, you're going to have the whole police force on your tail. A gunshot can be mistaken for a backfire: automatic weapons fire is distinctive. And the police will be shooting to kill the moment they see you, unless you surrender _very_ fast.

No, because they aren't _concealable_. If your guards are carrying automatic rifles, the police are going to show up pronto.

LOL!!!

Any time that you have to worry about "holding off police," your main problem is to get your surrender accepted. "Automatic rifles" make it more likely that you're going to _kill_ cops, at which point the police are probably going to suffer from a sudden attack of deafness when you try to surrender.

Any criminal with delusions of being able to hold off the whole police force is going to be dead in fairly short order.

Again -- what is an "assault rifle?"

And you're worried about "concealment of the weapon" if you're operating anywhere in the United States of America, or any other country with civilized and competent law enforcement. Not just "on your body" -- rifles are in general harder to conceal than pistols.

Of course they can. Hell, they can get _rocket launchers_ on the black market!

I don't know where you've grown up, but it wasn't somewhere that you were able to acquire "streetwise," that's damned sure!

Is this a joke? You know old ladies who are armed? You don't think there are any criminals who won't be able to raise a few thousand dollars? Is it possible any criminals will be caught in their old lady robbing sprees before they are able to commit a murder?

and you snipped part of my response by accident.

When you say that reducing the amount of criminals with guns by 50% would still lead to the same net amount of murders if the civilians are disarmed, you are saying that currently armed civilians are deterring 50% of all murders, or one for each murder that still occurs. When you say that the point at which the benefits of armed civilians is surpassed by the benefits of disarmed criminals is 90% disarmament of the criminals you are saying that currently armed civilians are deterring 9 murders for every murder that is now occurring.

Do you believe that this miraculous deterrent would work in Canada and reduce Canada's murder rate by 90%? Do you believe that if the UK armed its civilians, with the larger illegal black market that would enable, then the UK's murder rate would go _down_ by 50% or even 90%?

And you say the reason the US still has more murders than other industrialized countries is because we're more violent. Twice as violent? Nearly ten times as violent?

Do you believe that guns available in households with abusive husbands increases or decreases the amount of murders in those households?

On 1 Jul 2001 21:33:53 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

The guy I used to work with used to make a *hell* of a lot more money selling dope than he does now, as a working stiff. He was making at least a few thousand a week (and spending it as fast as he made it). He and his "dogs" were always "strapped," and not with cheap guns. They bought the "good shit." A few thousand dollars is chump change to a criminal in a society with reasonably good pickings. I could go next door, grab the dude's... wait, not next door. That guy is a one man neighborhood watch. I could grab a few things from a few houses in the area (fairly easily), sell them to the local fence (and if I'm in the criminal business, I'd know who he was and where to find him). Better yet, I could sell drugs.

So, lets see here. Let's keep the existing drug laws on the books, and then make guns illegal to common citizens. I guarentee you, that is a recipe for a criminal reign of terror. And where bribery is concerned, blood money is as good as any other.

You are making me laugh. First, saying there are criminals who exist who have access to a few thousand dollars is different from saying every criminal has access to a few thouasand dollars. If the latter is not true, increasing the price that much will reduce the number of criminals with guns. And guess what, the latter is not true.

If and when you do decide to pursue a criminal career, how long do you think your robbery spree will last before you are captured by the professional police? How many criminals are stopped each year by professional law enforcement? How many criminals are stopped by amateur law enforcement?

Go to the guy you used to work with and ask him why he stopped being a criminal. It wasn't because he was afraid of armed civilians.

You guarantee me? Where is the criminal reign of terror in Japan? You really seem to believe that the less than ten percent of civilians who carry are a major crime deterrent and in fact, an even better deterrent than efforts to disarm criminals.

You want a criminal reign of terror? Two words: Cheap guns. Even when they are legal, the vast majority of civilians do not carry. Even if guns were free, most civilians would not carry. Criminals buy guns as long as they can afford them. That means criminals always will have civilians outgunned. Basically, every criminal who does not have a gun today does not have one because he was priced out of the market. Make guns cheaper, there are more guns in the hands of criminals, there are more murders and crimes committed with guns.

Once the legal sale of guns is stopped, the main source for the black market is removed. There are alternative, less efficient sources but there is no rational argument that the amount of guns on the black market will not decrease immediately.

In the medium term, guns are leaving the market due to being captured by law enforcement, breaking down and being thrown away. These guns are being replaced more slowly than they would with a nearby legal market with the net effect that guns are becoming (relative to an uncontrolled guns community) scarcer every year, with fewer criminals having access to guns each year than the year before.

Eventually, US criminals will have as hard a time getting guns as criminals in London, Montreal and other gun control communities without a convenient legal source. That means a *huge* reduction in gun violence and murder. In fact, compared to places where guns are hard to get, America is currently *in* a criminal reign of terror.

But many thousands of people being murdered every year is a small price to pay for... For what?

On 8 Jul 2001 03:35:18 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

These aren't apple cart thieves! If a "criminal" isn't going to make a better than avarage living, why continue at all? I don't think you realize just how easily money comes in a prosperous society. And *if* the pickings are slim, well, the State isn't going to get much in tax dollars either, so the Police are likely to be about as well armed as the criminals.

You truely display your ignorance. Tell me: in what city do you live, and in what gated community to you make your bubble?

Doesn't matter. In the meantime, I can make enough money to impress the other young punks to attract them into it, and make life hell for the honest people in the area.

My friend got caught. Between jail and a desire to please his girlfriend (now wife), he reformed himself. I doubt he ever shot at a policeman; most of his gun stories involved shooting at rival gang members.

Once again, a culturally homogenous island. And the reign wouldn't be universal, just in the inner cities of certain large cities. LA is already there. From what I hear, New York is there, too. Let's make it apply to all cities in the US, shall we?

I stated earlier that criminal deterrance is the least of my concerns. Jordan illustrated clearly the root issue in gun control: gun control is rarely designed to protect citizens, more often to protect the privilages of influential pressure groups.. And it's people like you who are sufficiently deluded to believe them.

Comedy at its best. Clue number 1. Criminals (like everyone on earth) do not make decisions based on a better than average living. They make their decisions based on the options available to them. Statistically, the options available to criminals are not as good as the options available to the average member of their society.

But please, to improve your act, just type the following sentence. "I do not believe there are any criminals who do not have access to a few thousand dollars." You're showing real potential. With my help you could be bigger than Bozo.

No.

Are you willing to go to jail to "impress other young punks and make life hell for the honest people in the area?" Obviously not. Thats how police actually deter criminals unlike the armed civilians who make sure criminals have cheap access to guns.

Comedy at its best. Clue number two: shooting at rival gang members will not be deterred by armed civilians because he's already shooting at someone armed. and taking the risk that he accidentally hits an armed or unarmed civilian. Clue number three: he was deterred by normal professional law enforcement. Armed civilians did not figure into stopping his particular reign of terror. The police did.

How about London, Berlin, Montreal, Paris, Amsterdam ....

Clue number four: New York is safer than most large cities in the US. How will increasing criminal access to guns make that less so?

Wow. Criminal deterrence is the least of your concerns? What can I say? In 1999 in the US 10,000 families lost a member to a handgun homicide. I'm sure they are concerned if you aren't.

Good. I can see some more comedy coming. Which influential pressure groups are you talking about? The police? The illuminati? The ZOG? Make it funny.

On 8 Jul 2001 23:01:08 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

I make sure that criminals have "cheap access to guns"?

How?

Do I run a discount gunstore for criminals? Do I run the background checks mandated by law, or do I forego those?

Here's a clue: There will ALWAYS be cheap access to guns. Do a web search on "Sten Gun" and get back to us.

Amadou Diallo was "deterred" by "normal professional law enforcement"... now wait, he wasn't a criminal. How come he's dead?

Criminals "access" guns on their own terms. No criminal in New York has the least trouble getting a gun.

What percentage of that number were suicides?

HCI for one. They're all about protecting rapists.

Christopher Morton said:

Heh, and the _British_ came up with that one -- and it's a full auto SMG, too. Nice point! :)

It's interesting that Rasheed thinks it was funny that US Southern blacks were legally disarmed. _They_ weren't laughing about it, at the time. But maybe he doesn't know what happened in the South after the end of Reconstruction ... ?

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

too.

It can't hit sod all at more than 15 feet though. My Grandad was an RAF ground crew and had a lot of accuracy awards but the sten gun couldn't hit anything accurately, and would go off if you shook it hard enough.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:57:27 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

How far away do you expect to hit something with an open bolt submachinegun with fixed sights???

When I want to shoot something with precision, I use one of my sniper rifles! : )

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

SMG,

hit

Suppose so

Mark Whickman said:

Well, yes. But it is a real fully-automatic weapon, and it can be machined by almost anyone, anywhere, with minimal tools, materials, and expertise. Which was the point of the weapon.

Now, given a _real_ machine shop and better materials and expertise, you can make a far better gun.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

by

Which

can

The bullets are the mian difficulty.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:46:44 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

No they aren't.

I loaded what I needed for the National Matches this morning.

Mark Whickman said:

Why? Cartridges aren't hard to machine, nor is propellant hard to manufacture.

On 09 Jul 2001 20:05:56 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Tell me about it. I've got 595 rounds of .38 Special and .45acp sitting on the computer desk in front of me as I type this.

National Matches this week! : )

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

manufacture.

The percussion caps are the hardest part to make. The materials are quite easy to control.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:15:09 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Really?

You're going to ban kitchen matches?

Any truly effective gun control regime ultimately requires a luddite police state.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Effective percussion caps. A good stable caps that explodes evenly is fairly hard to amke. Requiring a certain blend of rare metals.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:59:21 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Fulminate of mercury isn't rare. Neither to my knowledge is lead styphnate.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

quite

fairly

I will remember the name of the metal used in production line bullets eventually...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:46:44 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Bullets or cartridges?

The former is the part of the latter which one projects through the target.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

The casing, I was using laymans terms.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:47:27 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

It's brass, which isn't especially hard to get.

The Russians are quite fond of lacquered steel. That's not hard to get at all.

Of course brass cartridge cases are capable of being reloaded upward of a dozen times... as I do.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

If you can pick them up, and no one tries to make ashtrays out of them :)

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:09:05 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Hey, what do you think this is, Korea??? : )

Actually, when I was Korea, it was tough to practice night attacks using blanks, because the Koreans would follow you around with flashlights picking up the empty cases as they were ejected!

Mark Whickman said:

Well, there I'd assume that the main problem is avoiding blowing yourself up.

Mercury fulminate? Isn't that what's used, and isn't that the same material they use for blasting caps? I don't know about Britain, but in America, the construction industry is one of those that has the _most_ problems with penetration by organized crime. It doesn't seem to me like it would take very many materials "stolen," "lost", or "damaged" to equip criminals with all the bullets they need -- it's not as if crooks actually _shoot_ their guns very often.

On 10 Jul 2001 00:07:59 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

In two hours today, I loaded ten lifetime's worth of ammunition for the average criminal.

Criminals who do a lot of shooting get caught... or shot.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

up.

material

the

very

the

very

Mercury fulminate is unstable. Vibration can set the cap off. Modern caps are made of a rare transition metal.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:00:31 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

There's nothing either difficult or high tech about basic primers. Corrosive primers were in service for a LONG time. They only require proper cleaning of the gun after firing.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

And they are vibration and temperature gradient unstable.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:47:13 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

No they aren't.

I've got a coffee can full of Portuguese 7.92mm ammunition that's as good as the day it was loaded.

I've NEVER had a problem with ammunition loaded with corrosive primers and don't know anyone who has.

Their ONLY drawback is that they're hygroscopic.

On 09 Jul 2001 17:15:16 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

But why bother?

As Mao once said, "Our weapons come from the arsenals of Hanyang." : )

Translation: "Why make good stuff when you can just shoot the other guy and take his?" : )

Now, given legal factories, professional designers, a legal supply of raw materials, trained management and protection from the legal system, you can make a far better gun. And you can make more, faster and sell them more cheaply.

Are you arguing that the black market is as efficient as legal markets or not? If not, how can moving entirely to the black market not decrease the resulting number of guns available to criminals?

It must be that criminals can just pray to the evil god of the black market and he will materialize guns for them.

Rasheed said:

If you simultaneously reduce supply _and_ demand, you don't affect price much, if any.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in message news:...

What are you talking about? If you simultaneously reduce supply and demand of _guns_ regardless of what happens to price, you get fewer murders.

Rasheed said:

No.

You don't, _if_ the demand-reduction occurs primarily on the part of _non_-murderers, which is exactly what strict gun control does.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

Guns become harder to come by, replacement is much harder therefore easier to catch with forensics.

Mark Whickman said:

How so?

The guns in question are going to almost entirely have been smuggled in, or stolen or corruptly purchased from legitimate owners (in particular the police and military). In many cases there will be no evidentiary trail.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

easier

or

police

Exactly. Much harder than if they were simply bought in another state and driven over in a car.

Of course its easier to drive a gun in from one US state to another than to smuggle it in through customs, build a sten gun factory in your basement or put army personnel on your payroll.

Of course if the suppliers of the black market have to do one of the second three things, they will be less efficient than if they can do the first.

Of course less efficient suppliers of the black market means a smaller amount of guns gets into the hands of criminals.

The question is why would anyone argue the opposite? What do anti gun control people think there is to gain that they are willing to sacrifice their own common sense?

It's as if it was a religious thing, and by being fanatics, they are trying to get into heaven.

Now how did that happen? Who was the founder of this church?

Rasheed said:

Untrue, because now the _demand_ has also gone down -- honest citizens are now no longer competing against criminals for the supply available on the _total_ market.

Because we understand economics a bit better than you do.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in message news:...

Can I take it you now refuse to talk about the black market which is where criminals actually get their guns (and where honest civilians by definition do not get their guns)? Why is that?

I'm tempted to paste some of your earlier economic analyses here, like the one where you said gun control would cause the price of guns to go up (you said that first, not me) and that would cause the resulting market quantity to go up. Anyone reading this thread can draw his or her own conclusions about our relative understandings of economics.

But in fact, I think you understand economics better than you're demonstrating in this thread, but your faith in anti-gun control is inspiring you to entirely ignore your own common sense. I am interested in why that is happening.

Rasheed said:

No.

You can take it that I refuse to assume that black market prices are wholly indepdendent from open market prices, and that prices fail to respond to a drop in general demand.

Of course it will.

However, it will not cause the price of guns to go up _as far as you expect_, because you are figuring in only the reduced supply, and ignoring the reduced demand.

Explain then. Why would prices on the illegal market drop when the honest citizens stop buying guns on the legal market? Clue number one: the demand on the illegal market is made up only of people who actually participate in that market.

Oh, they are somehow connected in a way you can't explain. The evil god of criminals will decrease demand on the part of criminals. Why? Just so you can be right.

There is no reduced demand in the criminal market. You are claiming that the reduced demand of honest citizens in the legal market will magically impact the prices in a market honest citizens don't even participate in. How? You don't know but the two markets aren't "totally independent" so it must impact the price even if you don't know how.

Can you believe you're making arguments like this?

Now let's talk about _as far as I expect_. What are you talking about? The question I am answering for you concerns the quantity of guns available to criminals. I have only spoken about the criminal market. How do you know what I _expect_ in what you are calling the "total" market? This is really getting ridiculous.

To summarize where we are now:

I said making suppliers of the criminal market less efficient will decrease the amount of guns available to criminals.

You said untrue.

Explain how making the suppliers of *any* market less efficient will not decrease the quantity available in that market. Especially if demand _in that market_ does not go down.

Clue number two: Demand _in that market_ means criminal demand. We've already agreed that honest citizens do not supply demand to the criminal markets for guns (by definition). So if you're going to say demand on the criminal markets is going to go down, you're going to have to at least suggest a mechanism.

If you don't realize it, the arguments you are making are really becoming a joke. I'm not trying to be insulting but I'm wondering why you're willing to stretch logic past the breaking point before admitting that gun control can reduce the amount of guns available to criminals. You said a long time ago that you are not a fanatic. What's happening?

On 12 Jul 2001 11:07:39 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

If guns are banned, I plan to become PART of the black market.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

now

_total_

Citizens buy their guns from legit markets, not black markets. Criminals rely on the black market, and even they are somehow able to get them legitimently, they will now HAVE to turn to the black market (as well as citizens who want guns for themselves) thereby INCREASING demand.

Fong Chih said:

Increasing _criminal_ demand on the black market, not _total_ demand on _all_ markets. Actually, the main reason why the price of guns goes up under gun control is the chokeoff of supply, not an increase in demand.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

_all_

There are three factors. S1, D1, S2, and D2.

S1 = Supply on Legit Market S2 = Supply on Black Market D1 = Demand on Legit Market D2 = Demand on Black Market P1 = Price on Legit Market P2 = Price on Black Market

Now, approximatly, P=k(D/S) (not exactly, but close) meaning, if demand goes up, so does prices. If supply goes up, so does prices. k is an unknown constant.

now P1=k(D1/S1) and P2=k(D2/S2)

If there are no more guns to be purchaced legitimantly.

D1: Generally stays the same, people will still want guns. However, some may turn to black markets. S1: Drops to 0. No guns are to be had. P1: Not applicable any more. D2: All the old people, plus civilians who want guns and can't get the legally. Goes UP. S2: With guns harder to get, supply goes DOWN. P2: With demand going UP and supply going DOWN this leades to a decrease in price.

I figured out a way to explain this that maybe you can understand.

After the legal market has been removed, the black market _is_ the "total" market. The only way to reduce demand in the new, post prohibition "total" market is to reduce the number of criminals or change their preferences.

Honest civilians do not have any role in the "total" market after prohibition. They have no effect on demand positive or negative.

And the question, how big is the demand in the new "total" market for guns? Demand on the new "total" market is exactly the same size as the demand in the old "illegal" market. You know why? Because the old "illegal" market _is_ the new "total" market.

So instead of "no longer" competing against criminals, civilians were _never_ competing against criminals in the relevant market.

Either you are going to pretend you don't understand or you are going to come up with an even more bizarre attack on gun control. But ask yourself the question I'm asking. Why? What about the anti-gun control stance is worth literally flushing logic down the toilet?

Rasheed said:

I understand you perfectly -- including the economic fallacy you're committing.

They have one very big effect.

Their demand has just vanished.

False, because the two markets were always connected.

I chose the third option, which was to point out the fallacy in your reasoning.

Since I didn't flush any logic down the toilet, the answer is, it isn't.

Now, ask yourself this qestion:

Why? What about the pro-gun control stance is worth literally flushing logic down the toilet?

(see? I can couch my argument in insulting terms too! Whee!)

On 11 Jul 2001 21:49:31 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

It's easier to build an SMG factory... or divert production away from some legitimate enterprise.

It can't be stopped.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

and

It could be, but it would take local cooperation. Give a low life a lump sum for every factory they alert you to and they'll soon go down.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:50:45 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

It can't be stopped while maintaining an open society... which is I suppose, the point. You can TRY by setting up a Luddite police state. But that will only motivate people to want to pull it down even harder. That leaves aside the devastation to the economy that such draconian measures would produce.

Informants? Publicly eliminate enough of them and their family/friends in a sufficiently unpleasant manner and they become few.

Even better, call in anonymous tips on fictitious locations to the authorities, then meet them halfway there. Have I mentioned how easy it is to make a platter charge...?

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

sum

You push the money up, increase witness protection.

Get enough police killed and they'll start getting tanks.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:10:54 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Corpses can't spend money, and in truth they don't REALLY care, and won't spend THAT much money.

Then we'll start blowing up the tanks.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Ever heard of Chobbham armour? And even that's out of date now.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:36:27 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Ever heard of ANFO?

It's cheap, much cheaper than tanks.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:57:02 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

They don't need to be bought in another state. They can and will be produced locally.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

in,

and

The quality won't be very good. And you make a lot of people think twice if the gun's likely to blow their hands off when they use it.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:49:36 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

You keep saying this, but you don't provide any proof. It's starting to sound like a mantra to ward off the inevitable.

In fact homebuilt Sten guns or even better, MAC-10s, built on CNC machines are apt to be of BETTER quality than wartime Sten guns... and CHEAPER in real terms.

Firearms are 13th century technology.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

if

I'm waiting for phased fusion cutters.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:09:53 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

A PPG will do just fine.

By the way, I once emailed J. Michael Straczynski to tell him that the PPGs on B-5 were dangerous because none of them appeared to have sights of any kind. If the NYPD can't avoid shooting bystanders and each other WITH sights, what would happen without them? : )

In article ,

A Powerpuff Girl? Which one?

chika wrote in message news:[email]...

Purple pus gobbler?

In article ,

Oh yeah. Bunny. The one that blew up.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:22:17 +0100, chika wrote:

The little pocket sized ones that cook you from the inside out. : )

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

easier

or

police

Smuggled in from where. Part of gun control is attempting to reduce corruption within the military etc.

Most guns owned by criminals around the world are bought legally in the US and shipped out. Instead of the slave triangle there's now the gun / nrcotics triangle (NW europe sells chemical drugs to the carribean which sells more drugs to the US which they use to buy guns which are sold in europe). The yardies are pretty major on it.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:20:27 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Part of drug control is attempting to reduce corruption within the military etc.

We see how well THAT's worked.

Fully automatic AKMs are bought in the US and shipped out?

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Has anything been tried at all yet?

US

A lot passes through the US, yes. Operation Trident is attempting to close the US supply which is most of northern europes weapons.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:52:05 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Sure, the 4th amendment's been gutted, racial profiling instituted, and police have gotten rich off of civil forfeiture.

Is that what you meant by "trying" something?

It's easier to put it on Chinese ships and ship directly. By the way, somebody who did that was invited to a White House coffee by the Clintons. I wonder just how much money they got from him?

Doesn't matter. The Chinese army is the center of the illicit AKM trade in China. You'll just confiscate the tiny fraction of what you find, the rest will continue to get through and you'll kiss the PLA's ass in the bargain. That's the way it happened here.

On 11 Jul 2001 11:03:21 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Those will merely be secondary sources of supply. The major source of illicit guns will be clandestine manufacture... of which I plan to be a part if it ever comes to that.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:34:34 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

They don't become harder to get. Like I said, look up the term "Sten gun" and see just how hard it is to get a gun.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

easier

The gun is of lesser quality, more likely to break down and harder to get a reasonable replacement when it does go wrong.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:48:34 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

The user isn't going to shoot Bisley with it.

Sten gun quality is perfectly adequate... assuming that the maker doesn't use CNC machines which increase both efficiency and quality. Replacement parts can be made out of the same stock that's used to produce the gun itself. A local manufacturer of target rifles manufacturers the mounting rings for the telescope in the same process in which he machines the receiver.

As I said, you're knowledge of firearms, and more importantly firearms technology is very limited.

Come on now. We've been talking about the illegal market for guns for a long time now. Focus.

If the supply of the illegal market decreases, prices rise if demand stays the same, and we get a lower overall quantity.

If the demand of the _illegal_ market decreases, prices may not rise now, but we have an even larger decrease in overall quantity.

You must have just gotten confused. I'm not going to ask why non-murderers were using the black market in your world.

Rasheed said:

I'm quite focused.

Gun control decreases the total demand for guns, because honest citizens fear the consequences of violating the law, at the same time as it decreases the total supply, because it reduces it to the illegal guns. That is why, economically speaking, it does _not_ increase the price to the extent that it would if the demand did not also go down.

Given your rudeness, I'm not surprised that you lack a basic understanding of the economics involved -- rudeness is usually a form of verbal fog to cover uncertainity. But it's a childish tactic -- give it up.

Actually, honest citizens were never competing with criminals for guns on the black market. Reducing the demand of honest citizens has _no_ effect on demand in the black market.

Removing the legal market removes the legal market. After that is done, it makes no sense to talk about demand in the legal market.

So while we're talking about the effects of gun control on the black market, let's not accidentally try to cloud the issue by pretending that the demand had, up to now, been increased by honest citizens.

I say focus, because the issue at hand is how many guns are available to _criminals_. Does reducing the efficiency of the gun suppliers to _criminals_ decrease the amount of guns available to them or not?

Rasheed said:

And I never said they were.

Honest citizens compete with criminals for guns on the _market in general_. Your assumption that prices on the black market are _totally_ independent from prices in the legal argument is false, and hence so are all the conclusions you draw from this belief.

On 12 Jul 2001 10:10:08 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Of course it does.

The black market will supply whoever has the money.

Banning guns will no more eliminate civilian demand than the sham drug war has reduced demand for marijuana. Just because you pass an idiotic law doesn't mean that people will just allow themselves to be disarmed and rendered helpless.

Get a clue.

In article ,

Good group, Focus. OK, Hocus Pocus was a bit silly, but Sylvia and House Of The King were classics, though as far as the albums went, I preferred Focus 3 and Hamburger Concerto.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:21:29 +0100, chika wrote:

Yep, Jan Akkerman is one of the greatest guitarists who ever lived. Listen to Mark Knopfler and hear the influence.

You both need to be clearer about the difference between demand and quantity demanded. To reduce demand you need to make fewer people want guns. To reduce quantity demanded you just need to push up the price.

On 10 Jul 2001 19:29:31 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

That is of course a nonsequitor.

Incidence of use and legality of use are not directly controlled by supply and demand.

The Nazis decreased the supply, suppressed demand, and killed many more people than were being killed prior to those actions.

As I said, you don't know anything about guns OR history.

In article , [email] says...

---

Now, Jordan. Economics is not that simple, OR that precise.

I tend to believe that the REASONS behind changes in Supply and Demand affect prices more than actual supply and demand levels actually do. Now, this would get me an 'F' in Milton Friedman's Econ 101 class, but then Friedman didn't predict the dot-com boom and he didn't predict the dot-com bust, and he's not predicting the recession that's already here now. Just look what his Nobel Prize is doing to the rest of us.

The economic reality is that guns are unnessessary to living. If we regulated gun use and ownership (not outlawed, as you and Christopher like to argue); then the demand for guns would drop; not rise, because people would find out they didn't need guns. We'd all go on to handling problems in other ways.

* * *

Is Daria packing, Jordan?

L&R

On 9 Jul 2001 17:06:00 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Under what government regulations does the black market operate?

Will OSHA inspect my basement Sten gun factory? Will the Department of Labor make sure that I have a health plan?

It must be that you haven't the slightest knowledge of economics or guns.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:...

No. When a criminal is caught with a sten gun, the police are going to ask where'd you get it. And you know what? The criminal will get a couple of years off his sentence by ratting you out. One less sten gun factory. That type of thing doesn't happen in legal markets.

Well add comedy to the list of things you understand better than I do.

On 10 Jul 2001 19:43:37 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Unless I use cutouts... which I will. Clearly, you still haven't learned anything about illicit markets.

Of course that factory will be replaced by three in short order.

Along with markets and guns.

What DO you know about?

On 09 Jul 2001 09:58:57 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

And the Sten is HARD to make compared to modern SMGs. The later versions of the Ingram, don't even have forged bolts. The bolt is a stamping into which lead is inserted for inertia mass.

Maybe not in his case, but that seems rather a common quality of hardcore anti-gunners. It seems to come with the territory. Look at David Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas (Rack Jite, Muy Groso, etc.). He repeatedly described the neo-Nazi Holocaust revisonists of the National Alliance as "polite and honest". A lot of anti-gunners aren't afraid of guns; they're afraid of Black people with guns.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 08:03:36 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

Or Jews with guns, or Mexicans with guns, or misfits with guns, or <insert any group irrationally feared by a majority of persons> with guns.

Chris, Jordan, let's stop talking about criminals altogether. It's a straman argument set up by gun control people, anyway. These guys don't even know enough to understand the arguments anyway. Let's focus on the historical record for gun control. Let these guys understand that the real reason for the gun lobby is to avoid tyranny, not "stop the bad men." That is *their* purported purpose, and it is we that are "the bad men," particularly you, Chris. It's political radicals like us that are the very target of gun control measures, not to mention minority ethnic or racial groups.

Good idea. The idea that the criminal markets would be unaffected by the removal of the legal market is so ridiculous that I honestly am shocked that you have stayed with it so long.

But now what happens if it comes out that citizen ownership of guns is not an effective way to prevent tyranny? If we don't enact gun control now, before a tyrant comes to power, how does that stop a tyrant from enacting gun control?

Are you willing to waste thousands of lives a year to make a tyrant sign one more bill if (not when) he comes to power?

On 12 Jul 2001 17:02:52 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Since it HAS proven to be an effective means, we can drop that question.

Are you willing to waste thousands of lives to allow people to travel freely?

Are you willing to allow people to conspire in private just so that people can have privacy?

Are you willing to allow criminals to keep secrets just so that people won't be tortured?

Necessity is ALWAYS the excuse for tyranny.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:09:11 GMT, [email] (Daryl Sawyer) wrote:

The history of gun control is the history of the attempts to suppress the unpopular, be it Blacks, Jews, Indians, socialists, etc.

To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, "When it's dangerous to be a Chekist, nobody will want to be one."

I said that when? Oh another comedian.

That's relevant to gun control today how?

Rasheed said:

My mistake.

I must have failed to notice the Secret Magic Constitutional Amendment passed in, what, 1968? The one that altered human nature for all time, ensuring that minorities could not be disarmed and then abused?

On 9 Jul 2001 16:48:59 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Gun control in the United States has ALWAYS been about oppression of disfavored minorities, usually Blacks.

Now what if I say anti-gun control is about oppression of disfavored minorities? Will that add anything to the discussion? Will it make your points more or less valid or will it be a last ditch smoke screen that almost proves that I'm out of real arguments?

Are you saying I am in favor of oppressing disfavored minorities?

On 10 Jul 2001 19:41:05 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Either that, or you actually believe the smoke screen put up by people in power who do.

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

The UK manages without arming its minorities pretty well. The oldham riots have occurred due to segregation and goading by political groups but none of them needed guns to not be opressed.

Mark Whickman said:

Your skinhead mobs wouldn't last an hour trying to pull that crap in most American cities. If they tried to storm through a neighborhood and attack the residents, they'd wind up fleeing with a dozen of their number coughing out their lifeblood on the streets. It's notable that the only places where pogroms like that got anywhere in America was where the victims were legally disarmed.

And it's not just blacks who need guns to defend themselves from that sort of thing. Ask anyone in LA who saved Koreatown, and how.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

riots

of

the

out

pogroms

disarmed.

So its better people die than riot with only minor injury?

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:27:52 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

So it's better to be a victim than defend yourself?

DO people have a duty to be victims in order to protect those who would use violence against them?

See my story about the woman in the Cleveland suburbs. Did she have a duty to die if the police wouldn't "protect" her?

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

none

most

attack

That's a failure of the state. If she had a gun, and her attackers had guns, she would be dead.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:04:51 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Does a failure of the state oblige you to die? Yes or no?

Besides, it was clearly not a "failure" of the state, since the situation had gone on for weeks and months, but an unwritten POLICY of the state, and one with wide currency and a long history in this country.

There are no gunlaws to speak of in the suburb in which this happened. In all likelihood the people involved HAD guns available to them, if not immediately at hand. White people in this country have been taught to expect Black people to passively accept lynching. They probably thought they wouldn't NEED guns.

In fact the attempted lynching was ended BY a civilian with a gun.

Again, did the woman have a duty to die at the hands of her neighbors if the police sympathized with them (as they did) and not her?

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

guns,

There is no duty. The government and society is failing, and guns will only quicken the process.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:21:39 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

And she'd be better off if she let herself be lynched, or if her friend had?

There is NO legal duty of government in this society to protect.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

only

That's one advantage of being a crown subject, the government is supposed to protect you.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:37:10 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

What's the penalty to them if they DON'T?

If there isn't any, or if it's insignificant, your claim is meaningless.

Can you sue the police if they fail to protect you? If not, it's just a joke.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:54:37 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

A few years ago, I listened to a report on our National Public Radio about racially motivated attacks on Blacks and Asians in British housing estates. One account described how an Asian family cowered in fear as White supremacists hacked in their flat door with an axe and killed one of them.

You might not have noticed, but that just doesn't seem to happen in the United States. If a White supremacist wanted to kill me, he DAMNED well wouldn't venture into the Black community to do it. Does the name "Isandlhwana" ring a bell?

Such things are unheard of here. It's DANGEROUS, and people like that are COWARDS. They want UNARMED victims, and that's exactly what gun control gives them.

When I first moved to this area in 1986, a Black woman moved into predominantly White neighborhood in another suburb. To make a long story short, her White neighbors constantly threatened her and vandalized her property. Eventually, a mob of drunken Whites assaulted her home with rocks, bottles, and fireworks, trapping her and her children inside. The police absolutely ignored her repeated terrified calls for assistance. Finally, she called a friend in the Black community on the east side of Cleveland. The friend drove to the west side and found her home surrounded by a drunken lynch mob. He then nonchalantly went to the trunk of his car, removed a 12 gauge pump shot gun and gave the crowd a "whiff of grape", a la Bonaparte.

The police OF COURSE then arrested the friend. At trial, the friend's defense attorney produced police 911 recordings of the dispatchers and police in the neighborhood LAUGHING about the woman's imminent demise. Verdict: Not guilty.

The theory of gun control is that Black people should let ourselves be lynched while the police stand by and LAUGH.

And if you think this incident is somehow unique, if nothing else, you're not Black in the United States.

I have no more chance of being "protected" by the police in this country than I do of being protected by Jedi Knights.

I've always had guns as long as I've been old enough to have them and I always will, and any time a White man tells me that I don't need guns because the police will "protect" me, I can't but help question his motives.

You want my guns? Come get 'em.

That was 86? In the 15 years between then and now a *huge* amount of people, many of them just as innocent as the woman in the suburbs have been killed by guns that were originally purchased legally.

Now I agree with you that guns will get into the hands of criminals after gun control and the question is how many.

Are you saying _just as many or more_ guns will get into the hands of criminals after gun control? While I cannot argue that _no_ guns will get into the hands of criminals, the argument that _just as many_ will get there is easily shown to be false.

Criminals can build SMG factories in their basements now. They don't because having guns transferred from the legal markets is more efficient for them. Taking away the legal markets takes away _their most efficient source_.

On 14 Jul 2001 22:04:00 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

So what you're saying is that she (and others) should just let themselves be murdered in the name of creating an authoritarian state?

And the answer is: As many as the police can sell or trade for drugs.

As many or more will. If you could show otherwise, you would have by now.

And indeed some do.

If you impose a gun ban, building MAC-10 factories will be more efficient. I guess that's what you want.

Christopher Morton said:

Or the army can sell or trade for drugs. Or merchant seamen will smuggle over in ships and small boats. Or pilots in airplanes.

Furthermore, each criminal only needs _one_ gun until that gun is confiscated upon his arrest. And not much ammo.

On 15 Jul 2001 07:19:24 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

The amount of ammunition I took to Camp Perry last week for the National Matches would last quite a few criminals several lifetimes of average operations.

Name of creating an authoritarian state? The tens of thousands of people who are killed by guns originally bought on legal markets should let themselves be killed in the name of catering to paranoia?

If the situation was reversed, and tens of thousands of people were killed by mobs left unrestrained by police and dozens, maybe, were killed by criminals indirectly armed by the legal market, I would switch positions.

Unlike civilians, there is a limited number of police and keeping track of their weapons is feasible. The problem you're talking about has actually been solved in many cities already. And it can be solved in Chicago.

I actually have in other messages in this thread, along with other people.

How would a ban make MAC-10 factories more efficient? And if it was possible to make arms in basements as efficiently as it is to buy them on the legal market, most guns would come from basements already. (Criminals don't throw away money just to validate gun control arguments)

Instead most guns in the hands of criminals come from the legal market. Criminals are showing by their actions what they prefer. It seems you are with them.

I have a question for you. If a prohibition of gun sales was enacted today, how long do you estimate it will take for the US to become an authoritarian tyranny? In other words, how imminent is the danger you believe you are protecting us from?

On 15 Jul 2001 02:56:07 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Paranoia is the fear of things which aren't there. Are you saying that the woman, her rescuer, the courts, the media, and those wounded in the rescue operation all hallucinated the event?

Mobs unrestrained by the police are a tradition in the United States... as long as those mobs are attacking the unpopular, such as Blacks, Jews, gays, etc. Your argument is that the unpopular have a duty to ALLOW themselves to be slaughtered because the sympathies of the police frequently lie with their attackers.

Well, the answer is "NO". I'm not going to allow myself to be the passive victim of violence, racially motivated or otherwise, merely so that you can create an authoritarian state where everyone lives at the suffrance of those like Daryl Gates and Justin Volpe.

Clearly you don't have a clue about police evidence rooms and the collections of "items" which police confiscate from people without reporting them.

Of course you'll probably next claim that cops don't employ "throw downs".

Chicago is utterly hopeless. It is corrupt and racist and people there LIKE it that way.

Actually, you have not.

It would be more efficient than diverting them from other sources. They then become a commodity item, like paper cups and pats of butter. Economies of scale accrue. Further rationalization is possible. The supply can be manipulated as required.

Criminals understand economics, even if they can't explain economic theory.

You don't appear either to know it or to be able to explain it.

And at the heart of it still appears to lie the belief that it's harder to build a MAC-10 than a hydrogen bomb.

By that point it'd be halfway down the road or farther, since there would be absolutely no effective way to enforce it without major attacks on the 4th, 5th, and probably 1st amendments. Perhaps you missed Richie Daley's and Bill Clinton's attempts to use unconstitutional warrantless searches in public housing in Chicago. It was a trial balloon. If you can ignore the 4th amendment in public housing, there's no real reason why you can't ignore it in private housing.

But then again, you might see the sham drug war and the use of civil forfeiture to enrich corrupt police, as GOOD things.

There seem to be an awful lot of gun control advocates who view the Bill of Rights as nothing but an impediment to the kind of society they REALLY want. Singapore and Chile seem to be their models....

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

riots

of

Never heard that one. What if the family had made a choice to be without a gun and that attackers had large cliber pitols or shotguns? Would less of them die?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:02:47 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

If the family CHOOSES to disarm, that's up to them, just as it's their choice to be vegetarians if they like. I merely refuse to be disarmed or forced to be a vegetarian.

Clearly, those committing crimes won't be deterred by gun control laws if they're not deterred by laws against murder.

If they choose to let themselves be killed, I won't stand in the way of that choice. I however won't have that choice forced upon me.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

a

What if the majority want gun control?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:20:29 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

What if the majority want Jews to be bar soap?

What if the majority want involuntary female circumcision?

The answer's still "NO", and I'm still willing to use force to make the answer stick. No matter what it costs, no matter how long it takes.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

in

without

of

The difference is gun control is only positive.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:35:50 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Extreme Muslim fundamentalists see female circumcision as only positive.

Gun control is the tool of tyrants and genocides. There's nothing positive about that.

Daryl Sawyer said:

I think it's less that the peoplel in power actually want to oppress anyone, than that they have no concept of what life in less-than-optimal neighborhoods is like. After all, if anyone attempts an armed robbery where _they_ live, it leads to a major and usually conclusive legal effort to imprison the robbers, whereas in the poor communities, the shopkeepers or apartment-dwellers are lucky if they can even get the police to launch a serious investigation.

On 10 Jul 2001 19:41:05 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

You'd be uttering a falsehood.

IS that your position? If so, it's utterly false and demonstrably so.

Your response proves that the real history of the United States scares you and you don't want to address it.

If you're in favor of gun control, you are at the least complicit with those who do.

If you were in favor of forcing Jews to wear yellow stars, and gays pink triangles, would it really matter WHY?

Sorry you took it personally. (Laughing) I meant that the presence of a legal market nearby increases the amount of guns on the black market.

This is relevant to what? Would the situation have been better if guns were more widely available?

Mythology. You and Jordan believe the criminals have a magical supply of guns that is impervious to market forces. Clue number one for you: Some criminals in New York can afford guns and some cannot. If the price of guns rises, fewer will be able. If the price goes down, more will be able. Normal markets, not the magic you believe exists.

What if it was 80%? 2,000 homicides is good for you?

Good one. Are they aligned with the Masons?

On 9 Jul 2001 16:40:30 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

So similarly, the "legal market" for cocaine nearby increases the amount of cocaine on the black market?

It wouldn't have been any worse.

The idea that the police either protect people, especially Black people, or that many of them want to is a myth.

They have a supply of guns which caters to the market forces. Nobody who really wants a gun in NYC goes without, any more than anyone who wants crack does.

The criminal in NYC who can't afford a gun isn't much of a criminal.

If gravity is eliminated, nobody dies in falls. One's as likely as the other. You obviously know little about guns or markets.

I'll take it in preference to enforced victimization and or a police state.

No, they're aligned with the soon to be defunct Million Mom March. The latter was felled by an acquaintance of mine.

Which nearby legal market? In other countries?

Your point?

Mythology unless you define to "really want" as to have the money to buy.

Thank god. Let's keep him gunless.

You obviously are trying a new comedy routine. I'll play straight man. What are you talking about?

I guess that's the point right. If thousands of people die, you couldn't care less. I'm glad you're admitting it because some people may be fooled if you act like you're really trying to reduce crime.

On 10 Jul 2001 19:36:36 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

He's talking about a principle discovered during the Enlightenment, called Natural Law. Basically, it's a preference to recognizing how things actually work, as opposed to pretending things are otherwise (as was standard practice during the middle ages, and earlier, and today). Certain basic rights are recognized by our own bill of rights, and the English bill of rights. The reason they are called "rights" is because no method can stop a determined person from excercising these rights... and the people who attempt to take these rights from people generally do so for morally questionable reasons, either ambition or prejudice.

1. Freedom of Speech. Short of killing a person, or locking them away
    from society eternally, you can't stop someone from talking. (And
    doing either says quite a bit, as well). And there are generally
    only two reasons for trying to do so: protect your dirty little
    secret (political motivations), or desperately attempt to protect
    your own delusion (religeous motivations). There is no other
    reason to deny this right under any circumstances, and it can't be
    denied, anyway.
2. Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As we have pointed out many times,
    a person that really wants a gun, for whatever purpose, can get a
    gun, and, failing that, can acquire some sort of weapon, anyway.
    The majority of armed persons do so either for tradition's sake,
    to defend self, family, and/or property, etc. Those who do so for
    other reasons will get one whether it's legal or not. Historically
    speaking, whenever the ruling classes have called for the
    disarming of the people, it's been excused by an excess of
    criminal activities done with the offending weapon, and actually
    attempted to protect the ruling class's privilage against a
    disenfranchised class.

    The English kings did it to protect
    themselves against the consequences of a highly unpopular
    decision. The English Parliament attempted it several times to
    protect the gentry's exclusive hunting rights. The white majority
    of the old south did it to protect their right to lynch any black
    man who dared act as if white folks were his equals. Jordan
    mentioned an example where it was done to protect a political
    machine's gangs, and I say that, today, it is done to ensure the
    absolutist regime of the majority, the absolute supremacy of the
    federal government in all spheres. I believe it is done less in
    response to the murders done by individuals, and more in
    response to the little uprisings that have occurred in relation
    to groups like the EPA (armed citizens standing on a piece
    of ground the Feds want to make a natural preserve), to
    prevent embarrasments like that incident in Waco, Texas
    (the ATF would've had a much easier time if they hadn't had
    such easy access to weapons), etc. Simply put, to avoid the
    consequences of highly unpopular decisions. This is why the
    founders considered "A well regulated militia" necessary to the
    security of a free state."

Tell me, rasheed. Would you prefer that the will of the majority was absolute? Would you prefer that the Bill of Rights be thrown out the window altoghter? Because what the founders referred to as "parchment barriers", that is to say, a paper statement of rights, are completely insufficient to secure the rights and liberties of the people. You would prefer it if nobody ever died. We would prefer it if nobody were ever denied the opportunity to live. You seem to think that law books have the magic power of making things real, and that positions of government have the magic power of making it's officiers more virtuous and just than anybody else. We do not suffer that delusion.

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

Perhaps there are more important rights than that of bearing arms. Like the right that everyone gets enough to eat or somewhere to live that isn't infested with cockroaches.

What about the poorest 10% of the richest country being severly undernourished, which is worst than many developing countries.

Mark Whickman said:

No such rights exist. This is because people only have negative "rights", not positive ones.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

the

not

That's sidestepping the issue.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:58:48 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

The right to bear arms protects the other rights.

What if the government decides to stop having elections?

What if they shoot the people who complain?

You have a choice, submit or resist.

In what country would this be?

Most of my troops in Korea from Bed-Sty and Harlem never realized they were middle class until they arrived in country.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

the

Submit or get vapourised with a nuke, disintegrated by a thermobaric warhead, crushed under the tracks of an MBT, blown to bits by heavy artillery, get shot by highly trained, well motivated, heavilly equipped soldiers.

US actually. The UK is about 8%, Eritrea is about 9%.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:55:14 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

You seem to have this fixation with this "thermobaric warhead". It seems to fill the same role in your universe that the "wave motion gun" does in "Space Cruiser Yamato".

As I said, no effective guerrilla movement can be destroyed by nukes or thermobaric warheads or photon torpedoes for that matter.

A famous morbidly obese pervert once said, "The guerrilla swims through the population like a fish swims through the sea." Nuke the sea, and you nuke the economy. These "modern armies" of which you are so enamored, cannot exist without a huge infrastructure to support them. Go ahead, nuke the crops; nuke the workers who turn them into MREs and C-Rations; nuke the workers who make the ammunition and spare parts; nuke the people who sew the uniforms; nuke the people who run the economy and print the paychecks. In the end, you might as well nuke yourself.

Your "soldiers" will be neither well equipped, motivated nor fed. I take that back. Nuke their families and they'll be motivated. There's an old Vietnam War era term for the expression of that motivation. I'll have to try to remember what it was and get back to you....

What's considered poverty in the US is luxury in most other places.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Like

A thermobaric warhead is an evolution of the air fuel bomb and can be launched from a personnel carried launcher, dropped by aircraft or carried in a ballisitc or cruise missile. It projects a precise shape of flammable material which ignites to give a pressure shockwave more powerful than a tactical nuke as well as an implosive force that crushes tanks like tin cans and makes soldiers in bunkers explode due to decompression.

Have any Guerilla movements ever worked in cities? You need a hefty police state or Marshal law but they can be removed.

In terms of cash yes, but they can't grow their own food if they're desperate, money needs to be paid in rent and clothing acceptable by society, the food bought is high calorific but low nutritional value because its cheap and processed.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:17:01 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

And once again, they're not going to have anything to shoot it AT. Or if they like, they can kill everyone in city hall with it.

All over South and Central America, to name a few.

You might want to look into Colombia.

And as I said before, compared to REALLY poor people, they live in luxury.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:17:01 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Which is Chris's point exactly.

In article ,

What about the right to arm bears?

chika wrote in message news:[email]...

Bwahaha!

*falls off chair at the image*

Revenge for all those rugs?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:51:38 +0100, chika wrote:

I don't believe in animal rights. : )

In article ,

No. Nor me. But watch out for those animal lefts... they can really hurt!!! :)

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 08:38:30 +0100, chika wrote:

My idea of animal rights is the Red Lobster seafood restaurants commercial where a kid at the beach sights a shark... and everyone dives into the ocean to eat it! : )

First, your beliefs about the motives of gun control advocates. I don't find them realistic. Of the many people I know who favor gun control, I doubt any of them are in favor of gun control to enable the government to make unpopular decisions. I know for a fact that is not my motive. I guess you think I'm lying.

But what checks can there be to ensure government does not make unpopular decisions? One check is a free press. Another check is universal voting rights and most important is a democratic culture that makes it difficult for one or a few people to get the cooperation they would need from the rest of the society to carry out highly unpopular decisions.

The right to bear arms preventing unpopular decisions? That seems very ineffective because of the overwhelming mismatch between the arms available to civilians and arms available to the government. If there is no culture of democracy, armed civilians who resist unpopular decisions are very efficiently and easily disarmed. If there is a culture of democracy, armed civilians are not necessary to prevent unpopular decisions.

Armed civilians are sufficient to secure the rights and liberties of the people? Seriously, that is a joke. Armed civilians become unarmed or dead civilians as soon as there is the political will on the part of the government to do so.

Oh no, there are real reasons why making the sale of guns illegal will dramatically decrease the availability of guns to criminals.

As for positions of government, nearly anyone from our culture would fill positions in government with about the same respect for democracy as the current holders. And outliers would find themselves in a hard position when no one around them cooperates. Holders of government positions are no more or less virtuous than members of our society in general, but generally members of our society are not tyrannical maniacs and do not tolerate or cooperate with tyrannical maniacs for long.

On 12 Jul 2001 16:47:26 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Til the government shuts it down.

Til government "monitors" the elections... or ends them.

That's right. We FAR outmatch the usable power of the government. Were the US Army to attempt a coup... or to attempt to enforce one, it would be slaughtered.

Go ask someone how many people are in the US Army. Then find out how many gun owners there are.

You live at the suffrance of people with guns. I don't. I'm a threat to them, and they know it. It keeps them in line.

And your preference is submission to tyranny. I'll pass.

None of them true, however. You live in a fantasy world where it's harder to build an SMG than a nuclear warhead.

Today more than just the armed citizenry stands before a US Army coup. The most important thing that prevents a coup is the beliefs and traditions of the Army's leaders and it's members. That will actually be the case for a long time.

If that was not the case. For example, lets say that somehow unknown aliens inserted Russian personnel in every post held by US Army and organized US military personnel. The almost entirely disorganized US armed citizens would not be able to prevent a Russian conquest of America.

So armed citizens protect us from the Army only if there is a sudden mass case of mind control on the Army itself. And if there is, it is not effective.

No. I live in a world where it's harder to build an SMG than to have someone buy it on the legal market.

On 14 Jul 2001 22:21:27 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

At least for the time being, there's the cynicism and contempt of large parts of those serving.

That makes getting them to support a civilian led coup more difficult... while making a Turkish style military coup more likely.

... until something changes.

The best guerrilla operations are "disorganized". That makes it impossible to identify the structure. There isn't any. As I recall, people keep "conquering" Afghanistan....

I'm sure you can restate this in understandable terms....

Tell everyone what it takes to buy an SMG on the legal market then get back to us.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Armed uprisings are less effective than peaceful ones because they require less courage. That's why the indian independance movement was so succesful.

How many Bacterial, nuclear, high yield and safe delivery weapons do the general populace have?

Death or tyranny? Will to survive or stupidity. To defeat tyranny you need to use its own machinery against it, not fight a raging inferno with a match.

A Uranium warhead (minus detonator) has six parts which require little precision to build, only getting hold of a big lump of U235 is hard, but even small amounts of radioactive material can be used to make radioactivity bombs for use in dense population areas.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:00:03 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

This is a myth which isn't even borne out by the examples frequently cited. In fact, the British were faced with Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA. Ghandi was the less objectionable alternative. Had Ghandi failed, the armed resistance was waiting there in the wings.

And by the way, whatever DID happen to Ghandi? I here he's feeling a might peaked these days.

Then there are the examples of Cambodia and Burma. Did I say examples? I mean absolute refutations.

How many do they need?

NONE.

Again, let the Army nuke the whole country... and let them eat M-16s.

Firefighters in forests often fight infernos with a match. It's called a counterburn. It leaves an advancing fire with no fuel.

I refuse tyranny, absolutely. I'm willing to kill people and break things to fight it if it comes to that.

And that's harder than building a MAC-10 or Sten gun?

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

require

succesful.

An armed resistance member shot him.

Give the army and tested citizens vaccinations.

need

These are fires of man and need no new fuel.

radioactivity

Nope. Just getting the parts is hard, the construction is extremely easy. A plutonium core is very difficult to make due to the compressive sphere required.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:20:00 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Thanks.

But I already knew that.

So much for non-violence....

Again, let them eat M-16s. Either you won't vaccinate enough, or you'll vaccinate us too.

Oh, they need plenty of fuel. Ask an Italian who was at one of the battles of the Isonzo.

How many people will you kill if you screw up while you're making a Sten gun?

I think clearly you're being disengenuous here.

If it was easy to build clandestine atomic bombs, people would do it... and USE them.

Every day people build improvised firearms.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

An Uranium fissile core is only dangerous (apart from radiation) when an accurate detonation is done, otherwise its just too lumps of metal and a small lump of explosive.

The only difficulty is getting hold of U235 or Weapons grade plutonium. A washington businessman/gangster was busted after he "purchased" enough w.g. plutonium to build 15 12 Megatonne Hydrogen bombs.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:35:05 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

What are the OSHA standards for that metal, or would that be TOXIC metal?

Sounds like a sting operation to me. No actual nuclear material involved.

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

The well regulated militian was the "Official" army, and hence their right to bear arms. The way our country is set up now, if we ever actually came to a time in which the civillians rose up against the government in serious armed resistance, even if they were supressed, the country would essencially have degenerated to a point in which it would be over.

In article , "Fong says...

And so your response is to willingly accept a dictatorship because you might have to risk something to fight it?

I suppose too, you've calculated the odds and are betting that if you're servile enough, you might be ignored and not fall into an unfavored race, religion or ethnic group.

Some of us don't have that luxury and can look at history's examples. I was on this society's S-list from the day I was born, and that sure isn't likely to change with the institution of a [probably] ultra-rightwing dictatorship with Louis Freeh or Janet Reno at the helm.

Wow.

You oppose gun control because you believe gun control would lead to an ultra-rightwing dictatorship with Louis Freeh or Janet Reno at the helm?

Wow.

OK. Let's talk about gun control and preventing coups by right wing dictators.

First, a right wing dictator cannot launch a coup without a lot of support. The US armed forces are made up of Americans. Do you have a plausible scenario where the US army supports a coup to oppress the parents, children, friends and families of the soldiers themselves?

And since, in your paranoid fantasy, the right wing had enough support to launch a coup, why didn't the right wing pass its own gun control laws? How does not passing gun control today hurt the right wing in the delusional future?

But, let's say that Janet Reno has a mind control machine and she gets the army to go along with her evil schemes.

Would the armed civilians be more effective against the US army than the civilians of France were against the Germans in WWII? Or the Polish against the Russians after the war? Or the Czechs, or the Ukrainians? Or the Japanese against the Americans?

Armed civilians can defeat organized militaries if they have outside arms supplies and safe areas outside of the reach of the occupying military. If they don't have them they are an annoyance at most. In Afghanistan and in the sustained anti-government movements in South America and Africa they have them. If the army were falls under control of the evil-right-wing-mind-control machine that you seem to believe exists, the American civilians do not have them.

So the American armed civilians will be an annoyance at most in the absurdly unlikely event that the Army turns against the citizens in a right or left wing coup.

And now thousands of people are dying every year because of guns that were once purchased legally. Most guns in the hands of criminals were once purchased legally.

To base _policy_ on two separate absurd assumptions, the first being that there is an imminent coup, the second that if there were a coup unorganized civilians would be able to prevent it, is kind of crazy. And to watch thousands of people die is tragic.

On 21 Jul 2001 01:43:33 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Substitute the nitwit fascist of your choice.

Is there supposed to be one I LIKE?

Let's talk about a dictatorship which DIDN'T disarm its enemies.

The Reichswehr was composed of Germans.

Do you have a plausible scenario where the Chilean army supports a coup to oppress the parents, children, friends and families of the soldiers themselves?

"Paranoid fantasy"?

Is that anything like racial concentration camps or attempts by the FBI to destroy the civil rights movement?

Or would that just be knowingly allowing Black people to die untreated of syphilis?

I take no responsibility for your seeming total ignorance of recent US history.

It is true that dictatorships disarm the civilians. Is it true that *only* dictatorships disarm civilians? Is it true that disarming civilians necessarily leads to dictatorship?

If you answered the second question yes, that strikes me as paranoia.

As you know, there are a lot of differences between the US in 2001 and mid 1920's Germany.

And if, (not when) the US goes down the road Germany went down, the US dictator will be perfectly able to impose gun control regardless of what laws are on the books before that dictator comes to power.

As you know, there are a lot of differences between the contemporary US situation and the one you're talking about in Chile. Do you believe armed civilians would have overthrown the Chilean government at that time? Or do you believe armed civilians would have been disarmed by the Chilean government?

If you answered the first question yes, that strikes me as delusional.

No. The Paranoid Fantasy is where the government wants to impose an authoritarian dictatorship on American civilians by coup but is unable because the military is thwarted by armed civilians.

By the way, do you have an example of disorganized armed civilians thwarting a national army without an external supply of weapons and base areas outside of the reach of the occupying army? It didn't work in any of the countries occupied by the German army during WWII. It didn't work in any of the countries occupied by the Russian army after WWII. The leaders of the Afghan resistence acknowledge that without American arms and Pakistani bases, they would not have been able to prevent a successful Russian occupation.

And the US army, if it decides to occupy the US, is in a *much* more favorable position than the German or Russian armies were in occupying foreign countries.

You and your friends thwarted a coup in recent history?

One thing about recent history, last year around 10,000 people were killed in the US by guns. A disproportionate amount were Black. That is partly the real cost of any delusions of armed civilians defeating the imminent right wing coup.

In article , [email] says...

It is true that dictatorships build racial concentration camps. Is it true that *only* dictatorships build racial concentration camps? Is it true that building racial concentration camps necessarily leads to dictatorship?

Disarming civilians makes dictatorship safe for the dictator. Why would I want to make it EASY to have a dictatorship?

Yep. The Germans hadn't had racial concentration camps yet. We have.

The "lie back and enjoy it" argument, right on schedule.

People who make aren't afraid that there will be a police state. They're afraid there WON'T.

Yes, the media and politicians opposed Pinochetism in Chile, but not in the US.

Dictatorship should be dangerous for the dictator. You obviously disagree.

A lot of people were murdered by the Chilean security forces. One can only conclude that you're glad that few of the murderers were harmed.

You view anything but submission to tyranny as delusional. You see life as one big S&M "power exchange".

Again, the "lie back and enjoy" it schtick.

Without arms and the will to fight, the Afghans would never have gotten any assistance from the outside.

Of course the names "Mao" and "Ho" are doubtless unknown to you.

You fervently hope.

I'm willing to give it a shot, if it comes to it.

You by contrast are willing to inform on your neighbors.

So what you're saying is that as Black people, we can't be trusted with weapons? Does that go for Black police and soldiers, or do you feel that they're properly "supervised" by Whites? Maybe you think we ought to just go back to being mess stewards and laborers.

And of course your failure to break out that supposed "statistic" goes without saying.

I missed your point. What are your answers to these questions? And what are your questions relevant to?

What if making dictatorship as EASY as is it in England or Canada will save thousands of lives per years?

No. The argument is that your pre-dictatorship stance will not actually make life more difficult for a dictator. Unless signing one more bill is difficult.

You know because you've read my mind? That is a delusion. Seriously.

At a cost of thousands of lives per year during the pre-dictatorship era? Even if the pre-dictatorship era is forever?

Where is your example of armed civilians making things dangerous for the dictator?

Armed civilians are the *only* thing that could have stopped those forces? Armed civilians would have been effective at stopping those forces?

You seem to believe the answer to both questions is yes. Can you provide any support for those beliefs?

So if you make up a name for an argument, no need to respond to it. That's the "I don't need any medication! Let me out of this place!" schtick.

Well do you have an example or not?

Well, armed civilians alone would *not* have prevented the occupation according to the resistence leaders.

Do you have an example where armed civilians alone have prevented an occupation by a regular army?

No. You can't read my mind. You're having your delusions again.

The price of that "shot" is thousands of live a year, every year. And that shot will not work unless you are historically unique.

I'm saying that fewer available guns will probably prevent some murders of Black people. The rest is actually your own paranoia.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are 50.2% of US gun homicide victims and somewhere around 14% of the population.

In article , [email] says...

My point was your point. Certainly I used your argument. If you don't think it makes sense, don't use it.

But yet again we see your craving for the CERTAINTY of defeat as opposed to the possibility of success.

You don't fear that an armed population can't prevent a dictatorship, you fear that it CAN.

I hope to deter tyranny by making it physically dangerous for the tyrant. You hope to endure tyranny (if not profit from it) by being sufficiently servile.

I don't believe in god, so I certainly have no reason to believe in the divine right of kings, generals, Al Gore or George Bush.

No, no, no, no, idiot.

You made the true statement that dictatorships disarm civilians. You were trying to argue that disarming civilians is necessarily bad because dictatorships do it.

But it is not true that only dictatorships disarm civilians. For example, Great Britain disarms civilians and is not a dictatorship. The fact that dictatorships do something is not enough to show that it is a bad thing.

Dictatorships enforce contracts, provide education, capture and punish rapists and murderers, send mail, etc.

I am not against the mail service because Hitler had one. Are you?

If you are trying to argue that something is bad because dictatorships do it, you have to go a step further and show that either only dictatorships do it or doing it inevitably leads to dictatorship. You can't and now you're doing some kind of weird dancing around the subject.

The funny thing is, I bet if the discussion wasn't gun control, you would be able to be coherent. Probably even intelligent.

What possibility? Do you have an historical example of armed civilians defeating a national army the way you envision yourself defeating the US army?

You really think you can read minds. You can't even follow an argument.

On what do you base that hope? Do you have an example of armed civilians making it physically dangerous for a tyrant?

Earth to Lunatic: What are you talking about?

In article , [email] says...

Yes, yes, yes, yes, you are an idiot.

And the proof is in your own inane "argument".

As indeed they do. You've certainly done nothing to disprove that.

So then making Jews and homosexuals wear yellow stars and pink triangles isn't necessarily bad in and of itself?

Dictatorships capture and punish rapists who are not favored by the dictator. How many rapists of Bosnian women were captured and punished by the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Milosevic?

And are you similarly open minded about gassing Jews merely because they're Jews? After all, your argument supports the proposition that gassing Jews because they're Jews isn't bad JUST because Hitler did it.

MY argument says that if Hitler disarmed the Jews to make it easier to gas them, disarming great masses of non-criminals is a suspect concept.

I'll bet that whatever the argument, you'd be dishonest.

After all, I claim that being armed makes dictatorship harder. You claim dishonestly that I say it'll prevent it absolutely.

Yep.

Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chiapas, China, etc., etc., etc.

But then gun control advocates generally are ignorant of history.

I can read what you type. It's the core of what passes for your argument.

Let's say it's totally hopeless for argument's sake. You'd rather march into the gas chamber (or more likely identify other candidates) than exact a price. But then other gun control advocates have told me that it's a good thing that more Jews didn't fight the Nazis because being gassed [after being whipped naked past snarling dogs] was more "dignified". You're all alike. You see a duty to submit to whatever degradation, exploitation or destruction someone is willing to force upon you. My answer is "no". And there's nothing you can do about it.

I refuse your attempt to impose a duty to submit on me. But then serfs always think free men are "lunatics".

Chris Morton wrote in message news:...

If you look at it that way. You see, the US have become a great exampe of closet dictatorship by Politically Correct Activists. They don't use brute force to impose their views, but rather they exact obedience by means of costly lawsuits. This is indeed the land of [public] free speech, as long as you are politically correct and are on their side.

MW.

In article , [email] says...

Just remember that Lon Horiuchi isn't a lawyer and Vicki Weaver wasn't sued.

This is seriously entertaining to me. The US is a "closet" dictatorship?

This is the definition of dictatorship at m-w.com:

1 : the office of dictator 2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership 3a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique 3b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated 3c : a despotic state

In what way is the US *currently* a "closet" dictatorship?

Why did armed civilians not prevent the establishment of this "closet" dictatorship?

Has there ever been a nation in history that was not a "closet" dictatorship?

Please answer these questions because I have a feeling you are about to be really comical.

On 28 Jul 2001 01:10:57 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Look up the name "Manzanar" and get back to us.

And dictatorships deliver mail. Delivering mail is not necessarily bad. Hint: When I said "true statement" that means I was not trying to disprove it.

No. Forcing a group to be publically branded has *no* use other than to enable official and private discrimination against that group. Here's a clue, even if Hitler hadn't done it it would be wrong. In fact, if I was arguing against forcing people to wear stars, I wouldn't even mention that Hitler did it because the fact the Hitler did it does not add to its wrongness.

Exactly. The fact that Hitler did it is *not* the reason it is bad. If Hitler had never thought of it it would still be bad.

Well, orders to operate the concentration camps were sent by telephone. Railroads also made concentration camps easier. Is using the telephone a suspect concept just for that reason?

Thanks.

Dictators employ their own arms control. Being armed makes a dictatorship harder in that they have to sign one more bill. Why don't you show me where I made a dishonest claim?

Hmm. In which of these examples was there no outside government supplying the rebels and no outside base area. If there is an American dictatorship, the US government certainly will not be funding and supplying the rebels.

Where is your example of successful rebels in the situation the American rebels will be in?

Thanks.

The "core" that I never typed. Kind of like the "core" of your argument is that you want someone to let you out of the looney house.

Let's not say it's hopeless for argument's sake. How about you show an example from which you derive hope in real life. You say you're willing to trade a higher murder rate for this hope. You have to show that people dying in real life are being traded for hope in real life.

OK. Now another anti-gun advocate told me that he's glad there are a lot of guns in Black areas because the more Black people die, the better. You're all alike. When I run out of arguments against what *you* are saying, I'll associate you with them. That'll be my last ditch desperation ploy.

Wow, a couple of lines ago it was other arms control advocates who want to impose a duty to submit. Now it's my attempt. When did I write that? Would that count as dishonest?

On 27 Jul 2001 21:18:27 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

And they make Jews and homosexuals wear special identifying marks.

Obviously you believe that the Taliban should be given the benefit of the doubt. To paraphrase "The Simpsons", "It says here that the Taliban make religious minorities wear identifying insignia. Nobody who makes religious minorities wear identifying insignia could POSSIBLY do anything evil!"

That's not what the Taliban say. They say they want to PROTECT Buddhists and other minorities. They wouldn't LIE, would they? And how can you judge what the Taliban do by what Hitler did? Germany and Afghanistan are miles away from each other. What one does couldn't POSSIBLY have any relation or similarity to the other, COULD it?

So what you're saying is the SOME of the tools of genocide are bad, but some of them AREN'T?

But the fact that he DID do it shouldn't weigh AT ALL in the balance, right? We should just pretend it didn't happen?

If you see somebody making religious, ethnic and sexual minorities wear public identification, you shouldn't automatically assume it's for a BAD reason, RIGHT?

Is making Jews wear yellow stars a suspect concept for just that reason?

In what way does the government using telephones intrude upon someone's life? By contrast, in what way does forcibly trying to take my guns or making Harvey Fierstein wear a pink triangle intrude upon OUR lives? Where historically have such things led?

But again, if George Bush or Tony Blair made all Jews wear yellow stars, you wouldn't assume it was for a BAD reason, would you?

And you've bent over backwards to prove me right.

Wouldn't want to bend over forwards, somebody might make you wear a pink triangle.. for TOTALLY benign reasons of course.

You just dishonestly ignored what I said, which you QUOTED above. You hold others to absolute standards to which you do not hold yourself.

Being armed means that signing that bill might get the signer killed. I pretty well guarantees that those who enforce it will get killed. Apparently you believe that if the government passes a law disarming me preparatory to genocide, that I'll actually OBEY it.

In which of these would they have received outside arms without proof that they'd fight without them first?

I'm already supplied and funded. How much money do you think it takes to shoot an agent of the state in the back of the head and walk away?

Here's a hint for you skippy. I just got done loading one hundred rounds of .45acp at a VERY leisurely pace, which included a change of powder charge, finding and opening up a new box of bullets, and loading the finished product into a plastic cartridge box. If you read Osanka instead of watching "The A-Team", you might be able to figure out JUST how long those hundred rounds would last me in an urban guerrilla setting.

Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam....

I'm surprised nobody's told you before now. Maybe you just hang out with other uneducated people who couldn't tell.

If what you type doesn't represent what you believe, type something else. Otherwise, stop whining when somebody uses it to prove that your ideas are stupid and incipiently fascist.

If you can resist, there's hope.

You don't believe in hope. You believe in submission.

As I have.

You've merely demonstrated a preference for oppression, tyranny and genocide.

I've heard exactly that from White supremacists who don't want anyone but themselves to have guns.

The corellary is the other anti-gun argument that Black people are inferior to Whites (especially White cops) and that therefore we have to be disarmed.

It's racism no matter how you stack it and it's apparently an intrinsic part of your argument.

Denying your own argument counts as dishonest, yes.

Do try to keep up.

Dictatorships have at times force Jews to wear special marks and they have at times delivered mail. Is delivering mail evil or not? If no dictatorship had ever forced Jews do wear marks would that be evil or not?

The fact that forcing people to wear marks was done by a dictatorship is *not* what makes the forced wearing of marks evil. I'm amazed that you can't grasp that.

If I say forcing people to wear identifying insignia has *no* purpose except to allow official and private discrimination and then you pretend I say the opposite, the reason is that you've really already lost the argument.

Thank you.

Yes. Forced identifying marks are bad. Railroads AREN'T. We have to weigh gun control on its own merits.

It depend on what the government is doing over the telephone doesn't it? If it's issuing orders to ship people to concentration camps, it is intruding upon people's lives.

You really are an idiot if you think you are making an argument here.

Read what you're writing.

Now, I never typed anything about preventing anything absolutely. On the other hand, what I type has no relation to what you're arguing with. You know the reason? Because you have no answer for what I actually type so you're making this new stuff up to argue with. Pathetic.

It might get the signer killed, but it has never *yet* anywhere in the world gotten the signer killed in real life.

The problem is that there are historical examples of self funded rebel groups going against national armies of militarily aggressive nations. And they *all* lose, *every* time. The French resistance tried to shoot agents in the head and walk away, so did the Polish and *many* others. Their success rate is *zero*.

How are you going to replace the US military with *Batista's*.

You asserted it was the "core" to avoid having to show where it was actually typed out.

Great poetry. But poetry didn't help the Japanese to expel the US army after WWII.

Pardon my typo. I meant an anti-gun control advocate told me he wants as many Black people to shoot each other as possible. Of course I can't use that as an argument against *you* until *you* say it yourself. When you try to tie my argument to that of other people's, you are admitting you have lost.

You are seriously delusional. I never typed that anyone has a "duty to submit", in fact you said that other gun control advocates said it, then said we are all alike and then somehow in your own mind convinced yourself that I said it. Get back in touch with reality, really.

On 28 Jul 2001 11:18:11 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

Is the force wearing of yellow stars evil or not?

You probably don't think so.

I'm sure you can find a justification for it.

If you can backpedal much longer you should consider joining the circus.

I'm sure you can find a justification for it, just as you can find a justification for gun control.

They're both the tools of dictators.

For proving your dishonesty?

You're welcome.

We have to weigh it's utility to dictators... if we care. You don't.

Using the telephone doesn't INNATELY impinge upon Harvey's and my lives, DOES it?

Your dishonesty stands out like "Arbeit Macht Frei".

You're a bigger idiot if you think I'm NOT.

Lie to others but at least stop lying to yourself.

An indictment of your willingness... make that EAGERNESS to countenance the tools of dictatorship and genocide. What's your point.

But then MY argument is premised on the idea that dictatorship and genocide are ALWAYS bad.

It's the essence of your argument. If your own argument offends you, disgard it.

Better tell that to Rheinhardt Hydrich. Know anybody who does seances?

Gee, the VietMinh LOST? Who did we fight in Vietnam anyway, the Foreign Legion?

Some of them already qualify. I know, I served with them. But you never met a dictatorship you didn't like.

The Japanese didn't WANT to expel the US Army.

Apparently you think EVERYBODY loves genocidal tyranny as much as you do.

Try reading Dower's "Embracing Defeat" instead of "Judge Dred".

I've never heard one say it. I've heard plenty of gun control ADVOCATES say it.

You're seriously dishonest. But we already established that.

Try to keep up.

Haven't I already clearly answered that question? Once again, forcing people to wear distinguishing marks is evil and would be just as evil even if Hitler had never thought of it.

Who do you think you are fooling? Anyone reading this thread knows my answer to this question when it first came up.

http://groups.google.com/groups?start=240&hl=en&safe=off&th=dbc07375ed915e24,258&rnum=250&selm=2a3f96b2.0107272018.76bfec09%40posting.google.com

You wanna see backpedaling? Watch this. Remember you said you and your armed civilian friends would *slaughter* the US army? Can you provide an historical example of anything like that happening in real life?

The problem is that there is gun control in nations that are not dictatorships. For example Canada, Australia, Japan, Great Britain and others have had gun control for a long time and show no signs of impending dictatorship. That pretty much slaughters your argument that gun control leads to dictatorship.

Which dictator? GW Bush? If the US is not a dictatorship and there are examples of nations having gun control for a long time without becoming dictatorships, what is the relevance of its utility to dictators?

And if a dictator comes to power and thinks gun control will be useful, why would he not enact it himself?

How bout this then, dictatorships enforce speed limits and democracies enforce speed limits. Enforcing speed limits innately impinges upon the lives of drivers. Since Hitler did it, speed limits are also a tool of dictatorships.

We can't say we should ban speed limits because Hitler had them. That would be silly. If we can't prove speed limits are evil on their own merits, then associating them with Hitler is no argument at all.

Why not show us all where I made that argument?

First, Hydrich never signed any gun control laws and was not a dictator. Second, Hydrich was murdered by British Special Forces agents and not by armed German civilians.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0306808609/103-3108177-3432665

Is that your best example?

The VietMinh was a self funded rebel group in South Vietnam? They didn't have outside bases? Are you sure?

Is that your best example?

I've read that some did. Wanna go cite for cite? Wanna talk about the French instead, or the Tibetans, or the Poles, or the Ukrainians?

Then when you argue with them, you know what to say. I'm not them. The reason you're mixing our arguments is because you know you've lost. You're pathetic.

On 28 Jul 2001 22:46:48 -0700, [email] (rasheed) wrote:

You've repeatedly repudiated your own statements.

I've repeatedly pointed that out.

Try to keep up.

I think we could do it. My belief in individual liberty is fact based, whereas your hatred and fear of it is based on nothing more than a desire to submit at any cost.

Those countries have FAR fewer guarantees of individual rights.

You might not have noticed, but in the United States, you can still remain silent in a jury trial without incriminating your self. By the way, isn't the UK trying to do away with jury trials?

Which dictator? Ebert? If Ebert wasn't a dictator in Germany, how could they POSSIBLY have a dictator after him?

And if a dictator comes to power and thinks that making Jews wear yellow stars will be useful, why would he not enact it himself? So then there's no harm to making Jews wear yellow stars NOW, right?

Your idea seems to be to grease the skids for dictatorship in order to make it EASIER to achieve.

And again, you seem to think I'd obey such laws now OR during a dictatorship.

I'm sure YOU would.

Yep, you're still dishonest.

Indeed, speed limits impinge on the lives of others. Do they do so to the exent and for the purpose that gun control and racial identification do?

I'm sure Hitler had libel laws of a sort too. They impinged upon the ability of people libel others.

Were libel laws and speed limits an essential part of making dictatorship safe for the dictator? Or for achieving a dictatorship in the first place?

See, no matter how much you try that trick, it just doesn't work.

SO, there was no gun control in Bohemia and Moravia after the German annexation?

You might want to look up who ACTUALLY shot Hydrich.

Your refutation ISN'T.

Get a history book. Try reading it instead of leveling a pool table with it.

You're not educated enough to understand it.

I've already cited a source and a damned good one. It's why you changed the subject.

You're part of them and you display the same tendencies.

Like I said, if your argument is so weak, try a different one.

In article ,

No, jury trials are a fundamental basis in law in this country (the UK), which is guaranteed by articles going back to before Cromwell. The only exception in recent years was the emergency regulations regarding terrorism and even those regs are no longer in use, mainly because the majority of the terrorists are talking rather than fighting now.

However there are problems with rights here, the major one being that of the "Sus" law, where you can be stopped and searched for no more reason than the suspicion of being some sort of criminal. This has been used unevenly over the years and has accentuated the perception of racial bias within the police.

As I recall the US structure, there are ways to overrule and even depose the president. A dictatorship would never allow a legal structure that could do that.

There is no problem with wearing yellow stars. Never has been. It is only the actions taken that are evil. One should remember that the star in question was the Star of David, one of the Jewish communities' most sacred emblems.

The harm in wearing such an emblem only came about from the motive behind the wearing. And before we condemn the Nazi's out of hand for this, let us not forget the other countries that also endulged in the persecution of Jews, including the Russians who, ISTR, didn't need no steenkin badges to do it!

Possibly you would. Maybe you wouldn't. The sort of dictatorships that are implied by both of you tend to operate by using fear to control its minions, and that sort of fear can make you do things that you would not otherwise consider.

Like I said, you never know until you've lived under that sort of regime, and experienced that sort of fear.

My word, your control of Nazi sloganry is good...

As I recall, libel in Nazi Germany was an integral part of the party's route to power. It's "people's courts" were pretty brutal about it. Having said that, to compare a human right such as freedom of speech to a civil law such as road speed limits is somewhat comical, especially as I doubt that Hitler would have even considered it much beyond the construction of the Autobahns...

The Japanese didn't really want the US Army in the first place. The reason behind the attack by Japan on US soil was to expand its resources since the resources they had to hand were insufficient for their needs. They only took the US Army in at the end of the war as part of the surrender terms. Certainly its presence had some beneficial effects on Japan's economy, but to think that this would be sufficient to please all Japanese people would be naive. And of course recent events is making it even harder for the Americans still serving there (I'm thinking of the recent rape incident being investigated by police near an American base where a US soldier has been implicated, which got some big time coverage on NHK for quite a few weeks).

Have you considered that he is arguing purely for the sake of it?

<ding> Time's up!

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Like to see you go toe to toe with a tank division, or maybe an airforce. How about an AEGIS cruiser with a big rack of viral missiles.

Magna Carta? Sorry, that too far back for you?

Because of the complexities involved in modern forensic medecine (a field which I intend to move into after my undergrad course) it means nothing to the layman, so the Jurys may be given knowledgable assistants to form part of the jury (taking them up to 15) in order to assist them.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:49:10 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

In other words, you'd like for me to be stupid and play to the enemy's STRENGTH?

No.

I will however assassinate his personnel at ever opportunity.

That's probably not what you had in mind.

Apparently the Magna Carta doesn't guarantee you the right not to incriminate yourself.

"Guided democracy", eh?

General Pinochet would be proud.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

If it was all out war would you be able to get them?

It does actually.

to

part

Better than false conviction.

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 19:14:24 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Absolutely! : )

Apparently the British government doesn't think so... or thinks it can pretend otherwise. I have the right to remain silent here without it being considered evidence of guilt.

Or inconvenient acquittal.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

airforce.

Look how difficult it was to assassinate a public figure such as Hitler. And now the commanders are never seen.

You do not have to say anything but you may not later rely on it in court.

field

nothing

Indeed.

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:01:26 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

I think we can see that you also perceive the weakness of your argument.

I say "assassinate his personnel", and you say "Hitler".

The Viet Cong didn't assassinate LBJ.

Who won?

Which of course means that "right" is worthless.

If I wanted "guided democracy", I'd move to Singapore. I don't think they even have it still in Chile.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

And

Assasination doesn't work when there are eager subordinates as well.

court.

The actual meaning is that you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not say something you later rely on in court. Better than you have the right to remain silent.

The web is totally democratic and its a mess. Complete democracy doesn't work.

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:43:03 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Assassinate the subordinates and their eagerness vanishes.

Read "The Gulag Archipelago" and what Solzhenitsyn has to say about what would have happened if people had RESISTED the NKVD.

Organizations like the NKVD, Gestapo... and BATF naturally attract COWARDS who think they'll just be oppessing the weak.

In the United States, silence may not be imputed as guilt. PERIOD.

You don't have a right to silence.

Define "mess". Do you mean that opinions of which you disapprove are not suppressed?

The United States isn't a complete democracy in any case. It's a republic embodied in representative democracy, with constitutional limits on the powers of government and protections for minorities, especially unpopular minorities.

What you appear to want is for state power to be used to enforce the orthodoxies you support... while not giving any thought to the possibility that a change in rulers usually brings a change in approved orthodoxies. That was the conceit of the "Old Bolsheviks" prior to the ascension to power of Stalin. And they payed for it with their lives, virtually to a man.

If you give the government unlimited power to destroy your enemies, you give it unlimited power to destroy YOU.

According to one of the key usenet rules (I forget the name, but I've seen it implemented a lot), when Hitler has been brought up in a thread, the thread is to be declared dead. Well, he's been brought up in this thread, so...

Mark Whickman wrote in message news:9kiui1$qdj$[email]...

enemy's

And

form

In article , Alex Case wrote:

You mean Godwin's Law. It isn't absolute, but many folks follow it. However if you have followed this thread (and the question "why" does come to mind!!!) you'll know that Hitler and his minions have appeared in more than one posting.

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:13:07 -0700, "Alex Case" wrote:

That's called "Godwin's Law".

I once had a discussion with Mr. Godwin about it.

I explained to him that his "law" is merely the anti-intellectual means by which the uneducated seek to avoid the lessons which history teaches us.

Therefore, since Godwin's so-called "law" is merely a psychological crutch for the uneducated and the wilfully ignorant, the thread continues.

Christopher Morton said:

I agree with you.

I think that part of the reason nobody likes to think about or mention Hitler is that World War II taught us some unpleasant truths, truths which we've spent the rest of the century desperately trying to forget.

Which is precsisely why we need to remember them.

In article ,

"He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it."

(The BBC makes a living out of that phrase!!!) ;)

Which truths are these? Seriously I'm curious about what truths you believe were taught by WWII that people are desperately trying to forget.

All arguments aside.

"rasheed" wrote in message

• Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it.
• Those who do not prepare for war will experience it.
• Man is an animal capable of unspeakable brutality toward his fellow man.

Given the state of technology, though, if we have any more of what Churchill called "their finest hour"...it is likely to be our last hour.

End of rant.

4. Ordinary people can be turned into monsters by a small group of well organized determined people. 5. Governments will SELL-OUT their allies for short term gain. 6. Governments can be easily intimidated even when they are militarily superior.

Rasheed said:

You can't appease aggressors. War is hell, but if you're going to fight it you have to get most of your population behind it. Squeamishness in war kills more in the long run.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

you

more

That's why wars fought by extremists tend to be more effective for the equipment.

Another take on the same thing, also from some newsgroup: "As the duration in time of any discussion increases the probability that one or both parties will be compared to the Nazis approaches one."

Let's get a yes or no. Are Great Britain and Canada dictatorships or not?

Great Britain has enacted gun control. So have Canada and Australia and many other democracies. They claimed to have non-dictatorial reasons to institute gun control but I'm sure you *know* they were lying. What was their real reason for gun control?

a) Was it part of a long term plan to institute dictatorship later?

b) Did they institute gun control and remain democratic as devious propaganda designed to weaken the arguments of Americans who are against gun control and claim it inevitably leads to dictatorship?

c) Did they immediately institute "closet" dictatorships with sham elections and are now desperately hoping not to be "outed" by patriots such as yourself?

d) Was it none of the above, but something you would understand clearly if they would just stop giving you the medications?

Once again, you're being stupid. In a gun control thread, you can't assume that gun control is the moral equivalent of forced distinguishing marks. You have to prove it if you can.

I agree that forced distinguishing marks are wrong. I go further than you because I believe forced distinguishing marks would be wrong even if that had never been done by any dictator.

You agree that enforcing libel laws is not wrong. Even though some dictatorships have done it.

To show that gun control is the moral equivalent of forced distinguishing marks and you have to show that the *only* benefit from gun control is that it enables or facilitates oppression. That is kind of hard though, when there is a really big country to the north of you that has instituted gun control for reasons other than to facilitate oppression.

Oh, I forgot, in your world Canada instituted gun control to facilitate oppression. You'll like it here on earth though, if you ever come back.

It is not that anyone in England, Canada, or Australia today has enacted gun control as a part of some long-term scheme to take over the nation by force. It is that if at some time in the future someone does try to take over the nation by force is will now be easier that it would have been without gun control. (If every Jew in Germany had been armed life would have been much more difficult for the SS.)

James Craine wrote in message news:[email]...

That's what the military is for. And if the Jews had guns and actually resisted, the Wermacht would have shelled them, or used stukas or panzers.

"Mark Whickman" writes:

Owning guns doesn't do you much good if someone sends an army to your front door. But it does help keep a newly-forming tyranny from sending a couple secret police to haul dissenters off in the middle of the night. That helps keep things from getting to the 'open war' stage.

Aaron

Aaron Baugher wrote in message news:[email]...

Not when your neighbours are the secret police or informers.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:24:01 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

When you shoot them, their "committment" tends to wane.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

The point is you don't know them until its too late.

In article , "Mark says...

That's rarely the case. Slime like that need to lord it over others.

Chris Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

They're rarely of the amoebic intelligence level either.

In article , "Mark says...

They're usually dull witted thugs, and that's what the Soviet and Nazi models show us.

Chris Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

models

They had to select the obedient from a dim populace. So what's new?

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 07:11:45 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

"Dim populace"?

Would you care to explain that further?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On 21 Aug 2001 09:35:49 -0500, Aaron Baugher wrote:

Such "armies" are usually composed largely of cowards who don't expect a fight. Giving them one frequently draws them up short.

Witness the initial performance of the Einsatzgruppen in Warsaw. They ran like scared rabbits from a few half starved Jews with a few rusty pistols. Fortunately, in their haste to exit the Ghetto, they dropped THEIR weapons to expedite their departure.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:22:03 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

The Jews had a military? Perhaps you're referring to Betar? Who was going to transport them to Poland? The Luftwaffe?

And that would have been worse than being starved, shot and gassed?

When faced with likely death, you seem to recommend to the Jews the course calculated to ensure the FEWEST Nazi casualties....

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

panzers.

But in most cases they didn't know their fate until it was too late. Many thought they were being moved out of combat zones or being exiled wheras they were really going to forced labour camps.

In article , "Mark says...

Fairly early on, it became obvious what was happening.

The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, KNEW what was happening.

What would you recommend to them?

Have Jews AND Nazis killed?

Or just have Jews killed?

Is preserving the lives of Nazis a consideration?

Chris Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

I don't think them owning guns was relevant. If they had guns they lost them when they were put into the ghettos.

In article , "Mark says...

You didn't answer my question.

They HAD guns. They used them in the Ghetto uprising. They used those guns to get more guns from the Nazis they'd killed or chased out. That's undeniable history.

What should they have done?

Turn in their guns to the Nazis?

Or use them to kill Nazis?

Should Mordechai Aniliewicz and his fighters have surrendered without a fight?

These aren't tough questions.

Please answer them.

Chris Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

them

guns to

undeniable

fight?

Are they relevant now though? How many people live in a government that could change that fast now?

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 07:13:07 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Any government can change quickly if nobody is prepared to oppose the change.

And just HOW "quickly" did the German government change? It took from 1919 until 1933 for Hitler to achieve power.

And you STILL haven't answered my questions.

They don't require any particular research (apart from my informing you that the Jews in the Ghetto WERE armed).

They're moral and ethical questions.

You shouldn't have any problems answering them.

Please do.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:12:54 GMT, James Craine wrote:

Actually, if you look at the recent history of gun control in the UK, you'll find it tied directly to a fear by the ruling classes of popular revolt. Look especially at legislation starting with the end of WWI.

As for resistance by the Jews, a Brit in talk.politics.guns once told me that it's a good thing that the Jews of Europe didn't resist more because being gassed was more "dignified" than resisting. I've always regretted that that filthy cur never had the opportunity to experience such "dignity"....

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

In article , Chris Morton wrote:

Same to you, three times, no returns, cross my heart and hope to die with a bra with good uplift... er...

Is that the five minute argument?

Hey! We never did that!

Well, Slobodan Milosevic... ONE...

My, my! And never a mention of Godwin!

Hmm... well, if I'm disarmed... HELP!!! THEY'RE COMING TO GET MEEEE!!!

I bet I'll miss Daria again this afternoon... but then I know why so it isn't much of a bet. ;)

...it has passed on, it has ceased to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker...

You rang, milady?

"Oh, Marcos, my husband! Save my shoes from the rabid mob that beseiges us!"

Do I detect evil laughter? Or is it a hint of minty freshness?

That reminds me. When am I going to get that Free Nelson Mandela they were talking about a few years back?

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:08:05 +0100, chika wrote:

Boy, that sure changed my mind.

No, the ten.

You made deals with the people who did.

But that's beside the point of the extant argument.

If the nitwit in question is going to discard the concept of historical precedents, he doesn't get to pick and choose where he's going to do it.

Wrong. I said the Yugoslav government OF Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic wasn't made available for prosecution until AFTER his government was forced from power.

I once had a conversation with Mr. Godwin. I explained to him that his "law" was merely an attempt by the historically ignorant to avoid the lessons which history teaches the educated.

Maybe you're a White Protestant male and they don't want you?

What about Blacks, gays, Gypsies, etc?

What about people who just say unpleasant things about the government?

I know why. It isn't on.

But I'll be shooting instead, so I can live with it. : )

As indeed it has. If he ran for office, it would be for the National Bocialist Party.

Correction, "Mein Herr".

Sorry, I don't know the names of the wives of any of the leaders of Burma. Their shoes however WERE saved by killing hundreds of demonstrators.

Then there's Tienanmen Square....

Indeed people such as this have found such things wildly amusing. There used to be one in talk.politics.guns who had a large stock of Holocaust "jokes". But then he also called a friend who criticized him a "crazy Jew". Such is the anti-gun movement....

When am I going to get that Free Aung San Suu Kyii?

When are the dead of Tienanmen Square going to rise?

In article , Christopher

Glad to hear it! *Blubbleblubbleblubble* H.H ^_^

Look, I've told you once, I'm not going to argue unless you pay! ^_^

True, but then we made a good many deals prior to and right into the war. The trouble was that a good many countries in Europe embraced the same tenets that the National Socialists did in Germany, although to date only Germany and Italy have actually put fascists in places of power, and of those only Italy continues to do so. As far as the UK were concerned, Oswald Moseley and his thugs never made it past the mob stage. Having said all that, when I look at some politicians and their track records, I often wonder where their sympathies lie...

Certainly not! History doesn't work that way!

My bad, although considering that most bureaucracies outlast governments, even ones deposed by revolution, I wonder how many guilty consciences were present when he was handed over to the Court in Holland...