"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun.
And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!
Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a
gun
in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought
into
that
community from outside.
I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun into a
place
with no guns.
Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.
I'm not making a utopian argument.
Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of
communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot
there!"
You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian
community.
Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have the
type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you.
Nice attempt at backpedaling.
Call it what you want. There's probably an island somewhere with people who
don't have any guns. But that's not what I was wanting to talk about.
I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong
to
a member of a police force.
Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donšt exist. In fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.
I know they exist.
This is my point, it is not a gun culture.
Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.
Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.
There'd have been less people shot without the guns.
But at least you don't have many people here who think that they need to own
an assault weapon or that the "right" to own an assault weapon is more
important than the right to not have your neighbourhood shot up with
semi-automatic fire.
Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.
Would you be more unsafe?
Yes, most definitely.
Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend
themselves?
No, and other innocent people would be dead.
Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM
because
YOU are afraid of guns.
?
Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally insane
to
think like that.
So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun laws
in
Canada?
You just finished saying that gun ownership in Canada is quite high. How
does that mesh with draconian gun laws?
Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?
Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact
that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why
people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and
spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be
just as ****ed off.
You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community does
not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second
failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or
victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.
Mhmm.
How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in Japan
to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private ownership
of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still occur...and
the
number is rising.
How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?
For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can
buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.
That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.
What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA?
And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.
Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into Japan?
That's not what I said.
No? I
didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into Japan,
and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians who
are
smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance, no,
most
of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them aren't
even manufactured in the US.
And many are.
But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not
being
met even in Japan.
I don't have a Utopian ideal.
I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. I happen to believe
that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love
of life is a safer place to be.
Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence is
beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.
Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to non-violence
like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine.
Geezus you are a loser.
And you're an ignorant ****wit.
Good thing there's no such thing as being offensive, or I might be offended,
LOL.
You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?
No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's
required.
Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in
the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and
necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children,
wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of
their own family.
You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though
Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not
to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence
hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan.
Uh.
And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture?
Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.
Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from
moment one.
Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in
the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.
ROFL.
The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.
That's not who is going to kill you.
That's who kills most of the people in the world.
Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you.
But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting
for the stranger to pop out of the bush.
You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member
of
your own family
Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven.
You keep waiting for the stranger then. Hopefully you won't be unlucky and
go your whole life without having to blast someone. I bet you'd die very
unhappy.
- or on yourself.
That would be my right, now wouldn't it?
Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day.
Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have
your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.
I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet.
I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for
20 years. Cool!
Nor do the
vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood
running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where
concealed carry is made lawful.
Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round
I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should
be
taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky,
and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of
summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day
when
you're in public.
Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even
keep their shoes tied. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are
carrying around concealed weapons.
Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just
once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for
everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE
to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to
deny them, ever.
I disagree.
But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the
defenseless should it be necessary.
You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of
weapons ownership seems to be about.