"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott Weiser wrote:
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.
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 donąt exist. In
fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.
Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.
Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.
Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.
Would you be more unsafe? No. Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend
themselves?
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? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration
scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?
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.
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? 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.
But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is
not being
met even in Japan.
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.
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.
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.
Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which
is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.
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.
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.
- or on yourself.
That would be my right, now wouldn't it?
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. 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. 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.
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.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a
"suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less
and to your current point.
http://tinyurl.com/7xs53
I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some
interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal
party line! TnT
===
The author is John Lott, a gun nut who is also the author of The Bias
Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago
Press 2000).
Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap.