"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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 donıt 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.
Sure it is.
No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation
about
"that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something
like
that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as
though it
is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture.
Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't.
Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of
"gun
culture" is specious.
I wasn't talk about all of Canada.
Evasion. Now you're trying to backpedal again.
No backpedal. I wasn't. There are parts of Canada that do have a gun
culture.
And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun
culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in
identifying bird species than they are in guns.
And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation
in
Canada simultaneously? Your megalomania is showing.
I'm not talking about all of Canada. It's a big place with many extremely
diverse communities, a number of which likely have a gun culture.
I trust that we don't need to shoot each other.
Which is true, until it's not.
I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when
it's
not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it.
Well, a compact handgun is probably adequate...
What if it's not! I'll be underprepared!
What do you think the registry is intended to do?
It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no
other
purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible
one
of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a
gun
registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns
because
it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who
register
guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose
whatsoever
for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to
eventual bans and confiscations.
The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry.
Not hardly.
Exactly.
Automobile registries are for collecting taxes and providing
information to police about a specific vehicle on the highway that may be
breaking the law.
Right.
Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.
It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.
It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?
How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?
The government has no intention of confiscating cars.
Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.
Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.
Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!
Are you fighting against that at present?
Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.
The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.
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?
Why don't you do some research and get back to me.
Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there.
Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"
There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.
Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.
ROFL. I was not lying. I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.
It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.
I like to live in a place where people don't get shot.
Who wouldn't.
Then perhaps we have little to argue about.
Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and
victimized by violent criminals.
What plan?
I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun
threads
is the elimination of assault weapons.
Other than that, what plan have I put forth?
That'll do.
Why are assault weapons needed?
It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.
Why are assault weapons needed?
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.
Not very often at all
Extremely often.
How often, exactly?
I note you cannot answer this question.
I not that you cannot answer this question.
particularly when compared to the number of times
that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime.
What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a
relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime?
You made the claim, so you tell me.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional
shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed
suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
You're parroting debunked gun-banner propaganda.
Prove it.
What happened to the police? And the armed forces?
Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants.
You have a tyrant now.
How so?
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner...sounds like Duhbyuh
to me!
Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home
is 22
times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal
assault
or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in
self-defense.
22 times more likely.
Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books.
Somehow I thought you would say that.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Your truth almost always causes pain to intelligent people.
But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons
waiting
for the stranger to pop out of the bush.
Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun.
Sad.
No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark.
If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun.
You have that exactly backwards. It is because I carry a gun that I am
unafraid. Walking through Capitol Hill at night without a gun is a pretty
scary proposition.
Right. As I said. You carry a gun because you are afraid.
Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or
even
keep their shoes tied.
My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man.
Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north
america.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.
Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.
I'm not talking about clinically impaired.
I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)
I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.
It makes me more than a little nervous that they are
carrying around concealed weapons.
Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the
chances
are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying
a
gun.
Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's
most
likely to be a law-abiding citizen.
LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows
a
law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily.
So does driving a car, only more so.
Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of
them
get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns.
The issue is not the numbers, it's the potential.
The issue is the reality.
Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.
Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?
The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.
An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.
Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.
ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.
Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.
The point was stupid.
Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute?
No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL.
Evasion.
Accuracy.
Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward.
What is courageous about carrying a gun around?
It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it
Oh, that's just beautiful!
Particularly when you're waiting for someone to shoot you dead in the
Luby's
cafeteria and you don't have a gun.
, at significant risk
to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous.
Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can
you?
Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT!
I can wait.
But you WANT it. Bad.
I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need
It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.
A big part of my life has been doing just that, it's pretty much a daily
return. I just think of it as part of being human.
whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.
I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.
You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.
What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own
safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to
provide
for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police,
or
on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you
deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their
safety
on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil
and
cowardly.
I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting
some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to
ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun.
Good for you. Too bad you're wrong, and too bad that you can't "ensure"
anything, and too bad that people believe your claptrap...it might get
them
killed.
Too bad I do good every day while you walk around dreaming of the day you
get to kill someone.
Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.
Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.
I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.
I don't like gun culture.
I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.
But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.
The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.
What the police feel about is is not relevant.
The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.
They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.
LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns. I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.
Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.
The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.
In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.
Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.
There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.
Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.
The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.
I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to
the
ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that
someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life.
The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly
that,
for you
If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's
because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting
the
opportunity to kill someone with your gun.
I know you'd like to think thatıs what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.
I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?
one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant
sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so
because
it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity
you
weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone
like
you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society.
You
take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are
unwilling
to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the
ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable.
Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.
No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.
They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.
I guess to you the bravest
person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park.
Yes, that would be your guess.
By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for
being too trigger-happy?
Nope, I graduated and was certified and went to work as a police officer
for
many years.
Ah...I figured some involvement in law enforcement. What happened? Is that
why you are so angry and want to shoot someone?
That would explain a lot, particularly your latest
furious outburst.
What, you don't like being called a coward and a despicable piece of human
flotsam? Why ever not? You richly deserve it.
LOL. Doesn't bother me a bit, I live my life every day helping others in
real ways, not carrying a gun hoping I can shoot someone.