Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.


John Cairns wrote:
Huh? Care to elaborate on that statement?

Any moron can get a drivers license, buy any car they can afford (or
connive somehow), and drive as fast as they want on any road. You can
have bad vision, a criminal record, you don't even have to be literate
or speak English.

The way many people drive "accidents" are not accidental, they're a
foregone conclusion. Cars kill a LOT of people, far more than guns, or
most diseases. The cost in serious injury & long-term disability is far
higher yet. 99% of fatal car wrecks could easily be avoided... all that
needs to happen is for people to get some common sense & drive accordingly.

Our society has blinders on.

DSK

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I don't think there is any good reason to own them, but since I'm not
in charge, I think people have a right to believe what they want.

Now you're being really stupid.

People *will* believe what they want, there is no way to regulate thought.

.... If
they think they have a legitimate reason, then apply for a permit. If
the authorities agree, then fine.

There is a "permit" and the authorities *have* agreed. It's called the
Constitution of the United States.


The public good outweighs any individual's supposed rights to keep a
paramilitary weapon. It might be a priviledge, but no such right
exists.

Yes it does.

Besides, there is no way to show that a responsible citizen owning any
type of firearms is contrary to the "public good." In fact, quite the
opposite.

Just because you're scared of guns, or dogs, or whatever, is no reason
to ban them for sensible people.

I kind of always wanted a 155mm howitzer... maybe a Sherman tank...

DSK

"DSK" wrote

Just because you're scared of guns, or dogs, or whatever, is no
reason
to ban them for sensible people.

In Philly a few years back, there was a push to ban the sale of large
water pump pliers within city limits. Seems a few burglars were using
them to force open locked doors. Rediculis? People like Ganz scare
me.




I kind of always wanted a 155mm howitzer... maybe a Sherman tank...


Hey, call me if you find one, I've hauled a few Abrams MA1As.

Scotty

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
1) Nope. You're wrong...
A flash suppressor is a device attached to a rifle to reduce the brilliant
muzzle flash which occurs upon firing. Muzzle flash is especially visible
at
night, and makes it easy to see the location of the shooter. It is caused
by
incandescence of the expanding gases produced by burning gunpowder.

The short "supressors" on my pre-ban AR-15s did nothing to hide flash,
especially at night. They did however keep that flash out of the shooters
eyes, allowing quicker recovery of sight picture in rapid fire events. I
don't doubt that the larger ones on sniper rifles hid flash but guess what -
those guns weren't banned cuz the don't have bayonet lugs.

2) Read the 9/11 report. They were trained to deal with overcoming people
with guns, knives, etc.

How do you train to overcome equally well trained plainclosed LEOs you
cannot ID using a box cutter?

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

I agree... just forget giving the authorities yet another tool to catch a
criminal.

Catch a criminal? Bwahahahaha! These laws do zip except turn honest citizens
into law breakers. The authorities at Columbine Hi bragged about how they'd
successfully contained the killers INSIDE the school with their victims!!
This after BATF had murdered a boy and his mother in Idaho and about 100
harmless religious kooks in Texas over silly gun laws. If the authorities
caught criminals half of congress would be in jail.

Vito wrote:
How do you train to overcome equally well trained plainclosed LEOs you
cannot ID using a box cutter?

More to the point, how do you "overcome" somebody who instantly plugs
you with a couple of .44SP rounds?

One way to defeat suicide attacks is to increase the odds that it will
not be an attack but just plain suicide.

Right now, it seems like our strategy is to increase recruiting &
motivation of suicide bombers. Anybody here want to see the figures for
the Bush Administration's funding of Port Security?

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:30:29 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Slightly?? Talk about a screwed up view of the real world... they're far
to the right. Don't you even bother to check your facts?

That is a matter on which reasonable men may differ. I'd say they're about
as far to the right as the NY Times is to the left. Fortunately, I read both
regularly instead of confining my sources to those I know will confirm my
views.

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda. While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists. The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know. Fox, also as you know, is definitely an organ for the right
wing. Their owner is on the radical right, and he frequently
"encourages" like views from the "reporters." Dissenting views are
discouraged to the point of putting their jobs on the line.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:31:23 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So, you're equating Al Gore to a chimp? Sounds like you're sore he won
the popular vote in 2000 by 500K votes.

Nope. I'm calling your absurd smear of Larry Tribe for what it is. I've
known Larry (though not well) since he was a USSC clerk. Though I disagree
with him in many respects, I don't think there's any doubt but that he's a
respected Constitutional scholar as well as a talented lawyer.

You claimed that Gore is the equivalent of a chimp. Are you changing
your story?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda.

Hmmm. Is that why their tag line is "fair and balanced?" Is that why Alan
Colms is on with Sean Hannity? Is that why they play as much Kerry campaign
footage as Bush?

While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists.

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know. Fox, also as you know, is definitely an organ for the right
wing. Their owner is on the radical right, and he frequently
"encourages" like views from the "reporters." Dissenting views are
discouraged to the point of putting their jobs on the line.

LOL. I just love your assessments from the far left, Jon.

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda.

Hmmm. Is that why their tag line is "fair and balanced?" Is that why Alan
Colms is on with Sean Hannity? Is that why they play as much Kerry campaign
footage as Bush?

Yes, it's called fair and balanced to hoodwink the unthinking or
uninformed. Alan Colms? Have you taken a look at that program? Hannity
has the last word, Colms barly holds his own. Also, look at the two
people. Hannity is a sharp dresser, young, and very articulate. Colms
is a squirrelly looking geekazoid. Also, he's pretty timid and rarely
contradics Hannity.

While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists.

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

Well, give us some examples? Have they been that way thoughout their
publishing history or just during the last few years? I suppose you
think the Wash. Post was left-leaning because they broke the Watergate
story?

The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know. Fox, also as you know, is definitely an organ for the right
wing. Their owner is on the radical right, and he frequently
"encourages" like views from the "reporters." Dissenting views are
discouraged to the point of putting their jobs on the line.

LOL. I just love your assessments from the far left, Jon.

Which far left assessment is that? There are plenty of far left
publishing entities. The NY Times isn't one of them.

LOL. You're a right-wing wacko, so I guess you aren't interested in
any kind of intelligent discussion.

If find it interesting that the right-wing wackos are only interested
in the politics of person destruction (a Clinton description), rather
than an objective examination of the issues. It's really easy to bash
Kerry and Bush, but to actually discuss the issues is beyond you.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."