BoatBanter.com - How many more?

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - How many more? (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/79972-re-how-many-more.html)

OzOne wrote:
Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Has nothing to do with gun control unless he purchased the guns at a gun
show, which does need reform.......has everything to do with how kids
are raised...an interesting statistic was mentioned on CNN yesterday by
an FBI profiler...the majority of college shootings are done by young
Asian men...the assumption made is that they do not understand other
cutures, are pressed for achievement, and flip out...Jim Jones used
grape KoolAid to kill off his clan....there is always a way..this was a
well=planned event...it was not a crime of instant passion...at any
rate, here in the state of VA, we're all pulverized...half the students
at VA Tech are from the Hampton Roads area...everyone is in a state of
communal shock...

On Apr 17, 7:25 am, katy wrote:
OzOne wrote:
Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Has nothing to do with gun control unless he purchased the guns at a gun
show, which does need reform.......has everything to do with how kids
are raised...an interesting statistic was mentioned on CNN yesterday by
an FBI profiler...the majority of college shootings are done by young
Asian men...the assumption made is that they do not understand other
cutures, are pressed for achievement, and flip out...Jim Jones used
grape KoolAid to kill off his clan....there is always a way..this was a
well=planned event...it was not a crime of instant passion...at any
rate, here in the state of VA, we're all pulverized...half the students
at VA Tech are from the Hampton Roads area...everyone is in a state of
communal shock...

Kids should be allowed to carry guns on campus.

One kid with a license to carry could have dropped that nut well
before he hit double digits.

How could 33 be killed unless they did what the gunman demanded and stood in
line? Had he tried to pull this off at a military base with unarmed recruits
he would have been torn limb from limb. Very few, if any would have been
killed. The difference? In the military it is taught that self defense is
proper and honorable plus the means of self defense is taught. Pacificism is
rife on college campuses. Same age people in both cases, different learning
environments. At the college most students have their parents footing the
bill. For the military recruits they are footing the bill with blood.

In article ,
katy wrote:
OzOne wrote:
Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Has nothing to do with gun control unless he purchased the guns at a gun
show, which does need reform.......has everything to do with how kids
are raised...an interesting statistic was mentioned on CNN yesterday by
an FBI profiler...the majority of college shootings are done by young
Asian men...the assumption made is that they do not understand other
cutures, are pressed for achievement, and flip out...Jim Jones used
grape KoolAid to kill off his clan....there is always a way..this was a
well=planned event...it was not a crime of instant passion...at any
rate, here in the state of VA, we're all pulverized...half the students
at VA Tech are from the Hampton Roads area...everyone is in a state of
communal shock...

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article .com,
Bart wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:25 am, katy wrote:
OzOne wrote:
Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Has nothing to do with gun control unless he purchased the guns at a gun
show, which does need reform.......has everything to do with how kids
are raised...an interesting statistic was mentioned on CNN yesterday by
an FBI profiler...the majority of college shootings are done by young
Asian men...the assumption made is that they do not understand other
cutures, are pressed for achievement, and flip out...Jim Jones used
grape KoolAid to kill off his clan....there is always a way..this was a
well=planned event...it was not a crime of instant passion...at any
rate, here in the state of VA, we're all pulverized...half the students
at VA Tech are from the Hampton Roads area...everyone is in a state of
communal shock...

Kids should be allowed to carry guns on campus.

One kid with a license to carry could have dropped that nut well
before he hit double digits.

License? That's regulation Bart. The gun control lobby would never go
for it.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article , Bob Crantz wrote:
How could 33 be killed unless they did what the gunman demanded and stood in
line? Had he tried to pull this off at a military base with unarmed recruits
he would have been torn limb from limb. Very few, if any would have been
killed. The difference? In the military it is taught that self defense is
proper and honorable plus the means of self defense is taught. Pacificism is
rife on college campuses. Same age people in both cases, different learning
environments. At the college most students have their parents footing the
bill. For the military recruits they are footing the bill with blood.

That's right! Blame the victim. Shouldn't have been taking exams
anyway.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

OzOne wrote:

Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Has nothing to do with gun control unless he purchased the guns at a gun
show, which does need reform.......has everything to do with how kids
are raised...an interesting statistic was mentioned on CNN yesterday by
an FBI profiler...the majority of college shootings are done by young
Asian men...the assumption made is that they do not understand other
cutures, are pressed for achievement, and flip out...Jim Jones used
grape KoolAid to kill off his clan....there is always a way..this was a
well=planned event...it was not a crime of instant passion...at any
rate, here in the state of VA, we're all pulverized...half the students
at VA Tech are from the Hampton Roads area...everyone is in a state of
communal shock...

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...

On Apr 17, 11:30 am, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

--
Capt. JG - Hide quoted text -

Wrong

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were
ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws
cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising
in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms
restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002
that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a
crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed
robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While
murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995,
Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the
criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is
dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the
past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while
in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United
Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun
ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising
in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of
crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S.
Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found
that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United
States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The
rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in
the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double
America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher
than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference
between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the
past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported
that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16
other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics.
Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult
since foreign officials frequently use different standards in
compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there
for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in
their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused
of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences
by 20 percent."11
* British police have also criticized the system because of the
"widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police
were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of
ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated
with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are
meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going
on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded
level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being
committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told
The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a
complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of
homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one
crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a
crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep
murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman
during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but
because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead),
charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the
event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it
counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting
criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide
rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of
Constabulary] concludes."16
5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence
rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States.
Consider the following rates:

High Gun
Ownership Countries
Low Gun
Ownership Countries

Country
Suicide
Homicide
Total*
Country
Suicide
Homicide
Total*

Switzerland 21.4
2.7
24.1
Denmark 22.3
4.9
27.2

U.S. 11.6
7.4
19.0
France 20.8
1.1
21.9

Israel 6.5
1.4
7.9
Japan** 16.7
0.6
17.3

* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical
Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the
table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.

6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS
than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-
free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates
routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been
committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders
per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments
against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times
higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18
* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government
oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers
indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing
official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist
46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be
formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal
government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State
governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the
danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens
with arms in their hands.19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of
West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime
and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The
Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun
Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May
9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc
since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).
3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public
Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources
(The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be
accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/share...sNav=pb&id=604.
4"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk...00/1440764.stm.
England is a prime example of how crime has increased after
implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of
1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of
murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's
enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood,
supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades
later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number
of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed
almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1
at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent
higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was
enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and
Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
5"Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP
News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The
Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
6"Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October
11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in
the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
7See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii.
8John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal
Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from
the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can
be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The
link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as
Acrobat pdf files.
9Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The
Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
10Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The
Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
11John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent,"
The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
12See supra note (Crime figures a sham...)
13Ibid.
14Ibid.
15See supra note (fiddling).
16Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From
Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001).
17The number of people killed by their own government in Europe
averages about 400,000 for the last 70 years. This includes Hitler's
extermination of Jews, gypsies and other peoples (20,946,000);
Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainian kulaks (6,500,000); and more.
R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (2000), pp. 8 and 80.
18At our historic worst, murders in the United States approached
25,000 in 1993 -- or 23,180 to be exact. So even applying our highest
single-year tally over the past 70 years would mean that Europeans
have experienced 16 times as many murders as we have in the United
States.
19THE FEDERALIST 46 (James Madison).

In article ,
katy wrote:
And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...

Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:30 am, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

--
Capt. JG - Hide quoted text -

Wrong

Right.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Apr 17, 1:05 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article . com,

Joe wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:30 am, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

--
Capt. JG -Hide quoted text -

Wrong

Right.

--
Capt. JG

Brilliant Jon,
Care to offer any proof?

Joe

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...

Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html

If that were really so, then there would be legislation...after all, we
are goventment by the people for the people...if what you say was RALLY
true, then the people would rise up and do something about it...if a
person says they're against something, but does nothing to change it and
sits in apathy, then they are really not agaisnt it...they just like to
blat their mouths off with an opinion...I think the more valid statistic
would be that most Americans just don't give a crap...if they did,
they'd do something...

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:05 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article . com,

Joe wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:30 am, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

--
Capt. JG -Hide quoted text -

Wrong

Right.

--
Capt. JG

Brilliant Jon,
Care to offer any proof?

The guy who killed 33 people because he had easy access to guns isn't
proof enough?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
katy wrote:
Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html

If that were really so, then there would be legislation...after all, we
are goventment by the people for the people...if what you say was RALLY
true, then the people would rise up and do something about it...if a
person says they're against something, but does nothing to change it and
sits in apathy, then they are really not agaisnt it...they just like to
blat their mouths off with an opinion...I think the more valid statistic
would be that most Americans just don't give a crap...if they did,
they'd do something...

I know you're a very innocent person, but do you dispute the polls? Do
you think the NRA is just going to lie down and let Congress regulate
their business without a fight? They pour millions into their hands
everytime a piece of legislation that would restrict their business
shows up.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Apr 17, 1:41 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:05 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article . com,

Joe wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:30 am, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

--
Capt. JG -Hidequoted text -

Wrong

Right.

--
Capt. JG

Brilliant Jon,
Care to offer any proof?

The guy who killed 33 people because he had easy access to guns isn't
proof enough?

--
Capt. JG - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about easy access to fertalizer and diesel?
Easy access to gasoline?
Easy access to automobiles?
Easy access to booze?
Easy access to hundreds of poisons?

Ever hear of the Bath School massacre? The worst school mass murder in
US history? No gun..44 kids dead.

Joe

In article .com,
Joe wrote:

The guy who killed 33 people because he had easy access to guns isn't
proof enough?

--
Capt. JG - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about easy access to fertalizer and diesel?
Easy access to gasoline?
Easy access to automobiles?
Easy access to booze?
Easy access to hundreds of poisons?

Ever hear of the Bath School massacre? The worst school mass murder in
US history? No gun..44 kids dead.

What's your point? Is it that because 30,000 people die in automobile
accidents, we should ban cars, or because we have violent deaths that
might be preventable; we should do nothing? More guns! More guns!
Hurry, buy them before the crunch comes.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
katy wrote:
Polls? You believe polls? How about Santa CLause, the Easter Bunny and
the Tooth Fairy, too, while you're at it? No, I have no belief in
polls. They are slanted to the poll developers slant. And I am not an
innocent...I am well aware of what goes on in the world.

How do you propose we find out what the public wants if we don't use
polls? Are all the polls wrong or just the ones you don't like?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Apr 17, 2:40 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:

The guy who killed 33 people because he had easy access to guns isn't
proof enough?

--
Capt. JG -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about easy access to fertalizer and diesel?
Easy access to gasoline?
Easy access to automobiles?
Easy access to booze?
Easy access to hundreds of poisons?

Ever hear of the Bath School massacre? The worst school mass murder in
US history? No gun..44 kids dead.

What's your point? Is it that because 30,000 people die in automobile
accidents, we should ban cars, or because we have violent deaths that
might be preventable; we should do nothing? More guns! More guns!
Hurry, buy them before the crunch comes.

The point is guns do not kill people, people kill people.
No one is forcing you to own a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...Museumflag.jpg
No guns there....44 children murdered at school.

Joe

--
Capt. JG - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
The point is guns do not kill people, people kill people.
No one is forcing you to own a gun.

Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...Museumflag.jpg
No guns there....44 children murdered at school.

1927?

Keep at it. Maybe you should claim Hillary did it.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

Maybe we should tattoo barcodes on thier forheads and treat them like
they did something wrong. Okay I'm going to say it one more time.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY REGULATING THE PEOPLE? You have not given
anything solid to stand behind. You are being very vague which makes
me think you are only holding this viewpoint because you listen to all
of the liberal explanation for why we need mre gun control. Nobody
seems to have anything good to say for that side so they just argue
nothing to waste time and energy hoping that enough people like you
will think they know what they are talking about.

In article om,
Bill wrote:
Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

Maybe we should tattoo barcodes on thier forheads and treat them like
they did something wrong. Okay I'm going to say it one more time.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY REGULATING THE PEOPLE? You have not given
anything solid to stand behind. You are being very vague which makes
me think you are only holding this viewpoint because you listen to all
of the liberal explanation for why we need mre gun control. Nobody
seems to have anything good to say for that side so they just argue
nothing to waste time and energy hoping that enough people like you
will think they know what they are talking about.

I like the tattoos, except that it kinda has a bad connotion.

See my previous post. I have been very specific, but you can claim
otherwise.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

I like the tattoos, except that it kinda has a bad connotion.

Can you say Hitler youth? I knew you could. Of course it has a bad
conotation, liberalization promotes socialization. This is basically
the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should
regulate every part of your life including your right to keep and bear
arms. Historical practices of socialization are Nazism, Communism,
and Facsism. Yeah lets do that sounds good to me.

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
I like the tattoos, except that it kinda has a bad connotion.

Can you say Hitler youth? I knew you could. Of course it has a bad
conotation, liberalization promotes socialization. This is basically
the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should
regulate every part of your life including your right to keep and bear
arms. Historical practices of socialization are Nazism, Communism,
and Facsism. Yeah lets do that sounds good to me.

You brought it up. I was attempting to help you.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Polls? You believe polls? How about Santa CLause, the Easter Bunny and
the Tooth Fairy, too, while you're at it? No, I have no belief in
polls. They are slanted to the poll developers slant. And I am not an
innocent...I am well aware of what goes on in the world.

How do you propose we find out what the public wants if we don't use
polls? Are all the polls wrong or just the ones you don't like?

The majority of polls are slanted and biased...I suggest rather than
polls we vote...I've listened to people taking polls...half of them
don't even understand what they're being asked...I even doubt that more
than 50% of those that go to the voting booth vote with anything but a
gut feeling or a biased belief founded more on peer pressure, familial
history, or the 30 minute nightly news interspersed with commercials for
Burger King...I do not believe the average American is an informed
voter...and yet, they do their "patriotic" duty and parade off to the
voting booth uninformed or unable to dicipher facts, figures, and
opinions...

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:58:54 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...

Cool init...he was being treated for depression yet was able to walk
into the local gunship and buy a Glock .........

Anyone for effective gun control?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

I doubt very seriously that he did that...BTW, using a medical reason to
deny gun ownership would flip the livs off here since they were the ones
sooooo happy to put in the HIPAA laws...that would violate a whole
system they worked 10 years to get into place....The question I rasie is
if he did purtchase the gun, why was a non-citizen allowed to do such a
thing? That means any Iraqui or Iranian with a clean record and a
driver's klicense could buy one..somehow, I don't think so...we extend
far too many rights of citizenship to those who linger about in our
country...I would hope that gun ownership was not one of those...

On Apr 17, 5:06 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article . com,

Joe wrote:
The point is guns do not kill people, people kill people.
No one is forcing you to own a gun.

Exactly. Therefore, prudent regulation of the PEOPLE who want to own
guns is justified and necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...Museumflag.jpg
No guns there....44 children murdered at school.

1927?

They had guns in 1927. Point is the mass murder took place without
guns.

Keep at it. Maybe you should claim Hillary did it.

Why would I blame Hillary?
The only one to blame is the Seung-hui Cho. Thats something you
liberal seems to not understand, people are responsible for their own
actions.

Joe

--
Capt. JG

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:02:58 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

OzOne wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:58:54 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...

Cool init...he was being treated for depression yet was able to walk
into the local gunship and buy a Glock .........

Anyone for effective gun control?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

I doubt very seriously that he did that...BTW, using a medical reason to
deny gun ownership would flip the livs off here since they were the ones
sooooo happy to put in the HIPAA laws...that would violate a whole
system they worked 10 years to get into place....The question I rasie is
if he did purtchase the gun, why was a non-citizen allowed to do such a
thing? That means any Iraqui or Iranian with a clean record and a
driver's klicense could buy one..somehow, I don't think so...we extend
far too many rights of citizenship to those who linger about in our
country...I would hope that gun ownership was not one of those...

Just going on this statement reported here
"uthorities found a receipt for a Glock 9 millimetre handgun, bought
last month, in Cho's backpack which also contained two knives and a
cache of bullets, ABC reported.

He bought his second weapon, a .22 calibre pistol, within the last
week.

According to the AP news agency, Cho walked into a Virginia gun shop,
put down a credit card and walked out with a Glock and a box of
ammunition. He paid $US571 ($687).

The serial number had been scratched off the weapon, but police traced
it to the store, Roanoke Firearms, using the receipt found in Cho's
backpack.

"It was a very unremarkable sale," owner John Markell, who did not
handle the sale personally, told AP. "He was a nice, clean-cut college
kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is
suspicious." "

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

I just read that...IMO , whether someone is a permanent resident or not,
non-citizens have no right to have a gun....that needs to be rectified...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And, they have easy access to guns, especially handguns. If you remove
that easy access, then they might have a chance to get help before 33
people die needlessly. Why don't you tell us it's "in the
Constitution" again if it makes you feel better.

Easy access to handguns is an American fact of life--now and forever. Do
you honestly believe that legislating tougher restrictions will control the
black market on guns? Case in point: during the so-called "assault weapon
ban" there were more so-called "assault weapons" bought and sold in this
country than in the entire time before the ban, or after it was allowed to
lapse. Many were legally sold, but many were under-the-table sales. It is
estimated that over 20 million handguns are illegally possessed in this
country today, and if banned or made tougher to obtain that number would
likely increase due to perceived demand. The demented student who shot 32
others plus himself at VT would likely have been able to obtain a handgun or
two despite tougher restrictions on them.

Did Prohibition stop the sale and use of alcoholic beverages? Has the
illegality of recreational drugs been effective in limiting their sale and
use?

My point: logistically the horses are out of the barn. Closing the barn
door now will accomplish nothing.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katy wrote:
Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html

If that were really so, then there would be legislation...after all, we
are goventment by the people for the people...if what you say was RALLY
true, then the people would rise up and do something about it...if a
person says they're against something, but does nothing to change it and
sits in apathy, then they are really not agaisnt it...they just like to
blat their mouths off with an opinion...I think the more valid statistic
would be that most Americans just don't give a crap...if they did,
they'd do something...

I know you're a very innocent person, but do you dispute the polls? Do
you think the NRA is just going to lie down and let Congress regulate
their business without a fight? They pour millions into their hands
everytime a piece of legislation that would restrict their business
shows up.

Your statement here should answer any questions you have about why gun
control efforts have continually failed. Gun control is a hot-button issue
in any political campaign. Even the liberal Democrats are reluctant to
touch it with a ten-foot pole. It's political suicide, except, perhaps, in
Vermont or Massachusetts. The NRA will indeed fight tooth and nail for
gun-owners' rights, and they do so with the medium that gets results:
money. Politics is always about money.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katy wrote:
Polls? You believe polls? How about Santa CLause, the Easter Bunny and
the Tooth Fairy, too, while you're at it? No, I have no belief in
polls. They are slanted to the poll developers slant. And I am not an
innocent...I am well aware of what goes on in the world.

How do you propose we find out what the public wants if we don't use
polls? Are all the polls wrong or just the ones you don't like?

We, as a population, are over-polled. Polls are conducted for anything
these days. We poll the people to see how often they have sex, what brand
of peanut butter they buy, who in Hollywood they find appealing, etc. ad
nauseum. I tend to believe people are dishonest or disinterested w/r/t
being polled. The proof of that is how radically and quickly polls of
identical issues can change virtually overnight.

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:58:54 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change it...

Cool init...he was being treated for depression yet was able to walk
into the local gunship and buy a Glock .........

Anyone for effective gun control?

Sure. Please describe "effective" gun control, and please bear in mind that
this is the USA and not Oz.

Max

katy wrote:
OzOne wrote:

Before proper gun control is instituted.....or are you really that
afraid of everything?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Has nothing to do with gun control unless he purchased the guns at a gun
show, which does need reform.......has everything to do with how kids
are raised...an interesting statistic was mentioned on CNN yesterday by
an FBI profiler...the majority of college shootings are done by young
Asian men...the assumption made is that they do not understand other
cutures, are pressed for achievement, and flip out...Jim Jones used
grape KoolAid to kill off his clan..

Correction. - Jim Jones used grape KoolAid PLUS a band of thugs carrying
automatic rifles, whose job was to shot anyone who didn't happen to
like grape KoolAid.

As to other forms of "weapons," none of them are as effective and
convenient and reliable as a firearm.

Jim

Jim

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
I tend to believe people are dishonest or disinterested w/r/t being
polled. The proof of that is how radically and quickly polls of
identical issues can change virtually overnight.

Max

You're right. Just remember how fast they changed from communism to
capitalism under Lech Walesa . . .

Wilbur Hubbard

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
Sure. Please describe "effective" gun control, and please bear in
mind that this is the USA and not Oz.

Just wait til Ozone tries to go back home. He's liable to be locked out.
I read over the weekend where Australia is no longer allowing anybody
with AIDS into the country . . .

Wilbur Hubbard

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:45:14 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

I just read that...IMO , whether someone is a permanent resident or not,
non-citizens have no right to have a gun....that needs to be rectified...

Whoa?
What is it that puts a non citizen in a position where he is unable to
defend himself when you claim that right?

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

Because it's our reffing country, that's why....if you want to play the
American way, tehn become an American....otherwise don't expect the
perks without the paying the price...

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
katy wrote:

Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html

If that were really so, then there would be legislation...after all, we
are goventment by the people for the people...if what you say was RALLY
true, then the people would rise up and do something about it...if a
person says they're against something, but does nothing to change it and
sits in apathy, then they are really not agaisnt it...they just like to
blat their mouths off with an opinion...I think the more valid statistic
would be that most Americans just don't give a crap...if they did,
they'd do something...

I know you're a very innocent person, but do you dispute the polls? Do
you think the NRA is just going to lie down and let Congress regulate
their business without a fight? They pour millions into their hands
everytime a piece of legislation that would restrict their business
shows up.

Why would the NRA oppose such regulation? Doesn't the Second Amendment
say: "A well-REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed?" (Incidentally, the judge who stated that a "well-REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" was full of BS. - That position has
never been upheld by the Supreme Court or any of the Courts of Appeal
for the Federal Circuits in the past 150 years.)

Also, where did anyone get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only
to rifles and handguns? If we are talking seriously about "the people"
safeguarding the security of a free State today (in 2007), they are
going to need howitzers, rocket launched grenades, tanks, antimissile
systems, aircraft, nukes, nuclear subs, laser weaponry, etc. - At least
that's what's needed according to the US armed services. - Do "the
people" have a Second Amendment right to use any of these they can pay
for? - "Patriots' citizens militias", perhaps? If the Second Amendment
protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but only with respect to
rifles and/or handguns or other easily carried weapons, what
precedents or case law are you relying on?

Anyone want to talk about "personal" vs "collective" rights? Have at
it! (Please don't throw me into that briar patch.)

Jim

OzOne wrote in message
...

Just going on this statement reported here
"uthorities found a receipt for a Glock 9 millimetre
handgun, bought
last month, in Cho's backpack which also contained two
knives and a
cache of bullets, ABC reported.

TWO KNIVES !!!!! I'm outraged!
TWO KNIVES? Why does a person NEED two knives?
I say we limit each person to ONE knife. Non citizens can
own no knives.
Without knives there can be no stabbings, or cuts.

WE NEED KNIFE CONTROL NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:57:24 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:58:54 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

Why not start putting insane people back in the institutions where they
belong so they don't jeopardize the lives and welfare of others? Turns
out the guy was clincally diagnosed and was referred by the university
for counseling becasue his creative writing assignments were so
disturbing that the instructor was concerned. And it is the
Constitution, Jon...obviously the American people have not come to a
different conclusion about that or they'd make the quorum to change
it...

Cool init...he was being treated for depression yet was able to walk
into the local gunship and buy a Glock .........

Anyone for effective gun control?

Sure. Please describe "effective" gun control, and please bear in mind
that
this is the USA and not Oz.

Max

Umm Max, that is for your responsible citizens and authorities to
decide but the US is not the wild west...and you would be well advised
to begin some national measures rather that state ones for starters

National measures such as those which outlaw illicit drugs? How about those
that outlawed abortion back in the 60s and 70s? Or Prohibition? Those have
been terribly effective, haven't they?

And we'd be well-advised by whom? Australians, such as John Howard, who
chided the USA today for lacking any meaningful gun control? Offhand I
don't recall our President deriding Australia for it laws or lack thereof.
Does arrogance run rampant among the government in your country?

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...

Whoa?
What is it that puts a non citizen in a position where he is unable to
defend himself when you claim that right?

The US Constitution. It applies to citizens, not aliens.

Max