On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:30:38 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:

What's the matter, Jeff? Can't live with the thought that you
Liberals were thoroughly rejected by the American electorate?

You Massachusetts libruls are so full of it. No wonder the country
rejected the whole lot of effete, ineffectual, unmanly, pompous,
degenerate candidates who have found their way onto the national
ballot.

If there were any justice in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy would be in
jail for the death of Mary Jo Koeckne.

Joe

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:49:26 GMT, Dan Best
wrote:


You know, it's funny. This question comes up all the time on the net,
but rarely, if ever, out here where people are actually doing it (we are
about to leave La Paz for points south). I can't remember the last time
the guns topic came up while talking with other cruisers. The sense I
get is that very few are actually carrying guns.
- Dan




YOu know, Dan, if they are smart enough to be prepared to defend
themselves they are probably smart enough to not be broadcasting the
fact. And since you are noncommittal on your stance I can only
conclude that you would not be lending a sympathetic ear. People are
not as dumb as the nanny-state thinks they are.

Joe

As a matter of fact Joe, as a former Army Ranger (B-2/75) , I have
absolutely no moral objection to the possession of firearms or the use
of deadly force in defending onesself or ones family. The obvious
caveat here is that mistakes and accidents happen. And if you make a
mistake with deadly force, the consequences are well, deadly. In the
service, they call this by the wonderful name, "friendly fire" (a good
friend of mine killed some people in a friendly fire incident - it
wasn't pretty). As long as the gun owner recognizes it, accepts it and
is capable of dealing with it responsibly, I have no problem with guns
in the home, on the boat or concealed carry.

I have chosen not to have firearms on my boat, but this is a personal
decision I made after considering all of the factors.

I was intentionally noncommittal earlier and there may indeed be guns
aboard a fair percentage of the boats out here as some have suggested,
but my comment stands. While this is a hot topic of conversation here
and elsewhere on the net, the subject just never seems to come up out
here among cruisers.

Fair winds - Dan Best

p.s.
It's probably a good thing I don't have a gun on board. We finally got
out of La Paz 2 days ago heading for the mainland and points south, but
returned this afternoon with a leaking fresh water pump on my
semi-trusty Perkins. There is an old Bill Maudlin cartoon from WW2 that
kept running through my mind today as I refilled my fresh water
reservoir every 10 minutes on our run back here, It has one of the guys
putting a broken down jeep out of it's misery with his .45 (my personal
all time favorite close in weapon) grin.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Greg wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...


No, I find it a bit sad. But mainly it explains why people from some
regions are so insistent on carrying guns.

What you are doing is equating criminals and insane people with the
average
joe on the street.

What you're claiming is that you have to be "insane" to commit suicide.

Why yes, I am. I think most reasonable people feel the same way. If you wish
categorize the insanity, from "temporary due to X", up to "just plain born
that way", have at it. It's still crazy/insane regardless of duration or
cause and is no justification to take away my right to carry or own a
firearm.

Others have claimed those who fail at their first attempt are doomed to
succeed soon anyways. Frankly, I'm not so callous as to write off 15000
lives a year that way. Are you actually claiming that if your child gets
depressed, you'd hand him a gun and tell him to get it over with?

That is the lamest leap of logic yet. If my child were having problems, I
would take care of my child, not try to take away someone else's rights.

That's what you're saying when you write off suicides by claiming "they're
insane, so they don't count."

I'm not saying that at all, YOU ARE.
I believe they count, but their counting stops with regards to the personal
security of others.
Again, using your logic expressed above, you ARE against private cars
because alcoholics and incompetents kill or main themselves and others. Are
YOU trying to kill kids or loved ones when you hand them the keys to the
car?
Why, I even recall people driving into rivers, off cliffs, or into concrete
barriers to kill themselves. When will you call for a car ban?

I've heard similar lines before in local groups - person buys a gun
today,
you just bet they will be shooting up a day care tomorrow. Utter
nonsense.

Again, using the statistics that you posted, criminals and insane people
account for the majority of all firearm related events. In short, "crazy"
people, because only crazy people murder others - or themselves. Yet you
would punish me and everyone else that wishes to protect themselves,
family,
and friends.

So, if you get into a fight with your neighbor, and he shoots you, that
doesn't count because he's obviously a criminal? So it doesn't matter how
high the murder rate actually is, because only "crazy people" commit
murder?

What counts is an individuals right to decide if they wish to carry any
weapon they feel necessary for personal defense.
Just because my neighbor shoots me doesn't mean you and others shouldn't be
able to defend yourself.
And yes, I feel anyone that murders is crazy. And would have them executed
or as a minimum sealed away forever.


OK, then perhaps I should rephrase my comments so they'll be more
acceptable to you. The murder rate in the South is 30% (or more) higher
than the national average. In Louisiana it 150% higher! In the
Northeast, the rates are less half the average. Thus, would you say that
people in GA are almost three times crazier than in MA? Is there
something in the GA water that makes people three times more likely to be
criminals?

Just that the location seems to attract people willing to commit lethal
violence and yes I would call such people crazy.

Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are
against
private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents.

So you're into stupid analogies. That figures. A car provides a benefit
for me. Owning a gun simply increases my risk.

Ahh, now we are getting to the core here. If something benefits you, it
doesn't matter that it causes more death and injury and property damage than
firearms - just ban the damn guns right? . Lets not worry about people that
might need some form of protection - like the young ladies that fell victim
to the Baton Rouge serial rapist/killer not too long ago. Your risk is
what's important, right?


The
slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And
those are considered "accidents", mostly.

No, almost half of them are alcohol related. I call that a crime, not an
accident.

Crimes like murder and suicide (which is illegal, I believe)? But you use
them to call for a gun ban. Going to ban cars yet?

BTW, the fatality rate from cars in GA is more than double the rate in MA.
Why am I not surprised?

Shouldn't be, the traffic around Atlanta has to be experienced to be
appreciated. But be able to do at least 80 mph.


Again, using your own statistics,
if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from
gun violence.

I don't know where you live. If you live in the South, your risk is
fairly high. The stats are clear. And the research shows the in the
South most victims knew their murderer.

Raised in the south and have never been anywhere near a firearm related
event.
No one in my family has either, nor neighbors.
In 7th grade, one kid accidentally killed himself at home with an "unloaded"
rifle.
And I have worked with a guy that managed a pizza place in his college
years, where he was robbed at gun point.
Did have 2 high school guys robbed at knife point and one guy killed another
with a knife a few years after HS graduation. Maybe we should ban knives,
like they want to do in Great Britain, since knife crime is up after the gun
ban.
I know lots of people (including family) that have had auto accidents,
resulting in death, serious injury, etc.


Remember "depression" and "insanity" are not the same thing.

It is if they kill themselves because of it.


With the number of cars on the street though, you have a far
greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun
toting
individual.

Actually, the auto fatality rate in MA is less than the homicide rate in
many Southern states.

But is it less than the MA homicide rate? If not, you, your loved ones and
friends are in more danger from cars than firearms. Going to ban them?


So, do you consistently apply your logic to most things in your life, or
just guns?
Or do you have reason to fear your family members?

The odd thing is that here in MA the rate of suicide is low, and the rate
"murder by friends" is low. And apparently, the rate of drunk driving is
also low. So I guess you're right. I choose to live in a place where
people don't like to kill their friends, themselves, and the people around
them.

Well that is great. Unfortunately not everyone does and might not be able to
move to such a place.
But they should just accept the violence because they live in a violent
area? No self-defense, just take what the bad guy dishes out?


But then, your rant was all in response to my pointing out that there
seems to be this regional difference. Are you still claiming that the
difference doesn't exist, or are you saying you're proud of it?

I am not ranting and am not interested in the regional differences. I just
believe that restricting freedoms based upon the acts of "irrational" or
"depressed" or "violent" or "unloved" or "crazy" individuals is wrong and
seems to be what you propose. Then again, you don't apply the same standard
to something that benefits you, that you like.
I'll end by saying that if we as a society let the "non-average person"
(that label make you happier?) drive what should or should not be allowed,
pretty soon we will have no freedoms of any kind. Bad things happen and will
continue to happen, even if we ban everything.
Because people do deed, not the tool.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:14:16 -0500, Joe Bleau
wrote:

If there were any justice in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy would be in
jail for the death of Mary Jo Koeckne.

Joe

And Bush would be in jail in Texas for that little Marijuana habit of
his?

Brian W

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:59:49 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:14:16 -0500, Joe Bleau
wrote:

If there were any justice in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy would be in
jail for the death of Mary Jo Koeckne.

Joe

And Bush would be in jail in Texas for that little Marijuana habit of
his?

Brian W

and either of you is surprised that the powerful and well connected
slide past the laws the rest of us have to live by?


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:42:40 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:


I think that's something everyone can agree on. Its been the way of
the world for thousands of years. Even the great "democracies" of the
past, such as Athens, only survived thanks to a large slave population
and were controlled by wealthy families.

Uh, the same situation pertained in Revolutionary America. The
slave-owning merchant/farmer class could afford the leisure created by
essentially free labour to mull over republican democracy.

The results turned out better than in Republican Athens or Rome for
the average (wage) slave, but the irony is that indentured or slave
labour made democracy more likely.

R.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:12:01 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:59:49 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:14:16 -0500, Joe Bleau
wrote:

If there were any justice in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy would be in
jail for the death of Mary Jo Koeckne.

Joe

And Bush would be in jail in Texas for that little Marijuana habit of
his?

Brian W

and either of you is surprised that the powerful and well connected
slide past the laws the rest of us have to live by?


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)


If I were to persist in off-topic, political expression on a cruising
group, I would certainly
want to wish for a heath insurance plan that was as comprehensive, and
cost-effective as that to which the US Senators are subscribed.
[If I recall, it's free]

Brian W

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:29:37 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:12:01 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:59:49 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:14:16 -0500, Joe Bleau
wrote:

If there were any justice in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy would be in
jail for the death of Mary Jo Koeckne.

Joe

And Bush would be in jail in Texas for that little Marijuana habit of
his?

Brian W

and either of you is surprised that the powerful and well connected
slide past the laws the rest of us have to live by?


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)


If I were to persist in off-topic, political expression on a cruising
group, I would certainly
want to wish for a heath insurance plan that was as comprehensive, and
cost-effective as that to which the US Senators are subscribed.
[If I recall, it's free]

Brian W
Don't forget replacing social security with the retirment plan that
senators get.

When politicians are allowed to vote their own pay, perks and
privileges, such things will happen.

BTW, does anyone know how many congressional pay raises have been
voted down over the years?


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Brian Whatcott wrote:


If I were to persist in off-topic, political expression on a cruising
group, I would certainly
want to wish for a heath insurance plan that was as comprehensive, and
cost-effective as that to which the US Senators are subscribed.
[If I recall, it's free]


Oh, I'm sure somebody pays for it.