|
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live What's to be afraid of? Violent crime is a fact of life. You may or may not choose to provide yourself with the ability to more effectively defend yourself. I've done enough killing in Desert Storm in a B-52. I hope I never have to use lethal force to defend myself, family, or friends. But I at least always carry a knife and sometimes a pistol. I live in a low crime area and other than the attempted burglary have had no criminal related problems. But, I would not remove the firearm option from others that might live in hi crime areas, or be more likely to be targeted, i.e., young women, handicap, or the elderly. My uncle (crippled, busted leg that has never healed) used his little pocket derringer to deter two thugs that planned on smashing him in the back of the head with a short club, in full daylight, at the entrance to Penneys in the Gadsden Mall. Luckily his two grandkids saw the second guy pulling the club while the first asked for the time. They yelled, he drew, crooks ran away. Don't be afraid, just be as prepared as you feel you need to be. And be kind enough to allow others the same freedom of choice. |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. |
I am dubious of your reasons for your so-called Power Squadron survey
so I'm not going to tell you anything about the type of guns I have aboard and where aboard I keep them. I took my boat to the Med a few years ago and I took my guns with me. In each port I declared them and showed the customs officers (when they bothered to come aboard) where I keep them under lock and key. I got nothing but a positive response from the French and Spanish. I only visited those two countries. This was before 9/11 but even then I had no desire to expose my boat and family to the uncertainties of Muslim justice. I suppose that I you are paranoid or you feel that you are doing something wrong in protecting your family by arming yourself for self defense then the authorities will sense this. I was straightforward, not apologetic nor obsequious and I had no problems and everyone slept a lot better knowing that we were prepared to defend ourselves. Flame away whimpy gun grabbers! Joe |
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 |
Greg wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... snip If this turns out to be a double reply, sorry, but it seems my first response was lost in cyberspace... It got here, but I was too tired to respond, and I'm sure most sane people are getting tired of this too. The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. Oh that's silly. 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. 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's what you're saying when you write off suicides by claiming "they're insane, so they don't count." 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? 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? 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. 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. BTW, the fatality rate from cars in GA is more than double the rate in MA. Why am I not surprised? 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. Remember "depression" and "insanity" are not the same thing. 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. 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. 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? |
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:20:24 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote: Jeff Morris-- I've just read all your posts on this subject. The more I read the greater my insight into your personality. I have concluded that you should immediately apply for full membership to the Idiots Club. |
Joe
I think part of the problem is that in the south if you kill someone you are call a murderer and sent to jail. In Massachusetts you are called a senator and reelected for life. JR Joe Bleau wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:20:24 -0500, Jeff Morris wrote: Jeff Morris-- I've just read all your posts on this subject. The more I read the greater my insight into your personality. I have concluded that you should immediately apply for full membership to the Idiots Club. |
Does anyone remember Joshua Slocum's solution. Savages (pardon, I
meant "indiginous people"} were out to do him harm while he was trying to get through the Straits of Magellan. He spread tacks around his deck. When, in the middle of the night the "indiginous people" boarded they began to jump up and down screaming as the tacks sank into their bare feet. Slocum then calmly arose from his slumber, grabbed his trusty shotgun and thrust it through the companionway. He let go a couple of blasts into the air. The "indiginous people" did not venture back and ole Josh completed his round-the-world voyage, the first to do so. Of course there were a lot fewer pansy whimps around in those days to concern themselves about the "dangers" of guns, viz Jeff Morris. Joe |
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:09:52 -0500, prodigal1 wrote:
Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Better, Prodigal One, to live it as a sniveling whimp. Does the shoe fit? Flames cheerfully ignored. |
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 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. |
Doug Dotson wrote:
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. false dilemma death obviously isn't the only other option I'm not armed, and I don't live in fear my comment is about the fear that permeates American society |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. false dilemma death obviously isn't the only other option I'm not armed, and I don't live in fear Neither are most folks. So what is your point? my comment is about the fear that permeates American society So you are speaking on behalf of society in general. Rather bold I would say. |
Doug Dotson wrote:
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. false dilemma death obviously isn't the only other option I'm not armed, and I don't live in fear Neither are most folks. So what is your point? my comment is about the fear that permeates American society So you are speaking on behalf of society in general. Rather bold I would say. straw man respond to my words, rather than yours if you don't mind re-read the posts in this thread from those who think having lots-o-guns around at all times is a real good idea think about the nature of American society in this day and age -everyone worried about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? |
Spam Fighter wrote: Hi, We are working on a Power Squadron study of the "cruising lifestyle". We need estimates of the absolute number and percentages of cruising boats carrying weapons. That is firearms, not flare pistols, starter pistols, sling shots or spear guns. We are not interested in the debate of whether or not to carry weapons, or why cruisers carry. We wish to estimate the numbers that have chosen to and actually possess and carry while cruising, what they carry and where they go. We would like to break it down by: A - TYPE 1. hand gun 2. shot gun 3. rifle 4. line-throwing gun (safety equipment) 5. assault 6. cruiser grip, short barrel, large bore, home security weapons 7. other B - MARINIZED (special finish, stainless steel) 1. yes 2. no B - QUANTITY + CALIBER OF EACH WEAPON C - TYPE AND AMOUNT OF AMMUNITION CARRIED (mushroom, hollow point, slug, buck shot) D - HOW STORED E - CRUISING GROUNDS 1. America 2. Bahamas 3. Mexico 4. Canada 5. Central America 6. South America 7. Pacific Countries 8. Australia 9. Indian Ocean 10. Africa 11. Northern Europe 12. Mediterranean Is anyone aware of any similar studies? Any thoughts on how to collect this data? We suspect the numbers are very low but have been asked to find some data to support this conclusion. Thanks. Bob Dear Bob, We have no guns on board. We sailed our 42 foot ketch to France last June and my breath was my only weapon. While on this side of the Atlantic we keep the boat in Tortola BVIs. Hope this was helpful. Vincent LoRusso |
prodigal1 wrote:
Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. false dilemma death obviously isn't the only other option I'm not armed, and I don't live in fear Neither are most folks. So what is your point? my comment is about the fear that permeates American society So you are speaking on behalf of society in general. Rather bold I would say. straw man respond to my words, rather than yours if you don't mind re-read the posts in this thread from those who think having lots-o-guns around at all times is a real good idea think about the nature of American society in this day and age -everyone worried stop the presses! :) Getting carried away, with the "everyone" aren't you? about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. Another paint brush swipe. What "uncomprehending" looks? You play while driving a car, you might crash and die, run with scissors, an electic socket, boat without life vests or raft/dingy, ditto. You "play" with a gun, the same. What's to comprehend? Bad things happen in life all the time, why do you choose to demonize guns? try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? I'm going way out on a limb here and say ----- "People aren't shooting people!" Rather than grant guns some type of evil powers, I would question why people in our society are so much more violent. But then, that doesn't fit in a 30 second sound bite as it forces folks to address a whole range of issues from broken familys to a society that bends over backwards to excuse unacceptable behavior. Saudia Arabia would chop your head off for murder. No "he wasn't loved" or "his skin is a different color" or "he was spanked as a child goodness gracious!". Just chop chop chop and there you go. It's so much easier to say GUNS ARE EVIL, pass the legislation and go home feeling so good about doing --- NOTHING. Then the sick *******s start knifing people, then using clubs, then poison, then propane tank bombs, then cars to squish people. Where do you draw the line? Like Mr. Morris, when it impacts his convenience and quality of life? To rehash old info, up to the 50's, you could by guns EVERYWHERE, drug stores, gas stations, etc. Instead of taking the slack assed lazy way out, I would start looking at what has changed in the US since that time that would cause such an increase in violent behavoir - but that might solve something. By the way, I know a guy that faced a home invasion here in town. He didn't fall for the "answer the late night knock on the door" and while returning to his room for his pistol, they kicked the door open. He returned to the door and started receiving rifle fire from outside and then a second guy already in the house tried to jump him - but the target had his pistol. One BG down, the shooter still loose and most likely plying his trade elsewhere. The victim now owns about 12 dogs and always carries a concealed weapon. Don't underestimate or disregard the impact of violent crime. |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. false dilemma death obviously isn't the only other option I'm not armed, and I don't live in fear Neither are most folks. So what is your point? my comment is about the fear that permeates American society So you are speaking on behalf of society in general. Rather bold I would say. straw man respond to my words, rather than yours if you don't mind re-read the posts in this thread from those who think having lots-o-guns around at all times is a real good idea Personal choice. If you don;t think have lots-o-guns around is a good idea then don't have any. think about the nature of American society in this day and age -everyone Everyone? Who made you the spokesman for everyone? worried about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- At all times? I don;t think so. as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns There that pesky Constitution getting in the way again. and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. As far as I can tell, people getting hurt with guns is not generally the fault of the gun. Oops! I better go check mine to make sure it hasn;t been roaming around looking for someone to frighten. try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? Citing Moore doesn;t really lend any credability to you. You hate guns, that's OK. |
Greg wrote:
stop the presses! :) Getting carried away, with the "everyone" aren't you? I wish you were as incisive at answering my points as you are parsing my English. Would "a large majority of Americans" do? about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. Another paint brush swipe. What "uncomprehending" looks? So then my mistake? People in the States aren't concerned about how it is that so many Americans are being killed by one another? People in the States just throw up their hands and go "Oh well...just another drive-by...just another domestic that got out of control...whoops just another ****ass punk with a gun he bought for $25...? Too bad for the dead guy? Is that it? You play while driving a car, you might crash and die, run with scissors, an electic socket, boat without life vests or raft/dingy, ditto. You "play" with a gun, the same. What's to comprehend? Bad things happen in life all the time, why do you choose to demonize guns? Because guns when used as designed, kill people. Cars when used as designed get you from A to B. Scissors cut paper...!! Who said anything about "playing" with guns? try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? I'm going way out on a limb here and say ----- "People aren't shooting people!" d'ya think? and maybe the reason they're not shooting each other is because....they can't get easy access to guns? Oh wait, if you saw the film you'd know that in Canada there are more guns per capita than in the US. Maybe there's something about living in a climate that can kill you in 20mins in January that causes people to learn to live together. Rather than grant guns some type of evil powers, I didn't say that. I would question why people in our society are so much more violent. But then, that doesn't fit in a 30 second sound bite as it forces folks to address a whole range of issues from broken familys to a society that bends over backwards to excuse unacceptable behavior. agreed, but you better watch that have/have-not stuff or you're going to be critcised as some sort of Liberal deviant that hates America. Saudia Arabia would chop your head off for murder. No "he wasn't loved" or "his skin is a different color" or "he was spanked as a child goodness gracious!". Just chop chop chop and there you go. pot-kettle-black you guys are keeping death rows fairly busy too eh It's so much easier to say GUNS ARE EVIL, pass the legislation and go home feeling so good about doing --- NOTHING. Then the sick *******s start knifing people, then using clubs, then poison, then propane tank bombs, then cars to squish people. Stats from other countries show support for this idea but the reates of crime are still far lower. Why is that? Where do you draw the line? Like Mr. Morris, when it impacts his convenience and quality of life? To rehash old info, up to the 50's, you could by guns EVERYWHERE, drug stores, gas stations, etc. Instead of taking the slack assed lazy way out, I would start looking at what has changed in the US since that time that would cause such an increase in violent behavoir - but that might solve something. True, but in the meantime doing something like they have here in Canada about restricting access to firearms in a significant fashion means that people don't have easy access to deadly weapons. The stats tell the tale. Handgun based crime in this country is fueled by illegal importation of these weapons from the US. By the way, I know a guy that faced a home invasion here in town. He didn't fall for the "answer the late night knock on the door" and while returning to his room for his pistol, they kicked the door open. He returned to the door and started receiving rifle fire from outside and then a second guy already in the house tried to jump him - but the target had his pistol. One BG down, the shooter still loose and most likely plying his trade elsewhere. The victim now owns about 12 dogs and always carries a concealed weapon. Don't underestimate or disregard the impact of violent crime. But this is my point. Even in a violent city like Detroit, it is the minority of people who have been victims of stickups, home invasions etc. Yet the news trumpets the stories and where one person is a victim, thousands perhaps are made to feel fear and insecurity. Answer: Run for the gunz. Are they more secure? No. Are their families more at risk because of the presence of a firearm in the house. Yes. |
Doug Dotson attempted some puerile riposts that got snipped:
I'll repeat myself because it seems like it's slow-learners day on usenet. try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? Citing Moore doesn;t really lend any credability to you. You hate guns, that's OK. Have you seen the film? Answer the question. If you can't do any better than ad hominem, crack another beer and move on. |
WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:50:46 -0500, prodigal1 wrote: think about the nature of American society in this day and age -everyone worried about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. Your assumptions are insulting and quite disingenuous, not to mention incorrect. Why don't you hop down off the high horse there Wally and try responding to the points I've made? I can't help you if you refuse to accept that you Americans are being conditioned to live in fear. I have the advantage of watching you from the outside as an interested third-party observer untainted by the propaganda that passes for news in your fair land. I don't hate guns or gun owners or Americans. I just think it's naive to think that having one is going to make you safer. In fact, American's love of guns is one of the reasons I lobby my MP's to introduce mandatory inspection of _all_ vehicles entering Canada from the States for illegal weapons. Your crime rates prove that unrestricted gun availability is a dangerous set of circumstances that leads to tragedy on a daily basis in your country. Other people choose not to live that way. Why do you choose to live that way? |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Doug Dotson attempted some puerile riposts that got snipped: I'll repeat myself because it seems like it's slow-learners day on usenet. try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? Citing Moore doesn;t really lend any credability to you. You hate guns, that's OK. Have you seen the film? Answer the question. If you can't do any better than ad hominem, crack another beer and move on. It has as much credability as Fahrenheit 911. Moore's credability as a documentary filmmaker has be discredited over and over. |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Greg wrote: stop the presses! :) Getting carried away, with the "everyone" aren't you? I wish you were as incisive at answering my points as you are parsing my English. Would "a large majority of Americans" do? about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. Another paint brush swipe. What "uncomprehending" looks? So then my mistake? People in the States aren't concerned about how it is that so many Americans are being killed by one another? People in the States just throw up their hands and go "Oh well...just another drive-by...just another domestic that got out of control...whoops just another ****ass punk with a gun he bought for $25...? Too bad for the dead guy? Is that it? Where do you get this crap? We here in the States don't look at it that way at all. But the solution isn't gun control. Just goes to show how the media in other countries do not accurately represent what goes on over here. You play while driving a car, you might crash and die, run with scissors, an electic socket, boat without life vests or raft/dingy, ditto. You "play" with a gun, the same. What's to comprehend? Bad things happen in life all the time, why do you choose to demonize guns? Because guns when used as designed, kill people. Cars when used as designed get you from A to B. Scissors cut paper...!! Who said anything about "playing" with guns? Right. That's how one is able to protect one's self using one. try answering a previous question of mine suggest reasons why all those other countries cited in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" have gun violence rates 10-100X lower than the USA? I'm going way out on a limb here and say ----- "People aren't shooting people!" d'ya think? and maybe the reason they're not shooting each other is because....they can't get easy access to guns? Oh wait, if you saw the film you'd know that in Canada there are more guns per capita than in the US. Maybe there's something about living in a climate that can kill you in 20mins in January that causes people to learn to live together. Rather than grant guns some type of evil powers, I didn't say that. I would question why people in our society are so much more violent. But then, that doesn't fit in a 30 second sound bite as it forces folks to address a whole range of issues from broken familys to a society that bends over backwards to excuse unacceptable behavior. agreed, but you better watch that have/have-not stuff or you're going to be critcised as some sort of Liberal deviant that hates America. Saudia Arabia would chop your head off for murder. No "he wasn't loved" or "his skin is a different color" or "he was spanked as a child goodness gracious!". Just chop chop chop and there you go. pot-kettle-black you guys are keeping death rows fairly busy too eh It's so much easier to say GUNS ARE EVIL, pass the legislation and go home feeling so good about doing --- NOTHING. Then the sick *******s start knifing people, then using clubs, then poison, then propane tank bombs, then cars to squish people. Stats from other countries show support for this idea but the reates of crime are still far lower. Why is that? Where do you draw the line? Like Mr. Morris, when it impacts his convenience and quality of life? To rehash old info, up to the 50's, you could by guns EVERYWHERE, drug stores, gas stations, etc. Instead of taking the slack assed lazy way out, I would start looking at what has changed in the US since that time that would cause such an increase in violent behavoir - but that might solve something. True, but in the meantime doing something like they have here in Canada about restricting access to firearms in a significant fashion means that people don't have easy access to deadly weapons. The stats tell the tale. Handgun based crime in this country is fueled by illegal importation of these weapons from the US. By the way, I know a guy that faced a home invasion here in town. He didn't fall for the "answer the late night knock on the door" and while returning to his room for his pistol, they kicked the door open. He returned to the door and started receiving rifle fire from outside and then a second guy already in the house tried to jump him - but the target had his pistol. One BG down, the shooter still loose and most likely plying his trade elsewhere. The victim now owns about 12 dogs and always carries a concealed weapon. Don't underestimate or disregard the impact of violent crime. But this is my point. Even in a violent city like Detroit, it is the minority of people who have been victims of stickups, home invasions etc. Yet the news trumpets the stories and where one person is a victim, thousands perhaps are made to feel fear and insecurity. Answer: Run for the gunz. Are they more secure? No. Are their families more at risk because of the presence of a firearm in the house. Yes. |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... Greg wrote: stop the presses! :) Getting carried away, with the "everyone" aren't you? I wish you were as incisive at answering my points as you are parsing my English. Would "a large majority of Americans" do? Actually I don't think so. Granted, it is estimated that a majority of american homes contain handguns, however, only a tiny fraction of people actually carry one on even an occasional basis. If fear were truly that big of factor here, the streets of the US would look like an old western movie or a war zone, and they don't. about someone robbing them, invading their homes, "terrorizing" them- you've been cultured to fear the "other" -you feel you have to protect yourself at all times- as a result many of you feel it okay to have unlimited access to guns-guns-guns and then stand there with uncomprehending looks on your faces when nice people get hurt with guns. Another paint brush swipe. What "uncomprehending" looks? So then my mistake? People in the States aren't concerned about how it is that so many Americans are being killed by one another? People in the States just throw up their hands and go "Oh well...just another drive-by...just another domestic that got out of control...whoops just another ****ass punk with a gun he bought for $25...? Too bad for the dead guy? Is that it? Actually seems like it. It's a good publicity shot for celebs and politicians, but they don't actually worry about results. Could be because a "case closed" would end the federal funding . Or it's because most of the violence of any type is confined to "bad" parts of town and the lower middle class and up (the voters/complainers) have little first hand experience with it. If and when is spills over to the good parts of the town, well then the police move in and clean it up and the trouble goes elsewhere. You play while driving a car, you might crash and die, run with scissors, an electic socket, boat without life vests or raft/dingy, ditto. You "play" with a gun, the same. What's to comprehend? Bad things happen in life all the time, why do you choose to demonize guns? Because guns when used as designed, kill people. If I recall correctly, handguns about 24% of the time, rifles 27%. Guns are also fun to shoot cans with, compete in fast draw events, all types of thing. I could safely claim that 99.9999999999% of all ammo fired in the US is related to just having fun blowing holes in paper. Excluding the military, with that majority just being target practice. My guns sit in a nightstand or closet or in a holster or in my car and haven't killed anyone. Paper however, has suffered dearly! :) Cars when used as designed get you from A to B. And when traveling down the road and you lean over to get some sugar from your honey, they spin out of control and off the street you go. So I've heard.... Scissors cut paper...!! Who said anything about "playing" with guns? Hence the accidental shootings with "unloaded" guns. Idiots playing. snip Saudia Arabia would chop your head off for murder. No "he wasn't loved" or "his skin is a different color" or "he was spanked as a child goodness gracious!". Just chop chop chop and there you go. pot-kettle-black you guys are keeping death rows fairly busy too eh No, we don't. It takes over 10 years to execute someone convicted of a heinous crime here in the US. You murder someone in S.A., your trial and execution will be over in less than a month. I know, one of our Air Force buses got shot up by Palastinians during Desert Storm. The shooter lost his head and each accomplice lost a limb. Our system is a joke. It's so much easier to say GUNS ARE EVIL, pass the legislation and go home feeling so good about doing --- NOTHING. Then the sick *******s start knifing people, then using clubs, then poison, then propane tank bombs, then cars to squish people. Stats from other countries show support for this idea but the reates of crime are still far lower. Why is that? Again, not as violent. Isn't it Sweden where everyone is a reservist and they even keep machine guns at home - yet crime is very low? Course I can see why... :) Where do you draw the line? Like Mr. Morris, when it impacts his convenience and quality of life? To rehash old info, up to the 50's, you could by guns EVERYWHERE, drug stores, gas stations, etc. Instead of taking the slack assed lazy way out, I would start looking at what has changed in the US since that time that would cause such an increase in violent behavoir - but that might solve something. True, but in the meantime doing something like they have here in Canada about restricting access to firearms in a significant fashion means that people don't have easy access to deadly weapons. The stats tell the tale. Handgun based crime in this country is fueled by illegal importation of these weapons from the US. Guns are now simple to make. You really can't ban them any longer. If crooks wanted guns and couldn't get them, you can bet that back room machine shops would start shipping them - or they would be bought elsewhere, as you point out. You couldn't control the components used to make guns without shutting down an economy - steel, aluminum, just everyday stuff. By the way, I know a guy that faced a home invasion here in town. He didn't fall for the "answer the late night knock on the door" and while returning to his room for his pistol, they kicked the door open. He returned to the door and started receiving rifle fire from outside and then a second guy already in the house tried to jump him - but the target had his pistol. One BG down, the shooter still loose and most likely plying his trade elsewhere. The victim now owns about 12 dogs and always carries a concealed weapon. Don't underestimate or disregard the impact of violent crime. But this is my point. Even in a violent city like Detroit, it is the minority of people who have been victims of stickups, home invasions etc. Yet the news trumpets the stories and where one person is a victim, thousands perhaps are made to feel fear and insecurity. Answer: Run for the gunz. Are they more secure? No. Are their families more at risk because of the presence of a firearm in the house. Yes. My last bit for this thread. (yea! yea!) If you get a gun, practice with it consistently, and train thru "what if" scenarios, you WILL be much better prepared to face certain conflict situations - not all, but a lot. In fact, the confidence you gain makes you less likely to be a victim, according to the psychologists (most crooks want sheep). If you get one and throw it into the closet, purse, or car and never touch it - you are absolutely right, MOST likely it will do you no good at all. But that depends upon the person. Some are just natural at defending themselves, others will roll over and die no matter what. (Base upon 6 years of observation while practicing martial arts.) And lastly, the personal aspect - the one that I just can't ignore. (Yes, I'm a bleeding heart conservative.) If YOU are the person facing a violent situation, be it a woman facing a rapist or a computer geek (like me) facing a muscle bound street thug with years or decades of experience hurting people, the statistics be damned. All that is important is what is about to happen to you - which could very well be your death or permanent disablement. I for one will not be the person that would take from you one weapon that might allow you to escape the fate the bad guy has in store for you. You are free to do that to yourself, but I won't. Now to try to recall the question the latest issue of PassageMaker brought to mind.... |
Because guns when used as designed, kill people.
I'd better go have a long talk with my gun. It is clearly not striving to achieve it purpose in life. So far all it has done is put several thousand holes in paper targets. Cars when used as designed get you from A to B. I don't know about that. According to our media the deadly SUV threat is more pressing than any gun problems. Scissors cut paper...!! According to my doctor, scissors cut flesh. Wow! Better get those killer scissors out of the hands of surgeons. you guys are keeping death rows fairly busy too eh Executions are pretty rare here and getting more rare all the time. Handgun based crime in this country is fueled by illegal importation of these weapons from the US. Still not the fault of the gun. And most handguns are not made in the US. By the way, I know a guy that faced a home invasion here in town. He didn't fall for the "answer the late night knock on the door" and while returning to his room for his pistol, they kicked the door open. He returned to the door and started receiving rifle fire from outside and then a second guy already in the house tried to jump him - but the target had his pistol. One BG down, the shooter still loose and most likely plying his trade elsewhere. The victim now owns about 12 dogs and always carries a concealed weapon. Don't underestimate or disregard the impact of violent crime. Being on the receiving end of such a crime will definately change ones point of view. But this is my point. Even in a violent city like Detroit, it is the minority of people who have been victims of stickups, home invasions etc. Yet the news trumpets the stories and where one person is a victim, thousands perhaps are made to feel fear and insecurity. Answer: Run for the gunz. Are they more secure? No. Are their families more at risk because of the presence of a firearm in the house. Yes. Good point! |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:25:30 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: Because guns when used as designed, kill people. I'd better go have a long talk with my gun. It is clearly not striving to achieve it purpose in life. So far all it has done is put several thousand holes in paper targets. Cars when used as designed get you from A to B. I don't know about that. According to our media the deadly SUV threat is more pressing than any gun problems. In the US, cars, cigarettes, overeating and alcohol kill many times more people each year than guns. Regardless of the intent of the designer, many things kill Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
Dear Bob, We have no guns on board. We sailed our 42 foot ketch to France last June and my breath was my only weapon. While on this side of the Atlantic we keep the boat in Tortola BVIs. Hope this was helpful. Vincent LoRusso Hello Vincent, As of 230730EST there are over 150+ responses to our original post from people who did not read it. You read it. Thank you. Bob |
Major snippage...
Because people do deed, not the tool. Like this... http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.asp...id=30596&bw=hi |
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:08:32 -0500,
prodigal1 wrote: Doug Dotson wrote: "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Prof. Irwin Corey wrote: Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live Beats being dead. false dilemma death obviously isn't the only other option I'm not armed, and I don't live in fear my comment is about the fear that permeates American society I have a half dozen fire extinguishers aboard Windwalker, that doesn't mean that I live in abject fear of a fire. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, But it's the safest way to bet. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com