"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
snip

If this turns out to be a double reply, sorry, but it seems my first
response was lost in cyberspace...


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

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. The
slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And
those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics,
if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from
gun violence. 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.

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?

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:56:06 GMT, "Greg"
wrote:

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. The
slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And
those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics,
if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from
gun violence. 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.

One of the statistics I remember from the era of Vietnam was that many
more people were killed every year on american highways that in 'nam.

Many people have irrational fears far out of step with the risks.

We ban drugs because they are dangerous but we lose 50 times as many
people to legal substances - cigarettes and alcohol.

We are as a nation hysterical about the dangers of terrorism when
there has been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Are terrorists
dangerous? Perhaps, but nobody will ever be able to take over a jet
with just a box cutter again. The only way they did on 9/11 is that
the old paradigm was that if you sit down and shut up during a
hijacking you are more likely to survive than if you try to interfere.
The fourth plane - where people knew what was happening - is proof of
this. Had they known at the beginning, they would probably all still
be alive.
Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Greg wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
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 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

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)

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?


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.

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)