A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser whined:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where
enforcement of the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on
ANYONE'S civil rights.

http://communication.ucsd.edu/911/shenon.philip.html

Nice try, but

you lack the balls to admit and intelligence to realize when you're screwed so
you'll flop
around for longer.

Just because you choose to put your spin on things doesn't make it so.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 9:41 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.

Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that
it
is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to
harm
another person for any reason, even in self defense.

I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your
manner of response is appreciated.

See, I told you so...


That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.

Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by
law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the
mere
presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart
the crime.

Or back to reality,

Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal.

the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and
deaths occur where they needed to be one.

I"m not quite sure what you're saying

Me either, I messed that up real good. I believe I was on the phone at the
time.

ut if I have it correct, you are
claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by an
armed predator than armed victims are.

Right.

I'd like to see some statistical
evidence to support this conclusion.

That would be helpful.

Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers kill
because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't
merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is not
likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses,
unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save
everyone's lives.

So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they don't
make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to
experience armed resistance? Get real.

Of course they do. And most of the time, as most bank robbers are single
individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT have
armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do not
employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a confrontation,
and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just give
the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and
nobody gets hurt.

Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses
anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank ends
up costing many lives.

The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should
be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other
than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot
people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any
bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much
more reluctant to rob banks in the first place (which they do BECAUSE they
know that bank policy is to give up the money without a fight) and they will
be much, much more reluctant to threaten to hurt anyone, because they won't
know who is going to pull a gun and return fire. Criminals are cowards, and
they aren't in it to have shootouts where they could get killed.

There are, of course, exceptions, like the LA bank robbery, but sometimes
all the rules go out the window and you face someone who is simply intent on
killing people. Not having a gun when faced with this kind of person usually
means you die without any chance of putting a stop to the incident.

If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying
to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my
head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife,
or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and
fingernails.


Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death
of innocent parties.

Can you cite even one such instance?

I'm waiting for your own story to break.

Thus I conclude that you cannot cite a single instance. Just as I thought.


I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of a
deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite a
number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen DID
have a gun, and was willing to use it.

One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state
representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's cafeteria in
Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried a
gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that served
alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to the
law, left her handgun in her truck.

Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through the
wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons.

Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been
injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer
calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she
escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back, from
close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her
parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because
NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN.

Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed
citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23 lives?

I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth
anything.

You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other
mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life on
the line.

Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun.

It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that.

Innocent lives are at greater risk, as is quality of life.

Again, this is simply not true, as the US experience has proven
conclusively.


That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.

No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their means
of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer,
sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world.

Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of
civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead or
run away

What a beautiful vision!

Your model seems to be "bend over, drop trou, and take it up the ass." Not a
very pretty vision.


and then you have peace.

LOL. You're all dead, but you're at peace!

Um, what part of "they" did you not understand?


But, you must remain armed and ever
vigilant to prevent their return.

"The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men
do nothing." Edmund Burke

Not carrying a gun =/= doing nothing.

There's an old saying in police circles: "Trust an asshole to bring a knife
to a gun fight."

When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless. When you
need one, however, nothing else will do.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws, Nisarel at
wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM:

KMAN wrote:

I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ...

what life is like in Texas and Florida.

Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say that we
felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line people in
the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were much
more helpful and friendly than here. I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an
award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone
seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun.

BWHAHAHAHAAH!

Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time.

Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state has
the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns?

Florida.

That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in the
presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe is
BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime,
particularly in Miami and its environs.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser nit-picks:
===================
The hilarious thing is we ARE safer from guns.

"Safer" /= "safe."
=============

NOBODY is absolutely SAFE. Safer trumps less safe. Particularly when we
look at relative magnitudes. Canadians are MUCH safer from guns than
Americans.

But becoming less and less safe every day, as are Britons and Australians.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

KMAN wrote:

I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an
award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun
culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried
about carrying a gun.

Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo...

Not if you know how...

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott says:
================
Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo...

Not if you know how...
======================

Do you REALLY want to leave that hanging out there like that? You
really are making the life of the would-be comic too easy....

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
...snip...

So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic,
humanist?
Tnt

Just sane.

Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your
statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT

No evidence that I qualify. I am not disqualified through belief in
an
invisible man.

As to any evidence whether any of us qualify or not is probably
fleeting at best, so I will not hold your feet to the fire on this one!

As to this invisible man that you keep talking about, that is mean,
short tempered, and judgemental; sounds to me like you have a pretty
clear vision of who he is, and of whom they are speaking! You are found
out in the retoric of your denial. The more you deny, the increased
basis of denial you must depend on that you don't believe. The more
noise of denial you make, indicates that you actually have something
that you believe you are wrestling with that must be denied.

Uhn?

If in fact you did not believe, you would not be threatened by this
non-existant invisible being

I'm not.

But whackos who talk about doing things because the invisible man tells them
to, now that scares me!

and would have nothing to deny. You could
actually go through life quite quietly, with nothing to prove to any
one about this invisible man that does not exist. But if you go through
life yelling at/or about this invisible man that does not exist, some
may doubt your sanity.

It's not me that raises the topic of the invisible man, Tinkerntom.

I sure hear a lot of noise, coming from your direction. :) TnT

?

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
(perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.

Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.

Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march

Thus, I am correct.

but
you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group
of
kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
march.

Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps...deliberately going out of their
way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really
then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school
without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.

or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good
fit.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun
nuts.

or the rights of the unborn

Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to
what happens to the unborn.

and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
leftist
agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.

Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not
sure.

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool"
Scotty
"Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously
(OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to
buy a
gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must
pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty
damned
easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-)

The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon
for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious
anti-gun information without actually having a clue.

So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the
counter next to the gum and you just buy one?

Give it, Scotty, this is totally disingenuous and you are acting like a
petty fool.

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 9:41 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view
using
their guns as a necessary evil.

Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in
that
it
is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to
harm
another person for any reason, even in self defense.

I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your
manner of response is appreciated.

See, I told you so...


That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts
criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so
many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why
violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.

Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by
law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and
the
mere
presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to
thwart
the crime.

Or back to reality,

Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal.

the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and
deaths occur where they needed to be one.

I"m not quite sure what you're saying

Me either, I messed that up real good. I believe I was on the phone at
the
time.

ut if I have it correct, you are
claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by
an
armed predator than armed victims are.

Right.

I'd like to see some statistical
evidence to support this conclusion.

That would be helpful.

Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers
kill
because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't
merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is
not
likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses,
unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save
everyone's lives.

So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they
don't
make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to
experience armed resistance? Get real.

Of course they do.

There you go.

and most of the time, as most bank robbers are single
individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT
have
armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do
not
employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a
confrontation,
and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just
give
the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and
nobody gets hurt.

OK.

Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses
anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank
ends
up costing many lives.

How often does it happen that bank robbers decide to kill witnesses and
those witnesses would have been saved had there been a Scotty in the crowd
ready to draw and fire?

The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should
be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other
than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot
people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any
bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much
more reluctant to rob banks in the first place

Um. No. It will work once or twice, and once the new policy is known,
they'll start treating every bank just as they would a bank with regular
armed guards, and assume that blasting away will be part of the robbery.

If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying
to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my
head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a
knife,
or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and
fingernails.

I'm sure you are dreaming of the day!

Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the
death
of innocent parties.

Can you cite even one such instance?

I'm waiting for your own story to break.

Thus I conclude that you cannot cite a single instance. Just as I thought.

I haven't actually devoted my life to gun culture.

I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of
a
deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite
a
number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen
DID
have a gun, and was willing to use it.

One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state
representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's
cafeteria in
Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried
a
gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that
served
alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to
the
law, left her handgun in her truck.

Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through
the
wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons.

Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been
injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer
calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she
escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back,
from
close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her
parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because
NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN.

Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed
citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23
lives?

I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth
anything.

You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other
mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life
on
the line.

I don't think so Scotty.

In fact, I don't think you'll hear a lot of Columbine surivivors saying that
the lesson they learned from it was they should become gun nuts themselves.

Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun.

It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that.

Innocent lives are at greater risk, as is quality of life.

Again, this is simply not true, as the US experience has proven
conclusively.

LOL. 30,000 plus gun deaths per year say otherwise.

That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.

No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their
means
of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer,
sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world.

Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of
civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead
or
run away

What a beautiful vision!

Your model

What is that model, Scotty?

seems to be "bend over, drop trou, and take it up the ass." Not a
very pretty vision.

You seem rather obsessed with visions of my ass. Is sublimation of your
homosexual tendencies part of your underlying mental health issues?

and then you have peace.

LOL. You're all dead, but you're at peace!

Um, what part of "they" did you not understand?

Oh, that's right, Scotty is such a superhero that he can actually control
the outcome when a bunch of vigilantes blast away at each other.

But, you must remain armed and ever
vigilant to prevent their return.

"The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good
men
do nothing." Edmund Burke

Not carrying a gun =/= doing nothing.

There's an old saying in police circles: "Trust an asshole to bring a
knife
to a gun fight."

There's another old police saying:

"It started out as an argument and then Scotty pulled out his gun and now 5
people are dead. All because Scotty had a hard time calculation the tip."

When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless.

Until innocent people end up dead.

When you
need one, however, nothing else will do.

If your goal in life is to kill people, absolutely.