"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe
that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do
not
exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

It would take you a lot less time to post the link than to
keep insisting that you already did. What are you afraid
of?
=====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot. It would have been far quicker for
you and kman to have looked for yourselves.

Since it doesn't exist, it's not quicker.
=================
Keep telling yourself that fool. That you refuse to look says
all anyone needs to know about your willful ignorance.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick says:
================
Again, I posted
information, the ideologs here didn't like the messenger so
they
huffed and puffed their jingoistic buffoonery, and they have
yet
to refute the facts presented.
==============

HOW TIRESOME!

Scott?!!! Please! Where are you?

See how nuts rick has made me?
======================
Then do yourself a favor and look up the information for yourself
and kman. I provided the data already. That you and he are too
determined to remain ignorant on the subject means nothing to me.
Afterall, 'm not the one that's going to be sent home to wait.



frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message


snip...


Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid
to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

As I've offered, simply post the material and I will
apologize.
==============
Already have fool, and on my server they are still available,
plus where I've told you to look. That you wish to remain
willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .


snip


Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that
provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health
care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that
everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do
not exist.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several
times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your
decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None
of them.
================
You've asked the whole world have you? What a hoot fool.
Again, why are you afraid to look up the info for yourself?
Why do you want me to, whne I already have and you didn't
like the messenger?

The information does not exist, because you are wrong.
==============
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe someday you might even
believe it. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant proves
your ideology trumps knowledge.

You are a liar and a coward. =================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .


snip


You are afraid of real discussion, so instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

There is nothing jingoistic about asking you to post the
materials to support your claim. But you can't, because they
don't exist.
==================
LOL I posted support for my claims, you have not. All you've
done is thump your chest and make claims that I disproved.
You didn't like that, so you have ignored the posts and/or
claimed the messenger was bad. Too bad for you that the facts
remain available, and are there for you to see, if you'd ever
open your eyes.

You are a liar and a coward.
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
news

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t, rick
at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:13 AM:


snip



Whatever it was, it wasn't truthful. Because, the truth
is, I
never said
what you claimed I said.
========================
Your intent was the same...

My intent was exactly what I stated, not something you made
up.
====================
Yes, spewing your ignorance. That wasn't something I made
up.

Actually, it was.
==============
No, your have displayed your ignorance quite well. You have
proven that you cannot use your computer.

The fact that you just responded to a message sent from my
computer proves that I can use it.
=====================
LOL Nice tap dance queeny. Now prove that you realy can use
your computer and look up the data that I have posted for you.
Or are you still too afraid to do that?



You have proven that you cannot accept facts that interfere
with your fantasies.

What facts? Please present them.
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my
posts are still there, the only thing missing is your courage to
look at them.




You have proven that you are a buffoon.

I think behaviour befitting a buffoon could include:

1) corresponding with someone via computer and then telling
them they don't know how to use a computer
====================
You've made it apparent that you do not know how to use your
computer effectively. That, or you've proven that you are afraid
of what you will find.



2) telling them that they cannot accept facts that you have
failed to present
==================
I have presented facts, dolt. It is YOU that has made claims
that you have never backed up. It is you that has been lying.



3) at this point, the idea that you are going to start making
sense has become a fantasy
======================
Fantasies and delusions are what you live by. Me? I prefer to
deal in reality. And that is what I have posted for you. You
have decided that you prefer your willful ignorance and
delusions. Thanks for proving it yet again.



http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm
=====================
NAme the corner store they bought their weapons from, fool.
thanks again for displaying your ignorant ideology.

Does it matter which store they bought them at!??!?!!??!
===========================
LOL You're theone that keeps saying they trot down to the
corner gun-mart, like there's one on every crack dealers
corner. That's just part of your ignorant delusions.

Well, they got them, and shot up the neighbourhood, isn't THAT
the point?
==========================
Tap, tap, tap. Nice dance there queeny.




But I'll see your corner gun-marts and raise you a corner
gun rent-a-center, like they have in Toronto.
http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca...globe_jan7.htm

So? I'm not in favour of drug dealers buying guns and
shooting people in Canada either!
==================
Yet you can rent one for just that purpose. haven't seen any
rent-a-gun shops around here.

There's actually more than just me here in Canada. They can
close every gun shop of ever type for all I care.
====================
And fortunately for everyone else, you aren't the person that
gets to make that call.



Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in
wait lines for
health care?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of
them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

The info does not exist. Prove me wrong. Or are you a coward?
=================
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.
Why have YOU been afraid to look. The sites are still there, my
posts are still there, the only thing missing is your courage to
look at them.






snip..



There's no need for assault weapons, other than the selfish
fascination of gun nuts or those who want to kill a lot of
people in a short period of time.
=====================
Again fool, tell us the difference between this assault weapon
and any other available. There are far more powerful and
deadly weapons out there fool.

Good, get rid of those too.
================
You aren't the person that makes that call. Unlike you I live in
a more free society apparently. At least one where I'm not
trapped by my ideology, brainwashing, and delusions.






snip


=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I'm not afraid. Prove me wrong. I say the information does not
exist. Are you a coward?
======================
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.



Like I said before fool, that you are too afraid to know
the facts is no skin off my nose. I gave you the opportunity
to find them yourself, because if I bring them up, you claim
they are biased sources. Whay a hoot you are. thabnks
again for proving your ignorant ideology...

No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of
them.

Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just
you rick.
=======================
Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to
seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so
instead
you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings.

I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong. Are you a coward?
=================
LOL I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find
out the facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that
aren't being backed up, that would be you, fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...


snip

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one
person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill
many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk
about
spraying in parks.

It happens.
===================
What corner store did they buy these guns from? Your
ignorance is exposed, again...

AHAHAHA!

So now it matters which store they bought them at?

Heehee. It's fun watching you get so pathetically desperate!
======================
LOL That's a hoot coming from the tap dance queen...

You've been tap dancing for days on end. You are a liar and a
coward.
=================
Wow, a mimic now too. See, I've told you you have no
independent thoughts of your own.
I provided sites for you. You are the one afraid to find out the
facts... I'm not the one that is making claims that aren't being
backed up, that would be you, fool. Why have YOU been afraid to
look. The sites are still there, my posts are still there, the
only thing missing is your courage to look at them.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t, rick
at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither
out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU
are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's
up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't
matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the
arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is
look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you
should
demand
your money back...

Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for
desiring to own an
assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the
benefits of
not having
them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people
quickly.
========================
Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code
for
1000s) of people?

"A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for
anything.
==============
Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the
fact that it isn't so.

How much is a lot of donuts? 1000?

Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s!
=======================
LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot, and
the 1000s of people that are shot in the US.

1) I have talked about "a lot." This does not mean 1000s.
=====================
Youn are the one talking about 1000s...



2) I have also talked about the FACT that more than 30000
people die from guns in the US each year.
================
There you go. See, I knew you'd remember sooner or later. Now,
put you fantasies together and make them all crack dealers
shooting up parks...



Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of
what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about
weapons,
do you, fool?

I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of
people quickly.
=====================
No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault
weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed
to wound rather than kill.

Oh, great!
=====================
What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know
anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught
you, do you?

Hm. Well, if brainwashing = fanaticism, you should hear
yourself. You really sound...well...crazy.
==================
from the head loony? hanks fool...



There are many weapons that have far greater chance of
killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure,
even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they
"look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute.

I'll amend:

I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of
bullets into a lot of people quickly.
====================
So can many other weapons.

Good, get rid of those too.
===============
Fortunately yiou don't get to make that call.


That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon' use
in crime pretty small.
Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an
assault weapon and others.

I know that an assault rifle and many other weapons are
designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly.
==================
Well a new tune!! Before it was only assault weapons that could
do this. Tap, tap, tap...



Only selfish idiots or people who want to kill a lot of other
people would be in favour of having such guns.
====================
Only fools would be in favor of curbing everyone elses rights...

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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


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


The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn.

No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies,
male
citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and
militia
kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after
services.

Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines!

We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to,
precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the
Militia provisions of the Constitution.

Um. Do you feel that the current standing army is comparable to the
minutemen?!?!? It's, uh, kind of big!

But then so is the population of the US and indeed the planet. Comparatively
speaking, our standing army is quite small, even as compared to some other
contemporary nations.

There's at best only a couple of million in the regular army, while there
are about 360 million citizens and 380 million privately-owned guns in about
110 million households. That makes the ratio, at a minimum, 50 to 1 in favor
of armed citizens. At best, it makes a ratio of about 140 to one of citizens
who *can* be armed to standing military. And this presumes that all two
million regular army troops would obey orders to subjugate their own
countrymen.


Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse
population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern
day
juggernaut that is the US armed forces?

Only in degree

Like, 1000 degrees?

not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our
nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and
better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the
2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly
outnumber
the standing army.

Really! Please post the exact quote that says "the armed citizens of the US
should always outnumber the military forces of the government"

False dilemma. I did not say that such a direct quote existed. However,
there is ample evidence in the record that those who actually wrote the
Constitution intended this precise result. I refer you, Mr. History Person,
to the Federalist Papers for a start.

"Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard
Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms." Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage
and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the
world as well as property."

Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, "Who are the militia? Are they not
ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will
ever remain, in the hands of the people."

In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James
Madison noted that the amendments "relate first to private rights." Sen.
William Grayson observed that they "altogether respected personal liberty."
Tench Coxe wrote, "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of
amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.""

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83


There was no
armed forces.

Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear
of
the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George
Washington?

LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons.

Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong.
Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell.

The armed forces of the day were insignificant in comparison to the US army
of 2005.

Yet more ignorance from a purported "history major."

It is as irrelevant as saying that a fleet of rowboats is the same
as a fleet of nuclear submarines.

You attempt to evade the implications of your own words. You said, and I
quote, "there was (sic) no armed forces." That is a lie.


There were no assault weapons.

The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and
technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the rig
Um. Indeed it does.

Um. No it doesn't.

Perhaps you don't understand that the usual result of change is...change.

Clearly you don't understand that the right protected does not change based
on some technological calculus.


And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their
neighbours.

There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a)
suicides
and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very
small
and getting smaller every year.

Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting
themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great!

You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly
used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in
game
animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully
against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every
year.

And yet more than 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND!!!!) US citizens die every year
from them.

"Gun accidents account for only 0.7% of accidental deaths. Most accidental
deaths involve motor vehicles or are due to drowning, falls, fires,
poisoning, medical mistakes, choking on ingested objects and environmental
factors."

Source: Centers for Disease Control.


FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove
conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used
unlawfully
or unsafely.

Maybe the total number of guns should be reduced so that the .01 does not
account for so many deaths!

Motes and planks. The actual number in 1994 was 38,505, which amounts to
0.0001 percent of the population. Given the massive number of deaths that
would inevitably result if guns were banned and confiscated in this country,
that number, while unfortunate, is acceptable.

Moreover, between 1962 and 1994, 94 percent of gun deaths were caused by
suicide and homicide.

Suicide is a fundamental human right, and I would not presume to interfere
in someone's ability to end their own life if they so choose, and homicide
is not reduced by gun bans, it is radically increased.


That's an admirable safety record by any metric.

Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than
guns are, by far.

Did you have over 30000 swimming deaths last year?

Nope, just 3,281 in 2000 for all groupings. But that was not my claim.

According to the CDC, In 2002, 775 children between 1 and 14 drowned and
2,208 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. By comparison, in 2002, only
59 children between 1 and 14 died from unintentional firearm injuries.

Children in that age group are thirteen times more likely to drown than be
accidentally shot.

Firearm deaths don't even make it into the top ten causes of death by
unintentional injury for children age 1-14

Source: CDC WISQARS database "2002 United States Unintentional Injuries,
ages 1-14, All races, Both sexes." Total deaths=4359.


FYI, that's a silly argument, since pools are not built to be used to kill
people.

Neither are guns, but your argument is fallacious because it attempts to
link the purpose of the object to the factual incidence of death associated
with that object. This fallacy merely attempts to "demonize" guns because
they may be used deliberately for lethal purposes. It matters not what the
"intended purpose" of the object is...it's merely an object with no
independent will or ability to act. What is done with that object is up to a
human being.

The point of my statement, which you obviously missed...probably
deliberately...is that you're looking for motes while ignoring planks. If
your real concern were preventing deaths, of children or anyone else, you
would be concentrating on motor vehicle safety, drowning, poisoning, fires
and suffocation before worrying about firearms.

But you don't, which indicates that you are merely an anti-gun hoplophobe
trying, as usual, to demonize gun ownership.


Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.

Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and
Canada?!?!?

More than you did before you banned guns.

Well geezus christ you idiot, we live next to the US!!!!!!

What's the cause/effect relationship you're trying to show with this obtuse
statement?


But our gun deaths in Canada are MINISCULE compared to the United States.
Even in cities that are just minutes away from major US centers.

But what is happening to the RATE of gun (and criminal) violence in Canada
since you banned guns? That's what's important, because it is directly
related to the effectiveness of gun bans in protecting society.

In other words, because you are so slow, it means that you ought to consider
whether banning guns is a good thing, because it inevitably results in MORE
people being victimized, injured and killed by violent criminals than before
the gun ban, and it also results in MORE injuries and deaths as a result of
criminal violence than were caused by gun accidents before the ban.

That has been the experience in the US. There is no doubt whatever that what
I say is true, and will continue to be true for Canada, Britain and
Australia. Gun bans KILL MORE PEOPLE than ubiquitous gun ownership EVER HAS.


Violent crime in Great Britain,
for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has
jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters
in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by
law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures
that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover,
criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for
them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime.

Ridiculous.

No, fact. Go look it up.

The world is a more violent place, and (thanks in large measure
to the US) guns are more readily available.

And yet you CANNOT prove a causal link between the ready availability of
guns and an increase in violence. This is because, in point of actual fact,
precisely the opposite is true. The more guns there are in a society, the
less crime there is.

But you don't hear citizens in
the UK or Canada looking to have more assault weapons on the street so they
will feel safer, because, well, only a nut like you would argue that.

Actually, I've heard any number of Canadians arguing for exactly that. In
fact, even your own provinces are refusing to enforce the gun
registration/ban programs imposed by your government masters. British
Columbia, for example, has told Ottowa to pound sand.

Seems you have a few "nuts" up there. Good for them.

The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the
dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards
lawful
concealed carry started to spread across this country.

Where'd you get that loony idea?

Well, from the Home Office, actually.

It seems to me like you've had 30000 - 35000 gun deaths every year for about
the past 20 years. No?

Evasion. Can you disprove my claim?


You really are a full on nut!

Pot, kettle, black.

What's my nutty attitude? That more guns does not create safer communities?

Indeed. Our "experiment" in putting more guns in communities, via lawful
concealed carry in more than 40 states over the last 20 years, proves you to
be utterly wrong.

Then call me Mr. Planters!

You're Mr. Planters.

If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have
interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple
clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault
weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure
they
would rethink the whole thing.

Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly
aware of the potentials of firearms.

Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for
example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value.
At
least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005
would
be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault
weapons.

The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both
respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights.

The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault
weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved
to
drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have
things
cleaned up in a hurry.

Yup, and don't worry about the baby that gets shot in the head by accident.

Urban warfare is dangerous, it's true. However, by and large, crackheads and
drug dealers are cowards and they fold up like a house of cards when
confronted by superior armed force.

Or the house that wasn't really a crack house.

Oh, I think the people who live on the block have a pretty good idea of
which houses are crack houses...a far better idea than even the police.

Or the anarchy and everyday
violence that comes from shooting your gun at whoever is bothering you.

The only one making any such suggestion is you.



Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal
semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully
automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding
semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily
convertible" to fully automatic fire.

Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made
to
fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious
federal
crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing
event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic."
They
were all, at best, semi-automatic.

It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the
conversion
to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying.

True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried
firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient)
citizens.
It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back
at
you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by
terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry
fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military,
which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty
effectively
too.

So if you want to feel safe, you would suggest moving to Israel?

No, I suggest obtaining and carrying defensive firearms where you live.


Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their
temper."
Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the
single
common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was
the
ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more
good
citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have
occurred.

Ah yes, if only we all had a gun.

Indeed.

Scary that your ideal would not be that no one had a gun.

Only to a hoplophobe like yourself. I'm a realist. It is utterly impossible
to collect up all the guns on the planet, and so long as any guns are still
in circulation, criminals will obtain them. When you limit the supply of
guns only to criminals, who ipso facto don't care if they are illegal, all
you do is create a pool of defenseless, unarmed victims for the criminals to
prey upon with impunity.

That's PRECISELY what's happening in GB, where the incidence of violent
assault has skyrocketed, and the incidence of "hot burglaries" (which is to
say burglaries committed while the occupants are home...not infrequently in
broad daylight) are also very high.

By comparison, the incidence of "hot burglaries" in the US is extremely
small, and burglars go to great pains to be sure nobody's home BECAUSE they
fear getting shot to death by an armed homeowner.

In GB, however, not only do good citizens not have firearms for self
defense, they get PROSECUTED if they use physical force against an intruder,
even if he's got the family jewels in his hands and is threatening you with
a knife. You're supposed to just let him escape rather than risking hurting
him in any way. What a bunch of dumb fu*ks!!

Around here, you intrude into my house illegally, and I so much as THINK you
are going to use ANY degree of physical force, no matter how slight, and I'm
legally empowered to use deadly physical force. And if I do, I'm immune from
both civil and criminal liability.

That's why burglary rates keep dropping around here.

Then every office argument, domestic
disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking
lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?)

This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast
majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages
merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is
simply
not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry
prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and
"blood
running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic
stops"
as a result of lawful concealed carry.

Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen.

It doesn't? What are those 30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR all about? Oh, right, they
are all suicides?

Not all, but the majority of them are. Most of the rest are homicides.

According to the CDC, in 2002, there were 11,829 firearm homicides and
17,108 suicides by firearm.

That's 28,937 of your "30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR" accounted for.

There were 762 accidental firearms deaths in the US in 2002.

Next specious argument please...

People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty
disagreement
in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first
place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once
they've
begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as
Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for
their
own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use
for self-defense.

Yup. If only all the kids at Columbine had been carrying guns.

Or even one teacher or visitor. As it was, we had science teachers using
fire extinguishers and a lot of dead kids.



Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths
between
1979 and 1979.

Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous
thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the
Jews
of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond
and
you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens
killed
by firearms since 1776.

So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the
world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY
nut.

Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't
change the facts.

Um, there's no facts that indicate more guns = safer society, since you have
30,000+ deaths per year every year.

False logic. The existence of some specific number of deaths per year caused
by firearms is unrelated to the question of whether society is safer with
more or fewer guns.

That question has already been answered, and it is in fact true that more
guns make a safer society. Homicide and violent crime rates drop an average
of 8% in the first years in all jurisdictions where concealed carry is made
lawful, and the declines in violent crime rates continue to climb over the
years to as much as 15%.

The facts prove you wrong.



That's NOT what the framers had in mind.

Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with
firearms

Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys!

but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands
of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale
death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish,
and
the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the
planet.

Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around?

Probably.

Maybe you should run for head of state there on that platform.

I'm not Irish.


Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational
enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the
Irish.

Which has little to do with what we are talking about.

It has everything to do with it. It's why we, when we formed this country,
resolved to NEVER allow our government to disarm us. Any attempt to do so is
treason and the perpetrators need to have their heads on spikes along the
Reflecting Pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial, as a warning to other
would-be tyrants.


I think
they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland
were
best known as places to get shot.

Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too
few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you
lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that
you'd
wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to
the
floor through the knees.

I'd wish fervently to live in a society where the ideal is not to shoot
someone else before they shoot you.

That's a good thing to wish. However, as the Arabs say, "Trust in Allah, but
tie your camel."


They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good
people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect
themselves was to be armed.

You really have no clue about American history, do you?

Other than my university degree in History, not much.

Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to
agree.

It's pretty hard to get a left-wing history degree. Historians tend to be
rather dry old conservatives.

Well, that proves you're lying. Clearly you have no experience in academia.


Apparently you learned
all your history from the NRA sponsored texts.

No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who
wrote
extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the
majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of
the nation.

Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect

I'll be happy to prove it to you if that would be important to you.

It's a waste of my time to bother. I judge you on what you write, not what
you claim your credentials are. As Ward Churchill proves, any nutjob can get
a college degree if he picks the right college...or diploma mill. That
doesn't mean squat to me. You could have a PhD in history for all I care,
but if your arguments here are on a tenth-grade level, then I will conclude
that you're a tenth-grader pretending to be an adult. I so conclude.


and if you do have
one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about
American history during your matriculation.

What you mean is that I was not indoctrinated by whatever forces have messed
up your own ability to think.

Whatever. Go watch Spongebob, little boy, and leave the debates to the
adults.

--
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

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message

snip..


In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is
definitely more
dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many
drug dealers
sporting a Field King LOL!
=================
LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why
bring up bolt actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt
actions very very quickly. My question was what makes the AK
knockoff any more dangerous that other weapons of the type?

I doubt it.
====================
You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can
answer, as that would require some knowledge.
Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than
other.

I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more
dangerous.
======================
Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days,
fool? Agenda?



All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the
operation is not any different that many other weapons.

It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of
ammunition can't be fired quickly.
=================
Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are
many other weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you
like to spew about that fire just as fast, and just as many
projectiles.

I didn't say otherwise. Look again.
====================
I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that
your ideology demands.





Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely
on ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology.

No idea what you are babbling about.
====================
Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own,
and your brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it?

If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+
people dying every year from guns is not a good thing, you are
right.

But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you.
======================
LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since
you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already
presented, and told you where to look.