KMAN says:
================
There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community
without
guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns.
Right?
===============

I think you're being overly optimistic.

frtzw906

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 2/27/05 2:01 PM:

KMAN says:
================
There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community
without
guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns.
Right?
===============

I think you're being overly optimistic.

frtzw906

I know, that's what is so damn scary.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN says:
================
There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community
without
guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns.
Right?
===============

I think you're being overly optimistic.

Indeed. The problem with this utopian ideal is that it is functionally
impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns.

That being the case, the argument is fallacious at its core.
--
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 Weiser" wrote in message
...
...it is functionally
impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns...

Hm.....

Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and
the Buddhist temple.

Wolfgang
ducking and covering.

Wolfgang wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
...it is functionally
impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without
guns...

Hm.....

Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the
convent, and
the Buddhist temple.

Wolfgang
ducking and covering.

I am surprised that Scott has let you slide this long on this one.
Maybe cause you let me slide on something ealier. Naw, no chance!

I commend you for you charity work, however the above do not represent
a community. Only a small fraction of a community, as there are
households without guns in possession, all are under hopefully the
protective umbrella of those police officer and military who do carry
firearms. Obviously the Tibetan Buddist in their isolation from the
rest of the real world, found that all military possession of firearms
is not benevolent, and certainly not something that can be separated
from in isolation. Same with orphanages and convents, they may not have
a firearm in their possession, but there is more than likely one in th
vicinity.

I hate being a pragmatist sometimes, but I found that utopian ideology
left me feeling very vulnerable. Sorry about bursting your bubble. TnT

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

I am surprised that Scott has let you slide this long on this one.

What's a "Scott"?

Maybe cause you let me slide on something ealier. Naw, no chance!

I commend you for you charity work,

A couple of bucks a year to the guys selling poppies........big deal. How
did you know?

however the above do not represent
a community. Only a small fraction of a community, as there are
households without guns in possession, all are under hopefully the
protective umbrella of those police officer and military who do carry
firearms.

You really don't have any idea of what the word "community" means, do you?

Obviously the Tibetan Buddist in their isolation from the
rest of the real world, found that all military possession of firearms
is not benevolent, and certainly not something that can be separated
from in isolation. Same with orphanages and convents, they may not have
a firearm in their possession, but there is more than likely one in th
vicinity.

There is a star going supernova somewhere "in th vicinity". So?

I hate being a pragmatist sometimes,

I hate being a .,xdnmgster sometimes.

but I found that utopian ideology
left me feeling very vulnerable.

Don't look now, sparky, but you are.

Sorry about bursting your bubble. TnT

I'll get over it......or I won't.......got any shiny new nickels?

Wolfgang

A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:


Wolfgang wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
...it is functionally
impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without
guns...

Hm.....

Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the
convent, and
the Buddhist temple.

Wolfgang
ducking and covering.

I am surprised that Scott has let you slide this long on this one.

I had an all-day meeting on the New Zealand mudsnail, an invasive exotic
found recently in Boulder Creek in the reach that includes my property. More
to come on that.

Maybe cause you let me slide on something ealier. Naw, no chance!

I commend you for you charity work, however the above do not represent
a community. Only a small fraction of a community, as there are
households without guns in possession, all are under hopefully the
protective umbrella of those police officer and military who do carry
firearms.

And, under the umbrella of protection provided by the fact that one's
neighbors might have guns. That's one of the best things about concealed
carry laws...criminals become very afraid because they don¹t know if the
next grandma they try to rob might be packing. Thus, even those who don't
own guns benefit directly from gun ownership in their communities.

This can be proven by asking your local anti-gun nut if they are willing to
post a large sign on their front lawn proudly proclaiming "This house is GUN
FREE!" I haven't found one yet that'll put their money where their mouth is.

Obviously the Tibetan Buddist in their isolation from the
rest of the real world, found that all military possession of firearms
is not benevolent, and certainly not something that can be separated
from in isolation. Same with orphanages and convents, they may not have
a firearm in their possession, but there is more than likely one in th
vicinity.

Yup.


I hate being a pragmatist sometimes, but I found that utopian ideology
left me feeling very vulnerable. Sorry about bursting your bubble. TnT


--
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

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

More
to come on that.

Please don't. It has nothing to do with this newsgroup.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

More
to come on that.

Please don't. It has nothing to do with this newsgroup.

I'll do as I please, not as you please, as anybody with any tenure here can
tell you.

Fact is that the issue of the New Zealand Mudsnail has some very direct
impacts on this group, which I'll inform you about when the time is right.

--
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 Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
...it is functionally
impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns...

Hm.....

Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and
the Buddhist temple.

Wolfgang
ducking and covering.

You need to have a more expansive view of what a "community" is. Fact is
that none of the places you mention can be absolutely free of guns, because
someone can always bring one in from the outside...perhaps to kill the
occupants...like the communists in Nepal have done to the Buddhist temples.

Guns exist and are a part of our world and our world society. This means
that people need to learn to deal with guns and with those who misuse guns.
The fact is that in many cases, the only way to deal with someone misusing a
gun is to defend yourself with another gun.
--
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