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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense. They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:30 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."


They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

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

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

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.

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.

This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself required
to be done to him through his actions.


--
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
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

They are never used for good. They are only used for different
degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time,
guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece
of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be,
and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent
attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates
that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that
doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop
that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

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.

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

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

This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when
encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying
hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many
officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it
applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself
required
to be done to him through his actions.

Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.

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

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.

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 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?


This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when
encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying
hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many
officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it
applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself
required
to be done to him through his actions.

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.

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, and then you have peace. 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

--
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

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.

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.

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.

This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when
encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying
hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many
officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it
applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself
required
to be done to him through his actions.

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.

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!

and then you have peace.

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

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.

Weiser says:
============
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.
=============

If I may suggest an analogy: Iran and North Korea should see to it that
they acquire a nuclear arsenal ASAP so as to "threaten" any nation
which might wish to impine on their sovereignty. But, it would be
foolish to stop there. Clearly we need nuclear proliferation, with ALL
nations developing adequate firepower to blow any intruder into another
world.

Of course! Why didn't we think of this before. Since arming every Tom,
Dick, and Harry will seriously reduce crime, according to the Weiser
Theory of Law Enforcement, it stands to reason that arming every nation
to the max will reduce the number of wars we have to worry about.

Scott, remind me one more time why we care if North Korea has nukes?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
============
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.
=============

If I may suggest an analogy: Iran and North Korea should see to it that
they acquire a nuclear arsenal ASAP so as to "threaten" any nation
which might wish to impine on their sovereignty.

Indeed. That's exactly what they are doing.

But, it would be
foolish to stop there. Clearly we need nuclear proliferation, with ALL
nations developing adequate firepower to blow any intruder into another
world.

Of course! Why didn't we think of this before. Since arming every Tom,
Dick, and Harry will seriously reduce crime, according to the Weiser
Theory of Law Enforcement, it stands to reason that arming every nation
to the max will reduce the number of wars we have to worry about.

Scott, remind me one more time why we care if North Korea has nukes?

You engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a substantial
difference between an armed citizenry and nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have no mind and no conscience, can be controlled by one
person, and once released, can kill millions in an instant.

An armed citizenry has millions of independent minds, both an individual and
a group conscience, are under individual control and one bullet can only
kill one person.

Your analogy fails.
--
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:
==============
Nuclear weapons have no mind and no conscience, can be controlled by
one
person, and once released, can kill millions in an instant.

An armed citizenry has millions of independent minds, both an
individual and
a group conscience, are under individual control and one bullet can
only
kill one person.

Your analogy fails.
================

You think so?

frtzw906