From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Sun Jul 05 1998 - 13:34:08 MDT
Dwayne wrote:
> den Otter wrote:
> >
> > Dwayne wrote:
> >
> > > I would assume, myself, that it has more to do with the fact that
> > > zillions of europeans aren't shot to death by guns every year and
> > > so they can see for themselves how not living in a country armed
> > > to the teeth is healthier, despite whatever bullshit surveys the
> > > gun nuts care to trot out.
> >
> > Do you ditrust the people of your good country *so much* that you don't
> > want them to have the means to defend themselves?
>
> I distrust *everyone* who is better armed than myself, and I only
> have my hands. It has nothing to do with my countrymen, it has to
> do with the fact that humans, at this stage, are an inherently
> violent species. I would have thought that here, standing on the
> edge of the 20th century, people would realise this, instead of
> carrying on as if killing other people was some sort of god-given
> right, when it is merely an ability, and something one shouldn't
> take too much pride in.
SInce it seems you are still caught in the Chistian "Thou Shalt Not Kill" meme,
here's some information for you: In the original Hebrew, that commandment says
"Thou Shalt Not Murder". Killing is perfectly acceptable, murdering is not. and
there is a distinct difference.
> > Sheesh! Better take
> > the knives & hammers away too, not to mention cars (now there's a
> > projectile that can kill over great distances) before anyone hurts
> > himself.
>
> Get a grip. None of these things can project force beyond
> themselves. Guns can. If someone attacks you with a knife or a
> hammer, you are able to defend yourself much better than against
> someone with a gun. I've never seen anyone throw a car at anyone
> else, that would be pretty impressive.
A car is controllable, so even if a person dodges what they perceive the course
of the car to be, the driver can still change course to mow down the pedestrian.
Now, if I were drunk and out of my mind and went out and shot a bunch of people,
I'd get the electric chair, yet if I did the same with a car, I'd most likely
get a manslaughter or negligent homicide charge.
> > Let me guess, you (and a significant portion of other Aussies)
> > have gotten hysterical about guns due to that freak Tasmanian killing
> > spree, right?
>
> Um. No. I thought guns were stupid and pro-gun activists were
> dangerous maniacs for a long time.
Yes, we have a saying here: A Republican is merely a Democrat who has been
mugged. Come back and say that after you have been vicitmized thus.
> > Talking about overreacting (if you'd consequently ban
> > anything that killed someone, there wouldn't be much left)...
>
> I don't want to ban everything dangerous. Of course, like most
> foaming at the mouth pro guns fanatics, you will take my
> perfectly feasible comment ("guns are far too dangerous to have
> loose in the community") and decide that I'm against everything
> not made out of foam rubber. All this does is paint you as an
> over-reacting hysterical fool, which is a bit of a shame, as I'd
> rather discuss than vehemently argue. I do want to ban distance
> weapons. I'll take my chances against someone else's arm, not
> against something at a speed of miles per second.
Since only law abiding people obey gun laws, your argument is specious. The
statistics of car violence also expose your hypocracy. We do not say that you
think that you want to ban everything not made out of foam rubber. Your own
attitude screams that you want to tread down the slippery slope to tyranny.
> > The irony
> > is that a well-armed population would have stopped such a maniac dead in
> > his tracks (by shooting him, obviously).
>
> Oh golly. So we lost a dozen or two people. We *didn't* lose the
> thousands of other people that year who would have been killed by
> a drunk, jealous, pissed off or insane population of gun-carrying
> individuals.
In gun related crime, less than 30% of gun crime victims are known to or related
to the criminal, so your claim is wrong. Now, since in 90% of all violent
crime, the victim is known to or related to the criminal, we obviously, by your
justification of reducing domestic violence, should ban steak knives, baseball
bats, chain, jacknives, the human fist, and cars.
> Despite living in the country which appears to have the record
> for most people shot in a single sitting in peacetime, I'd still
> rather live here than in a country where everyone is allowed to
> carry guns, and does so. It's just safer. Isn't it obvious?
No it is not, and the statistics of the FBI over the past 20 years expose your
mistake.
> > When you outlaw or heavily restrict the use of guns, you give the most
> > dangerous individuals in society, the criminals, a huge advantage over
> > the "law-abiding citizens".
>
> Um, well, I don't know where you live, but criminals on the whole
> are a very small percentage of the population. The number of
> people who fly into fits of rage and assault people is probably
> higher than the number of armed hardened criminals. I'd rather
> take my chances with a heavily-armed professional than a
> moderately armed very very angry (and possibly intoxicated)
> person.
Since most domestic violence is not conducted with guns (while most women who
successfully defend themselves against domestic violence do so with guns), your
statement has no merit. Since a woman typically is physically overwhelmed by her
assailant, not giving her the ability to equalize the situation is merely
approving of domestic violence.
> > In the land of the unarmed, the dude with
> > the gun is king.
>
> Yup. So I just avoid the person with the crown and the gun. At
> least *everyone else* is safe to be around.
So you are forced to behave as meek as a mouse. Besides, how do you *KNOW* that
everyone else is safe???
> > No way that you can disarm the criminals too, not even
> > in a totalitarian state. So dear anti-gunner, every time some innocent
> > victims dies, gets raped, robbed or severly injured because s/he wasn't
> > allowed to defend him/herself properly, the blood is on *your* hands
> > too.
>
> I'll cope. Like I said, I live in a fairly peaceful society, and
> in most assault situations the injuries are caused by either bare
> hands or something heavy and blunt. This is good. If you add guns
> to this mix many more people will die. I know where I'd rather
> live, and I do.
As a man, you would probably survive. If you were a woman, you probably
wouldn't. I seem to recall that Autralia has a higher level of domestic violence
than the US does....
> > Here's, once agian, the *right* way to take on the crime problem: allow
> > all citizens with a clean criminal record (for violent crime) and no
> > obvious mental diseases to have at least one (hand) gun which can be
> > used at home and carried (discretely) concealed on the street.
>
> As I'm sure I've pointed out, this is just so obviously stupid as
> to boggle the mind. I'm sure you feel you're right. I don't. And,
> strangely enough, it's hard to find anyone other than an american
> who will agree with you. Doesn't this suggest to you that this is
> a cultural issue, not an easily-proven theory based on fact?
Actually, in the poll I took last year, almost half of the foreign respondents
agreed, and either did posess firearms, or wished that they could but could not
due to government restrictions, while one brave soul kept one
illegally....because he lived in a neighborhood which was very crime ridden..
> > Training
> > classes which teach shooting skills, mental empowerment, safety measures
> > for handling weapons etc. can be made compulsory for anyone who wishes
> > to own a weapon, basically the equivalent of driving lessons. Only those
> > that pass may own a gun.
>
> Yup. So that when they get drunk, or pissed off, they won't miss.
> Yup. good idea.
While this might be true in a country where the national sport is to get drunk
and beat your wife, it is not so here...and why prevent the wife from carrying a
gun just because her spouse is worthless? If he is that violent, he most likely
has a felony charge on his record and cannot carry a gun anyways....
> > This service must be either free or at minimal
> > costs, so that anyone can afford it. Conplimentary classes could include
> > street fighting skills, using nonlethal weapons (which should be freely
> > available to any adult) etc.
>
> I am all in favour of training in self-defence. I personally feel
> that any weapon capable of causing substantial damage to a human,
> such as guns, swords, etc, should be banned. People with
> legitimate reasons for owning such would be okay, but in general,
> a country with a heavily-armed population is a dangerous place to
> live.
There is no point to self defense if you do not have the ability to permanently
render the criminal incapable of causing further harm to you. If you merely
knock him out and tie him up for the police to get there, when they let him back
out on bail, he can easily come back and kill you.
> > The use of video/audio surveillance is promoted. The government takes
> > care of the surveillance of public spaces, beginning with busy shopping
> > areas and (other) known crime hotspots. Gradually, safe corridors will
> > be created, so that one has camera protection all the way from one's
> > home to the shopping district, workplace etc. If you're squemish about
> > privacy (what privacy is there in public places anyway?), you can always
> > move into the countryside.
>
> While this is a good idea in principle I think the implementation
> is a dodgy prospect.
>
> > All cops get bodycams, guncams and carcams to prevent bad behaviour, and
> > to serve as evidence in case of a conflict.
>
> Good idea.
>
> > At the same time all "victimless crimes" such as the use of/trade in
> > recreational drugs are legalized,
>
> yup.
>
> > and the penalties for the remaining (real) crimes go up.
>
> uh-oh.
>
> > Murder is punishable by death,
>
> Oh. Right. And then you'll have to kill the executioner, of
> course.
Again, killing someone is not necissarily murder. There is a distinct difference
between the two, and I suggest you read up on before you continue arguing your
steadily weakening arguments... However, from Prof. John Lott's study, he found
that the death penalty had little or not influence on crime rates. While you
might say that it is because there are so few executions, you could also say
that so long as the execution cannot be made by the crime victim at the crime
scene, with their own gun, there is little deterrent effect.
> > the mode of
> > punishment being so that it fits the crime.
>
> Yeah, what the hell, we really had it sorted out in Old Testament
> days, eh?
Yeah, it worked for thousands of years didnt' it?
> > Justice is served "swift &
> > sure", within weeks of the arrest.
>
> So you plan to spend an enormous amount of money on the judicial
> system?
On the contrary, a judicial system that is swift with minimal appeals, and
minimal ability of the defense to get off on technicalities is always much
cheaper than a large long overburdened criminal system, like we currently have
here..
> > <obviously, there's a lot more, but this mail is getting long...>
> >
> > There's a working solution for a large, modern society.
>
> Yeah, well, I might visit, but there's no way in hell I'd live in
> such a place.
> Actually, I'm thinking that most mass cities and civilisations
> are a crazy way to live in general...
Yes, but I would say that a large city, being a human hive, is really only
workable when the population is either ethnically homogenous, or has all been
lobotomized. And you are welcome to come visit me here in the 'Live Free or Die'
state, New Hampshire. I guarrantee you will not be the victim of any crime.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:17 MST