Debate : 11717


Off-Topic / Debate / 11717

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Daniel Jassim

(...) Really, what do we need handguns and automatic weapons for except to protect ourselves from assholes with the same weapons? Get rid of them all and it significantly lowers the odds of getting shot or accidentally shooting yourself. If someone (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Like the BATF? I agree. (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) In your world is the BATF your worst enemy? Is that why you keep a gun under your bed? I expect you are either breaking the law, paranoid or live in a country with zero crime. Which is it? Why do you fear the BATF so much? Because they tackled (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Just the largest and scariest. (...) Or maybe you're wrong and argumentative for no purpose. (...) He doesn't. I don't. No one does...not in a visceral ever-present way. But when you look at their ability and willingness to forego reasonable (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) They don't scare me. Should they? (...) Or maybe I am not. Maybe I work for BATF? (...) Is democracy unconstitutional? (...) I am. That is what happened in all 3 places. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It could be. Democracy doesn't depend on a constitution per se. However, the US has a constitution that is supposed to be the prime law of the land. All other rules are subordinate and inferior to the constitution and rules that conflict with (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) The police could not move in on Randy whats-his-name for weeks/months as there were children were there - that is why they held off. Likewise with Waco, if no children were there, I think the "Feds" would have moved much sooner. Just like (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) position. You're raving. The Weavers didn't hold off the agents for any real time, and at Mt.Carmel, they didn't storm the Branch Davidians because they didn't want to die. If your logic were correct, then why did they decide to assault the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Scott is working on perfecting the Big Lie. Repeat an untruth enough times and people tend to accept it as true. (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) So who told you your version of the Truth? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) They had them under surveillance for weeks - as they could not make a raid due to the kids. RW and his son bumped into a couple of officials/feds/cops maintaining the surveillance equipment - that is how it flared up (ie RW son & dog was shot (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

Dan, please stop profaning here. In the thread about eduporn you keep profaning but using an asterix in place of one letter. I don't buy that that is appropriate. In this note you didn't even bother. Please do. (...) I prefer to have better than the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) Just out of curiosity, is there any basis for this assertion? Or real-world precedent, other than romanticized and falacious notions of the "Old West?" (...) Why should a witness feel a need to stop a crime, thereby placing himself in harms' (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Tom Stangl

(...) Being that CCW permits are next to impossible to get in most states, I wouldn't be able to help. The intent to help would be there, but I'd have to stand by and watch someone possibly die, thanks to the ridiculous laws we have. (...) program (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Because people are basically good, and want to help? That's why I would and have in the past. (...) Michigan just passed a relaxed CCW law. Now, the CCW boards have to approve anyone who passes a background check and pays the fee and complies (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) Not to lessen the significance of your prior actions, but for the context of this debate, were these life-or-death situations, on the street, in which you put yourself in harm's way for a stranger? Even if it was breaking up a fist fight (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Admittedly, no. At least as far as I knew, they weren't. At some remove, I can tell you I'd think I'd be less likely to intervene in a fist fight, though, than in a situation where someone had a gun drawn, assuming I was carrying. Fist fights (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) Just out of interest, how do you go about determining whose side to come in on? Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Good question. I don't believe there is always a surefire way to tell. (1) In that case the goal ought to be to stop the violence. 1 - how were the Branch Davidians to know that trailers full of armed men crashing into their compound, guns (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) One should intervene if it is the right thing to do, irrespective of what the outcome may be(1). To say otherwise, suggests you would only use your gun to defend against "tyranny" if you thought you'd win. How weak is that? Scott A I shall (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) It wasn't a bad film--it would have been a bad history text, if it had aspired to be a history text at all. As a piece of fiction, it was quite effective. Now The Patriot--*that* was a bad film. Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) Well, for a start, if he really was a 'patriot', he'd have been on our side! (or Native American) You can't be a patriot if you don't have a country yet. Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Idunno, a film that actually admitted that a cannon shot essentially an iron bowling ball can't be all bad... Bruce (okay, so I skip the over-wrought story on the DVD player) :-) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It depends on how you define win. There isn't any point in dying for nothing. There are situations in which dying is worthwhile. But not when it's just pointless. If you could defend person X from a wrong, but would be killed, or you could go (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) That's an interesting perspective. I've witnessed a number of fist fights, none of which ended in fatality (though in some cases hospitilization was necessary), but the likelihood of death seems greater when firearms are in use. Granted, a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that we can assume authorial intent on this one Dave! Since the text wouldn't mean anything if there was no way to get the arms, I assume that the broader picture of gun availability is protected too. However, I agree that this is (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I've certainly read a number of instances where this is true - but in Victorian times in England, people would tackle criminals, too, with neither side armed with guns. It may be more a function of the times. But then again, maybe it means the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) My understanding is that some places and some times were peacable for the most part. What counts as the wild west? I'm reading books written by J.D. Fitzgerald about his life in southern Utah prior to the turn of the 20th century. Some of the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Bodie, California would certainly count (the popular observation of the times: "Goodbye God, I'm going to Bodie"). I mean, one could hardly call Mormon Central (Utah) the "wild" west for example (oops, just peered at the next sentence...you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Some are just have-a-go heroes who do not know when to stop: (URL) others are good: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) national (...) I think that the strength of my claim makes it difficult to really defend. however the reading that I have done suggests that when concealed carry laws are passed and the propensity to carry increases for that venue the violent (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Kind of like the old west, eh? Oh wait, that was called the Wild West for a reason. You'd even more people shooting each other for trivial reasons than they do now. God only knows the carnage that would happen on the freeways. I mean in excess (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bill Farkas

(...) Let's be realistic here: there is no *carnage*! I don't even agree that we have a "gun problem". The fact is - *less than* ONE PERCENT of firearms are used illegally! Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me. There are over 200 million guns (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I think you missed the path of the discussion - my comment was based on an earlier one that said everything would be peaceful and wonderful if *EVERYONE* walked around with a gun. Now, as to your statement, I take it you have never had a gun (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't. Because "used illegally" is a misnomer. When I was a teen, I knew kids (several) who carried guns daily. Those were all guns used illegally. And none of them were a problem. The problem only comes from people committing other crimes (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I note you skipped the part about the morons firing into the air not getting into the stats. :-) And those instances you mention weren't reported and so weren't part of the stats, either. Bruce (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I was trying to skip right to the meat of the matter. Not trying to avoid it. (...) Maybe. That certainly isn't a given. For one thing, statistics often are compiled such that they attempt to represent under reported aspects. Since the statute (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bill Farkas

(...) You're right, I did miss most of the thread. A thousand pardons Sahib! But I did see that comment by Chris. I was reacting to the word carnage in my comments above. Although, I do think the world would be safer if more responsible citizens (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This is certainly a valid point, and close to home since a co-worker in the next building over from mine had his son involved in this very incident (thankfully unharmed). But it was the presense of armed guards, not Joe Blow with a concealed (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bill Farkas

I'm going to address a few selective points here, please excuse me - tonight is my 9th wedding anniversary - goin out for a nice dinner. (...) That is very true. An armed and highly visible guard would have affected his decision, but I would contend (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Or shot more innocents. If the number of handguns were thinned out, it would be less likely Joe Blow would need his handgun. There is also the increased number of wackos carrying handguns to contend with ("Hey, you cut me off, well I'll show (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I support the notion that people ought to be competent users of any powerful tool, especially one as powerful as a gun. However... My objection to an apriori training requirement (rather than an aposteriori lawsuit for negligent behaviour) is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Stephen Rusnak

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GGqtL6.25y@lugnet.com... (...) owner needs (...) nothing ever is. (...) powerful (...) aposteriori (...) nonetheless, (...) white could (...) could (...) except (...) somewhere (and (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Why? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You can negotiate tight situations, like twisty narrow hallways better with such a weapon. Why not? Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Stephen Rusnak

<snip> (...) is (...) and (...) the (...) must (...) to (...) stock (...) Greater concealability, better maneuverability. Nothing says "You broke into the wrong house" like .00 buckshot to the chest. -- Overkill is the only sure kill. SR (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This is an interesting point, but I think it can be avoided if it is a Federal test, not a state or other local test. Since the test should be done in conjunction with the training course, there shouldn't be a problem: if it ain't in the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) I assume the resultant gun is then illegal? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I forget - I think it's illegal. Or was (I noted a more up to date response on the laws a few messages back). Bruce (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Not at all, and this has never been so. (I would point that even if inferior 'laws' stated that, they would be negated by the constitution, but that's not really my point at this time.) (...) said. (...) See (URL) for the details. Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Fwoosh - that's way too much to wade through. I found another site that condensed it more to the essentials. 10 states prohibit the sale of fully-automatic weapons (machine-guns) entirely. The rest may or may not have some retrictions, and (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) "Permits" doe not equal causes. (...) I am amazed that Israel is in this list. My perceptions of the country are the exact opposite. Even today, more murders were in the news: (URL) understand that one of those murdered was a baby. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So? Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) You must have a heart of stone Chris. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Not at all. I am merely wondering what your point is. OTOH, I _do_ think it is better for society when a child dies (and the younger, the better) than a working adult. Society has more invested in an adult who is being productive in virtually (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Before those with *brains* of stone pounce on Chris, and say that this is an example of his heart of stone, it's important to point out that "less bad" is a kind of better... It's not the best kind of better, mind you, but it is a kind. __Lar (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) I prefer niether. I mentioned that is was a child as is shows just how brutal the murder was. However, as it turned out the murders sprayed a car with bullets - so I doubt they intended to kill a baby deliberatley. I hope they are caught. I (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Stephen Rusnak

"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:GGMv7M.CBM@lugnet.com... (...) entire national (...) peace and (...) West for a (...) they do (...) <snip> Funny, I have been carrying a concealed firearm for 5 years now and no (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) That's admirable, but you do recognize that you're not a representative sample, right? That would be like saying that I've never deliberately run over anyone in my car, therefore no one has ever done so. Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) As I mentioned in another message, my wife's cousin was shot and killed under just such circumstances. So I can't agree that it's funny (I know that's not how you meant it). Anyway, you statement doesn't change mine - I'm not talking about any (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Spot on. Those that sacrifice freedom for peace shall have neither. (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Your constitution is 100's of years old. Perhaps it needs to be updated. Perhaps it needs a few more amendments (...) Perhaps you should not view it in those terms. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yes. It does. Several. (...) I should, and I do. And there are many others like me. Chris (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps. But the majority in the US does want more gun control. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) If such a majority exists, then they should have the ability to amend the constitution. I encourage their right to do so. And I don't fear it because I don't think it can happen. And if it does, I may well chose to break the law. I am nobody's (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Why. Because the gun lobby is too strong? Because the gun lobby pays too much money to your politicians? (...) You are a slave to your intransigent views! :) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'd welcome a straightforward proposal of amendments and an honest debate. What gets up my nose is the chinese water torture we've seen lately in which the constitution has been suborned one step at a time by "activist" judges. I support (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) This is another example in which it's useful to recall the context of the 18th century vs. the context of today. "Interstate" and "commerce" had strikingly different meanings back then, I suspect, or at least strikingly different applications. (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Do tell... I'm rather at a loss on how there is a difference in the meanings of such fundamental terms. Rather, this was a deliberate misconstruing, done knowingly by Congress. Kind of like how Michigan's Right to Carry law was made referendum (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, for one thing, "commerce" included the sale of human beings, so while "commerce" still meant "trade in goods and/or services," the application of that word was materially different. Similarly, "interstate" transactions completed today in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, you won't catch me defending the later politics of one A. Hamilton, but we also have Madison's Notes on the Convention, don't we? (URL) you can find The Federalist at: (URL) Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Does this not imply that you feel that the founders could not be wrong in any way, and that their intentions are 100% clear? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, it does not imply either of those things. I'm shocked, just shocked, that you would not be able to read my words and derive the clear meaning they contain. But oh well. The constitution suffers from lack of clarity in many places, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) Would you support a rewording that was in opposition to your interpretation of the amendment and to your interpretation of the original authors' intent? (Assuming, of course, that any rewording was accomplished through legal and proper (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I support clarifying the meaning. Maybe the best way is to compose several alternative replacements that have different meanings (but all of which are clear in *what* they mean) and see which one survives the process. I'd actively work to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) But the fundamental question is, if something contrary to your personal view is chosen at the end of the legal process by a majority decision, would you abide by it? If it meant giving up your unconditional requirement to arm yourself, would (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The below is a good question but does not address the question I raised above... (...) This is a good question... it gets to the root of, does one accept unconditional majority rule? The constitution is a fundamental document, superior (in the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) If you still thought you were right, and the state allowed criticism, another option could be to stay and try to persuade others your view for correct. But where would you go if you were to leave the USA in the manner you describe above, which (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure, but in the mean time you'd be supporting evil. Some people seem to find that unacceptable. The best short term option would be to stay, breaking the law, and look for ways to change the system or better places to go. (...) That's the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) How unconstitutional that would be. -) (...) If you still thought you were right, and the state allowed criticism, another option could be to stay and try to persuade others your view for correct. After all, if you were to flee, you would (I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) Something else. I'm not arguing agaainst clarity. I think it would be great for all concerned to clarify the constitution. But you're assuming that a process which had the task of reviewing and amending the constitution would end up with a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

Thanks for the clarification! :-) (...) If I left you with the impression that I am making that assumption, I was unclear and I apologise because I really did not intend to say that. I realise there is a risk in any journey that you may not end up (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Don't be shocked Larry, just read your own words: "Ignore it, interpret it in direct conflict with what the founders intended(1)?" Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) From a UK perspective, I see nothing wrong with laws slowly changing to mirror changes in society. In the US it would be very hard to ban guns overnight. They way to remove the risk caused by guns to Joe Public is to slowly tighten access to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) Strange, but my idea of freedom is not living in constant fear of being shot. That's why each of you wants a gun - to defend yourself against all the others who have guns. It doesn't even occur to you that everyone else wants a gun because (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Kirby Warden

(...) Whew!! now it all makes sense. The forefathers considered how long it took to load a muzzle and the likelyhood of the ammo spilling out when they proposed the right to bear arms... (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Nope. You are trivialising the issue rather than addressing the point. "The forefathers" could not comprehend what weapons would do in a few hundred years time (ie today). What do you think handguns will be like a few hundred years from now? (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) They could comprehend that the same ordnance _must_ be available to both the military and the civilians. Chris (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Even tanks? Even fighter jets? Even chemical weapons? Even ICBM's? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I however, would urge and support a ban on weapons of mass destruction. Chris (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Kirby Warden

So what IS your point then? My point is that there are more dangerous things than guns. If I am not mistaken, one of the statistics sited here directly showed that most gun deaths are actually suicides...and that the percentage of child deaths is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) What is yours? (...) Oh. I see. (...) Does that make it OK? What does that have to do with your point? (...) It is still far too high in my opinion. (...) Not quite, but I will let it ride. (...) Read what Chris said. Read my reply. Think (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Kirby Warden

(...) The only point you seem to be making is that guns kill and therefore they must not be tolerated. More than once you have asked me if this is the best that I can do. I think that I have done qite well in showing other perspectives of this (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) No. Does the film say that? (...) So that is all a gun is : a luxury. I prefer a good bottle of wine any day. Or maybe new brakes for my bike (if any one is interested : I have ceramic 517's with Avid AR 4.0, but I do fancy some disks). Scott (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Kirby Warden

(...) I must have missed the film. But that is what *YOU* seem to be saying. (...) Guns are a very popular luxury indeed. And so are telephones and automobiles. All of which have some very serious uses. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) I am not saying that. But it is a valid view. (...) I can't imagine life without a phone. I can live without a car (I cycle the 16 miles per day to work and back). I do live without a gun - I do not live in fear of criminals or the "state". (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This is distortive and false. You're not thinking deeply enough, you're just buying the line fed you. (...) Again, distortive. Read the Federalist Papers before you comment further, would be my suggesting. The absolute level of technology is (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) By whom? However deeply you or I think about this subject, the majority of gun owners (legal or illegal) do not. However noble your or the founding fathers' intentions, purchasing a gun for the purposes of home or personal defence, or carrying (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Frank Filz

(...) Yes, absolutely, and I don't think that's any misinterpretation. Quoting from the opening of the Declaration of Independence: (...) I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers recognized that governments can and will become so corrupt (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Do you think the could conciev how powerful democarcy would come. How everyone (more or less) would be able to vote? Or do you think they had events like the French revolution in mind? Scott A (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This one is so riddled with typos I can't make it out. Would you please repeat the question, this time carefully checking for correctness? Thanks. (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Scott, Just so you know that Larry's not just being rude because of your...special...relationship, I have no idea what you're saying either. I think that I've put the words individually all back together, but I still just don't know what you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Do you think they really could understand how it could work out? How modern media makes politicians almost instantly accountable? How in transparent systems, like the UK, those funding politicians would be dragged out into the open? You will (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Not the details, but the general idea. (...) Probably not. But I'm not sure that it is a significant difference in the context of protection of freedoms. It is certainly significant from the POV of the potential politician. (...) I just don't (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

My goodness Scott has been busy, hasn't he? I lost count of his posts this morning. Including some real gems like "Why?" as the entire body of his reply. (...) Agreed. Scott is wrong in suggesting that they wouldn't be able to think ahead, if that's (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) So busy, Larry, you've had to post twice just to keep up! :-) I was curious about the shortening of the shotgun though. Over here the sawn-off shotgun is the stereotypical east-end small-time shop/bank/bookie's raider's (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Prisoners. Some previous prisoners. Children. many mental health patients. The homeless. People with a sloppy hand. Did I miss any? Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, no I didn't. Right now we have a system in which whoever spends the most has the better chance of being elected. The money they spend doesn't actually DO anything other than enrich PR/media organizations. (not bad in and of itself, mind (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Are you kidding? Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) A smiley is indeed needed. This view is a parody of a libertarian stereotype: More Property = More Rights Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) I am still sure I posted far less than other noise makers around here. :) (...) I think they would be able to think ahead. But not 100's of years ahaed. (...) I'm not wrong - you just do not agree. Right now, If I wanted, I could check the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) It shows how time changes things. What was good a few 100 years ago, might not be quite so good today. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Oops Do you think they could conceive how powerful democracy would become. How everyone (more or less) would be able to vote? Or do you think they had events like the French revolution in mind? Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Conveniently, we don't live in such fear. (...) Thanks for telling me my mind. But it turns out that you're wrong. I want, regardless of what others have, the maximally effective death-flinging device. I want that so that I am prepared for (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Richard Marchetti

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <<We are all a part of the militia and to be so without weaponry is foolish and irresponsible. Americans have not only a right to bear arms, but in my opinion a responsibility so that they are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Daniel Jassim

(...) I'll respect that request because I agree that those *words* don't need to be used. I didn't think the word I used (***hole) was not allowed on this forum because I'm pretty sure I've seen it used before (as well as the words I usually add (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I gave the wrong impression here. I am perfectly comfortable conversing with any level of profanity. I do so daily elsewhere. However, because I once had my posting priveledge suspended for the use of a word describing the excrement of a male (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Interesting. So what is your take on this: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) judiciary's stance. I don't have any problem with the reporter's work, if that's what you mean. I think that the court has been cowardly in not embracing the obviously correct meaning of the second amendment. I suspect that they wish not to (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Tom Stangl

(...) Not going to happen, it's too late. There are untold millions of legal guns out there. Take those away from law-abiding citizens, and you still have millions of ILlegal guns in the hands of criminals. (...) Sure it does. But life is dangerous, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Daniel Jassim

(...) So don't bother trying at all, eh? Is there any way to prove your notion, Tom? I think America could at least TRY to ban all handguns, for heaven's sake. And make penalties stiffer for people, namely criminals, found with guns. I really hate (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And what if it doesn't work, what then? Are you going to reimburse everyone, or just say "sorry about that" and make everyone buy new ones? (...) Reread this one a few times, everyone, and think about what it means. Dan, on the other hand, you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps they are only being honest with themselves. They are far more likely to use their gun in self-defence against a perceived criminal than they are to use it against state tyranny. I expect most guns are bought in the US as a fashion (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Tom Stangl

(...) I don't agree. (...) I do agree - THAT is the answer. Stop penalizing law-abiding citizens (or unnecessarily making them criminals by outlawing something the Constitution protects), and swiftly/harshly deal with the real criminals. (...) And (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah, that's never made much sense to me, either. Toy guns have been available and popular for many decades, so why are they all of a sudden responsible for violence? Toy bricks do not turn kids into real-world bricklayers... Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Jason J. Railton

(...) Of course not. But the point is you can then blame (and attempt to sue) toy manufacturers for the violent tendencies in your own kids. Along with video manufacturers, TV networks, the funny-looking guy next door et al. There's also the problem (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Dave Schuler

(...) You've correctly identified the problem--everyone in that scenario can be held responsible except the shootist and (in the case of a child shootist) the shootist's parents. (...) That is indeed a problem. If a cop (or civilian) has a real (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handgun Death Rate —Stephen Rusnak

"Jason J. Railton" <j.j.railton@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:GGo98I.DA5@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) sue) toy (...) with video (...) hold of (...) firearm, so (...) 'sporting (...) I am worried about what is in the 'sporting goods' section. There (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)