Debate : 8502


Off-Topic / Debate / 8502

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) What a device is _primarily_ designed to do and what one does with it, in my mind, are two very different things. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if a pencil is designed to write on paper with, you _could_ buy it for the express (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

I've held out of this one but must reiterate these points. (...) There are two main threads when arguing in favor of gun ownership. Tim is going down one thread: that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns besides the one for which they are (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) What if you miss? Does your shooter have enough power to force a bullet through wall of your home? What then? The fact is, statistics show that you are more likely to use your gun on yourself or your family, than you are a criminal. Do you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Markus Wolf

(...) Then I guess you should register when you buy alchohol products. Isn't around 30% of traffic deaths alchohol related. I don't consume any alchohol, so it doesn't affect me. Let's make it as hard to get as possible. How about cigarette (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) Nowhere within either the BNA act, or the Canadian Constitution (1982), is there a mention of the right to bear arms. Therefore, you _do not_ have a right to own them within Canada. You have whatever rights the majority of the people of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Hugely snipped... (...) Precisely. And what the lord(1) giveth, the lord taketh away. That's my point. The US is (theoretically(2)) constrained in what rights it can usurp because the US is founded on the principle that rights come from the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 400,000 in the US, which is now one of the lowest smoking rate nations in the world. You bet your ass tobacco is more dangerous than firearms! Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Markus Wolf

(...) And we could take it a step further. How many of those firearm deaths are alchohol related? I have no way of finding that statistic, but there must be a percentage. I sincerely feel bad for the good, ordinary people of Canada, as well as the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Statistics be thrown out the window - if you're in a position where no matter how bad the argument gets you'll haul a gun on your own family then gun control isn't going to help -- you can just as easily use anything else around the house for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) Nope, simply not true. How many deaths by knife are there in comparison to those by gun in the US each year? I'm willing to bet that the death rate by firearms in the UK is substantially less than the death rate by firearms in the US , eh? I'm (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) How do those numbers compare in the UK? What if you add in all non-firearm (non vehicular) murders? (...) I'd bet so. (...) Maybe Brittons (is that right?) are less likely to kill one another. You can't suggest a causal relationship based on (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't have time to grubb about too much, but I did find this: There were 98 murders in Scotland in 1999 (Scotland has the worst rate in the UK). The population is ~6M (10% of UK) - so that gives a murder rate of ~1.63/100K. Gun murders (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) I believe that you just severly contradicted your entire preceding argument. (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) I believe I had some stray electrons move the knife and gun around, just like Larry P. has happen occasionally :) (it should have been easier to kill with a gun than a knife...that'd be better eh?) James (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Blame it on cosmic rays... (Not to be confused with Cosmic Ray's brickbay shop) (URL) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) But I think it is that way because there are no/little guns. I am pretty sure I have seen no more than 5-10 non-military guns in my 32 years here. All those 5-10 were in the hands of the police. Scott A (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) How can you say that? What would the presence/absence of guns have to do with the social situation. There are no guarantees that government will not "turn bad". What I'm saying is that IF the social situation WERE to turn bad, you might (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) The criminals are not armed (mostly), so the police do not need them. (...) What? Tony Blair goes mad, and the army supports him - I doubt it. What would his aim be? (...) Have you been watching Rambo? Scott A (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Worldwide? Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) USA _only_. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I doubt it. I'll try to provide references from less biased (i.e. biased in my favor ;-) tonight or tomorrow. Chris (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) It is right here - (URL) of these are suicides (inc ~120 under 14). Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

As always, snipped. (...) I go to the range enough that I don't often miss. But... the bullets I use go through the body and then through the wall anyway, even if I don't miss. I don't like to use something ineffectual. But others do miss. Accidents (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tom Stangl

(...) Well, it could be argued you ARE using ineffectual ammo ;-) The most destructive is that which expands and STAYS in the body, tearing it to shreds. Oh wait, dum-dums are illegal. Nevermind, stick with your hollowpoints and massive exit wounds (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) OK. So who is in the next room? Your kids? Your dog? Your neighbours? (...) Show me they are wrong. 51% of all gun deaths are suicides – perhaps the gun owners are unstable? Statistically, the person who is most likely to murder your family is (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) What is your argument....please think about what you've said....obviously you will analyze that whenever you are in the situation. At what point did Larry mention he would fire at any criminal no matter what the cost....I think you're aware (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) ... and what is the bullet bouces of the washing machine? (...) Yet most have the sense to raid only empty homes. (...) Well, the US murder rate is >3 times the UK one. I am pretty sure that our murder clear-up rate is better than the USA too. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Then your washing machine must be heavily armor-plated, considering the ammunition Lar uses. Otherwise the slug will go through the washing machine or any other appliance in the house. Dave! (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) I'm sorry but obviously you're not terribly aware of the nature of a moving bullet. From previous conversations, you're telling me the bullet cn go through a wall but not through a household washing machine? Think about this for a moment. (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Of course, now that I think about it, if the washing machine is on spin cycle, I guess it would have considerable angular momentum. And if you were washing particularly stiff fabrics, the two factors together could very likely create a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Yep, I do not live in a gun culture. (...) I'm pretty sure it could do both. Think about this for a moment. Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Hold on a second here! Who's saying what????? First you make the comment that the bullet is going to bounce of the washing machine and then you agree with me that it could both go through a wall or a washing machine.....which is what I said in (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Think about this for a moment: 1) Are all walls the same? 2) Are all washing machines the same? 3) What angle will a bullet hit a wall at? 4) What angle will a bullet hit a washing machine at? I concede that a bullet may well go through a wall (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Call the question. Are we arguing ballistics, or discussing the role of a well regulated militia in a free society? (or even in Canada, not quite free at this time) I'm confused. For the record, I concede that there is a non zero probability (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) No, not really. I think that your average Lego fan is of above average inteligence, and is more likely to follow through in actually being reasonably careful to unload the gun before trying to clean it :) It is also possible/probable that of (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) This is quite a good example, in a odd way. Car manufactures strive to make there cars safer to reduce death/injury rates for both owners and others - it helps sell cars. Have gun manufactures done the same in any real way? (...) Gun accidents (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped. (...) There's a lot of stuff out there if you want to dig. I don't, since I'm already convinced and I don't much care for your thoughts either way. However, for the other readers... Here's a book reference for you: (URL) that these authors (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) They claim it is some sort of sinister media conspiracy. (...) "more concerned" does not mean were concerned. (...) Yet, I live in a society which is relatively free of guns... and I feel no need to carry any sort of weapon, or devise a tin (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

demographics - Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) There is no need, I found them: =+= OWNERSHIP OF guns is extraordinarily widespread in the United States, and has been for some time. Indeed, since the late 1950's, when surveys on this question were first done, the share of American (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: demographics - Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Did you just use that for a demographic factoid, or do you agree with the conclusions the author draws? By the way, do you think this author's factoids are sufficiently vetted? Do you accept all of them, or just the ones that agree with your (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: demographics - Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Assume you do not dispute the points I made which you snipped? (...) What do you think? Read the message header. Read the text I quoted. Read my argument. Draw your own conculsions. Key phrase of note: "they (guns) are most likely to belong to (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I _do_ live in a society where guns are not needed for defense. But luckily, they are an option. I know that's a bit obtuse, but I'll go on to an answer that you might like better... Sure. All things being equal, I'd rather that people not (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) There is a cultural difference between us which makes you think this is a logical mindset, but, at the same time, makes me believe you are a little crazy. :-) Scott A (24 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed there is. We have a culture of freedom, or did, in the US. (...) And some of us think that to be willing to go along (with majorities, with tyrannical laws, etc..) instead of *want* that freedom is, in turn, a little crazy. Actually, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) There are those who say the US has no culture. (...) Larry I have questioned your "freedoms" many times - and each time you fail to answer me. Until you are willing to answer those points, keep you vague assertions to yourself. :-) (...) There (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Frank Filz

(...) If we have so little culture then why are US movies and TV shows so popular around the world? Now I grant that most movies and TV shows aren't terribly refined, but then most enetertainment for the masses isn't. I think there is just as much (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) The problem may be that you view gun ownership, perhaps, as an inalienable “god given” freedom. I’d argue that I feel freer because my society is, relatively, free of guns. I am not restricted by a fear of suffering armed oppression from my (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Description vs. argument —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This can be taken many ways. If intended as a slur about our arts/literature/media, etc... it's irrelevant, and untrue. If intended as a comment on melting pots vs. many separate cultures, it's also untrue. The US has more of a unified culture (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) It is a simple observation. (...) You are a little wrong here about the UK. But I think, overall, we have mixed well - given that most immigrants arrived here post WW2. As far as I know we have never had legal segregation in the UK. (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: May I? (...) Yes. And to compare, how is the history of British society and homosexuals? It's not exactly a political freedom, but it's similar, and your record sucks. (...) We did. (...) Evolution is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) As does most of the world, up until a few years ago many still viewed this homosexuality as a medical condition. Thankfully, those days have mostly passed - so much so that homosexuality is not an issue. Indeed, there are a few at the highest (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh...well if that's all it takes, then I can dispel your assertions by mentioning that there are a few blacks at the highest levels of US government too. Great. (...) them? Their rights did protect them. But bad men in the government -- the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. So what is the point of your system, if your "god given" rights can be removed the government? Are they only fair weather rights? (...) I know of no UK school which has a "whites only" policy in the last century. I know of no UK (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) Things are worse than I thought in the US. "blacks" have been out of the closet here for a long time. Scott A (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I happen to feel connected to this particular fight since I'm from the US, but it's really not my favorite of these examples. I prefer the one where Shaka, using nothing but spears and genius, routed the British army in Zululand (South (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) The keyword is militia. My dictionary says: militia a military force which only operates for some of the time and whose members often have other jobs, used either instead of or to support the official army. I’d hate to get involved in (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Your dictionary is wrong, when viewed in the context of the US constitution. Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said it. Intent is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my dictionary describes? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Todd Lehman

(...) Is that like Lar += 2? :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Dave Schuler

(...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Jennifer Clark

(...) From what I recall of history, the Zulus led by Shaka were anything but ragtag; they were an extremely well trained, organised and disciplined army consisting of men who had been taken into the army as boys and brought up in a military and (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Where did that cultural difference come from? 225 years ago we were one culture (basically). My culture splintered off from yours and we were able to do so because "we" had guns. I think the current state of things in both nations is based on (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) You had a Scottish culture... and gave it up! Now I know why you all eat such crap food - we still do so too. :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Dave Low

(...) Are guns necessary for a revolution? Perhaps non-violent movements can more effectively create social change: Gandhi and post-colonial India, South Africa in the past decade. Interestingly both these countries have examples that show how a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) Very true. I’d like to add to the list much of the eastern European states which have “come in from the cold”. It is a gross generalisation, and I hope I do not offend anyone, but much of these popular uprising have been against oppressive / (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Frank Filz

(...) I think you underestimate what someone who REALLY believes they are right, and are REALLY willing to die for their cause is capable of doing. Governments have been doing this for over 200 years (that underestimation is what lost the American (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Is it your assertion then, that the changes in government in states such as the DDR, Poland, Czechoslovokia, Hungary, etc. had nothing whatever to do with guns, that is, that they were completely non violent, and no guns or weapons anywhere in (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) Larry, reply to my whole message please. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Who is it that you think is out of shape and middle aged? Similarly, who is it that you think only has pistols? In the US, it is easy to acquire military ordnance that "fell of a truck." While I have never engaged in such transactions, of (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) Me for one. :) (...) Yes - but that is illegal. (...) It really is a worry. Neadless to say, some of your civilian countrymen have a history of exporting these weapons to murderers across the globe. (...) Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) They are necessary for an armed insurgency. Revolution is a messy term because it has so many contextual meanings. (...) And you would claim that these two nations are exemplars of successful national organization? (...) I'm pretty sure that (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Dave Low

(...) Well, I suppose guns are necessary for an insurgency to be armed. They may not be the only effective means of achieving substantial political change; cf feminism for another example. (...) Not necessarily, but that's not my point. Gandhi's (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped again. (...) BTW.... You asked the wrong question. The correct question is not "Are you able to?", because I am, should I care to take the time. The correct question is "Do you want to?". And the answer in your *particular* case is "No". (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I know what I meant. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Thanks Larry....agree with most of your post except... (...) Yes, you are correct. However, I must point out that we're probably the most free non-free nation in the world. For all intents and purposes we consider ourselves free: ... God keep (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Joseph Cardana

Well, I understand this whole debate came from the initial posting of gun control. And I agree that controlling guns may not have the desired affect upon gun related crimes, since only law-abiding citizens will register. But lately, it sounds like (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) People with guns kill people. Scott A (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Kevin Bannister

(...) ... and people without guns still kill people. (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I asked for that :-) Scott A (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) But they are more willing to do it with a gun. And if they want to knife fight, that's okay, my knife is three feet long! Crocodile Dundee, eat your heart out. Of course, I'd reach for the 12 gauge first... Bruce well-armed liberal :-) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Hmm. 3ft. That'll be a sword. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Most people would describe it as a sword, but it is in fact a Bolo Knife (kind of a pointy Phillipines machete). Bruce (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Frank Filz

(...) One book on guns I bought back in college (while in college I used to do some very serious research for my roleplaying games), written by a police man, talked about various decisions in chosing a gun for home defence. He did point out that a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I remember, a year or so ago, saying there was some sort of plan for an "electronc" child proof lock. Did anything ever come of that? Scott A (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) As I mentioned in a previous post, that's exactly what has to happen! If everyone would get over their unjustified fear that if child knows about or has an interest in guns that they'll grow up to be some crazy bank robber and realized that if (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) You are completely correct; the notion that knowledge of a gun's usage and consequences will somehow lead inexorably to a gun's illegal use is simply falacious. A true awareness of the consequences of one's actions can only lead to an (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Free to do what exactly? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Free in the sense that we're a free nation free to do what we want without a monarch or dictator telling us what to do. The reason that Canada isn't actually technically free is because the Queen still has the power to have the last say in a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) It is pretty much the same here - she only really acts on the advice of the privy council (politicians). If she ever where to speak on a political issue, I think she'd find her self out of a job. The closest we get the "Royals" medalling in (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

The Queen is on every piece of Canadian currency I believe....on the opposite side of the beavers, birds, and leaves. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Kevin Bannister

(...) <pulling out my wallet> $5 - Wilfred Laurier and a belted kingfisher $10 - John A. MacDonald and an osprey $20 - the Queen and a common loon $50 - now property of the casino $100 - Robert Borden she is on all the coins, however, IIRC. (24 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Well seeing as we have such interesting diversified money you can't expect me to keep track of all of it :)...dumb yankees have to actually look at their money and half the time you don't even know what you've got at a glance at your wallet. (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Sorry to reply to my own message, but I found this interesting page: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) time I promise) (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) My point is that, even when well trained (and I doubt you are), when a person fires a gun the bullet can end up almost anywhere. (...) In your opionion. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) While some people were working the theme for humor value, who was actually arguing that point in a serious way? No one. You need to draw some meaningful conclusion from it or it has no relevance. That's not just an opinion, that's the way (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) How macho. All this gun talk. Try to be constructive Larry. If you think I am not making a point, just leave me alone. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) I hate to continue an argument when people start getting personally offended (a it seems you may be Scott), but I have to add my .02 to Larry here. What (I think) Larry is saying is that we've discussed the point that yes, bullets do ricochet, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Don't worry about me, I'm pretty think skinned. I know Larry tries to wind me up at times; I don't mind as, in my eyes, it only makes him look silly. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you *are* making a further point, please make it. If you're *not*, say so. But if you just want to repeat the same point over and over after it's been acknowledged and after you've been asked what the further point is, I would submit that (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Joseph Cardana

Scott, Larry & Tim, Well, I understand this whole debate came from the initial posting of gun control. And I agree that controlling guns may not have the desired affect upon gun related crimes, since only law-abiding citizens will register. But (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Richard Noeckel

(...) Much of this conversation is dealing with U.S. and U.K. statistics, situations and stereotypes. Yet, the principle issue is restrictions and controls within ‘Canada.’ My nation is quite different from the U.S. in many key areas, and several of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Richard makes some good points, Canada is indeed different than the US in many ways. So I snipped them. (...) Indeed. Given the above, can you help me reconcile the apparent contradiction in your slogan: (...) as this new fiat doesn't seem an (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Mark Sandlin

(...) From what I've heard from Fiat owners, they were never examples of greatness. ;^) ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Hey Larry, we were talking about Canadian gun control here....don't get me all riled up in the Canada vs. US debate....I'll be in front of the computer all night :) mumble mumble.....ignorant americmumble stupimumble bastamumble don't know (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Richard Noeckel

(...) I'm not sure if your quip was meant to be humors, but I’ll answer it regardless. My slogan is indeed NOT an oxymoron ‘-Lego good, Canada great-®.’ Although I may not agree with the current situation, I'm still proud of my nation (Ranked #1 by (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) So why is the USA & Canada so different on this? I know that there are other countries where guns are very common but gun deaths are very low (Sweden?). I found murder rates for the Americas (below), Canada is higher than my UK estimate of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Out of curiosity, would you be equally satisfied with a hypothetical non-lethal weapon that nonetheless instantly and fully incapacitated its target? Something like an immediate tranquilizer (or a phaser-set-on-stun, perhaps?) I'm asking (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, if coupled with tort reform so I wasn't in mortal peril of losing all my posessions from a lawsuit brought by a burglar or mugger. (...) It's a small but non zero fear. I don't think it makes my days frightful and lonely, it just means (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Ugh, ain't that the truth! My father once advised me that if I ever shot a burglar in my house who then managed to crawl outside, I should drag him back in and shoot him again to prevent such a lawsuit. (...) **snip** (...) Interesting. In the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

how police forces compare internationally? (was Re: My Gun Control Rant) —Scott Arthur

(...) Noted. I often wonder how police forces compare internationally. However, I expect it is a pretty hard thing to do due to cultural differences – this means that what constitutes a crime may change from state to state (e.g. trespassing is not (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: how police forces compare internationally? (was Re: My Gun Control Rant) —Dave Low

(...) Surely any study of police productivity would be biased by varying levels of corruption. For instance in Sydney and Brisbane criminal activity has traditionally been kept under control by the police through mutually profitable compromises. So (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) [snip] (...) And just for the record I also agree with this argument/motive for owning a gun....I chose the other root because it _could_ open up the debate from people who believe "it is never right to kill anyone under any circumstances, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Frank Filz

(...) While I guess one could call me a freeloader for not being at least trained in the use of firearms and not owning one, I have to concur absolutely with the above. Unfortunately, so many of my fellow citizens didn't pay enough attention to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) True, but it doesn't matter. Guns are not designed to kill people. That's just reactionary liberal disarmament garbage. Guns are designed to sell. Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I'm not sure I agree. I bought my revolver (and the hollowpoint bullets I keep in the speed loader) based on my evaluation of how much bang for the buck I got. Those hollowpoints will stop a person dead in his tracks. I would have shot (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) Ah, ok. The AK and the AR-15's, are not designed to kill, that's right. NO, they are designed to maim- how could I forget reading the info that 5.56 is based on? What exactly is the purpose of a pistol kept under your clothing in a state with (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) be (...) First, I really (really!) meant consumer firearms. Military contract is a bit different. Now, the purpose (if you mean _my_ purpose) when I travel with a concealed firearm is not to kill people. It is to defend myself. I have defended (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) myself (...) If you aim a gun at me, (as my basic training would say), you'd better have a dammed good reason for wanting to kill me-or have you never had formal firearms training? If you aim at someone, then the ONLY possible reason is that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Mostly agree with this post, with one nuance... (...) Well, some would argue that it *is* possible to "aim to wound", but I think you need to be a far better shot to pull that off. (unless you use rubber bullets, which often don't work anyway) (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Frank Filz

(...) I think I disagree. At least I disagree that if one draws, one's ONLY possible intent is to kill. Drawing a gun has an amazing affect on people (I know, I've had a gun drawn on me, now that search is working again, you can even go look it up). (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Bill Farkas

(...) I disagree profoundly. There is a huge difference between pointing a gun at someone in order to prevent myself (or someone else) from being killed, and pointing a gun at someone to kill them. My intent is not to kill them, it is to stop them (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Mostly agree so mostly snipped. (...) Matter of semantics? I'm not a good enough bluffer to use a realistic toy in a standoff, so I bought something that's capable of killing, not just a BB gun or pea shooter. I need to have the real thing behind my (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

In general, I agree with Bill's note. But... (...) Some war. Not most, for most participants. Chris (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Very well put....I must thank you for this as I tend to somehow end up discussing gun control fairly regularily recently and I've never actually heard it put this way....I shall remember it. (...) I agree here. To kill another human being I (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What do you mean by "better?" I have had minor formal firearms training and have practiced at the range on numerous (though not as much as I should, recently) occasions. (...) Silly macho posturing. There are lots of reasons that one might aim (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) Well, I believe the technical term here in Canada is Attempted Murder, or at least Assault with a Weapon. My firearms instructors included members who had served in all kinds of nice international vacation spots, such as Cyprus, Yogo, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) I think we're arguing about a matter of wording here - While it is true that you should never point a gun at a person without AT LEAST being in a state where it is "OK" _IF_ the gun does get fired and does kill (in a situation where the other (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) That's why I think parts of the law are -stupid-, but parts of it to my mind make sense- such as requiring licences that have as a requirement, training. It comes down to the fact that we needed some changes to the law, but what we got was (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Well I guess that you and I aren't acutally debating that much then since my original post to start this thread was arguing specifically the new gun registration laws. Requirements for a liscence and training are and have been for at least a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Mark Sandlin

(...) You've been warned about Seattle? Really? What have people warned you about? Just curious, since I live in the Seattle area and I think it's pretty safe in general. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Maybe he's talking about Seattle, Louisiana? 8^p Dave! (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not James, of course, but I was warned about being in downtown Seattle ( by the fish market, the area where the monorail lets out, etc) late at night. I happened to *be* downtown late at night soon after, and there were a lot of people (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Brown

(...) All historical context aside, jackboots are pretty cool, and go a long way towards a sharp-looking uniform. It's an interesting (though mostly unreasolvable) question wether they had the jackboots in spite of, or because of, historical (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Are they actually called jackboots? That is, I can't imagine walking into the shoestore and saying "I'd like to buy some boots with a lot of historical context--give me some jackboots." Or is there a more "official" name? Dave! (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Brown

(...) I've never heard them called anything else. I would imagine that the specific type of jackboots worn by the German SS has a specific name (in German), but I have no idea what it is. A quick (not very picky) search on the internet got me (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Mark Sandlin

(...) Oh, sure, there's that stuff later in the evening. All in all, however, Seattle is one of the safer cities in my experience. LMK next time you're in town. Maybe you can stop by a SEALUG meeting. (...) Heh. Well, there is a certain reputation (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I really would be interested in your justification for making the above comments, or was it just based on ill-informed rumour? If you can show that a UK crime "hot spot" is even comparable to one in your land, I truly will be enlightened. The (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well...if people aren't safe, and the system is set up to prevent them from keeping themselves safe, and people generally believe that police keep them safe, then what's wrong with how Larry put it? Obviously it isn't (usually) the cops' (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) It is a generalisation, but people in the areas Larry alludes to do not feel part of the "system" - they feel excluded from it. I know from personal experiences, that individuals in these areas are very reluctant to go to the police for help - (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Jason Maxwell

(...) Being a Puget Sound native (My home addresses in my lifetime have been Oak Harbor, Seattle, or Bellingham) I can tell you that jaywalking is practicly a capital offense in Seattle. OK, maybe not that bad. How did the old joke go, getting (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) About 2 years ago, we (HMCS Algonquin) were tied up down where the old ferry (Klakala ?) is (I forget what pier it is now), and we were warned not to go into some areas of Seattle at night. I didn't find it that bad, but perhaps the warning (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) So, tell me again, WHY in the heck do we have to get a liscense to purchase amunition? What's wrong with a drivers liscence or other proof-of-age certificate? Oh, how dumb of me, could it be that there IS a reason we have to shell out huge (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The gun manufacturer designed it to appeal to people with some cash. So that they would give the cash to the manufacturer. Whether or not the gun kills people, looks pretty, fires blanks only, or can be used as a hammer in a pinch doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) May be a matter of semantics, I guess. When GM designs a car, do they design it to be a good car, or to sell the units needed to hit the IRR? Er, bad example. Who knows what moves GM these days, it's embarrassing that they're HQed in the state (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Frank Filz

(...) As I've argued many a time. We are not served well by bowing down to the holy brick and no other. Frank (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) free (...) But look at the little Korean companies and compare those to Toyota. Hyundai's sell. They are made at significantly lower quality levels, but still they sell. Why? Because the niche that they market to wants Toyotas but can only (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't think we are disagreeing. I posted this example in order to address the (semantic?) issue of motive for doing things... not to claim that there aren't different niches, different price points and different needs. GM's problem is that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tom Stangl

(...) In this particular case, I CAN'T agree. There really is no reason for a crappy gun (that's just as liable to injure the user as the target) to exist. If you're going to buy a gun, you should buy a GOOD one, even if it's used and rebuilt. -- | (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) crappy gun (...) My personal recommendation would be to purchase the gun that is closest to your ideal and still within your price range. But I think it's better to have a $50 .32 revolver than nothing. And a gun has to be pretty screwed up to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tom Stangl

I would count a $50 revolver as just as dangerous to the user as the target! There's NO WAY a company can sell a gun at a profit at $50 retail without massively cutting corners on alloys and machining tolerances. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)