🚀 go-pugleaf

[This long post ends in an inspiring coda of concord between two
debaters who have exchanged several carpet-bombing attacks during the
past year.]

KOROUSH (the honorable "Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com>):
> > > - Use your fists/a bat/your wits. Learn to defend yourself. You're
> > > less likely to kill that way.

DICK (Dick <tjdick@my-deja.com>):
> > (1)  What about people who *can't* do that, Mr. Ghazi?  What about
the
> > small and weak?  How does a single 110-pound woman "learn to defend
> > herself" from two or three male intruders?  *HOW* can I defend
myself
> > from someone physically superior?  Under your system, the less able
do
> > not have the same right to defend themselves.  This is not fair.


KOROUSH:
> How can some disabled people use a gun?

Some can not, depending on the disability (most probably do not want
to). It is not fair for the state to abolish something for all because
a few would not be able to do it.


> Anyhow, surely any regulatory system would see some obvious
> exceptions.

I think you're suggesting that some disabled people should be allowed
to have guns, and people who could wield a baseball bat (as you
suggested earlier) should not.  It's hard to tell when you do not say
what you mean.  I know you are capable of better.


> However, a single 110-pound woman can use:  mace, a bat, a knife, a
> heavy pan, etc.

Wrong!  All of the above are false.  You have never been to a self-
defense class and seen adults struggling to learn to fight.  Most would
not have a chance in an unexpected encounter with an intruder,
especially such a small woman.

All she would accomplish with those weapons, at best, is to anger the
attacker(s) and congeal his/their determination to execute his/their
plan.  Again, you presume that all women are capable of doing this;
some just do not have it in them.  (Nor some men, for that matter.)


> If there are multiple intruders it is highly unlikely that she could
> shoot or scare them all off,

WRONG.  This happens every week in the U.S., and I will furnish you
some newspaper articles as proof, if you will look at them.  What "is
highly unlikely" is that she could fend even one attacker off with any
of the things you suggest (a bat, a knife, a heavy pan).

Very few attacks involve "multiple attackers" as you suggest anyway.
Do we mandate based on the most outlandish scenarios?  No.

If you had ever been to basic training you would know how difficult it
is to knife fight, or actually stab someone with a knife.  (Thank God
it's difficult!)


> and one would overpower her and now have a gun to boot.

WRONG, and I have stacks of evidence.  Will you look?  I plan to put it
on a web page: actual newpaper accounts w/ dates and names of the
papers.


> Think about how much space there is in a typical room. Couldn't you
> cover that and overpower a woman?

If she were using any of the crude weapons you suggest, probably.  If
she were armed and trained, heck no.  I attended a dozen weekends of
firearms training in 1999 at a local police academy and there were lots
of CIVILIAN women on each course.


> Any case, the less able don't post on these newsgroups.

Hunh?  What in the world does that have to do with their right or
ability to defend themselves??


> It's the more able but less intellectually-gifted who are actively
> arguing for gun ownership.

Where in the world do you get that from?  This is a personal attack and
a disgusting prejudice from your gut; it is not a fact.

You *know* the above does not make any sense.  The more ground you
lose, the more you spew feckless paralogisms and personal attacks.  I
think you are aiming for the "low-hanging fruit," i.e., feeble-minded
people to persuade with your grass-roots campaign of gun abolition.  I
think most people on usenet can see through these tactics.


> The "million moms march" was the less able 110 pound (and more:) )
> women showing their personal preference on the issue.

Here you are confusing an assembly of people on one side of the issue
with a referendum.  Gun advocates were not invited.  You are confusing
a demonstration with the majority, as if the few of us refuting your
non-arguments are America's only gun advocates.  This is far from the
truth.

[Aside:  Even if the majority of Americans shared your views, it would
not matter.  The Bill of Rights are individual rights guaranteed by the
state.  The majority never needs its rights protected in a democracy
because it can just out-vote the opposition.]


DICK:
>> (2)  Regarding "less likely to kill that way" compared to a firearm,
>> not true.  In the overwhelming majority of cases where Americans
defend
>> themselves with firearms, not a shot is fired.  Such cases rarely get
>> TV news coverage, since they are less spectacular than violent
events.
>> (As the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" points out, you don't
*need*
>> a conspiracy theory about the news media to explain that.  It's
obvious
>> and understandable that they will report more spectacular stories.)
If
>> you won't accept stats on this one, I can furnish lots of accounts,
>> with the name of the newspaper they appeared in with the dates, of
>> armed citizens defending themselves without firing a shot.


KOROUSH:
> Truth of the matter is guns kill more easily than any other weapon.

That is true, but it has ZERO to do with what I wrote immediately
above.  You dodged that argument entirely.  That guns can kill more
easily says nothing about the fact I mentioned:  in the overwhelming
majority of instances where Americans use firearms for self-defense,
NOT A SHOT IS FIRED, and that is a fact.

Rather than concede a point, you ignore it and switch topics.  Why do
you do this, Koroush?  Anyone can see through your rhetorical gambits.
If you were to admit that you're beat on the points that you are, you
would gain credence on other points.  I know you are capable of better.


> Knives and bats don't have quite the same complications.

Firearms displayed to would-be criminals but not used (as in the
majority of cases) present even fewer complications.


KOROUSH:
> Bingo! "Burglars don't pay for guns!" they steal them from gun owners
> such as you (where else?)

WRONG.  Mine are locked up in *hidden* safes.  I have *never* had a gun
stolen, and don't know anyone who has.  Your question is a good
question:  where else?  They get them from wherever Australians with
illegal firearms get them, or whereever Chechnyans with firearms get
them.  People are going to have guns.


> School kids involved in massacres don't buy guns. They steal
> them from gun owners. etc. etc.

WRONG.  ("etc. etc." refers to =?)  They BUY them from people who
illegally sell them (but of course are not prosecuted here).  We
Americans just need to enforce existing gun laws.  That would prevent
children with guns.


> So these stolen guns enter circulation through the actions of gun
> owners! Again, less privately owned guns => less weapons in
> circulation!!!
>
> I love it when we work together.

Not so fast.  Read the above.  I notice you provide no support other
than your imagination.


DICK:
> > We already *had* a prohibition in this country --on alcohol. During
> > that period, organized crime took root in that period and flourished
> > and has been a big problem in America since.  One reason is, as Al
> > Capone said, "People are gonna drink." and I'm just giving them what
> > they want, etc.  Similarly, people are going to have firearms, as
> > we observed in Chechnya; those people were *never* supposed to have
> > guns.

KOROUSH:
> God, I knew Prohibition would come up. Same as the banning of illicit
> drugs.  Banning things doesn't work. I agree. But that doesn't mean
> you open things up to the other extreme. We're looking for a middle
> ground where regulation and gun ownership are justified. I don't
> think we're there yet.

I LOVE YOU!!!  :^[)  YES, *NOW* we're GETTING SOMEWHERE!  I agree with
all of the above!  You see Mr. Ghazi, we have TONS of gun regulation in
the form of statutes that are NOT enforced!

Only when we work out the details of the above would you say, "We're
already there in America!  Time will tell!"  And I would respond, "No,
because the DOJ and its subordinate offices (district attorneys, etc.)
do *not* ENFORCE all these regulations."  Why?  Gun banners want to
say, "See?  Regulation does not work.  Only abolition will work.

That was beautiful, Koroush.  See what happens when people back down
from their entrenched *positions* in search of truth?  ==>  Accord!   I
am upping your number of free lunches from three to five (5) when you
move to LA.  Put your big backside up to the screen now-- <kissss-smack!
>


DICK:
>> You have said on several occasions indefinite things about not having
>> seen Australian statistics supporting our claims --but you never said
>> that you looked for them.  I challenge you, as an apologist and
actual
>> employee of the Australian government[1], to find statistics on the
>> number of firearms-related homicides in the state of Victoria.  You
>> will see that there has been about a 300% *increase* since the ban.

KOROUSH:
> I still don't know which figures you're talking about. I will try to
> find them soon. You ever tried to find government stats? There are
> millions and they are not all nicely indexed.
> Anyway, just because guns have been banned (in mid-1997), doesn't
> mean you'll see an immediate impact. A lot of the change has to do
> with criminals being apprehended for owning a gun. Maybe our police
> just aren't efficient. Slowly the number of guns will dry up.

I agree that things will stabilize over there, but disagree they will
stabilize the way you expect.  People will have guns, as they did in
Chechnya.

[NOTE:  Anyone expecting that web page from me with anecdotes of armed
citizens defending themselves, be patient.  It took me an hour just to
type this.  I have to make time to do it.]


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.