🚀 go-pugleaf

Dick <tjdick@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8j42t9$tgl$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > Three things in this situation:
> >
> > - Police everywhere cannot respond in nanoseconds, not just the LAPD.
>
> Thank you.  That's a very good point and I agree.
>
>
> > - Use your fists/a bat/your wits. Learn to defend yourself. You're
> > less likely to kill that way.
>
> (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.

How can some disabled people use a gun? Anyhow, surely any regulatory system
would see some obvious exceptions. However, a single 110-pound woman can use:
mace, a bat, a knife, a heavy pan, etc. If there are multiple intruders it is
highly unlikely that she could shoot or scare them all off, and one would
overpower her and now have a gun to boot. Think about how much space there is in
a typical room. Couldn't you cover that and overpower a woman?

Any case, the less able don't post on these newsgroups. It's the more able but
less intellectually-gifted who are actively arguing for gun ownership. The
"million moms march" was the less able 110 pound (and more:) ) women showing
their personal preference on the issue.

> (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.

Truth of the matter is guns kill more easily than any other weapon. Aside from
the instant chance of death, bullets always penetrate the skin, meaning more
chance of blood loss and slow death. Then there's the recovery of a bullet from
the body, etc. Knives and bats don't have quite the same complications.

> > - If the Bad Guy is armed with a weapon, how did he get it? Sure,
> > there are gun dealers around every corner. What drives the price of
> > guns --> supply. If a gloch were $5000 a piece how many burglars
> > would own one?
>
> Burglars don't pay for guns; they steal them, so the price is
> irrelevant --to them.  To purchase a gun from a dealer here, one must
> fill out a stack of paperwork (for a handgun in CA, one signs about as
> many times as when buying a house), and get the OK of local police and
> the federal BATF.  Anyone with a criminal record *should* be eliminated
> (but the Clinton administration does *nothing* to enforce existing
> laws.  The Brady Bill was enforced only a few times (6 I think) despite
> THOUSANDS of violations.)

Bingo! "Burglars don't pay for guns!" they steal them from gun owners such as
you (where else?) School kids involved in massacres don't buy guns. They steal
them from gun owners. etc. etc. 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.
>
> 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.

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.

"People are gonna rape, pillage, and murder, but the law is responsible for
curbing this through whatever means necessary" - Koroush Ghazi. Capone was a
gangster. Quoting him shows a base instinct I hadn't seen in you 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.

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.

>
> [1] I presume that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is a government
> office.

It is independent in most respects, but is effectively a government office.
>
> I also ask everyone --again-- to take these general gun control threads
> to talk.politics.guns where they belong.


They are already there. See the post "Australian gun stats - any real ones?"

>
> Respectfully,
> Dick
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.