🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7qf88t$k6e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dick  <tjdick@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7qeqtn$mng$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
>  dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>
>> Instead you choose to completely reject
>> valid points as idiotic because they do not agree with the world as
>you
>> see it.
>
>So do *you*, Dimitri!  Observe:
>
>DIMITRI:
>> I personally believe that gun owners suffer from paranoia more than
>> hysteria. There's always someone (government, criminals, etc.) out to
>> get them that they may need to shoot.
>
>Some of us, like myself, have been victims of violent crime.  It is
>easy for "peaceniks like myself" (your boast) who have never been
>victimized to reject "valid points" as paranoia.


I can reject your points without insulting you and calling your points
idiotic when they are not. That was my point. 


>DIMITRI:
>> It's one thing to say you want a
>> weapon for sport, but I just cannot see why you feel the need to have
>> a firearm to defend yourself.
>
>Ever watch the news, Dimitri?


I try not to. There are 13 million people going about their lives every
day without incident in the LA area and the news will focus on the
few crimes committed. Is this a crime-free city? Of course not, but on the
other hand the news would have you believe that at any moment there's a
good chance each of us could be the victim of a violent crime and that's
frankly not true. You mention that you were once a victim, and so I can
understand your attitudes, but you should recognize paranoia as what it
is.


>So I can live, that's why.  I know you can't see that.  You can't
>understand how anyone could possibly disagree with peaceniks like
>yourself.  You expect everyone else to be just like you.  You project
>your attitudes, thoughts, and feelings onto everyone else.  I don't
>know how long you have been in the U.S., Dimitri, but I hope you never
>find out the hard way how little regard men can have for your life when
>they're after your wallet.  It's a rude awakening.


I was born here in the United States, and it says a lot about you that
you'd even consider thinking otherwise. Anyway, you can choose to live
your life in fear of crime if you want to, but the statistics do not
bear you out. You are correct in assuming that I have not been the
victim of a violent crime, but my father has been many times because
of the nature of his work (and the areas he conducts it in) -- including
his vehicle stolen at gun-point -- and he is not fearful and he does not
own a gun. If you live your life in fear then the criminals have already
won.


>DIMITRI:
>> While at home, your firearm should be in a locked cabinet where it
>> would *not* be easy to access if you did need it.
>
>How could you write something so STUPID?  Why would I want it where it
>would *not* be easy to access if I needed it?  So that an intruder
>would prevail?  I can't glean any meaning from the above, unless you're
>a career criminal.


So you believe that your firearm should be loaded and on your nightstand?
And you don't think *that* is stupid? Guns should be properly stored if
you do not intend to use them. That is what being a responsible gun owner
is about.


>Old saying:  "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."  Now
>that everyone owns one, we have usenet, a place where one can engage in
>a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.


The insult is typical of you, and dated to boot.


>> I don't understand why an armed society makes you feel so safe.
>
>I know you can't.  I think I understand why you don't understand:  you
>don't read, or just don't follow, what anyone has been replying to
>you.  You expect everyone to be like you.  When only people like you
>are armed...


You would feel secure knowing that everyone on the street is packing?
Wouldn't you wonder about *why* everyone felt the need to carry a weapon?
If the streets were that unsafe, I wouldn't want to walk them with or
without a weapon. That you feel a need to carry a weapon underscores
severe problems in our society that should be addressed. I don't feel
that society's problems are so severe yet that they necessitate an
armed populace, though. Maybe one day that will be true and then you and
I will agree.



>> It makes me feel uncomfortable.
>
>So does disagreement and logic.  But all you have to do is stay in
>California, because in five years, no one will have any handguns, and
>criminals will know that no one is armed.  Long guns are impractical
>for home defense, so there will be more break-ins as well as stick-ups
>and general homicides.  I do not speculate as you do; this is what
>happened in Chicago.  That's a fact.


That, if true, was Chicago. We can both name places where the statistics
will back up our claims. The long and the short of it, though, is that
most criminals *already* assume that their victims are weak and/or unarmed. 
So, the fact that no one was armed wouldn't change their attitudes much.
I think most criminals are afraid of the police/jail than they are of
their victims possibly being armed. As such, I wouldn't predict a major
change in the status quo. If more people felt as you did, and armed
themselves, I doubt criminals would use the same methods they do now. Some
types of crime might decrease, but other types might rise.


Just so that you don't think I don't understand you, one of my dreams is
to sail from country to country in my own boat. Believe me when I tell you
that I would purchase a gun in this situation (both as a tool and to
protect from pirates, etc. because there is no real law enforcement on the
high seas). So, I can see the need for weapons in certain situations, but
I think that overall gun advocates are overstating their needs.


>Not as dispicable as your utter refusal to acknowledge that you could
>be incorrect, or that someone could think differently.  You sound like
>a real tyrant.
>
>There are gun abolitionists here in the U.S., such as yourself, who
>want ALL guns banned, collected, and destroyed, and pose as moderates
>citing "regulatory process" because you realize the way to achieve your
>goal is through ratcheting of regulations.  THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
>HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA.  All owners had to turn them in.  The number of
>homicides committed WITH FIREARMS in the state of Victoria more than
>DOUBLED.  See how safe it is there when law-abiding citizens turn their
>guns in?  The non-law-abiding "citizens," exactly the ones you don't
>want to be armed, have them.


Does my above paragraph sounds like it was written by someone who wants
ALL guns banned, collected, and destroyed? You have characterized me
incorrectly, because that's how you want to perceive me. Gun owners tend
to think that their opponents are extremists, but a lot of us are just
regular people. The polls show that us "regular people" wish for more
controls on guns. Abolition? Maybe in an ideal world. However, you must
admit that something should be done.


>I remember an Aussie imploring after this happened, "Don't give in an
>inch!"
>
>It happened in New Jersey and New York.  As soon as gun owners were
>given enough time to register, their guns were collected by the state.
>Maybe you'd feel safer living in New York City or Newark, NJ?


Well, about 100 years ago Los Angeles was a violent frontier town with
large numbers of armed citizens.  Crime here was worse than ever, and
at one point half of the city's 8 police officers (including the chief)
were killed in a gun battle in what is now downtown. That sort of thing
is a lot less frequent now, even though the percentage of armed citizens
has dropped considerably.  


>***  ARMED CITIZENS COULD HAVE HALTED ANY OF THESE SHOOTING SPREES. ***
>They already have in carry states such as Florida, Mississippi, and
>Texas.


Armed citizens should not take it upon themselves to conduct vigilante
justice simply because the vast majority of them do not have the proper
training. There are certainly situations where an armed citizen could
have averted a trajedy, but these situations are few and far between.
That is why we maintain a force of professional law enforcement officers.



Dimitri