🚀 go-pugleaf

George Worley <gworley@brokersys.com> wrote:
> on 27 Jul 1998 14:05:28 -0400, jjasen1@umbc.edu (John "E.R." Jasen)
> wrote:
> >Usually, these studies are false -- in other words, they cooked the books.
> >One noteable study added suicide and homicide via firearms in America,
> >then compared them to just plain homicide worldwide.
> 
> These figures from the NRA not mine.

Lie.

> >> In 1995 (sorry don't have the figures for 1996 or 1997), there were
> >> more the 5000 innocent children killed by guns.
> >
> >This is off by over an order of magnitude.
> 
> Once again these figures come from the NRA not mine.

Big lie.

> >> The 2nd Amendment only
> >> gives you the right to own and carry guns.  Our forefathers when the
> >> wrote this probably was not referring to weapons of mass destruction
> >> like AK-47's and other assault rifles, these type weapons were made
> >> for only one purpose -- to kill another human being and at last check
> >> murder was still illegal in all 50 states and all of the commonwealths
> >> like Puerto Rico.
> >
> >An AK-47 is not a weapon of mass destruction, I hate to tell you, and a)
> >an AK-47, just like any other firearm, has on;y one function -- to expell
> >projectiles in a consistent manner. Everything else is up to the user, and
> >b) self defense is *not* murder. Please try hard to realize that defending
> >your life, limb and property from someone intent on taking them is just
> >plain the right thing to do.
> 
> By your reason, a bay designed to launch rockets carrying nuclear
> weapon is nothing more the to expel a projectile in a consistent
> manner.   

Well, loosely, yes. The rocket bay is more towards holding the rocket and
worrying about backblast, but otherwise we'll let your analogy stand.

The basic fact remains is that the firearm or the rocket-bay just sits
there until someone decides to use it, in which case the onus of "good or
evil" or "tool or weapon" is solely up to the user.

> These bays like the AK47, M16, and M1 assault rifles was
> designed for one thing mass destruction of humans... 

The firearms you list, again, were designed to consistently expel
projectiles, reliably, under a variety of conditions.

The projectiles, bullets, were designed to deliver X amount of kinetic
energy out to the range that the Powers That Be deemed it necessary.

That the kinetic energy they deliver is of sufficient amount to reliably
kill a person, is what makes the weapon useful for war.

> they are not
> designed for hunting deer or elk.   I saw a deer shot with an AK47
> once.. there wasn't much left of the deer that could be salvaged for
> food.

Ummm, in a word, bullshit. If you knew anything about rifle calibers, you
would realize the error of this statement.

A brief rundown, for people more hopeful of education than you:

"AK-47" round, usually a 7.62x39, carrying about a 125gr bullet, with a
velocity of 2200fps, which supposedly turns deer into hamburger.

7.62 NATO ~~ .308 Winchester, carrying about a 147 grain bullet, moving at
roughly 2800fps, which is generally acceptable for hunting.

.30-06, carrying a 147-150 grain bullet, moving at roughly 3200fps, which
hunters have liked for years.

So, how can a generally weaker round, that is somewhere between rifle and
handgun power and velocity, turn a deer into hamburger?

> NOW TELL ME THAT YOU NEED AN AK47 FOR HUNTING and I call you
> liar.

See above. I wouldn't recommend a 7.62x39 for deer hunting. However, the
AK, being a decent example of the KISS rule of engineering, can take a lot
of abuse and function reliably, and I might recommend one for people who
might want a "beater" rifle for something like that.

> >Our forefathers were much smarter than us, as is demonstrated in the 2nd
> >and 10th amendments to the US Constitution, showing all future generatiosn
> >that the final "check" and "mate" in our governmental system of "checks"
> >and "balances" remains with the people.
> 
> But with a less violent means called voting.

And what do you do when voting fails? What do we do, say if
<hypothetically>Clinton declares martial law to get us out of the Y2K
problem, and it just never goes away?</hypothetically>

> >> The statics for this would amaze you... more people get killed with
> >> their own weapon then prevent the crime the first place.
> >For statitics and studies with much more integrity, you may want to review
> >the works of John Lott, as well as those of Gary Kleck -- both of which
> >lend incredible credence to the pro-firearms side.
> 
> All the stats I have quoted came from the NRA so give me a break..

And I work for Bill Clinton ...

> >Johny Blow can't do this, now,
> 
> Bull shit... gun shows are not regulated anybody can purchase a gun
> without any checks.  I know the last gunshow I attend no one even
> asked me for ID when I purchased a handgun.

That is a problem currently between you, the seller and the state -- not
me.

> >and Johnny Blow should not have gotten out of jail if he can't be trusted 
> >to behave himself.
> 
> If Johnny Blow was given a 5 year sentence and he served all of his 5
> years there is nothing that any one can do to keep him in prison now
> is there?  According the laws of the land he served his debt to
> society and has to be returned to society unless you advocating a
> change to this policy where everyone that is convicted is thrown in
> jail and the key thrown a way which I believe is unconstitutional.

No, throwing everyone in prison for life would not be effective.

However, neither is our current system, now is it?

Try http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~jjasen1/guns/prison.txt for the beginnings of
an idea on fixing our prison system

--
"Frankly, Agent Mulder, alien abduction is the more believable option."
			Agent Skinner, X-Files, 3/09/98 [paraphrase] 
-- John E. Jasen  // DNRC Ambassador to Earth \\  jjasen1@umbc.edu --
-- My views are those of the DNRC only. Prepare to be domesticated --