Ok, the discussion seems to be in full bloom here, so I don't hold back...On Wednesday 09 July 2003 23:15, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:JoeHill wrote:On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:52:53 -0400 "Ronald J. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:I've got a better question for Joe...lets say I was passing by when I saw the 5 break into your home with the obvious intent of doing harm...I've got a gun....would you rather have me intervene, using my legally owned and registered gun, or throw the gun down first, because of your views/feelings about guns???ah, yes, the ancient art of fear-mongering, the specialty of the clueless and uneducated, also Nazis, Tyrants, Warmongers, etc.The Nazis banned guns as soon as they could to keep the citizenry from fighting back when they screwed them.The nazis were right-wing. (has nothing to do with your point, but I just wanted to say it)
I subscribe to neither the opinions of the right-wing nor the left.
did you know that it is 10 times more likely for you to be killed by a relative or friend than a "bunch of crazy thugs"? No. I thought not. Did you know that the incidence of "random" or "home invasion" killings/rapes/robberies has been on the decline in Canada for over a decade thanks to the police not having to worry about everybody and their dog not having a handgun? No. I thought not.That's not even remotely true. Home invasion has gone up considerably, as has violent crimes, and armed robberies, in every country that has implemented a total ban on guns.PLEASE, show some prove for your statements.
I'll have to get back to you as I don't have all of my info bookmarked and/or easily available. It's hard to provide an URL for a paragraph in a book. You can take that statement however you like, but I'd prefer you took it as I meant it.
Please show me some URLs (not some right-wing books that are not worth my money, or at least some quotes and statistics from the books, because I will not buy them to look it up). Show me that "firearms prevent more crimes than they are used in/cause" as you said it. Tell my why america has some 12000 gun-related deaths (quoting from memory) [although in: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/guns97.pdf there is 34'000 to 39'000 gun-related deaths each year. (measured 1993-1996)] while others like Germany with more strict gun-controls have 400? It's quite a difference. In USA 14 people per 100'000 die per year involving firearms. That is only superceded by Jamaika and Brasil. (Germany has 1.4 [that is 10% of US of A rate], Greece 1.87, Japan 0.07.....) source: United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm The report: http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf Some URL like that maybe? Not some racists book...
Are you kidding me? How can you apply logic so well when it comes to computers but totally fail when it comes to the real world? Are you implying that every single individual that has been associated with Lott's publisher is by that mere association a racist?
Try again.
Use your brain. There is a reason people don't go up and mess with Pit Bulls an such powerful animals. They don't want to get hurt.The reason why these dogs get outlawed here is exactly the same as why guns are restricted: _look_ at them. I don't want those fucked up people who own a Pit Bull have one. As I don't want those brain-dead alcoholic gun-crazy redneck to have one.
You totally missed the point. I apologize for not making it clearer.
The point was--you don't mess with a Pit Bull because it's obvious the dog is quite capable of hurting you if you try to hurt it. It is the same with humans. You don't want to mess with a human that is obviously capable of hurting you if you try to hurt them. My description of criminals being cowards, but not stupid, reflects that fact.
When given the choice between attacking a little old lady with a thousand dollars in her purse and a very large football player with a thousand dollars in his pocket which do you think would be the more likely target?
What if you now gave that old lady a gun, taught her how to use it, and informed that same attacker that she had a gun and knew how to use it? Now which one would be the more likely target? I think, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but I think that this is coming very close to a lose-lose situation for our attacker.
Let's sweeten the deal. The old lady has $10,000. Still not looking good for the attacker.
Only a complete idiot wouldn't get what I'm saying at this point.
In fact I am more afraid of these than all robbers and criminals at all. The more guns, the more they will be used, the more will die. Simple and easy.Criminals are generally cowards, but they are not neccesarily stupid. They would much rather try to rob, rape or kill someone who they know is unable to defend themselves than someone they either know, or suspect, might be armed and capable of putting them in a large pine box.Watch too much TV lately?
Wow. What did that have to do with anything I said?
b.
-- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
