Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:00:53 -0500
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: What are the reasons for killing?
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Joe Dees wrote:
> >> >Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:32:39 -0500
> >> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> >> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> >Subject: Re: What are the reasons for killing?
> >> >Reply-To: email@example.com
> >> >
> >> >Robert Owen wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Joe E Dees wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I favor keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals,
> >> >> > proven intimidating abusers, and the mentally incompetent and/or
> >> >> > deranged, and ONLY them. I have no problem whatsoever with
> >> >> > RESPONSIBLE gun ownership by the general citizenry (I own five
> >> >> > of them).
> >> >>
> >> >> So then WHAT is this persistent debate about, anyway? What
> >> >> person with normal awareness of public safety requirements
> >> >> and of the incidence of human injury and death by means of
> >> >> firearms could object on rational grounds to the following?
> >> >>
> >> >> 1] Convicted hyperaggressive felons should be denied legal
> >> >> ownership of any lethal weapon, even if the enforcement
> >> >> of the law has intractable practical limitations.*
> >> >
> >> >Already the law. This is actually the easiest one to enforce, as you probably
> >> >know from the NRA pioneered Operation Exile that took place in Richmond, and the
> >> >effect it had on crime.
> >> >
> >> To enforce any of these requires a purchase-prohibited registry.
> >Which already exists and has been operating for two years. The Insta-Check system, which was forced into the Brady Law by the NRA over the opposition from HCI, is a purchase prohibited database. Contrary to the law, Klinton & Kompany are trying to use its audit information trails as an illegal and unconstitutional national registration system.
> How can it be used as such, if only those who cannot purchas are included in it?
They are recording who it is that is being checked on, and that data is
being saved. The Brady Law requires that if someone passes and is
approved, that the data the shows that they were even checked on is
supposed to be destroyed permanently. Reno and company are keeping the
data, claiming that they need it for 'auditing' work, which is bogus.
There is currently a class action mandamus lawsuit in the courts against
the ATF, FBI, Justice, and Reno and Freeh personally. If they don't
comply with a mandamus court order they can be held personally liable,
and the govt isn't allowed to pay their fines.
> >> >> 2] Spousal or child abusers who have either been convicted
> >> >> of aggravated assault, assault with intent, etc. or known
> >> >> by the Child Protective or Welfare Agencies locally to be
> >> >> violent by history should be likewise denied ownership.
> >> >
> >> >Violent by history? Who gets to make the history?
> >> >
> >> The abusers make their own; others just recognize it.
> >I've seen many instances where spouses fabricate evidence against their husbands. Even at the highest levels. Caroline and Chuck Douglas, two of the top lawyers in NH, (and Chuck is on the state Supreme Court) had a really nasty divorce, where Caroline lost her divorce claims against Chuck, and lost in her opinion of the value of their shared law firm. She has now been convicted of fabricating evidence, claiming
> >abuse, fabricating harassing phone calls to herself, etc.. I won't say this is the norm, as there is plenty of abuse that does go on, but this is used for a cover often enough that its not just to take this at face value without a thorough hearing in a courtroom.
> It's a matter of lesser evils; I think that a lot of dead spouses and ex-spouses is the greater evil.
I do too, but I insist that the court system get some expidition going.
If you are going to court to get a restraining order because you have
evidence he is violent, then you have enough evidence to charge and jail
him for crimes. The courts don't want to jail them because they don't
want to fill the jails with anyone who isn't a drug dealer.
> >> >> 6] ANYONE known by properly constituted authority to be
> >> >> legally irresponsible in the use of firearms for ANY purpose,
> >> >> including collecting, selling, trading or the mechanical
> >> >> alteration of firearms should be denied ownership.
> >> >
> >> >Collecting guns is a legally irresponsible behavior? Who made you god, or Freud?
> >> >
> >> Responsible adults should be able to obtain the firearms they need. Who needs twenty thousand? Members of the National Alliance, serving as arsenals?
> >The exercise of one's rights, according to the Supreme Court, is not determined by a person's needs. You don't need to vote, or open your yap every time you have something to say, but it is your right.
> How many guns do citizens need to function in a "well-regulated militia"? Certainly not more than they can carry on bivouac. People can bear arms, and have the right to do same, without bearing thousands each.
the militia clause was merely an explaination for why the peope needed
the right. It did not place any limits on that right and stated there
should be no infringement. If they wanted you to have only enough guns
to act as an infantryman, they would have written it like the Swiss
I understand your objection, but law abiding collectors are not and
never have been a problem. Personally if you took single guns away from
every crack dealer and wife beater and left collectors alone I'd be
happier. Show me one case where a collector went nuts and used his huge
collection to kill tons of people and I'll listen to the argument. One
man can only use so many guns at one time, so saying he can't own more
doesn't have any effect on crime or his ability if he snaps.
> >> >
> >> >> 7] The retailing of firearms should be limited to, without
> >> >> exception, state-owned stores, just as in some states
> >> >> liquor sales are currently regulated.
> >> >
> >> >So when the state decides that it doesn't want people to buy guns anymore it
> >> >closes the stores. Beautiful. Extremely extropic. NOT.
> >> >
> >> Private and dealer sales should be allowed, so long as they are from and to responsible adults, after checking a purchase-prohubuted registry.
> Regulation of any trade occuring between two private individuals who are residents of the same state is not the province of the federal government. It only has control over interstate trade. As a rule, anyone who desires to limit their own liability will take their gun to a gunshop and have the gunshop perform the InstaCheck. Insurance companies, if they found this to be a significant liability issue, would be
> >justified in mandating this on any policies they sell. I think its telling that we have yet to hear of any companies which do so. They must not see it as a significant issue.
> Sales at gun shops, flea markets, pawn shops, garage sales, between private individuals, and any other place that a criminal might go to attempt to circumvent a background check in pursuit of a criminal tool should have to perform such checks in order to deter criminals from using purchases via such avenues as background check circumvention methods. This could easily be done both online and via 1-800 number. Responsible gun owners, who wish only to transfer the guns they sell into the hands of other responsible citizens, should applaud rather than oppose such measures.
To do this, you'd have to rescinde the Privacy Act of 1974. At this
point, only gun dealers can access the InstaCheck system, because they
are federally licensed.
> >> >> 8] ALL firearms owned by private individuals should be com-
> >> >> prehensively registered with an appropriate local law-
> >> >> enforcement agency. Private trading should be banned.
> >> >
> >> >SO when the state decides it doesn't want you to own them anymore, it knows
> >> >where to go to confiscate them, just as it has already done so in New York,
> >> >California, Britain, and Australia. Banning private trade means that you ban
> >> >private property. The state controls who owns it.
> >> >
> >> Trade should not be banned if it is between individuals not included in a purchase-prohibited registry, but guns should be fired before sals, as NY Gov. Pataki urges, to aid in locating perpetrators. I think that registration for machines designed for the express purpose of easy and rapid long-distance multiple killing should be registered if machines designed for transportation are.
> If you claim that that is the only purpose of guns, then I claim that knives are machines developed for that purpose too. Are all knives going to be registered?
> So, knives can be used for easy rapid long-distance multiple killing? One of those rapid-stab hundred-yard supersonic boomerang knives, ayy?
What kind of range are you talking about? Most violent crime occurs
within a range of 15 feet. Crooks are not snipers.
> I dinna think so, and further do not think you read carefully before typing in such a bad analogy.
Ok, how about compound bows and crossbows?
> >> >
> >> >> 9] Penalties for first time and repeated offenders should be
> >> >> equal to or greater in severity than those that currently
> >> >> apply to violators of motor vehicle laws. A point system
> >> >> or other device could be used to determine when a license
> >> >> must be suspended.
> >> >
> >> >Since motor vehicles kill and injure far more people, even though there are
> >> >fewer cars than guns, this is totally unjustifiable.
> >> >
> >> More people are killed in New York by guns than by autos.
> >Really, do you have a reference?
> NY Governor George Pataki, in AP newspaper article 16 March 2000:
> "Pataki said at a news conference that while violent crime has fallen in New York, more New Yorkers are still being killed by guns than car crashes.
> 'That must change', he said."
> On the same page in a different article, it was reported that 4205 US youths (people under 20) were killed by gunfire in 1997, down from a high of 5793 in 1994.
Actually, that was for all people 25 and under, and they call them
children...in any event, the rates going down, right? So whats the
Of juveniles (age 12-17) killed by gunfire, 61% were homicides, 30%
were suicides, 7% were accidental, and the remaining 2% could not be
determined. Of all youths murdered, 75% were killed with a firearm, 15%
with a knife or blunt object, 7% by other means, and 3% with hands,
fists or feet.
> (Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Justice)
> >> >
> >> >> 10] First time gun owners should be tested by written and
> >> >> optical exams just as motor vehicle owners are now. It
> >> >> would not be required to be relicensed unless a violation
> >> >> of firearms laws, statutes and ordinances was a matter of
> >> >> court record. (See -8- and -9-)
> >> >
> >> >Who gets to decide what the test is, and are test results going to be public
> >> >documents?
> >> >
> >> I'm sure the NRA would be consulted on the tests, as would law enforcement and firearm manufacturers. People should not be afraid of a little study which can only benefit them by insuring that they know how to operate the firearm safely and properly - we're not talking about Jim Crow poll tests, here. The reason one is included in a purchase-prohibited registry should not be included as part of the registry.
> >What does your last sentence mean, it seems self contradictory.
> THAT you are prohibited from purchasing firearms, if indeed you are so prohibited, should of course appear on the registry; WHY you are prohibited from purchasing firearms should NOT appear on the registry.
So it should not discriminate between people who are violent felons and
people who are merely stupid or have poor eyesight? That will make a lot
of people 'guilty' by assocition...
> >> >> I cannot stress enough the revulsion I feel toward those who
> >> >> reject such rational social controls on the ostensible basis of
> >> >> some abstract idealist polity or manifesto using ad populum
> >> >> terms like "freedom" and "rights" to induce emotional support
> >> >> for irresponsible firearm ownership among those who are either
> >> >> socially incompetent, illiterate or simply too immature to under-
> >> >> stand the implications of such terms when applied to the real
> >> >> world.
> >> >
> >> >Then you are no extropian.
> >> >
> >> It is not up to you to decide who is and is not extropian, but to attempt to do so is itself unextropian.
> >Based on the Extropian Principles ( http://www.extropy.org/extprn3.htm ):
> >1. Perpetual Progress — Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an indefinite lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and
> >psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities. Expanding into the universe and advancing
> >without end.
he talks about imposing government restraint on people, contrary to the
avowed extropian goal of 'removal of political, cultura, biological, and
psychological limits' and 'overcomeing constraints on our progress and
> >2. Self-Transformation — Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, personal responsibility, and
> >experimentation. Seeking biological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement.
he acts like the average person cannot be trusted to be responsible for
themselves, he we advocate personal responsiblity. He makes many
unwarranted assumptions, where we advocate critical thinking.
> >3. Practical Optimism — Fueling action with positive expectations. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism.
Carrying a gun is action based optimism, and being rational, rather than
being ruled by the false statistical claims of anti-gunners..
> >4. Intelligent Technology — Applying science and technology creatively to transcend "natural" limits imposed by our biological heritage, culture, and environment.
> >Seeing technology not as an end in itself but as an effective means towards the improvement of life.
Guns are technology, thats all they are. Fear of an inanimate object is
a psychosis, such people need help and should not be trusted to make
> >5. Open Society — Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring
> >the rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia.
"Opposing authoritarian social control, and favoring the rule of law and
decentralization of power." Mr. Owen is all for authoritarian social
controls it seems, and prefers using the force of a central government
to ram his opinions down other people's throats rather than using
decentralized systems already in place.
> >6. Self-Direction — Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others.
"individual freedom, personal responsiblity.." is not done by
confiscating the Bill of Rights.
> >7. Rational Thinking — Favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. Remaining open to challenges to our beliefs and practices in pursuit of
> >perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our existing beliefs while being open to new ideas.
The facts are in and support the pro-gun argument. Anti-gunners are so
solidified in their dogma that guns are evil that they refuse to be
confused by the facts.
> >As I see it, his multi-point post violates every one of these principles.
> That's your biased opinion; my biased opinion is not the same as yours.
Ok thats why I broke it down above.
> >> >
> >> >> It is truly astonishing that, after the perhaps 2,500-year
> >> >> documentation of the human tendency to inflict violence on
> >> >> his own kind to achieve merely selfish ends, we still listen to
> >> >> those who advocate that some personal acquisitive desire
> >> >> should be regarded as superordinate to the welfare of the
> >> >> community upon which this individual depends. Any claim
> >> >> of privilege is forfeit by those whose very polemics are
> >> >> grounded in social indifference.
> >> >
> >> >Considering the proof that this 'personal acquisitive desire' actually
> >> >contributes to the safety and welfare of society, your argument is baseless. You
> >> >start your post here off stating reasonable and normal proposals of responsible
> >> >use, then you veer off into this wild, big brother, totalitarian rant that I
> >> >cannot fathom the origination of. Please explain why you subscribe to this list
> >> >instead of the more normally non-liberty based >H list.
> >> >--
> >> I guess you'll call him a statist, fascist, leftist zombie next. Killfiling and/or trying to chase off or intimidate those who have a different opinion from your own is hegemonistic, totalitarian, Borgian and quite typical of you, it seems.
> >If it walks like a duck....
> So you'll admit to fitting the characterization in the second sentence? You've certainly employed the slanders in the first - or do you only consider it name-calling if it's done TO you, not BY you? It's your talk; is it your walk? If so, it is unextropian in the extreme.
I expect that a person who says things like Mr. Owen is pretty obvious
to most intelligent people, and most people know a penny-ante despot
when they see one. I have proven in the past that some gun laws were
created by racists, and others were translated from Nazi era german gun
laws. We have the evidence of history how dictatorial regeimes always
will confiscate guns before they start to slap the people down.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:41 MDT