Date sent: Tue, 25 May 1999 05:05:32 -0700 (PDT) From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Property Rights Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Joe E. Dees [email@example.com] wrote:
> >Mindfully reacting to the misuse of hardware by calling for laws
> >restricting access to the hardware by those who are most likely to
> >misuse it (violent criminals, spouse abusers, the insane, children,
> >etc.) is both rational and supported by any faculty of reason
> >deserving of the name.
> Yet it won't work. Even the Dumbocrats have admitted that their new laws
> would have done nothing to stop the school shootings. The list of laws the
> killers at Littleton broke is two or three pages long: why would another
> one make any difference?
If the purchase can be prevented (bg checks at gun shows, where two of the weapons were purchased), the potential perps have no triggers to squeeze.
> >You either know, or should, that the effects of
> >such measures can only be determined in practice.
> Indeed; DC has pretty much banned gun ownership for decades now, and has
> one of the highest murder rates in the world. Numerous countries have
> banned guns 'to reduce crime'... it's never worked. Why should this time
> be any different?
That's because of the checkerboard state laws we have; national standards would shut off the interstate flow.
> >BTW, how dare you presume to arrogate yourself
> >the "moral responsibility" for the consequenses of an anonymous
> >other's death?
> Joe, you're an utter fucking hypocrite. You're arguing for laws to disarm
> people, many of whom will be killed as a consequence, and you complain
> that we're causing anonymous people's deaths.
They're only identified as victims once they're SHOT, nimrod; you wanna know who they are? Read Time, Newsweek, U.S News. Their names are plastered all over those mags. I'm arguing for laws to keep guns out of the hands of immature and sociopathic people, many of which will NOT become KILLERS as a result! For you to rail against that is fucking irresponsible.
> >But not compared to the massacres which are now routinely
> >perpetrated in our schools by those to whom we look to carry the
> Which must contribute a whole... oh... maybe 0.1% to the US murder rate.
To some parents, its 100% of their children. These are not dehumanizeable statistics (though you would dearly like to relegate them to that position); these were individual teenaged human beings, whose futures were stolen from them forever.
> >I'm a military vet, a hunter, and
> >own five guns of my own, yet the idea of these kids killing each
> >other like they are in some crazed puter game is incomprehensible
> >to me.
> No, you *REFUSE* to comprehend it. The answer is simple: the government
> youth concentration camps are utterly fucked up, and life there for smart
> kids is hell. The government has chosen to disarm teachers,
Please tell me when and where in our history our teachers routinely toted guns in school.
>so the kids
> know that if they go in shooting they'll have no resistance, and the media
> love to splash reports of these crimes over the front pages, so they'll
> get lots of publicity. Hey, you're a smart kid, you've been shit on all
> your life by stupid assholes, now you have a chance to get even and get
> famous. Why not?
It's the Shane meme in action. One change that needs to be made is the institution of a zero tolerance policy nationwide concerning hazing, teasing, and harassment in schools.
> Only to those who prefer to push their own agenda rather than solve the
> real problems find this incomprehensible. If you still do, how about you
> go and read: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/25/1438249.shtml.
> Oh, and BTW, since the media outrage against the Littleton shootings,
> there have been another four or five around the world. Why aren't you
> campaigning to ban media reporting, since the latest shootings almost
> certainly wouldn't have happened were it not for the sensationalist
> news reports?
Copycats infected by the "Shane" meme, which is standard fodder in most movie fare.
> After pointing out that he would kill those who opposed his laws,
And where the fuck did I do that, YOU GODDAMNED LIAR!?! I said that I would kill anyone who tried to kill me for holding my opinions in America, where freedom of speech and thought are supposed to be basic rights. Get your fucking facts straight, you pompous, hemorrhoidal asshole!
> >The insane among us are those who, for whatever sick or
> >profitteering reason, not only refuse to close the loopholes which
> >lead to such weapons possession, but who continue to either
> >stand idly by or applaud as the gun industry, to support its future
> >position in the marketplace, sells maiming, paralysis, coma and
> >death to our children via the same shamelessly cynical product
> >placement ad campaigns we see employed to push tobacco.
> Joe also said, in an earlier message:
> >The very same tactic the Inquisitionists, Nazis and antiabortionists
> >use: First demonize those who disagree with you, call them villains
> >and consciousless subhumans; then you can feel righteous pride
> >when you kill them, rather than guilt or shame.
> Pot. Kettle. Black. Feeling that righteous pride yet, Joe?
Since you LIED in the statement of your premise, your conclusion of contradiction is itself unsound.
> The defence rests.
Yeah, that insane need to defend a piece of metal in your fist by killing people with it. Defending people isn't even an issue with you full-moon-howling loonies; kill 'em all, but defend the precious guns.