Re: Property Rights

Joe E. Dees (
Wed, 26 May 1999 18:38:25 -0500

Date sent:      	Wed, 26 May 1999 19:44:00 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: Property Rights
Send reply to:

> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > > Joe, the girlfriend who bought the two guns at the show had NO criminal record, so she would have passed a background check. So the law is useless as it pertains to Littleton repeats. Get it?
> > >
> > Then pass and publicize a law making the purchase of guns by
> > such people for the purposes of transfer to people unable to obtain
> > them on their own a crime; then maybe she wouldn't have done it.
> Joe, that law is already on the books. Its one of the ones they violated. It didn't seem to stop them, now, did it?
In that case, she should be prosecuted for violating it; I'm quite sure she will be sued by the parents of the dead.
> > > 90% of violent crime is commited by criminals ON OTHER CRIMINALS. So who is being the nimrod? Its not the gun that makes you immature and sociopathic, idiot. Criminals have that to begin with. Pull your head out.
> > >
> > No, but it makes them much more efficient long-distance killers of
> > many people. And the other 10% doesn't matter to you?
> Suicides and wives killing their abusive husbands, plus rapes (without guns) and others. Most gun killings happen at point blank up to a ten yard range. That is NOT long distance.
There are exceptions to every rule, but they do not disprove the rule, merely probe its scope by means of their status as exceptions. If the spouse is acquitted in court, they don't lose their right to keep and bear. The penalty for suicide should be death ;~) Let's castrate the rapists (chemically or otherwise) before we consider killing them (but what does that have to do with crazed armed teens running amuck in school halls?).
> > > > > >But not compared to the massacres which are now routinely
> > > > > >perpetrated in our schools by those to whom we look to carry the
> > > > > >future.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yes, and if schools were not the only place in America from which guns are banned, then those murderers would not have been so confident that they could get away with what they did.
> > >
> > There was a guard with a gun there; he didn't stop them. They
> > engaged in a running gun battle with him and were not hit. He was
> > always there, so they had to know about him, and his armed
> > presence was obviously no deterrent. Chuck Heston made the
> > same assumptive mistake you just did, and he later issued a
> > retraction and an apology.
> He was not a guard, but a deputy who was there to check on one of those kids. Besides, they still outgunned him, one man. I'm talking about letting any teacher that wants to carry concealed. That deputy also did not 'carry on a running gun battle'. He got a few shots off and ran.
Oh, so if there are two thousand kids in a school, you'll want 2001 armed guards there? Well, it might give all of those NRA members day jobs...
> > >
> > > > > >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.
> > >
> > > I know of at least two teachers I had in school in the 80's who carried, and I am sure there were more I did not know about.
> > >
> > Anecdotal, assumptive and particular. In other words, you can't tell
> > me when and where in our history teachers _routinely_ toted guns
> > in school (because it ain't never happened), but didn't wanna admit
> > as much.
> Two teachers out of less than 30 is a decent percentage. Most people who carry concealed weapons do so for a reason: they don't want people to know they are carrying, so why in the hell would they tell anyone? We used to have ROTC in school along with hunter safety. These have all been forced
> campus as the NEA got a stranglehold on our schools.>
Concealed weapons do not function as specific deterrents; the chance that your average person will be carrying is still low enough for your average criminal to risk it. Plus, I think that any teacher in school with a gun in his or her pocket is more dangerous than decent. Keep them All out of schools, except for those the guards have, with metal detectors.
> > > > >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.
> > >
> > > Now that is a good start. Thats the first time I have heard an anti-gun nut actually admit that that was a problem.
> > >
> > Many gun nuts were bullied when they were kids, and now widely
> > advertize their packing of "equalizers" as a compensatory reaction,
> Actually, as Freud discovered, fear of guns was an indication of stunted sexual development and emotional immaturity. He called it hoplophobia.
I thought he discovered that carrying big guns was a compensatory mechanism employed by those with limp or little dicks.
> > even though the need for protection from physical threat is much
> > smaller in day-to-day adult life than it is for schoolkids. A useful
> > side-effect of such a zero tolerance policy would possibly be a
> > reduction in the conditioning of future gun nuts (oh, the NRA's
> > gonna oppose it now!).
> Yeah, it just conditions people into being good little slaves to the government. Physical threats are much lesser in day to day adult life because adults carry concealed weapons on a day to day basis, thus the deterrent effect reduces the threat. I am still amazed that anti-gunners still fail
at this
> simple cause and effect logic. Irrational.
The chances are small that any particular person will be packing, so the criminal is quite willing to play the odds (are or you gonna tell us that the intrepid concealed carriers among us have rendered us crime free?). Most criminals conceal their weapons. See, you liked the idea until I mentioned that it might negatively impact NRA membership; then you promptly flip-flopped 180 and opposed it. Typical irrational knee-jerk gun nut.
> Mike Lorrey