Joe Dees wrote:
>
> >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:07:24 -0400
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >To: extropians@extropy.org
> >Subject: Re: GUNS: Brady Law Has Not Affected Homicide Rates
> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> >
> >Joe Dees wrote:
> >>
> >> >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:37:17 -0400
> >> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >> >To: extropians@extropy.org
> >> >Subject: Re: GUNS: Brady Law Has Not Affected Homicide Rates
> >> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> >> >
> >> >Zero Powers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dare I even *think* the "G" word in this list again? Oh well, once again
> >> >> ignoring my better judgment here goes...
> >> >>
> >> >> "The 1994 Brady law, which required handgun sellers to make background
> >> >> checks and institute waiting periods for buyers, has had little impact on
> >> >> U.S. homicide and suicide rates, researchers said on Tuesday..."
> >> >>
> >> >> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20000801/ts/health_guns_dc_1.html
> >> >
> >> >Actually, I'm rather impressed that you could demonstrate such
> >> >objectivity as to post this article here. It proves what gun sellers and
> >> >gun owners have known: criminals don't buy their guns at gunshops. I do
> >> >doubt, though, that the anti-gun forces like HCI will let themselves be
> >> >confused by the facts.
> >> >
> >> They DO, however, buy them at places where the Brady checks are not in force, such as gun shows. The only sensible response to this fact is to expand the checks to cover those areas also.
> >
> >Really Joe? I did not, in fact, see ANYTHING AT ALL in that article that
> >said any such thing. I suppose I could rely on you to keep the torch of
> >fabricating the 'facts' going in full force. In fact, since gun show gun
> >purchases are considered legal gun purchases AND studies show that less
> >than 3% of gun crimes (outside of suicides, if you call those crimes)
> >are actually committed with legally purchased guns, then I would have to
> >conclude that you are once again lying through your teeth. Please come
> >back when you actually have something truthful to contribute...
> >
> But in fact, since as of the present gun show purchases are NOT under the rubric of the Brady Law, they would not be available to enter in to any statistics. The fact that there are facts that were not mentioned in a particular article does not negate their facticity; otherwise there would be only the need for one article which would contain all past, present and future truth. You very well know that some of the weapons used in the Colorado school shooting were purchased at a gun show. Do you have something against having such purchases checked to keep the purchased guns out of irresponsible, unbalanced, criminal and/or otherwise malevolent hands? Of COURSE you do, because the NRA does, and you are in mantal thrall to their closes-minded and absolutistic dogmatic doctinal line, which you zealously and fervently memetically propagate every chance you get (and some you don't). In fact, you're a fanatic about it, and perfectly fit into Sir Winston Churchill's definition of o!
Since I'm not an NRA member, I'm hardly 'in their thrall'. Frankly, I
don't think they are adamant enough. Since, as I said above, of all gun
crimes, less than 3% are committed by perps with legally purchased guns
(which includes guns bought at gun shows, which are a small percentage
of all gun purchases). Of course, the fact that so little crime is
committed with guns bought at gun shows does not in any way dissuade you
from ranting on and on. It seems to me that it is YOU who perfectly fit
into Churchills definition.
> !
> ne: someone who will not change your mind and cannot change the subject. I'll bet you had a joy spasm when Zero posted that story, because it gave you an opening to indulge in a hundred gun nut posts; I'm quite sure that you'll run with that ball through the goal posts, out of the stadium and into the street.
Actually, Joe, the only think that could keep me posting is if you
continue posting your continuous stream of fabrication, inuendo,
hominem, anecdote and lack of facts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:32 MDT