Date sent: Wed, 26 May 1999 18:21:54 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Property Rights Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
> > >
> > > >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.
> Flow to and from where? There are 200 million guns here, everywhere, right now. If they banned the manufacture of new guns, they still couldn't stop the black market distribution of the guns that are already out there in the criminal economy. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Just because you already have an avalanche is no reason not to stop adding snow. This is not about outlawing guns; this is about keeping them out of irresponsible hands. Chanting your robotic "outlaw" mantra one more time will not change that.
> > > >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.
> 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?
> > > >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.
> > > >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.
> > >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, 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!).
> Mike Lorrey