The difference between Liberals, Conservatives, and Southerners...

[maxg]

Boy this gun thread is just flying. The problem is that we are now covering such a wide ground it is becoming difficult to unify the defining principles going on here.

For me there is a huge difference between having a gun as a part of a sport (whether that is hunting animals or shooting clay pigeons, although the former has issues all of its own) and having a gun for protection.

It is, I believe, a sad indicator of the state of any society, that people feel they need a gun to protect themselves in their own homes, or to walk/drive around the places they live and visit.

Whether it is sadder than requiring locks on your doors, burglar alarms and so on is possibly open to debate although I would say it is the sadder merely because it represents so active a step to security in comparison to the passive security devices I provided above.

I would also postulate (with no proof to hand) that a gun as a personal security device is somewhat flawed device for the following reasoning:

Imagine I owned and carried a gun. I wonder whether that simple fact would encourage me to act in a different way from my current norm. In other words there are parts of Athens today I would not consider walking around at night (we have spaced out junkies in Athens too). If I had a gun I fear it would make me more likely to take that risk thereby exposing myself to threat I would not normally face merely as a result of the new found confidence that said gun imparts. Thus exposed to new dangers I would, certainly, be more likely to face the sort of threat situations many of you have mentioned in this thread.

This therefore increases the liklihood that I would use said weapon. Mere ownership changes behaviour if you like. I should reiterate that I dont know for sure that this is the case - I merely suspect it might be.

WARNING - the following is something of a liberal's rant - if your political leaning is to the right of Al Gore you might want to skip this bit:

I have a theory in the making which goes something like this:

I am relatively well off - a success in society if you like. I have a decent household income, nice toys, cars, clothes etc. etc. I spend a proportion of my income to protect these things (locks on windows, burglar alarms, insurance and so on - add in a gun for US equivalents, ammo etc.) I am a "have" in society and am keen to protect myself from the "have-nots".

For some reason I cannot fathom I seem to prefer to spend a proportion of my income on said security than on higher taxation (in any form) to provide a better standard of living for the have-nots, however:

Were a political party to come forward and say "look Max - you currently spent $x on security, worry about whether you have remembered to lock the front door at night and suffer all the usual anxieties of a "have" about someone from the great unwashed coming to take what is yours from you up to and including your life.

Put us in power and we will raise your taxes to the point that it costs you the same as your current taxes plus the amount you spend on security annually. In return we will spend that extra money on creating a society where the "have-nots" become "haves" just like you. We will even indemnify you against loss should you suffer crime against you in consequence.

The benefit to Max is that it doesn't cost me an extra dime to live in society (although it is spent rather differently) but he can worry less about the risk of being a victim of crime."

Of course this rather assumes that "haves" do not go out and commit violent crime (they embezzle, screw you in a business deal, sell you dodgy products, inadequate service and so on but they dont break into your house, hold you at gunpoint and rape the wife).

I am a great believer in the fact that the greatest cost of success is security. The more successful I am the more money I spend securing what is mine and the more I restrict my own life and that of my familly.

Look at the very successful, the billionaires if you like. Ever met one? If you ever did I am willing to bet it was after you met their security guards and it wasnt in the supermarket.

Well its just a theory...

END RANT

[gunman45]

Mdeneen: I must not have been clear in my post so I will answer this way:

You asked, would I die to protect the right to post on this forum? Apparently if I answered "yes" I could be a "guy", but if I answered no I couldn't be a "guy." People who pose those kinds of questions to other people are among the most dangerous people in the world.

First, I was referring to your ability to freely express your thoughts in public and provide a written record of same. In some parts of the world and in the not to distant past this would have resulted in a death sentence, carried out without a trial and immediately! In Americas past, prior to the Revolutionary War it would have resulted in imprisonment. As far as the guys I was referring to are the original framers who at times and at the time risked everything to put their thoughts and beliefs on paper. Dont inject anything else in to it, there is nothing to read between the lines!

XIII Slavery is still practiced in some North African Countries though by any other name is still the same. (1865)

XV, dont think I would prefer to be a woman in a Muslim country TODAY. (1870)

XX Details of how the secession of powers are to be transferred? (By the way it was 1933)

PLUNK???

[PKuziel]

Remember you don't need a gun to kill someone, after all CAIN KILLED ABEL WITH A JAWBONE OF AN ***!

[maxg]

I thought it was Samson that slew 5000 philistines with the jawbone of an ***.

Lethal things jawbones - get you into all kinds of trouble.

[hwatkins]

No, no - Wasn't it Eve who used her *** to corrupt Adam? Or was that asp?

[maxg]

No again, that was Cleopatra who discovered it was a bad idea to try to breast feed an asp..

[TBrennan]

Now I'm not argueing agin guns here but I must say that the pro-gun arguement that you can kill someone with your hands or in Matureian style with the jawbone of an *** is really stupid. What people fear about guns is the EASE with which you can be killed with one; some scrawny, cowardly runt need only pull the trigger.

To kill with the hands or hand weapons takes a certain amount of courage, determination and strength totally unneeded to kill with a gun. Most people feel they could fend off an unarmed attacker or flee if need be, it's different if the attacker has a gun, no?

[gunman45]

----------------

On 1/7/2004 9:00:15 AM TBrennan wrote:

Now I'm not argueing agin guns here but I must say that the pro-gun arguement that you can kill someone with your hands or in Matureian style with the jawbone of an *** is really stupid. What people fear about guns is the EASE with which you can be killed with one; some scrawny, cowardly runt need only pull the trigger.

To kill with the hands or hand weapons takes a certain amount of courage, determination and strength totally unneeded to kill with a gun. Most people feel they could fend off an unarmed attacker or flee if need be, it's different if the attacker has a gun, no?

----------------

Is it different if the attacker has a knife or a bat?

Lets face some truths here,

A read about a couple that were killed during a home invasion, both were in their late 70s and both were stabbed to death. They are dead! Make no mistake; they are just as dead as if they had been shot, beaten by a baseball bat, tire iron, lamp whatever THEY ARE DEAD.

If one of them would have pulled a gun for the night stand and shot their attacker in the face at point blank range I would have not thought of them as cowards.

Sunday morning a jogger was beaten severely by an 18 year old wielding a baseball bat. A passing motorist stopped and drawing his licensed handgun scared the attacker away. No shots were fired. Was the passing motorist a coward? I think not. He should have shot the slimy little SOB. Luckily the jogger is expected to survive and be released from the hospital latter this month.

These are both true news stories from the past 10 days.

Oh, by the way Other Instruments are used in far more murders that firearms (see FBI website).

Other Instruments, gotta love how they use the term. Maybe more woodwind instruments than string.

[gunman45]

Actually, I kind of thought that was the one you were referring to but as I hate to second guess people..

[TBrennan]

Gunman----Cmon, are you seriously saying that knives and bats are as deadly as guns? Gimme a break.

Can they be deadly? Of course. Are they AS deadly as guns? Of course not. Do people fear bats and knives the way they fear guns? No.

[PKuziel]

----------------

On 1/7/2004 9:40:39 AM TBrennan wrote:

Gunman----Cmon, are you seriously saying that knives and bats are as deadly as guns? Gimme a break.

Can they be deadly? Of course. Are they AS deadly as guns? Of course not. Do people fear bats and knives the way they fear guns? No.----------------

I think a jawbone of an *** is the most deadly IMHO. Can they be deadly? Hell yeah! Just ask Abel. I think a jawbone of an *** is just as deadly as a gun, face it. if it kills you it's friggin deadly. And I for one, ever see some crazy SOB running at me with a jawbone of an *** I personally will dispach them with extream prejudice with my bazooka.

[Deang]

[TBrennan]

PK---Only when CB DeMille directs. Actually ole CB made some movies that were pretty deadly weapons.

"Moses, there's a man among the sheep!"

"We don't stop a moving stone for an old woman!"

"The city he builds shall bear my name, the woman he loves will bear my child."

And even very much cattle

[fini]

The jawbone of an *** is also used as a musical instrument, shaken, with teeth rattling. Ask Clipped & Shorn. He's the one who told me.

See how I'm always trying to bring this back around to music?

[TBrennan]

Dean---That's a misdirection play. Perhaps more people are murdered with hammers than with M-15s. How about hammers vs. guns in general? Hmmmm?

[maxg]

Dean,

Interesting choice of weapons on the right. I wonder if that would read the same for the more typical "Saturday Night specials"

"Effects of Maryland's law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns.

Vernick JS, Webster DW, Hepburn LM.

Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Center for Injury Research and Policy and Center for Gun Policy and Research, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Jvernick@jhsph.edu

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a 1988 Maryland law that banned "Saturday night special" handguns on the types of guns used in crime. To determine if controls on the lawful market for handguns affect the illegal market as well. SETTING: Baltimore, Maryland, and 15 other US cities participating in a crime gun tracing project. METHODS: Cross sectional comparison of the proportion of crime guns that are banned by the Maryland law, comparing Baltimore, MD with 15 other cities outside of Maryland. Multivariate linear regression analysis to determine if observed differences between Baltimore and 15 other cities are explained by demographic or regional differences among the cities rather than Maryland's law. RESULTS: Among crime guns, a gun banned by Maryland's law is more than twice as likely (relative risk (RR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 2.5) to be the subject of a crime gun trace request in 15 other cities combined, than in Baltimore. Among homicide guns, a crime especially relevant for public safety, a comparable difference (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.2) was observed. The proportion of Baltimore's crime guns that are banned is 12 percentage points lower than would be expected based on its demographic and regional characteristics alone. Among crime guns purchased after 1990, a much smaller proportion in Baltimore are banned models than in 15 other cities. CONCLUSIONS: Maryland's law has reduced the use of banned Saturday night specials by criminals in Baltimore. Contrary to the claims of some opponents of gun control laws, regulation of the lawful market for firearms can also affect criminals."

[TBrennan]

If we can keep this up it's quite possible I'll be able to spend the entire useless day here at this goddam computer yammering with you guys. I was going to go to Ikea today and look for a lamp.

I'm gonna get a cup of coffee.

[3dzapper]

Max,

Your premise is incorrect on a couple of levels. Your increased tax for security scheme for one. Even with such a plan in place the government would not hold itself responsible if you were harmed. It's called "soverien immunity". There is no way for the Govt. to be in all places at all times(thankfully). This would not affect the super rich as they have private security as you said. Nor would it effect Govt. officials, tax dollars would hire security. The loosers would be those in the middle who have something to loose and no means to secure it. Also the tax burden would fall on those in the middle unfairly. The premise that all criminals or from the have nots is also wrong. Thugs come from all walks of life and crime is an exciting form of life for them not a necessity of their sustanence. Maybe except buying drugs if you consider that a necessity.

An understanding of American culture would help others around the world understand us a little better. America is a land of malcontents. From the first Asians crossing the land bridge From north eastern Asia looking to Central Americans crossing the Mexican border today each wasdissatisfied with their lot and came here. Waves of immigrants from Europe, begining with my ancesters in The Massachusetts Bay Colony have hrought their discontent here. The meek and unadventurous remained behind.The majority of our African American citizen's ancestors were brought here against their will into servitude. Chinese emmegrated in the late 1800s to work on the railroads and improve the lot of their future generations. All, except maybe the enslaved Africans, brought hope and their own brand of bigotry. English hatred of the Irish, French of the Germans, Protestants of Catholics and Jews. Italians were spit upon.Etc,etc,etc.

Despite these differences and because of the same America has prospered. The dreamers still dream and succeed. The criminal minded discontents still prey upon the weak. Americans because of our ancestry are an independent, sceptic lot and would rather rely upon ourselves for personal defense rather than place our trust in the government. Some like Mark, whose views I respect, hold different views. Dispite these differences, amimosities, cultures and races. You don't see the type of things that go on in other parts of the world like to your immediate north in Yugoslavia or in Northern Ireland.

Europeans have a lot to learn from American civility as we have a lot to learn from Europe. Would we want to be like most of Europe? I think the majority would say no. Can Europe become more like America? Integrate amd except newcomers? That remains to be seen. France and Germany especially seem to be having a hard time with it. Enough for now.

Rick

Edit: Max the ban on "Saturday Night Specials" only means that the criminals had to steal more to be able to afford Berrettas and Sigs. I don't think that crime or gun crime has gone down in Baltimore despite the ban. Crime has gone down appreciatly in juristictions with Shall Issue CCW laws.(ie Florida)

[gunman45]

Nope, they have just been used to kill more people! What the diff? Dead is Dead!

Example: 46% of the murders are by firearms. 1994.

Though that percentage has risen, the number (rate) has decreased more than other weapons used. In other words less murders are committed using more guns but this trend is new.

Confused? I am!

[ZAKO]

Do you know why most men die befor women?....Because they want to.