🚀 go-pugleaf

Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<2juh3.255$ml3....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>...
> From: David Geesaman <gees...@newsguy.com>
> 
> > > Yes knives *could* kill
> >
> >              ^ Do ^
> 
> Could/Do, depends how you look at it.
> 
> > > Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They
are
> a
> > > tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't
need
> a
> > > gun.
> >
> > This is not true.  There are several good reasons to own a gun.  A
knife
> is
> > used frequently, for small tasks.  A gun (outside of hunting and target
> > shooting) is used infrequently, in extreme circumstances.  But they are
> both
> > tools, both incidentally used in crime, both completely controlled by
the
> user.
> >
> > Where can a gun be used?  Here are a few very realistic cases:
> >
> > 1) Wild animals.  If you live anywhere outside of a city, you have
> certainly
> > seen bear, porcupine, wolverine, stray dogs, or rabid racoons, skunks,
> etc.  A
> > gun is the best protection against a large animal.  It doesn't happen
> often, but
> > having a gun around has saved many people in situations involving an
> > unpredictable animal.  Did you know that Shark fishermen frequently
carry
> a
> > handgun (like a .38 or .357) in their boat so that they can quickly and
> > effectively kill a dangerous animal before bringing it into the boat?
> 
> You shoot skunks and porcupine?  What are you afraid they'll do to you?
> Yeah a gun saved many peoples lives when they were attacked by animals,
but
> so did knives, cameras, rocks, and other items people grabbed to defend
> themselves.  

	First off, I did not state when it is necessary to kill an animal.  The
animals I mentioned are nocturnal and generally very skittish, and they
will usually only approach a human when they have rabies.  And yes, the
answer to a rabid animal is to kill it.  Ask and park ranger or state
police trooper and they will agree.
	Large animals like bear can be attracted to food in trash cans or
backpacks - and they won't turn away easily.  Even a .22 rifle is an
excellent tool for removing gophers.

> There are better potential solutions out there to stop wild
> animals then killing them.  How about using some kind of long distance
> electric stun gun?  

	Are you willing to buy me one?  This isn't Star Trek, and you may be
thinking of a Taser, which more/less requires you to be very close or
touching your target.  I don't see any such thing available in stores, do
you?
	Again, I reserve the right to choose the best tool for the job, whether
its a gun, knife, or phillips-head screwdriver.

> I'm sure if people wanted a better solution they could
> come up with one.  If americans can send a man to the moon, I think they
can
> come up with ways to knock an animal out in its tracks.  Guns are a good
> solution to hunting, but not for self defence.

	Au contraire.  Guns are the best self defense in many situations, and I'm
not going to let any government or voter tell me what to use.

> > 2) Intruders.  Having a gun is a deterrent.  A locked, alarmed gun case
> will
> > turn a burglar around quicker than a toothy dog.  They know that they
are
> likely
> > up against a responsible, aware gun owner.  The argument over whether a
> gun is
> > always effective in preventing a crime is still up in the air, but here
in
> the
> > US, the government explicitly protects my right to make that decision
> myself.
> > This case is a big issue and I won't attempt to cover any more in this
> list.
> 
> Why would a burglar turn around and run when he/she stumbles upon a gun
> case?  

	Because they do.  Burglars don't want to be shot, they just want
valuables.  Why try to burglarize a house if you _know_ it has guns and the
owners know how to handle them?  In addition, a properly locked gun case is
a sign of a responsible and well informed gun owner - the most dangerous to
a theif.  Burglars are scared, too.

> This would only indicate that there are guns in the house and he
> should shoot anyone who he sees because they are now a threat.  It could
> also be the only guns in the house and the people inside are unarmed.  

	Or it couldn't.  Most theives will tell you that they'd rather not take
that chance when there is a house with NO guns further down the block.

> A gun
> case would mean nothing to me if I were robbing a house except that I
should
> be more cautious.  One again, I think some form of weapon that stuns
people
> should replace the gun, specifically for paranoid home owners.
	
	Again, no such tool exists which offers the inexpense, reliability, and
effectiveness of a gun.

>  Then if guns
> were banned (except for hunting/law inforcment/army) and laws were VERY
> strict (such as 25+ yrs for illegal possesion of a gun, and 50+ yrs for
> using a gun to commit a crime) even criminals might start carrying stun
> guns.  Why kill someone if you can get the results you want with a
> non-lethal weapon?

	You can't get the results with a non-lethal weapon.  If someone were
trying to victimize me with some wussy-stun-gun, I'd charge them swinging
some blunt object.  I'll gladly take a 'stun' if I know it won't kill me
and I know it'll stop the situation.  Think about it, it just won't work.

> > 3) Political disturbances.  This is what our second amendment was most
> > explicitly written for.  The right to keep and bear arms represents the
> freedom
> > for each citizen to choose whatever tools they feel is most appropriate
to
> > protect their freedom, be it from foreign invasion, civil war, or even
> their own
> > government.
> > Yes, folks, that means that our constitution says that each citizen has
> the
> > right to decide whether our government is doing its job correctly in
> protecting
> > our freedoms.  In essence, it protects the tools to revolt and create a
> > government in the same way our country was formed.   Just because we
> haven't
> > revolted in 200 years doesn't mean that we won't need to ever again. 
I'm
> not a
> > revolutionary, but I can see how our government has bloated and
> degenerated from
> > the lightweight and powerful form that it once was.  Our culture,
society,
> and
> > technology has changed in ways the the writers of the Constitution
> couldn't
> > forsee.  I can believe the idea of a major reshaping of the US
government
> in a
> > couple hundred years, and you'd bet that I want the citizens to be able
to
> fight
> > with the same tools as everyone else.  The fact that this happens
rarely
> (hasn't
> > in over 200 years) doesn't make it less important.
> > This last instance is, IMO, the single most important reason to allow
guns
> and
> > every other form of weapon that is commonly available.  This philosophy
> requires
> > tremendous responsibility, but it offers the most to its citizens, and
the
> US is
> > different from most major nations in this outlook.  Our Bill of Rights
has
> a
> > very careful order: first, declare the rights that we hold most dear,
> second,
> > declare the right to protect our rights.  Many other countries don't
> believe
> > this philosophy, so comparing them to the the US is the real apples vs.
> oranges
> > issue.
> 
> Hypothetically if your govenrment wanted to take control, it would.  It
has
> a larger inventory of weapons then you and it always will.  

	That is merely a coincidence.  Every war is different, and strategy is
always paramount.  The american revolution was a complete mismatch, and yet
they won.  If a revolution were brewing, you can bet that the citizens will
be better armed than they are at this moment.  The Viet Minh did a number
on the well-armed US forces, and they barely had guns in the early 1960s. 
Conjecture is pointless here.  A well-organized revolution always has a
chance, and this has been shown throughout history.

> I would like to
> hear your explanation on what exactly the govenrment would have to do, to
> put you in a position where you would have to rebel, and who exactly
would
> you be rebelling against?  

	There aren't any issues at this moment that I can forsee that could
justify change by violence.  I'd expect more of a political revolution. 
But for over a million years of humankind, force has been a necessary evil
to bring about change.  It's foolish to think that this no longer holds
true.  Like I said, things like this are rare, and the last one was our
Civil War 130 years ago.

If you're worried that the government would make
> the army turn on its own people, then I suggest you start raising your
> children with better morals so that when they join the army one day they
> will be strong enough to say "NO!, I won't turn the gun on the american
> public".  The governmet has no power if he has no army right?  The other
> point I would like to make is the american way of thinking.  Like someone
> mentioned alread, Americans seem to put up with a lot of law
> breaking/bending when it comes to their presidents.  For a democratic
> country to let someone like Clinton get away with *lying* to his country
> shows where american morals are.  

	My morals say Clinton should have his ass kicked.  He should be in jail
like any other perjuror.  Unfortunately, too many idiotic voters don't have
the fortitude to agree.  I'm not alone in this, and it is not a
generalization that I will allow.

> If americans wanted to send their
> government a clear message, they would have kicked his ass out of the
> presidents chair.  No wonder you carry guns, if I saw the majority of
> citizens didn't care about what the govenrment did, I would carry a gun
just
> to protect myself from exactly those people.  Probably the same people
that
> make the american army, which coorelates with my first point.

	I won't honor unjustified insults with a reasoned reply.

> > Why?  He provided reasoning, we would all appreciate if you shared your
> > reasons.
> 
> I have my own reasons as to why I don't think america is the best country
in
> the world.  

	I don't think America is the best country in the world.  It is, however,
the best for me.

> Much of it has to do with my views on how violent and over-sexed
> most americans are.  
	
	This generalization definitely requires some serious justification.  How
many Americans do you know well enough to judge?  How many regions of the
US have you experienced?

> My view on this topic, however, is off topic so I won't
> expand on it.

	This entire thread is off-topic, and any form of reasoning is welcomed, as
long as it is rational.

> > > Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives
worse.
> >
> > Guns made my life possible, and probably yours also.  Please share why
> guns
> > have made it worse.
> 
> Isn't it obvious?  Guns kill more innocent people then they do criminals.

	I'm not saying that we need guns so that we can kill criminals.
	Moreover, I think the price to pay is frightening but worth it. 
Throughout our history, the price that has been paid is far greater than
the tragedies that have recently occurred.

> Guns were good weapons for their time, but their time has passed as far
as
> I'm concerned.  Ordinary citizens should no longer have the right to bear
> arms.

	Are you saying that you and I are not worthy of a tool as simple as a gun?
 Training and caution are all that is necessary to make it as safe as other
tools.  I feel that those who are not worthy are those who won't take the
responsiblity to correctly use them.

> > I don't think that guns have made crime worse.  If that is so, then so
> have
> > cars, ski masks, knives, and subways (for quick urban getaways).
> 
> They might not have made crimes worse (although I doubt that, just look
at
> those two guys that robbed a bank about a year ago and were heavily armed
> with armor piercing bullets and loaded up from head to toe with body
armor.
> They had more deadly fire power then the police.) 

	I don't see what that means.  When the police are outgunned, specialized
units with heavy firepower are called in.  The purpose of the police is not
to win shootouts with criminals.

but they make crimes
> possible.  Yes, so do knives and ski masks, but I would rather take my
> chances against someone with a knife (or any other hand held weapon) ,
then
> someone with a gun.

	And yet you disagree with the freedom to choose whatever tools (weapons)
you want?

> > Your laws regarding gun sales are different, that is probably the
> difference.
> 
> Yes, and that is why we don't have as much violence as you americans do.

	No, that is not.  I have spent an hour explaining why I believe that guns
are a scapegoat.  Again you put forth this statement and have not
substantiated it.
	In order for guns to be unfairly blamed, there must exist a real reason -
and that is decaying morals.  It is not represented by our President.  It
begins with parents and their children.  It continues with a toothless
punitive system.  It ends with a general public that is victimized by their
ignorance of armed violence.

> Apologies for any incorrect spelling, I don't have a spell checker
installed
> :-)

	FWIW, I didn't see any.
 
> 
	Dave