🚀 go-pugleaf

David Geesaman <gees...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01becb39$35f0cae0$b24ae4ce@mom...

> 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.

If the animal is rabid I agree, but if its just attacking you because you
got too close, I don't agree.

> 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.

Yes I am talking about a taser, but it's one that you can shoot and it
completly imobilizes anyone it hits.  It's not science fiction, this is a
device that is available now.  I'm not sure if it's being sold, but if you
ever watch TLC on high tech weapons you'll know what I'm talking about.  If
americans demanded that the government replace guns with these devices it
could stop a lot of senseless killing.  Again, the "taser" I'm talking about
isn't a wussie little static shock.  It *will* knock out its target.  Don't
dismiss the idea so easily.  You might also have seen an electric belt that
was supposed to have been used while transporting dangerous inmates.  The
police officers that tested it out on themselves looked like they were in an
awfull lot of pain when the thing was turned on.  There are other non-letal
ways to stop criminals, its just a matter of how bad people want these
devices.  You say you reserve the right to use the best tool for the job?
What if you were given a larger inventory to choose from, and non-lethal
weapons were an option.  Would you abandon your gun then?

> 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.

I don't buy it.  Unless you have some proof of this I simply do not agree.
And what about those pumped on adrenaline daylight burglars that simply kick
their way into your house before you have a chance to even react?  I don't
think they'll look at a gun case and go "Shit, I'll just turn my ass around
and run for my life."

> 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.

Sorry, I don't know any thieves.  Again, by the time they go through all the
trouble of breaking in, a gun rack will not stop them from completing their
task.

> 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.

See, you just confirmed my point.  There's a lot of idiots out there, the
same idiots that can purchase a weapon on a whim.

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

It wasn't an insult (unless you're one of those idiots mentioned above,
although you've proved you are not).

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

Fair enough.

> 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?

Well, my cousins and their friends are proof enough for me.  Look at all
those kids who cross the border into Mexico every weekend because of the
drinking laws there, or the big summer break in Florida where all the
students flock there to get pissed drunk and laid.  If I'm not fairly
accurate in about my points, then I blame your media (like fox files) who
air all this trash and the countless movies which always have some truth in
them.

> 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.

Its worth it eh?  What if your kids were gunned down?  Would you still feel
that same way?  Or do you arm your kids and teach them how to shoot back,
because HEY, THATS WHAT GUNS ARE FOR!?  Like I've already mentioned before,
guns served their purpose in the past, but times have changed and I for one
think they should no longer be legal.

> Are you saying that you and I are not worthy of a tool as simple as a gun?

No, I'm saying the human race is not worthy of such weapons.

> 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.

Then where were those specialized units when they were needed.  I guess it's
ironic that the police had to go to a local gun shop inorder to purchase
better firepower then they were equipped with.  And you're wrong when you
say that the purpose of the police is not to win shootouts.  The police are
there to maintain law and order, and if it means getting into a shootout
with cirminals then so be it.

> > 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?

Lets get one thing straight.  A gun is a "tool" in the hands of a hunter who
will kill an animal and eat it.  A gun is a "tool" in the hands of a trained
soldier who is fighting for his country.  A gun in NOT a tool in the hands
of a citizen, it IS howeve a weapon, because that is what its sole purpose
is.

I disagree with idea that anybody can purchase a weapon in a matter of
minutes, and I disagree with that even being an option (for law obiding
citizens and criminals alike).

> 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.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, because I think I have discussed some
valid facts (as vailid as yours) and if you weren't so quick to ignore my
points you would see this is true.  I'm not a closed minded person (at least
I try not to be), and I appreciate you taking the time to give me your
opinions on the whole gun matter.  My beliefs not being set in stone, I
would like to think the next time this topic comes up, my opinions will be
firmer on the matter thanks to this discussion.  I will however no longer
continue to debate this topic because it is a q3 forum and these rebuttals
(which I could producing for a long time) are cutting into some serious Q3
fragging time.  I just found out I slipped into the 6th spot on CLQ :-(  so
don't think for a moment that I gave in  when you no longer see any replies
from me = ^)