OT:How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by WillBrink, Sep 5, 2005.

  1. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: September 1, 2005
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

     Laurence A. Elder


    Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while
    working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, N.M. Suddenly, her ex-husband ­
    against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order ­ showed up, jumped
    over the deli counter, and began stabbing Ms. Cordoba. Due Moore, a
    72-year-old Wal-Mart customer, witnessed the violent attack. Moore,
    legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, pulled out his gun, and
    shot and killed the ex-husband. Ms. Cordoba survived the brutal attack
    and is recovering from her wounds.

    This raises a question. How often do Americans use guns for defensive
    purposes? We know that in 2003, 12,548 people died through non-suicide
    gun violence, including homicides, accidents and cases of undetermined
    intent.

    UCLA professor emeritus James Q. Wilson, a respected expert on crime,
    police practices and guns, says, "We know from Census Bureau surveys
    that something beyond a hundred thousand uses of guns for self-defense
    occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature
    that the number may be as high as 2-and-a-half or 3 million. We don't
    know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's
    not a trivial number."

    Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned
    phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million
    Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. He further found
    that of those who had used guns defensively, one in six believed someone
    would have been dead if they had not resorted to their defensive use of
    firearms. That corresponds to approximately 400,000 of Kleck's estimated
    2.5 million defensive gun uses. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth
    of the people were right about saving a life, the number of people saved
    annually by guns would still be at least 40,000.

    The Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice study
    titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of
    Firearms," estimated that 1.5 million Americans use guns for defensive
    purposes every year. Although the government's figure estimated a
    million fewer people defensively using guns, the NIJ called their figure
    "directly comparable" to Kleck's, noting that "it is statistically
    plausible that the difference is due to sampling error." Furthermore,
    the NIJ reported that half of their respondents who said they used a gun
    defensively also admitted having done so multiple times a year ­ making
    the number of estimated uses of self-defense with a gun 4.7 million
    times annually.

    Former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel
    writes, "... [W]hen a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber
    succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of
    the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate
    falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No
    other response to a robbery ­ from drawing a knife to shouting for help
    to fleeing ­ produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery
    success."

    What do "gun-control activists" say?

    The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's website displays this
    oft-quoted "fact": "The risk of homicide in the home is three times
    greater in households with guns." Their website fails to mention that
    Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the "expert" who came up with that figure, later
    backpedaled after others discredited his studies for failing to follow
    standard scientific procedures. According to the Wall Street Journal,
    Dr. Kellermann now concedes, "A gun can be used to scare away an
    intruder without a shot being fired," admitting that he failed to
    include such events in his original study. "Simply keeping a gun in the
    home," Kellermann says, "may deter some criminals who fear confronting
    an armed homeowner." He adds, "It is possible that reverse causation
    accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership
    and homicide ­ i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have
    acquired a gun in response to a specific threat."

    "More Guns, Less Crime" author John Lott points out that, in general,
    our mainstream media fails to inform the public about defensive uses of
    guns. "Hardly a day seems to go by," writes Lott, "without national news
    coverage of yet another shooting. Yet when was the last time you heard a
    story on the national evening news about a citizen saving a life with a
    gun? ... An innocent person's murder is more newsworthy than when a
    victim brandishes a gun and an attacker runs away with no crime
    committed ... ad events provide emotionally gripping pictures. Yet
    covering only the bad events creates the impression that guns only cost
    lives."

    Americans, in part due to mainstream media's anti-gun bias, dramatically
    underestimate the defensive uses of guns. Some, after using a gun for
    self-defense, fear that the police may charge them for violating some
    law or ordinance about firearm possession and use. So many Americans
    simply do not tell the authorities.

    A gunned-down bleeding guy creates news. A man who spared his family by
    brandishing a handgun, well, that's just water-cooler chat.

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
    Tags:


  2. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned
    > phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million
    > Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. He further found
    > that of those who had used guns defensively, one in six believed
    > someone would have been dead if they had not resorted to their
    > defensive use of firearms. That corresponds to approximately 400,000
    > of Kleck's estimated
    > 2.5 million defensive gun uses. Kleck points out that if only
    > one-tenth of the people were right about saving a life, the number of
    > people saved annually by guns would still be at least 40,000.


    Assume that last statement is true - that guns save about 40,000 people per
    annum in the US. Then if all guns were to magically vanish from the US
    homicide rates would go up by a factor of about 3 (gun homicides disappear).
    That is approximately 150 homicides per million per year. In 2002/3, that
    being the worst year for some while for England and Wales homicide (due
    mainly to recording all of Shipman's killings over 20 years in that one
    year), 1,048 homicides were recorded. That translates to slightly less than
    20 homicides per million per year.

    I'm happy to say that the average US citizen isn't any less civilised than
    the average person in the UK and explain the discrepancy by saying that
    Kleck's figures, even after he divides by 10, massively inflate the number
    of people saved by guns (people are far too willing to claim they saved a
    life, I accept the 2.5 million figure is in the right ballpark). But you
    seem to want to say that you think Americans place no value on human life
    and are vicious murderers and Kleck is right.

    > Former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel
    > writes, "... [W]hen a robbery victim does not defend himself, the
    > robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25
    > percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery
    > success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to
    > 17 percent. No other response to a robbery ­ from drawing a knife to
    > shouting for help to fleeing ­ produces such low rates of victim
    > injury and robbery success."


    To put things another way, if you're going to shoot at someone trying to rob
    you, shoot straight. If you fail to defend yourself, your chance of injury
    goes up to 75%.

    You don't include the figures for resisting with e.g. a knife, but memory
    suggests that chance of success are significantly worse, chance of injury if
    you fail are about 75% as well.

    Not that this should be surprising, using a gun to defend yourself from
    attack is reasonable enough and it's obvious that a knife or a big stick
    isn't as likely to get rid of a robber. I just don't think that the benefits
    of guns being generally available (such as the above) outweigh the problems
    they cause (such as gun homicides, shooting at rescuers, sniping at doctors,
    nurses and patients trying to evacuate a hospital, etc.). I notice you've
    had the sense not to try arguing that the right to bear weapons has helped
    the situation in NO - or at least I haven't seen it if you have suffered
    that lapse of judgement - but you haven't been honest enough to admit that
    it's directly hampered rescue efforts and thus been responsible for the
    deaths of a significant number of people.

    Peter
     
  3. On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:49:20 -0400, WillBrink
    <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

    >------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
    >------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >Posted: September 1, 2005
    >1:00 a.m. Eastern
    >
    > Laurence A. Elder
    >
    >
    >Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while
    >working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, N.M. Suddenly, her ex-husband ­
    >against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order ­ showed up, jumped
    ><snip crap>


    You know idiot, if there were no guns in Louisiana, there'd be a LOT
    less dead people. With everyone on an even playing field, everyone's
    better off.

    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  4. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    The Bill Rodgers <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:49:20 -0400, WillBrink
    > <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
    > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >Posted: September 1, 2005
    > >1:00 a.m. Eastern
    > >
    > > Laurence A. Elder
    > >
    > >
    > >Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while
    > >working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, N.M. Suddenly, her ex-husband ­
    > >against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order ­ showed up, jumped
    > ><snip crap>

    >
    > You know idiot, if there were no guns in Louisiana, there'd be a LOT
    > less dead people. With everyone on an even playing field, everyone's
    > better off.


    If that includes the cops and the military, I might agree. Only in
    idiots mind like yourself that we may wave that magic wand and get rid
    of the guns (along with out own Const.).

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  5. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I just don't think that the benefits
    > of guns being generally available (such as the above) outweigh the problems



    You mean such as preventing genocide? Statistically speaking you are FAR
    more likely to be killed by your own government then you are by a
    criminal or an invading army or a big storm. All things, ALL THINGS,
    come with their plus and minus in a given situation, but data, history,
    and fact show us what happens when you disarm a population. And goofus,
    I already did in fact post an article on how guns are playing a role in
    NO, both good and bad.

    Hitler¹s Control
    The lessons of Nazi history.

    By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths

    his week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the
    conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to
    gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some
    of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's
    psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that
    her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave
    Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high
    treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag
    delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's
    dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter
    how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able
    to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).

    Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity
    of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious
    about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and
    why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J.
    Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th
    century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not
    including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might
    be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

    Indeed, right now in Zimbabwe, the Robert Mugabe tyranny is perpetrating
    a genocide by starvation aimed at liquidating about six million people.
    Mugabe is great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Mugabe's number-two man (who
    died last year) was Chenjerai Hunzvi, the head of Mugabe's terrorist
    gangs, who nicknamed himself "Hitler." One of the things that Robert
    Mugabe, "Hitler" Hunzvi, and Adolf Hitler all have in common is their
    strong and effective programs of gun control.

    Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to
    murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his
    current terror program.

    Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law
    Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German
    opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive
    victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the
    story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is
    also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published
    by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details
    how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed
    their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews ‹ many of whom were
    front-line veterans of World War One ‹ so much that Jews were even
    disarmed of knives and old sabers.

    The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then,
    they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that
    there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

    In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist
    revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar
    Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates
    on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all
    firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately."

    Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar
    Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar
    to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by
    the American gun-control lobby.

    The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage
    in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was
    needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were
    granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals
    the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over
    citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the "Brady II" proposal
    introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in
    1994.

    Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the
    home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type
    or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more
    relaxed for firearms of a "hunting" or "sporting" type. Indeed, the
    Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal
    distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of
    home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as
    stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern
    proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

    Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully
    owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the
    Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis
    needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

    The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power
    in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in
    Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the
    German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules
    and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that
    Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their
    own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed
    by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any
    involvement in any firearm business.

    On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and
    unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored
    mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the
    administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate
    Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a
    sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

    Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply
    gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure
    that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.

    Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and
    very large military ‹ the most powerful military the world had ever seen
    until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than
    every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of
    the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger
    economic resources of the Allies.

    Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the
    civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943
    proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death
    camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw,
    Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in
    Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes
    and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are
    many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's
    They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of
    thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the
    eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish
    prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of
    the main death camps.

    It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw
    ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been
    purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish
    underground.

    Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if
    more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had
    been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points
    out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe,
    there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had
    enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no
    potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

    No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to
    genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a
    democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance
    for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere
    else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the
    British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know
    that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on
    mass extermination.

    One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go
    their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most
    people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare
    to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then
    you and your family may not survive.

    In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi
    recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the
    Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now
    armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge
    on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their
    fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other
    Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He
    replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in
    the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian
    army's new "gun control" policy changed who had the guns there: "And
    today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter
    whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a
    gun, you have nothing."

    ‹ Richard Griffiths is a doctor of psychology with research interest in
    gun issues. Dave Kopel is a NRO contributing editor.

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  6. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > The Bill Rodgers <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:49:20 -0400, WillBrink
    >> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
    >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> Posted: September 1, 2005
    >>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
    >>>
    >>> Laurence A. Elder
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while
    >>> working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, N.M. Suddenly, her ex-husband
    >>> ­ against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order ­ showed up,
    >>> jumped <snip crap>

    >>
    >> You know idiot, if there were no guns in Louisiana, there'd be a LOT
    >> less dead people. With everyone on an even playing field, everyone's
    >> better off.

    >
    > If that includes the cops and the military, I might agree. Only in
    > idiots mind like yourself that we may wave that magic wand and get rid
    > of the guns (along with out own Const.).


    So there are lots of guns floating around in the UK? Or maybe we had a magic
    wand to wave?

    Peter
     
  7. Jason Earl

    Jason Earl Guest

    The Bill Rodgers <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:49:20 -0400, WillBrink
    > <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
    >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>Posted: September 1, 2005
    >>1:00 a.m. Eastern
    >>
    >> Laurence A. Elder
    >>
    >>
    >>Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while
    >>working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, N.M. Suddenly, her ex-husband ­
    >>against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order ­ showed up, jumped
    >><snip crap>

    >
    > You know idiot, if there were no guns in Louisiana, there'd be a LOT
    > less dead people. With everyone on an even playing field, everyone's
    > better off.
    >
    > TBR


    OK, once you disarm the mob in New Orleans and the rest of the
    criminals that are currently armed then I will consider giving up my
    firearms. Until then I'll consider my firearms a necessary evil along
    the same lines as flood insurance. Global disarmament is science
    fiction, along the lines of policemen that know about crimes before
    they happen. If criminals are going to be armed I would just as soon
    be armed myself.

    Thanks,
    Jason
     
  8. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I just don't think that the benefits
    >> of guns being generally available (such as the above) outweigh the
    >> problems

    >
    >
    > You mean such as preventing genocide? Statistically speaking you are
    > FAR more likely to be killed by your own government then you are by a
    > criminal or an invading army or a big storm.


    So what you're saying is you think the American political system is so
    screwed up that you might elect a Hitler lookalike?

    You are talking crap. I may not have a high opinion of American politics,
    but I don't think there is a chance you'll go fascist.

    In any case, I don't see that gun control would have made much difference in
    Germany, except if some public-spirited individual had shot Hitler at an
    early rally. It might have made his life a bit harder, but that's all. Just
    to give an example, guns were never particularly well-controlled in Iraq
    under Saddam, yet he was able to impose his regime. Hitler started off his
    campaign of violence against Jews (and homosexuals, blacks et cetera) by
    supporting / condoning mob attacks. If handguns hadn't been controlled, then
    the Jews and the mobs would have had guns. So the mobs might have had more
    trouble, but firstly a 10:1 numerical difference isn't good odds either if
    both sides do not have guns or if both sides do, and secondly a Jew firing a
    gun would have been a perfect excuse for Hitler to march in the army to
    'pacify'. There are not very many examples of situations where civilians
    with guns have come out on top against the people with the army. There
    aren't even many examples where governments have come out on top against a
    military coup attempt backed by most of the army. The US is of course one
    example - but bear in mind you were across the other side of an ocean from
    the (small) British army, had a numerical advantage, and got significant
    help from the French. None of those apply to the Jews in Germany in the
    1930s.

    Peter
     
  9. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WillBrink wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I just don't think that the benefits
    > >> of guns being generally available (such as the above) outweigh the
    > >> problems

    > >
    > >
    > > You mean such as preventing genocide? Statistically speaking you are
    > > FAR more likely to be killed by your own government then you are by a
    > > criminal or an invading army or a big storm.

    >
    > So what you're saying is you think the American political system is so
    > screwed up that you might elect a Hitler lookalike?


    Irrelevant.

    >
    > You are talking crap.


    And you have no clue

    > I may not have a high opinion of American politics,
    > but I don't think there is a chance you'll go fascist.


    Irrelevant.


    > In any case, I don't see that gun control would have made much difference in
    > Germany, except if some public-spirited individual had shot Hitler at an
    > early rally.


    No one cares what you "think." History shows us over and over what
    happens to people who are unnarmed. You might also want to see this site
    for some interesting points:

    http://www.jpfo.org/

    The interview with the concentration camp survivor is most telling...

    More "I think" BS snipped. Article below is also quite good:


    The Next International Right
    Thursday, October 17, 2002
    By Dr.Glenn Harlan Reynolds

    The past century was one of barbarism and mass murder, one in which the
    world stood by while large populations were exterminated by governments
    bent on power and possessed of the means of killing.

    After World War II, the "international community" determined that the
    most important goal of the new international system created for the
    post-war era would be the prevention of genocide. "Never again," we were
    told, and nations signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
    of the Crime of Genocide in large numbers.

    Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and
    Rwanda (1975), though Rwanda was originally covered by Belgium¹s
    agreement in 1952, when Rwanda was a Trust Territory administered by
    Belgium.

    These three nations, of course, went on to become the greatest sites of
    genocide in the second half of the 20th century. (China's mass murders
    and starvation under Mao are more properly called "democide," as they
    did not single out a particular group or culture.)

    In every case, the "international community" stood aside while the
    genocide took place unimpeded by the parchment barriers of international
    agreement. Tea, sympathy and peacekeeping forces were provided after the
    killing was done, but no action was taken to seriously inconvenience the
    killers while they were at work. International agreeements, and the
    international community, have proved as useless as the League of Nations
    was in confronting Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia.

    As one article on the Rwandan genocide in Foreign Affairs puts it:

    As reports of genocide reached the outside world starting in late April,
    public outcry spurred the United Nations to reauthorize a beefed up
    "UNAMIR II" on May 17. During the following month, however, the U.N. was
    unable to obtain any substantial contributions of troops and equipment.
    As a result, on June 22 the Security Council authorized France to lead
    its own intervention, Operation Turquoise, by which time most Tutsi were
    already long dead.

    Nor have efforts to deter genocide by trying killers after the fact done
    very well. As the magazine Legal Affairs reports, Rwandan killers have
    turned up actually on the payroll of the "International Court"
    designated to try war criminals. It is, said one observer, as if Klaus
    Barbie had turned up on the staff at Nuremberg. Pol Pot, meanwhile,
    apparently died in bed.

    This has led some observers to suggest that genocide isn¹t something
    that can be addressed by international conventions or tribunals. A
    recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that
    the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that
    civilian populations are armed:

    The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing
    years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and
    quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This
    century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many
    people participated in the killing of so many people."

    Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of
    the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the
    evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored
    the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a
    society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements
    that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some
    of the more extreme varieties of outrage.

    Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one
    does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting
    reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth
    century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population
    that was armed. (Emphasis added).

    The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don
    Kates, is that "a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a
    country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide."

    Armed citizens, they argue, are far less likely to be massacred than
    defenseless ones, and armed resistance to genocide is more likely to
    receive outside aid. It is probably no accident that the better-armed
    resistance to genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo drew international
    intervention, while the hapless Rwandans and Cambodians did not. When
    victims resist, what is merely cause for horror becomes cause for alarm,
    and those who are afraid of the conflict¹s spread will support (as
    Europe did) intervention out of self-interest when they could not be
    bothered to intervene out of compassion.

    It is no wonder that genocide is so often preceded by efforts to disarm
    the people.

    Current events in Zimbabwe appear to be playing out in the fashion that
    Polsby and Kates warn against. If this is the case, then surely the
    human rights community could be expected to take on the subject of armed
    citizens, particularly as the right to arms is far closer to the
    individual rights that make up the "first generation" of internationally
    recognized human rights.

    After all, the human rights community has long argued that all sorts of
    dramatic changes in international law are justified if they might make
    genocide unlikely and has been nothing less than flexible in discovering
    such "post-first-generation" human rights as "developmental rights,"
    "environmental rights" and a "right to peace."

    In fact, the human rights community has addressed the issue -- but from
    the wrong side. They seem generally supportive of U.N. Secretary-General
    Kofi Annan¹s effort to put in place a global gun control regime
    "including a prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of
    small arms."

    In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents
    genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a
    campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the
    world.

    It seems to me that the human rights community has things exactly
    backward. Given that the efforts of the international community to
    prevent and punish genocide over the past several decades have been, to
    put it politely, a dismal failure, perhaps it is time to try a new
    approach. International human rights law is supposed to be a "living"
    body of law that changes with the needs of the times in order to secure
    important goals -- chief among which is the prevention of genocide.
    Given that the traditional approaches of conventions and tribunals have
    failed miserably, the human rights community should be prepared to
    endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding
    citizens to be armed.

    It may seem odd to make such an argument at a time when D.C. is being
    terrorized by a mysterious gunman. But no one should pretend that rights
    do not have costs. We recognize the right to free speech not because we
    believe that speech does no harm, but because we believe that free
    speech has benefits that outweigh the harm. We recognize the right to
    abortion not because we believe that it is costless, but because the
    cost of having the state supervise women¹s pregnancies is seen as worse.
    And we recognize the freedom of religion not because religion is safe --
    it can and does lead to violence, as the worldwide epidemic of Islamic
    terrorism demonstrates -- but because having the government prescribe
    what is orthodox is worse.

    Similarly, an armed populace might conceivably lead to more crime
    (though the criminological evidence suggests otherwise). But even if one
    believes that widespread ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens
    leads to somewhat more crime, that is not by itself an argument against
    creating such a right, merely a cost to be set against the increased
    protection from genocide that such a right would provide.

    Given the high value that we (supposedly, at least) place on preventing
    genocide, it seems unlikely that minor increases in crime rates could
    justify eliminating such a protection.

    I wonder if the Bush administration¹s diplomatic corps will have the
    nerve and the integrity to push this argument at the U.N. and elsewhere,
    not merely as an argument in opposition to global gun control, which
    they have been making already, but an argument in favor of a positive
    right to be armed as part of international human rights law? Perhaps
    they will, if enough Americans encourage them to.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee
    and publishes InstaPundit.Com. He is co-author, with Peter W. Morgan, of
    The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined
    American Government, Business, and Society (The Free Press, 1997).

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  10. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WillBrink wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > The Bill Rodgers <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:49:20 -0400, WillBrink
    > >> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >>> How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
    > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >>> Posted: September 1, 2005
    > >>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
    > >>>
    > >>> Laurence A. Elder
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while
    > >>> working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, N.M. Suddenly, her ex-husband
    > >>> ­ against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order ­ showed up,
    > >>> jumped <snip crap>
    > >>
    > >> You know idiot, if there were no guns in Louisiana, there'd be a LOT
    > >> less dead people. With everyone on an even playing field, everyone's
    > >> better off.

    > >
    > > If that includes the cops and the military, I might agree. Only in
    > > idiots mind like yourself that we may wave that magic wand and get rid
    > > of the guns (along with out own Const.).

    >
    > So there are lots of guns floating around in the UK? Or maybe we had a magic
    > wand to wave?


    You really want to open the UK gun thing? It's always amazing how little
    most Brits seem to know about their own crimes rates and gun laws.

    EDMONTON JOURNAL

    Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled after
    law-abiding Brits surrendered their handguns

    Friday 14 May 2005

    On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in
    Dunblane, Scotland, with three pistols and shot dead 16 young children
    and one of their teachers.

    In the wake of this horrific massacre of innocents, a judicial inquiry
    recommended more stringent rules for handgun ownership in Britain, but
    cautioned against an outright ban.

    Politicians being politicians, though, they sought to prove they were
    acting to prevent a recurrence of such a shooting (as if anyone can
    prevent lunatics from acting insanely) by passing a law forbidding
    ordinary civilians from possessing handguns. Handgun owners were given
    until February 1998 to hand in all their guns.

    In all, about 162,000 handguns and 700 tonnes of ammunition were
    surrendered to police.

    Jack Straw, currently Britain's foreign secretary, but at the time the
    home secretary, pronounced the hand-in a "tremendous success" and
    predicted it would make England, Scotland and Wales very much safer.

    Tuesday, the gun-crime statistics for the first five years of this
    experiment in citizen disarmament were released. And what has been the
    result? The incidence of gun crime in England and Wales has nearly
    doubled from 13,874 in 1998 to 24,070 in 2003. And the incidence of
    firearms murder, while thankfully still very small, has risen 65 per
    cent.

    Politicians being politicians, they of course have not drawn the
    obvious parallel. When the statistics were released earlier this week,
    no official even mentioned the total handgun ban. (Not even Britain's
    Olympic sport shooters are permitted to own handguns for competition.)

    It never even occurred to British politicians and reporters to make a
    connection. Banning handguns was an important symbol in the wake of the
    Dunblane shootings. It was the right thing to do at the time. Its
    intended consequences, realized or not, well, they're secondary.

    The ban was a "then" solution, the spiral in gun crime is a "now"
    problem -- different matters entirely to the chattering classes.

    It's not necessarily the case that the stripping of guns from ordinary,
    law-abiding gun owners caused the explosion in gun crime by leaving the
    population defenceless against armed criminals.

    There is almost surely some cause and effect, though.

    Another report released last year by Britain's Home Office revealed
    that since the late 1990s, robbery has jumped dramatically, too. It rose
    by 28 per cent in 2002 alone and, since 1998, there has been an increase
    in the annual average of muggings of more than 100,000. England alone
    has nearly 400,000 robberies each year, a rate nearly one-quarter higher
    per capita than that of the United States.

    It is entirely likely that some of the increase in the past five years
    has stemmed from an increased confidence among criminals that ordinary
    citizens almost certainly have no guns in their homes.

    But it is unlikely the handgun ban accounts for all or even most of the
    increase. France has had a similar upward spike in robberies over the
    past five years without banning guns. France, too, now has a violent
    crime rate at or above the Americans', with the exception of murder.

    For some reason, no one in the industrialized world murders one another
    like Americans. However, in most other categories of violent and
    property crime, the rest of us are catching up.

    The likely causes of Britain's crime wave (and France's and Germany's
    and the Netherlands' and so on) are illegal immigration, drug wars and
    extremely lenient treatment of convicted criminals. Holland is set to
    deport 30,000 failed refugee claimants over the coming months in part in
    hopes of reducing high levels of crime.

    However, even if confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens does not
    prompt new heights of violent crime, it does not follow that seizure is
    a neutral act.

    The best that can be said of it is that it is totally useless. As such,
    it is pointless.

    Yet seizure also amounts to a forfeiture of private property by persons
    who have committed no crime (and thus have given the state no legitimate
    reason to take their property). So its pointlessness is a deep violation
    of individual liberty.

    If the seizure of private guns does not prevent crime -- and from the
    British example it is clear it does not -- then there is no common good
    that could possibly justify seizure.

    And if Britain's mandatory hand-in encouraged even a few hundred
    robberies and a handful of murders by emboldening criminals, then the
    hand-in was a crime by the state against law-abiding citizens.

    Similarly, the registry forced on Canadian gun owners nearly a decade
    ago has been totally useless. If taking guns away is not enough to
    prevent gun crimes, how could collecting registrations on guns to fill
    government databases do any better?

    The problem is criminals with guns, period. Targeting law-abiding
    owners, whether through registration or confiscation, is looking in the
    wrong place for a solution to gun crime.

    There have been rumours out of Ottawa for months now that the Liberals
    intend to make Canada's registry less intrusive and expensive,
    friendlier to "legitimate gun owners."

    Even if it is made less harsh and simpler to use, so long as it
    continues to focus on lawful owners instead of criminals, it will merely
    be a kinder, simpler sort of useless.
    _______________________
    Lorne Gunter
    Columnist, Edmonton Journal
    Editorial Board Member, National Post
    tele: (780) 916-0719
    fax: (780) 481-4735
    e-mail: [email protected]
    132 Quesnell Cres NW
    Edmonton AB T5R 5P2

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  11. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> WillBrink wrote:
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I just don't think that the benefits
    >>>> of guns being generally available (such as the above) outweigh the
    >>>> problems
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You mean such as preventing genocide? Statistically speaking you are
    >>> FAR more likely to be killed by your own government then you are by
    >>> a criminal or an invading army or a big storm.

    >>
    >> So what you're saying is you think the American political system is
    >> so screwed up that you might elect a Hitler lookalike?

    >
    > Irrelevant.


    OK, how does the USA right to bear arms prevent a genocide?

    >> In any case, I don't see that gun control would have made much
    >> difference in Germany, except if some public-spirited individual had
    >> shot Hitler at an early rally.

    >
    > No one cares what you "think." History shows us over and over what
    > happens to people who are unnarmed.


    I notice you've snipped the point I made about Iraq's citizens failing to
    remove Hussein despite having guns.

    Tell us Oh All-Knowing Brink how the citizens of Iraq overthrew their evil
    dictator Saddam Hussein with their guns... or more likely snip this too
    because you can't.

    > http://www.jpfo.org/
    >
    > The interview with the concentration camp survivor is most telling...


    I'd imagine you're thinking of:

    <quote>
    Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed
    before, we would not be here now"?

    A.) Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black
    market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law
    abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The
    German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools
    we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some
    police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion,
    the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some
    hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does
    not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust
    the government?
    There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if
    the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well
    armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a
    gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a
    perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10
    handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.
    </quote>

    http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/warsaw-uprising.html

    is a rather more detailed (and numerically accurate) account.

    The Nazis thought it would take three days to put down the uprising.

    It actually took a month, which, yes, is because the Jews had guns (and
    grenades, and so on).

    Why did the Nazis succeed?

    Not because they had more guns, or because the Jews didn't have enough, but
    because the Nazis controlled the food and water supplies.

    Would it have made a blind bit of difference if every man, woman and child
    in the ghetto had had an M14?

    No. They would have been unable to successfully attack the Nazis - note
    attacking in an urban area is difficult, which is why the Nazis failed to
    break the uprising by force - and would not have been able to get much more
    food and water than they already had. They might have survived for two
    months, but then they would have been starved out.

    So, long term, the Jews in the ghetto caused the Nazis a bit more trouble
    than they'd expected, but that was all.

    > More "I think" BS snipped. Article below is also quite good:
    >

    <'I think' bullshit snipped, Brink style>

    Peter
     
  12. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WillBrink wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> WillBrink wrote:
    > >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    > >>> "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> I just don't think that the benefits
    > >>>> of guns being generally available (such as the above) outweigh the
    > >>>> problems
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> You mean such as preventing genocide? Statistically speaking you are
    > >>> FAR more likely to be killed by your own government then you are by
    > >>> a criminal or an invading army or a big storm.
    > >>
    > >> So what you're saying is you think the American political system is
    > >> so screwed up that you might elect a Hitler lookalike?

    > >
    > > Irrelevant.

    >
    > OK, how does the USA right to bear arms prevent a genocide?


    Articles posted and links explain it easy enough. You are either not
    reading them or to thick to "get it." It's not rocket science, it really
    isn't. The 2 Amend was not intended to prevent genocide per se, but to
    accept the fact that the right to self defense, be it against a criminal
    or tyrannical government, is a basic human right. The defacto reality of
    course is, the US population would be at far less risk of genocide then
    other countries listed. Hitler for example new it was always a bad idea
    to allow people arms:

    " History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject
    races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." ---
    Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers
    Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.

    >
    > >> In any case, I don't see that gun control would have made much
    > >> difference in Germany, except if some public-spirited individual had
    > >> shot Hitler at an early rally.

    > >
    > > No one cares what you "think." History shows us over and over what
    > > happens to people who are unnarmed.

    >
    > I notice you've snipped the point I made about Iraq's citizens failing to
    > remove Hussein despite having guns.


    That's 'cause you didn't make any actual points, you just think you did.


    > > More "I think" BS snipped. Article below is also quite good:
    > >

    > <'I think' bullshit snipped, Brink style>


    Right, I snip personal opinions of yours which are based on nothing,
    and you snip info by a historian and researcher on the topic. That makes
    sense!

    Gun control's best friend

    By Dimitri Vassilaros
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Friday, April 1, 2005

    The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if
    humanitarian aid included guns.

    Darfur is a Texas-size region of Sudan. The Sudanese government and its
    militia proxies have killed roughly 70,000 civilians, raped and
    mutilated untold numbers of others and caused about 3 million refugees
    to live in camps.

    Sudan could teach Serbia a thing or two about ethnic cleansing.

    This carnage has been going on since 2003. The Sudan People's Liberation
    Army, a small band of revolutionaries from Darfur, were the only excuse
    the government needed to wage war on unarmed citizens in the region, who
    also happen to be fellow Muslims.

    As I was reading story after story about the horrific treatment of the
    innocents by government-backed forces, I always wondered why there was
    no mention of the victims fighting back.

    "Some do defend themselves," said Bill Garvelink, acting assistant
    administrator for the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
    Assistance in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The United
    States has given about $600 million since 2003.

    "But Sudan has helicopters and AK-47s. People in the camps have
    machetes," Garvelink said. International treaties covering humanitarian
    aid prohibit giving any side arms to defend oneself; otherwise no aid
    workers would be allowed to bring in supplies to a troubled region.

    But Sudan is not allowing aid workers much access anyway so the refugees
    are caught in the middle, he said.

    Amnesty International prefers to end the genocide by moral persuasion
    instead of self-defense.

    "We at Amnesty International are not going to condone escalation of the
    flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa
    Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of
    retaliation.

    "Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back
    and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You
    do not know what the results could be."

    But we do know what they are now.

    Self-defense could exacerbate the situation, Katyoka said. "Fighting
    fire with fire is not a solution to the genocide. It is a dangerous
    proposition to arm the minorities to fight back."

    Better they should be slaughtered.

    Katyoka hopes the United Nations can do something -- someday -- to stop
    the killing. She also hopes Sudan's leaders are charged with crimes
    against humanity in the International Criminal Court. But at this rate,
    will there be any eyewitnesses left to testify?

    Even Dr. Ali B. Ali-Dinar, founder and director of the African Studies
    Center at the University of Pennsylvania -- who was born and reared in
    Darfur -- does not believe in arming the victims.

    "That could create a vicious cycle of violence," Ali-Dinar said. "The
    cycle now is mainly orchestrated by the government. Give guns to the
    traumatized and it will definitely get out of hand. There is no limit
    then, for them to stop."

    He, too, hopes the international community comes to the rescue --
    someday.

    (Ali-Dinar will be speaking 2 to 4 p.m. on Sunday at the Episcopal
    Church of the Redeemer, 5700 Forbes Avenue in Squirrel Hill. There is no
    charge for admission. It is sponsored by the Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency
    Coalition.)

    Darfur is one more reminder that gun control is genocide's best friend.

    Dimitri Vassilaros can be reached at [email protected]

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  13. On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:30:52 -0500, John Hanson
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Things can deteriorate very quickly even with the best of governments.
    >Having an armed populace helps to keep things from deteriorating to
    >the level of genocide.


    No you fat, stupid, idiot, it CAUSES genocide. You have to be the most
    ignorant f**k online, ever!

    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  14. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Either you believe that the US political situation is such that you
    >> might elect a leader who allows or supports a genocide, like Hitler
    >> did, in which case you believe that the right to bear weapons would
    >> prevent a genocide.

    >
    >> Or you do not believe the US political situation is that screwed up.
    >> In which case no genocide will occur, and you might as well claim
    >> the right to eat ice cream prevents genocide.
    >>
    >> Which one do you believe?


    Will, you have failed to answer my question about Iraq twice now - both
    times by snipping it and hoping no-one will notice. You've now refused to
    answer the above question as well.

    So, third time: how do you explain the failure of Iraq's citizens to
    overthrow Saddam, despite their having guns?

    And while you're about it, you could maybe answer the question above. If you
    don't think either option is what you believe, then feel free to explain
    what you do believe.

    Or are you going to yet again refuse to answer the questions?

    Peter
     
  15. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WillBrink wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Either you believe that the US political situation is such that you
    > >> might elect a leader who allows or supports a genocide, like Hitler
    > >> did, in which case you believe that the right to bear weapons would
    > >> prevent a genocide.

    > >
    > >> Or you do not believe the US political situation is that screwed up.
    > >> In which case no genocide will occur, and you might as well claim
    > >> the right to eat ice cream prevents genocide.
    > >>
    > >> Which one do you believe?

    >
    > Will, you have failed to answer my question about Iraq twice now - both
    > times by snipping it and hoping no-one will notice. You've now refused to
    > answer the above question as well.


    I didn't comment as it does not deserve comment. And you are full of
    shit, I did comment on your silly and ill thought out question, you just
    didn't like the response. You also did not even attempt to counter any
    of the articles I posted, and you didn't see me using that as some form
    of proof you are avoiding the issue here.

    >
    > So, third time: how do you explain the failure of Iraq's citizens to
    > overthrow Saddam, despite their having guns?


    You really are not too bright are you?

    >
    > And while you're about it, you could maybe answer the question above. If you
    > don't think either option is what you believe, then feel free to explain
    > what you do believe.
    >
    > Or are you going to yet again refuse to answer the questions?


    Well there you have it. What I ³believe² and ³think² is irrelevant to
    this debate. Most people, which includes you, are simply unable to
    separate what they ²think² and ³feel² from objective information on a
    topic. I objectively looked at the issue some years ago and came to the
    same conclusions as others who took the same approach, such as Dr Lott
    who never owned a gun in his life nor wanted one until he finished his
    research. Remember, emotions don¹t alter facts and our inability to
    stomach the truth does not alter that truth. What I know is:

    You have stated clearly that you do not believe the right to self
    defense is a basic human right (what could be more basic then that, I
    don¹t know), therefore it¹s impossible to have a worthwhile debate on
    the issue.

    What do I believe in the context of your ridiculous simpleton question?
    I don¹t believe there will be any changes in the US government as to
    require armed resistance on a large scale in my life time, and that
    belief is 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  16. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:21:18 +0100, "Peter Allen"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >WillBrink wrote:
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Either you believe that the US political situation is such that you
    >>> might elect a leader who allows or supports a genocide, like Hitler
    >>> did, in which case you believe that the right to bear weapons would
    >>> prevent a genocide.

    >>
    >>> Or you do not believe the US political situation is that screwed up.
    >>> In which case no genocide will occur, and you might as well claim
    >>> the right to eat ice cream prevents genocide.
    >>>
    >>> Which one do you believe?

    >
    >Will, you have failed to answer my question about Iraq twice now - both
    >times by snipping it and hoping no-one will notice. You've now refused to
    >answer the above question as well.


    That's his MO Peter; he slips in his constant digs about lawless UK
    and how stupid he thinks we are, and then when confronted slips and
    ducks away to avoid having to give a direct answer.

    That's why he's known here as 'Slippery Willy', and he is a waste of
    space. I know, I've been pinning the bugger down for years, to the
    point where he now allegedly hides behind his "killfiles".

    He is an ill-educated oaf who claims ability and standing way beyond
    his station in life.
     
  17. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> WillBrink wrote:
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Either you believe that the US political situation is such that you
    >>>> might elect a leader who allows or supports a genocide, like Hitler
    >>>> did, in which case you believe that the right to bear weapons would
    >>>> prevent a genocide.
    >>>
    >>>> Or you do not believe the US political situation is that screwed
    >>>> up. In which case no genocide will occur, and you might as well
    >>>> claim the right to eat ice cream prevents genocide.
    >>>>
    >>>> Which one do you believe?

    >>
    >> Will, you have failed to answer my question about Iraq twice now -
    >> both times by snipping it and hoping no-one will notice. You've now
    >> refused to answer the above question as well.

    >
    > I didn't comment as it does not deserve comment. And you are full of
    > shit, I did comment on your silly and ill thought out question, you
    > just didn't like the response. You also did not even attempt to
    > counter any of the articles I posted, and you didn't see me using
    > that as some form of proof you are avoiding the issue here.
    >
    >>
    >> So, third time: how do you explain the failure of Iraq's citizens to
    >> overthrow Saddam, despite their having guns?

    >
    > You really are not too bright are you?


    Translation: "I can't find a canned answer that I can cut and paste"

    I know you can't find a canned answer. So you might have to think for
    yourself, difficult as that seems to be for you.

    > What do I believe in the context of your ridiculous simpleton
    > question? I don¹t believe there will be any changes in the US
    > government as to require armed resistance on a large scale in my life
    > time, and that belief is 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.


    So you think that the US right to bear guns helps prevent genocide, but that
    there won't be any need for people in the US to use guns to prevent
    genocide.

    That statement seems to be self-contradictory. Which means part of it has to
    be wrong. Come on, you have to be able to argue better than that. Try
    reading some of the canned answers you cut and paste and you might learn to
    argue a bit more effectively.

    Hint: you might want to back down from this argument and go back to arguing
    that guns reduce levels of various crimes, where you're on rather firmer
    ground.

    Peter
     
  18. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WillBrink wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> WillBrink wrote:
    > >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    > >>> "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Either you believe that the US political situation is such that you
    > >>>> might elect a leader who allows or supports a genocide, like Hitler
    > >>>> did, in which case you believe that the right to bear weapons would
    > >>>> prevent a genocide.
    > >>>
    > >>>> Or you do not believe the US political situation is that screwed
    > >>>> up. In which case no genocide will occur, and you might as well
    > >>>> claim the right to eat ice cream prevents genocide.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Which one do you believe?
    > >>
    > >> Will, you have failed to answer my question about Iraq twice now -
    > >> both times by snipping it and hoping no-one will notice. You've now
    > >> refused to answer the above question as well.

    > >
    > > I didn't comment as it does not deserve comment. And you are full of
    > > shit, I did comment on your silly and ill thought out question, you
    > > just didn't like the response. You also did not even attempt to
    > > counter any of the articles I posted, and you didn't see me using
    > > that as some form of proof you are avoiding the issue here.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> So, third time: how do you explain the failure of Iraq's citizens to
    > >> overthrow Saddam, despite their having guns?

    > >
    > > You really are not too bright are you?

    >
    > Translation: "I can't find a canned answer that I can cut and paste"


    Translated: you are not too bright and clearly ignorant of the topic and
    driven by emotions vs facts and data.

    >
    > > What do I believe in the context of your ridiculous simpleton
    > > question? I don¹t believe there will be any changes in the US
    > > government as to require armed resistance on a large scale in my life
    > > time, and that belief is 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    >
    > So you think that the US right to bear guns helps prevent genocide, but that
    > there won't be any need for people in the US to use guns to prevent
    > genocide.


    Irrelevant. Additional illogical retarded statements snipped.

    Plonk

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  19. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    WillBrink wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> So, third time: how do you explain the failure of Iraq's citizens
    >>>> to overthrow Saddam, despite their having guns?
    >>>
    >>> You really are not too bright are you?

    >>
    >> Translation: "I can't find a canned answer that I can cut and paste"

    >
    > Translated: you are not too bright and clearly ignorant of the topic
    > and driven by emotions vs facts and data.
    >
    >>
    >>> What do I believe in the context of your ridiculous simpleton
    >>> question? I don¹t believe there will be any changes in the US
    >>> government as to require armed resistance on a large scale in my
    >>> life time, and that belief is 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    >>
    >> So you think that the US right to bear guns helps prevent genocide,
    >> but that there won't be any need for people in the US to use guns to
    >> prevent genocide.

    >
    > Irrelevant. Additional illogical retarded statements snipped.
    >
    > Plonk


    Translation: "WAAHH!! I lost the argument! WAHH! Throwing toys out of pram!"

    Well, it would have been nice to see a more mature attitude to losing an
    argument, but if you want to look like a petulant fool it's your choice.

    Peter
     
  20. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WillBrink wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Peter Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>> So, third time: how do you explain the failure of Iraq's citizens
    > >>>> to overthrow Saddam, despite their having guns?
    > >>>
    > >>> You really are not too bright are you?
    > >>
    > >> Translation: "I can't find a canned answer that I can cut and paste"

    > >
    > > Translated: you are not too bright and clearly ignorant of the topic
    > > and driven by emotions vs facts and data.
    > >
    > >>
    > >>> What do I believe in the context of your ridiculous simpleton
    > >>> question? I don¹t believe there will be any changes in the US
    > >>> government as to require armed resistance on a large scale in my
    > >>> life time, and that belief is 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    > >>
    > >> So you think that the US right to bear guns helps prevent genocide,
    > >> but that there won't be any need for people in the US to use guns to
    > >> prevent genocide.

    > >
    > > Irrelevant. Additional illogical retarded statements snipped.
    > >
    > > Plonk

    >
    > Translation: "WAAHH!! I lost the argument!


    On that we can agree. Good work Pete.

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
Loading...
Loading...