Re: WHY???

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michel Boucher said:

Giusi <[email hidden]> scripsit in news:466cfe42$0$16262$88260bb3
@free.teranews.com:

Quoted message said:

Any society that
lives in and with such a terrible ethic is very sick.

And they commit the worst of blunders which is to get involved in land
wars in Asia...and the Middle East.

I hope you realize that the vast MAJORITY of americans are opposed to
that war. I'd think the last Congressional election would speak for
itself.

It's not that vast, not even close. A vast majority of Americans are
opposed to the way the war is being (mis)managed, a minority are opposed
to the war at all. Some of us aren't blinded by hatred of a particular
political party to the point of overlooking what's going on in the real
world.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pete C. said:

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nancy Young said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

> [email hidden] says...
>
>> Those of us who can't be bothered with guns are the ones not blathering
>> on about packing for when we are attacked by all the armed criminals
>> out there. Don't need a gun. Not scared.

> Precisely.
>
> There was a story in the local paper recently about a couple who lived
> in constant fear of being robbed. They both have concealed pistol
> permits, and spend a lot of time at the shooting range. When they go to
> an ATM to withdraw money, one sits in the car with their gun in their
> lap and "covers" the other one.
>
> Truly pitiful.

I shouldn't laugh, because that really is sad. I'm sure it wouldn't help
to point out to them that we live in what could be a cashless society,
just use credit/debit cards, checks. Go to the bank if the ATM seems
scary to you, get your 10 bucks walking around money.

They won't listen. Of course. Their fear filled world is comforting
to them somehow. I wish them peace, as they don't have it.

nancy

I never use ATM machines. Checks, credit and debit cards work for me.

I hope that you all don't really think that wanting to be armed means
that I live in fear.

No, it's just the typical anti-gunners attempt to hide the fact that
they are the ones who are paranoid. They live in constant fear that
someone they walk by might be armed. Remarkable insecurity, quite sad.

Ah. Reversal.

Got it. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>, "Pete C." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Michel Boucher said:

Dee Dee <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa
in the late 1990's
Canada is not listed as one of the ten safest countries to live in
with regard to murder rates.

We are in the latter part of the 2000's so those statistics are a
decade out of date. Amazing how people think they can pull out old
stuff to derail a discussion.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

For more recent numbers, consult:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060720/d060720b.htm

At any rate, not being armed does not result in more murders per
capita, nor are those murders committed with firearms as a
predominant weapon (this was established previously).

"Between 1991 and 2000, rates of property crime fell 34%, driven in
part by reductions in breaking and entering."

"During the past four decades, years with higher rates of per capita
alcohol consumption and unemployment tended to be associated with
higher rates of homicide."

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050629/d050629b.htm

Higher rates of homicide would include bar brawls and domestic
disputes that end up in the death of one or the other, or both.

But still, we're talking about small numbers.

"Canadian police services reported 658 homicides in 2005, 34 more
than in 2004."

"There were 222 victims killed by a firearm in 2005, 49 more than the
previous year. This is the third consecutive annual
increase in firearm homicides. Handguns accounted for about 6 in 10
firearm homicides."

So, of 222 victims killed with a firearm, 133 were killed with a
handgun. This is for the entire population of the country for a
whole year.

The numbers you quote don't tell the whole picture and indeed aren't
very relevant. Total firearm deaths don't account for which were
defensive actions, don't account for lives saved because someone was
armed and didn't have to kill their attacker, don't account for people
murdered by other means, etc.

Firearms are not the only deadly weapon.
People are murdered a number of ways.

Including fists.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pete C. said:

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michel Boucher said:

Giusi <[email hidden]> scripsit in news:466cfe42$0$16262$88260bb3
@free.teranews.com:

> Any society that
> lives in and with such a terrible ethic is very sick.

And they commit the worst of blunders which is to get involved in land
wars in Asia...and the Middle East.

I hope you realize that the vast MAJORITY of americans are opposed to
that war. I'd think the last Congressional election would speak for
itself.

It's not that vast, not even close. A vast majority of Americans are
opposed to the way the war is being (mis)managed, a minority are opposed
to the war at all. Some of us aren't blinded by hatred of a particular
political party to the point of overlooking what's going on in the real
world.

All I'm asking is that the rest of the world not hate the entire
American people for what is going on in Iraq.

That's not fair.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Pete C. said:

The numbers you quote don't tell the whole picture and indeed aren't
very relevant. Total firearm deaths don't account for which were
defensive actions, don't account for lives saved because someone was
armed and didn't have to kill their attacker, don't account for people
murdered by other means, etc.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

They are relevant to this conversation. Obviously if there were 658
homicides and 133 were committed with handguns, then the rest were
not. The discussion centers on the benefits and disadvantages of
owning and carrying handguns because, and I quote here the consie
nostrum, "the criminals have handguns". This specific point was on
handguns used in the commission of murders. I think it was fairly
accurate. If you have better statistics, feel free to share.

Pete C. said:

Last I heard that was a thing of the past and the police were now armed
because the criminals were still armed despite the absurd anti gun laws.
Just further proof that anti gun laws accomplish nothing but increasing
the pool of victims.

Except that as I pointed out earlier, the number of crimes in Britain
has dropped over the last decade. Perhaps you weren't paying
attention.

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pete C. said:

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Michel Boucher <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Giusi <[email hidden]> scripsit in news:466cfe42$0$16262$88260bb3
> @free.teranews.com:
>
> > Any society that
> > lives in and with such a terrible ethic is very sick.
>
> And they commit the worst of blunders which is to get involved in land
> wars in Asia...and the Middle East.

I hope you realize that the vast MAJORITY of americans are opposed to
that war. I'd think the last Congressional election would speak for
itself.

It's not that vast, not even close. A vast majority of Americans are
opposed to the way the war is being (mis)managed, a minority are opposed
to the war at all. Some of us aren't blinded by hatred of a particular
political party to the point of overlooking what's going on in the real
world.

All I'm asking is that the rest of the world not hate the entire
American people for what is going on in Iraq.

That's not fair.

No, but they primarily hate us out of jealousy for our greater freedoms
and higher standard of living. They just grab onto other issues as a
justification for their jealousy.

Quoted post said:

Pete C. said:

Last I heard that was a thing of the past and the police were now armed
because the criminals were still armed despite the absurd anti gun laws.
Just further proof that anti gun laws accomplish nothing but increasing
the pool of victims.

Except that as I pointed out earlier, the number of crimes in Britain
has dropped over the last decade. Perhaps you weren't paying
attention.

US too. The media sensationalizes more, but overall drops. Increases in
some cities, but overall drops.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:39:30 -0700, Dee Dee <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Somewhere I've read (is it in the consitution?) that it is not the
duty of the police to protect its citizens. Someone who knows could
clarify where this is written; but I'm sure there are too many
opinions that this is not the case.

Dee Dee

The supremes wrote that police have a duty to protect society , not an
individual citizen.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:48:38 -0500, Omelet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Okay, but I don't work in law enforcement. ;-)
I just want to get certified to teach basic gun handling and safety for
women. Pistol, rifle and maybe shotgun.

I've done quite a bit of googling and I've found the local NRA
instructors for certification.

Look in the American Riflemen mag. They have a list of instructor
school. And I believe that they are still looking for a number of
female instructors.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Omelet said:

That applies to guns, fire extinguishers and smoke detectors.

And life insurance. Nobody plans to, or wants to, use their life
insurance.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:51:56 -0400, "Nancy Young" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In your world, people are waiting to drive you off cliffs.

We live in different worlds. The fact that you can't understand
that should tell you something, but it doesn't. Can't help you with
that.

nancy

Nancy if you are living in society, you in some danger.
I think it is about one in ten, females are sexually molested in
their life time. That is not counting other assaults.
An armed society is a polite society

Pan Ohco said:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:39:30 -0700, Dee Dee <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Somewhere I've read (is it in the consitution?) that it is not the
duty of the police to protect its citizens. Someone who knows could
clarify where this is written; but I'm sure there are too many
opinions that this is not the case.

Quoted message said:

Dee Dee

The supremes wrote that police have a duty to protect society , not an
individual citizen.

Thanks, Pan.
I knew that someone had the answer!
I like that: "The Supremes." Will have to remember that. Funny.
Dee Dee

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There was a story in the local paper recently about a couple who lived
in constant fear of being robbed. They both have concealed pistol
permits, and spend a lot of time at the shooting range. When they go to
an ATM to withdraw money, one sits in the car with their gun in their
lap and "covers" the other one.

Truly pitiful.

It all depends on where they live.
They may know their neighborhood.

Pan Ohco said:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:51:56 -0400, "Nancy Young" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In your world, people are waiting to drive you off cliffs.

We live in different worlds. The fact that you can't understand
that should tell you something, but it doesn't. Can't help you with
that.

nancy

Nancy if you are living in society, you in some danger.
I think it is about one in ten, females are sexually molested in
their life time. That is not counting other assaults.
An armed society is a polite society

Thought it was supposed to be 1 in 3.

Quoted post said:

Pete C. said:

Last I heard that was a thing of the past and the police were now armed
because the criminals were still armed despite the absurd anti gun laws.
Just further proof that anti gun laws accomplish nothing but increasing
the pool of victims.

Except that as I pointed out earlier, the number of crimes in Britain
has dropped over the last decade. Perhaps you weren't paying
attention.

Hmmm, CNN just had a piece that noted very high rates in gun deaths in
parts of Britain. How can that be? Nobody is allowed to have guns. Oh
yea, criminals don't care about gun laws...

Michel Boucher said:

And as far as being happy, well, I'm not on the issue of gun
ownership or our current gummint's redneck attitude towards gun
control, that's fersure.

For one "redneck" is a slur.

Quoted message said:

Otherwise, I don't live in a country plagued by crime (created by the
"right to bear arms"😉, and I feel no need to carry a gun...I never
have. Wouldn't you prefer to live somewhere where you didn't have to
carry a gun...ever?

So Michel there is no place that you would not go to in your city, at
any time day or night?
Is there no place, perhaps a lower socioeconomic area or enclave, that
you would be in fear of?
If so you truly live in paradise.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pan Ohco said:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:39:30 -0700, Dee Dee <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Somewhere I've read (is it in the consitution?) that it is not the
duty of the police to protect its citizens. Someone who knows could
clarify where this is written; but I'm sure there are too many
opinions that this is not the case.

Dee Dee

The supremes wrote that police have a duty to protect society , not an
individual citizen.

Got some input for that from tx.guns:

Warren v. D. C.

"A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide
public services, such as police protection, to any particular
individual citizen."

Bowers v. Devito

"There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state
officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its
officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life
without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05
(5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected
by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

There are lots of others.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

From HeyBub:

Tell 'em to look at "Castle Rock v Gonzales" wherein police are not even
mandated to enforce a court-ordered restraining order!

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:Th2tg8xpFI4J:a257.g.akamaitech.net/7
/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf+
Castle+Rock+vs.+Gonzales&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

"Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property
interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her
husband.

"Such entitlements [police protection] are created by existing rules or
understandings stemming from an independent source such as state law.

"A benefit is not a protected entitlement if officials have discretion
to
grant or deny it."

---

Another way to look at the issue is to compare crimes with fires, police
departments with fire departments. No one has a right, and no fire
department has a duty, to have a fire truck parked outside one's house.
If a
fire breaks out, the firemen come and do the best they can - same as
with
the police - but they're not obligated to hang around 24/7 to PREVENT
fires.

If you want such as that, it's up to you to hire your own bodyguard.

But that's okay, there are far more private security guards than cops
(and
far, far more volunteer firefighters than professional ones).
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Giusi said:

Closed minds do not hear.

Pot -> Kettle -> Black dear. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Cheryl Perkins said:

Naturally, once a war starts, lots of people do end up as refugees, but
that doesn't mean that others in the same ethnic or political group
aren't armed fighters.

And what if the entire population were armed?
They would not have to run.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson