On 08/10/2015 15:46, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
But, if I wait to learn the facts I lose the chance to irritate
people who think differently.
Well that just says it all.
You've just given the definition of an internet troll...
"Why let facts get in the way of a good argument"
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:43:27 +0100, Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk>
wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
for a view on the statistics are skewed to give a pro carrying lethal
weapon view.
The gun doesn't need controlling. It's people who do.
Regulation to discover and control irresponsible people is the
intelligent path to pursue.
But your type had rather see mass murders than see a murderer's
privacy invaded.
(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)
Unless you are another freeloader off the earnings of responsible
people the cost of ink makes your policy look stupid.
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:43:27 +0100, Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk>
wrote:
On 07/10/2015 21:08, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
"Australian Gun Law Update;
Which "Issues related to scouting policy" does this relate to?
None.
It has now been 12 months since...+17 years. Welcome to this century.
The century changed - I haven't. I am unaffected by people who need legislated equality to be considered equal. Our God-given soul is the
only equality and if you don't agree you are a failure in that also.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
for a view on the statistics are skewed to give a pro carrying lethal >>weapon view.
The gun doesn't need controlling. It's people who do. But liberals
will never have the intellectual capacity to comprehend that.
Regulation to discover and control irresponsible people is the
intelligent path to pursue. But your type had rather see mass murders
than see a murderer's privacy invaded.
Deanna Earley (dee@earlsoft.co.uk, dee@doesnotcompute.co.uk)
(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)
Unless you are another freeloader off the earnings of responsible
people the cost of ink makes your policy look stupid. Unfortunately
that appears to be your frequent position.
Hugh
Hugh,
There is an interesting letter in yesterday's "The Independent" British >newspaper. I am in London at present. I will post it full:-
"In the US an 11 year-old boy has shot dead an eight-year-old girl because >she would not let him play with her puppies. To prevent this happening
again, will the gun lobby recommend a reduction in the availability of
guns, a cull of puppies, or urge that eight-year-old owners of puppies
should all carry a gun?".
What is your answer, or perhaps you can suggest a better course of action.
Brian.
On 08/10/2015 16:02, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:43:27 +0100, Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk>
wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
for a view on the statistics are skewed to give a pro carrying lethal
weapon view.
The gun doesn't need controlling. It's people who do.
Yes, see where I said "carrying". A gun can not carry itself.
Regulation to discover and control irresponsible people is the
intelligent path to pursue.
I'm glad we agree on something.
But your type had rather see mass murders than see a murderer's
privacy invaded.
Where on earth did you pull that morsel from?
(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)
Unless you are another freeloader off the earnings of responsible
people the cost of ink makes your policy look stupid.
You don't get humour do you.
Thankfully people have learnt and I don't waste any ink (see, social
change works!).
Parents! How did the boy get the gun! Only an idiot would blame the
tool. But, as usual, your's is a fair question.
I was raised in a house with guns, there are guns in my house, both
sons' houses and the houses of 5 grandchildren and 2 great grands. My
sons were taught how to handle guns responsibly - just as I was
taught.
On 09/10/2015 15:46, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Parents! How did the boy get the gun! Only an idiot would blame the
tool. But, as usual, your's is a fair question.
I was raised in a house with guns, there are guns in my house, both
sons' houses and the houses of 5 grandchildren and 2 great grands. My
sons were taught how to handle guns responsibly - just as I was
taught.
Said every other gun owner.
The number of cases of murder seems to be roughly correlated with the
number of guns. The US has more murders than Australia and UK per head of >population I think. I also yesterday saw the startling news item that the
US has 2.2 million people in prison while the UK has only 96,000. These
are very out from the ratio of poplulations.
However, back to the boy. If you insist in having guns and I have never
felt the need to have one, children should certainly be taught to handle
them responsibly.
However, whether this has been done or not, I do not
think that a 13 year old should have access to a gun without a parent
being present.
In the US you use the idea of a militia in the constitution to justify
guns. Switzerland also has a militia which all able-bodied men have to
belong to. They have to have guns at home. However, I understand they all >have them in a locked cabinet high on the wall above the fire out of reach
of children. They do not have a high rate of murders by guns. Of course
guns in the US are nothing actually to do with a militia. You could
however learn from the Swiss.
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Brian Salter-Duke
<brian.james.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
Hugh,
There is an interesting letter in yesterday's "The Independent" British >>newspaper. I am in London at present. I will post it full:-
"In the US an 11 year-old boy has shot dead an eight-year-old girl because >>she would not let him play with her puppies. To prevent this happening >>again, will the gun lobby recommend a reduction in the availability of >>guns, a cull of puppies, or urge that eight-year-old owners of puppies >>should all carry a gun?".
What is your answer, or perhaps you can suggest a better course of action.
Brian.
Parents! How did the boy get the gun! Only an idiot would blame the
tool. But, as usual, your's is a fair question.
I was raised in a house with guns, there are guns in my house, both
sons' houses and the houses of 5 grandchildren and 2 great grands. My
sons were taught how to handle guns responsibly - just as I was
taught.
Personal responsibility is the ultimate answer. Liberals have so
blurred that line - queers are okay, bastards are okay, atheists are
okay, i. e., if it's what a person wants to do it's right. We used to
draw the line somewhere. Everybody was not happy but problems were
fewer.
I am not part of the "gun lobby". I will have guns and I have
demonstrated personal responsibility in spite of liberal retards
endorsing irresponsible behavior.
Is it worth all the deaths that would be caused by trying to take our
guns?
1. I think a thorough background investigation is esential to weed out
mental problems and irresponsible behavior even if they are mommy's
boy. That doesn't require the army or dead marshalls.
2. I think we need to quit publishing names of mass murderers - they
love publicity and it creates copycats. Then we ought to grind up the
killers into dog food and feed the dogs.
Liberal defecation orifices seem to think murder started with the
invention of an inanimate object called a gun.
Hugh
Sorry, Hugh, but too many people use then irresponsibly and the country
needs to address that.
I see there was another shooting in a university
in Texas. I cannot even think of one such shooting in an Australian or >British university. Guns are not making the country safe. They are making
it dangerous.
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:31:13 +0000 (UTC), Brian Salter-Duke
<brian.james.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
The number of cases of murder seems to be roughly correlated with the >>number of guns. The US has more murders than Australia and UK per head of >>population I think. I also yesterday saw the startling news item that the >>US has 2.2 million people in prison while the UK has only 96,000. These
are very out from the ratio of poplulations.
KIlling with a gun is easier and quicker . It's the fault of the
person, not the tool. Murders happened for thousands of years before
there were guns. Should we blame the car for the drunk driver? or the
hammer for hitting the thumb? Should we register hammers since
registration doesn't prevent drinking and driving?
However, back to the boy. If you insist in having guns and I have never >>felt the need to have one, children should certainly be taught to handle >>them responsibly.
I have never had a "need" to have a gun. The reason may be that I have
them and would be willing to use one in case of need.
However, whether this has been done or not, I do not
think that a 13 year old should have access to a gun without a parent
being present.
I welcome a newcomer to the group that views solutions intelligently.
It's not the gun.
We had a trailer on a lake for years. I don't recall the age the boys
took a gun out alone. It was not before I thought them responsible.
In the US you use the idea of a militia in the constitution to justify >>guns. Switzerland also has a militia which all able-bodied men have to >>belong to. They have to have guns at home. However, I understand they all >>have them in a locked cabinet high on the wall above the fire out of reach >>of children. They do not have a high rate of murders by guns. Of course >>guns in the US are nothing actually to do with a militia. You could
however learn from the Swiss.
First, I don't justify to anyone. I'm long past needing anyone's
approval. If I am alive I will have guns. I'm reasonably safe as long
as millions of others feel the same way.
One of Hitler's first acts was to confiscate private guns. The
possibility of the need for a militia to prevent that in this country
is sufficient justification for those who feel a need to justify.
Every free country in the world depended on this gun-totin' country to
save them from Germany twice. Maybe they should be thankful that most
of us use them responsibly.
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:27:55 +0000 (UTC), Brian Salter-Duke
<brian.james.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, Hugh, but too many people use then irresponsibly and the country >>needs to address that.
Then let's look at that as a standard. Whenever some idiot who needs
to be beaten to death uses a tool irresponsibly we should penalize the
tool? After the fact people realize that the perp was weird and should
have been undergoing treatment or confined.
I see there was another shooting in a university
in Texas. I cannot even think of one such shooting in an Australian or >>British university. Guns are not making the country safe. They are making >>it dangerous.
People won't give up their guns and they won't register them. Some
would hide them and some would kill rather than submit. The fact that criminals don't know is a deterrent. Laws don't control criminals -
they might make criminals of normally law-abiding people.
Controlling the tool is as stupid as losing a $100 in the middle of
the block but looking for it at the corner where the light is better.
Law is moot if no one abides by it. What would you suggest?
Hugh
Law is moot if no one abides by it. What would you suggest?
I think that what you describe above is a widely held (in the USA) myth.
It is not how the world works. The evidence from many other countries is >quite clear. If you reduce the number of guns and discourage people from >carrying guns in public, then deaths by guns decrease. There are no gun >deaths on Australian university campuses because no students or staff have >guns on campus. It really is that simple.
In the UK, even most police do not carry guns and during WW2 and later
when my father in law was a London policeman (including in the London
Blitz) no police carried guns and he strongly agreed that was the right >thing. He and others often talked criminals down to hand over guns rather >than using them.
I live in a big city and am currently in a very big city (London) and
both are far safer then US cities. You really do need to look at the >evidence.
One of Hitler's first acts was to confiscate private guns. The
possibility of the need for a militia to prevent that in this country
is sufficient justification for those who feel a need to justify.
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:18:02 +0100, Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk>
wrote:
On 09/10/2015 15:46, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Parents! How did the boy get the gun! Only an idiot would blame the
tool. But, as usual, your's is a fair question.
I was raised in a house with guns, there are guns in my house, both
sons' houses and the houses of 5 grandchildren and 2 great grands. My
sons were taught how to handle guns responsibly - just as I was
taught.
Said every other gun owner.
Your statement is not a generality, it's a lie.
On 09/10/2015 17:43, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:18:02 +0100, Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk>
wrote:
On 09/10/2015 15:46, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Parents! How did the boy get the gun! Only an idiot would blame the
tool. But, as usual, your's is a fair question.
I was raised in a house with guns, there are guns in my house, both
sons' houses and the houses of 5 grandchildren and 2 great grands. My
sons were taught how to handle guns responsibly - just as I was
taught.
Said every other gun owner.
Your statement is not a generality, it's a lie.
Who is likely to say they are an irresponsible gun owner?
On 10/10/2015 15:51, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
One of Hitler's first acts was to confiscate private guns. The
possibility of the need for a militia to prevent that in this country
is sufficient justification for those who feel a need to justify.
I call Godwin. Argument over.
--
Deanna Earley (dee@earlsoft.co.uk, dee@doesnotcompute.co.uk)
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Brian Salter-Duke
<brian.james.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
Law is moot if no one abides by it. What would you suggest?
I think that what you describe above is a widely held (in the USA) myth.
The first point to consider is that I will not give up my guns short
of death - and I am far from unique. In that respect the law is moot.
It is not how the world works. The evidence from many other countries is >>quite clear. If you reduce the number of guns and discourage people from >>carrying guns in public, then deaths by guns decrease. There are no gun >>deaths on Australian university campuses because no students or staff have >>guns on campus. It really is that simple.
The flaw in your logic is that nothing prevents a deranged person from altering your theory. It's like me saying Tasmanian Devils don't exist because I (and many others) have never seen one.
The other side of the coin is that our ability to use guns is why the
rest of the world exists in a mostly free state. Otherwise you would
be speaking Japanese and bowing to the Emperor.
In the UK, even most police do not carry guns and during WW2 and later
when my father in law was a London policeman (including in the London >>Blitz) no police carried guns and he strongly agreed that was the right >>thing. He and others often talked criminals down to hand over guns
rather than using them.
That happens just as crazed individuals use guns improperly. Suggest something that corrects the problem - the crazed individual, not the
tool.
I live in a big city and am currently in a very big city (London) and
both are far safer then US cities. You really do need to look at the >>evidence.
I have been to every state in the US and a number of foreign
countries. I have never felt unsafe. Maybe that's because I have guns.
I don't carry but I have one in the car when I travel.
I have no problem requiring individuals to qualify for gun ownership.
But I will not bow to the stupidity of blaming the tool vice the
individual regardless of the law.
Hugh
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:03:18 +0100, Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk>
wrote:
On 10/10/2015 15:51, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:One of Hitler's first acts was to confiscate private guns. The
possibility of the need for a militia to prevent that in this country
is sufficient justification for those who feel a need to justify.
I call Godwin. Argument over.
--
Deanna Earley (dee@earlsoft.co.uk, dee@doesnotcompute.co.uk)
You flatter yourself - there was never an argument. Your idiocy is not
the refutation required to make it an argument.
Hugh
Just a comment on Godwin's Law. Godwin is a lawyer with a great deal of >knowlwdge of the internet and it use. He was for a while the lawyer of the >Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. He formulated it back I think
in the 1990s when news, like this group, was much bigger than it is now.
The law actually states:-
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison >involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" - that is, if an online discussion >(regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later
someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. He was not >having fun. He believes such comparisons trivialize the Holocaust.
There are many corollaries. The most common is that once such a comparison
is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has >automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is
itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. Experience showed that this >was indeed the case in most debates, but it does not mean it is the case
in all.
It is probably the most famous "Law" of the internet.
Brian.
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:34:25 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Brian Salter-Duke >><brian.james.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
Law is moot if no one abides by it. What would you suggest?
I think that what you describe above is a widely held (in the USA) myth.
The first point to consider is that I will not give up my guns short
of death - and I am far from unique. In that respect the law is moot.
That is exactly the reaction from following a myth not looking at
evidence.
We get deranged people in Australia too, but almost always they do not
have access to guns so they use a knife or similar and their attacks lead
to only one death not many or in most cases only to wounds.
The other side of the coin is that our ability to use guns is why the
rest of the world exists in a mostly free state. Otherwise you would
be speaking Japanese and bowing to the Emperor.
Nonsense. There is no evidence that US soldiers were any better than
British or Australian soldiers. You just vastly increased the number
to make the crucial difference.
The Japanese were, I think, first held back at Milne Bay and then Kokoda
by Australian troops.
In the UK, even most police do not carry guns and during WW2 and later >>>when my father in law was a London policeman (including in the London >>>Blitz) no police carried guns and he strongly agreed that was the right >>>thing. He and others often talked criminals down to hand over guns
rather than using them.
That happens just as crazed individuals use guns improperly. Suggest
something that corrects the problem - the crazed individual, not the
tool.
As above, crazed individuals can be better controlled if they do not have
a gun.
I have been to every state in the US and a number of foreign
countries. I have never felt unsafe. Maybe that's because I have guns.
I don't carry but I have one in the car when I travel.
So it will be in the car if a crazed individual starts shooting near you
in a shopping mall.
I have no problem requiring individuals to qualify for gun ownership.
But I will not bow to the stupidity of blaming the tool vice the
individual regardless of the law.
It is not a question of blaming the tool rather than the person. It is
not even a question of blame. It is all about the best strategy to
reduce the number of murders.
Again I say, take a good look at the evidence.
I do not need to call you out on Godwin's Law! Someone else
has already done that.
I view his opinion as a very weak response to a logical conclusion. If
the Hitler conclusion is wrong there should be a logical rebuttal -
not an obvious attempt to tuck one's tail and run. It would be like me
responding to comments about gun deaths by saying, "Well, there's a
lot of them!" Both are an admission of insufficient data to discuss
further, i. e., a surrender to the other position. In a verbal
disagreement I prefer El Degüello.
He was not making a judgement. He was just pointing out how news
discussions usually ended up. As I said this was based on experience of
using news groups in a much greater way than certainly I, and probably
you, do.
I am adamant in my position but I will subscribe to any reasonable
solution to uncover irresponsible gun owners and probably agree they
should be confined to prevent their possibly causing a disaster. At
times we must sacrifice some of our rights for the common good. My
list of those would be vastly different from yours.
This can only be part of the solution. The evidence from other countries
is quite clear. You need to discourage people from owning gunss and, make >guns less part of the culture.
I really don't care what the NRA or mommy think about my view.
You do however need to think about the disproportional power and
influence that the NRA has on this issue.
You should also teach your police to stop shooting people in the back. It >just inflames the situation and encourages more people to carry guns, as
well of course leading to people being murdered by police.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:39:57 +0000 (UTC), Brian Salter-Duke
<brian.james.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a comment on Godwin's Law. Godwin is a lawyer with a great deal of >>knowlwdge of the internet and it use. He was for a while the lawyer of the >>Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. He formulated it back I think
in the 1990s when news, like this group, was much bigger than it is now. >>The law actually states:-
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison >>involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" - that is, if an online discussion >>(regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later
someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. He was not >>having fun. He believes such comparisons trivialize the Holocaust.
There are many corollaries. The most common is that once such a comparison >>is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has >>automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is >>itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. Experience showed that this >>was indeed the case in most debates, but it does not mean it is the case
in all.
It is probably the most famous "Law" of the internet.
Brian.
I view his opinion as a very weak response to a logical conclusion. If
the Hitler conclusion is wrong there should be a logical rebuttal -
not an obvious attempt to tuck one's tail and run. It would be like me responding to comments about gun deaths by saying, "Well, there's a
lot of them!" Both are an admission of insufficient data to discuss
further, i. e., a surrender to the other position. In a verbal
disagreement I prefer El Degüello.
Let's go back to square 1 and establish some parameters. Millions of
people will neither register nor give up their guns without force.
Should the Army be called out to forcefully invade all those homes or
should we seek a more intelligent solution?
I am adamant in my position but I will subscribe to any reasonable
solution to uncover irresponsible gun owners and probably agree they
should be confined to prevent their possibly causing a disaster. At
times we must sacrifice some of our rights for the common good. My
list of those would be vastly different from yours.
I really don't care what the NRA or mommy think about my view.
Hugh
This information is certainly way out of date. The "new law" discused
below was brought in almost exactly 19 years ago (not 12 months ago) and
it took one year to fully implement. It is also I think false. I suggest a >better view is here:-
"Australian Gun Law Update;
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners
in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars.
"The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed
that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
"Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....'
Posted by Hugh
But, if I wait to learn the facts I lose the chance to irritate
people who think differently.
"Australian Gun Law Update;
It has now been 12 months since...+17 years. Welcome to this century.
On 07/10/2015 21:08, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
"Australian Gun Law Update;
Which "Issues related to scouting policy" does this relate to?
It has now been 12 months since...+17 years. Welcome to this century.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
for a view on the statistics are skewed to give a pro carrying lethal
weapon view.
Deanna Earley (dee@earlsoft.co.uk, dee@doesnotcompute.co.uk)
(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 217:23:34 |
| Calls: | 6,621 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,317,712 |