$1500 Cash Reward

chris wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
kontiki writes:

That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.

Not so. The reality is that there is generally no indoctrination at all
concerning firearms in countries where they are not common. Indeed, the
greatest exposure to firearms for people in many countries is American
motion
pictures, which regularly feature gunplay (and hardly indoctrinate
against
it).

Most people in most countries know very little about firearms, apart
from the
fact that they are normally used for hunting or killing people. Those
who
aren't interested in hunting or killing people aren't interested in
firearms.
And while the notion of someone in the countryside having a firearm for
hunting isn't necessarily that repulsive, the notion of someone in the
city
carrying one (and the implication that it is intended to kill people, not
food) is naturally repulsive to most people, in the same way that
murder is
repulsive.


Yay!! Not only do we finally agree on something but you're actually
making a whole lot of sense

I have only seen a couple of .22s in real life and never fired anything.
There's just no need to have a firearm for the average person,
especially in town.

Yes, your ignorance was pretty obvious from your earlier posts.


And the idea that the population is comfortable with the idea almost
scares me more than the thought of the guns themselves!

That is fine, don't come here then.


I heard one commentator over here point out after the last US school
shooting recently that if guns were as readily available here to the
sort of people who shoot up schools, we'd have the same thing happen
here. It's only the fact that angry young men have substantially more
difficulty laying their hands on the firearms that prevents tragedies
like that from occurring here.

If they are really predisposed to commit such acts, they will find a way.

Matt

Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

This is not true. Freedom of speech is the best way to avoid tyranny, which
is why any curtailment thereof must be resisted. And in a democracy one
resists by voting, not by firing a gun.

So if I hold a shotgun to your head and tell you to "shut up", you'll continue
to exercise your "freedom of speech"?

No, but you wouldn't want to be the the receiving end of what I would
do. I won't say as it isn't wise to give away your tactics, but suffice
to say you'd soon be assuming room temperature.

chris writes:

And the idea that the population is comfortable with the idea almost
scares me more than the thought of the guns themselves!

I've always found that the best argument for gun control is a population that
is rabidly and violently opposed to gun control. When someone fairly
convulses with terror at the mere mention of gun control, it's clear that that
person is rather preoccupied by firearms, and a preoccupation with firearms is
a bad sign.

In other words, if people were not so paranoid about gun control in the U.S.,
there'd be no reason to argue in its favor. But with so many people so upset
about it, it's clear that there is a dark obsession with guns (and with the
violence they represent) that is potentially very damaging to the society.

I heard one commentator over here point out after the last US school
shooting recently that if guns were as readily available here to the
sort of people who shoot up schools, we'd have the same thing happen
here. It's only the fact that angry young men have substantially more
difficulty laying their hands on the firearms that prevents tragedies
like that from occurring here.

Angry young males are a pox on civilization, generally speaking. Their
propensity for engaging in gratuitous violence is legendary and unavoidable in
large populations. Anything that allows them to be more violent will be
dangerous if it is accessible to them, and guns are pretty much at the top of
that list (nuclear bombs would be higher, but they are not for sale at
Wal-Mart).

In any garden-variety high school, there will always be a handful of angry
young males who will readily kill other people with guns if they are given the
opportunity. In a peaceful society, it might simply never occur to such males
to find a few guns and kill everyone at school, but in a society that is
obsessed with violence and rewards extreme violence with lasting celebrity, it
will indeed occur to these misfits and inevitably they will act on their ideas
at some point.

Matt Whiting writes:

If they are really predisposed to commit such acts, they will find a way.

What other readily-accessible ways do they have of killing large numbers of
people in a short time from a distance besides guns?

Matt Whiting writes:

Hunting is one one use for firearms.

Game is rather lacking in the middle of most large cities.

Self-protection is another use and
that unfortunately sometimes involves killing people and that is the
purpose of handguns (although many are great for hunting as well).

Self-protection involves killing people so rarely in a statistical sense that
it is meaningless as a justification for handguns. Even self-protection is
rarely required in civilized societies. And handguns are poor weapons for
hunting.

Why would you want the general population running around defenseless
when the criminals are armed (with knives if not guns).

In areas without guns, most criminals are unarmed. In fact, this is true even
in areas with guns, since the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime can
be very severe, and since guns are expensive.

It is absolutely true. I've had such a permit for nearly 30 years. If
someone attempts to take my life or the life of a family member, it is
absolutely right for me to take their life. It is not only acceptable,
I'm morally obligated to do so.

How many times have you had to kill someone during those 30 years?

kontiki writes:

You freakin' whimp.

This is not a good attitude for someone who owns a gun.

Matt Whiting writes:

Fortunately, I live in a rural
area where this isn't likely to happen, but if a band of terrorists came
through here, I wouldn't need to call the police and wait. I'd just
call a few neighbors and load my weapons.

What you are overlooking is the fact that a band of terrorists will _never_
come through your neighborhood. They are about as likely as a meteor strike.
What precautions have you taken against meteors?

chris writes:

I understand that there are quite a few people in this country with
firearms - farmers, hunters, etc. We very very seldom hear of
shootings, certainly not deliberate ones.

France also has quite a few people with guns, at least in rural areas where
there is a justification for them, and yet gun violence is still very rare
compared to the United States. Hunters carry guns when hunting (not at other
times). Cops carry guns. Soldiers carry (unloaded) guns. Target shooters
carry guns. But nobody else does.

I also understand other
countries with similar numbers of guns per capita have a much worse gun
problem than us, so it must be a cultural thing...

Yes. In some cultures guns are familiar and accepted. In other cultures they
are considered repulsive, and very often they simply are not thought of at
all.

Certainly not in an airplane !!!! That's just bizarre, in my opinion

A terrorist might attempt to parachute into the cockpit from above. Without a
gun, how would you stop him?

kontiki writes:

Excuse me, but guns *are* controlled already. In fact,
we have laws for every conceivable act, and now... even
mere thought. But guess what? people still commit crimes.
Damn those criminals, they just don't want to play
along like good blokews and obey, eh?

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to obtain a pilot's license in the
U.S. than it is to obtain a gun. In fact, you can arm yourself with automatic
weapons and cannons more easily than you can obtain a pilot's license.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting writes:

If they are really predisposed to commit such acts, they will find a way.

What other readily-accessible ways do they have of killing large numbers
of
people in a short time from a distance besides guns?

ammonium nitrate, dip****.