Gun Confiscation Now Beginning in California

[Eazy-E]

Mickey Finn:

Great reply! I have my personal P E N I S self defense system ready and waiting! I pity the fool that makes me angry.
E

[Ronin]

I too have a P.E.N.I.S. which is so large that even I am intimidated by it.

I can only imagine how it appears to others.

[Ryu (non-working password]

I gotta stop walking in on these conversations!

[bobby_steeles]

what happens if someone walks up and kicks your P.E.N.I.S? will it still work?

[Mickey Finn]

You must be careful with your P E N I S™!! If you abuse or needlessly flog your P E N I S ™ the potential for a premature explosion exists. I’m presently working on some desensitizing cream to guard against just such an occurrence. Remember our motto: walk softly and carry a big P E N I S ™

[Newbie]

---Ronin

"A scalpel does not have 100-yard+ range."

Did you read my post? The ONLY place I mentioned the scalpel was in reply to JCameron’s analogy between the two statements "Guns don’t kill people, People kill people" and "Abortion doesn’t kill fetuses, the mothers who go to get the abortion kill the fetuses." I pointed out a flaw in his argument in that the gun is not analogous to the abortion itself, it is analogous to the scalpel which the abortion doctor uses to perform the abortion.

Doctor analogous to Shooter
Abortion analogous to Murder
Scalpel analogous to Gun

Please point out to me if my logic is flawed here and the physical instrument known as a scalpel is somehow analogous to the medical procedure known as an abortion and why the range of the scalpel is relevant to the discussion?

"Nor can it abort a fetus without the mother's consent, at least not in this country."

We are actually in complete agreement here. “It” can never abort a fetus with or without anyone’s consent. You’re also correct in that the permission of the mother is required before an abortion doctor can use the scalpel to destroy the fetus. The only permission that is not required is that of the victim, the fetus.

"A gun takes no skill with which to INITIATE an attack - it is an OFFENSIVE weapon - yet to draw a gun and shoot it accurately in a split second, i.e. defensively, requires great skill."

The only advantage the criminal would theoretically have against an armed victim is that of surprise. If a mugger surprises his victim and already has him in his sights before the victim knows he is being mugged, the skill level of the victim is irrelevant anyhow. NO ONE has the skill to use his firearm to protect himself in that situation. A weapon does not ALWAYS have to be drawn and fired in a split second in order to be used defensively. It is generally used to frighten away an intruder anyhow. The only time the ability to draw and fire accurately in a split second would generally comes in handy is in a classical "quick draw" duel.

[Joe Manco]

FACT
Newbie is correct, and the fact will always be PEOPLE, not the instruments they use, will be culpable for evil acts. The same analogy could be made of drinking and driving, guns, and >ahem< yes, dogs. PEOPLE f*ck up with these thing, therefore the solution is to make idiocy and malice in people crimes ... you do not outlaw the useful instruments MISused by these idiots. This FACT will hold true consistently on every level imaginable.

FACT
When cornered by logic, Ronin is an ignoble evader of this obvious truth and will not admit he is wrong.

FACT
Ronin is therefore no different from the kind of person who would be the most likely to transgress a law - i.e., the kind of person who would blame "something else" for his own err and never admit the err came from within.

FACT
Ronin is a tree-hugging bozo without a clue.

Yours truly,

Joe




[Edited by Joe Manco on 10-13-2000 at 11:11 AM]

[Mickey Finn]

LOL! That should be good for another couple of pages at least.

[Tony10]

So... this thread is still going.

Let me ask you, Joe (cough):

What do you propose we do about gunshot deaths/injuries in this country? I'm not asking you that sarcastically.

I understand your "PEOPLE kill people" argument. However, as I pointed out in my earlier post--you know, like 20 pages ago--Canada has bad people. Britain has bad people. Ireland has bad people. Yet, none of them have 400+ gunshot deaths a week.

Before you guys dog-pile on me as some gun-confiscating commie liberal, I don't think it's at all realistic to ever think we can remove guns from this country, even if one wanted to. However, the argument always seems to split into two hard-line stances:

-Anti-gun: ban handguns and automatic weapons, period
-Pro-gun: no restrictions whatsoever. 2nd amendment!

So I'm curious to hear what everybody's solution is to stop this enormous slaughter and unbelievable drain on our nation's health care system and YOUR tax dollars. The average gunshot victim who SURVIVES costs YOU, the taxpayer--'cause it ain't rich suburban kids with health insurance getting shot up--$34,000, and that's low-end.

So I want to hear it. Please, no party-line flaming and if you say "build more prisons/make penalties harsher" I'm going to laugh in your face at your comedically after-the-fact "solution."

[John Bennett]

Originally posted by Tony10

So I'm curious to hear what everybody's solution is to stop this enormous slaughter and unbelievable drain on our nation's health care system and YOUR tax dollars. The average gunshot victim who SURVIVES costs YOU, the taxpayer--'cause it ain't rich suburban kids with health insurance getting shot up--$34,000, and that's low-end.

Where are you getting these numbers Tony?

Please define "slaughter".

[Joe Manco]

Attention:

I have edited my post above ... and it should be BRANDED ONTO THE A$$ of every "program"-initiating, privilege-revoking liberal on the face of this earth.

Yours truly,

Joe

[Ronin]

LMAO! The only "bozo" on this thread, so far, is YOU Joe Manco, or whatever you call yourself now.

You are the one adopting a >ahem!< dogmatic position on this issue, not me. As I said, I want results, meaning fewer gunshot deaths. Punishing shooters AFTER-THE-FACT is a less than ideal solution, wouldn't you agree? You might, if you'd been shot by one.

Once again, I will repeat myself for those of you whose reading skills and/or visual acuity have been damaged by too many muzzle-flashes: I am NOT in favor of banning ALL guns, just in restricting access to heavy-duty firepower.

The difference between a scalpel and a TEC-9 is that one can kill ten people in seconds, and one can't. I hope I don't have to explain which one. Once again, guns make killing EASY and therefore TEMPTING. A madman with a scalpel is much less dangerous than a madman with an Uzi. Who cares about "responsibility" when people are dead? An ounce of prevention...you know the phrase.

BTW Joe Dog, I know you're just trying to get a rise out of me, but where do you get off insinuating that I don't take responsibility for my actions? I thought you knew me better, by now. I guess you're just being an asshole. Whatever. At least I know what to expect from you.

Oh, and am I still a "clueless bozo" when I agree with you?

Never mind, I already know the answer to that one.

[Ronin]

Newbie:

I have read and absorbed all of your posts into my positronic brain.

I was explaining why your analogy was flawed. Guns need to be regulated more than scalpels. Culpability doesn't interest me, prevention does.

You are correct, most people can't draw a gun fast enough to defend themselves on the street. So why carry one?

As for intruders: buy a lock. Better yet, move. I've already answered all these questions. You guys have to find something new. I'm getting bored here.

By the way, thanks for keeping things civil, which certain punch-drunk redneck trailer-dwellers can't seem to manage.

Later.

John Bennett:

ONE gun-shot death is too many. If we could at least agree on that, this debate would be essentially over. We should be working on solutions instead of pointlessly bickering like school-girls, i.e. Pit Dog.

[Hawk]

Does Red China have a drug problem? No, not compared to most countries. Why is that? Well, when the Red Chinese took over they issued an ultimatum. All drug users and drug pushers quit or die. If after 90 days you haven't quit and we catch you, you die. They did exactly that. Now, drugs are a problem here, but this country has refused to give up due process, plus other freedoms to get rid of the drug problems. I believe we made the right decision, however its not like its impossible to put a real hurt on drugs. Over the years the 2nd Amendment has slowly been under attack. At this time many people who believe the 2nd amendment gives them a right to own a gun or go to a gun show feel its gone far enough and their back is against the wall. This administration has been shown to have connections with
a country that is totally against our way of life (Red China) and now they want our guns? Ronin, Lacrymosa, Tony 10,...etc., doesn't that bother you? Quite frankly that should bother you more then me. I've been in a war and I live in the country. I'm familiar with most pistols and rifles and have extensive training with a knife, in martial arts, and have excellent survival skills. All hell breaks loose and I hit the woods and live with no problem. Lacrymosa, what do you do? Ronin, what about you? Now, you say that could never happen here. BS, it can happen anywhere. One reason it has not happen here is BECAUSE our civilian population will fight and has the means to do it.
Hawk

[Tony10]

Oops! I forgot emergency room care! The average cost of a gunshot wound treated in the hospital, all-told, is $50,000.

This data from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) based on a 1994--so this is back then--study.

$2.3 billion annually in costs, 48% (or 1.1 billion) paid by taxpayers. Us. That was in '94. Currently the estimate is $4 billion (Center for Disease Control).

As for the 400+ a week gunshot deaths, I should clarify that these are gunshot HOMICIDES--I'm not including suicides, accidental deaths, and--LOL--"unknown intent," which brings the total closer to 600 per week.

I would say 400+ deaths a week in our country--during peacetime--would constitute a slaughter, dontcha think? I mean, think about what we're saying: "Hey! 19,000 people get shot to death in our country each year!"

This info--it varies with other sources, but not by much--from a National Center for Health Statistics '95 study (part of the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention).