Max Isn't Well
June 8th 08, 04:04 PM
In article >, tankfixer
says...
> In article >, luv2^fly99@live.
> ^com says...
> > In article >, gregvk says...
> >
> > > Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > In article >, tankfixer
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > >> In article >, a6ahlyv02
> > > >> @sneakemail.com says...
> > > >> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:36:16 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> > > >> > tankfixer > got double secret probation for
> > > >> > writing:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >In article >, a6ahlyv02
> > > >> > says...
> > > >> > >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:36:05 -0700, in the land of
> > > >> > >> alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer > got double
> > > >> > >> secret probation for writing:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> >In article >,
> > > >> > >> >a6ahlyv02 @sneakemail.com says...
> > > >> > >> >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:18:23 -0700, in the land of
> > > >> > >> >> alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer > got
> > > >> > >> >> double secret probation for writing:
> > > >> > >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >In article >,
> > > >> > >> >> >a6ahlyv02 @sneakemail.com says...
> > > >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:22:35 -0700, in the land of
> > > >> > >> >> >> alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer > got
> > > >> > >> >> >> double secret probation for writing:
> > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >In article -
> > > >> > >> >> >> >sjc.supernews.net>, says...
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> In article >,
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> "Ed Huntress" > wrote:
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > But there is another side to this, and, to me, it's
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > the valid one: self-defense. You can argue that the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > statistics for your county suggest that
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > you're safer with fewer guns. That's not as strong an
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > argument as you may think (safe places tend to be
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > places where people *choose* not to have guns,
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > Forget the statistics that show you're "safer"
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > without a gun. Most of those are cooked up in the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > Twainsian sense ("lies, damned lies, and
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > statistics"). Even those that are not do not address
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > the fact that a criminal assaulting
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > I'm not arguing that you should carry a gun, but I am
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > arguing that you have no fair basis to deny that
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > right to some other law-abiding citizen. No
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > basis, that is, except for your perceived safety,
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > versus his. For a percentage gain in statistics
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > you're denying another individual a reasonable
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> without a method to verify that people are stable
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> enough to trust with guns and a method to verify they
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> are trained and profiencent enough to shoot in the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> correct general direction
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> then what you have are guns distributed among people
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> in this county i believe to be more likely used in
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> crime than defense
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> establish some kind of militia or civillian police
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> auxillary make people prove their stability
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> mkae people prove they can shoot straight
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> train them to shoot under the right circumstances
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> and then you would undermine my objection
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> but just randomly distributing deadly technology
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> and just hoping it gets used correctly
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> thats just stupid
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > >> > >> >> >> >The same arguments can be made concrning allowing the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >public to own cars or computers.
> > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> 1. Cars are required to be driven by someone that has
> > > >> > >> >> >> taken a proficiency test, usualy a live driven test,
> > > >> > >> >> >> however rudimentary, at least once.
> > > >> > >> >> >
> > > >> > >> >> >Persons carrying conceled legally have tests they must pass
> > > >> > >> >> >before the license is issued.
> > > >> > >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> What part of your statement, to which I responded, concerned
> > > >> > >> >> concealed carry?
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >Concealed carry is the equivilent of your drivign a car.
> > > >> > >> >The gun or car parked safely away is no danger to anyone.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> So your answer is nothing.And you repeated what I wrote two
> > > >> > >> posts ago.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >There is no test required to purchase or own a car, only one to
> > > >> > >operate it on public roads.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So as long as you buy your gun and bury it in your yard, I am good.
> > > >>
> > > >> Once again you exhibit an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >In that same vein why should there be a test to purchase or own a
> > > >> > >firearm if it is not going to be carried in public in a condition
> > > >> > >to allow it's ready use ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Define public (in this case):
> > > >>
> > > >> Off my property.
> > > >> If I am merely transporting it to a range to shoot it would be
> > > >> unloaded and locked away the trunk.
> > > >> If I intend to carry it in a ready condition, i.e. round in the
> > > >> chamber and safety on(depending o weapon of course) then I would have
> > > >> the required training and permit to carry it concealed as my state's
> > > >> laws require.
> > > >>
> > > >> > In your home, with just you in this case would be private (and
> > > >> > disturbing)
> > > >>
> > > >> Why is it disturbing ?
> > > >> The guns sit quietly in their storage spot, hurting no one.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If anyone else is in the same place when the weapon is not in the
> > > >> > gun safe, then that would be public.
> > > >>
> > > >> No, if they are on my property it is not a public place.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The other issue is where does the bullet go?
> > > >>
> > > >> In the chamber.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The idea of privacy with firearms is at best nebulous simply
> > > >> > because of the potentially fired bullet.
> > > >>
> > > >> How would you know the size of my property ?
> > > >> There may be sufficient space to safely fire in any direction.
> > > >> Conversely if there is not then the weapon and ammunition I chose to
> > > >> keep ready for self defense will take those limits in account.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not to mention the fact the weapon won't be fired unless there is
> > > >> sufficient cause.
> > > >> The criminal will be given a chance to cease his activities and
> > > >> surrender.
> > > >
> > > > The criminal should never even know that you have a weapon.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you're firing subsonic rounds.
> > >
> > > Criminals?
> > >
> > > Four words: High voltage electrified fence.
> > >
> > > (Two more words: Problem solved.)
> >
> > A 308 round every few years as needed generates a far smaller carbon
> > dioxide footprint than does burning 20Kv 7/24/365. Not to mention its
> > a lot more affordable.
> >
> > But I guess we could discuss using a minefield. There all you really
> > have is the initial investment in equipment and deployment to worry
> > about.
>
> Minefields have issues in any region that suffers from severe cold
> weather...
Severe (enough) cold weather will impact any type of equipment.
That's not an issue here.
--
"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
says...
> In article >, luv2^fly99@live.
> ^com says...
> > In article >, gregvk says...
> >
> > > Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > In article >, tankfixer
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > >> In article >, a6ahlyv02
> > > >> @sneakemail.com says...
> > > >> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:36:16 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> > > >> > tankfixer > got double secret probation for
> > > >> > writing:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >In article >, a6ahlyv02
> > > >> > says...
> > > >> > >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:36:05 -0700, in the land of
> > > >> > >> alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer > got double
> > > >> > >> secret probation for writing:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> >In article >,
> > > >> > >> >a6ahlyv02 @sneakemail.com says...
> > > >> > >> >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:18:23 -0700, in the land of
> > > >> > >> >> alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer > got
> > > >> > >> >> double secret probation for writing:
> > > >> > >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >In article >,
> > > >> > >> >> >a6ahlyv02 @sneakemail.com says...
> > > >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:22:35 -0700, in the land of
> > > >> > >> >> >> alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer > got
> > > >> > >> >> >> double secret probation for writing:
> > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >In article -
> > > >> > >> >> >> >sjc.supernews.net>, says...
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> In article >,
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> "Ed Huntress" > wrote:
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > But there is another side to this, and, to me, it's
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > the valid one: self-defense. You can argue that the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > statistics for your county suggest that
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > you're safer with fewer guns. That's not as strong an
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > argument as you may think (safe places tend to be
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > places where people *choose* not to have guns,
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > Forget the statistics that show you're "safer"
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > without a gun. Most of those are cooked up in the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > Twainsian sense ("lies, damned lies, and
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > statistics"). Even those that are not do not address
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > the fact that a criminal assaulting
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > I'm not arguing that you should carry a gun, but I am
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > arguing that you have no fair basis to deny that
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > right to some other law-abiding citizen. No
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > basis, that is, except for your perceived safety,
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > versus his. For a percentage gain in statistics
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > you're denying another individual a reasonable
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> without a method to verify that people are stable
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> enough to trust with guns and a method to verify they
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> are trained and profiencent enough to shoot in the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> correct general direction
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> then what you have are guns distributed among people
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> in this county i believe to be more likely used in
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> crime than defense
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> establish some kind of militia or civillian police
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> auxillary make people prove their stability
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> mkae people prove they can shoot straight
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> train them to shoot under the right circumstances
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> and then you would undermine my objection
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> but just randomly distributing deadly technology
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> and just hoping it gets used correctly
> > > >> > >> >> >> >> thats just stupid
> > > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > >> > >> >> >> >The same arguments can be made concrning allowing the
> > > >> > >> >> >> >public to own cars or computers.
> > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> >> 1. Cars are required to be driven by someone that has
> > > >> > >> >> >> taken a proficiency test, usualy a live driven test,
> > > >> > >> >> >> however rudimentary, at least once.
> > > >> > >> >> >
> > > >> > >> >> >Persons carrying conceled legally have tests they must pass
> > > >> > >> >> >before the license is issued.
> > > >> > >> >>
> > > >> > >> >> What part of your statement, to which I responded, concerned
> > > >> > >> >> concealed carry?
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >Concealed carry is the equivilent of your drivign a car.
> > > >> > >> >The gun or car parked safely away is no danger to anyone.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> So your answer is nothing.And you repeated what I wrote two
> > > >> > >> posts ago.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >There is no test required to purchase or own a car, only one to
> > > >> > >operate it on public roads.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So as long as you buy your gun and bury it in your yard, I am good.
> > > >>
> > > >> Once again you exhibit an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >In that same vein why should there be a test to purchase or own a
> > > >> > >firearm if it is not going to be carried in public in a condition
> > > >> > >to allow it's ready use ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Define public (in this case):
> > > >>
> > > >> Off my property.
> > > >> If I am merely transporting it to a range to shoot it would be
> > > >> unloaded and locked away the trunk.
> > > >> If I intend to carry it in a ready condition, i.e. round in the
> > > >> chamber and safety on(depending o weapon of course) then I would have
> > > >> the required training and permit to carry it concealed as my state's
> > > >> laws require.
> > > >>
> > > >> > In your home, with just you in this case would be private (and
> > > >> > disturbing)
> > > >>
> > > >> Why is it disturbing ?
> > > >> The guns sit quietly in their storage spot, hurting no one.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If anyone else is in the same place when the weapon is not in the
> > > >> > gun safe, then that would be public.
> > > >>
> > > >> No, if they are on my property it is not a public place.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The other issue is where does the bullet go?
> > > >>
> > > >> In the chamber.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The idea of privacy with firearms is at best nebulous simply
> > > >> > because of the potentially fired bullet.
> > > >>
> > > >> How would you know the size of my property ?
> > > >> There may be sufficient space to safely fire in any direction.
> > > >> Conversely if there is not then the weapon and ammunition I chose to
> > > >> keep ready for self defense will take those limits in account.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not to mention the fact the weapon won't be fired unless there is
> > > >> sufficient cause.
> > > >> The criminal will be given a chance to cease his activities and
> > > >> surrender.
> > > >
> > > > The criminal should never even know that you have a weapon.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you're firing subsonic rounds.
> > >
> > > Criminals?
> > >
> > > Four words: High voltage electrified fence.
> > >
> > > (Two more words: Problem solved.)
> >
> > A 308 round every few years as needed generates a far smaller carbon
> > dioxide footprint than does burning 20Kv 7/24/365. Not to mention its
> > a lot more affordable.
> >
> > But I guess we could discuss using a minefield. There all you really
> > have is the initial investment in equipment and deployment to worry
> > about.
>
> Minefields have issues in any region that suffers from severe cold
> weather...
Severe (enough) cold weather will impact any type of equipment.
That's not an issue here.
--
"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"