Re: Note to Phil
- From: swamp <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:43:23 -0800
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:54:22 -0500, Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@xxxxxxx>
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:10:03 -0500, Bama Brian
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:58:26 GMT, "Scout"
"swamp" <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:24:32 GMT, "Scout"
"swamp" <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:25:34 GMT, "Scout"
You fall into the same logical trap and/or slippery slope fallacy asYou want to ban all handguns from the general population and you have
many of your tpg cohorts: you equate control with ban.
the nerve to say this?
Sure. Banning a type of gun isn't banning *all* guns.
So if you ban handguns from the general population, will you include the
fedgov's army (over 100,000 and rising) and the police departments
across the US plus the licensed security guards? (over two million and
Army, no. Security guards, yes.
Still, no matter how you see such a ban you have just admitted that the
slippery slope was not only possible, but, in your opinion, necessary.
I look at it more as a ledge on the slope.. a stopping point, if you
Can legislation remove all guns from the hands of criminals? No. WillNo, it's not. It would do absolutely nothing. Look at the murder rate
law-abiders have greater difficulty buying guns? Yes, as will
criminals. Will law-abiders lose their guns. No. Will last ditch nat'l
security be compromised. No.
iow, it's worth a try,
in Australia, for example. They have severely limited the types of
firearms available, who can have them, and put Draconian restrictions on
how firearms must be stored. Yet they have not impacted the overall
homicide rate at all.
You guys are always thinking in absolutes.. more limiting in a way
Banning all handguns is not an absolute? Oh, puh-leez...
But it's not. Fill your gun case with as many rifles as you want.
Australia doesn't have the inner city problems, immigration, or
population densities that we do, so it's not surprising their homicide
rate remains level. In suburbia, the perp typically knows the victim
and doesn't need a gun. In America, a gun gives you power, deserved or
not. A bad message to send to kids in the ghetto..
Yet our homicide rate has been falling. Yes, it's still detestably
high. But you have identified the source of *more than half* of all our
violent crime. Now what are you going to do? Go to your pastor, your
attorney, your medical doctor, and your neighbors and tell them they may
not have handguns because of the actions of an inner city punk?
The inner city punks don't get handguns either, or less of them,
anyway. My pastor, doctor, attorney, neighbor will have to shoot them
with a rifle instead. As we say in So Cal, pobrecitos.
How about the actions of the ten percent - or more - of cops who are
dirty? Will you take handguns away from all police because of the few?
10%? I tend to doubt that figure, Brian. Regardless, there would have
to be a waiting period to determine the efficacy (for RD and Scout) of
a general handgun ban. If it's completely useless, as pro-gun argues,
then the police remain armed with handguns. If it's completely
successful, then the police won't need handguns. If it falls somewhere
in the middle, which is most likely, then police would be armed based
According to the Australians that post here, they have kept any more
firearm related mass murders from occurring - and that's a good thing,
even though the homicide rate is still the same. Still, a couple of
bozos with a match just killed over 200 in the firestorm that has swept
southern Australia. But that's OK, you see; the dead weren't killed by
No, it's not ok, and I'd prosecute the arsonists. But it's impossible
to control fire or the 'bozos" who'd spread it. It's not impossible to
regulate firearms, so the Ozzies got some things right. Pulling the
trigger implies greater intent than striking the match.
How so? Pulling a trigger does not imply a death, any more than
striking a match. It is the intention and result that count, not the
Would you really argue that a trigger puller and a match lighter have
the same intentions? You can't aim a fire.
BTW, did you hear the anecdote about the gangbangers doing the drive-by
shooting? One fellow driving, two guys hanging out the windows to do
the shooting. The two shooters were brothers. When the shooting
occurred, one shooter, who was firing across the roof of the car at the
persons on the sidewalk, managed to kill his brother. Guess who told
his mother? And guess who turned him in?
Now, was this murder? Or poetic justice? Intent and results, swamp.
You should send that article to the Darwin Awards. At least there's
one bad apple removed from the gene pool.
No, it's not murder one because of lack of intent to kill the
deceased. Don't know if I'd call it poetic justice, but it's hard to
work up a tear for any of them.
- Prev by Date: Re: Note to Phil
- Next by Date: Re: Note to Phil
- Previous by thread: Re: Note to Phil
- Next by thread: Re: Note to Phil