Re: RE: damn liberals

[Guest guest]

> So, no offense intended, you are basically saying " I know absolutely

> nothing about this issue, but I think someone should do something about it. "

No, I am saying, " I don't know anything about guns. " I have only

handled a gun once in my entire life. I do know that people are dying.

People die because other people drive drunk, and many people say, " We

should do something about it, " and they form groups like MADD and SADD.

People die of breast cancer, and people form organizations to fight breast

cancer, even if they know nothing about what causes cancer.

I am saying that if people are dying, for any reason at all, something

must be wrong, and something should be done about it whatever is causing

people to die. I am not advocating banning guns or cars or swimming pools

or anything else. I am not saying guns should be confiscated. I am not

advocating any kind of gun control. I am saying that if people are going

to own guns, WHICH THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO, then they should be

willing to take precautions to keep them out of reach of children and, for

that matter, people who don't know enough about guns to know what not to

do with them. If you go back to the original email I sent on this subject,

that is all I said. I said that people who own guns should be careful.

Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

The man gave a shrug which indicated that, although the world did

indeed have many problems, this was one of them that was not his.

-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

[Guest guest]

At 10:31 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Iris M. Gray wrote:

>I said that people who own guns should be careful.

And I said that the vast majority of gun owners *are* careful. I understand

that you don't advocate banning firearms, but I don't understand what you

think could be done that isn't already being done to prevent accidental

child firearm death.

People who start organizations such as MADD or organizations to fight

breast cancer research their cause. You cannot meaningfully promote any

kind of gun safety without knowing anything about guns or firearm issues.

There are over 235 million firearms in the united states. In practical

terms, the incidence of accidental firearm death makes getting hit by

lightning look normal. You are about a thousand times more likely to get

hit by lightning than to be accidentally shot in the United States.

Accidental firearm death is just not that common an occurence at all.

It is my contention that it is not so much the guns that need a better eye

kept on them as it is the children. More often than not, children drown in

swimming pools, crawl, walk or toddle out into traffic or play with

firearms because their parents were not taking adequate care of their

charges.

In the case of accidental firearm death of children, don't blame the guns,

blame the few negligent parents whose children become that tiny number of

childhood accidental firearm victims.

All that said, someone *is* doing something. Gun owners are strongly

encouraged to get adequate firearm safety training. The NRA has the " Eddie

the Eagle " child safety program. Television commercials advise parents to

" lock and unload " their firearms.

Just as there are public safety programs about seatbelt laws, drunk

driving, swimming after eating, allowing toddlers to roam unsupervised near

buckets, toilets, pools and other bodies of water, getting to safe ground

during a tornado, standing in the doorway or under a heavy table during an

earthquake, feeling the door before opening it during a house fire, not

driving or allowing friends to drive under the influence of drugs or

alcohol, wearing a condom during sexual intercourse and so on, there are

safety programs and announcements about firearm safety. I just don't see

what else could be done to prevent the small number of deaths that do occur

without either inhibiting the freedom of the law-abiding and

safety-conscious majority or spending thousands more dollars of government

money for the lives of a relatively small number of people who, thanks to

copious public service announcements and other government programs, really

should know better by now.

If you're interested in more information about childhood firearms deaths,

check out this article:

http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/12_children.htm

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

Parrish S. Knight danced around singing:

> > It may be a small percentage, but even one person is one person too

> > many,

> > in my opinion.

>

>When you consider that guns are used successfully for self defense over

>two million times a year, that's a pretty good ratio. Doctors

>performing surgery would be green with envy to have a

>success-to-failure rate like that.

It's not a question of a ratio. She means -- and doctors do agree -- that

one death is too many, and everything possible should be done to prevent

them. They *don't* operate if they feel that it will kill the patient, and

they become extremely upset when their actions induce or fail to prevent

death. They certainly don't shrug it off as an inevitable consequence as I

am seeing the gun owners do here. Nor, as I pointed out elsewhere, do they

tend to intentionally massacre their patients to keep them from suing for

malpractice. (That was in response to a gun owner suggesting that it's

better to kill someone that might harm you than take the chance that

they'll sue you.) There are also constant court-like hearings held in the

surgical field in particular to make sure that doctors are practicing in

accordance with the Hippocratic Oath (that is, doing their best to avoid

causing any harm at the very least) and a hospital *will* severely punish a

specialist for violating it. If the gun club you belong to were following

that practice, you alone would be totally disarmed for handling them while

drunk, which you've commented to me about doing more than once in the past.

Incidentally, iirc, for women, children, and the disabled, the most

frequent cause of death or injury in the United States perpetrated by

another human being isn't being assaulted by a criminal -- it's domestic

violence. One statistic from the American Medical Association:

" Based on the resulting NVAWS data, 1.9 million women are physically

assaulted each year, and another 300,000 are raped. An intimate partner

(current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date) victimizes most of

these women, with women suffering 1.3 million physical assaults and 200,000

rapes at the hands of an intimate partner annually. "

Large-scale surveys on violent crimes against the disabled report:

-- 67% of disabled women report being the victim of violent abuse.

-- 66% of those placed in psych hospitals were abused there.

-- 54 percent of deaf boys reported having been sexually abused.

-- 50 percent of deaf girls reported having been sexually abused.

Part of the reason for this is that our court system totally fails to

protect them, plus that even if the vulnerable individuals were armed,

they'd be highly unlikely to shoot their abuser. If people feel like

there's a strong need to protect themselves from molestation, assault, or

murder, then the first thing shouldn't be to get a gun but rather to ensure

that they have no contact with individuals statistically most likely to

harm them -- those that are close to them and have shown a tendency towards

violence of any kind. In that case, most of us would have to be eliminated

from ever having a relationship or care staff, which is ridiculous but in

terms of sheer numbers less so than arming oneself heavily against the

possibility of home intruders.

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

At 11:24 PM 6/15/03 -0700, DeGraf wrote:

>It's not a question of a ratio. She means -- and doctors do agree -- that

>one death is too many, and everything possible should be done to prevent

>them. They *don't* operate if they feel that it will kill the patient, and

>they become extremely upset when their actions induce or fail to prevent

>death. They certainly don't shrug it off as an inevitable consequence as I

>am seeing the gun owners do here.

[snip]

> " Based on the resulting NVAWS data, 1.9 million women are physically

>assaulted each year, and another 300,000 are raped. An intimate partner

>(current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date) victimizes most of

>these women, with women suffering 1.3 million physical assaults and 200,000

>rapes at the hands of an intimate partner annually. "

Yet people continue to have relationships and most relationships do not

involve domestic violence.

Similarly, people have firearms and most firearms are not used to commit

crimes.

At the risk of sounding flip, I think suffering and death really sucks. I

don't want it to exist.

But it does.

And statistics show that I am safer owning firearms than not. I will always

fight those who want to disarm me. Why should only rapists, robbers and

other criminals have firearms? Why should I trust the police to protect me

when they can't be everywhere? The average populated area has about one cop

on duty for every 7500 people. They can't be everywhere. They weren't at my

house in the past when people tried to break in.

My partner and I have plans to move out to the country. How can I expect

the police to even happen to be passing by when my nearest neighbors are

ten miles away? Should I be disarmed? Should this woman have been disarmed?

http://www.aware.org/success/antigunmom.shtml

>If people feel like

>there's a strong need to protect themselves from molestation, assault, or

>murder, then the first thing shouldn't be to get a gun but rather to ensure

>that they have no contact with individuals statistically most likely to

>harm them -- those that are close to them and have shown a tendency towards

>violence of any kind. In that case, most of us would have to be eliminated

>from ever having a relationship or care staff, which is ridiculous but in

>terms of sheer numbers less so than arming oneself heavily against the

>possibility of home intruders.

In the past five years, I have not been raped. I have not been beaten. I

have not been molested or assaulted in any way by any person, domestic

partner, acquaintance or otherwise. Yet I *have* had to protect my home

from an intruder trying to break in. He was trying to force the door open

and only stopped when he realized that he was staring down the barrel of a

handgun. He went away. A firearm saved my property and possibly my life. I

see nothing ridiculous about that.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

Sparrow danced around singing:

>All that said, someone *is* doing something. Gun owners are strongly

>encouraged to get adequate firearm safety training.

I have to point out here that as part of living with Parrish for a few

weeks, I underwent basic firearm safety training with an instructor from

his gun club. This involved learning the parts, rules about keeping one's

finger off the trigger, loading/unloading, various things not to do (most

of which were logical), all the way up to figuring out which eye I am

dominant out of so I would know which one to sight with for practice at the

range. I could have passed written equivalents to the driver's exam

afterwards. Parrish also took the time to go over the specifics of each

firearm he owns with me when we were at his apartment.

Do I feel that I have an adequate knowledge to *touch* those

weapons? No. Not even close. Even after training, I would not trust

myself to not -accidentally- harm myself or someone else. It would take

hours and hours of practice for me to feel *comfortable* handling one of

those, let alone consider myself trained enough to not be closely

watched. Saying that gun owners are " strongly encouraged " to get

" adequate " training suggests to me that at best they're given the same

training I was, and imho it is nowhere near enough. It would be like

expecting someone to be fluent after a year of high-school French.

There is the argument that in the United States, we have second-amendment

rights to bear arms, principally in defense against the

government. However, reviewing what has happened *every* time an

individual or group goes up against the US government violently within the

last 50 years, it seems like a fairly irrelevant argument, because they

were outnumbered and massacred -- from Waco, Texas to Afghanistan. The

fact that they lost wasn't because they were " bad guys " but because it is

physically impossible for a single citizen to possess the armaments

necessary to defeat the US Government at this point in time: whole

countries possessing weapons of mass destruction can't do it.

So yes, we do have the right, but the idea of doing it to protect ourselves

from a government that, to be blunt, could militarily squash our cities

flat is a bit absurd. And yes, we should gain training -- but to say that

we're " encouraged " to be " trained " when someone fresh out of that training

(and never having handled a gun before) freely admits she isn't ready for

that responsibility is a little misleading.

Don't get me wrong. I personally don't care one way or the other whether

random individuals are armed, or what the gun laws are. I believe in

pacifism but I'm not pacifist -- I'm very violent when provoked, enough

that my own family warned Parrish to keep me away from the guns when I

visited for *his* protection! (They forgot that when I'm angry, I am not

in enough rational control to remember that guns can be fired, and would be

more likely to club someone to death with one.) I'm just getting the

feeling that the arguments in favor of gun ownership are flawed, based more

on fear or emotion with rote memorized arguments than truly solid

logic. IMHO, it's like having kids or just about any other preference: you

do as you like and that ought to be enough reasoning for anybody as long as

you're not harming others in the process. *shrug*

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

Sparrow danced around singing:

>Yet people continue to have relationships and most relationships do not

>involve domestic violence.

My comment was that the " self-defense " argument for gun ownership doesn't

make sense, given you're more likely to be assaulted by a partner than a

stranger. If it's safe enough to be in relationships despite that, then

why is it not safe to be unarmed?

>In the past five years, I have not been raped. I have not been beaten. I

>have not been molested or assaulted in any way by any person, domestic

>partner, acquaintance or otherwise.

That's in the last five years, and I note that iirc you've been with your

current partner that long, correct? I can say similar, but as soon as I go

back *one* relationship, I fall into the majority of disabled women that

were abused. Again, why is it that being in a group where the majority by

a landslide are violently abused is " safe " enough to continue being in

relationships, whereas being disarmed (which carries far less risks,

statistically speaking) is scary enough that you need to be armed?

> Yet I *have* had to protect my home

>from an intruder trying to break in.

I've noticed you mentioning that repeatedly, and it does baffle me a

bit. I've lived in the same place for 24 years: zero break-ins. I don't

know anyone else that *has* had a robbery in this area, and it's a fairly

large city at this point. Do you just live in a really bad location?

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

At 11:49 PM 6/15/03 -0700, DeGraf wrote:

>Do I feel that I have an adequate knowledge to *touch* those

>weapons? No. Not even close. Even after training, I would not trust

>myself to not -accidentally- harm myself or someone else.

Then don't own a gun. Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement. Just

because you aren't comfortable handling a gun after a safety training

course doesn't mean that everyone is that way.

>There is the argument that in the United States, we have second-amendment

>rights to bear arms, principally in defense against the

>government.

No. Principally for defense both domestic and foreign. If no one is allowed

to have and use firearms, our military suffers because new recruits don't

have firearms experience thus we are far less likely to have military

snipers and far less likely to have soldiers who are quickly proficient

enough to defend our freedom.

>So yes, we do have the right, but the idea of doing it to protect ourselves

>from a government that, to be blunt, could militarily squash our cities

>flat is a bit absurd.

We've become complacent because we've not had warfare on our own territory

in the lifetime of those currently alive. There's a reason why countries

tend not to be very interested in invading the Swiss, after all.

> And yes, we should gain training -- but to say that

>we're " encouraged " to be " trained " when someone fresh out of that training

>(and never having handled a gun before) freely admits she isn't ready for

>that responsibility is a little misleading.

It's very responsible of you to admit that about yourself and I admire

that. Don't assume that everyone else is equally ill-prepared after a basic

course.

>Don't get me wrong. I personally don't care one way or the other whether

>random individuals are armed, or what the gun laws are.

I care about the gun laws because I don't want to be disarmed. Criminals

will always have firearms. They have them in the UK, they have them in

Japan and they will have them here in the States no matter what the laws

are. We have far more coastline to protect than either of those two

islands. What would make us think we'd do any better job of keeping illegal

firearms out of our borders?

If you honestly don't care what the gun laws are, why are you making

extrapolations about safety concerns and training courses?

>I'm just getting the

>feeling that the arguments in favor of gun ownership are flawed, based more

>on fear or emotion with rote memorized arguments than truly solid

>logic.

Interestingly enough, that's often been my impression of those in favor of

banning guns. LOL!

What do you believe is flawed about the arguments in favor of gun

ownership? (Since we're discussing logic and emotions, you should be aware

that extrapolating your own experiences with training courses to the

population at large is fatally flawed. You are a demographic sample of one.)

>IMHO, it's like having kids or just about any other preference: you

>do as you like and that ought to be enough reasoning for anybody as long as

>you're not harming others in the process. *shrug*

The problem is that those who would own firearms and those who would ban

firearms cannot peacefully coexist the way that it is possible for those

who have children and those who do not have children to peacefully coexist.

One negates the other inherently.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

At 12:00 AM 6/16/03 -0700, DeGraf wrote:

>Sparrow danced around singing:

>>Yet people continue to have relationships and most relationships do not

>>involve domestic violence.

>

>My comment was that the " self-defense " argument for gun ownership doesn't

>make sense, given you're more likely to be assaulted by a partner than a

>stranger. If it's safe enough to be in relationships despite that, then

>why is it not safe to be unarmed?

As you well know from personal experience, once you've found a safe partner

and choose to stay with that person, the threat of domestic violence is

removed.

>>In the past five years, I have not been raped. I have not been beaten. I

>>have not been molested or assaulted in any way by any person, domestic

>>partner, acquaintance or otherwise.

>

>That's in the last five years, and I note that iirc you've been with your

>current partner that long, correct? I can say similar, but as soon as I go

>back *one* relationship, I fall into the majority of disabled women that

>were abused. Again, why is it that being in a group where the majority by

>a landslide are violently abused is " safe " enough to continue being in

>relationships, whereas being disarmed (which carries far less risks,

>statistically speaking) is scary enough that you need to be armed?

As for rape, domestic violence, physical abuse, etc. the last time I

personally experienced any such an event was in 1989. I was walking from my

home to the post office four blocks away at about six in the evening. A man

pulled up next to me in his truck and started " pacing me " as I walked. I

tried changing directions a couple of times but he kept circling the block

and leering at me. As soon as I got to a pay phone, I called the police.

While I was on the phone with 911, the man ran up to me, and grabbed me so

hard that he left claw marks on my breast and groin area through my

clothing. I screamed and the woman on the phone told me to calm down and

talk to her. Twenty-five minutes later, the police showed up. I am

fortunate that the man was either frightened off by realizing I was on the

phone with the police or not intending more harm than he committed. He

matched the description of the man that was currently being looked for in

connection with the abduction and murder of two teenage boys.

That was fourteen years ago and not domestic.

I can control who I choose to form a relationship with. I can't control the

people I randomly encounter on the street or who randomly decide to break

into my home.

We sometimes have to go to neighboring towns for medical reasons. This area

has wild bears, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions. If we have a flat tire

or other mishap on the road, I want to know that we're not going to get

eaten by a bear while changing the flat tire or can deal with the

rattlesnake that may slither out onto the heat of the road just as we're

working on getting the car going again. While some people might call this

ridiculous, they are not people who live here and see these large,

dangerous wild animals on a regular basis.

>> Yet I *have* had to protect my home

>>from an intruder trying to break in.

>

>I've noticed you mentioning that repeatedly,

I guess mentioning it twice could be considered " repeatedly. " *grin*

> and it does baffle me a

>bit. I've lived in the same place for 24 years: zero break-ins. I don't

>know anyone else that *has* had a robbery in this area, and it's a fairly

>large city at this point.

That's like saying, " no one I know has ever had their house burn down. I

don't need a fire department. "

>Do you just live in a really bad location?

Petaluma appears to have roughly the same population as Pocatello. In 2001,

Petaluma had one murder, ten forcible rapes, 13 robberies, 67 aggravated

assaults, 256 burglaries, 1372 larcenies, 87 motor vehicle thefts and 15

arsons.

You don't know those people, but they were victims of crimes in Petaluma.

Do they just live in a really bad location?

In that same year, Pocatello had zero murders, 21 rapes, 8 robberies, 135

aggravated assaults, 266 burglaries, 1295 larcenies, 62 motor vehicle

thefts and 17 arsons.

Doesn't sound like the crime here is significantly worse than it is there.

I had one person trying to break into my home (shortly after I moved to the

good part of town!) Could that just be random luck of the draw? Compared to

all the crime I left behind in Chicago, I'd say I'm doing pretty good.

I'm still not giving up my firearms, however. I like them.

Sparrow

[Guest guest]

--- " Iris M. Gray " wrote:

>

I know

> almost nothing about guns, and I do not know what

> kinds of programs there

> are in the United States to educate gun owners or

> what kinds of safety

> devices are available. Obviously some people will be

> careless no matter

> what kinds of safety programs or devices are

> available, just like some

> people are careless when they drive. There are laws

> in place to punish

> careless drivers. Are there any to punish careless

> gun owners?

>

>

--------The 89 year old woman next door, in early

stages of dementia, has some kind of gun (one neighbor

said it was an air rifle, but it put a 1 inch hole in

my dad's garage, so not sure) when she was trying to

shoot squirrels with it.

Since we moved here, the woman has called the cops

numerous times claiming I am 1) tapping into her phone

calls 2) breaking into her house and snooping through

her things 3) climbing the pole in the alley to

disconnect her cable. Neither of her adult children

will do anything to remove the gun from her home, and

the cops said legally they couldn't do so, even though

it would be for her own safety also.

This seems really wrong -- it's clearly on record

(with the police) that she's in dementia, and 'nothing

can be done until she actually does something'.

Nanne

=====

" Let's go get drunk on light again---it has the power to console. " --

Seurat

[Guest guest]

Cerulean wrote:

> --------The 89 year old woman next door, in early stages of dementia,

> has some kind of gun (one neighbor said it was an air rifle, but it

> put a 1 inch hole in my dad's garage, so not sure) when she was

> trying to shoot squirrels with it.

>

> Since we moved here, the woman has called the cops numerous times

> claiming I am 1) tapping into her phone calls 2) breaking into her

> house and snooping through her things 3) climbing the pole in the

> alley to disconnect her cable. Neither of her adult children will do

> anything to remove the gun from her home, and the cops said legally

> they couldn't do so, even though it would be for her own safety also.

>

>

> This seems really wrong -- it's clearly on record (with the police)

> that she's in dementia, and 'nothing can be done until she actually

> does something'. Nanne

It is wrong. For one thing, blowing a hole in your dad's garage is

something she did. That was illegal, and no air rifle can do that. The

most you will get from most air rifles is a .177 " hole. Second,

dementia would make her mentally incompetent to own a firearm, and the

police should do something about that. I forget the actual language of

the law, but under federal law, she would be termed a prohbited

possessor. It sounds like the police are just not worried about it, and

do not want to be bothered doing their job.

[Guest guest]

--- Klein wrote:

> Cerulean wrote:

>

> > --------The 89 year old woman next door, in early

> stages of dementia,

> > has some kind of gun (one neighbor said it was an

> air rifle, but it

> > put a 1 inch hole in my dad's garage, so not sure)

> when she was

> > trying to shoot squirrels with it.

> >

> > Since we moved here, the woman has called the cops

> numerous times

> > claiming I am 1) tapping into her phone calls 2)

> breaking into her

> > house and snooping through her things 3) climbing

> the pole in the

> > alley to disconnect her cable. Neither of her

> adult children will do

> > anything to remove the gun from her home, and the

> cops said legally

> > they couldn't do so, even though it would be for

> her own safety also.

> >

> >

> > This seems really wrong -- it's clearly on record

> (with the police)

> > that she's in dementia, and 'nothing can be done

> until she actually

> > does something'. Nanne

>

> It is wrong. For one thing, blowing a hole in your

> dad's garage is

> something she did. That was illegal, and no air

> rifle can do that. The

> most you will get from most air rifles is a .177 "

> hole. Second,

> dementia would make her mentally incompetent to own

> a firearm, and the

> police should do something about that. I forget the

> actual language of

> the law, but under federal law, she would be termed

> a prohbited

> possessor. It sounds like the police are just not

> worried about it, and

> do not want to be bothered doing their job.

>

>

>

-----------The officer who is head of Adult

Protective Services told me they legally could not

remove the gun from her home. (One thing that really

irked me was that even though he said it's on record

she's in early dementia, " because her home is so clean

and tidy she's obviously able to take care of

herself " . Now if they came into my home and observed

clutter and stuff, does that mean they'd judge me

otherwise? *shudder*)

He strongly urged me to go down and file a

harassment claim and protective order against her,

which would make it a crime next time she calls and

makes a false report.

I have not done this yet because it seemed to me

that all it would do would make it easier on them, not

having to respond to her calls anymore, or arresting

her, and then provoking her ire even more which may

lead to her to start shooting out her window sometime.

Nanne

=====

" Let's go get drunk on light again---it has the power to console. " --

Seurat

[Guest guest]

--- Jane Meyerding wrote:

> Sparrow wrote:

> >> the USENET theory is that the

> >> first person to use the name of Hitler loses a

> debate

>

> and Andy responded:

> >This was generally known as " Godwin's Law " . It

> was effectively

> >rescinded by the Patriot Act.

> >It is hoped that the resulting increase in Internet

> traffic will be

> >sufficient to revive the telecommunications

> industry.

>

> :-0

>

> Thanks for the laugh, Andy. This list has been

> bumming me out lately, so the humor is especially

> welcome.

>

> Jane

>

>-------??? What's been bumming you out, Jane?

Nanne

=====

" Let's go get drunk on light again---it has the power to console. " --

Seurat

[Guest guest]

Sparrow wrote:

>> the USENET theory is that the

>> first person to use the name of Hitler loses a debate

and Andy responded:

>This was generally known as " Godwin's Law " . It was effectively

>rescinded by the Patriot Act.

>It is hoped that the resulting increase in Internet traffic will be

>sufficient to revive the telecommunications industry.

:-0

Thanks for the laugh, Andy. This list has been

bumming me out lately, so the humor is especially

welcome.

Jane