STOP SPAM NOW! Must Read - All newsgroup users need to rebe

[R. Steve Walz]

Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
It is entirely do-able to destroy all foreign contact with any ISP
which will not fall into line and stop spam eminating from its
domain. Assembling and examining all packets before they are resent
into the USA
at our borders lately is trivial.

Further it is even easier to send UNBELIEVABLE volumes of our own
punishment SPAM to any foreign ISP and also stop cooperating with
any nation that won't stop it, and cut off telecom and trade to and
from them.

You don't have to clog the courts with this shit or anything like
Opt-In requires, and it ends it by govt mandating that for all ports
of entry for telephonic data into the USA.

For the few spammers that try it in the USA, make it punishable by
the death penalty, just as we should ALL virus
writers/disseminators.

This would stop all this bullshit. We don't have to listen to people
cutting in on our telephone conversations, so why should we have to
receive ANY kind of this telephonic terrorism!????!!

Opt-In is fine for junk snail-mail, but punish the perp with death.
-Steve

Thats sarcasm, right?
Ben
------------------
Not in the least.

So you think that cutting all communications and trade to countries with
laws that are less strict then the new laws which you suggest, should be
ceased.
----------------------------

I think you need to rephrase.

All you have to do is filter out the spam at our borders by exckuding
anything containing a known virus or identified spam-ploy, and make it
cost the source, by sending THEM our OWN destructive volume and viral
and hire software assault teams to try to break into their system and
harm it, identify specific culprits by name to foreign govts as
the reason we don't do thus and such for them, and encourage them to
terminate them with greatest prejudice and that we won't care WHAT
happens to these culprits, AND we will reward the cooperative with
our friendliest intentions.

Then you should show the way forward (the termination of SPAM) by SPAMing
external ISPs.

And you should kill all internal SPAMers.

And you think that would be a resounding success?
--------------

Yep.

I presume you are talking without consideration of anything external to
SPAM, i.e., the SPAM problem in isolation, and that given your way you would
not dream of actually implementing this with those other consideration taken
into account, right?

Ben
------------------------

All other political and economic problems with these other nations
will be found to be variations on a similar theme. Most of them have
far more ability to stop their spammers by immediate fiat than WE do.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Paul E Larson wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote in
news:msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com:


I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.


Given the rant below you must be a foreigner! New York state, except in New
York City, while not as liberal as Arizona in its handgun laws it is legal
to own a handgun with the same or similar provisos set by Arizona.

as one example -
http://www.clintoncountygov.com/Departments/CC/CCPisPer.htm
-------------

That's a permit to even OWN a handgun, it is NOT a carry permit!!

In Arizona all you need is to meet federal requirements to buy one,
which are minimal.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Richard Henry]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19cedffce23f1ae798a686@enews.newsguy.com...

We knew the socialists were coming in when the state deemed the school
lunchrooms unsanitary

Site!

I assume you mean cite. My father worked in the local schools. He told me
of the state health department inspection that cited one 50+year-old school
because the walls in the lunchroom included hardwood wainscotting, which
could not be "properly cleaned".

If you meant site, it was the building where I attended 6th grade in Derby
Line.

and made the town of my father's birth stop dumping
their sewage in the trout stream.

They still do. Your point? Despite the commies controlling the
state now, there are *still* people shitting in their own
drinking water. Guess where? The camps on the lake are a prime
example. Who owns them? Please! The commies (a.k.a.
progressives) have done *nothing* to improve life, only ruin the
beautiful state. I do believe that's their plan.

You can't change everything at once. The people who bought our old family
farmhouse added a deck, a fireplace, and a septic tank.

Old-timers believe the decline started in
1927, when a big flood wiped out most of the roads in the state and
there
was suddenly a reason for state-wide tax-and-spend programs.

I've only been here a decade, but the old-farts have far more
common sense than the commies from 'Jersey and Wall Street. At
least the old farts of '27 had enough gumption to tell the feds
to butt out. Tax-n-spend wasn't a '27 thing.

You should read some of the writings of Frank Bryan, a professor at UVM (his
serious stuff, not _Real Vermonters Don't Milk Goats_). We went to school
together, in a very Vermont way. He was a high-school senior when I was in
third grade of a 1-12 school.

Then in the
60's the Supreme Court's one-man-one-vote rule knocked most of the
small-town reps out of the Legislature.

...and made things even worse. ...and more attractive to the NY
and NJ pinks.

Since you have only been there a decade, the old farts probably think you
are one of them.

I'll be outta here the minute I retire. I couldn't possibly
afford the taxes the jersey-pinkos have foisted on the state.
There is good reason the local farmers are going bust.

I can't go back. I didn't realize I had mold allergies until I moved to
SoCal and my head cleared up for the first time in my life. Visits back are
tempered by Sudafed.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk1tkt$obf3n$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Bill Sloman wrote:
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bjvhhg$nqrk8$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Jim Thompson wrote:

snip

There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here (UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government
bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns
have them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the
net result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant.

A depressing example of non-quantitative thinking.

So I presume you have all the numbers to hand and can prove what YOU are
saying?

Those few people who manage to beat the legislation to get guns and
hold them illegally are a problem, but the legislation does make it
more difficult, and thus there are fewer of them.

Speculative.

The police thus have less occasion to send out squads of marksmen, and
need fewer guns themselves.

Speculation carried forward.



Seems to be a successful piece of legislation to me. It isn't
absolutely successful - it doesn't totally stop bad people from
getting guns if they tried hard enough - but absolutely successful
pieces of legislation are rare outside of cloud-cuckoo-land.

How many other laws are you going to campaign against, on the basis
that they don't totally stop the undesired behaviour condemned?
Anti-speeding, anti-fraud, anti-burglary, anti-corruption,
anti-assault, anti-murder - if you are going to be consistent, you
must want to throw out all of them, becasue all these crimes persist
despite vigorously enforced laws against them.

Perhaps you might care to restate your argument in terms that might
convince somebody with a functional critical faculty?


You could have started by proving your side of the argument.

I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious
nonsense, and all I was effectively pointing out was that the
legislation could be seen to be successful even if a few unusually
persistent criminals still managed to get their hands on guns.

Mine was based on fact,

I wasn't arguing with your fact, but with the conclusion you drew from
it.

although I do not have a source for the figures to hand. You're
argument is based on what?

Logic. And I do read the Guardian Weekly every week, and watch the
BBC1 news from time to time. Neither features U.S. levels of gun
violence.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-----------

Neither does the US. Most of that is TV drama. The rest is isolated
in poor barrios and black ghettos. The level of gun crime in white
relatively privileged areas similar to the makeup of Europe, is
identical to or better even, than Europe. And all these white people
have guns.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk1tnn$o6seb$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Roger Hamlett wrote:

snipped fine exhibition of logical fallacies

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Sloman's cage.

Yep. I do dislike pseudo-logical qualitative arguments, and gun nuts
seem to have a particular enthusiasm for this form of delusive
propaganda.
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-------------------------

American gun-owning white people who otherwise resemble Europeans have
less gun violence than those same Europeans, the only huge American
gun violence problem is in black ghettos and very poor Latin barrios,
and it is only these areas that Europe DOESN'T have that cause a
statistical difference between the two. Europeans are just like white
privileged Americans, except they are needlessly deprived of guns.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I think I'll stay home. I'd have got a five times greater chance of
being murdered in the U.S. than I have in the Netherlands
-----------

But only if you insist in hanging around in deprived barrios and
black ghettos, where nobody in their right mind here would go, not
even the cops. Short of that, you have LESS danger here than Europe,
precisely BECAUSE the white people all have guns and are peaceful!

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bunch of disciplined troops, it isn't that difficult.
--------------
Delusion. This is the delusion that got the US screwed in Vietnam.


The armed
mob tends to end up dead if they get obstreperous. The NRA has this
bizarre tendency to claim that an armed mob that has never trained
together can be identified with the US constitution's "well regulated
militia", but intelligent adults should know better.
-----------------
Your delusion, troops have a limited utility because they must remain
in ranks together to be more than a mob, as our troops are discovering
in Baghdad. Once separated, troops are useless and the same as an armed
rabble.

And using armed troops on demonstrators in a democracy is total
political suicide that condemns your cause to its death with the knell
of the next morn.

In point of fact, the "well regulated militia" meant the local village
legal requirements that each family have a long firearm and that they
maintain a supply of powder and shot and can "pass muster" in reporting
for inspection with their weapon and ammunition monthly to prove they
are at the ready, and also them showing up for target practice.

In early American english parlance it has NO such OTHER meaning of ANY
kind such as anti-gun asswipes wish to pretend. The National Guard or
even a US Army proper was decades or a century away at that time in the
minds of the Founders. They distrusted ALL standing armies, and all
non-citizen armies, which only became needed later when opposing other
professional armies of other nations when more technological weaponry
was coming into use.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Eric Greenwell]

Folks, could you take alt.netscape off your posting list? This thread
has drifted way off topic, and it way outnumbers the spam on
alt.Netscape. Thanks!

In article <Bo49b.3832$v%5.1794@fed1read02>, rphenry@home.com says...

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ce87de9e334eca98a683@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@golana-will-get-you.com says...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that
seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

The crazy Brady Bill does *not* require registration. It only
requires a background check at the time of purchase, if the.
purchase is from a dealer who has a Federal Firearms License. It
is not in any way a "permit", nor is it required for private
sales. I legally own several handguns and can legally carry
concealed at any time (with a few restrictions). No license is
required, no registration, nothing. As you say, it's up to the
individual states.

BTW, Vermont is on the list of "those few states dominated by
socialists" (Evidence: Howie Dean, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy, and
Jumpin' Jism Jim Jeffords). The folks are also rather adamant
about their firearms, so the socialists have let the locals play,
at least for now.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bigger armed mob with tin stars? ;-)

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

Can do that, or concealed. I tend to carry them in a duffel bag
in their boxes when I go to the range.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

Permit? Why? Don't tell me you live in one of them commie
states, Jim. ;-)

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I guess we're just too nice here in Vermont. The socialists
snuck in while the locals were hibernating.

I grew up in Vermont in the Republican days (Eben: Say, Zeb, the results
show 2 Democrat votes this year in the town election. Zeb: That sumbitch
musta voted twice!).

We knew the socialists were coming in when the state deemed the school
lunchrooms unsanitary and made the town of my father's birth stop dumping
their sewage in the trout stream. Old-timers believe the decline started in
1927, when a big flood wiped out most of the roads in the state and there
was suddenly a reason for state-wide tax-and-spend programs. Then in the
60's the Supreme Court's one-man-one-vote rule knocked most of the
small-town reps out of the Legislature.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

 

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <xvK8b.4583$3Y2.2729@news2.central.cox.net>, jjith@cox.net
says...
harder to deal with the armed criminals. Brilliant.

Oh and just to go off on another tangent, I think that most guns laws suck.
Just do a google search for Virgin Utah and you will find a city with a
mandatory gun law. Crime is lower there than any city in the US of
proportionate size. The same goes for Kennesaw, Georgia; the city that's
Virgin's law was modeled after. Hehehe, this is going to cause some debate
hopefully.

I did a Google search...

1) The town has only 2000 people, and it's in the middle of nowhere.
Just how bad could the crime be there?

2) Almost everyone in the town already owned a gun!

3) The law made exemptions for convicted felons, mentally ill,
conscientious objectors, and anyone that can't afford a gun. In other
words, the ordinance isn't really enforceable and no one claimed
anyone bought a gun because of it. Mandatory, baloney.

Not a very persuasive example, but it was a hoot reading about it.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

 

[Eric Dreher]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:47:20 -0700, Eric Greenwell
<flyguy26e@charterDECIMAL.POINTnet> wrote:

I did a Google search...

1) The town has only 2000 people, and it's in the middle of nowhere.
Just how bad could the crime be there?

2) Almost everyone in the town already owned a gun!

3) The law made exemptions for convicted felons, mentally ill,
conscientious objectors, and anyone that can't afford a gun. In other
words, the ordinance isn't really enforceable and no one claimed
anyone bought a gun because of it. Mandatory, baloney.

Not a very persuasive example, but it was a hoot reading about it.

Use your search engine to find the following: EVERY state or county
with CCW permits easily available to the law-abiding has seen a
reduction in violent crime. Florida, for example, saw a 27 percent
reduction in murder in the first three years.

"An armed society is a polite society." - Robert Heinlein



-------------------------------------------------------
"We must never attempt to use the UN as a substitute
for clear and resolute U.S. policy." - Barry Goldwater

 

[Ian Molton]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:03:16 -0700
Eric Dreher <ericd|@cox.net> wrote:

Use your search engine to find the following: EVERY state or county
with CCW permits easily available to the law-abiding has seen a
reduction in violent crime. Florida, for example, saw a 27 percent
reduction in murder in the first three years.

LMAO.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

 

[Ben Pope]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

All you have to do is filter out the spam at our borders by exckuding
anything containing a known virus or identified spam-ploy, and make it
cost the source, by sending THEM our OWN destructive volume and viral
and hire software assault teams to try to break into their system and
harm it, identify specific culprits by name to foreign govts as
the reason we don't do thus and such for them, and encourage them to
terminate them with greatest prejudice and that we won't care WHAT
happens to these culprits, AND we will reward the cooperative with
our friendliest intentions.

I think your arrogance blinds you from the practicalities of such a thing.
You don't hold a position of too much authority do you?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Bill Sloman]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F65342B.5F70@armory.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I think I'll stay home. I'd have got a five times greater chance of
being murdered in the U.S. than I have in the Netherlands
-----------
But only if you insist in hanging around in deprived barrios and
black ghettos, where nobody in their right mind here would go, not
even the cops. Short of that, you have LESS danger here than Europe,
precisely BECAUSE the white people all have guns and are peaceful!

Ther was a story in the U.K. newspapers a few years ago about a U.K.
tourist whose car broke down fairly late at night in a well-lit suburb
in Florida. He decided to knock on the nearest front door and ask to
use the householder's phone to call a breakdown service - a fatal
mistake. The householder thought that he was a burglar, and shot him.

I think I'll pass on the "peaceful" white people with guns ....

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bunch of disciplined troops, it isn't that difficult.
--------------
Delusion. This is the delusion that got the US screwed in Vietnam.

You are as bad as Fred Bloggs - the Viet cong was not an armed mob,
but a trained and organised guerilla army, a very different thing.

The armed
mob tends to end up dead if they get obstreperous. The NRA has this
bizarre tendency to claim that an armed mob that has never trained
together can be identified with the US constitution's "well regulated
militia", but intelligent adults should know better.
-----------------
Your delusion, troops have a limited utility because they must remain
in ranks together to be more than a mob, as our troops are discovering
in Baghdad. Once separated, troops are useless and the same as an armed
rabble.

Infantry hasn't fought in ranks for more than a hundred years now -
that habit died out with the introduction of rapid fire weapons.
Modern infantry tactics depend on the coordination of groups of men
fighting from cover, and moving from one concealed position to the
next. This is not a skill that you can pick up overnight, but troops
that have mastered it can decimate - and wipe out - a much larger
armed mob who can't exploit cover while maintaining coordination.

And using armed troops on demonstrators in a democracy is total
political suicide that condemns your cause to its death with the knell
of the next morn.

So Lyndon Johnson was taken out and hung the day after the Kent State
massacre? Those students weren't even armed. Nobody is going to give a
shit about an armed mob who are silly enough to start firing on the
police or the army - not taking resolute action against them really
would be political suicide; the armed mob is attempting a coup d'etat
(even if the "state" is just the town or village involved) and the
state is obliged to react vigorously and decisively.

In point of fact, the "well regulated militia" meant the local village
legal requirements that each family have a long firearm and that they
maintain a supply of powder and shot and can "pass muster" in reporting
for inspection with their weapon and ammunition monthly to prove they
are at the ready, and also them showing up for target practice.

They had to drill together regularly if they were to form a useful
military force - in that period infantry had to fight in ranks to
generate enough firepower to decimate an attack by running men before
they could close hand-to-hand. Rifles might have been accurate enough
to justify target practice, but they were too slow to reload to be
much use in battle, so what you are thinking of as target practice
were in fact exercises in coordinated movement and volley fire -
"drill" in a word.

In early American english parlance it has NO such OTHER meaning of ANY
kind such as anti-gun asswipes wish to pretend. The National Guard or
even a US Army proper was decades or a century away at that time in the
minds of the Founders. They distrusted ALL standing armies, and all
non-citizen armies, which only became needed later when opposing other
professional armies of other nations when more technological weaponry
was coming into use.

The Dutch, in that period, had both a professional standing army,
which garrisoned the crucial fortified border cities in peace-time,
and citizens's militias in every city and large town, composed of
citizens rich enough to provide their own arms, who served both as
local defence forces, and as an armed force to maintain order in their
town in times of social unrest.

The Swiss had a similar system, which has metamorphosed into their
current citizen army.

Being a member of the militia was a way of claiming high social
status, by making it publicly obvious that you were rich enough to
afford the military equipment required, and of exploiting your wealth
to rub shoulders with the other rich and influential people in your
town - there was a lot of social drinking and dining after militia
assemblies, and there are several group portraits of such
militias."The Night Watch" is probably the most famous.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1640/night-watch/

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F6530DF.4269@armory.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk1tnn$o6seb$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Roger Hamlett wrote:

snipped fine exhibition of logical fallacies

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Sloman's cage.

Yep. I do dislike pseudo-logical qualitative arguments, and gun nuts
seem to have a particular enthusiasm for this form of delusive
propaganda.

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-------------------------
American gun-owning white people who otherwise resemble Europeans have
less gun violence than those same Europeans, the only huge American
gun violence problem is in black ghettos and very poor Latin barrios,
and it is only these areas that Europe DOESN'T have that cause a
statistical difference between the two. Europeans are just like white
privileged Americans, except they are needlessly deprived of guns.

Get your statistics right.We have our own gun-happy minorities. You
can't lump the local equivalents of the WASPs in with the Turkish
guest-worker population, and with the Balkan refugee community. The
Balkan community in particular is relatively well armed in consequence
of Titos broad distribution of arms across former Yugoslavia in
anticipation of a guerilla war against a Russian invasion that never
happened (perhaps because the Russians had some idea of how effective
Tito's trained guerillas might have been).

Many of our residual gun homicides are the consequences of business
disputes in the illegal drug trade, where the minorities are
over-represented (as they are in the U.S.A.).

You are much less likely to get shot in a regular respectable largely
gun-free Dutch suburb than you are in the U.S. equivalent, where many
of the householders have guns which they are prepared to fire in the
gneral direction of perceived burglars - a habit which has killed some
socially inept but non-criminal tourists.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

It is a very abbreviated form of counter-argument, matched to the
rigor of your proposition. If you want the detailed exposition.

What you said was

"There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here
(UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns have
them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the net
result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant."

One of the aims of the legislation was to make it harder for the
criminals to get their illegal guns, by drying up one source of
supply.

You are claiming that because criminals get guns illegally, changing
the rules on the way ordinary citizen may legally hold guns has no
effect on the availability of legal guns. This does not follow. The
legally held gun in the hands of an ordinary citizen can become an
illegal gun in the hands of a criminal as the result of a burglary -
real or staged.

To make your point, you would have to establish that criminals were
getting the bulk of their guns from other sources. You haven't done
this.

You merely claim that the criminals are getting the same number of
guns - without adducing any evidence - and the police are having a
harder time dealing with armed criminals because it is harder for them
to get guns, which also doesn't follow.

It might be harder for the police to deal with armed criminals if they
had fewer guns, which you haven't even claimed, let alone established,
but if the police couldn't squeeze the guns they want out of the
governement bureacracy, the problem wouldn't be the shortage of guns,
but a serious dumbing down in the police force

IIRR another aim of the legislation was to prevent pschopathic nutters
from filling their houses with legally held guns before they go out on
a Dunblain/Port Arthur style massacre. In so far as criminals mostly
kill other criminals, and nutters seem to shoot blameless women and
kids, the government has a stronger interest in making life difficult
for the nutters, even though they kill fewer people.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0309150232.4ad6b1cf@posting.google.com...

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

It is a very abbreviated form of counter-argument, matched to the
rigor of your proposition. If you want the detailed exposition.

What you said was

"There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here
(UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns have
them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the net
result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant."

One of the aims of the legislation was to make it harder for the
criminals to get their illegal guns, by drying up one source of
supply.

You are claiming that because criminals get guns illegally, changing
the rules on the way ordinary citizen may legally hold guns has no
effect on the availability of legal guns. This does not follow. The
legally held gun in the hands of an ordinary citizen can become an
illegal gun in the hands of a criminal as the result of a burglary -
real or staged.

To make your point, you would have to establish that criminals were
getting the bulk of their guns from other sources. You haven't done
this.
At the time of the handgun embargo, one of the pieces of evidence to Lord

Cullen, was that the illegal gun 'pool' _on the polices own estimates_,
exceeded the legal pool by 2:1. There was also evidence that the total
'losses' from the legal pool, were significantly less than the number of
guns being taken out of the illegal pool by gun dealers (in fact the largest
number of losses in the preceeding year, was from the police themselves...).
Lord Cullen, studied these and other data, and decided that making private
handguns illegal, would not reduce the number used in crime. However that
security could be tightened to make losses even more unlikely. His decision
was ignored.

You merely claim that the criminals are getting the same number of
guns - without adducing any evidence - and the police are having a
harder time dealing with armed criminals because it is harder for them
to get guns, which also doesn't follow.

It might be harder for the police to deal with armed criminals if they
had fewer guns, which you haven't even claimed, let alone established,
but if the police couldn't squeeze the guns they want out of the
governement bureacracy, the problem wouldn't be the shortage of guns,
but a serious dumbing down in the police force
I never made any claims about police gun holding. In fact their level of

arming has risen significantly since the handgun ban.

IIRR another aim of the legislation was to prevent pschopathic nutters
from filling their houses with legally held guns before they go out on
a Dunblain/Port Arthur style massacre. In so far as criminals mostly
kill other criminals, and nutters seem to shoot blameless women and
kids, the government has a stronger interest in making life difficult
for the nutters, even though they kill fewer people.
It is worth realising, that at Dunblaine, the gun was actually held

illegally under the existing law. In fact if the law had been applied,
Hamilton, would not have had a gun at all...

Best Wishes

 

[Ben Pope]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

It is a very abbreviated form of counter-argument, matched to the
rigor of your proposition. If you want the detailed exposition.

What you said was

"There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here
(UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns have
them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the net
result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant."

One of the aims of the legislation was to make it harder for the
criminals to get their illegal guns, by drying up one source of
supply.

I said nothing of drying up sources of supply - they did not, from what I
understand. They merely added more red tape. Unfortunately criminals don't
tend to fill out forms with reliable information if at all, when obtaining
guns illegally.

You are claiming that because criminals get guns illegally, changing
the rules on the way ordinary citizen may legally hold guns has no
effect on the availability of legal guns. This does not follow. The
legally held gun in the hands of an ordinary citizen can become an
illegal gun in the hands of a criminal as the result of a burglary -
real or staged.

Ok, so thats one way that a criminal can obtain a gun. Guns held here in
the home must be in a locked box in a locked room. Or the Ammo does. Or
something. Basically your burgler will not be getting the gun if he
stumbles across it.

To make your point, you would have to establish that criminals were
getting the bulk of their guns from other sources. You haven't done
this.

And you haven't done the contrary. I was making a small sidenote to
illustrate a point, not discussing gun laws specifically. I did not feel it
necessary to back it up with 4 miles of sources of information.

You merely claim that the criminals are getting the same number of
guns - without adducing any evidence - and the police are having a
harder time dealing with armed criminals because it is harder for them
to get guns, which also doesn't follow.

I claimed that it is of no use, since criminals do not obtain guns through
legal channels. Tightening legal channels is hardly going to make a big
impact. I hear what you're saying about the illegal guns once being legal,
but neither of us have established that this is a primary source of guns in
the hands of criminals.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Andrew VK3BFA]

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote in message news:<msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com>...

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Gday Jim,
(a new raging argument - goody!) What is your opinion on the recent
documentary "Bowling for Columbine" where the producer Michael Moore
did some research and found that the Canadians have a similar level of
gun ownership to the Americans, but a much lower homicide rate - his
conclusion was that Americans just like killing each other and banning
guns wouldnt achieve much.

Probably the best argument for gun control I can muster is the "gun in
the wardrobe" scenario - Grandpas old shotgun that, in a moment of
passion, gets dragged out and someone gets killed.

An argument against automatic weapons is from my youth - if you went
out hunting with 2 only 22 calibre bullets for your bolt action rifle
and didnt come home with 2 rabbits you were considered a lousy shot
and shouldnt own a gun because you lacked the competence to use it.
Might be different in America, perhaps you have big wild animals
roaming urban areas that can only be killed with large calibre
automatic weapons....

You commnets awited...

de VK3BFA Andrew.

 

[Eric Dreher]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:11:39 +0100, Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:03:16 -0700
Eric Dreher <ericd|@cox.net> wrote:


Use your search engine to find the following: EVERY state or county
with CCW permits easily available to the law-abiding has seen a
reduction in violent crime. Florida, for example, saw a 27 percent
reduction in murder in the first three years.

LMAO.

Laugh away, Binky.

Your country's crime rate has skyrocketed since their gun ban.


-------------------------------------------------------
"We must never attempt to use the UN as a substitute
for clear and resolute U.S. policy." - Barry Goldwater

 

[Rich Grise]

[see below for bottom-feeder-style post]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0309150232.4ad6b1cf@posting.google.com>...

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

It is a very abbreviated form of counter-argument, matched to the
rigor of your proposition. If you want the detailed exposition.

What you said was

"There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here
(UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns have
them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the net
result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant."

One of the aims of the legislation was to make it harder for the
criminals to get their illegal guns, by drying up one source of
supply.
....
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Personally, I believe that everyone should be armed to the teeth
24/7. In a few days, the idiots will have killed each other off, and
the rest of us can get on with our lives in peace. An armed society
is a polite society.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bill Sloman]

richardgrise@yahoo.com (Rich Grise) wrote in message news:<3df9fd6c.0309150827.68a9efd4@posting.google.com>...

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0309150232.4ad6b1cf@posting.google.com>...
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk2s06$o8upk$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

It is a very abbreviated form of counter-argument, matched to the
rigor of your proposition. If you want the detailed exposition.

What you said was

"There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here
(UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns have
them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the net
result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant."

One of the aims of the legislation was to make it harder for the
criminals to get their illegal guns, by drying up one source of
supply.
...
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Personally, I believe that everyone should be armed to the teeth
24/7. In a few days, the idiots will have killed each other off, and
the rest of us can get on with our lives in peace. An armed society
is a polite society.

I've got a couple of counter-example for you - the U.S. is an armed
society, and it isn't noticably polite - much less polite than the
Netherlands, which is not an armed society. The U.K., which is no less
unarmed than the Netherlands, is rather less polite, but much more
courteous than the U.S.

You may think that the prospect of getting shot by some gun-carrying
nit-wit might persuade everybody to be polite to every potential
gun-carrying nit-wit, but in practice it just seems to make them
stressed and snappy.

Got any more crap pro-gun propaganda to wheel out?

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen