Virginia

[desinor at sympatico.ca (Jean-Claude Désinor)]

  Or Switzerland, where everyone is trained for militia, since they do 
not have a formal army.
  And they have an assault weapon which they take home.
  Shows that having controls does not prevent one from bearing arms :-)

    Jean-Claude
    84 8v ( D- 12)

David Utley wrote:
> The situation with the friend could be easily remedied, make it mandatory to
> have gun training once you turn 21.  I also believe that everyone should
> spend some time in the military, like Germany/Israel, but I understand that
> that view is unpopular here.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Claude D?sinor [mailto:desinor@sympatico.ca] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:10 PM
> To: Mike Smith
> Cc: fahrvergnugen@cox.net; scirocco-l@scirocco.org; Brendan Doyle
> Subject: Re: Virginia
>
>   That is a good read.
>   I think we are closer to an agreement once we take the time to talk.
>   And again points out that "Gun Control" does not mean "prohibition".
>   About Myth #1 though, "Guns are only used for killing", I strongly 
> believe it to not be a myth at all.
>   This does not mean that since you have a gun, you want to kill.  You 
> may fire into the air to deter attack.  But it is effective only because 
> whoever knows you have a gun prefers not to attack you because he will 
> be killed otherwise.
>   That is effective in our cultures. Disturbingly though, it is not 
> effective against those who have decided to give up their lives anyways.
>   Anyways, yes, guns are build to kill. It will be disingenious to say 
> otherwise.
>  A car *can* kill, but you will likely use it to carry goods and people. 
> It will not deter a bad guy.
>  A baseball bat *can* kill. But you will most likely use it to spend 
> quality time with you kids and friends. It will not deter a bad guy.
>   A shovel *can* kill. But you will more likely use it in the snow or in 
> your garden. It will not deter a bad guy.
>   A gun can be used for none of those, and it deters because it is a 
> very effective single purpose killing machine.
>   I also have other disagreements with the text. Mostly that as a 
> teenager, my cousin decided to use his dad's gun as a deterrent, and 
> "borrowed" it one evening because he would be coming home late. He  
> badly injured a friend because he tought he had removed all bullets, did 
> not know there was still one in the chamber. And my stepdaughter's best 
> friend had an argument with her Texan husband. She was depressed at the 
> time, and while he was at work, blew her head off with his gun.
>
> **    Jean-Claude
>     84 8v
>
> Mike Smith wrote:
>   
>> Some good info here:
>> Nine Myths of Gun Control http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm
>>
>> BTW, I own guns (legally), I like to shoot them (legally), and I don't
>> shoot people.  Never have and I hope I never have to.  That's the last
>> thing I want to do with one.  But I'd rather have it and not need it
>> than need it and not have it.  Also, IMO, it's better to be judged by
>> twelve than carried by six.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/07, fahrvergnugen@cox.net <fahrvergnugen@cox.net> wrote:
>>     
>>> ---- Brendan Doyle <lord_verminaard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Normally I would not get involved in an argument like this, but I 
>>>>         
>>> think what really gets to me is the first official statement that I 
>>> read (and I believe was the first statement released) out of the 
>>> white house after it happened (and this was when the death count was 
>>> still in the 20's) according to an "official Bush spokeswoman":
>>>
>>> "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear 
>>> arms, but that all laws must be followed."  Say what????  Could that 
>>> be any more insensitive?  To me that is just another way for him to 
>>> say "shut up you stupid liberals" before it even begins.
>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>> I too thought this was stupid, and not in the Presidents' best 
>>> interests.  If anything, it only gives cause to the lefties to argue 
>>> more gun control.
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>>   Cause I know the first thing that was on my liberal mind was how 
>>> this shooting will affect my ability to own a firearm.  I like guns 
>>> as much as the next guy.  I do not own one although I might someday.  
>>> I sure as hell am not going to carry the thing around with me.  
>>> Likewise, I really am uncomfortable with the idea that there are 
>>> dozens of other people walking around carrying a firearm.  If 
>>> something goes down in a store where I am shopping, the LAST thing I 
>>> would want is a gunfight breaking out because some "tough guy" 
>>> citizen carrying a gun wants to be a hero and kill the bad guy.  So 
>>> instead of one crazy with a gun (who, the majority of the time has no 
>>> real intention of shooting anyone, just using it for leverage)
>>>       
>>>>  you have two, and both of them suddenly have a reason to start 
>>>>         
>>> shooting.  If you want a gun in your house, fine- shooting at an 
>>> intruder at least reduces the chance that you will hurt anyone else 
>>> besides the attacker or anyone in your house at the time.
>>> -----------------------------
>>>
>>> That's just the thing, though.  Here in OK., to get a CCW, you have 
>>> to go through a reasonably rigorous training, as well as to 
>>> understand that if you are going to -show- your gun, you are going to 
>>> -use- it.  To maintain your CCW, you have to go in every so often (I 
>>> think every 2 years) and recertify yourself.  Certification includes 
>>> being able to hit a target X number of times within X number of 
>>> seconds, as well as some discussion of how to watch-out for innocent 
>>> bystanders.  Ultimately, those with CCW are nearly as well trained as 
>>> many police officers with regards to how to use the gun well in 
>>> differing environments.  This is compounded by the fact that they 
>>> have to recertify regularly.  Your example would be plausible in a 
>>> movie, but not in most states.
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Gun control is not going to completely solve the issue, and I agree 
>>> with what others are saying.  But the problem is this- until we have 
>>> a way to profile people from birth to find out if they are going to 
>>> snap or go crazy, it has to be done.  Spare me the "invasion of 
>>> privacy blah blah blah" unless you can think of a better way.   Now, 
>>> I have not heard if the shooter at Virginia legally purchased those 
>>> weapons, but I'd be willing that he didn't.   A large, LARGE part of 
>>> the problem is illegal weapons sales- but the only real cure is to 
>>> keep "at risk" people from obtaining weapons.
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>> He did legally purchase both guns.
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>  I do not care if it's fair or not.  Put it this way- my girlfriend 
>>> was shot by a stray bullet while she was walking through public land- 
>>> the owner of the gun did not have it registered, and obviously did 
>>> not have any training if he was shooting it off of his back porch.  
>>> Thankfully, she was not seriously injured- although if the bullet had 
>>> hit three inches to the left it would have hit her spine,
>>>       
>>>>  then what would have happened?  As much as everyone hates the 
>>>>         
>>> idea, start profiling people more.  If they do not meet the 
>>> requirements, sorry, no gun for you.  Combine that with cracking down 
>>> on illegal gun sales and it WILL reduce the amount of gun-related 
>>> assault/homicide.  I also think people should be profiled before they 
>>> get a drivers license, more specifically if they do not meet a 
>>> certain IQ requirement but that is a whole different issue.  :P
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> I can't argue with the IQ/DL argument, however tracking illegal gun 
>>> sales is not a realistic goal.  Law abiding citizens are not the 
>>> issue here, criminals are.  I don't have a link to provide, but 
>>> everything I have seen says that folks with CCW are -mcuh- more 
>>> likely to -avert- crime, than to start it.  I have seen this a few 
>>> different times, but for the life of me cannot recall where the 
>>> statistics were posted...
>>> -------------------------------
>>> I do not like political arguments, and I do not like to disagree with 
>>> people- by nature I avoid conflict so please do not feel like I am 
>>> attacking or trying to disprove anyone else's opinions, I'm just 
>>> saying what I feel.
>>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> No worries, no offense taken.  :-)  I am just offering an opinion 
>>> back.  As long as we can all agree that no -one- person has the 
>>> answers, then I will be right...    :-)
>>>
>>> David
>>> ----------
>>> Brendan
>>> 84 Scirocco 8v <-- TDI in progress
>>> 01 Jeep TJ 4.0
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: "fahrvergnugen@cox.net" <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
>>> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org; desinor@sympatico.ca
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:40:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Virginia
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>   Like it or not, eventually some form of gun control will happen.
>>>>   I understand that US Citizens have a constitutional right to bear 
>>>>         
>>> arms.
>>>       
>>>>   I understand also that someone can kill with a baseball bat or a
>>>> hockey puck.
>>>>         
>>> We already have forms of gun control in place, they vary greatly from 
>>> state.  They may not have been strong enough to prevent this tragedy, 
>>> but ultimately they cannot.  The only manner this sort of crap could 
>>> be contained is if -more- folks we armed, while properly trained.  Do 
>>> you imagine that good, law abiding citizens who carry would have done 
>>> nothing if they saw this happening?
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   I am a Canadian, but we did lose a Canadian teacher in that 
>>>>         
>>> mishap, so
>>>       
>>>> that gives me (some) qualification to speak my mind :-)
>>>>   Given that, please consider the following:
>>>>   - a baseball bat (or a shovel or a kitchen knife) requires some 
>>>>         
>>> skill
>>>       
>>>> to be used for killing. Not a firearm, the primary purpose of a 
>>>>         
>>> firearm
>>>       
>>>> is to kill. Even small kids can do it.
>>>>         
>>> So, because a tool is designed to kill, it is inherently evil?  Guns 
>>> can take no actions in and of themselves, they are inanimate, and 
>>> therefore free of responsibility, unlike man.
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   - since we register automobiles, there is no big technical challenge
>>>> to register guns. (although some crooks made a bundle screwing up
>>>> Canada's gun registry.)
>>>>         
>>> An ex-con might disagree with you.  Or someone with mental problems, 
>>> etc...
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   So everyone has the right (constitutional or not) to own a car or a
>>>> driver's license. Yet you have to learn to drive and pass an exam 
>>>>         
>>> before
>>>       
>>>> you get a license, and your car is registered. What's the big hangup
>>>> about requiring a license for a firearm and registering a gun?
>>>>         
>>> Again, most states already have controls in place.  They cannot, nor 
>>> should they be capable of determining the likelihood that someone 
>>> will snap.  And if and when that happens, I would like to have a 
>>> weapon to defend myself.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but let me explain to you 
>>> how the police work in the States.  They are -not- responsible for 
>>> defending US citizens, and the battles in court to that effect 
>>> back-up my assertion.  --There was a woman in CO. who had three kids 
>>> by her estranged husband, two girls and a boy I think, all under 10 
>>> years of age.  The two were divorced and had joint custody.  He came 
>>> and got the kids one day when he was not scheduled to do so, and took 
>>> them to a nearby amusement park.  The kids called the mom a few times 
>>> from the park, saying everything was okay, but there was a 
>>> restraining order to prevent him from taking the kids (IIRC).  
>>> Long-story-short, she calls the cops several times to tell them that 
>>> the father took the kids and she feared for their lives, they did 
>>> nothing.  The father ended-up killing all three of his kids, and then 
>>> commited suicide by cop at the doorsteps of the policestation.  Now, 
>>> I tell you all this sad story to illustrate one
>>>       
>>>>  simple thing; who is responsible for protecting you and your 
>>>>         
>>> family?  Who can you trust to do the most important job anyone here 
>>> can think of?  The police were taken to court, and they won.  The 
>>> police are -not- responsible for each and every persons' defense.  
>>> Search our legal system and discover it for yourself.
>>>
>>> No thanks, I would like the ability to defend myself if I need to.
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   Last September, in Montreal, a young man went berserk and went on a
>>>> rampage. He had a legally registered firearm. He was known to have a
>>>> violent web site and to have mental problems,  but that . The gun he
>>>> used was a Beretta CX4. Splendid machine, see for yourself:
>>>> <http://www.cx4storm.com/>
>>>>   Why the heck is someone allowed to have such a weapon in a 
>>>>         
>>> non-combat
>>>       
>>>> situation?
>>>>         
>>> I've no idea, but it has little to do with this argument IMO.
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   I do not know what weapon was involved in VT, but I bet if there 
>>>>         
>>> were
>>>       
>>>> reasonable controls he would be at least limited in his ability to 
>>>>         
>>> hurt
>>>       
>>>> so many people.
>>>>         
>>> 'Reasonable' as outlined by who?  While I would love to agree with 
>>> you, guns are not the issue here.  He had two pistols, nothing as 
>>> impressive as posted above.
>>>
>>>   Unless of course some determined victims stormed him,
>>>       
>>>> but civilians faced with a powerful killing machine might not react 
>>>>         
>>> like
>>>       
>>>> that.
>>>>         
>>> What if they themselves were armed?  How many lives do you think 
>>> could have been saved if someone was properly trained, and had an 
>>> sidearm?
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but take some precautions. You
>>>> do protect yourself for sex, no?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Depends on how dangerous I am feeling at the moment...  :-)
>>>
>>> Guns are tools, they can be used for good, or evil.  If you believe 
>>> that they are only used for evil, then your lack of experience with 
>>> guns is clouding your judgement.  I am not necessarily an advocate 
>>> for automatic weapons, but I -do- advocate more folks having licenses 
>>> for concealed/carry.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>       
>>>>     Jean-Claude
>>>>     84 8v (step on the gas if it smells like danger!)
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scirocco-l mailing list
>>> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>>> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scirocco-l mailing list
>>> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>>> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>