Virginia

[marc_scirocco at sympatico.ca (marc_scirocco@sympatico.ca)]

I think Jean-Claude is an idealist, nothing wrong with that, we all want to live in a perfect society.

Reality is just another game.

Cheers.

Marc

> 
> De: "John S. Lagnese" <jlagnese@massed.net>
> Date: 2007/04/18 mer. PM 07:23:26 EDT
> ?: <desinor@sympatico.ca>,  <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
> Cc: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> Objet: Re: Virginia
> 
> I always thought that gun control is being able to hit the target. I do have 
> a number of guns. All are cared for and used properly.
> John
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca>
> To: <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
> Cc: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Virginia
> 
> 
>   That is interesting.
>   It shows we need to define the word "gun control". What you describe
> for OK is what I call "Gun Control". "CCW" is a permit to carry a
> concealed weapon, right?
>   The way you describe it is stringent enough that it will reduce the
> likelihood of some deranged individual going on a rampage. That is OK
> with me.
>   Where we might differ is that I would like to see *every* firearm
> registered.
> 
>     Jean-Claude
>     84 8v (D -12 days)
> 
> 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 
> > ssertion.  --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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>