At 12:18 PM 6/4/04, Jacob wrote:>What is everyone's take on gun control? I think this is a huge topic and a>great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and views on...
I used to 100% against any form of gun control.
Then I went to a gun show with a friend, and spent the afternoon looking at some of the people buying guns.
Now I think some form of control is definitely needed. An IQ test, perhaps. Or genetic testing to make sure the family tree has at least one branch.
Michael Dinowitz 4 June 2004 19:37:24 [ permanent link ]
Ok, so you want to see how much stress the new mail server can take, is that it? Get more and more posts flying and see is we can crash the sucker. These are topics that come up nicely spaced over a month, not all at once. Why do you want to give me more stress?
A gun is a tool much like a car. It has its uses but can be used to kill just as fast. If you want a gun you should have to take a training course, take a test and get a license. Past that, I see no reason to limit peoples holding of a pistol (for sport or defense) or rifle (for sport or hunting). I do see a problem with automatic weapons as they're designed for the wholesale killing of people (without skill I may add).
Personally, I pay taxes to make sure there are trained police officers with guns to protect me.
What is everyone's take on gun control? I think this is a huge topic and a> great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and views on...>
"They say guns don't kill people. People kill people. But I think the gun helps. I think just standing there going (make shape of gun with thumb and forefinger) "bang! bang!" isn't really going to kill a whole lot of people. You'd have to be pretty dodgy on the heart to have that kill you".
It's funnier if you hear it with a british accent as told by a transvestite. Truly.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacob" <jacob@excaliburfilms.com> To: "CF-Community" <cf-community@houseoffusion.com> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:18 AM Subject: Conversation Topic - Gun Control
What is everyone's take on gun control? I think this is a huge topic and a> great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and views on...>
Michael Tangorre 4 June 2004 19:48:03 [ permanent link ]
I used to 100% against any form of gun control.>
Then I went to a gun show with a friend, and spent the > afternoon looking at some of the people buying guns.>
Now I think some form of control is definitely needed. An IQ > test, perhaps. Or genetic testing to make sure the family > tree has at least one branch.
One of my favorite movie lines is from Keanu Reeves (yeah, yeah, i know) in Parenthood. Once again, I paraphrase
"Y'know Mrs. Buckman...you need a license to drive a car. You need a license to own a dog. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any @sshole become a father."
(apologies to those who might be offended by the word '@sshole'. or for that matter 'keanu reeves').
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Ketsdever" <ken.ketsdever@bloodsource.org> To: "CF-Community" <cf-community@houseoffusion.com> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:46 AM Subject: FW: Conversation Topic - Gun Control
using that argument shouldn't we have some sort of test or licensing
I used to be 100% in favor. But at the time I lived in the DC suburbs and I drove a taxi
After living out west for a while, I have come to the conclusion that there are definitely places where it makes sense to own a gun. For example, Real County TX, where one and a half sheriffs patrol two or three hundred square miles. Or McKinley Co NM, which has a total population density of maybe 1 person per three or four hundred square miles. In places like that, you really have to take some responsibility for your own safety. The nearest policeman could easily be a hundred miles away.
Dana
At 12:18 PM 6/4/04, Jacob wrote:>>What is everyone's take on gun control? I think this is a huge topic and a>>great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and views on...>
I used to 100% against any form of gun control.>
Then I went to a gun show with a friend, and spent the afternoon looking at >some of the people buying guns.>
Now I think some form of control is definitely needed. An IQ test, >perhaps. Or genetic testing to make sure the family tree has at least one >branch.>
population density of maybe 1 person per three or four hundred square > miles. In places like that, you really have to take some
erps. correction, per 3 or 4 miles. The whole county is maybe 500 square miles. I am not sure if it actually contains a town The major landmark is Chaco Canyon, a thousand-year-old ruin.
"They say guns don't kill people. People kill people. But I think the gun helps. I think just standing there going (make shape of gun with thumb and forefinger) "bang! bang!" isn't really going to kill a whole lot of people. You'd have to be pretty dodgy on the heart to have that kill you".
It's funnier if you hear it with a British accent as told by a transvestite. Truly.
My response to the "guns don't kill people, people do" is that yes that is true, but a gun sure does make it easier. It would be very hard for a single person to go on a rampage with a knife or a sword and kill dozens of people. It is just so much easier to run a way from blade then an Uzi. Even with a bow or crossbow, these at least take strength and training to use effectively and are still rather slow in fire rate so it would be hard to kill that many people in most circumstances. Heck, even explosives takes at least some knowledge and/or luck to use effectively without blowing up oneself before hand.
My 0.02
Confidentiality Notice: This message including any attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete any copies of this message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect your mail server with built in anti-virus protection. It's not only good for you, it's good for everybody. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=39
My opinions are very well know on this issue. At home I have some links to some studies sponsored by the Department of Justice in Canada that have looked at changes in crime rates in Canada as a function of the increasingly restrictive gun control legislation. They make a very strong case that gun control negatively impacts the crime rate. In other words, very restrictive national gun control laws in Canada resulted in substantially reduced crime rates over and above all other factors.
So given these results, I'm favour of gun control legislation.
larry
This electronic communication, together with any attachments, may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or otherwise private. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this communication or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the original sender and delete the received information from your system. Thank you.
At 14:40 6/4/2004 -0400, you wrote:>My opinions are very well know on this issue. At home I have some links to>some studies sponsored by the Department of Justice in Canada that have>looked at changes in crime rates in Canada as a function of the increasingly>restrictive gun control legislation. They make a very strong case that gun>control negatively impacts the crime rate. In other words, very restrictive>national gun control laws in Canada resulted in substantially reduced crime>rates over and above all other factors.>
So given these results, I'm favour of gun control legislation.
I wish I could remember the name of the study but it suggested that gun control laws don't really have an impact on crime rate. The study looked at various countries and suggests that there is no relationship between gun control laws and crime rates. The country with the heaviest gun control laws, Japan, and the country with the most liberal gun control laws, Switzerland, both ranked near the top for least amount of crime per population.
I sort of remember that study but its been a while. But if you could find the reference I'd appreciate it. What I do remember is that there was a fair amount of criticism on how the study was conducted. There was a lot of inappropriate comparisons, and no where near enough controls as would have been required with an adequately designed study. Unfortunately this is endemic to this area, all too often the researchers forget the very basics of doing quasi-experimental research.
larry
-----Original Message-----> From: Won Lee [mailto:won@quovad.com] > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:47 PM> To: CF-Community> Subject: RE: Conversation Topic - Gun Control>
At 14:40 6/4/2004 -0400, you wrote:> >My opinions are very well know on this issue. At home I have > some links > >to some studies sponsored by the Department of Justice in > Canada that > >have looked at changes in crime rates in Canada as a function of the > >increasingly restrictive gun control legislation. They make a very > >strong case that gun control negatively impacts the crime rate. In > >other words, very restrictive national gun control laws in Canada > >resulted in substantially reduced crime rates over and above > all other > >factors.> >
So given these results, I'm favour of gun control legislation.>
I wish I could remember the name of the study but it > suggested that gun > control laws don't really have an impact on crime rate.> The study looked at various countries and suggests that there is no > relationship between gun control laws and crime rates. The > country with > the heaviest gun control laws, Japan, and the country with > the most liberal > gun control laws, Switzerland, both ranked near the top for > least amount of > crime per population. >
I wish I could remember the name of the study but it suggested that gun control laws don't really have an impact on crime rate. The study looked at various countries and suggests that there is no relationship between gun control laws and crime rates. The country with the heaviest gun control laws, Japan, and the country with the most liberal gun control laws, Switzerland, both ranked near the top for least amount of crime per population.
Michael Moore made mention of this in "Bowling...."
I agree if someone is irresponsponsible enough to leave guns where children can get ot them then the parents should be shot. Oh crap! Did I just bring up capitol punishment. Thats an interesting subject.
What is everyone's take on capitol punishment? I think this is a huge topic and a great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and views on...
Oh, and mandatory training and retraining should be required; maybe like every 6 months. I also think parents should be held responsible if accidents happen with children and guns within the home.
I'm not even going near that one. I am really divided on this one. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent by and large. Removing a predator or something like Bin Laden though is a different matter.
larry
At 03:58 PM 6/4/2004, you wrote:> I agree if someone is irresponsponsible enough to leave guns where > children can get ot them then the parents should be shot. Oh crap! Did I > just bring up capitol punishment. Thats an interesting subject.>
What is everyone's take on capitol punishment? I think this is a huge>topic and a great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and >views on...>
Oh, and mandatory training and retraining should be required; maybe like>every 6 months. I also think parents should be held responsible if accidents>happen with children and guns within the home.>
-----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:lyons@lyonsmorris.com] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:22 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Conversation Topic - Gun Control
I'm not even going near that one. I am really divided on this one. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent by and large. Removing a predator or something like Bin Laden though is a different matter.
larry
At 03:58 PM 6/4/2004, you wrote:> I agree if someone is irresponsponsible enough to leave guns where > children can get ot them then the parents should be shot. Oh crap! Did I > just bring up capitol punishment. Thats an interesting subject.>
What is everyone's take on capitol punishment? I think this is a huge>topic and a great conversation topic to get all kinds of opinions and >views on...>
Oh, and mandatory training and retraining should be required; maybe like>every 6 months. I also think parents should be held responsible if accidents>happen with children and guns within the home.>
Okies now..you know peeples say many things about Bush after this whole Iraq thing.but.umm. How's he a war criminal by the definition of the term under international law?
-Gel
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Ketsdever
How about War Criminals like Bush?
-- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.245 / Virus Database: 263.1.0 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
I don't know your definition of war criminal but I'd say "is responsible for war crimes" is a reasonable working definition. The UN's human rights guy seems to think that there may be a case that war crimes have been committed. If you accept Bush's responsibility for the actions of his administration then there is a reasonable case to be made that Bush is a war criminal. It's a case that has not been proven, but the proposition is far from off the wall imho.
Dana
How's he a war criminal by the definition of the term under>international law?>
-Gel>
-----Original Message----->From: Ken Ketsdever >
How about War Criminals like Bush?>
-->Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).>Version: 7.0.245 / Virus Database: 263.1.0 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect your mail server with built in anti-virus protection. It's not only good for you, it's good for everybody. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=39
If you initiate a war under false pretenses, against International will and against International law sounds to me like that might be considered a war crime. Killing thousands of people (many if not most of whom were not combatants), destroying a countries infrastructure, permitting crimes against prisoners, detaining hundreds of people without charges, or legal represntation etc... If the roles were reveresed we would be saying the perpetrator was a war criminal comitting crimes against humanity.
When pictures of American Prisoners were shown it was an outrage. It was humiliating against the Geneva Convention etc... Yet we have no reservation about showing pictures of Iraqi prisoners. Not to mention the abuse that has been documented since last fall.
Are we going to lead by example or by force? Bush has done more to ruin this country than Sadam or Osama could have ever done.
-----Original Message----- From: Angel Stewart [mailto:cf-community@angelstewart.com] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 5:21 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Conversation Topic - Gun Control
Okies now..you know peeples say many things about Bush after this whole Iraq thing.but.umm. How's he a war criminal by the definition of the term under international law?
-Gel
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Ketsdever
How about War Criminals like Bush?
-- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.245 / Virus Database: 263.1.0 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 _____
