Re: NSA,Windows, etc.
From: Alan Mackenzie (none_at_example.invalid)
Date: 05/10/04
- Next message: Alan Mackenzie: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Previous message: futureworlds: "Re: Tired of the usenet spew?"
- Maybe in reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Next in thread: Marcel Martin: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:01:48 +0000
[Followup-To: set]
John E. Hadstate <jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004
00:06:16 -0400:
> "Marcel Martin" <mm@ellipsa.no.sp.am.net> wrote in message
> news:409ECF89.1AA011E2@ellipsa.no.sp.am.net...
>> "John E. Hadstate" a écrit :
>> > The truth is that, in the US, almost no one is free to purchase guns
>> > (from any retail or wholesale outlet) without some sort of
>> > government oversight and approval. The truth is, in most urban
>> > areas, some suburban areas, and miscellaneous areas like military
>> > reservations, of the US, you are no more free to possess a gun than
>> > you would be in Berlin, or Moscow, or Beijing.
>> That's not really what I saw in "Bowling for Columbine". And, in this
>> case, unless one admits that Americans are more criminal than others
>> (which is quite questionable), how can one explain that the murder
>> ratio is 10 times greater in the US than in any other Western country?
>> --
>> mm
> What can I say? "Bowling for Columbine" was largely BS, pure and simple.
> Here's a dirty little secret: you don't need to quote some socialist
> half-wit's propaganda. You can verify what I wrote for yourself. Find an
> American citizen whom you trust (yes, I realize you're French, but try
> anyway) to go to any retail outlet anywhere in the United States. Ask him
> to purchase a handgun. Then ask him about waiting periods (or "instant
> background checks" that are really "instant 5-day waiting periods"). If he
> actually gets government approval to buy it, tell him to take this handgun
> into any urban area and show it to a police officer. After he gets out of
> jail, ....
What? You go up to a policeman and say, "hey, officer, could you help me
with my gun, please. I know it needs lubricating from time to time, but
I can't find the dipstick.", and then carefully pass him the weapon
handle first, you're saying you'll get arrested, convicted and jailed?
> .... ask him to try to buy another one. If he succeeds, ask him take
> his new gun to Washington, DC and repeat his folly.
"Hey, officer, I can't find the dipstick on this gun either. Could you
lend me a hand, please?"
> It will be a while before you see him again and with a felony
> conviction, the chances are against his legally buying another.
Crazy!
> In fact, you can short cut some of this. Just tell him to beat the
> hell out of his wife and then plead guilty to "Criminal Domestic
> Violence." Once he has such a conviction, he will not ever legally
> purchase a gun, and, if he is in the military, he will be immediately
> discharged since he can't be allowed access to a military weapon
> either. [Lautenberg Amendment]
Seems sensible. I mean, anybody who'd beat up his wife just because a
friend living on the other side of the Atlantic 'phoned him up and told
him to, _ought_ not to have a gun. Probably ought to be confined in a
mental institution, for the protection of himself as well as others. And
the thought of somebody like that partaking in the fun and games
currently happening on other parts of the globe. Hmmm. Good for
Lautenberg, whoever she was.
> Why is the murder ratio [sic] 10 times greater in the US. Maybe
> because we use weapons that are far more efficient that yours.
Indeed. Guns, for example. Despite how difficult they might be to
obtain, lots of USA residents seem to manage it without too much trouble.
An ingenious and resourceful people.
> After the Gun Control Act of 1968, in which Congress outlawed the sale
> and manufacture of low-powered "Saturday Night Specials" (.22 and .25
> caliber purse guns), our criminal element switched to the far more
> deadly .38 Specials and .357 Magnums. The more sophisticated ones are
> using 9mm Berettas because that's what they were trained with in the
> military. This is another example of "the law of unintended
> consequences."
1968? Heck, that's almost 40 years ago. You'd never had it so good,
Apollo 9 was taking 3 astronauts for a quick jaunt round the moon, beer
was 9d a pint, there was still only one Elvis Presley, Kennedy had
just been assissinated, the USA and the USSR were pointing ever more
Uranium bombs at eachother, but King was still alive, I think. Other
changes in society might have more to do with the murder rate now than
some inessential legal technicality back in the days of the Beatles.
> Unfortunately, the real reason for our higher murder rate is that a
> significant portion of the dregs of our society has calculated that
> there is nearly no downside to preying on the weaker members of our
> society, and preying on them includes murdering anyone who gets in
> their way. Most of the 52 civilians killed last year in my city were
> on one side or the other of a drug-deal-turned-armed-robbery, and most
> were poor.
Maybe the real reason is that there are just too many "dregs" in your
society, methodically created and sustained by unrestrained capitalism, a
much more deadly weapon than a gun.
-- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
- Next message: Alan Mackenzie: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Previous message: futureworlds: "Re: Tired of the usenet spew?"
- Maybe in reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Next in thread: Marcel Martin: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
