Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:22:25 -0700 From: twep@FLASH.NET (Bernie Oliver) Subject: Re: Ohboyohboy To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
John Falkenstine wrote: >
> Ok, then using your logic, we can't go to a city park unless we have a gun
> in case a potential bad guy shows up.
No. You can take your chances. You may never need a gun to defend yourself. Many don't - some do. I don't want to be one of them that needs one and doesn't have one. It hurts no one if an honest person has one and never needs it. They aren't going o commit a crime with it.
It happens that I've stopped two crimes because I did have one. The last time was at Park Mall in Tucson. An elderly couple (about 75 years old) were in the process of being abducted at knife point.
Detectives later told me that the one individual had been arrested 23 times and had 8 warrants out for their arrest. The other was wanted on parole violations. someone forgot to tell them that knives don't belong in the parking lot of Park Mall, "period". People go there to have fun and enjoy themselves.
It should also be noted that I had to hold the two pillars of the community for almost 15 minutes. The police showed up about 8 minutes after they were called and waited another 5 minutes while deciding what to do. The elderly couple were quite grateful that someone had a gun to protect them.
Maybe we just shouldn't go anywhere unless we're carrying bandoleiros and a machine gun, looking like some Mexican revolutionary.
I suppose one can be flippant when they don't have a good defense.
Again, the arguments you present are hypothetical > constructions that fit your viewpoint that you have the right to carry a gun, no matter what.
No, my argument, as you can see from the previous incident are not hypothetical. It's the real world, not some fantasy utopian world that you choose to fantasize about. I'd be happy to provide you with the case number if you wish. I'll also forward your email to another individual that has stopped bad guys twice, also.
In a society such as the US this is a huge fallacy-gun > deaths are rampant because of the large number of guns.
No, they occur because of the large number of criminals, the fact that when the good guy shoots the bad guy it's still counted as a homicide and even when the police shoot a criminal or a couple of gang-bangers or drug dealers shoot each other there is no differentiation.
Arguments for proper gun usage as the solution are a copout because with the number of guns this simply will not work.
Then you would have no problem with police officers giving up their firearms?
alternate arguments that guns are needed because the > government is incompetent simply show an antigovernment attitude and again,
> the argument is pre-tailored to fit a viewpoint.
> Please note that I DO NOT do the same thing, i.e. If nobody has a gun there
> will be no violence-There will always be crime and somebody will find a
> weapon of some kind, even if it is a screwdriver or a kitchen knife. But it
> is very difficult to go into a high school or a MacDonalds with such a
> weapon and do massive damage. -Perhaps a Samurai sword might work. But it
> can replace a weapon, which after all is designed to kill-(I think defense,
> as you use it was a later concept).
One of the largest mass murders in history occurred in a N.Y. disco and involved a gallon of gas.
Another disturbing fact that I feel you > need to reflect on is that gun ownership breeds more ownership OUT OF FEAR,
> not from the US Government or your assumed incompetent police department,
> but fear for those who will use a gun to do harm to others.
Please try to stay within the frame of the argument. I did not say that the police are incompetent - many are, some aren't. I said not to depend on them for your protection. They aren't able to predict the future and thus have no way of knowing that a crime is being committed unless and until someone calls them.
> Also as a hypothetical arguments, since I live in a neighborhood that has
> both a gun AND a drug problm: Suppose for one day that there was a gun
> amnesty and that EVERY gun in the neighborhood was turned in. Then I, as a
> respectful citizen and my family could go for walks in the evening
> again.....
There is an amnesty and moratorium on weapons in prison. Based on your argument prisons should be a safe place for you and your family to go for walks in the evening.
Bernie > ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bernie Oliver <twep@flash.net>
> To: John Falkenstine <JohnFalky@email.msn.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 6:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Ohboyohboy
>
> > John Falkenstine wrote:
> > >
> > > Jews were persecuted in Europe for centuries. To build a hypothetical
> > > scenario that mass murder would not have happened if they had guns is
> pure
> > > hogwash. The germans had machine guns and their social system had
> > > discrimination against jews built into it well before Hitler came to
> power.
> >
> > So your "logic" is that the Jews and anyone else of modern day, much
> > like some rape victim's have been told, should just, "lay back and enjoy
> > it."
> >
> > The people that founded this country were discriminated against by the
> > social system that King George was a part of.
> > >
> > > And again, folks go to parks to enjoy themselves. No guns in parks. If a
> gun
> > > does show up it is easy for the cops to take care of it. That's what
> they get paid for.
> >
> > Please, please tell me that you aren't that naive. The cops don't even
> > know that a crime is in process until it's usually over. As a matter of
> > fact there have been numerous attempts to sue the police for not showing
> > up. Not once has the court ever wavered.
> >
> > The court has consistently ruled that the cops have no obligation to
> > protect you, as an individual.
> >
> > Bernie Oliver
> > >
> > > You are welcome to reply.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > John Falkenstine
-- This is the first day of the last of your Rights.