We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
victoms.
An Armed society is a polite society
Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:40:36 GMT, "Stuart"
wrote:

Ordinary citizens can range from highly self disciplined and possessed of
logical thought processes to the idiots who performed this outrage.

And you think the same statement does not apply to police officers as
well? Incredibly naive.

On Apr 25, 11:42 am, " wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:

How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

= Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
= victoms.
= An Armed society is a polite society
= Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
= What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

Non sense, the correct way of implementing gun control would take guns
out of the hands of criminals. If it is done right, the bad guys lose
and the people who are responsible with their guns win.

"Bushzilla" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 25, 11:42 am, " wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:

How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

= Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
= victoms.
= An Armed society is a polite society
= Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
= What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

Non sense, the correct way of implementing gun control would take guns
out of the hands of criminals. If it is done right, the bad guys lose
and the people who are responsible with their guns win.


Typical liberal response. One problem with your theory...most criminals do
not acquire their guns legally. How are you going to keep guns out of
"criminal" hands when the criminals don't obey laws in the first place?

Your might wish to take off the rose-colored glasses for this one....

Honu

On Apr 25, 9:39 am, alohacyberian wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"

wrote:
In ooglegroups.com, G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

= Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a
water
= cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
= communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

Non sense, guns make it all to easy to kill large numbers of people
instantly. Poison in a water cooler might kill a few people but I
would think it would be pretty obvious and raise a red flag that the
water was tainted when the first one who drank from it suddenly keeled
over. There is a big difference in 32 dead and just 1 or 2. Depending
on the poison, poisoning can often be reversed if the victim is
treated quickly, not to mention your taste buds would tell you the
water was poisoned and you would likely spit it out rather than
swallow it. On the other hand, it is kind of hard to recover or save
someone from three bullets in their head however.. Gun control is not
just about taking firearms away from everyone, and our weak gun
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

"Bushzilla" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 25, 9:39 am, alohacyberian wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"

wrote:
In ooglegroups.com,
G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse
for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

= Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a
water
= cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
= communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

Non sense, guns make it all to easy to kill large numbers of people
instantly. Poison in a water cooler might kill a few people but I
would think it would be pretty obvious and raise a red flag that the
water was tainted when the first one who drank from it suddenly keeled
over. There is a big difference in 32 dead and just 1 or 2. Depending
on the poison, poisoning can often be reversed if the victim is
treated quickly, not to mention your taste buds would tell you the
water was poisoned and you would likely spit it out rather than
swallow it. On the other hand, it is kind of hard to recover or save
someone from three bullets in their head however.. Gun control is not
just about taking firearms away from everyone, and our weak gun
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.


Is it hard to type with so much bull**** swimming in your head?

Honu

On Apr 26, 4:25 am, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Apr 25, 11:42 am, " wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:

How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

= Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
= victoms.
= An Armed society is a polite society
= Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
= What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

Non sense, the correct way of implementing gun control would take guns
out of the hands of criminals. If it is done right, the bad guys lose
and the people who are responsible with their guns win.

Typical liberal response. One problem with your theory...most criminals do
= not acquire their guns legally. How are you going to keep guns out
of
= "criminal" hands when the criminals don't obey laws in the first
place?

Your might wish to take off the rose-colored glasses for this one....

Honu

Ok, fair question, not impossible though, listen let's first agree to
not be ridiculous, will there STILL be some guns out there no matter
what we do? of course there will, I have always also held that there
will be a random nut that goes postal and shoots up a school or post
office. The idea here is to curb it best we can, we are not doing that
now. So how do we get them out of the hands of criminals? make the
Federal offense and jail time a much more serious deterrent by upping
the anti, as in triple the jail time, make a big noise about the new
law and offer the people with illegal weapons registration, an
anonymous program where they can turn them in and reign it all in by a
set date. After that anyone found with a gun they should not have goes
to jail and pays serious fines and additionally a good number of these
assholes get caught, with, their illegal guns on their person. It
gives the authorities alot more power over them, keeps them off the
street and makes it much less appealing to have an illegal weapon. I
think that would do quite alot in fact to cut the number of gun crimes
and deaths as well as make our country much safer. Now notice I did
not say at all here, that legal and responsible gun owners should have
their weapons taken away. Why is you ****ing people get all bent out
of shape the minute anyone wants to just make it harder for criminals
to get guns, you gun nuts committing alot of crimes are you? why all
the guilt? You take the gun, then you lock the nut job up for a very
long time for possessing an illegal weapon and the rest of us get to
live in peace, enough of this tip toeing around bull****, good people
are dying here for your convenience.

On Apr 26, 4:31 am, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Apr 25, 9:39 am, alohacyberian wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"

wrote:
In ooglegroups.com,
G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse
for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

= Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a
water
= cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
= communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

Non sense, guns make it all to easy to kill large numbers of people
instantly. Poison in a water cooler might kill a few people but I
would think it would be pretty obvious and raise a red flag that the
water was tainted when the first one who drank from it suddenly keeled
over. There is a big difference in 32 dead and just 1 or 2. Depending
on the poison, poisoning can often be reversed if the victim is
treated quickly, not to mention your taste buds would tell you the
water was poisoned and you would likely spit it out rather than
swallow it. On the other hand, it is kind of hard to recover or save
someone from three bullets in their head however.. Gun control is not
just about taking firearms away from everyone, and our weak gun
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

= Is it hard to type with so much bull**** swimming in your head?

Honu

Is it hard for you to face the fact that because people like you fight
so hard to let everyone and anyone who wants a gun have one, that
there are people like Cho happily going on shooting sprees ending the
lives of innocent people?

control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

Magazines, not clips.

On 26 Apr 2007 01:27:52 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

On Apr 25, 9:39 am, alohacyberian wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"

wrote:
In ooglegroups.com, G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

= Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a
water
= cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
= communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

Non sense, guns make it all to easy to kill large numbers of people
instantly. Poison in a water cooler might kill a few people but I
would think it would be pretty obvious and raise a red flag that the
water was tainted when the first one who drank from it suddenly keeled
over.

Rat poison (the type mentioned here) does not cause people to
suddently keel over.
And the diagnosis of the cause of internal bleeding would likely take
a while, as rat poisoning of people occurs very seldom.
There is a big difference in 32 dead and just 1 or 2. Depending
on the poison, poisoning can often be reversed if the victim is
treated quickly, not to mention your taste buds would tell you the
water was poisoned and you would likely spit it out rather than
swallow it. On the other hand, it is kind of hard to recover or save
someone from three bullets in their head however.. Gun control is not
just about taking firearms away from everyone, and our weak gun
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

It's not the gun laws that are weak; note that they already disallow
someone from buying if they have been committed for mental problems.
Instead, it's the extreme difficulty in getting people committed, a
not-unreasonable policy. Otherwise, we would lock people up for,
evidently, being "loners", or for writing "frightening" poems. (This
would lock up most IT people and college boys, BTW).
It sounds really, really good to make more laws; the problem is that
laws do not prevent crime, they define crime. That's the main reason
we have a Legislative Branch of Government (the one that makes laws),
and a Judicial Branch (the one that enforces the laws); the two
functions are very different.
But laws that are unenforceable are useless (or worse than useless;
they often take up valuable resources, and ruin lives for nothing; see
our current war on drugs), and laws that try to control behaviour have
been abundantly demonstrated to be unenforceable.
I don't have the answer, and I don't see anyone else who does, but I
can see what *doesn't* work, and a gun ban is included in that.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared herself
to the famed escaped slave Harriet Tubman
who fought to help fellow slaves escape the
South through the underground railroad. Who
is she kidding? Hillary Clinton has never
taken the subway in her life.