Conference quark::mennotes

    I find them mechanically fascinating. In much the same way I find
    an engine interesting. Though the gun is simpler and I can understand
    it better. I like the fact that a gun takes an explosion and uses it
    in a controlled fashion. I think lots of men are fascinated by
    explosions in a controlled situation. I believe that men's fascination
    with guns and cars are related. They both involve control of the power
    of fire and explosion.

    Also the workman ship of a good gun elicits interest. A nice piece of
    wood carved and finished for the stock can be beautiful. There is also 
    the fit and finish of metal against metal. And the pure enjoyment of
    a good design executed and working to perfection. Interest in guns is
    an extension of many men's general interest in mechanical things. There
    is an art to gunmaking and a well made gun is art that one can use.

    There is also the usefulness as a source of relaxation. I think most
    men enjoy aiming at and hitting a target. Lots of our games are based on
    targets. Shooting is one more way to play the "hit the target" game.
    Because a well designed and make gun is so accurate it tests the skill
    of the shooter better then some other games. Because a gun is so
    portable it lends itself to other interesting games. The biathlon for
    example. Also games that allow you to move or to hit moving targets.
    Like skeet and trap for example. One can not shoot well unless one is
    calm and relaxed so shooting is a great way to force oneself to relax
    and get ones mind off distractions.

    		Alfred

Re: .0

I'm sure you meant to say "some men"...  I certainly don't find guns 
attractive.

				Steve

    The biathlon is a sport of skill, will, and stamina. To hold a gun
    steady at the end of a leg of some either running or cross country
    skiing to shot a target is not easy.
    
    

    I find guns, cars, airplanes, computers, motorcycles. Fasinating. I do
    not own all of the above. Someday wish to aspire to own. Mean time I
    will just dream on.:)
    

    re .3, thank god there's a few of you.
    
    Lorna
    

    What's attractive about a gun?
    Can't think of anything really.
    
    Charles Mallo

    Guns are kinda cool.  "Getting" something is kinda neat.  (By something
    I mean, hitting a target.  "I got it!") That's why video games are
    appealing.  You get to "get" something.
    
    Guns rather look neat(1).  Perhaps it's the dangerousness of them that
    makes them look interesting, the knowledge of what they can do.  It's
    might have ties in with that old "Why are women attracted to exciting
    men" thing we were talking about way back when -- that element of
    danger is appealing, the hint of the forbidden. 
    
    Something like that.  I don't pretend to have made a study of it, just
    off the cuff thoughts.  I really don't think it's THAT much of a man
    thing (guns), any more than it's a woman thing to run around squealing
    at the event of a broken nail.  Men are the ones society has decided
    are supposed to like guns and/or handle them or whatever reason and
    women are the ones who are supposed to grow their nails long and CARE
    if they break.  Of course, to appease those who always like to jump in
    and say "Hey! Not EVERYONE falls into these stereotypes", I add an "Of
    course not."  Some men have long nails, some women like guns.  
    
    Your mileage may vary.
    
    kim
    

>I'm sure you meant to say "some men"...

 Obviously. Nothing is universal.

    re .9, and, what a relief, in this particular case.
    

>    re .9, and, what a relief, in this particular case.
    
 Why don't you tell us your opinion ONE MORE TIME? I mean, it's been
seconds since the last time we heard it....

>Why keep jumping into men notes and adding zingers?

 Well, you do what you can...

    re .11, I was just stating my opinion.  I have as much right to do that
    as you do.  Perhaps when women have an opinion that doesn't agree with
    your opinion, that seems like a "zinger" to you?  Is that the case,
    Marc?  
    
    I'm sorry if my honest opinion stirs you up.  Try to relax.  Sit back,
    take a few deep breaths, and reflect on the fact that even though you
    didn't like my replies in this topic most of the replies are by men who
    love guns.  Look on the bright side.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .13
    
    Just stating your opinion.  Right.  it wasn't enough that you stated it
    in reply .3, you had to say it again in .10 to be *sure* we saw it. 
    Give it a rest.
    
    My own feelings about guns:
    
    Some guns are examples of artisanship of a quality higher than I see
    virtually anywhere else.  They are fine mechanisms, carefully made, and
    they deserve admiration for that.
    
    Guns, used wisely, can provide entertainment.  I thoroughly enjoy the
    puff of smoke I elicit when I pop an aspirin tablet from 50 feet away
    with a .22 rifle.
    
    Guns, used wisely, can provide a medium for competition.  Shooting is
    an Olympic sport, for good reason.  It is an achievemnt of no mean
    merit to learn to shoot well.
    
    Guns, used wisely, can provide food.  I do not hunt.  But I am not
    egocentric enough to declare guns evil just because I personally do not
    enjoy hunting.  But if I *needed* to hunt in order to feed my family,
    I'd not even hesitate.
    
    Guns, used wisely, can protect people from other people who would harm
    them or their loved ones.  I do not own a gun for defense.  But I am
    not stupid enough to declare guns evil just because criminals use them. 
    
    Guns in the proper hands, used for motives of which I approve, have
    made it possible for Lorna and the rest of us to speak our minds in
    this candid fashion:
    
    	"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the
    	blood of patriots and tyrants."
    
    					- Thomas Jefferson
    
    -dick

    re .14, who are *you* to tell me to give it a rest?  Did someone die
    and make you god?  Is Bob Palmer dead?
    
    I don't have to give *anything* a rest just because you say so.
    
    What's your problem?  A woman can't even come in here and state an
    opinion that disagrees with the majority?  
    
    I find your reply hostile and offensive.  Give it a rest yourself.
    
    Lorna
    

    I know I'm not a man, but I can I add my 2 cents worth on why I like
    them?
    
    1.  The artwork that goes into a custom piece can be incredible.  I
    enjoy looking at them.
    
    2.  Guns are great stress relief.  They require you to steady down and
    pay attention when shooting at targets.  A high power rifle demands
    your attention when using it, and it will forcefully remind you when
    you aren't giving yourself and it appropriate attention.  I've had the
    bruises to show for that.  10 or twelve rounds out of a lightweight .270
    has an amazing tranquilizing effect on me. 
    
    3.  I enjoy target practice when I have time.  It is extremely
    satisfactory to be able to place your rounds where you want them.
    
    4.  Firearms have fed my family.  They also give me an excuse to get
    off into the woods during the prettiest season in Colorado.  
    
    5.  Protection from two legged predators.  
    
    6.  And how about occaisionally I like loud noises,.
    
    Meg

    Re .15
    
    From your .13, I quote:
    
    > I'm sorry if my honest opinion stirs you up.  Try to relax...
    
    Better at dishing it out than we are at taking it, are we, Lorna?
    
    "Try to relax ...  Look on the bright side" - even though I disagree
    with you on the subject of guns, I won't come blow you away for it. 
    But I won't reply in this topic again until/unless I have something
    substantive to say, which restraint clearly is not a factor in your use
    of the keyboard.
    
    -dick

    guns are bad for you.
    
    \nasser

    No, \nasser, guns are not bad for you.  I've been around guns all my
    life, and I haven't ever been bitten by one or caught a disease from
    one.  Eating bullets at high velocity is bad for you.  Guns are like
    computers; they are inanimate things that get blamed for faults that
    are proper to their users.  Did you ever notice how nobody ever lays
    blame for a botched surgical procedure on the scalpel...?
    
    -dick

re. .20

/nassar

Gun's are not bad.  I was raised with guns in the house.  I was "Hunting" with
my father and grandfather when I was 6.  I recieved my first gun, that belonged
to me at age 7.  I started hunting at age 12 with a gun.  I still hunt and shoot.
In all of this I was only ever hurt once with a gun.  That one time, and only
on that one time, I got careless. Not the gun ME.  It cost me my index finger
on my right hand.

I still shoot, both target and hunting.  I find a well constructed piece a work
of art, both in the machinery and in the wood/stock work.  It is an extremem
challenge to place a .30 cal round in a 6 inch circle at 600 yards, with iron
sights.

Just my $.02 worth, now I'll go back under my rock.

GONZO

    	I have no particular interest in guns except some nervousness when
    they are around.
    
    	The first time I ever saw a handgun was when I visited the U.S.
    embassy in London at the age of 19. The security guard had one. The
    second time was about 5 years later when I visited a secure government
    establishment. The security guard pointed the gun slightly to one side
    of me for 5 minutes until one of the staff arrived who could positively
    identify me. I have lived in France for the past 11 years, and some of
    the police carry guns, but that is the only time I have seen a handgun
    out of a holster.

    I like my gun.

    .2   > Can't add much more. Nice....
    
    .14  > Another excellent reply
    
    
 .9    >> Why don't you tell us your opinion ONE MORE TIME? I mean, it's been
      >> seconds since the last time we heard it....
    
    
     Kit
    

 So I guess one person repeatedly driving the same point home is the same as
one person stating their opinion and other people agreeing with it. Only
in a skewed version of reality, that is...

Enough already!   Cut the sniping and get back to discussion, please.

			Steve

    .1 pretty well summed it up. Competitive shooting has always been fun
    to me. Hunting is okay also if you use the game as a food source and in
    Maine (origin) it's often a necessity for many families. Washington
    county has almost 20% unemployment for example and has had the problem
    for quite awhile. About 15% of the state is in poverty. Low if any
    unemployment so hunting becomes a means to feed your family. I am
    always amazed when I meet someone who doesn't know a thing about guns,
    shooting sports or hunting. Sure hope you never need to use one to 
    survive or protect your life or the lives of your children. Yeah, I
    know - "Well, I'll just call the police". Tell that to the people in
    LA who, shortly after the last criminal free-for-the-looting spree, 
    suddenly realize you couldn't depend on the LA police to handle the
    situation and within a short period of time,same citizens, applied
    for gun permits (over 6,000) and discovered the joys of the paper
    jungle they were going to overcome simply to own a gun. Same people
    seemed surprised they couldn't get a gun real fast to protect their
    property/lives. 
    
    Not to rain on the parade of the anti-gun/anti-shooting
    sports/anti-hunting/anti-Second Amendment crowds, but I would suggest
    you all read a few issues of National Rifleman, particularly the Armed
    Citizen accounts which come straight from the newspapers all over the
    country. These are specific instances (without unfounded emotionalism)
    of people using guns in their homes to defend their lives or the lives
    of their families. You will also get a feel for the fact that not just
    city dwellers have reason for concern. As one old saying goes, "Better
    to have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it". 
    Most of the people listed would have been either raped/dead/battered or
    any of the above long before the police arrived IF they could have
    called the police before being in the dangerous situation. It could
    even be worse in the future with crime up and police force numbers down
    and many of those arrested out on bail with a long time before trial.
    
    

>JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and John Lennon. Imagine what might 

    	MLK was a great man. There others were - let's just say -
    unimpressive. The loss of any live though is a tragedy of course but
    basically I believe the availability of guns had little to do with
    their deaths. Other means would have been found. And it's easier for
    a criminal to get a gun than an honest citizen anyway.

>So why don't I like guns ? Why am I against guns ? I don't like guns because 
>of the power that somebody could exert over me if they had one and I didn't.
>I abhor the thought of being forced to do something against my will. Of not
>being able to stop that. Of being subservient to the power of a gun which 
>possession awards. It's because guns provide desperate people with a means to 
>steal or take something away from me. Something which I value.

    You must not have grown up small and picked on. I did. I spent much of
    my life being dominated by those physically bigger or stronger. I felt
    helpless much of my growing up years. I often felt subservient to the
    power of those physically more intimidating. With a gun at least I have
    a chance.

>In society today there seems to
>be very little respect or appreciation for life or living things 

    I agree. It's one reason I am so opposed to abortion - it reduces
    respect for life.

>I think it's scary to live in a country where the 
>majority view it as their right to own one (I hope I said that ok as I have no 
>concept of 'right' when it comes to owning guns or weapons). 

    I think it's scary to live in a country where people don't have the
    right to own guns. It seems only a step off from people not having the
    right to vote. It also creates a society where the criminals have an
    extra edge, an extra protection that leads to their own safety and the
    reduction of safety for the law abiding. It's hard for me to conceive
    of a society that cares about the safety of its people and the idea
    of democracy to outlaw guns.

>P.S. If anybody thinks that's righteous or pieous, stick it, I don't give a
>damn.

    You're free to not have guns. Just don't try and force your religion on
    me. And please, be pro choice when it comes to gun ownership.

    			Alfred

>I know nothing about guns - Squat.

 You illustrate this brilliantly in the rest of your reply.

>to try and understand my gut feeling of not liking them.

 Fear and ignorance are powerful motivators- after all, they are responsible 
for racism and many other forms of antisocial behavior.

>P.S. If anybody thinks that's righteous or pieous, stick it, I don't give a
>damn.

 How incredibly open minded.

    I too come from a country where mercifully guns are a rarity, owned
    generally by club shooters and gangsters, but not by the general
    public.
    
    It is interesting that no-one has mentioned (as far as I could see)
    the macho aspect whereby a gun in some hands merely becomes a phallic
    symbol, as can a car, very often.
    
    
    andy
     

re .35:

>    I too come from a country where mercifully guns are a rarity, owned
>    generally by club shooters and gangsters, but not by the general
>    public.
    
	Could you tell us what the "gun-control" laws are
	in your country?  Is there a restrictive licensing
	process?  If so, how come the gangsters have them,
	seeing as it's illegal?  

    re .32, I liked your note, and I have very similar feelings in regard
    to guns.   (Maybe I belong in the UK - too bad my ancestors decided to
    leave over 300 yrs. ago!!!)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .40, I was just making a joke, George.  My life is not miserable,
    although I am a tad bored this morning.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, 
    
    When most people make jokes. There is a :) someplace in the sentence
    structure. Sorry. I did not see any in yours. :)

>They are - which is why I created the base note. I listened (figuritively
>speaking), thought about it and then answered.

 I just noticed a marked similarity between your attitude towards guns
and the attitudes of some of the most bigoted people I've known towards
the object of their bigotry. I suppose this recognition to you is the
equivalent of hate mail; I assure you I bear you no ill will. Disdain
for your inability to see past your own prejudices, yes.

 But, then, I find myself becoming increasing impatient with such people...

 The Doctah

    .6  thank God theres a few of you.
    
    Lorna, interest and fascination doesn't mean (necessarily) that those
    of us who are interested in guns also want to kill things with them.
    
    IMO the two are not inclusive, guns = killing.
    
    I too am interested in them, and yes fascinated in some cases for the
    reasons .1 summed up so beautifully, but I have no desire to kill with
    them.
    
    Please don't equate interest in guns with interest in killing.
    
    Jeff

>If you knew me then you'd know that I'm not obstinately devoted to my
>opinion or intolerant of the opinion of others.

 I don't know you, but I am encouraged by the fact that you haven't yet set your
opinions to stone.

>But if to you I present the
>ultimate bigot and you choose not to discuss why you think that or why you 
>think I'm wrong then I probably don't stand a chance of changing your opinion
>of me.

 I hardly consider you "the ultimate bigot." You seem heavily biased, but
at least you appear to be willing to listen to reason. That gives you points
in my book.

 To go back to .32.

 I find your statement, "I don't have any urge, interest or need to find out 
about them either and I'm real happy about that," to be rather discouraging
on the face of it. To me it says, "I'm happy to exclude the possibility
of learning more about the topic as I have already determined what my
opinion will be." This is not the sort of position that I typically expend
energy trying to change. But you now say that you are indeed willing to
listen.

>I don't like guns because of the power that somebody could exert over me 
>if they had one and I didn't.

 Consider yourself unarmed and at the mercy of a very large and powerful man.
A man so powerful, in fact, that he could crush you like a toothpick. And
he's fast enough to catch you if you run away. And he doesn't like you. This
man can exert an awful lot of power over you. He can beat the tar out of you.
He can rape you. He can kill you. To me, this is no less of a bad situation
than if some punk pulls a gun on you. Indeed, in some ways it may be worse.

>I abhor the thought of being forced to do something against my will.

 Who doesn't? The one thing about guns is that they are the great equalizer
in terms of personal physical power. A 300 lb behemoth doesn't enjoy
a power advantage over a 90 lb grandmother.

>I don't like guns because they were created to kill.

 So were the first blades; does that mean you tear your tomatoes apart for
your salad? Of course not. Not all knives are designed to kill, though most
knives CAN if so directed.

>In society today there seems to
>be very little respect or appreciation for life or living things and bad people
>(of which there are many) use the gun to air their greivance or obtain what
>they want.

 What you say here is true, but the sad fact is that even if all guns melted
tomorrow, the bad people would simply find another means to behave antisocially.
Do you really think that crime would disappear if all guns went away? (I can't
imagine anyone being so silly...)

That's "GUN in hand," not "GUY in hand."

;-)

    
    The idea that I see  repeating over and over again,
    which is false, is that if a gun wasn't at hand, some other means
    would be found to kill someone. This concept does not recognize that
    guns are considerably easier to use, and much more likely to be fatal, 
    than other means. An attack with another means would be more difficult,
    which might dissuade the attacker, or a crime of passion, in which the
    anger would be quickly dissapated before the victim suffers a mortal
    wound. So, the idea that the gun is inherently no more dangerous than
    these other means is incorrect. Guns are more dangerous.
    
    This is why I dislike guns.
    

>    This is why I dislike guns.

	So don't own one.

			Alfred

    Thank you for giving me permission not to, Alfred.
    
    I was responding to the base note, by the way.
    
    

    .53 Welp.... I think you might have shot yourself in the foot on this
    one.:) But I will concur with Alfred.:) 

	I don't like guns,too and it's so dangerous,
	In Japan, haveing guns are prohibited in law and get then quite
	difficult. But we can buy model-guns.

	I think having guns are quite dangerous and causes many crimes.

	When I watched TV program "Rescue 999" and "Inside edition",
	those program told about crime with guns. 
	When the child played with the gun, the child was seriously
	injured because of wrong usage. And the Japanese student was killed 
	by gun. This shocking news was reported every night news. Most people
	were shocked about this news.   
	
	Many(or most) American people have guns to protect from crimes.
	But I think there are some other ways to protect with no guns.
	
						Kiyohiko Nakano (DEC Japan)  

.53>                      -< hyper-sensitive gun owners >-
    
    Well, well, well ... willya look at that?!
    
    You called him a gun owner, not a "gunnut."
    
    There may be hope for you after all, Roger.

    re: .48
    	The supposed non-sequitur was there as proof that it was a genuine
    accident. There was a surviving witness who didn't have a gun and could
    testify that there was no argument (for example).
    
    	The suggestion that if they had used bows and arrows instead they
    would be *just* as likely to be dead is incorrect. Boar's skin is so tough
    that if you shoot an arrow at one it is much more likely that you end
    up dead than the boar. The traditional means of killing them was with a
    very heavy short boar spear. You brace yourself, ideally against a
    tree, perhaps, and persuade the boar to attack you. With deft use of
    the spear you can use its own momentum to kill it.
    
    	Going after boar at night with guns led to a hunting accident.
    Going after boar at night with bows and arrows would be classed as
    suicide.

    RE: .55 I know that Japanese laws have prohibited guns for a great many
    years. I believe that one result of this is that most Japanese only
    know about guns what they see on American television shown in Japan.
    This is unfortunate as the pictures painted by American TV are often very
    distorted. And not just about guns. I doubt many Japanese would agree
    with the picture that American TV so often paints of Japan. The picture
    of Japan I've gotten from Japanese DEC people is different from what I
    see on TV.

>	Many(or most) American people have guns to protect from crimes.
>	But I think there are some other ways to protect with no guns.

    Perhaps many is a good word but I doubt most is accurate. I think that
    many people who say they own guns for protection are just using it as
    an excuse. There are of course other ways to protect without guns. Some
    of the ways used in Japan are against American law. So there are trade
    offs. Most Americans would be shocked at the powers Japanese police
    have for example. 

    			Alfred

    re .47   bad people would simply find another way to kill without
    guns...
    
    
    Yeah, I agree with that, but the clincher is that guns make killing
    so EASY from a distance, one doesn't have to get right up close and
    stick a knife in the person (messy, and dangerous).  Guns are SO lethal
    that it doesn't take much of a hit to kill somone.  Most other means
    of killing involve a time delay (which gives you time to think over do
    you REALLY want to kill the person), or virtual hand to hand combat.
    
    I think the EASE of killing and distance from the victim are IMPORTANT
    points.  Now that many bad guys have automatic weapons the easy of 
    killing has gotten frightening.  If you miss with the first 100 rounds,
    no problem.... you have thousands of tries more in a few seconds.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the general population be
    disarmed.  I do think that automatic weapons should be tighly
    controlled though.
    
    I think people tend to forget the most important reason to have an
    armed population:  To protect us from the GOVERNMENT getting out of
    control, which, it seems to be DOING!
    
    The men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights and armed the
    population had this in mind... the Government is as much of a threat
    as an external enemy.
    
    THAT rational more than any other makes me rethink of the wisdom of
    a disarmed American Population.
    
    Jeff
    
    

    I think we may ultimately decide whether we DARE let the Government 
    'protect' us from ourselves and others.  That is, if the all so true
    horror stories about the misuse of guns, crimes committed with guns
    etc. get to the point where the American People have had enough and
    decide a general disarmament of the population is in order we will
    have to completely submit to Goverment control and protection.
    
    History has shown repeatedly that one of the first steps an out-of
    control government takes is to disarm the population... next comes
    information control (burning books etc.).
    
    I am scared.  I don't know which is worse, the risk of getting shot
    by a nut with a gun, or the risk of having an out of control American
    Government strip me of my remaining rights because a disarmed
    population has made finishing the job so easy.
    
    "Do you REALLY think the gov. is out to get/control us?" "Come ON
    give us a BREAK!"
    
    I didn't used to think so a few years ago, but as time goes on I become
    more and more convinced that this is exactly the case.  I suggest you
    pay CLOSE attention anytime you hear the phrase "A NEW WORLD ORDER".
    Pay attention to whats behind that phrase... what it REALLY means and
    involves.  I suggest you form your own opinions.
    
    THEN, tell me we DARE give up our guns.  I hope you CAN convince me
    we should because they have become a horrible problem.
    
    Jeff
    
    

>Now that many bad guys have automatic weapons the easy of 
>    killing has gotten frightening.  If you miss with the first 100 rounds,
>    no problem.... you have thousands of tries more in a few seconds.

    I haven't seen any statistics that show an increase in automatic
    weapons in the hands of bad guys over the last 30-50 years or so. Have
    you? Long guns in general are hardly ever used in crime. Automatic
    weapons are a tiny subset of that. Probably more people are killed with
    baseball bats then with automatic weapons.

>    Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the general population be
>    disarmed.  I do think that automatic weapons should be tighly
>    controlled though.

    How about a several hundred dollar fee, a federal background check,
    and requiring an approval from the local chief of Police? That's
    how controlled they are now. How much more so could it be short of
    banning them outright?

    			Alfred

    I'm just curious: What's the maximum penalty for carrying a gun without a
    permit? How often do people get convicted?

    - Jim

    I hear about automatic weapons being used in city drug wars
    increasingly often.  I don't know the statistics.  My impression
    is that they are increasingly being used in crimes.  That may BE
    my IMPRESSION because when they are used it often gets alot of press
    coverage.  Such as the occasional school yard that gets sprayed with
    bullets.
    
    I do recognized that the vast majority of gun owners, and automatic
    weapon owners ARE responsible people.  I am one myself, (a gun
    owner).  Also, I recognize that the people who most need regulation are
    the ones least likely to buy guns legally and use them legally.
    
    I got on my soapbox a few back about the government.  I am not a
    radical anti-government type.  I am an average guy who is becoming
    increasingly concerned about the U.S. Gov. because of the things I
    see and read.  "Such as"?  The astounding powers regional gov.
    agencies have over people WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, (like the Environmental
    Protection Agency).  Like the Child Protective Services who have the
    power to take your KIDS AWAY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. READ THE PAPERS,
    I SEE ALMOST WEEKLY STORIES LIKE THIS.
    
    I view things like my above illustratons as reasons I dare not sell
    or get rid of my gun.  I am aware that statistically it poses more
    of a threat to my family than the crimes it is supposed to protect
    us against.  BUT the statistics don't mention the threat of an over
    powerful government taking over.  The statistics confines itself to
    data on the dangers we pose to one another, not the dangers the gov.
    presents to us.  I wonder WHY the gov. threat is never mentioned?
    Are we so blind that none of us even THINK of that threat?  "Oh
    we live in AMERICA that can't happen here!"
    
    Why is U.S. History being phased out in many public schools?  Is it
    because 'they' the gov. want our kids ignorant of their rights!?
    I don't know, but I am watching to see. 
    
    I bet the German Population prior to WWII told themselves that their
    Gov. was there to protect and serve them and that 'it' (gov take over)
    can't happen here. (Actually the Germans probably welcomed a gov.
    take over since times were so tough, is there a lesson here for us?)
    
    Time and time again history proves that the PEOPLE have to save
    themselves from tough times (not rely on the gov. to save them).  Part
    of our protection against an 'over zealous' gov. is the right to bear
    arms.
    
    Geez, I sound like I am a part of the NRA here but I am not.
    

RE: .59

>    Yeah, I agree with that, but the clincher is that guns make killing
>    so EASY from a distance, one doesn't have to get right up close and
>    stick a knife in the person (messy, and dangerous).  Guns are SO lethal
>    that it doesn't take much of a hit to kill somone.  

I'd have to look this up, but I'm fairly certain that more people survive
gunshot wounds than are killed by them.  Many common calibers of guns will
not put a person down immeidately except with a very well-placed shot.

>    I think the EASE of killing and distance from the victim are IMPORTANT
>    points.  Now that many bad guys have automatic weapons the easy of 
>    killing has gotten frightening.  If you miss with the first 100 rounds,
>    no problem.... you have thousands of tries more in a few seconds.

I think you're just exaggerating for effect here.  Try "dozens" instead of 
"thousands."  Also, it's important to remember the difference between an
"automatic" and a "semi-automatic" weapon.  Most of the guns that are described
in the news as "automatic" are actually semi-automatic.  True automatics
are the weapons which you describe as shooting "thousands" of rounds in a 
very brief amount of time.  As one noter described earlier, as a percentage
of total guns in public hands, true automatics are very rare.

A "semi-automatic," the type which seems to be very popular among gangs, can
only shoot one round per pull of the trigger (some one who's good with a
revolver can probably fire multiple rounds as quickly as a semi-auto).

I think we're on the same side here, but when hyperbole like you used in 
.59 gets used, it just fans the emotional flames.

Jon
 

    I *do* wish you people would differentiate between a "gun" and a
    "weapon".  ALL men have a gun.  Mine's about 8" long and hangs between
    my legs.  It's not a weapon .. it's for fun.

    A weapon, on the other hand .. entirely different matter.

    Bubba

    Bubba,
    
    Good point!!
    
    jt

    Hey .. I've had to make that infamous run ".. this is my rifle, this is
    my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun".
    
    Bubba

Re.47

I live in Munich which is relatively affluent, unemployment relatively low 
(but climbing now Germany is in recession), where guns aren't easily available 
(and are very tightly controlled) and the opportunity cost of owning a gun has 
to be weighed against Skis, a mountain bike, a new car, clothes, my flat, 
and ....etc. So urge, interest and need are a product and reflexion of 
environment not of willingness to discuss, listen, learn or change. 

I understand the need for self-protection (which is the main thrust of your
argument and that of a few other replies) but I don't need a gun to protect 
myself in the UK, Switzerland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland, 
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg or Finland (as examples) but I 
do need one in the US ! In all of those countrys guns are available but to 
varying degrees, crime exists but to varying degrees and the police forces 
are armed to various degrees. 

Somebody else argued that I might need a gun to protect myself against the
Government - again I don't need one in any of those countries listed above 
but I do in the US !!!.

How do you explain that ?
 
A gun might be the great equaliser but arming or allowing the general public
to arm itself means you've just leveled the playing field for every nut out
there who doesn't like you (or wants something from you) - not just the 300lb, 
faster than lightning b......d.
 
- Paul.

>Somebody else argued that I might need a gun to protect myself against the
>Government - again I don't need one in any of those countries listed above 
>but I do in the US !!!.

    I can think of several governments in Europe and else where that I
    fear enough to never consider living there. Also there is a country
    that the US shares a border with whose government I have no trust in
    at all. They have guns laws harder then most in Europe. 

    As for protection against crime. There are places I would rather carry
    a gun and places where I have no fear. Interestingly enough it's
    against the law for me to carry in any of the places I fear crime. And
    legal in New Hampshire were I have very little fear.

    I believe that cultural, social and economic differences can be used to 
    explain different crime rates to an almost 100% level. Gun
    availability appears to be a minor factor at best. And in those cases
    higher gun availability and training appear to reduce rather then
    increase crime. At least in the US.

Re. 71
	"Also there is a country that the US shares a border with whose 
	government I have no trust in at all...
	..And legal in New Hampshire where I have very little fear."

So you own a gun in New Hampshire to protect against mexico invading or is
it the Canadian Government you don't trust ? Do you really believe that either
one of those Governments would invade the US ?

	"And in those cases higher gun availability and training appear to 
	reduce rather than increase crime. At least in the US."

Can you support that statement or is it your opinion ?

- Paul.

    Despite the high prevalence of gun ownership, in the US, compared with
    many other countries, I don't think that most Americans feel that they
    need to carry or own guns in order to protect themselves.  
    
    There are certainly neighborhoods that I would not willingly go into
    because I've heard they're dangerous, but I'd rather avoid them than
    have a gun.  I'd also prefer to try to live in a neighborhood that is
    considered safe, and take my chances unarmed from there, than live in a
    neighborhood that is considered to have a high crime rate, and own a
    gun.  
    
    There are many Americans who live to a ripe old age without ever owning
    a gun.  Also, guns can't protect people from everything - cancer, heart
    disease or auto accidents, to name a few.
    
    Also, I think everyone knows that Canada is probably the least likely
    country to ever attack anyone else, so I'm sure Alfred meant Mexico. 
    But, the idea of Mexico attempting an attack on the US is also
    ludicrous, and not something that many Americans live in fear of on a
    daily basis, I'm sure.
    
    I, also, agree with something PNeal said, in that I think I'm more
    worried by the thought of every nut on the street having a gun, than I
    am of the government.
    
    Lorna
    

>So you own a gun in New Hampshire to protect against mexico invading or is
>it the Canadian Government you don't trust ? Do you really believe that either
>one of those Governments would invade the US ?

    No I'm not afraid that those countries would invade. I'm saying that 
    there is a country I would be afraid to live in if I did not have the
    means to protect myself from that government.
    
>	"And in those cases higher gun availability and training appear to 
>	reduce rather than increase crime. At least in the US."
>
>Can you support that statement or is it your opinion ?
    
    I little bit opinion based on some things that have happened. A number
    of areas have reduced the red tape needed to get guns or had serious
    gun training made available and seen crime in their area reduced.
    
    			Alfred

    The notion that you have a right to own a gun to protect yourself from
    the government is peculiar to America and is viewed with a particular
    mixture of hilarity and dismay by the rest of the civilised world. 
    No-one but Americans could, let alone do, take it seriously.  

    RE: .75 That's fine with us. Many in the US view Europe with a mixture
    of hilarity and dismay as well. Imagine such a large area unable to
    unite under a common government and language. :-)

    		Alfred

Re.76

Really ? What events in European history do you think would have been different
if the general population had been armed ?

- Paul.

P.S. I don't share the opinion of the note you responded too - I think the
term hilarious is condescending and improper.

    re .77, Europe is too diverse for the entire continent to viewed in the
    same way.  I view parts of Europe with envy and/or respect, (and some
    aspects of parts of Europe with envy), and others with dismay.  (I
    can't really think of any country that I view with hilarity.)  Also, I
    don't see why Europe should *want* to unite under a common government
    and language,anyway, even if they could.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .73
    
    appearances are decieving. canada has quite 
    a powerful military, and at one time was
    considering purchase of nuke subs to keep
    ours out of their waters.
    
    canada invaded us once, and mexico has plenty 
    of incentive to do so now and regain alta kalif,
    arizona, texas, etc.
    
    it they were to tean up we'd be hard put to fight
    on two fronts.
    

    	If you were sending military submarines into their territoriaal
    waters without their explicit invitation, that would generally be
    recognised as a tacit act of war. A threat to bomb Chicago unless they
    got out immediately and stayed out would probably have been regarded as
    a reasonable response by the International Court.
    
    	You will never get a single language in Europe. Basque and Welsh
    (to name only two) have survived hundreds of years of cultural pressure
    from their neighbours. Also it undesirable, because loss of a language
    as a living language cuts you off from the literature of that language.
    
    	The U.S. still has different laws, tax systems, driving licences,
    ... in the different states, and that is after 2 centuries and a fairly
    bloody civil war of trying. In 50 years Europe will be more unified,
    and with much less bloodshed than the U.S..
    
    	Things have changed probably more than many U.S. citizens realise
    from 55 years ago when a war with Germany was a possibility, and yet
    the British and French didn't trust each other as allies.
    
    	There is already free movement of goods within the EEC. There is
    taxation of wealthy areas to assist less wealthy areas (e.g. Eire) to
    develop. The only sticking point for free movement of people seems to
    be whether people granted political asylum in one country of the EEC
    should therefore have the right of free movement to the other
    countries. And yes, we do have a common driving licence ;-)

    re.73  Gee I thought he was talking about Cuba - not Mexico or Canada.
    
    re. in general
    I grew up exposed to guns.  My father belonged to a gun club and would
    go target and Pheasant shooting fairly often.  At about 8 years old, I
    was taught gun safety. I really didn't think one way or another about it. 
    On the other hand, guns make my sister nervous.
    
    My husband's family are avid marksmen (including his grandmother!), his
    brother was state champion and is a very good shot. My husband just got
    his German license to legally shoot and own a gun in Germany.  He had to
    take a 4 hour written test and a practical exam (shooting several
    different guns).  Out of 20 people who took the test - only 5 passed - my 
    husband one of them ;> . The test was very difficult so the average joe 
    wouldn't be able to pass without a great deal of studying.
    
    I think that every American should have a right to own a gun and defend
    themselves as long as the legal system is so insufficient.  In Germany,
    if someone breaks the law they are penalized.  In the States, (in my
    opinion) criminals are not sufficiently penalized - if someone breaks the 
    law, they most likely will get off on a technicality or even if they do go
    to jail they most likely will be let out early.  Obviously I am 
    generalizing, but as long as it is "generally" true I want the right to 
    defend myself.
    
    My two cents worth,
    Kim

On CNN last night - is Bobbie Battista cross-eyed or what ? - they had a special 
report on security guards called "Armed and Dangerous".

The premise of the report was that security firms hire low pay, low educated 
people, provide them with little training and do few background, character or
suitability for the job type checks. It seems that security firms operate
in an environment of few or poor government controls over who they hire or 
how they train them.
 
One of the guards interviewed said "I like guns, I like the power they give."

The consequece of this has been tragic (and they gave details of specific 
cases). In one incident described a security guard fired into a crowd, in 
another case a security guard fired 18 times into a car.

In another case a security firm hired an ex-con (somebody called Campbell)
who had a record of burglary, of causing grievous bodily harm (battery), was 
known to have violent outburts and was classified as being a danger to society.
A security firm hired him to guard a housing complex/compound where he climbed 
a wall, entered one of the homes and murdered a woman.

In another case Pinkerton hired an ex-con (somebody called Scott) who 
handcuffed a 14 year old girl, raped her and then shot her.

CNN placed the blame for such cases on security firms who are "quick buck
artists".

The rapes and murders might have happened even if the security guards hadn't
had guns - true - but it was what that one guy said that stuck in my mind - 
"I like guns, I like the power they give". Could it be that if they hadn't 
had the gun maybe they wouldn't have felt powerful enough to have committed 
the crime !

This is Paul for CNN world news, Munich - back to you Bobbie.

'Hi and now we'll go to Splice Flippland for the weather - over to you Splice'

Ok, now explain how you think WW2 could have been avoided if the general
population had been armed or shall we pass over this rathole because it's 
completely ridiculous.

- Paul. 

    Re .85
    
    WWII avoided, no.  Had a different outcome?  Maybe.
    
    Had the general Polish polulation been armed, the Anschluss of 1
    September 1939 might not have turned out the way Hitler's generals
    planned.  Onward from there - Germany's military fighting against
    armed, strongly patriotic partisans in great numbers on their home
    turf.  It's not possible to prove the outcome would have been
    different, but it is not reasonable to assert caegorically that it
    couldn't have been, either.
    
    -dick

>"I like guns, I like the power they give". Could it be that if they hadn't 
>had the gun maybe they wouldn't have felt powerful enough to have committed 
>the crime !

    Could be. Also could be that they'd have carried something else to give
    them a feeling of power. A knife, a club, a heavy flashlight (often
    used as clubs by Police and security guards), or any number of things.
    On the other hand if the women had been armed the rapes might have been
    prevented as well. We can create hypothetical situations all day long.

    		Alfred

    I agree that the security guard's comment, "I like guns, I like the
    power they give" is very offensive.  It is the type of comment that
    makes me distrust, in general, the motives of those who make a big deal
    about wanting to own guns.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .88
    I see it differently.....I distrust the motives of those that want to
    be security guards.
    
    Marc H.

    Re .88
    
    Lorna, I fear your broad brush more than I fear men like Mark Levesque
    or Jim Percival, who like guns.
    
    When one man says something like "I like the power they give," it's an
    aberration.  It was a carefully chosen clip from who knows how many
    interviews, chosen specifically for its sensationalist value.
    
    If some survey were to show that, say, 87.34% of all men who want to
    own guns wanted them because they like the power they give, then I
    might think twice about the value of gun ownership or my motives for
    having guns.  But at least in the restricted sample in this topic, NONE
    of the men who have responded gave that as a reason.  Other reasons,
    such as appreciation of fine artisanship, or the thrill of harmless
    competition, or protection against people who might like the power,
    have been given.
    
    -dick

    re .89
    
>    Netherlands was minimal, at best. The people really didn't want to 
>    arm themselves and as such, the Germans really just walked in. Later,
    
    Your ignorance is frightening.  Even if every person in the Netherlands
    had been armed to the teeth the Germans would still have crushed the
    country with minimal effort.
    
>    during the 20's and 30's....when England started into WW2, they asked
>    the US for rifles...since they had a small, small number. While WW2
    
    Britain was in dire need of weapons of all kinds, not just rifles, and
    it had absolutely nothing to do with your nonsensical 'disarmament'. 
    It had very much to do with the British Army leaving most of its
    equipment in northern France and Belgium after the Germans had kicked
    the living daylights out of them.
    
>    "painless" for the german people. If he had meet with an effective,
>    armed people, the support might have ended much sooner.
    
    No, not an "effective, armed people" but an effective army was what was
    needed.  Had the French army not been in such disarray in 1940 it may
    well have stopped the Germans.
    
    You are wrong on all three counts.  Perhaps you should stop now.

    Re .92
    
    I am flabbergasted by your offhanded dismissal of .89's point 3.  You
    produce no evidence, no sociological documentation, *nothing* to
    support your cavalier remarks.  At minimum, you owe the author of .89
    an apology; I submit that you owe all of us detailed information
    supporting your high-handed assurance that you, and only you, are
    correct.

I stand with SIMPSON_D in his remarks and I don't see why you're getting so
wound up. In your point 3 you disregard the British Army as an effective fighting
force with the ease of somebody who really hasn't any idea. I should be insulted.
You really don't know what you're talking about.

The German people - those that didn't directly support Hitler - were forced to
fight for fear of their families. They were scared s...less. Any resistance
to Hitler and off to the concentration camp you go - and many did. Or off with
your head, or hanged or whatever else took their fancy. Example - check out the
White Rose resistance.

    "If you don't see these points, please take a moment to read some
    history."

Hang on, I can't let you get away with that. I read your points, then this 
last comment and proceeded to laugh my socks off. You really are hilarious.

Of course once a war has commenced the annexed or attacked nation is better 
off armed. The resistance movement in Europe caused Hitler serious problems 
and without question contributed to the final outcome of the war. But the 
resistance movement was little more than a nuisance for Hitler - one reason 
being that they had difficulty forming, had little or no training and were 
blocked by the occupying forces to operate more effectively. 

The question is would Hitler have attacked or attempted annexation if the 
general population of a country had been armed prior to the attempt. Would
an armed population have deterred attack ? I don't think anybody can answer 
this even if they'd been there let alone read a history book.

Before I leave this rathole - I'm sorry but I find it really hard to believe
that a country as large as America is threatened by any neighbouring country 
that could be deterred by arming the general population. It just isn't going 
to happen.

But of course America is entitled to do as it chooses - it is the only
superpower now, it has control over the worlds largest arms stockpile, it
certainly maintains a nuclear strike capability and with the general 
population armed too ! - maybe Europe should enter an arms race to regain a 
balance of power. If you guys are armed to protect against your own govern-
ment then perhaps we should protect ourselves against all of you.

Before you flame on and get upset - just sit back and think it through. I'm
not getting at anybody or trying to wind anybody up just putting a different
perspective on the situation.

- Paul.

    RE .65  "Why I would want to seperate myself from the NRA my comments
    are right in line with theirs...  "  
    
    I have formed the opinions I expressed completely independently from 
    the NRA.  Its news to me that my opinions apparently match some of
    the NRA's.
    
    I want the same things most people do.  A safe place to raise my kid,
    a secure job, and enough money to live comfortably.
    
    I see irresponsible use of guns as a threat to my life and the lives of
    others.  I see an increasingly irresponsible (corrupt in some areas)
    government as a threat to those goals too.
    
    Its ironic that the guns themselves simply being in the hands of the
    general population helps put a damper on an out of control government.
    
    What ever happened to 'A goverment FOR the people BY the people and OF
    the people?'  Have we (the American people) forgotten already how easy
    it is to LOSE our freedoms????  And we ARE losing them as we speak.
    
    All it take is an ingorant or complacent population, and over time
    those freedoms will vanish.  For those who doubt my statement I suggest
    you read your history books.
    
    Jeff

Don't need to read history books, just watch the news re; Waco Texas.

GONZO

    .66  .... thousands of rounds vs dozens.
    
    Ok Jon, I see your point and understand that the distinction is
    important because of the emotional impact.
    
    Change my statements from thousands of rounds per minute to dozens.
    
    I think though that if I perceive thousands of rounds per minute that
    probably most people do and many people are making judgements against
    semiautos based on that incorrect perception.
    
    If I look through the daily paper.... MOST victims were injured by hand
    guns, not automatic or semiautomatic weapons.
    
    Jeff

    .75  the only Country which 'needs' guns to protect itself from its own
    gov. is the U.S..... viewed as ridiculous by the rest of world etc...
    
    
    I think if you looked at the way the U.S. was ORIGINALLY set up (NOT
    what it has changed to) you would see where my statements are coming
    from.  The U.S. USED to be a great place to live... relatively safe,
    lots of freedoms, low or no taxes etc etc.  THATS WHY 'EVERYBODY' 
    immegrated to the U.S. and why the U.S. was the promised land etc.
    
    BUT ITS CHANGED for the worst.  Crime is high, unemployment is high,
    its generally not very safe, especially in the cities, taxes are out
    of control, gun ownership levels are very high etc. etc. etc. etc.
    
    Part of the problem is that we are NOT following the original
    Constitution and Bill of Rights anymore.  The rights have been erroded
    away over the years by misinformed or downright corrupt generations
    of Congressmen and Senators.  
    
    For the Europeans who are reading this. I have lived here for 50 years
    and never once been shot at.  I can walk down the street and not get
    immediately killed by a gun not, (so far anyway).
    
    Jeff

I'm very happy for you Jeff.

    Re .98
    
    > If I look through the daily paper.... MOST victims were injured by hand
    > guns, not automatic or semiautomatic weapons.
    
    Jeff, there are three basic types of mechanisms for repeating guns
    (revolver, semiautomatic, and fully automatic).  All three of these
    types have been used for both handguns and long arms.  To differentiate
    between handguns and automatics is to show that you don't know what
    you're talking about.  (One model of the Uhe Uzi, for example, is a
    fully automatic handgun; the Colt .45 automatic is a semiautomatic
    handgun.)
    
    -dick

    re .102, I don't understand why having the British populace, in
    general, armed, would have made a difference in WWII.  People don't
    generally bring their guns from home when they join the military, do
    they?  They're issued military guns once they're in, aren't they?  So,
    what good would it have been for them to have their own guns, when it
    comes to fighting the Germans?  I'm confused.
    
    I don't recall ever hearing of any hand-to-hand combat between Germans
    and British on British soil.  I don't see what good rifles and
    hand-guns would have been during the time London was being bombed by
    the Germans.  Would you have expected them to go out in the street with
    rifles and start firing up at the German bombers?  
    
    I'm afraid I don't get your point, as to how having British civilians
    armed would have made a difference in WWII.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .103 After Dunkirk the British army had a major shortage of arms.
    There was not enough for the regular army for a while. Besides the
    regular army they wanted an armed militia to watch/guard the coasts
    and other places from spies and sabatures. They didn't have enough
    guns for those people and not enough people had their own arms. So
    a call went out in the US for people to donate their own private
    weapons to the British defense (the NRA was a big supported BTW) and
    100s of thousands of privately owned American guns went over seas to
    help defend Britain. After the war most of these guns were destroyed.

    			Alfred

    re .104, thanks for the info, Alfred.  I had forgotten about that if,
    indeed, I had ever known it.  (Altho, I got a B in European History in
    H.S., it's been 26 yrs. since then.  Actually, I have read a bit about
    Britain during WWII, but if I ever read about the need for civilians
    to have guns, it just didn't sink in at the time.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    Next time you get the urge, rent the video of the film "Mrs Miniver." 
    You'll see armed Home Defence people in action.  And it's a fun film,
    too.
    
    -dick

    	It depends what you mean by a shortage of arms. The German invasion
    technique was to either crush or terrify effective resistance with
    Stuka dive bombers, and then roll in with tanks against which hardly a
    shot would be fired. There was definitely a shortage of weapons
    effective aganist that sort of attack.
    
    	The small arms were essential to maintain the morale of the
    population who imagined German paratroopers walking into their bedrooms
    every time a German plane passed overhead, and I suspect that is their
    main use in the U.S.. In that role they may have played a major role in
    the war effort, but I doubt that they killed many Germans.
    
    	Meanwhile the NSA is mounting a determined attack on privacy of
    information in the U.S.. Maybe they do need guns to protect themselves
    against their government. Who is going to be the first to shoot the
    NSA?
    
    	And if they need guns to protect themselves against their own
    elected government, what about the rest of the world that don't even
    get a vote for that government?
    
    	Dave (who doesn't get a vote for any government).

    Re: Happy for me because I havn't been shot walking down the street.
    
    and Re: Lack of knowledge about types of handguns.
    
    
    I don't know whether that comment is a comment that I should have been
    shot because its so dangerous, or I should be shot for my opinions, or
    a joke.
    
    Knowledge about guns. Ok I stand corrected about the UZI etc.  So what
    whether I know the detailed capabilities between an UZI or a 22 pistol?
    
    My points still stand.  Guns are dangerous.  Some shoot LOTS of rounds
    per minute, others don't.  Many city gun battles are perceived by the
    public as being fought with guns with capabilities just short of those
    of the Army.  Some think guns should be banned from the public.  Others
    think we need them protection from criminals and (MY opinion) from the
    Goverment.
    
    We are NEVER all going to agree on this gun issue. At best we can have
    an intelligent discussion which is respectful of others opinions.  
    
    The cheap shots (no pun intended) are just that, cheap shots which add
    nothing to the discussion.
    
    Jeff

    The small arms delivered to Britain from the US were *not* issued to
    the populace at large.
    
    They were used as part of the massive rearmament program which
    reequipped the British army after it lost nearly all it's equipment in
    Northern France and Belgium.
    
    It follows that Hildebrant's example is factually incorrect and his
    argument invalid.
    
    Similarly, the Netherlands never stood a chance with or without a
    generally armed populace.  The country is indefensible.  I know.  I
    live there.  The Dutch army resisted right up until the Germans started
    bombing Rotterdam.  Rather than take further civilian casualties for no
    purpose the Dutch then surrendered to the numerically overwhelming
    German forces.
    
    It follows that Hildebrant's example is factually incorrect and his
    argument invalid.
    
    etc.  Such ignorance as his is truly frightening.

    Re .108
    
    I do not think informing you, or anyone else, about how guns work is a
    cheap shot.  It is easy for the uninformed to dismiss out of hand all
    guns; but since a complete ban is about as likely as Madonna's having a
    sex-change operation tomorrow, it is sensible to know what you're
    talking about so you can have some basis for working toward a
    compromise.
    
    For myself, as a compromise position, it would make good sense to make
    assault-type weapons, such as the AR-15, AKS, and Uzi, much more
    difficult for a private citizen to obtain, since these weapons are
    indeed intended for killing other human beings and are in fact
    generally not very good at anything else.  They also, as a rule,
    display little or no fine artisanship, being mass-produced objects
    hacked out of raw metal or stamped from sheets, with the minimum of
    fit and finish necessary to make them function reliably.  The Colt .45
    that was issued to LCI drivers for the Normandy assault, for example,
    was not accurate enough to hit K-ration cans reliably from a distance
    of 15 feet.  But it would hit a man-sized target and do damage to him.
    
    Sporting weapons, on the other hand, are different.  Much different. 
    They are often examples of artisanship; they display careful attention
    to detail above and beyond working fit, and they often are very
    artistically decorated.  They are as a rule far more reliably accurate
    over (usually) longer ranges than military weapons because they are
    designed for use against smaller targets.
    
    So instead of saying, "Guns shoot dozens of rounds per minute," you
    might remember that some of them are hard-pressed to shoot even *one*
    round per minute.  Although I am skilled enough to deliver two aimed
    shots a minute with a muzzle-loading flintlock rifle, I don't know too
    many other shooters who are.  And I have used some *gorgeous* flintlock
    rifles, too.
    
    Basically, I ask that you use a brush more appropriate to the size of
    the target instead of whitewashing the whole building in one fell
    swoop.  okay?
    
    -dick

    Re .109
    
    Thank you for providing the petard with which to hoist yourself.  Had
    the British population been well armed, their guns could have been
    collected and issued to the troops - it would have been faster and more
    efficient than asking America to bail you out, and there would have
    been a backup had the military managed to lose its hardware again.

    re .111
    
>    efficient than asking America to bail you out, and there would have
                                        
    Bail me out?  I'm not British.
    
    Your argument is pure crap.  The last thing any army wants is a motley
    collection of guns, all of different types, size, quality and, most
    important, calibres.  Britain's small-arms armaments factories were
    geard up to .303 and that's what they stuck with.  There was never any
    chance of the army being supplied with sufficient ammunition in your
    otherwise hilarious scenario, when they had a hard enough time being
    supplied with sufficient ammunition of just one type. 

    Re .112
    
    Your reply is just so much unmitigated poppycock.  First you state that
    the British asked for American arms to rearm the British military after
    it had lost its weapons at Dunquerque.  The arms it got, you may rest
    assured, were not .303 Enfields.  To use that sort of restriction as an
    argument against using British-owned weapons shows just how flimsy your
    gasbag-style reasoning is becoming.
    
    But I will accept correction for calling you a Brit.  And on that note,
    shall we agree here to call it quits?  My sides ache from the laughter.
    
    -dick

    re: .111
    	But in fact you are back to a morale issue again. After Dunkerque,
    for the next 5 years it was almost all air and sea warfare. A handgun
    is even less effective against a submarine or battleship than it is
    against a tank, and those were our major threats.
    
    	The first time that sort of weapon was useful in large quantities
    was during the invasion of Italy, and during the intervening 5 years
    Britain could and did manufacture guns, though the priority was on
    aeroplanes and ships.
    
    	In a war, the only use for handguns is if the side with the upper
    hand wishes to spare uninvolved civilians. It wasn't the number of
    handguns on either side that determined the result of the Gulf war. It
    was devastation bombing of anything that looked as if it might be
    military activity. If you are fighting a government that suspects it
    will lose if it doesn't use those sort of tactics then it will use
    those sort of tactics.

    re .113
    
    When I see statements purporting to be factual and/or logical which in
    reality are barely on the planet I'll call them for what they are.  It
    is not arrogant to put down the blatantly wrong and false, it is
    necessary and proper.  
    
    In each of the three examples you gave you weren't even close, but you
    were content in your ignorance to build arguments upon your false
    premises and present your conclusions to us as valid.  If you want to
    know arrogance then merely reflect on what it takes to revel in
    ignorance and present it as knowledge.

    now, now, Dave...watch your invective levels...mustn't overdo the
    stress here in notes, it isn't worth it...
    
    DougO

    Not even sweating, DougO...

    good.  we lose too many noters as it is.
    
    DougO

    >.75 Bet those Croats think it's real hilarious.
    One of the first thing the Naziis did when entering a town/city was to
    head right for what served as city hall and find all the gun
    registrations. Sure was easier for them. Imagine if criminals could
    access gun registration files and find out who was the easiest targets
    to rob/rape/etc. Of course we know that such systems are foolproof and
    couldn't possibly be accessed. As for the low possession of weapons in
    other countries it also makes it very easy for dictators/military
    regimes to control unarmed people. How long do you think Castro would
    have lasted if each household in Cuba had one gun? Remember
    Afghanistan? The Russians enjoyed strafing helpless villagers without
    worrying about return fire. What really encouraged them to get out of
    there was U.S. MADE "STINGER" MISSILES. Negotiations? BULL****!
    Stingers really destroyed Russian pilot morale. And they were paying
    a big price in body count. Yessir. No reason for anyone anywhere to
    own private weapons.

    >.78 What events would have been different....?"
    How about the outcome of the Warsaw ghetto? How about the German
    invasion of Russia? Think it might have been different if all those 
    peasant villagers had had one or two weapons in each household? You 
    think you can depend on your governments for protection and to do the
    correct thing? Right! The Naziis over ran those countries like nothing
    at all. Where were all your political geniuses while Germany was arming
    to the teeth? Nice to see you still trust such mentalities. 

    re .122, how can you criticize another country for being armed to the
    teeth, when the U.S. has been armed to the teeth for years?  It seems
    to me you are advocating that everyone be armed to the teeth, just like
    the Nazis were, so why do you think other countries should have done
    anything about them?
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    	The nazis were armed to the teeth.  The civilians had been disarmed
    a few years before.  
    	It is worth noting that the language that Hitler used to justify
    disarming the citizens is repeated nearly verbatim in the bills that
    are being introduced to disarm US citizens.  It seems too uncanny to be
    a coincidence.  The similarities aren't just in the ideas.  The words
    and order of sentences are nearly the same.
    						John
    

I think the discussion has strayed far from relevance to this conference,
and have write-locked the topic.

				Steve