Re: What happens to a dis-armed populace.

563. Popeye
Apr 13 2000, 2:00 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.scuba
From: buzcutt...@aol.comMJBBITZ (Popeye) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2000/04/13
Subject: Re: Gun Control (OT) - Marcel says it as it is!
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse



> Well, well, well. Bingo. Bonanza. The Mother Load. John, I've been trying
> to >explain why I carry a gun, and you can't hear me. I've just figured
> out
three >things.


And here's the million dollar answer, in Johns' words:


>You are not fearful, but you know that there is a probability that these
>things will be of use in protecting you that means that the value of the
>protection offered outweighs the small inconvenience of taking the
>appropriate precautions.



I'm going to the freezer this second and getting corn liquor. I'm gonna
drink
till I'm numb.

John, if you can't read this and understand, don't try to hard to sunder
it.
Because I will never be able to say it better than that. Please take it from
me
that that may be the most profound thing I've ever read.


Accept. Accept that this is true for Doug. As I accept it may not be your
truth.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:55 -0500, "Popeye"
<Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:


>>You are not fearful, but you know that there is a probability that these
>>things will be of use in protecting you that means that the value of the
>>protection offered outweighs the small inconvenience of taking the
>>appropriate precautions.
>
> Accept. Accept that this is true for Doug. As I accept it may not be your
>truth.

Okay. I've acknowledged that from day one. From what I know of you I
don't believe you're a danger with guns, the same as I don't believe
Lee is.

Now for my side. Can you understand why I might feel some concern
about some guy lacking in self control and good judgement carrying a
loaded weapon on the streets, in crowds, in malls, in bars, in
casinos, etc.?

JF

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3jdsn1pv0veughb6lalqmdt70uf08cce64@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:55 -0500, "Popeye"
> <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:


Notice, John, that

A) You sound alarmingly like Fish, sometimes word for word?

B) That my gun position is unchanged from early '00 (and earlier than
that?)?

>>>You are not fearful, but you know that there is a probability that these
>>>things will be of use in protecting you that means that the value of the
>>>protection offered outweighs the small inconvenience of taking the
>>>appropriate precautions.
>>
>> Accept. Accept that this is true for Doug. As I accept it may not be
>> your
>>truth.
>
> Okay. I've acknowledged that from day one. From what I know of you I
> don't believe you're a danger with guns, the same as I don't believe
> Lee is.
>
> Now for my side. Can you understand why I might feel some concern
> about some guy lacking in self control and good judgement carrying a
> loaded weapon on the streets, in crowds, in malls, in bars, in
> casinos, etc.?

Sure.

Who is he?


>
> JF
>
>

JOF wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:55 -0500, "Popeye"
> <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>You are not fearful, but you know that there is a probability that these
>>>things will be of use in protecting you that means that the value of the
>>>protection offered outweighs the small inconvenience of taking the
>>>appropriate precautions.
>>
>> Accept. Accept that this is true for Doug. As I accept it may not be your
>>truth.
>
>
> Okay. I've acknowledged that from day one. From what I know of you I
> don't believe you're a danger with guns, the same as I don't believe
> Lee is.
>
> Now for my side. Can you understand why I might feel some concern
> about some guy lacking in self control and good judgement carrying a
> loaded weapon on the streets, in crowds, in malls, in bars, in
> casinos, etc.?

Again, (and again) By what means will you determine who is stable enough
to carry and who isn't? Your fear is not without some merit. However,
what will determine who can carry and who can't? Only those who don't
make you feel creepy can? Or only those who pass your test for slacks?

HOW?

And how do you tell before?


>
> JF
>
>


--
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:47:07 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

>JOF wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:55 -0500, "Popeye"
>> <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You are not fearful, but you know that there is a probability that these
>>>>things will be of use in protecting you that means that the value of the
>>>>protection offered outweighs the small inconvenience of taking the
>>>>appropriate precautions.
>>>
>>> Accept. Accept that this is true for Doug. As I accept it may not be your
>>>truth.
>>
>>
>> Okay. I've acknowledged that from day one. From what I know of you I
>> don't believe you're a danger with guns, the same as I don't believe
>> Lee is.
>>
>> Now for my side. Can you understand why I might feel some concern
>> about some guy lacking in self control and good judgement carrying a
>> loaded weapon on the streets, in crowds, in malls, in bars, in
>> casinos, etc.?
>
>Again, (and again) By what means will you determine who is stable enough
>to carry and who isn't? Your fear is not without some merit. However,
>what will determine who can carry and who can't? Only those who don't
>make you feel creepy can? Or only those who pass your test for slacks?
>
>HOW?
>
>And how do you tell before?

I've been thinking about it a bit today. It's tough to do without
creating a lot of cumbersome procedure. Obviously it should target
those folks with a record of violence and/or anger management issues.
The convicted felons will be filtered out but chronic offenders who
always manage to avoid treatment, charges or convictions won't be as
easy to identify.

In all likelihood those who know they won't ease thru a check will
simply obtain and keep their weapons illegally but I'm not sure that's
a good enough reason for not creating a safety net.

I'm stuck. The reasoning is sound but the execution is a problem. It
would be easy to do if you weren't worried about costs and
inconvenience. In fact it could be a great growth industry for recent
psych type grads. It would also make legal gun ownership prohibitively
expensive.

Okay. You can now say I told you so. 8)

But I'm still thinking about it.

JF

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tmksn1po55ekkcr2sn8i0k3b44j34l103u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:55:09 -0500, "Popeye"
> <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Notice, John, that
>>
>> A) You sound alarmingly like Fish, sometimes word for word?
>
> Your point?

Hey, if you don't mind, it's okay by me.

>> B) That my gun position is unchanged from early '00 (and earlier than
>>that?)?
>
> Same as mine. In fact I may well have had a gun position before you
> were born.

You didn't then, and still don't now.

But you're the one making noises about us finally seeing and finally
agreeing to things.

Since we've had the same line all along,

That makes it you.

>>>>>You are not fearful, but you know that there is a probability that
>>>>>these
>>>>>things will be of use in protecting you that means that the value of
>>>>>the
>>>>>protection offered outweighs the small inconvenience of taking the
>>>>>appropriate precautions.
>>>>
>>>> Accept. Accept that this is true for Doug. As I accept it may not be
>>>> your
>>>>truth.
>>>
>>> Okay. I've acknowledged that from day one. From what I know of you I
>>> don't believe you're a danger with guns, the same as I don't believe
>>> Lee is.
>>>
>>> Now for my side. Can you understand why I might feel some concern
>>> about some guy lacking in self control and good judgement carrying a
>>> loaded weapon on the streets, in crowds, in malls, in bars, in
>>> casinos, etc.?
>
> Thank you for making my point.

What point?

You've been asked repeatedly to define it, and you're doing the
Canadian/Belgian/Polish duck-dance&wing.

>
> JF
>
>

"Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
news:11nspjg6icv7c9@news.supernews.com...

> > Thank you for making my point.

> What point?

> You've been asked repeatedly to define it, and you're doing the
> Canadian/Belgian/Polish duck-dance&wing.

It's commonly known as "squirming".

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." --
Robert Frost

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:crksn1tfsj0vqa9b67lub0c1gja583nb5p@4ax.com...

>>Again, (and again) By what means will you determine who is stable enough
>>to carry and who isn't? Your fear is not without some merit. However,
>>what will determine who can carry and who can't? Only those who don't
>>make you feel creepy can? Or only those who pass your test for slacks?
>>
>>HOW?
>>
>>And how do you tell before?
>
> I've been thinking about it a bit today. It's tough to do without
> creating a lot of cumbersome procedure. Obviously it should target
> those folks with a record of violence and/or anger management issues.

Sigh.

Been doing that for years.

> The convicted felons will be filtered out but chronic offenders who
> always manage to avoid treatment, charges or convictions won't be as
> easy to identify.

That's a non-answer.

These are the people presenting the biggest problem.

> In all likelihood those who know they won't ease thru a check will
> simply obtain and keep their weapons illegally but I'm not sure that's
> a good enough reason for not creating a safety net.

John, we've been telling you about the existing safety net for years,
right up till yesterday or today.

Are you actually making this as a statement?

> I'm stuck.

So are we.

And you left out a category.

What about the previously law abiding citizen who just cracks or goes down
hill?

>The reasoning is sound but the execution is a problem. It
> would be easy to do if you weren't worried about costs and
> inconvenience. In fact it could be a great growth industry for recent
> psych type grads.

"Perhaps the most dramatic duping of the doctors was Ed Kemper's
evaluation. Two psychiatrists interviewed him and agreed that he was now
"safe." All the while, Kemper had the head of one of his victims sitting in
the trunk of his car, parked outside the doctors' office."

Let us know how that works out, there, John.

Oh, and, Google Ed Kemper for me and read up on him.

Find out why a head in his trunk was one of the things a citizen would
be -least- concerned with.

>It would also make legal gun ownership prohibitively
> expensive.

And still. doesn't. address. the. 200M. existing. guns.

> Okay. You can now say I told you so. 8)

We already did, many times, because we have open minds, and on this
subject, you don't.

> But I'm still thinking about it.

Send a postcard.

>
> JF

"Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
news:11nsqjbrepmf592@news.supernews.com...

> > But I'm still thinking about it.
>
> Send a postcard.

It'll get here faster.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qhusn1l2b5vpc4b773g19hfsfc7tk32045@4ax.com...

> Carharts were for hicks where I grew up.

Guys who actually had to work, where I grew up.

> Underwear was optional but preferred for a day on a bike.

"Bike" certainly not meaning "motorcycle".

> Perhaps you didn't need the support.

Why dont you come see for yourself?

> >Sorry, it's just too much sometimes how easy these "guys" are.
>
> I was never easy. Women had to work hard to get me.

Poor things.