Re: A rational Canadian approach to firearms.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169140657.102286.313010@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Lee Bell ha escrito:
>
> > Keep up the good work, brothers to the north. Don't pay any attention to
> > that part about criminals being more comfortable, and more active, in areas
> > where guns are discouraged and less comfortable and less active pursuing
> > their occupation where gun ownership is supported. Please also ignore the
> > difference in the support for, and the concentration of guns in the US and
> > the relative lack of them in much of Canada. It doesn't mean anything,
> > really, it doesn't.
>
> So are you and Doug in fact saying that a law forcing every household
> to keep a gun is a good thing?
>
> JF

No. If I've interpreted correctly, he and Doug are saying that a law requiring every household to
keep a gun *may* be a good thing.

You'll also notice the the law has no teeth. What are they going to do if they (the gov't) discover
that you *don't* have a gun? Probably nothing.

JOF wrote:

> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito:
>
>
>>IT'S a phenomenon that gives the term "gun control" a whole new meaning:
>>community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.
>>
>>Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its
>>citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of
>>emergency. It's not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press
>>reported, "Greenleaf doesn't really have crime ... the most violent offense
>>reported in the past two years was a fist fight." Rather, it's a statement
>>about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a
>>culture of self-reliance.
>
>
> So how would you vote? Should the law require a gun in every household?
> Yes or no, no waffling.
>
> JF
>
NO - Should be a personal choice - from either side our second
admendment right should not be infringed and tell us we can't and the
government should not tell us we must

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PYOrh.33768$QU1.22600@newssvr22.news.prodigy. net...

> No. If I've interpreted correctly, he and Doug are saying that a law
requiring every household to
> keep a gun *may* be a good thing.

Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't worry,
John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to be or
say.

> You'll also notice the the law has no teeth. What are they going to do if
they (the gov't) discover
> that you *don't* have a gun? Probably nothing.

Just like in Morton Grove, no one was ever prosecuted or charged with
violation of the ordinance. Just one of the myriad variables John and his
ilk cant wrap their elitist brains around; we have no desire to force anyone
to have a gun that doesn't want to, but we wont allow anyone to tell us we
cant if we chose to.

John has a real problem with simple reality, honesty, symbolism, things like
that.

But if you want to talk shit about Americans and their freedoms, then he is
a whiz at ambiguity and slimy innuendo, without ever really saying anything
that he will back up.

He asks for simple, direct answers, but gives none such in return.

Slings bigoted, blanket insult with alacrity, then denies with apathy.

Multi-faceted expostulation, eh?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/167340

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/553351.html

Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, soðe:

> I.e., they have no clue about actual instances or statistics.

Douggy piles into the ignorant fuckwit parade that is rec.scuba

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Scott ha escrito:

> Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't worry,
> John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to be or
> say.

I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it. When asked (or
accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took exception to
the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his tune.

JF

Hwæt! "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com>, soðe:

>
> Scott ha escrito:
>
>> Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But
>> don't worry, John can/will twist all this into something it was
>> never intended to be or say.
>
> I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it. When asked
> (or accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took
> exception to the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his
> tune.

Perhaps that happened after his truck was searched for firearms
before he was allowed into Canada.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick napisal(a):
> Seems kinda sparse in this thread today...
>
>
> January 16, 2007
> Op-Ed Contributor
> A Rifle in Every Pot By GLENN REYNOLDS
>
> Knoxville, Tenn.
>
> IT'S a phenomenon that gives the term "gun control" a whole new meaning:
> community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.
>
> Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its
> citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of
> emergency. It's not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press
> reported, "Greenleaf doesn't really have crime ... the most violent offense
> reported in the past two years was a fist fight." Rather, it's a statement
> about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a
> culture of self-reliance.
>
> And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf
> are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it
> is likely to be a positive one.
>
> Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982
> passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in
> Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw's crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove's
> did not.
>
> To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather
> break into a house where they aren't at risk of being shot. As David Kopel
> noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they
> try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see
> this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower
> proportion of "hot" burglaries - break-ins where the burglars know the home
> to be occupied - than countries with restrictive gun laws.
>
> Likewise, in the event of disasters that leave law enforcement overwhelmed,
> armed citizens can play an important role in stanching crime. Armed
> neighborhood watches deterred looting in parts of Houston and New Orleans in
> the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
>
> Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law
> enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial
> times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male
> citizens to own guns.
>
> The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the
> Second Amendment's language encompassing both the importance of a
> well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As
> the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the
> journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the
> Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting
> burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that
> good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.
>
> Greenleaf's ordinance is consistent with this approach. But it may also
> serve another purpose.
>
> Experts don't think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been
> enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents.
> And, given that Greenleaf's mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the
> town's residents already own guns, the new ordinance can't make all that
> much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with
> laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in
> general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.
>
> To the extent that's true, we're likely to see other communities adopting
> similar laws so that criminals won't see them as attractive alternatives.
> The result may be a different kind of "gun control."

Quite interesting. I have never heard about Greenleaf, Idaho - big
city which local ordinance has huge impact on American gunhuggers
(especially rec.scuba chapter). To improve my knowledge I did some
research. As usual Wikipedia was useful. First surprise it's small,
rural town with 277 households and 862 inhabitants (2000 census). From
what Douggy wrote I was sure that people down there are arming
themselves to their teeth - nothing like that it looks that they are
quite normal and their local law is not as crazy as it should be
expected.


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...210.xml&coll=7

It's odd," said resident Ruben Cruz. He doesn't care whether the
ordinance is adopted or not, he said.

The City Council moved its meeting this week to a larger venue to
handle an expected big crowd to comment on the ordinance, but only
about 15 people attended. Three spoke about the proposal, and of those,
two made only passing reference to guns and instead talked about other
parts of the measure.

And what is the law?

It states: "In order to provide for the emergency management of the
city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety,
security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, it is
recommended that every head of household residing in the city limits
maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and obtain
appropriate training relating to proper, safe and lawful handling of
firearms."

nothing about mandatory gun ownership as Douggy hoped

another link
http://www.thefriend.org/articledisp...articleid=2349

'It's stepping over a line', said Alan Weinacht, pastor of the
Greenleaf Friends' Church. 'The US as a whole is descending into a
culture of fear - and that's part of what's going on here. If we
would invest as much time into thinking about creative non-violent
responses to violence as we did violent responses, we'd gain ground.'

and with this I have to agree - it's really CULTURE OF FEAR and Douggy,
Scotty, ...... are scared.

Janusz

Hwæt! "janusz_w@hotmail.com" <janusz_w@hotmail.com>, soðe:

> and with this I have to agree - it's really CULTURE OF FEAR and
> Douggy, Scotty, ...... are scared.

Yep.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169148924.352841.70420@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...

> Scott wrote:
>
> > Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't
worry,
> > John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to be
or
> > say.
>
> I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it.

Probably the same thing that moves you to post the things you post on the
subject;

Simply to piss in your hair.

> When asked (or accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took
exception to
> the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his tune.

As I said above, you would *certainly* twist this into another of your lies.
That is what a purposeful, malicious misrepresentation of words is called,
John, a fucking lie; you are a liar, but we established that long ago.

Show where *anyone* but you and that blithering misanthrope Nisarel ever
suggested that gun ownership be forced on anyone.

No waffling.

Come up with the cite, show the words you attribute to Us, written by Lee,
Doug, Dylon, Joe, myself or anyone else who bothers to engage you on this
issue, or admit that you are lying, again. Actually, you dont have to admit
it, the truth is obvious to all but you and your pal.

Believe me, and I think I speak for most people who own guns here, the last
two people on earth any one of Us would want to have a gun is your or
Nisarel.

I thought you were going to ignore us and these gun threads and enjoy your
vacation, or was that simply another of your thousands of lies? <rhetorical>

John-Melb wrote:
> Carl Nisarel wrote:
> > Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, soðe:
> >
> > > As David Kopel
> > > noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars
> > > report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are
> > > likely to be present.
> >> > The ALR isn't a peer reviewed journal and Kopel's assertion is not
> > supported.
> >
> > Legitimate research published in a peer-reviewed journal shows that
> > burglary is higher in jurisdictions with higher levels of gun
> > ownership.
> >
> >
> >
> > --

>
> Can we have a reference to support that claim Carl?
>
https://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot...s/gunbook2.pdf

Conclusion
Keeping a gun at home is unlikely to provide a net benefit to the rest
of the
community in the form of burglary deterrence. If anything, residences
in a neighborhood with more guns may be at greater risk of being
burglarized. The upshot is ironic: Guns are often kept to protect the
home, but the aggregate effect of keeping guns at home may be to
increase the victimization rate.


Janusz