Re: A rational Canadian approach to firearms.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169148664.894954.263060@v45g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chris Guynn ha escrito:
>
> > > 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.
>
> I didn't see a "may" in there but okay.
>
> > 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.
>
> So it becomes just one more of those thousands of stupid gun laws. At
> least the lawmaking stupidity isn't one-sided. 8)
>
> JF

Nobody ever claimed that the law-making stupidity was one sided.

And yes, it will just be another one of the myriad of gun laws that get ignored.

IMO, that's actually kinda the point.

Chris Guynn wrote:

> The law doesn't force guns on anyone. It simply makes it mandatory to have them.

"Cam" <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
news:1169155138.464260.43660@q2g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
> > The law doesn't force guns on anyone. It simply makes it mandatory to have them.
>

What, you think that just because something is mandatory it's followed?

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HFRrh.33855$QU1.19461@newssvr22.news.prodigy. net...

> "Cam" <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> news:1169155138.464260.43660@q2g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> >
> > Chris Guynn wrote:
> >
> > > The law doesn't force guns on anyone. It simply makes it mandatory to
have them.
> >
>
> What, you think that just because something is mandatory it's followed?

Sure, just like Kleebold and Harris followed every law they broke.

Plus, I am sure Cam has never driven after a couple beers or exceeded the
speed limit.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169141931.919106.173100@l53g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito:

> Yes or no, no waffling.



WWWWWhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......... ...HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....


As if.

"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:12qvqj3pjdp4ud5@news.supernews.com...

> Years later, another admission of the perfectly obvious.
>
> (to be forgotten next week)

Not forgotten, only denied.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7I2dnWH8ftmJLjLYnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@whidbeytel.c om...
> "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169141931.919106.173100@l53g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> 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.
>
> Hilarious, you making a demand for a clear, concise answer to anything.
> You
> define hypocrite.

Ain't he a card?

Chris Guynn wrote:
> <janusz_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1169149453.200574.239160@38g2000cwa.googlegro ups.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
>
> ummm... what part of "every head of household residing in the city limits
> maintain a firearm, together with ammunition" doesn't make sense?

It makes sense, but it is not mandatory to posses (or maintain) weapons
it is only "recommended" what makes big difference.

>
> I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean that they have to *own* the weapon. I guess they could just
> borrow one.

or not to have any weapon at any condition

>
> Of course, if you follow the logic of the gun grabbers, this ordinance only applies to those people
> who may be involved in emergency management situations or who may have a hand in protecting the
> "safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants" even though the ordinance
> clearly specifies "every head of household".


Janusz

janusz_w@hotmail.com wrote:

> 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
>

"Unlikely", and "may" are not terribly concrete terms. This article does
not state in unequivocal terms that more guns lead to more burglaries.

And have you noticed that these works all quote each other and use each
other as references? Does anyone in the anti-gun community do their own
research?

--
“TAANSTAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Hwæt! dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>, soðe:

> And have you noticed that these works all quote each other and
> use each other as references? Does anyone in the anti-gun
> community do their own research?

Are you stupid enough to put Gary Kleck into the "anti-gun
community"?

<snicker>

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