[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

Gun crime peaked in 1999, now 1/3rd that level.

Ah the inherent dishonesty of the hoplophobe
I was NOT talking ONLY about "gun crime", whatever fiction that is.
I have never seen a gun EVER commt a crime, not even a misdemeanor.
But then, unlike you, I'm smart enough to realize that inanimate objects are
INCAPABLE of taking ANY action ON THEIR OWN

There is something wrong with your brain.

Sounds to me like he has a gun-lover's version of "debating trade"
mania.....





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

IN the US , the estimate is about 2,500,000 such DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses)
each year

So roughly 1 in every 100 people uses their gun in a hostile situation
every year? What a violent country you live in.

That figure includes potshots at squirrels and rabbits, which are intent
on inflicing rabies on humans.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.pro SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Signal" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

We have right to use as much force as necessary in self defence

Is that a change in public policy? I recall a story about a homeowner
being charged with attempted murder for clobbering a burglar. Not too
long ago, either.

It's always been acceptable to use "reasonable force". If you are
defending yourself or removing a threat, that's whatever it takes. You
may be thinking of the farmer who was prosecuted, not that long ago,
for shooting a burglar in the back as he was running away.


Who decides "reasonable"
From what we've seen, currently in England, ANY use of force is
UN-reasonable

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime. BTW you should have heard the screeching from
all of the liberals when the legislature passed this law perhaps 15
years ago. They called it fanciful names like the "shoot your neighbor
law", and offered fantastic scenarios like your neighbor accidently
wandering into the wrong house after coming home drunk. AFAIK the law
has been applied in just a handful of cases.

Jerry

[Jerry Peters]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:33:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:57:22 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2007 12:34:00 GMT, Bruce wrote:

Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun.

No, you don't. He could have used a bomb, club, knife, combinations
thereof, or even (GASP!) a car......

Eveyone wants to blame the gun and not recognize that evil exists in the
world. How many people did Ted Bundy shoot, or Jack the Ripper??

You really WANT your gun, don't you? :-)

Strange isn't it? I don't have a gun, nor do I want one and nor do any
of my friends. I go out at night here in London without feeling the
slightest fear. This is clearly not a situation that Scout and the
like experience. They spend their lives wondering where an attack is
going to come from and making sure they have a weapon handy to deal
with it. That is a really sad way to exist, and I'm so glad I live in
a civilized country rather than a third world one, which it is now
clear the US is (American Idol have even bundled it with Africa in
their aid campaign).
ROTFL
You really need join the real world. I live just outside (about 200
ft) of a mid-size American city. I in no way feel threatened at night
or any other time. I've also had occasion to wander around
Philadelphia, Dallas, and LA at night; again no feeling threatened.
I worry less about gun violence than I do about being struck by
lightning.

Jerry

Well this is the problem. America is such a mixture. I visit regularly
myself and my experience is the same as yours. I'm sure this is
because I go to places where people are well educated and civilized -
just as they are here back home. Unfortunately there is also this
whole other America where people like Scout live, where people do walk
in fear and feel the need to keep guns about them to ward off
attackers.

It is this factor that rather defines America as third world; the
stigmata being whole communities living in abject poverty while others
are mega rich, entire towns built as shanties, populated by people
with essentially no hope of advancement. And natural disasters
(Katrina) going unaddressed for lack of whatever motivation it takes
for central government to acknowledge the needs of the underclass. I
believe it is the existence of this kind of deprivation that gives
rise to the sort of society that sees weapons as a necessity.

Here in England that kind of condition simply doesn't exist. We have
the odd poor person, of course, and neighbourhoods where you wouldn't
necessarily want to live but there is nowhere you could go and find
that kind of widespread abject poverty.

d
Sorry to disillusion you but I live in southwestern Pennsylvania, one
of the major gun-owning regions in the eastern US. We have a _large_
number of hunters and NRA members around here. In some towns the
schools have a holiday on the first day of deer hunting season.

I'm _far_ more afraid of the idiots who drive through red lights while
babbling on their cellphones than I am of the gun owners hereabouts.

Jerry

[Jerry Peters]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:33:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:57:22 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2007 12:34:00 GMT, Bruce wrote:

Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun.

No, you don't. He could have used a bomb, club, knife, combinations
thereof, or even (GASP!) a car......

Eveyone wants to blame the gun and not recognize that evil exists in the
world. How many people did Ted Bundy shoot, or Jack the Ripper??

You really WANT your gun, don't you? :-)

Strange isn't it? I don't have a gun, nor do I want one and nor do any
of my friends. I go out at night here in London without feeling the
slightest fear. This is clearly not a situation that Scout and the
like experience. They spend their lives wondering where an attack is
going to come from and making sure they have a weapon handy to deal
with it. That is a really sad way to exist, and I'm so glad I live in
a civilized country rather than a third world one, which it is now
clear the US is (American Idol have even bundled it with Africa in
their aid campaign).
ROTFL
You really need join the real world. I live just outside (about 200
ft) of a mid-size American city. I in no way feel threatened at night
or any other time. I've also had occasion to wander around
Philadelphia, Dallas, and LA at night; again no feeling threatened.
I worry less about gun violence than I do about being struck by
lightning.

Jerry

Well this is the problem. America is such a mixture. I visit regularly
myself and my experience is the same as yours. I'm sure this is
because I go to places where people are well educated and civilized -
just as they are here back home. Unfortunately there is also this
whole other America where people like Scout live, where people do walk
in fear and feel the need to keep guns about them to ward off
attackers.

It is this factor that rather defines America as third world; the
stigmata being whole communities living in abject poverty while others
are mega rich, entire towns built as shanties, populated by people
with essentially no hope of advancement. And natural disasters
(Katrina) going unaddressed for lack of whatever motivation it takes
for central government to acknowledge the needs of the underclass. I
believe it is the existence of this kind of deprivation that gives
rise to the sort of society that sees weapons as a necessity.

Not shanties, public housing usually. Sorry, I'm tired of hearing
about the lazy underclass and their "problems". We provide them with
schools that they don't attend, public housing that they destroy, and
opportunities which they don't take.

Katrina was not the central government's job. You have a bunch of
people who've been trained to be irresponsible and lazy and to depend
on the governnment to do everything for them. When there's a disaster,
they sat and waited for the government to rescue them.

Here in England that kind of condition simply doesn't exist. We have
the odd poor person, of course, and neighbourhoods where you wouldn't
necessarily want to live but there is nowhere you could go and find
that kind of widespread abject poverty.

Most of these "poor" people have color TV's, microwaves, and
cellphones.

[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.pro Signal wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

It serves to even the odds, since the legitimate occupant has
no way of knowing what your "petty criminal" intends.
Yep, if they break into an occupied dwelling, they get what they
deserve.

Why don't idiots like you ever sympathize with the real victims of
criminals BTW?




--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.pro Signal wrote:
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

Anyway, I'm going out for the evening now. I do so in the sure and
safe knowledge that there will be nobody close to me with a gun -

I hope your fantasies and delusions give you comfort, I know the
reality
is
anything but what you assert.

What a sorry person you are, disparaging the person who enjoys the
freedoms of a peaceful society.

Like I said, let's not inject reality into your fantasy.

No fantasy, it's fact- the UK is a peaceful place to live.


You haven't looked at your crime rates recently have you ?
Let's see.

I'm trying to make sure he retains his fantasy and continues to "feel"
safe, and you come along and start injected reality into his fantasy.
Shame on you. He was happy, unsafe, but happy. Now he may start to worry
and panic and next thing you know he might be concerned HE will become a
victim. Then where will we be?

That was just wrong.

:-)



I'm so sorry
I forgot myself
I was only hoping to demonstrate to him that there was "Another Way"

You did - I see clearly how you live in a climate of fear, carrying
guns for "protection", always scanning your environment for threats.
That's the other way.

You _really_ are an idiot, aren't you? I lock my doors, too, does that
make me constantly afraid, living in a climate of fear?

[Jeff Genzler]

Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Signal wrote:

Jerry Peters wrote:


That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

Uh. Who said "PETTY?"


Why don't idiots like you ever sympathize with the real victims of
criminals BTW?

Well, he IS an idiot after all.

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 May 2007 02:49:42 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

**** you and the ignorant horse you rode in on

Add Tourette's to the issues that you face.

I definitely aren't going to take advantage of your cognitive and
behavioral problems.

Hope you get better soon.


Just so people KNOW the context of my response, that you snipped to hide

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+ That's fair enough. So you should be less aggressive yourself.
+
+
+ **** you and the ignorant horse you rode in on
+ You'll be better positionned to make such statements when
+ you can support your claims instead of trying to weasel
+ that it was something else being discussed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I notice that you still can NOT support the claims you've made so far
Why is that ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.


English not your first language ?

Before I leave you alone, just thought I'd highlight this rather
strange insult, coming from you, of course.

BTW, just to show that you are a liar, since you are thowing the
epithet out, you said this:

"2) It was NOT a discussion about the Presidential Oath
It was ALWAYS about the Pledge of Allegiance'

ummmm:


I see once again that YOU cannot support your claim
QED




The worst of them all was that paragon
(as I'm sure some here will see him) Senator Joe McCarthy. Among his
other pleasant acts he had the "under God" bit put in the oath.
Everybody since the founding of your country has failed to live up to
the aspirations of the founders.


Once again YOU demonstrate your ignorance
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus,
added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

I guess the fact that English is pretty far down the totem pole in
your list of languages as confused you about the difference between
"the oath" and "the Pledge".


Show us the alleged Oath that was modified to include "under god"

[SaPeIsMa]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Signal said:

Gun crime peaked in 1999, now 1/3rd that level.

Ah the inherent dishonesty of the hoplophobe
I was NOT talking ONLY about "gun crime", whatever fiction that is.
I have never seen a gun EVER commt a crime, not even a misdemeanor.
But then, unlike you, I'm smart enough to realize that inanimate objects
are
INCAPABLE of taking ANY action ON THEIR OWN

There is something wrong with your brain.

Sounds to me like he has a gun-lover's version of "debating trade"
mania.....



When the idiots can't argue the subject, they attack the person
Your inability to defend your claim of "gun crime" is noted

[SaPeIsMa]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Signal said:

IN the US , the estimate is about 2,500,000 such DGUs (Defensive Gun
Uses)
each year

So roughly 1 in every 100 people uses their gun in a hostile situation
every year? What a violent country you live in.

That figure includes potshots at squirrels and rabbits, which are intent
on inflicing rabies on humans.

Clearly , you are one such vicitm

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

Yep, if they break into an occupied dwelling, they get what they
deserve.

Theft of a $500 TV begets the death penalty. A just punishment for
that crime.
Riiiight.

This is what happens when you try to have a "debate" with raving
lunatics -- you end up mouthing opinions that are just as irrational as
theirs.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 May 2007 03:25:18 +0100, Signal wrote:

Jeff Genzler wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

Uh. Who said "PETTY?"

The Peters caricature made it clear that he doesn't distinguish
between a real threat and petty thief. Say a person enters your
property without permission, you would assume your life is in danger
right? I suggest that most who do this are just attempting to grab
some goods and get away.


Since you could care less about what you have, then the rest of
us might just as well come over to your place and take what we want
and you won't even bother to call the police because each one of us
only want just a little of what you have.

[Magus]

Signal wrote:
Jeff Genzler wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.
You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.
Uh. Who said "PETTY?"

The Peters caricature made it clear that he doesn't distinguish
between a real threat and petty thief. Say a person enters your
property without permission, you would assume your life is in danger
right? I suggest that most who do this are just attempting to grab
some goods and get away.



Let's get some clarity here...

The situation as described was an "occupied dwelling"--if someone
illegally breaks into the residence while the legal occupant is there.

You're the one equating illegally entering an "occupied dwelling" with
the "petty theft" of a TV.

Ok, I'm clear on what's been said, now,

I'd suggest that someone breaking into an occupied home isn't really
just a "petty thief" and does pose a real danger to the occupants.
Specially in a society where the best estimate, nation wide, of legal
firearm ownership is 40% of the population.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 May 2007 03:48:08 +0100, Signal wrote:

wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

Uh. Who said "PETTY?"

The Peters caricature made it clear that he doesn't distinguish
between a real threat and petty thief. Say a person enters your
property without permission, you would assume your life is in danger
right? I suggest that most who do this are just attempting to grab
some goods and get away.


Since you could care less about what you have, then the rest of
us might just as well come over to your place and take what we want
and you won't even bother to call the police because each one of us
only want just a little of what you have.

Intellectually dishonest...

Gold star for you.


No, it follows along right nicely with your saying that a person
should not defend their own property and should let anyone take what
they want without hindrance. All we want to do is "grab some goods
and get away".

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 May 2007 03:45:17 +0100, Signal wrote:

"SaPeIsMa" wrote:


I see you were unable to cope with my arguments.

I'm putting a fork in the lot of you - you're done*.


*and insane.


Not us. You seem to be the one that wants to let criminals do
what they want to do with no hindrance. Are you a criminal looking
for easy pickings?

[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.pro Signal wrote:
Jeff Genzler wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

Uh. Who said "PETTY?"

The Peters caricature made it clear that he doesn't distinguish
between a real threat and petty thief. Say a person enters your
property without permission, you would assume your life is in danger
right? I suggest that most who do this are just attempting to grab
some goods and get away.

Explain exactly how someone who's awakened by a burglar at 2 in the
morning knows what the criminal has in mind.

It's not your property, fool, the law is very specific, the criminal
has to have entered your dwelling.

Burglary of an occupied dwelling is a felony in Pennsylvania.

How the heck do you know that someone is just attempting to grab some
goods?

Let me guess, the poor criminal is really a victim of society. It's
all society's fault, right?

Jerry

[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.pro Signal wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

It serves to even the odds, since the legitimate occupant has
no way of knowing what your "petty criminal" intends.

Probably best to _assume_ they are there to kill you then.. because of
course, it's real commonplace for persons to be motivated to break
into a strangers home to murder the occupants they've never met.

Yep, if they break into an occupied dwelling, they get what they
deserve.

Theft of a $500 TV begets the death penalty. A just punishment for
that crime.
Riiiight.

Why don't people like you ever sympathize with the real victims of
criminals BTW?

I do, which is why I would hope for you to be sent down for life if
you killed a petty thief.

But I live in Pennsylvania, remember. The presumption is I'm acting in
fear of my life.

I'll try to explain it to you once mo

Burglary of an occupied dwelling is not petty thievery! It's a felony
in most if not all US jurisdictions.

Jerry

[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.pro wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 03:45:17 +0100, Signal wrote:

"SaPeIsMa" wrote:


I see you were unable to cope with my arguments.

I'm putting a fork in the lot of you - you're done*.


*and insane.


Not us. You seem to be the one that wants to let criminals do
what they want to do with no hindrance. Are you a criminal looking
for easy pickings?

Probably just a bleeding heart feeling sorry for the poor criminals
who are "victims of society".

Jerry

[Morton Davis]

"Jerry Peters" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.pro Signal wrote:
Jeff Genzler wrote:

That's why I like Pennsylvania, if you kill an intruder in your home,
you are considered to have been in fear of your life and thus cannot
be charged with a crime.

You appear to be delighted to have an *excuse* to maim or kill petty
criminals. That's nice. What a fine example of the human species.

Uh. Who said "PETTY?"

The Peters caricature made it clear that he doesn't distinguish
between a real threat and petty thief. Say a person enters your
property without permission, you would assume your life is in danger
right? I suggest that most who do this are just attempting to grab
some goods and get away.

Explain exactly how someone who's awakened by a burglar at 2 in the
morning knows what the criminal has in mind.

It's not your property, fool, the law is very specific, the criminal
has to have entered your dwelling.

Burglary of an occupied dwelling is a felony in Pennsylvania.

How the heck do you know that someone is just attempting to grab some
goods?

Let me guess, the poor criminal is really a victim of society. It's
all society's fault, right?


The good ones have toe tags and are in stage one decomp.

[[email protected]]

On 2007-05-08 lid said:
Not shanties, public housing usually. Sorry, I'm tired of hearing
about the lazy underclass and their "problems". We provide them with
schools that they don't attend, public housing that they destroy,
and opportunities which they don't take.
Katrina was not the central government's job. You have a bunch of
people who've been trained to be irresponsible and lazy and to
depend on the governnment to do everything for them. When there's a
disaster, they sat and waited for the government to rescue them.
FOr the most part I have to agree with you. HOWever, a lot
of working people were also stuck during Katrina in NEw
ORleans.

My wife and I spent the week of Katrina and its aftermath at
University hospital working providing them and CHarity
hospital their sister institution with communications with
the outside world because all the great infrastructure was
caught with its proverbial pants down.

NOw, before we go any further with the "charity" thing let
me explain that CHarity/university hospital mostly helped
working poor folks. THE folks from public housing with
their sugar tit government handouts got public housing, and
title 19. THey could go to other hospitals. THe guy who
worked fixing your roof or tending your lawn; fixing your
food; entertaining you from the bandstand, or running the
sound and lights, now he got to go to University hospital
and Charity for medical care when he got injured on the job
or got sick.

AS I stood waiting for the air farce jet to haul me to SAn
Antonio, where I had no intention of going btw as my house
was in sLIdell, I stood in line with at least two lawyers I
talked to among other working folks. Many working people in
that city found ownership of a personal vehicle to be
impractical. After all, 24/7 public transit was available,
a grocery store was right around the corner, and rates for
parking insurance etc. made vehicle ownership an expense
they didn't feel like dealing with. SOme of 'em even voted
for Dubya, (more the fool them.)

Most of these "poor" people have color TV's, microwaves, and
cellphones.
And they deserve their government welfare just as much as
Haliburton deserves theres.
etHIs libertarian wants to see all the *******s thrown off
the public dole, including THe pencil pushing dip****s
nobody voted for that administer these programs.



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

[[email protected]]

On 2007-05-08 lid said:
I'm _far_ more afraid of the idiots who drive through red lights
while babbling on their cellphones than I am of the gun owners
hereabouts.
DItto! THey have a right to drive though, even if they do
it irresponsibly. That few tons of weapon they handle is
quite dangerous to the innocent bystander.
I've almost been mowed down more than once by some asshole
with a cell phone glued to his/her ear.

I'm really tired of hearing about their right to drive.
I"m all for one personal injury accident you lose your
driving priveleges, ***FOREVER*** no questions, no second
chances if you were at fault.



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



five boxes to freedom:
Ballot, witness, jury soap & cartridge

[[email protected]]

The Peters caricature made it clear that he doesn't distinguish
between a real threat and petty thief. Say a person enters your
property without permission, you would assume your life is in
danger right? I suggest that most who do this are just attempting
to grab some goods and get away.
Let's get some clarity here...
The situation as described was an "occupied dwelling"--if someone
illegally breaks into the residence while the legal occupant is
there.
You're the one equating illegally entering an "occupied dwelling"
with the "petty theft" of a TV.
Ok, I'm clear on what's been said, now,
I'd suggest that someone breaking into an occupied home isn't really
just a "petty thief" and does pose a real danger to the occupants.
Specially in a society where the best estimate, nation wide, of
legal firearm ownership is 40% of the population.
Many times the person breaking into the occupied dwelling is
known to react violently when confronted by said occupants.
WHether it be a $500 TV or my recording gear, if you break
into my home I consider you a threat to my life. wHich
means I"m gonna blow your head off.
YOur family doesn't like that? WEll too damned bad! Maybe
they should have intervened and gotten you to put down the
crack pipe or whatever other vice you've got that caused you
to forget that "the wages of sin is death."

I still recall the day the a**hole selling Kirby vacuum
cleaners made the big mistake of sticking his foot in the
door on my wife. sHe told him, "I already have a vacuum
cleaner. HIs response, "BUt it isn't a Kirby," as he stuck
his foot in the door.

That's where he made his mistake. I came around the corner
earing back the hammer on the 21 gauge. sHoulda seen that
sonofabitch run!!! ROTFLMAO!!!



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.