Do you have any specifics? I hear a lot of generalities. People who know what's wrong with the world usually present a series of abstractions with an anecdote thrown in here and there. We have a couple of incidents. In one a person reliably reported to be psychotic kills a number of people in Virginia Tech. This incident launched a great number of anti-gun comments. Why? Would the passage of some particular law have prevented the incident? The anti-gunners aren't really interested in discussing this incident per se. Like Simon they feel offended when someone asks them to relate their theories and assertions to the incident that began the discussions. As it turns out there are laws in place that had they been adhered to would have prevented Cho from legally obtaining a gun, but does that shut up the people who crawled out from this particular political rock incensed against Cho's guns? Not at all, they inveigh with one unsupported generality after another against American's second amendment and the right we enjoy here to protect ourselves. Cho is forgotten. When I try to get them to connect their arguments to Cho, they become angrier and angrier, vaguer and vaguer, frothier and frothier. And when I posted a note about an old lady who fends off some robbers with her pistol, did the Liberals, pacifists, and Leftists who like to claim the high ground when it comes to victims and the oppressed, side with the 84 year old lady and her walker? Not at all. Her having a gun apparently trumps her being 84 years old, on a walker and an intended victim. She should have done something else. She shouldn't have tined to protect her property. Perhaps she should have put her walker under one of her arms and run for the house. She shouldn't have shot out the tires of the predators car. The Leftist/pacifists come up with every assertion they can think of against her. One person even thought his idea that 84 year old ladies on walkers ought not to be trusted to shoot out tires trumped the fact that this particular old lady did precisely that. The male buffalos in Yellowstone butted heads, never having been Convinced by Obama, bam, bam, bam, until one of them was driven off. The little old lady did shoot the tires out whether she was to be trusted to do so or not. Do we live in a society where a dictator can confiscate our means of defense? Shell we become defenseless victims so that the wild eyed illogical Butter-brained leftist pacifists can force their unproved idealism on a society That up until now has worked better than any other in the entire world? If it ain't broke then don't . . . Well, you might say that Unless your a stutter-brained Wacko Pacifist Leftist Who is quite sure the world Especially the United States Would be much better off If "We just learned to get along," And would like as a token Of our sincerity to give up Our means of self-defense. Then surely, they assure Each other, and us, we shall All be much safer . . . There you go again, saying "all." You really mean the predators, the Rapist, the murderers, the Robbers, the thieves, now don't You? They shall definitely be Much better off . . . If you could convince a people Whose second amendment Guaranteed them the right to Bear arms to give up that Right . . . Well, can you, punk? Lawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, Apr-23-2007 8:43 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control On 4/23/07, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: We do disagree here, Paul. I think a group of robbers who broke into the property of an 84 year old woman who has to use a walker to get around on, and then decides to approach her; which they apparently had the wisdom not to do, ought to be shot. The law allows for that. If they were to run away, she wouldn't legally be allowed to shoot them. But if they come after her, then she is permitted to shoot them -- and ought to. And... that's what wrong. Firstly, picking up on what Phil said about what I said... I once found some teenagers rooting around in my backyard. I went out there, completely unarmed and shouted "hey, what do you think you're doing?" They ran. In the morning I found they had merely rooted through tools and caused me perhaps 30 minutes of wasted day putting my stuff away. See the thing is... I KNEW they wouldn't have guns so I didn't need one. That's not the case in our little old lady from Pasadena. And that's the real pity. How fucked up is a place that makes people think they NEED a gun to protect themselves and even more pitifully, their property? from intruders? Because they KNOW there is a good chance that those intruders are armed, and as such, pose a mortal threat to their person? Like I've said, there's a huge problem because there are soo many guns. there are sooo many people willing to use them and there are sooo many other people giving them a "reason" to use em. paul