OT religion and smacking

Chookie wrote in message ...
In article ,
(KC) wrote:

That is so over the top. My dh and I are 100% incapable of such
behavior. I am positive of it. It always shocks me when people don't
trust themselves not to do such behaviors. I remember people saying
everyone is capable of killing like OJ did. I was soooo shocked. I
know I am incapable of such things and want to stay the h*ll away from
those of you who think you are :-)

Frankly, I want to stay the h*ll away from someone who doesn't *believe* they
are capable of violence. A person who knows their capacity for evil (or even
depression!) is on guard agaisnt it. You aren't.

When people say that all people are capable of unprovoked violence it
reminds me of cheating men saying that all men cheat. Of course, all
men don't cheat, but it makes the cheating men feel better to think
that. Of course, not all people are capable of unprovoked violence,
but it makes those who are feel better to think everyone else is too.

And, of course, it scares me to be around people who think they are
capable of such things. If they are afraid they might commit
violence, why shouldn't I be afraid that they might commit violence?
They know themselves better than I know them.

KC

Bruce and Jeanne wrote in message ...
Marvin L. Zinn wrote:

Chookie,

Most guns were made illegal in Australia a few years ago. Oddly enough, we
aren't suffering from the levels of crime you would expect if the above
statement were true!

Hmmm. That is the opposite of what I heard a couple years ago, but I don't
remember now my source. Do you know where to find violent crime statistics for
the past 10 years or so in Australia?

marvin

Marvin L. Zinn
Reply to:
Using Virtual Access
Windows 2000 build 2600


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir

shows the top 100 countries in murders with firearms. The US is 4th
with 8,259 in 1999. Australia is 21th with 59 in 2000. Canada is 12th
with 165 murders in 1999.

Jeanne


That site is interesting. I did different charts. The US was 8th in
murders with a gun per capita, but was 23rd with murders per capita,
which shows that in the absence of guns, people still find plenty of
ways to kill each other. I sure wish we were even lower all around
though.

KC

In article , Bruce and Jeanne wrote:
Marvin L. Zinn wrote:

Chookie,

Most guns were made illegal in Australia a few years ago. Oddly enough, we
aren't suffering from the levels of crime you would expect if the above
statement were true!

Hmmm. That is the opposite of what I heard a couple years ago, but I don't
remember now my source. Do you know where to find violent crime statistics for
the past 10 years or so in Australia?

marvin

Marvin L. Zinn
Reply to:
Using Virtual Access
Windows 2000 build 2600


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir

shows the top 100 countries in murders with firearms. The US is 4th
with 8,259 in 1999. Australia is 21th with 59 in 2000. Canada is 12th
with 165 murders in 1999.

Jeanne

Yes, but the question was about how much it had CHANGED since
gun controls were implemented. I heard that violent crime (not all crime)
increased significantly. This would agree with what we have seen in the
United States: more gun ownership reduces violent crime and less gun
ownership increases violent crime. There are too many variables to
compare one culture with another.

Marvin L. Zinn
Reply to:
Using Virtual Access
Windows 2000 build 2600

wrote:

And, of course, it scares me to be around people who think they are
capable of such things. If they are afraid they might commit
violence, why shouldn't I be afraid that they might commit violence?
They know themselves better than I know them.

*giggle* I'm sorry, I know you're posting seriously, but I keep getting this
image of you being terrified of Chookie and me, as if we were going to suddenly
turn into a pair of axe murderers or something!

--Helen

H Schinske writes:
: wrote:

:And, of course, it scares me to be around people who think they are
:capable of such things. If they are afraid they might commit
:violence, why shouldn't I be afraid that they might commit violence?
:They know themselves better than I know them.
:
: *giggle* I'm sorry, I know you're posting seriously, but I keep getting this
: image of you being terrified of Chookie and me, as if we were going to suddenly
: turn into a pair of axe murderers or something!

: --Helen

I always felt a little leary about you. Now I know why! Now, put
down that knife and back away sloooowly. :-)

Larry

(H Schinske) wrote in message ...
wrote:

And, of course, it scares me to be around people who think they are
capable of such things. If they are afraid they might commit
violence, why shouldn't I be afraid that they might commit violence?
They know themselves better than I know them.

*giggle* I'm sorry, I know you're posting seriously, but I keep getting this
image of you being terrified of Chookie and me, as if we were going to suddenly
turn into a pair of axe murderers or something!

--Helen

No apologies necessary. I'm not really that scared. Chances of me
getting violently killed are pretty darned small :-) That viewpoint
is just a pet peeve of mine I guess.


KC

"Chotii" wrote in message . ..


Kate, if I may ask....since 'gun control' means making guns illegal to keep
people from killing each other, of what value are new laws controlling guns,
when it is *already* illegal to kill people (with a gun or anything else)?
I will concede that a firearm makes it easier to kill from a distance; what
it cannot do is prevent killing.

It just seems to me that people who casually break laws will pay no more
attention to 'guns are illegal' than they do to 'killing people is illegal'.
And if you know a way to fix *that*, I'd adore knowing it.

Back online long after the thread is dead, but I'm replying as I said
I would.

For me the laws per se aren't the issue -- it's about reducing the
supply of available guns and thereby reducing the number of people
killed by guns. A parallel (and less controversial) example -- I
guess around twenty years ago the legal drinking age in the US varied
by state from 18-21. In order to reduce drunk driving deaths, the
feds required a drinking age of at least 21 for states to get federal
highway money. Strictly by the laws changing the drinking age
shouldn't have made a difference because it was already illegal to
drive drunk. But in reality it reduced the availability of alcohol
available to young people, which thereby reduced drunk driving and
drunk driving deaths. Gun control works in the same way, which is why
I'm for it. I think the downside of guns being less freely available
(and I admit there is one) is far outweighed by the up side of fewer
unnecessary deaths.

Kate
and the Bug, 9 months

In article ,
(KC) wrote:

Frankly, I want to stay the h*ll away from someone who doesn't *believe*
they are capable of violence. A person who knows their capacity for evil
(or even depression!) is on guard agaisnt it. You aren't.

When people say that all people are capable of unprovoked violence

Incorrect. I said "violence", not "unprovoked violence".

it reminds me of cheating men saying that all men cheat. Of course, all
men don't cheat, but it makes the cheating men feel better to think
that.

Incorrect. I said "capable of", so your parallel ought to be "cheating men
saying that all men are capable of cheating," which does not relate to your
next sentence.

Of course, not all people are capable of unprovoked violence,
but it makes those who are feel better to think everyone else is too.

Not particularly. As I wrote, I think the dangerous people are the ones who
"just know" they'd "never do that". The husband who just KNOWS that he would
NEVER commit adultery, for example, can therefore walk into a brothel, right?
After all, HE knows he'd NEVER do it, so wandering into brothels, or regularly
confiding in a woman other than his wife, is perfectly OK -- right? Until
it's too late -- which is my point. If you know you are susceptible,
you know to avoid temptation.

And, of course, it scares me to be around people who think they are
capable of such things. If they are afraid they might commit
violence, why shouldn't I be afraid that they might commit violence?
They know themselves better than I know them.

If Person A fears that she might commit violence, she will keep a watch on her
temper and stay away from deadly weapons. If Person B doesn't fear that she
might commit violence, she will do neither. Does Person B really sound safer
to you?

I notice you also haven't answered the question: how do you know that no-one
with access to your gun safe will ever become mentally unstable?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

In article ,
Larry McMahan wrote:

: *giggle* I'm sorry, I know you're posting seriously, but I keep getting
: this image of you being terrified of Chookie and me, as if we were going
: to suddenly turn into a pair of axe murderers or something!

I always felt a little leary about you. Now I know why! Now, put
down that knife and back away sloooowly. :-)


Just hand over the chocolate, and nobody gets hurt!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry McMahan wrote:

: *giggle* I'm sorry, I know you're posting seriously, but I keep
getting
: this image of you being terrified of Chookie and me, as if we were
going
: to suddenly turn into a pair of axe murderers or something!

I always felt a little leary about you. Now I know why! Now, put
down that knife and back away sloooowly. :-)


Just hand over the chocolate, and nobody gets hurt!

Sorry - already ate it!

Tine, Denmark