Heidi Graw wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >news:1106080614.265175.142150{at}f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Heidi Graw wrote:
[...]

> > >Heidi asks:
> >> Can we expect an old-fashioned Western shoot-out in the streets?
>
> >greg wrote:
> > Between you and the police, perhaps.
>
> I was responding to "remarksman" and his comment ...
>
> "publicity stunts over here, especially those involving attempts to
>  undercut the corporate/military/matriarchal infrastructure, may
>  well result in lots-o-blood"
>
> I was just pointing out that in the USA *millions* of women own guns.
Men
> do too.  It's not unheard of in the USA to "pop-off" anyone whose
ideas one
> disagrees with.

Have you evidence to show that gun control reduces gun violence?  At
what rate to political disagreements turn fatal?

[...]

> If F4J ties up traffic in DC, spiderman could end up blood soaked on
the
> pavement.  The sniper may not necessarily be a woman either.  Road
rage is
> quite common and people keep weapons in their cars.

Oh, now there's a likely scenario.  The police block off a road because
someone's on a crane, and someone is going to fire on him while in
direct view of the police who staff the road block?  How's he going to
get away?  The road's blocked.

Never turn to a life of crime.  You'll never last.

> > F4J doesn't have to create mayhem.  Others create mayhem in
response to
> > F4J, which is the beauty of their organization.  All Spiderman did
was
> > climb a frigging crane, and all London went berzerk.
>
> But Londoners don't carry guns.  Washington, DC folks *do.*  Piss off
the
> general public and someone could end up hurt.  Every once in a while
a
> sniper or two will pop-off people just for sport.

Have you evidence to show that gun control reduces gun violence?

To the contrary, the law applies to law-abiding citizens, so one who
has a legal gun isn't likely to shoot someone in a fit of road rage,
although it happens once in a blue moon, in this country of 260
million.

The Americans who misuse guns are the same as the Brits who misuse
guns, which is to say the criminals.  A problem would be more likely if
someone climbed a building that was on a gang turf, but if F4J can
avoid England's criminal element, they can avoid ours too.

> So, before F4J does any publicity stunts, they might want to do a
risk
> assessment first.  By and large the public is *armed* with deadly
weapons.

Do you suggest that the majority of Americans are armed?  I hope not.
Yes, we can buy weapons, but we don't have to.

> And if 11 to 17 *million* women are carrying guns, just imagine how
many
> *men* do.

17 million women?  Let's explore that.  Looking at this in context, I
can reasonably assume you mean American women.  Take our population of
260 million.  Assume half are women, and 2/3rds of those are old enough
to buy guns.  This leaves roughly 86 million potential female gun
buyers.  If your claim is true, then one in five women is _carrying_ a
gun.  That just doesn't seem likely, but I'll believe it if you can
prove it.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/19/05 2:34:36 PM ---