[lug] Colorado 'Super-DMCA' bill impacts on Internet, privacy, security
peter-lists at hutnick.com
Fri Apr 11 11:39:05 MDT 2003
Glenn Ashton said:
> < gentle swat back at Mike>
> "Michael Moore in 2004" for what? Chairman of the Socialist Party? I
> find him entertaining, but he does not let himself be confused by
> facts. </ end gentle swat at Mike>
Since we are already waaay off topic I'll throw my hat in.
I am aching to hear a /rational/ explanation how any /additional/ "gun
laws" could have meaningfully contributed to preventing the mass murder
1. (At least some of) The guns were purchased illegally. It is illegal
to buy a hand gun on behalf a minor in the state of Colorado, just like
it is illegal to buy alcohol for a minor.
2. They were "owned" illegally. One must be 18 to own a handgun in
3. They were "possessed" illegally. One must be 18 to be in
unsupervised possession of a firearm in Colorado.
4. They were carried illegally. One must be a LEO or hold a concealed
carry permit to carry a firearm on school property in Colorado.
5. I'd have to double check the statutes on this, but I'm pretty sure
that shooting people in cold blood is also a crime (Felony?) in this
state. Therefore they were used illegally as well.
The guns were purchased, possessed, owned, carried, and used in an
illegal manor. Anyone who concluded from the analysis of these data
that enacting "gun laws" is likely to be an effective prophylactic
against future events of this nature has a serious disconnect from
What /can/ be concluded from these data is that "gun control laws" have
two effects which run counter to their expressed* purpose: they disarm
those who might legitimately defend themselves from violence with a
firearm, and they have only a minimal impact on those who would do wrong
with firearms. This seems reasonable because BY DEFINITION people with
criminal intent DON'T OBEY LAWS.
Suzanna Gratia (Hupp)'s story is very instructive on this imbalanced
outcome. (Search for "Suzanna Gratia luby's glove compartment or box".)
The JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership,
http://jpfo.org) has an intriguing historical perspective on private
firearms ownership. (No invoking Godwin, please.)
Thanks for tolerating my off-topic post. Consider sending any replies
*Given that these are bright and successful people I can't help but
doubt that their reasoning skills are that weak. The remaining
alternative explanations for the disparity between their expressed
purposes and the results of their efforts are rather distasteful.
More information about the LUG