Subscribe: Daily E-Mail from Patently-O

Almost 20,000 patent practitioners have subscribed to the free daily Patently-O e-mail. Each night, the e-mail software (FeedBurner) collects the most recent blog posts and sends them out to the e-mail list. Some folks like the daily e-mail because it allows them to more easily distribute the most pertinent Patently-O posts to their colleagues and clients. Others prefer the e-mail because it is easier to read on a handheld device and because it helps avoid spending time checking the website for updates and comments.

Privacy: I’m the only one who has access to the e-mail list and I won’t sell it (although I may e-mail you personally if I have a particular question about your practice). I believe that it takes two-clicks to unsubscribe.

Sign-up here. (Once you sign-up, you will receive an e-mail with a link that must be followed in order to confirm the subscription.)

71 thoughts on “Subscribe: Daily E-Mail from Patently-O

  1. 71

    Simple control for debt:
    1)spend less than you take in.

    Difficult application of 1):
    which special interest suffers due to the decreased spending?

  2. 70

    Wow! What a random dialogue to stumble upon. I was interested in how the comments related to receiving a daily e-mail would so voluminous and now I understand they are about guns and control, etc. But where in your discourse is the area of taxing and the legal ways of making money for the government through the additional taxes on weaponry and bullets. Just curious. Here in LA, we call them illegal gangs. Maybe some more legalization and control would help our state debt.

  3. 67

    JAOI, those are all excellent arguments for gun control.

    Yeah, I think we can kill this thread now. I’m done with it.

  4. 66

    Good Morning Hagbard Celine & IANAE,

    I don’t think we should shoot this
    thread in the
    head till it is
    dead Just yet.

    IANAE said to me:
    “So you retract your earlier single simple answer that in every situation ‘they should shoot to kill’”?

    I don’t recall saying that in every situation “they should shoot to kill.”

    For example,
    I don’t advocate shooting if bystanders may be hurt.
    I don’t advocate shooting if you are not in Texas.
    I don’t advocate shooting if you would regret killing the perp.
    I don’t advocate shooting if you are a wouss.
    I don’t advocate shooting if you aren’t a redneck at heart.
    I don’t advocate shooting if you are the Preacher.

    You may recall the lady in the story was physically assaulted; she said:
    “All Of A Sudden I Was Being Spun Around Hard To My Left.”

    I don’t advocate shooting if you are not assaulted.

    Notwithstanding, I do think you should shoot to kill for the common good to reduce the criminal population without increasing the deficit with expensive trials and incarcerations.

  5. 64

    Dead thieves don’t sue.

    Dead old ladies don’t shoot. So, constructive advice for the thief there as well.

  6. 63

    Shooting someone in the leg ensures that they will sue you for everything you now and will ever own for the rest of their miserable lives.

    Warning shots are for 1di0ts. Dead thieves don’t sue.

  7. 62

    “What makes you think there’s a single simple answer to any of this?”

    Exactly!

    So you retract your earlier single simple answer that in every situation “they should shoot to kill”?

  8. 61

    What makes you think there’s a single simple answer to any of this?”

    Exactly!

  9. 60

    What then? Well, does she shoot the guy in the legs or not? Does he start shooting back? Are there any by-standers?

    If the warning shot did its job, didn’t hurt anyione else and the guy dropped the purse and disappeared then that’s probably gonna be the end of it. As soon as someone takes a round then whoever did the shooting has got questions to answer. It might be justified, it might not. If the target was running away already, I would say not. Whether they were killed or merely wounded doesn’t make a difference, except to the charges brought against the shooter.

    Now, where would you draw the line?

    There are centuries of case law about “extenuating circumstances”, “crimes of passion”, “temporary insanity”, “reasonable force” etc. I’m not a criminal lawyer. What makes you think there’s a single simple answer to any of this?

  10. 59

    Please answer the question:

    Suppose the waitress yelled to the running-away thief, “drop my purse or I’ll shoot your legs out from under you – I’m a dead shot?,” and she fired a warning shot (into a tree).

    What then?

  11. 58

    I think people are entitled to protect their property even if it involves shooting a thief running off with a person’s property.

    What about if someone jostles you on a mall escalator but thereafter poses no further threat to you? Is shooting them an appropriate response?

    At what point are you prepared to say “okay, yeah, that person may have wronged you, but putting six bullets in them just might be an overreaction”?

  12. 57

    Suppose the thief was a teenage boy who had been abused by his junkie father from the age of five and who had stolen the purse out of desperation to buy a bus ticket out of town and because he’d been crippled by the gunshot ended up housebound at the mercy of his father for the rest of his miserable life.

    That isn’t a bleeding-heart hypothetical. My wife’s a high-school teacher. She works in a small rural town that used to be a coal-mining community before all the pits got closed down. Unemployment is high there. A lot of the kids she teaches have parents who are unemployed, alcoholics, drug-abusers. There’s a lot of petty crime and violence. She’s a student counsellor as well as a classroom teacher, and liaises with social services regarding her students’ problems. Some of the stories I’ve heard from her would break your heart.

  13. 56

    Warning shots are for liberal Hollywood m0r0ns who know nothing about guns. If you a prepared to brandish, you better be prepared to kill.

  14. 55

    Okay, okay.
    However, I do not agree; I think people are entitled to protect their property even if it involves shooting a thief running off with a person’s property.

    How about this:
    Suppose the waitress yelled to the running-away thief, “drop my purse or I’ll shoot your legs out from under you – I’m a dead shot?,” and she fired a warning shot (into a tree).

    What then?

  15. 54

    I don’t believe there is any civilised society in the world today that would condone an uninjured victim of a theft shooting dead the thief while they were running away.

    I agree. And yet, it’s plausible that they might do so in Texas.

    Suppose the waitress yelled to the running-away thief, “drop my purse or I’ll shoot you dead?,” and she fired a warning shot in the air.

    Death threats, discharging a firearm in a public place… I guess it’s better than murder, but if she does shoot and kill him after that speech she can kiss manslaughter goodbye. Also, he’d probably know he could get far enough away (or around a corner) by the time she decides he hasn’t dropped the purse.

  16. 53

    She should hope that he dropped the purse and if not, she should go to a payphone and call the cops. (She should also hope that the bullet she fired into the air doesn’t come down on anybody’s head.)

    What’s the distinction you’re trying to draw here? That if all the money she had in the world was in the purse that it’s ok to kill someone who is no longer posing a threat to her? If so, what if her paycheck and tips were in the purse but she had no kids and $10000 stuffed in her mattress at home? What if he only took her sandwich at Wendy’s? Is it cool for her to kill him as long as she says “drop the sandwich or I’ll shoot you in the face like an invited guest at Dick Cheney’s ranch” and then fires a warning shot into his Biggie Size drink?

  17. 51

    Good Morning Hagbard Celine & Divine Justice,

    Suppose the waitress yelled to the running-away thief, “drop my purse or I’ll shoot you dead?,” and she fired a warning shot in the air.

    What then?

  18. 50

    I’m with Hagbard. JAOI, it’s ok for you to shoot a thief in the face for trying to take your purse up to the point where they’re fleeing, under the pretense that said thief may be intending rape and/or murder of one of you or your imaginary rabbit. That being said, I do not particularly advocate that those with imaginary friends be permitted to possess firearms.

  19. 49

    JAOI

    I’m genuinely interested in your point of view here, but we need to get one thing straight:
    Having the right to have a gun is one thing. What you are legally allowed to do with it is another.
    I accept that it is not unreasonable for a civilised society to choose to allow its citizens a large degree of freedom about gun ownership.
    I don’t accept that it is reasonable for a civilised society to allow its citizens to shoot anyone who has committed ANY criminal act against them, but I do accept that the victim of a crime is legally entitled to DEFEND themselves – up to and including the use of lethal force IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
    I don’t believe there is any civilised society in the world today that would condone an uninjured victim of a theft shooting dead the thief while they were running away.
    The difficult question is where the line is drawn, and I’m sure you’re aware that the legal systems of the US and elsewhere have had to make some tough calls on that question.
    If there is any point to this discussion, it’s about where that line is drawn.

  20. 48

    For sure Max, different people have different ideas about what constitutes fun.

    I always find it interesting/fun to discuss god, politics etc., and sometimes it’s better done from a safe distance!
    (especially if one or more participants might be exercising their right to carry a concealed firearm)

  21. 45

    Above, Lonnie E. Holder said “There is no Houston Herald.”

    No Houston Herald in Houston, TX.

    Don’t bother to get your facts straight, that would take way longer than randomly disagreeing with people on the internet.

  22. 43

    Criminals will get guns by whatever means necessary.

    Some of them will, to be sure. A sufficiently dedicated criminal will always find a way.

    The thing is, guns are so easily available that even the casual criminal can get a hold of them. The criminal with no real ambition, who would probably not bother shooting up his high school or whatever if it was too much trouble.

    Same goes for drugs. People will always find a way to get them, right? But we still restrict their sale based on how dangerous we think they are in the wrong hands.

    Same reason people get house or car alarms. A knowledgeable criminal can disable one in seconds, but they’re an effective deterrent against the random person who has a fleeting desire to commit a crime (as many of us frequently do) but finds himself without an effortless and immediate way to carry it out.

    The underlying problem in America is that there is no longer a culture of respecting other people’s hard-earned property, or a work ethic to amass one’s own. Civilization goes a lot farther than guns in preventing crime. It’s probably worth a try, if the gun thing doesn’t pan out.

    IANAE said “tonne.” I wonder if he is a Brit…

    Nope. Tonnes are bigger than tons, though. Just FYI.

  23. 41

    Don’t get me wrong, I think IANAE doesn’t get it. Criminals will get guns by whatever means necessary. There is simply no way to limit criminal’s access to guns – that’s why they call them criminals. Limiting law abiding citizens’ access to guns creates a pool of unarmed victims.

    If your alarm system goes off at 3AM because someone is coming into your house. You better hope that you have some means of defense, because if they are coming in past the alarm system, I guarantee they aren’t there to pour you a cup of cammomile tea and help you slip into your Birkenstocks.

  24. 40

    If someone was beating my mom up to get at her purse, I would say “shoot momma shoot.” Because you never know what someone’s intentions are.

    If someone snuck up behind my mom, stole the purse off of her shoulder without insult or injury, then ran off I would say “call your credit card company momma and the DMV and thank God that you weren’t hurt and that you still have your gun, bullets and all”

  25. 38

    Welcome to America, where certain people are all too happy to hijack any discussion on any topic so they can repeat somebody else’s uninformed opinion about guns.

    It’s not like there was a tonne of patent discussion in this thread to begin with, but I wouldn’t mind pointing it back in that general direction.

  26. 37

    Hagbard, I concede, sparring for light relief is good sport. And I have written that I’m here also for fun. Politics and religion though, G0d and guns. They can arouse strong feelings, which don’t sit easily with having fun.

  27. 36

    Max

    You’ve go a point – but the problem is the nonsense that goes on in the “substantive threads”. I’ve almost given up on them myself. I don’t see any problem discussing other stuff in a backwater like this, with people that I “know” and have no other way of communicating with. In fact this is a more satisfying dialog than many.

  28. 35

    “Then again, my mother has better perspective than that. She wouldn’t have resorted to such drastic measures upon realizing that she was still holding the single most expensive item in her stolen purse.”

    I have a new hero! Many thanks, IANAE, for returning intelligent and witty commentary to these boards.

  29. 34

    Thanks Hagbard for asking. Here goes:

    Some very sharp US patent attorneys of my acquaintance studiously read Dennis but ignore the threads, they tell me, because they are so full of rubbish.

    I would prefer that these sharp minds participate in the threads. But now the email feed is pushed, I suspect they will be even less likely to participate.

    I fear that the bad will increasingly drive out the good, and I regret it.

  30. 33

    Dear IANAE,
    cc: Dear Hagbard Celine,

    Re:
    “… if the government came to round you up as you apparently fear ….”

    No, your assumption is your concern, not mine.

    Please read a reprint from above:
    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
    new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
    own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
    million dollars. The first year results are now in:
    List of 7 items:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3..2 percent.
    Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
    percent.. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
    criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
    armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
    past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
    unarmed.
    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
    ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
    safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
    expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
    Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
    disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
    gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens
    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
    of this history lesson.
    With guns, we are ‘citizens.’

    Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
    most Americans were ARMED!

    If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
    to all of your friends.
    The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
    defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
    important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
    supplemental.

    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

    SWITZERLAND ‘S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
    CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

    IT’S A NO BRAINER!

    DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
    I’m a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!

    If you are too, please forward.
    Just think how powerful our government is getting!

    They think these other countries just didn’t do it right.

    Learn from history.

  31. 31

    “Honest citizens”, “law-abiding citizens”…

    As soon as you have an incident with no witnesses other than the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim, you cannot know for sure who is honest and law-abiding and who isn’t. Surely you can see that?

  32. 30

    Dear IANAE,

    I am reluctant to say that I believe you, my friend, have at least one personality disorder.
    Your assumptions and thinking are askew.

    Perhaps a sedative, or a couple cocktails, would help, or maybe take two aspirinas and get a good nights sleep. You’ll thank me in the morning.

    Believe it or not, I am a staunch individualist, and I have a magnificent pair.

  33. 29

    Max

    It might not be exactly on topic, but the existence and nature of IP rights and policies is part of the big picture of civilised society. Personally I think it’s quite interesting to hear the views of regular contributors on broader issues, and this discussion isn’t exactly getting in the way of any other debate on this partcular thread (or do you have a point you want to make about Patently-O email subscriptions?)

  34. 28

    If the waitress in the story shot the thief in the legs, it would have cost society a lot of money for a trial and incarceration. And, after he served his sentence, the thief, in all likelihood, would have harmed more honest citizens.

    You’re in favour of pre-trial capital punishment for minor crimes?

    I’d lock up the crazy gun-wielding lady who fires six shots on a public street first. She’s clearly more dangerous than an apparently-unarmed petty thief.

    If most law abiding citizens were armed…

    If it were harder for criminals to get guns…

    Handguns, in my opinion, are the best way to economically and effectively reduce the criminal population.

    Handguns have been a great boon to the criminal population. Also, if the government came to round you up as you apparently fear, and you defended yourself with your handgun, you would then be part of the criminal population.

    But still, yay for vigilante justice. Right?

  35. 27

    Dear Hagbard Celine,

    Again, I respect your opinion, but I don’t agree.

    I believe honest citizens should be armed and trained to be cautious and proficient with their concealed handguns, and if they are attacked, mugged or otherwise stolen from, they should shoot to kill.

    If the waitress in the story shot the thief in the legs, it would have cost society a lot of money for a trial and incarceration. And, after he served his sentence, the thief, in all likelihood, would have harmed more honest citizens.

    If most law abiding citizens were armed like the waitress in the story, there would be far, far fewer such thieves – that’s the greater good, the bigger picture.

    Handguns, in my opinion, are the best way to economically and effectively reduce the criminal population.

  36. 26

    Dennis is there nothing you can do, to prevent this pollution fouling up what used to be a better forum for discussion of patent law.

    Those who want to talk about matters other than patent law have plenty of options elsewhere. With sadness, I see that they simply cannot restrain themselves from spewing their unpalatable views up onto this particular site as well. I conclude that it’s pointless to urge them to stop.

    My solution (nothing original, I know): Readers, confine the pollution to the irreducible minimum. Simply do not rise to the bait.

  37. 25

    Another part of the price of civilisation is looking after the victims of crime, as well as dealing with the perpetrators in a civilised manner.

    If you want to live in perfect freedom then you are an anarchist, by definition, and that’s fine. But you have to accept the consequences: survival of the fittest. And that’s fine too, unless the majority decides that they’d rather sacrifice some freedoms for the sake of a degree of safety and security.

  38. 24

    JAOI, what point exactly are you so adamantly trying to support with this story we all know is made up? And how does it help to make it about everybody’s mother?

    All you’re doing is parroting what you’ve been told to believe, based on anecdotes that you know are false. You think you can get reasonable people to agree with you by repeating the lies you hear and trying to make every anecdote personal.

    You need to grow a pair and form your own opinions. As long as you’re only following orders, I don’t trust you with a gun no matter how many of your purses get stolen.

  39. 23

    Dear IANAE,

    Re:
    “I don’t think I’d be so proud if my mother committed murder over the modest contents of her purse.”

    Still, no straight answer.

    Excerpts from the story:
    “I Am A Waitress At A Local Cafe…
    I Was There Alone, So I Had My Right Hand On My Pistol, That Was In My Purse, That Was Hung Over My Left Shoulder.
    All Of A Sudden I Was Being Spun Around Hard To My Left.
    As I Caught My Balance, I Saw A Man Running Away From Me With My Purse.
    I Looked Down At My Right Hand And I Saw That My Fingers Were Wrapped Tightly Around My Pistol.
    The Next Thing I Remember Is Saying Out Loud,
    “No Way Punk! Your Not Stealing My Pay Check And Tips.””
    (emp. added)

    Maybe your mom didn’t need her waitressing pay check and tips to feed herself and family and otherwise survive.

  40. 22

    JAOI

    Civilisation has a price. Not allowing everyone to take justice into their own hands has price, but it has been a cornerstone of all civilisations for a number of excellent reasons.

    “All property is theft” – you don’t have to be a Marxist (I’m not) to recognise that this idea is prompted by some very interesting questions, not least the interplay between individual freedom and private property rights – especially when it comes to real estate. Ask the native Americans. Ask the native Scottish Highlanders for that matter.

    See, it’s easy to point to some heinous crime and conclude that if the victim had had a gun it would all have been so different. But that misses a much bigger picture.

  41. 21

    I don’t think I’d be so proud if my mother committed murder over the modest contents of her purse.

    I would, however, be mighty impressed that she had her right hand around a gun inside a purse over her left shoulder, and yet she managed to maintain her grip on that gun while the purse was forcibly removed from her person.

    Then again, my mother has better perspective than that. She wouldn’t have resorted to such drastic measures upon realizing that she was still holding the single most expensive item in her stolen purse.

  42. 20

    Dear IANAE,

    I guess there is no way to get a straight answer out of you.

    I’ll ask you the same question I asked Preacher:
    If my Mom were alive today, and if, while she was being robbed, she took out her revolver and shot the dman ddue daed, I’d be prouder that a peacock.

    Suppose your mother did that – would you not feel proud?

  43. 19

    Dear Preacher,

    Well, you are a Preacher – maybe Preachers shouldn’t carry.

    I the old days, stealing a man’s horse was a hanging offense. Stealing a purse ain’t no better.

    If my Mom were alive today, and if, while she was being robbed, she took out her revolver and shot the dman ddue daed, I’d be prouder that a peacock.

    Suppose your mother did that – would you not feel proud?

  44. 18

    Where do you stand on Second Amendment rights?
    Would you abridge my Constitutional rights?

    You’re not ready to hear my opinions, until you’ve formed your own.

    Come back with a well-reasoned, considered opinion that you’ve thought critically about. Then I’ll be happy to further clutter your mind with my own views.

    In partial answer to your questions, I would not generally deny my countrymen any of their constitutional rights, but I don’t think people who blindly follow other people’s views can be trusted with guns. Those are the only people who were allowed to have guns in Nazi Germany, and you know from your original post how that situation turned out.

  45. 17

    I don’t countenance shooting a man in the back when all he did was steal your purse and now he is running away. Heck, that isn’t even a felony. In many jurisdictions, granny would be facing (and probably be convicted of) manslaughter charges.

    I do however consider the story a good example of gun control in that, she hit what she was aiming at.

  46. 16

    Dear IANAE,

    Okay, I’ll, repeat my questions:

    Where do you stand on Second Amendment rights?
    Would you abridge my Constitutional rights?

  47. 15

    Dear Hagbard Celine,

    I respect your opinion, but I don’t agree.

    I believe honest citizens should be armed and trained to be cautious and proficient with their concealed handguns, and if they are attacked, mugged or otherwise stolen from, they should shoot to kill.

    That, in my opinion, is the best way to economically and effectively reduce the criminal population.

    Do you have any idea what the percentage of our population is incarcerated?, and how much that costs our country?

  48. 14

    Hey, lighten up…your paranoia is showing

    I guess that that statement of yours suits you to a tee.

    Isn’t it a bit early in the debate to be citing the precedent of Rubber v. Glue?

    Come on, post something of substance. Maybe even an opinion you formed all by yourself. Then you can do all the name-calling and rhetorical-question-asking you want.

  49. 13

    Dear IANAE,

    Hey, lighten up…your paranoia is showing

    Re:
    “My hypothesis is that Second Amendment advocates are disproportionately uninformed, intellectually dishonest, and paranoid.”

    With all do respect, I guess that that statement of yours suits you to a tee.

    You obviously have something going on in your head but you often fail to express it coherently.

    Where do you stand on Second Amendment rights?
    Would you abridge my Constitutional rights?

  50. 12

    “Dear Hagbard Celine,

    Controversial Question:
    Are you of the opinion that people are not allowed to protect their property from theft by shooting the thief in the back?”

    JAOI, I’m very strongly of the opinion that people are not allowed to protect their property from theft by shooting the thief in the back.

    Theft of property is not punishable by death, even after due process.

  51. 11

    Just what is your hypothesis

    My hypothesis is that Second Amendment advocates are disproportionately uninformed, intellectually dishonest, and paranoid.

    You relay anecdotes even though you don’t know or care that they’re true, because they support your point. You post a wall of text on your own behalf but refuse to try to understand three sentences that would challenge your beliefs.

    Switzerland is suddenly your best friend because they let people have guns, but you’ll quickly turn on them when it comes to foreign policy or health care.

    You claim gun control as a “cause” of all those people getting rounded up. It’s pretty obvious to even the simplest mind that it’s a common-cause situation, like the link between wearing skirts and breast cancer.

    You insist that you need guns to protect yourself from the government. Guns will never protect you from the government, no matter how many you have. The government has more, and they’re bigger. The same government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on a whim, and those people have plenty of guns to defend themselves.

    Also, note that Canada does not have a right to bear arms, Canada has a tenth of the violent crime per capita that the US has, and the Canadian government isn’t rounding up its citizens en masse and sending them to the slightly-colder northlands.

    Your move.

  52. 7

    I’m a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!, but I don’t vouch for the accuracy of the stories below

    It’s scary how often you see both of those traits in the same person.

    Makes you wonder whether there’s a connection between the insistence on gun ownership and the US lagging behind every civilized country in education.

    In unrelated news, how many guns do you think you’d need to effectively defend yourself if, hypothetically, the US military came to round you up?

  53. 6

    Dear Just Visiting,

    I read the sad Yoshihiro Hattori tale; I shed tears, and I have great empathy for him and his family, and for the Peairs family who have to live with their guilt.

    Stuff happens, and there is nothing that can undo such stuff.

    * * * * *

    Dear Hagbard Celine,

    Controversial Question:
    Are you of the opinion that people are not allowed to protect their property from theft by shooting the thief in the back?

    * * * * *

    Dear Lonnie E. Holder,

    But it is a “telling” story. I hope you like these stories.

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

    I’m a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!, but I don’t vouch for the accuracy of the stories below

    After reading the following historical facts, read the part
    about Switzerland twice.

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953,
    about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
    up and exterminated.

    ——————————

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
    Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    ——————————

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
    of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
    rounded up and exterminated.

    ——————————
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
    political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated

    ——————————

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
    Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    ——————————

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
    Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated

    ——————————

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
    educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    —————————–

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
    because of gun control: 56 million.

    ——————————

    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
    new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
    own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
    million dollars. The first year results are now in:

    List of 7 items:

    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3..2 percent.

    Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
    percent.. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
    criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
    armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
    past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
    unarmed.

    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
    ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
    safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
    expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
    Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
    disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
    gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
    of this history lesson.

    With guns, we are ‘citizens.’

    Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
    most Americans were ARMED!

    If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
    to all of your friends.

    The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
    defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
    important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
    supplemental.

    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

    SWITZERLAND ‘S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
    CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

    IT’S A NO BRAINER!

    DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

    I’m a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!

    If you are too, please forward.

    Just think how powerful our government is getting!

    They think these other countries just didn’t do it right.

    Learn from history.

  54. 5

    Had me going… I was almost ready to believe that in Texas it’s legal for a citizen to shoot dead a person that’s running away from them, if the victim “plainly deserved it”.

  55. 4

    Wait, an urban myth? Really?

    You mean real newspapers don’t capitalize every word in an article, and use quality proofreading like “Your Not Stealing My Pay Check”?

    My worldview is shattered.

  56. 3

    Spam is everywhere:

    A quick check with my favorite “urban myth” site, Snopes, and the result is (what a surprise) that this story is just that, a story. There is no “Houston Herald.”

    link to snopes.com

  57. 2

    JAOI,

    If you want a real “gun control” story, compare your Texas tale to the story of Yoshihiro Hattori.

  58. 1

    My kind of gun control.
    She Shot Him 6 Times!

    TRUE STORY FROM…

    “THE HOUSTON HERALD NEWSPAPER”

    IN HOUSTON , TEXAS, MARCH 5th, 2009
    ~
    Last Thursday Night Around Midnight, A Woman From Houston, Texas Was Arrested, Jailed, And Charged With Manslaughter For Shooting A Man 6 Times In The Back As He Was Running Away With Her Purse.

    The Following Monday Morning, The Woman Was Called In Front Of The Arraignment Judge, Sworn In, And Asked To Explain Her Actions.

    The Woman Replied, “I Was Standing At The Corner Bus Stop For About 15 Minutes, Waiting For The Bus To Take Me Home After Work.

    I Am A Waitress At A Local Cafe…
    I Was There Alone, So I Had My Right Hand On My Pistol, That Was In My Purse, That Was Hung Over My Left Shoulder.

    All Of A Sudden I Was Being Spun Around Hard To My Left.

    As I Caught My Balance, I Saw A Man Running Away From Me With My Purse.

    I Looked Down At My Right Hand And I Saw That My Fingers Were Wrapped Tightly Around My Pistol.

    The Next Thing I Remember Is Saying Out Loud,
    “No Way Punk! Your Not Stealing My Pay Check And Tips.”

    I Raised My Right Hand, Pointed My Pistol At The Man Running Away From Me With My Purse, And Squeezed The Trigger Of My Pistol 6 Times!

    When Asked By The Arraignment Judge,
    “Why Did You Shoot The Man 6 Times?

    The Woman Replied Under Oath,

    “Because, When I Pulled The Trigger The 7th Time, It Only Went Click.”

    The Woman Was Acquitted Of All Charges. She Was Back At Work, At The Cafe, The Next Day!

    Now that’s Gun Control….

    AMEN

    * * * * *

    I wish I had invented this safer revolver:

    link to 1201tuesday.com

    I’d have bet it was invented in the great state of Texas, but no, it was a New Yorker!

Comments are closed.