MicroBalrog vs. Tom Mauser: The Battle Rages On

[HABU]

I wonder if Tom has ever considered changing his last name. It just sounds evil!

 

[Justin]

Don't even bother talking with Mauser. He's such an off-balance nutcase that the Brady organization asked him to scram.

 

[El Tejon]

Justin is right. The man endangered his child by putting him in a public school in an area where the Death Culture is firmly in control. He now projects the guilt he feels to inert mechanical devices.

He needs help.

 

[Justin]

not one to rain on someones parade but wouldnt this be better done on one thread and stickified (if the mods concur), or inviting Mauser to THR?

If the guy weren't an overly-vitriolic borderline psychopath, I'd have no problem inviting him here to debate.

As it is, he takes everything personally and feels that he has to retaliate in kind. Given that we don't tolerate personal attacks here at THR I'd suspect that he'd get banned toot sweet.

Please note that we have had curious antis post here before, and so long as they adhered to the rules of conduct they were allowed to post questions, arguments, and comments.

I agree that it's much better to simply take a fence-sitter to the range and introduce them to the basics of shooting than it is to try and convince this guy.

 

[Art Eatman]

MicroBalrog: According to numbers published after both the 1990 and the 2000 Census, some two-thirds of all blacks in the U.S. are middle-class or better insofar as incomes.

There are more whites in poverty/squalor than there are blacks.

Art

 

[Russ]

Mauser needs to take a couple Valiums, wash them down with a beer and calm down for a few minutes. Sad to see this guy still trying to make a living off of his son's death.

 

[MicroBalrog]

There are more whites in poverty/squalor than there are blacks.

In absolute numbers, I presume?

 

[Orthonym]

Tamara, only a gal could get away with that language, these days!

We guys have to act nice, dontcha know.

That said, when it comes to Mausers, I prefer Peter Paul to Tom.

 

[Orthonym]

Tamara, did you delete the post I answered,

before my answer showed up? Sorta ruins the continuity.

 

[semf]

Well he replied to my e-mail. This guy is a nasty someboby ain't he.

Mr. Semf,

I checked my email on Thanksgiving morning and saw your message. My first thought was, "Does he have nothing better to do than this on Thanksgiving?" I certainly did--my family. I checked my email hoping to get comforting messages from family, friends or visitors to our web site. After all, holidays without our son are tough days for us. Then to get a message like yours. Now that I have a moment, I'm getting back to your message, but I won't have much to satisfy you.

Ya see, you didn't really give me much of a reason to respond. Don't you think I've already been getting email and phone calls from pro gun types for the past 4 years? Most have no intention of having an intelligent, logical discussion of an issue. They just insult me and spew out worn out cliches and ignore the real facts, like our shameful American gun death toll.

Why should I think you are any different, Mr. Semf? No, your email wasn't nasty or insulting, like many others. I appreciate that. But, that's how some others start. I send my reasoned response to their question, then they turn to name calling and ridiculous statements. (For examples of the crap I have received over the past four years, link to www.DanielMauser.com/hatemail.html.

While your email was not nasty, you did already say you "did not agree with" most of my arguments. More important, your email gave no salutation, offered no condolences, and said nothing about my son even though you visited the web site. That tells me something about you. And it's not positive.

So, there is little reason to offer more than a cursory response, much of it cut & paste from responses to others. Briefly stated, please note that the crime rate has been going down in this country, as it has in other nations, with the changing demographics and improving economy of the 1990s. To say that's all because of CCW is faulty and ludicrous. So much of CCW's glorification comes from John Lott, who has been discredited and has even admitted to 'losing' some of his data. Why do you think he's left academia and sought safe refuge in a conservative think tank?!? From a societal and Christian standpoint, I think it's awful we've reached such a sad state, where ! we've become so awash in guns that people feel the solution is even more guns.

I could offer much more but why? I spend little time answering the questions of people whose minds are made up and only wish to badger me. We'll just have to agree to disagree and then seek out the support of the rest of the population. My goal is to invest my time on the many millions of Americans who are in the middle on gun issues. They will decide these issues, not those of us on the two opposite ends. And I'm convinced that over time they will come to my side of the issue, like they did in Colorado when 70% of the voters approved Amendment 22, closing the gun show loophole.

Tom Mauser




I wrote:

I have just visited your site and reviewed your counters to pro gun arguments, most of which I did not agree with. However I would like to know your argument against the fact that in states where concealed carry is legal and where gun restrictions are more tolerant towards gun owners crime rates are going down. There are many examples of this.
In the case of your son's death, The same scenario stared to unfold in Pearl Mississippi, until the principle retrieved his own gun to end the encounter. I have to wonder how the Columbine incident would have played out if a responsible adult had immediate access to a firearm.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

 

[BluesBear]

I think some words of wisdom from a fellow THR member are appropriate here.

It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do.

While I am sorry for Mr. Mauser's loss, I am even more sorrowful for his misguided passions since. He is so consumed by his anger that he has cloaked himself with a mantle of self-righteousness that no logic can penetrate

I fear he is a lost cause.

 

[semf]

I don't know why but I responded to his response but I'm done with him now. While not a total fence sitter I do have some reservations on the issues of gun ownership in America. If I were a true and total fence sitter a response like that would have at least leaned me to where I am now. This guy probably does more harm to his position than I can do good for mine. Anytime a fanatis meets with an agnostic(for want of a better word)You usually get a fanatic and somebody leanig as far from that guy's position as possible. We have our share of fanatics here which also turn me off but they are usually balanced by the reasonable members.
Here is my rebuttal to his response for what it's worth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first place Mr. Mauser I did not send the e-mail on Thanksgiving I sent it the day before during normal business hours I am not responsible for when you choose to open it.
Secondly I was not contacting you in regards to your relationship to a Columbine victim. I was contacting you in regards to your position as an officer in a gun control advocacy group. I was sent to one part of your site not the entire site.
As you yourself noted I did not spew insults. Why would you think that I would resort to name calling. I contacted you to get an answer to a real question, that you must believe you are qualified to answer given your position. If your response to my query is any indication it is easy to see why people end up not liking you. I feel you have attacked me for no reason, All this tells me alot about you which is not positive.
I asked an intelligent question and gave reasons for my position you responded with accusations and personal attacks. And by the way I'm not at all sure where I stand on the gun control issue in total. But unlike you I am willing to look at both sides of the issues and be educated by people more knowledgeable about the issues than I. Also I should mention that my wife suffered tragedy even more grievous than yours and she is more pro-gun than I. I'm one of those fence sitters that you claim to be aiming at, She firmly believes now that someone with good intentions and a gun could have saved her and her family from their fate. That is where the question about a responsible adult with a gun at Columbine came from, not some cut and paste as you allude to.
I will still seek answers to my questions, but not from somebody as apparently self righteous as you

 

[jimpeel]

Well, I couldn't resist so I entered the fray.

Here is my letter to Mauser:

In recent communiqués to persons who frequent discussion boards, you have touted the benefits of loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects as sensible gun safety measures.

In Dix v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. http://www.nrawinningteam.com/beretta.html the plaintiffs argued that had there been a "loaded chamber indicator" on the weapon that killed this boy, the tragedy would have been averted. It was their argument that, but for the lack of this simple device, the boy would be alive today.

As it turned out, the weapon that was recklessly pointed at Kenzo Dix and fired, killing him nearly instantly, had such a device. This was pointed out in court.

Dix lost the case and was ordered to pay Beretta U.S.A. Corp. the costs of their defense. http://www.nrawinningteam.com/beretta2.html

So having these devices will still not keep the families of those killed by the reckless actions of another -- like ignoring the loaded chamber indicator -- from suing manufacturers which have no part in the misuse of their products. Anti-firearms agendists like BCPHV&MMM, SAFE Colorado, et al will still back these specious lawsuits just as they did in Dix v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

There are those who believe that the goal of the anti-firearms genre is to drive up the cost of firearms through the addition of these devices. I do not believe that this is true. It is my belief that there is nothing in the agenda of the anti-firearms genre to make firearms harder to manufacture or bankrupt them with R&D costs. The agenda is to legislate defects into firearms so they can be declared unsafe, or defective, in court.

The courts have never found firearms to be inherently unsafe as a consumer product when used in the manner prescribed. This is a ploy on the part of the anti-firearms agendists to build those defects in so they can bankrupt the manufacturers through non-stop litigation for provably defective products. It is my belief, in my heart of hearts, that the true aim of having manufacturers install these devices is to sue them into bankruptcy when those devices fail; even though those who will aid in those lawsuits, such as BCPHV&MMM and SAFE Colorado, are the ones who demanded their installation in the first place.

The same with “smart gun†technology. I believe that this is another ploy, a Trojan Horse as it were, by the anti-firearms genre to build into firearms those defects that have never been inherent to firearms and have never been found to exist by the courts.

As an example of how the law of unintended consequences, caused by the demands of groups such as yours, is having a negative effect; observe the following:

The police in California are now fearful of lawsuits by “victims†families who they are forced to shoot due to their aberrant acts. The new laws, which were touted by groups similar to your own, have declared certain firearms “unsafe†if they do not pass certain test criteria. The firearm that many, if not most, police officers use is the Glock line of firearms. In California, the Glock fails to pass the state, and anti-firearms groups, mandated tests due to the lack of certain criteria. As a result, the Glock line of firearms has been declared “unsafe†by the State of California.

Now, the police will have to defend in court why they shot the “victim†with, what has been declared by the State of California as, an unsafe firearm. This is the result of feel good legislation that will backfire on the very people the anti-firearms groups contend they are out to protect.

While I know that you very likely have the best of intentions in your quest; it must also be noted that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions such as yours -- as the above example illustrates.

I grieve for the loss of those who died at Columbine. I was living in Massachusetts at the time and placed a long-distance call to the Littleton PD. I told them that as there was likely a large boiler for the heating system under or adjacent to the school that they should check it to make sure the two perpetrators had not gimmicked it. If they had, they could have flattened the school and killed half of those residing within. It is interesting the damage one can do with a piece of wire and a pipe plug. Thank God these two were not that industrious.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel

 

[semf]

At first I thought every body was out of line criticizing Mr Mauser for using his son's name and accusing him of playing on his death, But after his last e-mail to me it is plain that he is nothing more than an attention hound.
He is still complaining aboutme not acknowledging "who he is". Even after I told him that I was interested in his opinion as a guncontrol advocate and not his status as the father of a victim in reteospect I guess I should have addressed him as Mr. Daniels Dad.
This guy does more harm to his cause than good. If you are not completely on his side then he is against you. I cannot tolerate fanatics for any cause.
I should post his final e-mailed reply but in all fairness i cannot post my response because I slipped a little of the high road, so I should not post his

 

[N3rday]

What weapon was his son shot with?

I am willing to bet it was aquired illegally. One of the Columbine kids was running around with a Tec 9, pretty sure that was illegally aquired!

 

[BluesBear]

on page 2 Mad Man said:
Since Klebold, not Harris, was using the Tec-DC9, Mauser must have been shot by Harris' Hi-Point carbine.

It really doesn't matter how they were aquired. Even though they were all technically illegally aquired. But HOW they used them.


When I was younger my very first revolver was a Colt 1917 in .45acp. It was purchased THROUGH THE MAIL!

Many of my friends had guns. We NEVER thought for one minute about taking them to school and shooting anyone.

When I was a freshman and we were studying WWII I asked permission to take my father's 7.65mm JP Sauer 38H that he had "liberated" from a German Officer to school for "show and tell". My parents thought it would be a good idea to ask the school how it should be done. The principal said I could bring it to school on two conditions. That the ammunition be kept separate and that I had the WEAR it at all times it was in the school building. So that's what I did. The empty magazine was in the pistol. The magazine loaded with the steel cased 1944dated ammo was carried in the magazine pouch on the holster.

One classmate brought a .303 British Enfield, and another brought an M1 Carbine, but they were allowed to store them in their lockers since they were bigger.

 

[jimpeel]

Well, I got a "reply" if that's what you can call it.

His reply:

You said, "In recent communiqués to persons who frequent discussion boards, you have touted the benefits of loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects as sensible gun safety measures." Sure, without my knowledge. A Boris Karpa posted a letter I sent in response to him. And now I'm getting all these messages. Gee how nice of him...

To which I responded:

Regardless of Mr Karpa's issue with you, are you going to address my issues? I raise valid points of discussion and get a "You are bothering me" response.

If you are going to set yourself up as a pillar of the anti-firearms movement, you should expect to debate the issue when presented.

I contend that the anti-firearms movement seeks to install into firearms the defective components that will allow them to sue the manufacturers when those components fail. You have not contested that contention.

If you want to discuss the issue, I am available. If not, please do not suffer yourself any further reply and I will understand.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel

 

[MicroBalrog]

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Mauser
To: Boris Karpa
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: WHAT?


When you pointedly asked me to respond to your email of a weeks ago, you NEVER said you were going to post it on a discussion board. Why did you not do so? HAve you no consideration? I'm now getting unwelcome email from a number of people. Do you not think I already get emails from those who oppose? Why would I want more? Why would I want more badgering?

I don't appreciate what you have done. Perhaps I should mention your deeds (and email address) on my son's web site?

Tom Mauser



_____________________________________________




Dear Sir!
I did not expect that you would have any opposition to this whatsoever. I'm terribly sorry. I do, however, encourage distribution of my e-mails - as long as they are published in they entirety. You will noticed that I published yours without any alteration and have not taken any quotes out of context. My e-mail address is [email protected] . I am not afraid, and if anybody chooses to e-mail me, I will address any and all of their points just like I addressed all of yours ( and you never addressed mine). I don't have anything to be ashamed of or afraid of.
Sincerely Yours, Boris Karpa
P.S. I would also appreciate that you include a link to http://www.a-human-right.com.introduction.html with my e-mails.

 

[Obiwan]

He calls any discourse that doesn't support his position badgering???

If he doesn't want to be "badgered" he should try MOVING ON.

The man has a website yet gets mad when his comment s end up on the internet??

This man , of all people, should be ashamed to use the deaths of others to further his agenda.

I sent him an email in response to an article in the Denver paper...not realizing who he was, and when I got a reply about a month later he simply beat the Columbine drum again...totaly ignored any of the factual information I had included.

I feel sorry for him...he has picked the wrong way to bury his child.

 

[Mad Man]

From: Tom Mauser
To: Boris Karpa
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: WHAT?


When you pointedly asked me to respond to your email of a weeks ago, you NEVER said you were going to post it on a discussion board. Why did you not do so? HAve you no consideration? I'm now getting unwelcome email from a number of people. Do you not think I already get emails from those who oppose? Why would I want more? Why would I want more badgering?

I don't appreciate what you have done. Perhaps I should mention your deeds (and email address) on my son's web site?

I'm not an expert on internet etiquette, and MicroBalrog's "debate" with Tom Mauser on this forum strikes me as kind of cheesy. However, it is (or should be) common knowledge that you don't write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't mind having other people reading. E-mail is not a secure format, and it's nature makes it very easy to copy and foward with no effort.

Also, unlike most of the other victims of Columbine, Tom Mauser has chosen to remain a public figure. Why does he expect his words on the subject of firearms policy to be private? After all, this was an exchange with a stranger, not a communication between friends or co-workers.

That being said, it is hypocritical of Tom Mauser to complain about his e-mails being posted on a public forum when he has done the same to others:

Why should I think you are any different, Mr. Semf? No, your email wasn't nasty or insulting, like many others. I appreciate that. But, that's how some others start. I send my reasoned response to their question, then they turn to name calling and ridiculous statements. (For examples of the crap I have received over the past four years, link to www.DanielMauser.com/hatemail.html

Why the Personal Attacks? Why the Hate Mail?
Tom wonders why some opponents see fit to attack rather than talk.


I knew that it would be difficult when I took on the issue of gun control. But I accepted the fact that there would be those who strongly opposed my views. And I was willing to exchange views with them. Never once did I suggest that my views could not be challenged just because my son was murdered. I haven't asked for sympathy or pity.

But I never expected the response I've gotten from some people during this gun debate: unwelcome mail and phone calls; nasty, insulting and even hateful mail; and even a death threat. These extremists don't analyze issues, they simply attack me. A Denver Post story in 2000 described the kind of hate mail that I have received.

I have stayed quiet on this issue, but no longer. The Post writer tried to contact a few of the letter writers, but they either had unlisted numbers or denied writing to me.

But there were some brazen writers who provided names and even defiantly responded when I wrote back to them. Some said they didn’t mind my publishing their names and words herein—they just see it as a ‘badge of honor’ in promoting their beliefs. Some of what they wrote is too profane or sick to include here, but here are some examples that can be printed:

· Terry Chelius of Chief's Rest Ranch and Hunting Lodge in Whitewater, Colo., wrote "Get a life…This is a great vehicle to get your 15 minutes of fame, but try to get on with your life…get a job and buy a good gun." "…combine your obviously questionable IQ with your other vague attributes and make minimum wage somewhere sweeping out a gun store." "Tommy boy, you and Linda have ridden the tragedy like a roller coaster, never missing an opportunity to get your face on TV or in the papers."

· Richard W. Pope of Des Moines, Iowa, sent two postcards, calling me a "weak, pitiful man…who is trading on the dead body of your son…to get your name in the paper."

· Dr. Gary Huff of Montrose, Colo., said "you are using the death of your son to desecrate the constitution and for that you should be ashamed and your dead son pitied...Quit using your son as a political tool and everyone will leave you alone."

· Ray Hickman, a local coordinator of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said I should "get a life and stop being the whore of SAFE Colorado."

· Some comments are said to me directly. As reported in a Fort Collins newspaper, Tyranny Response Team member Stephan Ziegenhagen chided me at a meeting for earning money (at SAFE Colorado) "on the corpse of your son." One of the leaders of the TRT, a gun shop owner named Bob Glass, told me he agrees with that characterization.

It’s especially disturbing that some unwelcome or nasty messages have come via the guest book in this web site. My web site volunteers screen out many of these hateful messages, and have kept dozens from reaching me. But some have slipped by, and it was especially bothersome that many of the nastiest




were written around the time of the one- and two-year anniversaries of the Columbine tragedy.

Have these nasty letter writers no idea what a memorial web site is? Have they no compassion or common decency?!? I read the guest book messages to hear people reflect on Daniel, to express their sympathy, or to give my family words of encouragement, not to read hurtful messages.

Yes, the web site contains my beliefs on gun control. But they are also Daniel’s. My guess is that most of these cowards who leave unwelcome messages never even read the pages about Daniel. They just visited the web site to slam my beliefs. Some of them, like John Moloko of Pennsylvania and Ryan Kiehl of Colorado, don’t even bother to express a single word of sympathy—they just attacked my beliefs.

Yes, these nasty letters are a bit bothersome to me. But there are two things that help me overcome it all: first is the fact that I have already endured something more terrible than anything that these cowards have collectively thrown at me—the death of my son.

Second, I recognize that in his 15 short years of life my son Daniel probably developed more knowledge of this world, more respect and compassion for others, and more common decency, than all these jerks and cowards have in however many years they’ve been on this earth. For that I have so much to be proud of, and it speaks much louder than hatred and cowardice.

 

[semf]

The common thread in all his responses is that he never answers any questions, He's not there to debate his position his only purpose is to preach to the choir and hold court with his minions.
It should also be noted that he DOES NOT reprint detractors e-mails in their entirity only short exerpts.
He is a true idiot he did not get his position through any merit or political savvy he is simply being used for his son's name. If this were not the case no intelligent agency would use such a halfwitted and uninformed hypocrite as their spokesperson.

 

[Bruce H]

The poor man doesn't need badgered, he needs ballbatted.

 

[jimpeel]

It is logical to assume that had his son lived, but been crippled, he would be wheeling him around like a rolling prop like Sarah does with Jim Brady.

He would likely be like the guy we called "Mr. Babyback" who, after the John Ferri shooting at the lawyer firm in San Francisco, showed up at every opportunity with his infant child in a backpack carrier. He used the kid as a prop for nothing more than emotional exploitation.

The worst thing that ever happened to that guy was the kid outgrew the backpack. At that point, he went to his well-deserved obscurity.

 

[Obiwan]

All he has is emotion...no facts

 

[Zedicus]

The guy seems to be a boiling Kuldrin of Excrement that is trying to boil over...

Not a very plesant thought is it?