> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>
<http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:14:43 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/12/2013 4:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>>> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>>>
>>
>> <http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
>>
>
>
>
>WOW! I guess Steve Gass needs to invent the "Bullet Stop" LOL
To be honest Monsanto and their GMO products scares the hell out of me
more then the guns.
Mike M
Larry W <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...> .... With
>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>
> Especially if YOU have a gun!
>
+1
Sonny <[email protected]> wrote:
> What idiots! One (idiot #1) doesn't save idiots (idiot #2) as that. You
> let them die (off).
>
> Stay tuned. We may see idiot #2 running for public office, soon.
>
> Sonny
Obviously a disturbed person. Must'a been the chain jerking gas prices that
sent him over the edge.
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>
><http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
We need to demand that Home Depot and other stores lock up their saws and
conduct mandatory background checks on anyone wishing to handle or purchase
one... if it saves just one life it is worth it. Andrew Cuomo and Chuck
Schumer can help them spend millions to operationalize the process and
procedures. Write your Congressional representatives and Senators now! Who
knows how to set up a MoveOn.org petition? ;~)
On 04/16/2013 11:24 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
>> isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
>> guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
>
> That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely
> different mind set between someone going around and shooting people
> and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it
> goes off.
>
> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
> still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
>
I don't think the many suicide bombers are too concerned with self
protection/preservation!
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of
>> everyone isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the
>> problem. My guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that
>> community of people
>
> That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely
> different mind set between someone going around and shooting people
> and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it
> goes off.
>
> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
> still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
I'm not so sure of that Dave.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 04/18/2013 08:50 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:21:38 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
>> Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
>> (mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.
>
> I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
> Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
> necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And considering
> the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous thing
> to have around.
Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and millions
of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the need for self
defense - no matter what our current homeland security head says about
border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border, and I see signs 3
miles from my house warning me not to venture into the desert because of
human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to be public land! We have
had running gun battles between coyotes vying for each others smuggled
illegals kill innocent travelers on Interstate 10. We have had ranchers
killed on their own property by drug smugglers. I'd be negligent
without a personal firearm to protect my family and myself!
And to add to that, my sister (now deceased) lived in Custer, WA. She
was a horse person and enjoyed riding near her home close to the
Canadian border. She gave it up as she had too may close calls with
drug smugglers bringing that crap from Canada into the US.
>
>> given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
>> and therein lies the problem.
>
> From some of the easy convictions handed down these days, I'd tend to
> agree with you.
>
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:
> Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
> Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
> (mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.
--------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:
> I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
> Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
> necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And
> considering
> the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous
> thing
> to have around.
------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:
> Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and
> millions of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the
> need for self defense - no matter what our current homeland security
> head says about border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border,
> and I see signs 3 miles from my house warning me not to venture into
> the desert because of human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to
> be public land! We have had running gun battles between coyotes
> vying for each others smuggled illegals kill innocent travelers on
> Interstate 10. We have had ranchers killed on their own property by
> drug smugglers. I'd be negligent without a personal firearm to
> protect my family and myself!
----------------------------------------------------
Some things are abundantly obvious.
The war on drugs has been an expensive and total failure.
If you want to take over the USA, having an armed citizenry is not
much
of a deterrent.
You don't need firearms to conduct cyber war, hell, you don't even
have
to be in the USA.
You don't need firearms to contaminate the nation's water supply.
You don't need firearms to totally disrupt the transportation systems.
The list goes on, but you get the idea.
The days of the Lone Ranger are history.
I don't have a good idea to completely solve the "drug problem";
however, taking the profit out of the "drug problem", is a good
starting point.
It is abundantly clear that the firearms and ammunition
manufacturers are playing the public like a fiddle.
Time to wake up.
Off the box.
Lew
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:21:38 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
>Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
>(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.
I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And considering
the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous thing
to have around.
>given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
>and therein lies the problem.
From some of the easy convictions handed down these days, I'd tend to
agree with you.
On 4/16/2013 11:24 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
>> isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
>> guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
>
> That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely
> different mind set between someone going around and shooting people
> and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it
> goes off.
>
> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
> still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
>
suicide bombers don't have much of a sense of self protection.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
>isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
>guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely
different mind set between someone going around and shooting people
and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it
goes off.
The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?
Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
let you know if I find it.
The main point of the show was that people react differently under
stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:47:12 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and
>> I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives
>> us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we
>> are not going to poop when we see a gun.
>
> Yeah, ok, that's funny. A polar bear or moose, we Canadians are
> prepared to wrestle them to the ground, but we when we come up against
> other people with guns, we run and hide in our igloos.
>
> You better hope that when I find the information on this show, that it
> wasn't a US made show.
>
> :)
Regardless of how this discussion ends up lets not be mad at one another.
And my mentioning your gun laws and Canadians still being killed by guns
was absolutely not intended to be below the belt. I continue to maintain
that regardless of how strict gun laws are the innocent law biding people
are the most likely to be killed by a gun. It would be like trying to out
law bad weather.
Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed
in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
>> capable of murder is going to give up his guns?
> ---------------------------------------------
> It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your
> Texas "Graybar Hotels".
>
> Lew
Ummmm they can't put you in jail for something they can't find.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:06:45 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.
Which is the point I've repeated tried to make. The less guns there
are around, the less there are for someone to steal.
The only response that seems to be made these days is that there are
so many guns around that it's a waste of time trying to limit them.
So, why try? That seems to be the attitude of many people in the US.
Giving up is not an attitude that I'd generally attribute to the US as
a whole.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/18/13 10:42 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?
>>
>> Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
>> let you know if I find it.
>>
>> The main point of the show was that people react differently under
>> stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
>> situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.
>>
>
> The point is the show is bullshit.
> You need trained to use tools and weapons, period.
> Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police officers.
> And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing
> laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their
> 2nd Amendment rights get proper training. I'm all for that.
>
Better yet, require training and license parents ...
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On 4/19/2013 5:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> [...]
>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
>
> This is untrue.
>
> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
> (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
>
> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
> murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
> intent".
>
There are more privately owned firearms in the USA than there are
registered vehicles, but fewer firearm deaths than vehicular deaths. It
is impossible to say how much ammunition is sold to those private
firearm owners, but it is "many" billions of rounds a year. The actual
risk of harm from firearm use by law-abiding citizens is miniscule. Most
gun-control proposals target those law-abiding citizens, not the
criminal use of firearms.
On 4/19/2013 1:21 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
>>>>> deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
>>>>> hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
>>>>> but no one is trying to ban them.
>>>>
>>>> This is untrue.
>>>>
>>>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
>>>> U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
>>>> respectively, in 2011).
>>>>
>>>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
>>>> accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
>>>> non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>>>> intent".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
>>> guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>>> Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>>> Why don't we ban cars?
>>
>> I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
>> restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
>> was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
>> due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
>> annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
>> guns than by ball bats and hammers.
>>
>> Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
>> homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
>> homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
>> suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
>> accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that
>> year;normal is about half that)
>> discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222
>>
>> total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
>> 31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
>> accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)
>>
>
> When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
> anyway.
> Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.
>
>
To actually qualify as an assault weapon, the firearm must be capable of
firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Most so-called
"assault" weapons are only semiautomatics and are not really assault
weapons at all. How does that affect your .6%?
On 4/19/2013 12:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>>>> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>>>> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
>>>
>>> This is untrue.
>>>
>>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
>>> (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
>>>
>>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
>>> murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>>> intent".
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
>> Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>> Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>> Why don't we ban cars?
>
> Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?
>
Because requiring a government license would mean the use of a gun is a
privilege (it is not), rather than a constitutional right (which it is).
If it was a privilege, the government would have the power to prevent
gun ownership altogether, which would be unconstitutional. This is a
MAJOR distinction from cars - operating a car is a privilege, not a right.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:47:12 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and
>I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives
>us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we
>are not going to poop when we see a gun.
Yeah, ok, that's funny. A polar bear or moose, we Canadians are
prepared to wrestle them to the ground, but we when we come up against
other people with guns, we run and hide in our igloos.
You better hope that when I find the information on this show, that it
wasn't a US made show.
:)
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
[...]
> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
This is untrue.
There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm not a
>dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't really fit.
So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?
>challenge you to the same thing I did Lew - cite examples of anything worse
>than that. A lot of people blast away at the NRA without even knowing what
>they say, or what their arguments are.
When a self concerned body of people have very familar control of one
of your primary bodies of government, I don't need to look for other
examples.
In any event, I'm not American. I didn't grow up with many of the laws
and values that Americans have, so I'll never closely agree with some
of your opinions on things. The right to gun ownership is one of those
things I'll never agree with.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm
>> not a dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't
>> really fit.
>
> So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
> manipulation of your senate?
They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
the context of this discussion. That statement does not equate to the
conclusion you suggest with your question above.
>
>> challenge you to the same thing I did Lew - cite examples of
>> anything worse than that. A lot of people blast away at the NRA
>> without even knowing what they say, or what their arguments are.
>
> When a self concerned body of people have very familar control of one
> of your primary bodies of government, I don't need to look for other
> examples.
Control? I think you are subject to the rhetoric from the anti-gun fanatics
who like to villianize the NRA. A more practical approach would be to
actually look at what they say and do, rather than to blindly
mischaracterize them.
>
> In any event, I'm not American. I didn't grow up with many of the laws
> and values that Americans have, so I'll never closely agree with some
> of your opinions on things. The right to gun ownership is one of those
> things I'll never agree with.
Fair enough - everyone is entitled to their respective opinions.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm
>> >not a dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't
>>> really fit.
>
> >So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
>> manipulation of your senate?
>They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
>influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
>politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
>"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
>the context of this discussion. That statement does not equate to the
>conclusion you suggest with your question above.
I've been sitting on the side here... but there seems to be a theme in the
thread not previously mentioned that may warrant some consideration.
What I've noticed is that the NRA has been the lightening rod in this
situation but it seems that Gun Owners of America and The Second Amendment
Foundation were often mentioned by the proponents of more regulations as
being the villains that led to the defeat of their bills and amendments...
There seems to be a disconnect by omission in the current demonization.
Me personally... my positions are based on the academic research on the gun
issue, rather than lobbyist rhetoric, and it's hard to find anything
approaching sound research to support the political activity following Sandy
Hook. Rather emotion based opportunism has typified the activity. NY's Cuomo
was the only one to really capitalize on it... the rest were slow though CT
and CO did manage to get legislation through.
I've also noticed over the years that over reliance on the medical
literature by the proponents of onerous regulations has done nothing to help
their cause. As an example of how this reliance ill serves them, following
is the text of a recent Letter to the Editor that I wrote. It was published
4/4/13. This varies a little from what was printed as phrases such as "You
have commented" seem out of place here.
***start of letter***
The Freeman has commented on the need for more research into the causes of
gun related violence and also stated that the National Rifle Association
âsquashed government-funded research into the causes of gun-related violence
(1/6/2013).â
By the early 1990s the broader academic community took note of the
questionable gun-related studies appearing in the medical literature. As
part of that academic community I critiqued drafts of a March 1994 Journal
of the Medical Association of Georgia article by Dr. Edgar Suter titled
âGuns in the Medical Literature, A Failure of Peer Review.â Other criticisms
followed elsewhere and in 1996 the House Appropriations Committee took note
of this situation and removed firearms related research funds from the
Center for Disease Controlâs budget.
As reported by The Freeman (3/7/2013), a recent Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) article claims that more gun laws mean fewer gun
deaths. However, if you lay the CDCâs Access to Trauma Care map over the
JAMA articleâs firearm mortality map you will see several items of interest.
One is that many of the states with high firearm mortality rates also happen
to be states with relatively poor access to trauma care. Youâll also see
that states with more guns laws tend to have better access to trauma
centers. This raises a question not addressed in the JAMA article. That
being, what influence does access to trauma care have on firearm mortality
rates?
A December 8, 2012 Wall Street Journal article reports on the role of trauma
care in gunshot wound survivability. The research behind the article found
that the chances of surviving gunshot wounds have improved greatly in recent
years due to the medical care improvements that came out of our Middle East
and Afghan war experiences. From examining the maps it could thus be fair to
say that access to trauma care services is to blame for the difference in
mortality rates across states and not the volume of gun laws in each state.
What is also troubling about this JAMA article is that it was built around
research conducted by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. This suggests this research in not
unbiased... Thus it appears this recent JAMA study shares many of the same
problems as those defunded by the House Appropriations Committee.
There are plenty of good firearms related research articles available that
were generated by scholars whom favor intellectual integrity over politics.
We should expect and demand that the sound research be used by of our
elected officials in setting public policy and that specious studies like
the JAMA study should be ignored.
***end of letter***
A respondent to the letter assumed that access referred to the ability to
pay and insurance. To clarify that here, access refers to the physical
access to trauma care as defined by the CDC, namely within one hour by land
or air transportation. It has nothing to do with ability to pay or
insurance. I asked several associates of mine, including an
MD/epidemiologist, to review my letter before I submitted it. They all
agreed that my assessment was more viable than that put forth in the JAMA
article. It has also been passed around the academic community. At some
point a real study parsing out the access to trauma care vs. the volume of
laws could possibly show up in the academic literature. I could be wrong,
but many informed people don't think so...
John
Related links:
http://www.traumamaps.org/Trauma.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/traumacare/access_trauma.html
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
Suterâs article http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> [...]
>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
>>> deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
>>> hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
>>> but no one is trying to ban them.
>>
>> This is untrue.
>>
>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
>> U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
>> respectively, in 2011).
>>
>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
>> accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
>> non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>> intent".
>>
>
> Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
> guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
> Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
> Why don't we ban cars?
I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
guns than by ball bats and hammers.
Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that year;normal is about half that)
discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222
total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
>>Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>>Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>>Why don't we ban cars?
>
> Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?
In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution,
whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been
found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
> anyway.
> Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.
Most are with handguns AFAIK.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:38:33 -0600, Dave wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:16:23 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
>> makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms.
>
> Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training
> that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do
> in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law
> enforcement in the US.
>
>> People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
>> were and trained their children to use and respect them.
>
> It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the
> proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation
> that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes
> repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.
>
>> Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
>> stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
>> intruders with their personal firearms.
>
> And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been
> where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then,
> you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their
> home burglarize and had their guns stolen?
>
> However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns,
> there are many more where the opposite has happened.
A 1994 Department of Justice study estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses
annually. 1993 National Crime Victimization Survey estimated 108,000 DGU's
annually.
-BR
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:10:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>That's something of an unfounded fear Dave. If that were the case, we would
>see that problem alive and well at this time, but we don't. Your position
>is arguing a fear that has not proven itself to be real.
Well, my computer has been down for several days, but it's back up
now. So, let me see if I can find that show I mentioned and then you
can respond.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:16:23 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
>makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms.
Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training
that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do
in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law
enforcement in the US.
>People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
>were and trained their children to use and respect them.
It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the
proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation
that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes
repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.
>Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
>stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
>intruders with their personal firearms.
And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been
where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then,
you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their
home burglarize and had their guns stolen?
However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns,
there are many more where the opposite has happened.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:01:58 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They do a very good job of
>revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite their lies - with specifics and
>the contracting evidence. Or is this just closed minded rhetoric?
A "truth" which is *ENTIRELY* slanted to their own ends. And, a
"truth" that involves coercive manipulation on many, many different
levels.
Are you really going to sit there and say that their actions are not
dedicated solely to their own benefit?
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:03:56 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>Nice to see you admit that statement wasn't true.
>
> Go Fuck Yourself, Asshole.
>
Take your meds.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:01:58 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They do a very good
>> job of revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite their lies -
>> with specifics and the contracting evidence. Or is this just closed
>> minded rhetoric?
>
> A "truth" which is *ENTIRELY* slanted to their own ends. And, a
> "truth" that involves coercive manipulation on many, many different
> levels.
>
> Are you really going to sit there and say that their actions are not
> dedicated solely to their own benefit?
Oh - absolutely. They are (among other things) a voice of advocacy for
private gun ownership. One would not expect them to take up any cause that
is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm not a
dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't really fit. One
could perhaps, suggest that the fears they express are exagerated, but I'll
challenge you to the same thing I did Lew - cite examples of anything worse
than that. A lot of people blast away at the NRA without even knowing what
they say, or what their arguments are.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/18/13 10:23 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:06:45 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.
>
> Which is the point I've repeated tried to make. The less guns there
> are around, the less there are for someone to steal.
>
> The only response that seems to be made these days is that there are
> so many guns around that it's a waste of time trying to limit them.
> So, why try? That seems to be the attitude of many people in the US.
> Giving up is not an attitude that I'd generally attribute to the US as
> a whole.
>
There is no reason to limit guns.
It is also unconstitutional to do so in the US.
If we were to ban guns like they do in Chicago, the bad guys can still
get them illegally. Chicago has the highest gun murder rate in the
country and has the strictest gun control laws. All banning guns does is
stop the law abiding citizens from being able
to defend themselves.
In areas where more homes and citizens have more guns, there is less
crime. There is a simple explanation for that. The bad guys know if they
try to rob someone in these areas, there's a good chance they will get
their ass shot attempting it.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/18/13 10:38 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:16:23 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
>> makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms.
>
> Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training
> that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do
> in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law
> enforcement in the US.
>
>> People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
>> were and trained their children to use and respect them.
>
> It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the
> proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation
> that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes
> repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.
>
Yet the bad guys seem to get enough training. In every city in America
and most rural areas there are firearms training courses, which include
tactical weapons training. it's a matter of priority. If you have a
table saw, you seek training to know how to use it. Same with guns.
>> Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
>> stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
>> intruders with their personal firearms.
>
> And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been
> where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then,
> you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their
> home burglarize and had their guns stolen?
>
> However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns,
> there are many more where the opposite has happened.
>
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
In Israel, every child has to go through military training and service
that includes tactical gun use. Switzerland requires every male adult to
own firearms and go through extensive training. Both countries have
extremely low gun homicide rates.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/18/13 10:42 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?
>
> Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
> let you know if I find it.
>
> The main point of the show was that people react differently under
> stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
> situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.
>
The point is the show is bullshit.
You need trained to use tools and weapons, period.
Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police
officers.
And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing
laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their
2nd Amendment rights get proper training. I'm all for that.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> [...]
>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
>
> This is untrue.
>
> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
> (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
>
> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
> murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
> intent".
>
Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
>>>> deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
>>>> hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
>>>> but no one is trying to ban them.
>>>
>>> This is untrue.
>>>
>>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
>>> U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
>>> respectively, in 2011).
>>>
>>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
>>> accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
>>> non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>>> intent".
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
>> guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>> Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>> Why don't we ban cars?
>
> I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
> restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
> was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
> due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
> annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
> guns than by ball bats and hammers.
>
> Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
> homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
> homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
> suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
> accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that year;normal is about half that)
> discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222
>
> total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
> 31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
> accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)
>
When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
anyway.
Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/19/13 1:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>>>> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>>>> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
>>>
>>> This is untrue.
>>>
>>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
>>> (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
>>>
>>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
>>> murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>>> intent".
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
>> Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>> Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>> Why don't we ban cars?
>
> Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?
>
I might be in favor of that, except that driving isn't a right protected
by the constitution.
I believe people should treat their cars as the weapons they are and I
believe people should become as familiar with operating a firearm as
they are a car.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/19/13 4:44 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 1:21 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
>>>>>> deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
>>>>>> hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
>>>>>> but no one is trying to ban them.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
>>>>> U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
>>>>> respectively, in 2011).
>>>>>
>>>>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
>>>>> accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
>>>>> non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>>>>> intent".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
>>>> guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>>>> Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>>>> Why don't we ban cars?
>>>
>>> I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
>>> restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
>>> was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
>>> due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
>>> annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
>>> guns than by ball bats and hammers.
>>>
>>> Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
>>> homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
>>> homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
>>> suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
>>> accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that
>>> year;normal is about half that)
>>> discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222
>>>
>>> total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
>>> 31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
>>> accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)
>>>
>>
>> When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
>> anyway.
>> Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.
>>
>>
> To actually qualify as an assault weapon, the firearm must be capable of
> firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Most so-called
> "assault" weapons are only semiautomatics and are not really assault
> weapons at all. How does that affect your .6%?
I'm sure it doesn't. That's why I always put "assault' in quotation
marks whenever I debate this topic. Because there are no legal assault
weapons readily, legally, available to the public in the US.
I'm quite certain that statistic includes only weapon that are
cosmetically "military-style" or come with a swappable magazine.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Just Wondering wrote:
> To actually qualify as an assault weapon, the firearm must be capable
> of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
No - I believe you are referring to the definition of an assualt rifle.
Assault weapon has not definition - it's a creation of the politicians.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> [...]
>>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>>> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>>> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
>>
>> This is untrue.
>>
>> There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
>> (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
>>
>> Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
>> murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
>> intent".
>>
>
>Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
>Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
>Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
>Why don't we ban cars?
Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:36:07 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
>> manipulation of your senate?
>
>They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
>influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
>politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
>"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
>the context of this discussion.
Really? Most ALL legislative bodies everywhere work that way, but that
doesn't preclude for one second that money has and frequently is used
to coerce and manipulate people, expecially in your senate.
It has manipulated when supporting those people getting into power and
it has coerced with the threat of removing that support when those
people are in power. 'Coerced manipulation' appears to be a very APT
description.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:36:07 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
>>> manipulation of your senate?
>>
>> They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of
>> course they influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there?
>> That's how American politics works. I noted the use of the two
>> words "coercive" and "manipulation" and suggest that they
>> specifically don't go together well in the context of this
>> discussion.
>
> Really? Most ALL legislative bodies everywhere work that way, but that
> doesn't preclude for one second that money has and frequently is used
> to coerce and manipulate people, expecially in your senate.
>
> It has manipulated when supporting those people getting into power and
> it has coerced with the threat of removing that support when those
> people are in power. 'Coerced manipulation' appears to be a very APT
> description.
I guess it's all in one's perspective. All lobbying organizations work that
way, and to single out the
NRA with no specific complaint is kind of pointless. If you're going to use
emotionally charged words, then you should at least be able to substantiate
your position a little better. Vague assertions don't really carry much
weight. Your position on this matter seems to state that you consider them
to be coercive and manipulative simply because they represent ideas you do
not personally hold to. What about those lobbyists that represent ideas you
do subscribe to?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:06:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>>>> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>>>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>>>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>
>>> I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
>>> gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
>
>> Fertilizer and diesel fuel is much more effective - as witnessed in
>> Oklahoma City. Mass murderers find the most effective means for their
>> ugly twisted deeds. Unfortunately, they are very adaptable.
>
> Come on. You're really going to compare home made bombs to gun
> shootings? Pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs might be effective, but still
> they're still another animal and not really in the same ball park. The
> terror of someone walking along shooting people isn't matched by your
> home made bombs.
>
Take away guns and you will find out. And for that matter several days
ago a college student went walking through a school campus in Cyprus TX and
stabbed a dozen or more people. Since he was 6 he fantasized about what it
would be like to stab some one with a knife.
> It's easier to obtain guns (and use them) than your home made bombs,
> otherwise you'd be hearing of many more domestic bombings in the news.
>
Actually guns are much harder to obtain. Home Depo has every thing you
need to make a pipe bomb and much cheaper than buying a gun.
The real problem are the people that want to kill other people. IMHO this
has become more of a problem when we decided to blame others for why Johnny
is a murderer. Compared to 50 years ago the consequences of behavior that
leads up to tragic results are now a slap on the hand and or sensitivity
training for the normal people.
Simply put you don't fix the problem by taking away the rights of every one
to keep the menace from killing people, you treat the menace in a manor to
actually discourage such behavior with out regard to whose "feelings" are
going to be hurt.. And the parents are as much to blame as anyone.
> In the end, the knowledge needed to obtain and shoot a firearm is much
> less than that needed for bomb making.
Perhaps an atomic bomb but not a Molotov Cocktail.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:15:15 -0500, Steve Barker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
>> gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
>
>Seems to me a couple of box knives killed thousands on 9-11.
Right! And box knives can just as easily replace a gun by someone
walking through a crown slashing the caratoid artery of everybody they
come near. The death toll would be the same as a gun too, right Leon?
Really, really nice feeble try.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>>
>
> <http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
Don't give Gass any ideas! It is bad enough he wants to go after all the
table saws. We don't want him to go after hand saws too. Where does it
end? :(
On 04/14/2013 08:15 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/14/2013 6:19 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>>> But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>>> attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>>> relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>>
>> Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
>> teachers with firearms.
>>
>> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>>
>
>
> I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
> gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
Fertilizer and diesel fuel is much more effective - as witnessed in
Oklahoma City. Mass murderers find the most effective means for their
ugly twisted deeds. Unfortunately, they are very adaptable.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
The solution, of course, is background checks on anyone wanting to enter a =
bigbox home store. Then, of course, we'll need to TSA -- tool safety admin=
istration -- and the requisite pat downs. "Is that a hammer in your pocket=
or are you just happy to be here?"
Larry
On Friday, April 12, 2013 4:57:10 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>=20
> > Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>=20
> > remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>=20
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> <http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covin=
a-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
On 4/14/2013 6:19 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>> But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>> attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>> relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>
> Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
> teachers with firearms.
>
> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>
I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
On 4/18/2013 1:13 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
>> saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
>> that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
>
> I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
> For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
> doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.
IMHO that would all depend on the expense and or ease of acquisition.
You have to believe that those seeking Allah are not thinking straight
or have so much hate/loss of need to exist and that have explosives
strapped their bodies are of a similar mind set as those spraying bullets.
>
> There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
> that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.
Their mind set is not strictly to kill numbers of people only if they
can do it with a hand gun, the gun is simply the most readily available
weapon. A bomb would require a few hours of preparation to do the same
act and seldom do these people just snap, most all have planned the
event in great detail.
>
> I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
> will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.
Different until one weapon of choice is unavailable and then like in the
middle east less expensive and just as deadly weapons are used.
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked.
There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40
years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better. So
trying to fix what is not broken is not going to solve the problem of
people not being held accountable for their actions or for how they have
let their children be raised.
On 04/21/2013 12:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution,
>> whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been
>> found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.
>
> Back then, guns were needed for survival. Try using the little bit of
> brain power that you've got. Cars didn't exist then so they couldn't
> have granted privilege anyway.
>
> IF you're going to compare the two with your bullshit logic, then ask
> yourself if your courts would have created the second amendment when
> cars were as much a fact of life as guns were.
>
The courts had nothing to do with creating the Constitution.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution,
>>whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has
been
>>found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental
right.
>
> Back then, guns were needed for survival. Try using the little bit of
> brain power that you've got. Cars didn't exist then so they couldn't
> have granted privilege anyway.
You completely misunderstand the purpose, and the importance, of the right to keep and
bear arms.
>
> IF you're going to compare the two with your bullshit logic, then ask
> yourself if your courts would have created the second amendment when
> cars were as much a fact of life as guns were.
It wasn't created by the courts.
On 4/21/13 2:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution,
>> whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been
>> found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.
>
> Back then, guns were needed for survival. Try using the little bit of
> brain power that you've got. Cars didn't exist then so they couldn't
> have granted privilege anyway.
>
The survival referred in the 2nd Amendment isn't talking about animals,
it's talking about defending oneself.
That's an all to common misconception.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:27:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.
>>>Take your meds.
>
> Is that anything like replyiing with some insult like "Take your
> meds"?
>
> You're a hypocritical asshole.
Pot, kettle, black -- in your world, it's OK for you to insult me, but not for me to insult you in
return?
Grow up, Dave.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution,
>whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been
>found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.
Back then, guns were needed for survival. Try using the little bit of
brain power that you've got. Cars didn't exist then so they couldn't
have granted privilege anyway.
IF you're going to compare the two with your bullshit logic, then ask
yourself if your courts would have created the second amendment when
cars were as much a fact of life as guns were.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:31:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>to be coercive and manipulative simply because they represent ideas you do
>not personally hold to. What about those lobbyists that represent ideas you
>do subscribe to?
Ok, I can't argue with that point. Maybe if I had the money or power
and was firmly entrenched in the wants of an organization like your
NRA, it might be different.
However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, consider the size of the hold your
NRA has on your elected officials versus the really big amount of
people that oppose NRA values. The NRA appears to be holding an awful
lot of control of your governing bodies compared to the amount of
people who don't subscribe to their tenets.
I'd suggest that it's an UNEQUAL division of power. When you get too
many people below, at, or near the poverty line, for *whatever
reason*, it eventually fosters a rebellion, a French revolution if you
will. Call it socialism or whatever, but there will eventually be a
rebellion.
I'd suggest that you're seeing the beginnings of it happening here.
Not a money rebellion, but a gun versus no gun rebellion. Coupled with
those very public shootings that appear to be happening more often,
people are going to rise up and eventually, your NRA may be
overwhelmed ~ a real or behind the scenes civil war of you will.
[email protected] wrote:
> However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, consider the size of the hold your
> NRA has on your elected officials versus the really big amount of
> people that oppose NRA values. The NRA appears to be holding an awful
> lot of control of your governing bodies compared to the amount of
> people who don't subscribe to their tenets.
This is something I'm not too sure of Dave. I really don't know how much
power the NRA really wields. I know they are thought of that way by those
who don't care for them or their cause, but I'm just not sure how much they
really have. I think more of what the NRA is able to influence is based on
our Constitution than their lobbying power. Likewise, I really don't know
how many people really disagree with the NRA - as in many things, small but
loud voices can sound like a big crowd.
> I'd suggest that you're seeing the beginnings of it happening here.
> Not a money rebellion, but a gun versus no gun rebellion. Coupled with
> those very public shootings that appear to be happening more often,
> people are going to rise up and eventually, your NRA may be
> overwhelmed ~ a real or behind the scenes civil war of you will.
I do think something may happen - but it could just as well be the opposite.
Time will tell...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/18/2013 11:13 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
>> saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
>> that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
>
> I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
> For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
> doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.
door triggered shotgun burglar deterrents were made illegal, but it's a
class of these. they also have radar controlled weapons, used for sentry
duty, for example, so there may not be anyone around.
> There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
> that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.
>
> I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
> will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.
>
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
>saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
>that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.
There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.
I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.
On 4/18/2013 11:21 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> Guns are pretty much a single use item.
>
That's a fallacy. It is true that one utilitarian purpose of a firearm
is to propel a projectile at high speed. It is not true that the single
purpose of propelling that projectile is to cause the death of a living
thing, which is what must "single use" arguments claim. Defensive
weapons have another purpose, which is to prevent violence by their mere
presence. And firearms have other uses besides the utilitarian ones.
Many of them are works of art and excellence in craftsmanship to be
admired in their own right. And owning one can in and of itself be a
political statement and a form of free speech. There, I've already
listed at least four uses right off the top of my head. I'm sure there
are others.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 4/19/13 12:21 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
>>> to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
>>> everyone wants to band guns?
>>
>> Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As
>> do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill
>> people.
>>
>> Guns are pretty much a single use item.
>>
>
> So what? How is that relevant? It's not.
It's not even true, and only someone who knows nothing about guns would think that it is.
Guns, like knives, "have a considerable amount of use other than killing people." Mostly, I
use mine for deer hunting, somewhat less often to hunt small game. I also use them for
target shooting. When we lived in the country, I used them for vermin control and to protect
livestock from predators.
And once I drew a pistol in self-defense.
My brother has used his defensively twice: once to defend himself, and once when he
walked into a public restroom and saw a knife-point robbery in progress.
Neither I nor my brother has ever killed a person. Neither one of us even fired our weapons
in those situations; simply making the adversary aware that we were armed was enough.
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:04:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
>>annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
>>guns than by ball bats and hammers.
>
> And you're full of crap.
What did I say here that's untrue? Is it your contention that *fewer* people are killed by guns
than by ball bats and hammers?
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:04:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
>>annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
>>guns than by ball bats and hammers.
>
> And you're full of crap. As I said before you attempted to twist it
> into something else, Guns have mostly one use, and that's for shooting
> people OR animals. Does that qualify it for you???
>
> Cars have many, many more uses than guns and there's no way in hell
> you can compare the two when it comes to general use. So STFU.
Off your meds again, Dave?
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
>to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
>everyone wants to band guns?
Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As
do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill
people.
Guns are pretty much a single use item.
>When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and
>it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the
>internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st
>Amendment because of that.
I didn't mention other amendments. You keep trying to inject other
variables into this discussion.
>It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the
>constitution. The only one who gave it to us was our creator.
Your creator? You mean your father? Surely, you can't be talking about
God? Did God give you something? Wow, you're a lucky guy.
A man or men gave it to you. Men are not perfect and times are
different now than 300 years ago.
>But why am I arguing with a Canadian?
Oh well, I guess that's a good a reason as any to end this discussion.
But, since God gave you the 2nd Amendment, perhaps he can also give
you a sense of humour?
:)
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:43:51 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 4/19/13 11:46 PM, Mike M wrote:
>> These posts had a plus for me I went looking at some rifles that were
>> my grandfathers. I've never done anything with them just kept them
>> stored in the house. Turns out one of them is a Colt Lightening made
>> in 1888. Seems to be in good working order and has some value. Guess
>> I'll have it looked at by an expert and decide what to do with it.
>>
>
>Wow. If it *is* indeed original and in good shape, you could auction
>that off and likely end up with with enough for a new shop.
>Not just the tools, the building as well. :-)
From what I saw I don't think it would build a shop, but would pay for
a saw stop. It appears all original and the worst thing on it is some
minor start of rust, nothing solid & you can scrape a lot of it with
your fingernail. I read enough to know I shouldn't screw around
without expert advice. It's the medium frame so not as valuble as the
larger frame. It's been in the family since it was new so we'll see
what happens. I'll get it looked at when I go into town again.
Mike M
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:04:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
>annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
>guns than by ball bats and hammers.
And you're full of crap. As I said before you attempted to twist it
into something else, Guns have mostly one use, and that's for shooting
people OR animals. Does that qualify it for you???
Cars have many, many more uses than guns and there's no way in hell
you can compare the two when it comes to general use. So STFU.
On 4/19/13 12:21 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
>> to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
>> everyone wants to band guns?
>
> Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As
> do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill
> people.
>
> Guns are pretty much a single use item.
>
So what? How is that relevant? It's not.
>> When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and
>> it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the
>> internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st
>> Amendment because of that.
>
> I didn't mention other amendments. You keep trying to inject other
> variables into this discussion.
>
>> It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the
>> constitution. The only one who gave it to us was our creator.
>
> Your creator? You mean your father? Surely, you can't be talking about
> God? Did God give you something? Wow, you're a lucky guy.
>
I'm discussing the rights granted in the US Constitution. The authors
believe our rights were granted by God, not by man, therefor they
shouldn't be taken away by man.
> A man or men gave it to you. Men are not perfect and times are
> different now than 300 years ago.
>
Which is exactly why I brought up the 2nd Amendment. Time are different
now. BTW, I don't believe times are different. Men have been trying to
kill other men for millennia.
>> But why am I arguing with a Canadian?
>
> Oh well, I guess that's a good a reason as any to end this discussion.
> But, since God gave you the 2nd Amendment, perhaps he can also give
> you a sense of humour?
>
> :)
>
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 4/18/2013 11:21 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> Guns are pretty much a single use item.
>
That's a fallacy. It is true that one utilitarian purpose of a firearm
is to propel a projectile at high speed. It is not true that the single
purpose of propelling that projectile is to cause the death of a living
thing, which is what must "single use" arguments claim. Defensive
weapons have another purpose, which is to prevent violence by their mere
presence. And firearms have other uses besides the utilitarian ones.
Many of them are works of art and excellence in craftsmanship to be
admired in their own right. And owning one can in and of itself be a
political statement and a form of free speech. There, I've already
listed at least four uses right off the top of my head. I'm sure there
are others.
===============================================================================
Trap shooting. Beats video games by far. Pest control. When I was growing
up, pest control was my job. Guns were a big part of that.
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>>But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>>attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>>relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
>teachers with firearms.
>The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
Ever hear of the "21 foot rule?" Anyone armed with a knife whom is that
distance from you can inflict serious physical injury upon you, that may be
lethal, and do this before you could draw and shoot them. A motivated
assailant can do a lot of damage... and some can do it from from more than
21 feet away.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>>> But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>>> attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>>> relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>>
>> Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
>> teachers with firearms.
>>
>> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>
> Sure, but the bigger problem is the mental state of the person wielding
> either tool. Failure to address the root problem will result in the weed
> continuing to pop up in other places.
Exactly! When you dumb down the system so that every one wins it becomes
hard to recognize the losers.
"Vic Baron" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>>
>
>><http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
>
>
> We need to demand that Home Depot and other stores lock up their saws and
> conduct mandatory background checks on anyone wishing to handle or
> purchase one... if it saves just one life it is worth it. Andrew Cuomo
> and Chuck Schumer can help them spend millions to operationalize the
> process and procedures. Write your Congressional representatives and
> Senators now! Who knows how to set up a MoveOn.org petition? ;~)
>
Considering that someone just attacked some people in a school with a knife,
I expect the anti knife legislation will come first.
Just when we thought it was safe to carry a small knife on an
aircraft..........
======================================================================
Mario Cuomo, when governor of NY, gave a speech regarding a high profile
murder where the victim was stabbed to death. He said that was proof that we
needed stricter gun control. I wonder what kind of gun the victim was
stabbed with.
"scritch" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>On 4/12/2013 11:25 AM, Vic Baron wrote:
>
>
> >Considering that someone just attacked some people in a school with a
> >knife, I expect the anti knife legislation will come first.
>
>> Vic
>Of course, no-one died in this attack.
But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
On 4/16/2013 6:25 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> Scant little knowledge necessary to build a bomb. Common materials,
>>> instructions easily found on the internet.
>>
>> But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of
>> choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing
>> rampage.
>>
>> I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a
>> bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who
>> plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
>>
>> That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a
>> building shooting people.
>
> It is, but yesterday's experience in Boston casts a different shadow on the
> discussion. I don't disagree that unstable people can and do perform bad
> acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
> isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
> guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
> as events like Boston grow. That seems to be the way these people work.
> One mass shooting leads to many others - public bombings will lead to more
> bombings.
>
Case in point, I believe that guns are not allowed in the UK. How many
bombings have been used by the IRA in the past 40 years?
On 4/16/2013 4:57 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Scant little knowledge necessary to build a bomb. Common materials,
>> instructions easily found on the internet.
>
> But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of
> choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing
> rampage.
Guns are popular because they have been in our culture since the days of
having to own one so that you could eat and the movies glorify their
use. Out law the guns and the movies will switch to mimic and other
devices will be used.
>
> I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a
> bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who
> plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
Well I can assure those the used a bomb instead of guns in Boston
yesterday watched the whole thing go down. They planted the bomb where
they knew there would be cameras recording the event. And I would say
it is quite likely that they were one of the spectators.
>
> That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a
> building shooting people.
Well in this case I believe they got to watch a couple of buildings be
destroyed and 100+ people get hurt. and I heard one expert indicate
that this looked like an untrained persons work.
On 4/14/2013 10:15 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/14/2013 6:19 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>>> But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>>> attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>>> relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>>
>> Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
>> teachers with firearms.
>>
>> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>>
>
>
> I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
> gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
Seems to me a couple of box knives killed thousands on 9-11.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
On 4/24/2013 8:54 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:15:15 -0500, Steve Barker
>
>> Right! And box knives can just as easily replace a gun by someone
>> walking through a crown slashing the caratoid artery of everybody they
>> come near. The death toll would be the same as a gun too, right Leon?
>>
>> Really, really nice feeble try.
>
> Sorry Leon, mix up on the names. mea culpa.
>
LOL You are forgiven, this time. ;~)
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Scant little knowledge necessary to build a bomb. Common materials,
>> instructions easily found on the internet.
>
> But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of
> choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing
> rampage.
>
> I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a
> bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who
> plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
>
> That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a
> building shooting people.
It is, but yesterday's experience in Boston casts a different shadow on the
discussion. I don't disagree that unstable people can and do perform bad
acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
as events like Boston grow. That seems to be the way these people work.
One mass shooting leads to many others - public bombings will lead to more
bombings.
========================================================================
Yes, we will see more of it. The news media will make sure of it.
On 4/12/2013 4:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>>
>
> <http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
>
WOW! I guess Steve Gass needs to invent the "Bullet Stop" LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
teachers with firearms.
The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:36:16 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mario Cuomo, when governor of NY, gave a speech regarding a high profile
>murder where the victim was stabbed to death. He said that was proof that we
>needed stricter gun control. I wonder what kind of gun the victim was
>stabbed with.
Rifle with a bayonet? :)
On 4/24/2013 8:15 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
> On 4/14/2013 10:15 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/14/2013 6:19 PM, Dave wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>>>> But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>>>> attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>>>> relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>>>
>>> Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
>>> teachers with firearms.
>>>
>>> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>>> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
>> gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
>
> Seems to me a couple of box knives killed thousands on 9-11.
>
No, I believe it was the airplanes. If you are saying that the box
knives facilitated the start of destruction you might as well say that
the hyjackers clothing killed thousands also. They would not have been
able to get on board the air plane had they been naked.
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:29:53 +0000 (UTC),
>>someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>>or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>
>Especially if YOU have a gun!
Yeah, well, I knew someone was going to say that. And if I knew
everyone out there had a gun, then I'd probably be carrying an Uzi.
There really isn't any end to out arming someone who might be carrying
a weapon that can hurt you.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>>
>
> <http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
Amazing they could save him. According to the lead in to the article, he
even used a saw powerful enough to cut through drywall!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
>> remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."
>>
>
>><http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
>
>
> We need to demand that Home Depot and other stores lock up their saws and
> conduct mandatory background checks on anyone wishing to handle or
> purchase one... if it saves just one life it is worth it. Andrew Cuomo
> and Chuck Schumer can help them spend millions to operationalize the
> process and procedures. Write your Congressional representatives and
> Senators now! Who knows how to set up a MoveOn.org petition? ;~)
>
Considering that someone just attacked some people in a school with a knife,
I expect the anti knife legislation will come first.
Just when we thought it was safe to carry a small knife on an
aircraft..........
Vic
On 4/17/2013 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:56:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> It is happening that way but it is not as popular. Take away the guns
>> and it will become popular.
>
> No it won't. Shooting people in person will never be the same as
> someone bombing people. The shooter isn't in immediate danger from the
> people around him, not until the authorities arrive.
And that is because of gun laws that restrict every one from carrying a
gun. If every one that wanted to carry guns, did, the shooter would be
in immediate danger before the police arrived.
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:56:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>It is happening that way but it is not as popular. Take away the guns
>>and it will become popular.
>No it won't. Shooting people in person will never be the same as
>someone bombing people. The shooter isn't in immediate danger from the
>people around him, not until the authorities arrive.
>The bomber is in danger if he sets off a bomb while he's there. ~
>They're two distinctly different mind sets at work.
I'm not sure there is a difference in most cases... the anecdotal evidence
suggests most of the mass shooters intend suicide either by self or by cop,
i.e., getting away uninjured or alive isn't a criteria in their decisions.
Theirs is a thought pattern of which most people cannot conceive as
self-preservation is a core part of any animals' make-up... these people are
not thus normal.
As access to guns becomes more difficult (real or perceived) in the U.S. it
is likely that the methods used in other countries will become more common
here in the U.S., e.g,. bombing, fires, chemical/poison attacks, and even
knives and machetes. It all falls back to the notion of weapons substitution
which historically is and will continue to be the norm in the face of
weapons shortages. Put another way, goal oriented attackers will find a way
to carry out their goals... Disregard for laws is also the norm!
John
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:56:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>It is happening that way but it is not as popular. Take away the guns
>and it will become popular.
No it won't. Shooting people in person will never be the same as
someone bombing people. The shooter isn't in immediate danger from the
people around him, not until the authorities arrive.
The bomber is in danger if he sets off a bomb while he's there. ~
They're two distinctly different mind sets at work.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:45:09 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
>as events like Boston grow. That seems to be the way these people work.
>One mass shooting leads to many others - public bombings will lead to more
>bombings.
Possibly. Bombings have frequently been the terrorist minded person or
someone with an agenda. At least in the North American society,
someone walking through an area shooting people usually is done by the
person who has just lost it.
Obviously, they're both of great concern.
On 4/17/2013 1:27 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:52:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Case in point, I believe that guns are not allowed in the UK. How many
>> bombings have been used by the IRA in the past 40 years?
>
> Nevertheless, there's still a different mind set between the bomber
> and the person walking through some area just shooting people. They're
> not thinking the same and they have a different perspective on self
> preservation.
>
Having done neither, I would not know. Perhaps you have some personal
insight on that. :~)
I think that all we are saying is that those that want to do harm are
going to do it regardless if there are guns available or not. And then
add the fact that if guns are outlawed then only the criminals will have
guns.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:52:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Case in point, I believe that guns are not allowed in the UK. How many
>bombings have been used by the IRA in the past 40 years?
Nevertheless, there's still a different mind set between the bomber
and the person walking through some area just shooting people. They're
not thinking the same and they have a different perspective on self
preservation.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
>>>> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the
>>>> bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different
>>>> agenda.
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure of that Dave.
>>
>> I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?
>
> BTW - I was not disagreeing with the context of your suggestion, just not
> sure about it. I'm sure there are people somewhere who have, or are
> studying this very kind of thing.
Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
>>> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the
>>> bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different
>>> agenda.
>>
>> I'm not so sure of that Dave.
>
> I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?
BTW - I was not disagreeing with the context of your suggestion, just not
sure about it. I'm sure there are people somewhere who have, or are
studying this very kind of thing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
>> Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
>> Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
>> (mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
>> Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
>> necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And
>> considering
>> the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous
>> thing
>> to have around.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
>> Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and
>> millions of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the
>> need for self defense - no matter what our current homeland security
>> head says about border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border,
>> and I see signs 3 miles from my house warning me not to venture into
>> the desert because of human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to
>> be public land! We have had running gun battles between coyotes
>> vying for each others smuggled illegals kill innocent travelers on
>> Interstate 10. We have had ranchers killed on their own property by
>> drug smugglers. I'd be negligent without a personal firearm to
>> protect my family and myself!
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Some things are abundantly obvious.
>
> The war on drugs has been an expensive and total failure.
>
> If you want to take over the USA, having an armed citizenry is not
> much
> of a deterrent.
>
> You don't need firearms to conduct cyber war, hell, you don't even
> have
> to be in the USA.
>
> You don't need firearms to contaminate the nation's water supply.
>
> You don't need firearms to totally disrupt the transportation systems.
>
> The list goes on, but you get the idea.
>
> The days of the Lone Ranger are history.
>
> I don't have a good idea to completely solve the "drug problem";
> however, taking the profit out of the "drug problem", is a good
> starting point.
>
> It is abundantly clear that the firearms and ammunition
> manufacturers are playing the public like a fiddle.
>
> Time to wake up.
>
> Off the box.
>
> Lew
All these problems have popped up and especially in California because your
local government knows what is best for you and has you believe it..
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:37:25 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed
>> in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)
>
> Yes, but if the show was made in California you'd more likely die of
> stress related cancer from the lead in the hand gun bullets.
Now you are talking! LOL
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:45:43 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kksp9p$t1g$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
>>> background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid
>>> out for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the
>>> hands of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to
>>> accomplish that.
>>
>> Guns that are volunarily turned in are typically guns that were in the hands
>> of law abiding citizens in the first place.
>>
>>> Also, many of those turned in guns are
>>> non-functional and end up being destroyed anyway.
>>
>> How's that?
>>
>That's easily explained. See, for example, my earlier post describing my experience with
>last summer's gun buy-back in Indianapolis -- the buy-backs provide a convenient way for
>law-abiding citizens such as myself to get some money for junk guns that no rational person
>would ever buy. My only regret at participating in that charade is that the Indy buy-back
>offered only fifty bucks per gun, instead of the $100 typical in Chicago. :-( That, and the 2.5
>hours (!) spent waiting in line. At least it was a nice day.
These posts had a plus for me I went looking at some rifles that were
my grandfathers. I've never done anything with them just kept them
stored in the house. Turns out one of them is a Colt Lightening made
in 1888. Seems to be in good working order and has some value. Guess
I'll have it looked at by an expert and decide what to do with it.
Even have ammunition for it assuming properly stored ammunition is
usable after 30-40 years. Not being a gun expert I'll be consulting
one.
Mike M
"Mike M" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
These posts had a plus for me I went looking at some rifles that were
my grandfathers. I've never done anything with them just kept them
stored in the house. Turns out one of them is a Colt Lightening made
in 1888. Seems to be in good working order and has some value. Guess
I'll have it looked at by an expert and decide what to do with it.
Even have ammunition for it assuming properly stored ammunition is
usable after 30-40 years. Not being a gun expert I'll be consulting
one.
I've got a Colt 'Thunderer,' the .41 caliber version and the same model
Billy the Kid was alleged by some to have carried. Mine has NEVER worked
and the internals have for years been corroded to the point of being frozen.
The exterior plating was well-worn even then. My father's father gave it to
me in September, 1968 so I could take it to gunsmithing school at Trinidad
State Junior College. Granddaddy had been a special agent for the Southern
Pacific railroad in Navasota, Texas when he bought it off a college student
in 1915 returning home for Christmas break and who did not want his folks to
know he had it. I remember the purchase price being $1.50 including a very
small paper bag of cartridges. I still have the cartridges; they didn't
work in 1968 much like the pistol.
Back then I could manipulate the hammer into the cocked position and,
while holding it with my thumb, manipulate the trigger until I felt the sear
disengage. At that point I could release the hammer with my thumb which
would fall with sufficient force to dent the cartridge primer. Alas, no
ignition with Granddaddy's ammo - probably just as well. I've never seen
another revolver with cylinder walls as thin as this Colt's and would
certainly never have considered smokeless power even in reduced loads.
Granddaddy recounted that he had only fired it once himself, at a 'polecat'
which I took to mean a skunk. He didn't say whether it was of the
two-legged or four-legged variety.
At Trinidad I couldn't wait to try to restore it and was elated when I
found that one of my instructors, a Mr. Praeter (sp?) was an encyclopedia in
all things Colt. He wouldn't touch it, wouldn't even look at it advising me
to trash it. "Worst POS to ever come out of Colt," or words to that effect.
I wonder to this day why Billy the Kid would have carried one. Perhaps it
contributed to his untimely death? Nah . . . .
This is a short, concise history of the gun:
http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Guns/Colt1877DA/colt1877da.html.
Dave in Houston
"Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in news:R4xct.62558$WR.11943@en-nntp-
16.dc1.easynews.com:
[...]
> At Trinidad I couldn't wait to try to restore it and was elated when I
> found that one of my instructors, a Mr. Praeter (sp?) was an encyclopedia in
> all things Colt. He wouldn't touch it, wouldn't even look at it advising me
> to trash it. "Worst POS to ever come out of Colt," or words to that effect.
So wait until some civic-minded soul decides to sponsor a gun buy-back in Houston, turn it in,
and get fifty bucks or so for a worthless hunk of metal.
Worked for me.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:05:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and millions
>of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the need for self
>defense - no matter what our current homeland security head says about
>border security.
Well, you maybe right. I don't experience that kind of stress where I
live. I do live in a crowded city in an apartment building that has
its own level of stress or possible danger if you prefer.
And, I will admit one other thing. If guns were legal and easily
obtained I'd own one now. A little over thirty years ago, I used to do
quite a bit of target shooting and owned a half dozen rifles and hand
guns. But, those day are long gone and unlikely to return.
On 4/19/13 11:46 PM, Mike M wrote:
> These posts had a plus for me I went looking at some rifles that were
> my grandfathers. I've never done anything with them just kept them
> stored in the house. Turns out one of them is a Colt Lightening made
> in 1888. Seems to be in good working order and has some value. Guess
> I'll have it looked at by an expert and decide what to do with it.
>
Wow. If it *is* indeed original and in good shape, you could auction
that off and likely end up with with enough for a new shop.
Not just the tools, the building as well. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:37:25 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed
>in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)
Yes, but if the show was made in California you'd more likely die of
stress related cancer from the lead in the hand gun bullets.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in news:R4xct.62558$WR.11943@en-nntp-
16.dc1.easynews.com:
[...]
> At Trinidad I couldn't wait to try to restore it and was elated when I
> found that one of my instructors, a Mr. Praeter (sp?) was an encyclopedia
> in
> all things Colt. He wouldn't touch it, wouldn't even look at it advising
> me
> to trash it. "Worst POS to ever come out of Colt," or words to that
> effect.
So wait until some civic-minded soul decides to sponsor a gun buy-back in
Houston, turn it in,
and get fifty bucks or so for a worthless hunk of metal.
Worked for me.
It has more sentimental value [to me] than that. Besides which how far
would $50 get me?
Dave in Houston
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
>> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
>> still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
>
>I'm not so sure of that Dave.
I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?
"ChairMan" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>John Grossbohlin <[email protected]> >
>wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:
>
>>>> I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's
>>>> society.
>
>>> I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But
>>> that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe
>>> that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course,
>>> considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot
>>> Act was passed, maybe it is.
>
>> Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White
>> House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches
>> of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.
>I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military
>helicopters in Boston.
>Why military and not news and police choppers?
>Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first
>priorty and the right to defend that right second
The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used only
as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words really
mean!
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/18/13 10:42 PM, Dave wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>> I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?
>>>
>>> Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
>>> let you know if I find it.
>>>
>>> The main point of the show was that people react differently under
>>> stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
>>> situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.
>>>
>>
>> The point is the show is bullshit.
>> You need trained to use tools and weapons, period.
>> Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police officers.
>> And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing
>> laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their
>> 2nd Amendment rights get proper training. I'm all for that.
>>
>
> Better yet, require training and license parents ...
Yeah! I have been reluctant to say it but I firmly believe that the
biggest problem with our society in the U.S. is that in most cases both
parents work and are not available for their kids. Too busy trying to
stay up with the Jones and not paying enough to what really matters, our
children.
"ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "ChairMan" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>John Grossbohlin <[email protected]> >
>>>wrote:
>>>> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's
>>>>>> society.
>>>
>>>>> I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But
>>>>> that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe
>>>>> that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course,
>>>>> considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot
>>>>> Act was passed, maybe it is.
>>>
>>>> Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White
>>>> House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches
>>>> of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.
>>
>>>I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military
>>>helicopters in Boston.
>>>Why military and not news and police choppers?
>>>Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first
>>>priorty and the right to defend that right second
>>
>> The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used
>> only as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words
>> really mean!
>>
>>
>
> Stilll sounds hokey to me.
> They could easily be shuttled with regular choppers.
> I agree with you on the "code" words. Who knows?<shrug>
>
The military, particularly the national guard, has often supplied helicopter
transport during emergencies. They are often used during mountain and
wilderness rescues. I talked to a national guard helicopter pilot about
this once. He said that they consider it a good training exercise and are
happy to help out. I think it really boils down to where they want to spend
the money. When you consider that all of Boston area cops are working 12
hour shifts now and many of them are working beyond that without pay, where
do they come up with funds to pay for some very expensive aircraft flying
time and pilots? Having some other government agency step in and help
defray the considerable expense seems like a win/ win situation for
everybody. It isn't like the military copter are flying combat missions and
shooting missiles at civilians. They are providing eyes in the sky and taxi
service during a civil emergency. It is totally a support function.
I fail to see how that is not a good thing. It is good we have those
resource available during a time of civil emergency. And if an act of
domestic terrorism is not a civil emergency, I don't know what is.
"John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>The mass warrantless searches
> of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>Think it comes under the "hot pursuit" option.
----------------------------------------------------------
"John Grossbohlin" wrote:
> Not likely applicable as visual contact with the suspect must be
> maintained throughout the chase for that to apply in the use of
> force... Since they had no idea where the suspect was it would be
> hard to argue that it was a legal search without the consent of the
> residents. That said, apparently most of the people were grateful
> to be searched... I guess fear of the suspects and the intimidation
> of having heavily armed police at your door has an influence on ones
> decisions!
----------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Since it turns out they had him surrounded from the gitgo,
could probably make a very good "hot pursuit" case with a judge.
What ever way you want to cut it, a lot of folks in greater Boston are
relived
tonight.
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>"John Grossbohlin" wrote:
> >The mass warrantless searches
>> of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.
----------------------------------------------------------
>Think it comes under the "hot pursuit" option.
Not likely applicable as visual contact with the suspect must be maintained
throughout the chase for that to apply in the use of force... Since they had
no idea where the suspect was it would be hard to argue that it was a legal
search without the consent of the residents. That said, apparently most of
the people were grateful to be searched... I guess fear of the suspects and
the intimidation of having heavily armed police at your door has an
influence on ones decisions!
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:54:38 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
And your replay is feeble. Automobiles, baseball bats, hammers,
whatever else everyday item you want to present, usually have other
uses and originated with a different purpose.
Perhaps you should read this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
Firearms originated with just one purpose. The first maker of a gun
didn't just think one day, "Hmmm, think I'll make gun for target
shooting". Instead he thought, "I'll make a gun to kill some animal or
go kill someone in a fight".
In any event, when all other argument fails, people in the US fall
back on the second amendment. That was several hundred years ago.
Society was considerably different then. I'd suggest that the second
amendment is out of date in today's society.
But, I understand the want to keep it. It's like anything else.
Someone gave you something and you're damned if anybody is going to
take it away from you. Guess you're going to have to find some other
method to handle your gun crimes.
John Grossbohlin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:
>
>>> I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in
>>> today's
>>> society.
>
>> I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of
>> time. But
>> that statement was just too much. It's true only if you
>> believe
>> that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of
>> course,
>> considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the
>> so-called Patriot
>> Act was passed, maybe it is.
>
> Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of
> the White
> House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless
> searches
> of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well
> either.
I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of
military helicopters in Boston.
Why military and not news and police choppers?
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech
the first priorty and the right to defend that right second
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:
>> I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's society.
>I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But that
>statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe that freedom
>is out of date in today's society. Of course, considering we didn't rise
>up in revolt when the so-called Patriot Act was passed, maybe it is.
Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White House it
sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches of homes underway
in the Boston area don't sit too well either.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>What ever way you want to cut it, a lot of folks in greater Boston are
>relived tonight.
That is for sure! A better outcome than anticipated... especially
considering that between the two shooting sessions apparently 300+ rounds
were discharged. Reports claimed 200 in the first one and another estimated
100 in the second one. Goes to show what stress and fatigue can do to one's
fine motor skills!
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "ChairMan" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>John Grossbohlin <[email protected]> >
>>wrote:
>>> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's
>>>>> society.
>>
>>>> I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But
>>>> that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe
>>>> that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course,
>>>> considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot
>>>> Act was passed, maybe it is.
>>
>>> Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White
>>> House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches
>>> of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.
>
>>I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military
>>helicopters in Boston.
>>Why military and not news and police choppers?
>>Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first
>>priorty and the right to defend that right second
>
> The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used
> only as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words
> really mean!
>
>
Stilll sounds hokey to me.
They could easily be shuttled with regular choppers.
I agree with you on the "code" words. Who knows?<shrug>
On 4/18/13 11:13 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:54:38 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
>> automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
>> deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
>
> And your replay is feeble. Automobiles, baseball bats, hammers,
> whatever else everyday item you want to present, usually have other
> uses and originated with a different purpose.
>
> Perhaps you should read this.
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
>
Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
everyone wants to band guns?
> Firearms originated with just one purpose. The first maker of a gun
> didn't just think one day, "Hmmm, think I'll make gun for target
> shooting". Instead he thought, "I'll make a gun to kill some animal or
> go kill someone in a fight".
>
> In any event, when all other argument fails, people in the US fall
> back on the second amendment. That was several hundred years ago.
> Society was considerably different then. I'd suggest that the second
> amendment is out of date in today's society.
>
When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and
it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the
internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st
Amendment because of that.
> But, I understand the want to keep it. It's like anything else.
> Someone gave you something and you're damned if anybody is going to
> take it away from you. Guess you're going to have to find some other
> method to handle your gun crimes.
>
It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the
constitution.
The only one who gave it to us was our creator.
But why am I arguing with a Canadian?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:
> I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's society.
I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But that
statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe that freedom
is out of date in today's society. Of course, considering we didn't rise
up in revolt when the so-called Patriot Act was passed, maybe it is.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
"ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
[...]
> Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech
> the first priorty and the right to defend that right second
Actually, the very first right enumerated is freedom of religion, not speech.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> [...]
>> Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech
>> the first priorty and the right to defend that right second
>
> Actually, the very first right enumerated is freedom of religion, not
> speech.
Actually, and/or. And isn't freedom of religion part and parcel to free
speech?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:10:25 -0600, Leon wrote
(in article
<[email protected]>):
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
>>>>> and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the
>>>>> bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different
>>>>> agenda.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure of that Dave.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?
>>
>> BTW - I was not disagreeing with the context of your suggestion, just not
>> sure about it. I'm sure there are people somewhere who have, or are
>> studying this very kind of thing.
>
>
> Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
> saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
> that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
Joy Luck nightclub in the '90s. Largest mass murder in US history.
Can of gasoline.
-BR
Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:10:37 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>> But many children have died in China in recent years in similar knife
>> attacks at schools... By statute they and other locations have become
>> relatively safe places for madmen to cause mayhem.
>
> Right. Let's use that as a reason to equip everybody including
> teachers with firearms.
>
> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
Sure, but the bigger problem is the mental state of the person wielding
either tool. Failure to address the root problem will result in the weed
continuing to pop up in other places.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave wrote:
>
> Come on. You're really going to compare home made bombs to gun
> shootings? Pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs might be effective, but still
> they're still another animal and not really in the same ball park. The
> terror of someone walking along shooting people isn't matched by your
> home made bombs.
>
> It's easier to obtain guns (and use them) than your home made bombs,
> otherwise you'd be hearing of many more domestic bombings in the news.
>
Actually - it's much easier to build homemade bombs than to acquire a
firearm. But, ease must not be what it's all about in the minds of people
who go off the edge.
> In the end, the knowledge needed to obtain and shoot a firearm is much
> less than that needed for bomb making.
Scant little knowledge necessary to build a bomb. Common materials,
instructions easily found on the internet.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/18/2013 10:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
>> capable of murder is going to give up his guns?
> ---------------------------------------------
> It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your
> Texas "Graybar Hotels".
>
Or quietly go about their business and not call attention to themselves.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>> Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of
>> the
>> left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
>> Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
>> Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style"
>> weapons.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> BullShit.
>
> I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to
> be
> a little bit ironic.
>
> According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded
> firearms
> in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for
> watching TV.
>
> The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight
> that
> evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.
>
> It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his
> deputy
> had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.
>
> Kind of ironic.
>
> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have
> lost his
> right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon,
> and
> both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
capable of murder is going to give up his guns? Think Iraq and weapons of
mass destruction. When there is a will to hide and kill there will always
be a way.
>
> Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks.
I really don't think they are looking for sympathy, it is their right to do
so should they choose to do so.
> however,
> the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without
> them.
Actually many gun manufacturers build many other things besides guns.
>
> Lew
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Scant little knowledge necessary to build a bomb. Common materials,
>> instructions easily found on the internet.
>
> But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of
> choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing
> rampage.
>
> I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a
> bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who
> plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
>
> That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a
> building shooting people.
It is, but yesterday's experience in Boston casts a different shadow on the
discussion. I don't disagree that unstable people can and do perform bad
acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people
as events like Boston grow. That seems to be the way these people work.
One mass shooting leads to many others - public bombings will lead to more
bombings.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...> .... With
>someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
Especially if YOU have a gun!
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
Mike M wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:14:43 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2013 4:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> "A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
>>>> Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with
>>>> handsaws remained in critical condition Thursday morning,
>>>> authorities said."
>>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WOW! I guess Steve Gass needs to invent the "Bullet Stop" LOL
>
> To be honest Monsanto and their GMO products scares the hell out of me
> more then the guns.
>
But - that's because you think... contrary to those who open their heads and
allow others to simply pour KookAid into their brains so they don't have to
bother doing so. There are those here... <Lew>...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:06:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The problem with guns is that you can't outrun a bullet and it's
>>> pretty hard to fight off someone if they're aiming a gun at you. With
>>> someone holding a knife, you might be able to stay out of their reach
>>> or at the very least, have a much better chance of fighting them off.
>> I knife will never be used for mass killings like a gun. Take away the
>> gun and the guy then uses a pipe bomb.
>Fertilizer and diesel fuel is much more effective - as witnessed in
>Oklahoma City. Mass murderers find the most effective means for their
>ugly twisted deeds. Unfortunately, they are very adaptable.
Come on. You're really going to compare home made bombs to gun
shootings? Pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs might be effective, but still
they're still another animal and not really in the same ball park. The
terror of someone walking along shooting people isn't matched by your
home made bombs.
It's easier to obtain guns (and use them) than your home made bombs,
otherwise you'd be hearing of many more domestic bombings in the news.
In the end, the knowledge needed to obtain and shoot a firearm is much
less than that needed for bomb making.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
>>> worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
>>> last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
>>> better.
>>
>> Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
>> gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
>> respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
>> constitutes "gun control"?
>
> That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment that you
> included.
>
>>
>> Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
>> seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
>>
>
> They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
> becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
> predictor of anything beneficial.
>
>
>> Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
>> buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
>> the 60 votes needed to pass.
>>
>
> Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill that
> was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that was
> based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that was
> based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own admission,
> had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US. It was a
> bad law and it should not have passed.
>
And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that
control guns.
"-MIKE-" wrote:
> Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of
> the
> left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
> Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
> Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style"
> weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------
BullShit.
I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to
be
a little bit ironic.
According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded
firearms
in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for
watching TV.
The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight
that
evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.
It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his
deputy
had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.
Kind of ironic.
If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have
lost his
right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon,
and
both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks;
however,
the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without
them.
Lew
On 04/19/2013 05:32 AM, Leon wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
>>>> worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
>>>> last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
>>> gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
>>> respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
>>> constitutes "gun control"?
>>
>> That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment that you
>> included.
>>
>>>
>>> Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
>>> seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
>>>
>>
>> They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
>> becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
>> predictor of anything beneficial.
>>
>>
>>> Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
>>> buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
>>> the 60 votes needed to pass.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill that
>> was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that was
>> based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that was
>> based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own admission,
>> had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US. It was a
>> bad law and it should not have passed.
>>
>
>
> And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
> thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
> voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that
> control guns.
>
Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid out
for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the hands
of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to accomplish
that. Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
being destroyed anyway.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
> thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
> voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that
> control guns.
>
If each gun sold is accompanied by a background check, as it surely must
be, where is the harm in the program? And where do I sign up?
On 4/19/2013 5:08 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> [...]
>
>> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
>> have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted
>> felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
>
> Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted felons
> *already* lose the right to possess firearms.
>
> Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the
> possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.
>
> I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of illegal
> drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.
>
I would be willing to bet good money than most legal gun owners would
become illegal gun owners before they would surrender their guns.
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so
> far, becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they
> were a predictor of anything beneficial.
--------------------------------------------------------
BullShit.
The arms and ammunition manufacturers are simply collecting on the
monies spent to buy their politions.
------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a
> bill that was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and
> not one that was based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso,
> it was a bill that was based on the desires of a special interest
> group which by its own admission, had the agenda of eliminating all
> private gun ownership in the US. It was a bad law and it should not
> have passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You're being manipulating the facts.
Nobody wants your damn guns unless they are military assualt weapons
or high capacity clips.
What they do want is a way to keep firearms out of the hands of
convicted
felons or the mentally challenged.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
>> have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a
>> convicted
>> felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote:
>
> Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background
> check". Convicted felons
> *already* lose the right to possess firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lew Hodgett wrote:
So your suggesting that if the DA and his deputy had enforced existing
Texas law they would still be alive today?
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote:
> Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass
> laws prohibiting the
> possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Rubbish.
I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military assault
weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic market.
I am interested in strengthening a universal background check.
Ultimately, establishing a gun registration program similar to those
in place for motor vehicles should be the ultimate goal.
Nobody is trying to restrict your use of a motor vehicle, and people
don't complain about the registration process other than maybe
the cost.
Why should firearms be any different?
Lew
Nobody wants your adult Binky".
On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3
>>
>> I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military assault
>> weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic market.
>
> There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market now. Military weapons are
> automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" available on the market are semi-
> automatic -- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters, and, apparently, on
> you also.
>
Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic market, and
it is perfectly legal to own them. You have to pay a $200 federal
licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted to own,
say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto M16a, you
certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask, since such
automatic weapons are actually legal and available for private
ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes? My guess is just
about never. In other words, despite their legality there is no
evidence to support an argument that banning them would make society safer.
> And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If large capacity magazines are
> banned, the bad guys will use more small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more
> ammunition, two 30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any idea
> how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and insert another? What will banning 30-
> round magazines do, except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
> Be specific.
>
Exactly. And if all removable magazines were banned, the bad guys could
carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders were banned, they
could carry 4 loaded revolvers.
On 4/19/2013 8:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so
>> far, becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they
>> were a predictor of anything beneficial.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> BullShit.
>
> The arms and ammunition manufacturers are simply collecting on the
> monies spent to buy their politions.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a
>> bill that was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and
>> not one that was based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso,
>> it was a bill that was based on the desires of a special interest
>> group which by its own admission, had the agenda of eliminating all
>> private gun ownership in the US. It was a bad law and it should not
>> have passed.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> You're being manipulating the facts.
>
> Nobody wants your damn guns unless they are military assualt weapons
> or high capacity clips.
>
> What they do want is a way to keep firearms out of the hands of
> convicted
> felons or the mentally challenged.
>
There isn't a law being proposed that would accomplish that.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:47:53 -0700, chaniarts
>door triggered shotgun burglar deterrents were made illegal, but it's a
>class of these. they also have radar controlled weapons, used for sentry
>duty, for example, so there may not be anyone around.
Of course there's an exception to everything, but it's certainly not
the status quo.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
[...]
> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
> have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted
> felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted felons
*already* lose the right to possess firearms.
Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the
possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.
I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of illegal
drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:5171465b$0$44662$c3e8da3
[email protected]:
[...]
> Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
> being destroyed anyway.
Isn't that the truth. A community group here in Indianapolis sponsored a gun buy-back last
summer. I got two crisp new fifty-dollar bills for a .22 revolver that could not be cocked, and a
20-ga break action shotgun with fixed sights that were off by two feet at ten yards. Many of the
other guns I saw being turned in were obviously very old and rusty -- and nearly all of them
were long guns.
I don't think it accomplished very much except to make the leaders of that community group
feel good about themselves.
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5171bd6d$0$11409$862e30e2
@ngroups.net:
> On 4/19/2013 5:08 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
>>> have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted
>>> felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
>>
>> Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted
felons
>> *already* lose the right to possess firearms.
>>
>> Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the
>> possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.
>>
>> I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of
illegal
>> drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.
>>
> I would be willing to bet good money than most legal gun owners would
> become illegal gun owners before they would surrender their guns.
>
Not taking that bet.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kksp9p$t1g$1@dont-
email.me:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>>
>> Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
>> background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid
>> out for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the
>> hands of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to
>> accomplish that.
>
> Guns that are volunarily turned in are typically guns that were in the hands
> of law abiding citizens in the first place.
>
>> Also, many of those turned in guns are
>> non-functional and end up being destroyed anyway.
>
> How's that?
>
That's easily explained. See, for example, my earlier post describing my experience with
last summer's gun buy-back in Indianapolis -- the buy-backs provide a convenient way for
law-abiding citizens such as myself to get some money for junk guns that no rational person
would ever buy. My only regret at participating in that charade is that the Indy buy-back
offered only fifty bucks per gun, instead of the $100 typical in Chicago. :-( That, and the 2.5
hours (!) spent waiting in line. At least it was a nice day.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3
[email protected]:
>
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
>>> have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a
>>> convicted
>>> felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Doug Miller" wrote:
>>
>> Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background
>> check". Convicted felons
>> *already* lose the right to possess firearms.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> So your suggesting that if the DA and his deputy had enforced existing
> Texas law they would still be alive today?
I obviously did not say that. Nice straw man there, but, sorry, no, I'm not taking the bait.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Doug Miller" wrote:
>
>> Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass
>> laws prohibiting the
>> possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Rubbish.
>
> I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military assault
> weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic market.
There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market now. Military weapons are
automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" available on the market are semi-
automatic -- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters, and, apparently, on
you also.
And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If large capacity magazines are
banned, the bad guys will use more small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more
ammunition, two 30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any idea
how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and insert another? What will banning 30-
round magazines do, except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
Be specific.
One of the unintended consequences of banning large capacity magazines that those
ignorant of firearms never imagine is that 7-round and 10-round magazines are a lot easier
to conceal than 30-round magazines. (Woodworking analogy here: which is easier to fit in
the trunk of your car, four 2-foot 2x4s or one 8-footer?)
>
> I am interested in strengthening a universal background check.
So if I decide to sell one of my shotguns to my brother, I need to run a background check on
him?
> Ultimately, establishing a gun registration program similar to those
> in place for motor vehicles should be the ultimate goal.
I'm sure every criminal in the country would rush to comply with the registration
requirements.
> Nobody is trying to restrict your use of a motor vehicle, and people
> don't complain about the registration process other than maybe
> the cost.
>
> Why should firearms be any different?
Ownership of firearms is a right protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Ownership of automobiles is not.
[gratutitous insult snipped]
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military
>>> assault weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic
>>> market.
>>
>> There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market
>> now. Military weapons are automatic weapons. The so-called
>> "assault weapons" available on the market are semi- automatic
>> -- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters,
>> and, apparently, on you also.
>>
>
> Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic
> market, and it is perfectly legal to own them.
Point taken. I should have said "There are hardly any ... on the
domestic market now".
>You have to pay a $200 federal
> licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted
> to own, say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto
> M16a, you certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask,
> since such automatic weapons are actually legal and available
> for private ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes?
> My guess is just about never. In other words, despite their
> legality there is no evidence to support an argument that
> banning them would make society safer.
>
>> And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If
>> large capacity magazines are banned, the bad guys will use more
>> small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more ammunition, two
>> 30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any
>> idea how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and
>> insert another? What will banning 30- round magazines do,
>> except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
>> Be specific.
>>
> Exactly. And if all removable magazines were banned, the bad
> guys could carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders
> were banned, they could carry 4 loaded revolvers.
On 4/19/2013 8:27 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 05:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
>>>>> worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
>>>>> last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
>>>> gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
>>>> respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
>>>> constitutes "gun control"?
>>>
>>> That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment
>>> that you
>>> included.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
>>>> seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
>>> becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
>>> predictor of anything beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
>>>> buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
>>>> the 60 votes needed to pass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill
>>> that
>>> was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that
>>> was
>>> based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that
>>> was
>>> based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own
>>> admission,
>>> had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US.
>>> It was a
>>> bad law and it should not have passed.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
>> thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
>> voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does
>> that
>> control guns.
>>
>
> Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
> background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid out
> for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the hands
> of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to accomplish
> that. Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
> being destroyed anyway.
>
>
I am sure it is all above board but the media is playing this up as an
improved gun control. Yes improved in balancing out costs for the
program but not for keeping the guns out of circulation.
On 4/19/2013 10:14 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:5171465b$0$44662$c3e8da3
> [email protected]:
>
> [...]
>> Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
>> being destroyed anyway.
>
> Isn't that the truth. A community group here in Indianapolis sponsored a gun buy-back last
> summer. I got two crisp new fifty-dollar bills for a .22 revolver that could not be cocked, and a
> 20-ga break action shotgun with fixed sights that were off by two feet at ten yards. Many of the
> other guns I saw being turned in were obviously very old and rusty -- and nearly all of them
> were long guns.
>
> I don't think it accomplished very much except to make the leaders of that community group
> feel good about themselves.
>
Exactly. Politics working as usual.
On 4/18/2013 8:52 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked.
>> There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40
>> years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better.
>
> Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
> gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
> respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
> constitutes "gun control"?
Restrictions from buying a gun.
>
> Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
> seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
Actually several years ago the Soviet Union/Russia had a worse incident
at a school.
>
> Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
> buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
> the 60 votes needed to pass.
Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.
>
> 'A society terrified of gun violence, so they buy more guns to protect
> themselves from it. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic'.
Only a few disillusioned people in this country are terrified of gun
violence, there would be many more if we could not equally defend ourselves.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-gun-control-defeat-shameful-day-for-washington-1.1241389#ixzz2QqH3IKT7
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id=18981374
>
>
>
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What ever way you want to cut it, a lot of folks in greater Boston are
>> relived tonight.
>
> That is for sure! A better outcome than anticipated... especially
> considering that between the two shooting sessions apparently 300+ rounds
> were discharged. Reports claimed 200 in the first one and another
> estimated 100 in the second one. Goes to show what stress and fatigue
> can do to one's fine motor skills!
Or, as Boudreaux sez: "Lead in the air, meat in the pot."
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
"-MIKE-" wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
> government
> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
That is TOTAL NRA BULLSHIT.
A background check as well as prohibiting convicted felons and the
mentally ill from legitimate firearms possession is NOT banning guns
from the general public.
The NRA is lying thru their teeth to manipulate public opinion.
Lew
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> You do realize that keeping convicted felons and the mentally ill
> from owning guns is a law that is already on the books and enforced.
> don't you? This new proposal did nothing to enhance that - at all.
> The NRA is not my choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They
> do a very good job of revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite
> their lies - with specifics and the contracting evidence. Or is
> this just closed minded rhetoric?
-------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the Dallas DA must have missed it.
Too bad, three people including the DA himself lost their lives do
to his screw up.
As far as the NRA is concerned, they are strictly losers.
I can just see Miss Zeh, my middle aged, 2nd grade teacher packing
her .44 while teaching me to write.
Lew
On 4/21/2013 3:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.
>
"Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens - the
very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
your slippery slope.
On 4/21/2013 5:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
>> government
>> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
> --------------------------------------------------
> That is TOTAL NRA BULLSHIT.
>
> A background check as well as prohibiting convicted felons and the
> mentally ill from legitimate firearms possession is NOT banning guns
> from the general public.
>
How do you get background checks for the mentally ill? First, there
would have to be a medical diagnosis of mental illness. Many mentally
ill people are never diagnosed. Second, there would have to be a
central database of those diagnoses, which is impossible with the
doctor-patient privilege. Third, how do you distinguish people who
while mentally ill represent no danger to themselves or anyone else.
Would you restrict their rights too?
Leon wrote:
>
> Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery
> slope.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Wondering wrote:
> "Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
> criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens -
> the
> very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
> your slippery slope.
------------------------------------------------------
What I find so absolutely humorous is that the gov't has already taken
away
some of those rights of "law-abiding citizens" with out so much as a
whimper.
It's called the Patriot Act.
All this hoopla about gun owner's rights is coming straight from the
firearms
dealers and manufacturers using the NRA as it's spokesman.
As the old saying goes, "Follow the money".
Lew
On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 9:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 4/21/2013 3:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.
>>>
>> "Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
>> criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens - the
>> very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
>> your slippery slope.
>>
>
> Glad you understood that.
Many gun control advocates do not.
"Doug Miller" wrote:
> What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
> Be specific, and cite
> sources of fact.
--------------------------------------------------------
You lazy son of a bitch.
Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.
<Hint>
Might start by reading the Patroit Act itself.
Lew
"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
> "National Security Letters" plain and simple violation of the 4th
> amendment.
>
> It's funny how all the 2nd amendment supporters seem to forget about
> the 1st, 4th and
> 5th amendments.
-----------------------------------------------
Careful now, don't want to load them down with too much homework.
Lew
On 4/22/2013 9:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 4/21/2013 3:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.
>>
> "Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
> criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens - the
> very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
> your slippery slope.
>
Glad you understood that.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:24:24 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>The survival referred in the 2nd Amendment isn't talking about animals,
>it's talking about defending oneself.
Mike, I don't dispute the value (and the need) of the 2nd Amendment at
the time that it was created. I'm quite sure that firearms were a
necessary tool for survival.
I'm just of the opinion that those times are gone for the most part.
And sure, there's always going a criminal element around where having
a firearm to protect oneself is a good thing. But, it's just not the
same now as it was. In the end, I'm not looking to ban guns. I just
think they should be a little more controlled.
Although, with the apparent increase in terrorism I hear about these
days, an armed society might be a necessary evil. In any event, as a
Canadian citizen, I think we're lucky to be a major trading partner
and close friend to the most powerful country on the planet.
Don't think that I don't appreciate it.
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 4/21/13 6:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
>> government
>> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
> --------------------------------------------------
> That is TOTAL NRA BULLSHIT.
>
Unfortunate, Lew, there are lots of quotes available on youtube of
people like Nancy Pelosi saying their goal is to get rid of publicly
owned guns.
=============================================================
Except hers.
On 4/21/2013 4:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 4/21/13 4:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:24:24 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> The survival referred in the 2nd Amendment isn't talking about animals,
>>> it's talking about defending oneself.
>>
>> Mike, I don't dispute the value (and the need) of the 2nd Amendment at
>> the time that it was created. I'm quite sure that firearms were a
>> necessary tool for survival.
>>
>> I'm just of the opinion that those times are gone for the most part.
>> And sure, there's always going a criminal element around where having
>> a firearm to protect oneself is a good thing.
>
> Times are no different, imo. The guns are different and so is the need
> to have the same weapons as your enemy and the criminal element in our
> society.
>
>
>> But, it's just not the
>> same now as it was. In the end, I'm not looking to ban guns. I just
>> think they should be a little more controlled.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US) government
> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.
And then you are at the mercy of waiting on local law enforcement to
protect you.
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:51754b3e$0$11537$862e30e2
@ngroups.net:
> How do you get background checks for the mentally ill? First, there
> would have to be a medical diagnosis of mental illness. Many mentally
> ill people are never diagnosed.
Specifically because they never seek treatment. I had a family member with a serious
mental illness, and a co-worker who appeared to have one -- both of whom were certain
they had no problems at all. Serious mental illness often prevents the individual from
recognizing the extent of his problems.
Even if diagnosed, a mentally ill person may still be capable of purchasing firearms
*legally* unless there has been a finding _by a court_ that the person is mentally ill:
Form 4473 www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf asks "Have you ever been
adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to
manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
A person who has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and treated as an
outpatient, but has never come in contact with the court system, may truthfully and legally
answer this question "No."
>Second, there would have to be a
> central database of those diagnoses, which is impossible with the
> doctor-patient privilege.
And illegal under [current] U.S. Federal law.
>Third, how do you distinguish people who
> while mentally ill represent no danger to themselves or anyone else.
> Would you restrict their rights too?
How do you determine that someone is *not* a danger? In the case of an overt act or threat,
it's pretty easy to determine that someons *is* a danger to himself or others -- but what if he
never says or does anything? More to the point -- what if he simply hasn't said or done
anything *yet* ?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:51756b8f$0$46957$c3e8da3
[email protected]:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery
>> slope.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> "Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
>> criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens -
>> the
>> very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
>> your slippery slope.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> What I find so absolutely humorous is that the gov't has already taken
> away
> some of those rights of "law-abiding citizens" with out so much as a
> whimper.
>
> It's called the Patriot Act.
What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away? Be specific, and cite
sources of fact.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:5175963f$0$47053$c3e8da3
[email protected]:
>
> "Doug Miller" wrote:
>
>> What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
>> Be specific, and cite
>> sources of fact.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> You lazy son of a bitch.
>
> Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.
In other words... you don't know of any.
Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:fvhdt.140324$P%[email protected]:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> writes:
>>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:5175963f$0$47053$c3e8da3
>>[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Doug Miller" wrote:
>>>
>>>> What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
>>>> Be specific, and cite
>>>> sources of fact.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> You lazy son of a bitch.
>>>
>>> Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.
>>
>>In other words... you don't know of any.
>>
>>Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.
>>
>
> "National Security Letters" plain and simple violation of the 4th amendment.
The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches and
seizures -- which leaves it up to a court to determine what's reasonable and what's not.
>
> It's funny how all the 2nd amendment supporters seem to forget about the 1st, 4th and
> 5th amendments.
It's funny how people pontificate about the Constitution without having actually read it -- or
read things that aren't there.
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.
And then you are at the mercy of waiting on local law enforcement to
protect you.
=================================================================
Who are under no obligation to do so.
Doug Miller <[email protected]> writes:
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:5175963f$0$47053$c3e8da3
>[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Doug Miller" wrote:
>>
>>> What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
>>> Be specific, and cite
>>> sources of fact.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> You lazy son of a bitch.
>>
>> Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.
>
>In other words... you don't know of any.
>
>Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.
>
"National Security Letters" plain and simple violation of the 4th amendment.
It's funny how all the 2nd amendment supporters seem to forget about the 1st, 4th and
5th amendments.
scott
On 4/21/13 4:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:24:24 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> The survival referred in the 2nd Amendment isn't talking about animals,
>> it's talking about defending oneself.
>
> Mike, I don't dispute the value (and the need) of the 2nd Amendment at
> the time that it was created. I'm quite sure that firearms were a
> necessary tool for survival.
>
> I'm just of the opinion that those times are gone for the most part.
> And sure, there's always going a criminal element around where having
> a firearm to protect oneself is a good thing.
Times are no different, imo. The guns are different and so is the need
to have the same weapons as your enemy and the criminal element in our
society.
> But, it's just not the
> same now as it was. In the end, I'm not looking to ban guns. I just
> think they should be a little more controlled.
>
Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US) government
who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
> Although, with the apparent increase in terrorism I hear about these
> days, an armed society might be a necessary evil.
That's a telling statement. :-)
I don't see an armed society as an evil, but i get what you're saying.
> In any event, as a
> Canadian citizen, I think we're lucky to be a major trading partner
> and close friend to the most powerful country on the planet.
>
> Don't think that I don't appreciate it.
>
In any case, I appreciate your honest debate is all this.
We should be able to vigorously debate these things without diving over
them.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
>> government
>> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
> --------------------------------------------------
> That is TOTAL NRA BULLSHIT.
>
> A background check as well as prohibiting convicted felons and the
> mentally ill from legitimate firearms possession is NOT banning guns
> from the general public.
>
> The NRA is lying thru their teeth to manipulate public opinion.
>
You do realize that keeping convicted felons and the mentally ill from
owning guns is a law that is already on the books and enforced. don't you?
This new proposal did nothing to enhance that - at all. The NRA is not my
choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They do a very good job of
revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite their lies - with specifics and
the contracting evidence. Or is this just closed minded rhetoric?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/21/13 6:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
>> government
>> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
> --------------------------------------------------
> That is TOTAL NRA BULLSHIT.
>
Unfortunate, Lew, there are lots of quotes available on youtube of
people like Nancy Pelosi saying their goal is to get rid of publicly
owned guns.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/22/13 12:09 AM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 4/21/13 6:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
>>> government
>>> who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> That is TOTAL NRA BULLSHIT.
>>
>
> Unfortunate, Lew, there are lots of quotes available on youtube of
> people like Nancy Pelosi saying their goal is to get rid of publicly
> owned guns.
> =============================================================
> Except hers.
>
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
If you can find it, on youtube, it's quoted in articles on the internet.
Her, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, and plenty of state and local
government official all stating if they had their way, there would be no
privately owned gun in the US.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:04:07 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>> It's called the Patriot Act.
>
> What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away? Be
> specific, and cite sources of fact.
Doug, without going into a lot of details, just the fact that several
provisions have already been declared unconstitutional should serve as
some measure of proof.
And you might want to read the "controversy" section of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Controversy
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 4/18/13 8:52 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked.
>> There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40
>> years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better.
>
> Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
> gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
> respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
> constitutes "gun control"?
>
> Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
> seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
>
Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of the
left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style" weapons.
However, this all flies in the face of the actual facts surrounding
Sandy Hook.
- *Current* background check laws and procedures *worked* by prohibiting
the shooter, Adam Lanza, from buying weapons when he tried in the days
before the shooting.
- The shooter, Adam Lanza, used only registered, stolen handguns in the
Sandy Hook shooting and left a rifle in his car. He neither possessed,
nor had access to any "assault-style" weapons.
Yet, everyone who's is pushing for stricter gun control laws and gun
bans continue to use this fictitious, fabricated narrative that Sandy
Hook was perpetrated by a man using unregistered weapons and assault
style rifles.
NOT ONE new gun control or gun registration law being proposed today
would've changed ANYTHING about Sandy Hook.
> Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
> buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
> the 60 votes needed to pass.
>
Do you think there may have been more to the story *and* the bill and
its amendments when FIVE democrats voted against it?
> 'A society terrified of gun violence, so they buy more guns to protect
> themselves from it. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic'.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-gun-control-defeat-shameful-day-for-washington-1.1241389#ixzz2QqH3IKT7
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id=18981374
>
The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
fairy-tails of the Left.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/18/13 10:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>> Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of
>> the
>> left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
>> Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
>> Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style"
>> weapons.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> BullShit.
>
> I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to
> be
> a little bit ironic.
>
> According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded
> firearms
> in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for
> watching TV.
>
> The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight
> that
> evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.
>
> It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his
> deputy
> had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.
>
> Kind of ironic.
>
> If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have
> lost his
> right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon,
> and
> both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
>
> Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks;
> however,
> the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without
> them.
>
> Lew
>
Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
>> worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
>> last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
>> better.
>
> Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
> gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
> respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
> constitutes "gun control"?
That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment that you
included.
>
> Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
> seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
>
They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
predictor of anything beneficial.
> Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
> buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
> the 60 votes needed to pass.
>
Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill that
was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that was
based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that was
based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own admission,
had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US. It was a
bad law and it should not have passed.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
> background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid
> out for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the
> hands of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to
> accomplish that.
Guns that are volunarily turned in are typically guns that were in the hands
of law abiding citizens in the first place.
> Also, many of those turned in guns are
> non-functional and end up being destroyed anyway.
How's that?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so
>> far, becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they
>> were a predictor of anything beneficial.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> BullShit.
>
> The arms and ammunition manufacturers are simply collecting on the
> monies spent to buy their politions.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a
>> bill that was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and
>> not one that was based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso,
>> it was a bill that was based on the desires of a special interest
>> group which by its own admission, had the agenda of eliminating all
>> private gun ownership in the US. It was a bad law and it should not
>> have passed.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> You're being manipulating the facts.
>
> Nobody wants your damn guns unless they are military assualt weapons
> or high capacity clips.
>
> What they do want is a way to keep firearms out of the hands of
> convicted
> felons or the mentally challenged.
>
You are either not reading what politicians like Diane Fienstien and others
have publicly stated, or you're simply chosing to ignore it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
<...snipped...>
>Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
>buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
>the 60 votes needed to pass.
Dave, just for clarification, except for muzzle loaders and a few
antique categories, firearms cannot be purchasd online in the USA without
going through a licensed federal firearms license holder.
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked.
> There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40
>years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better.
Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
constitutes "gun control"?
Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
the 60 votes needed to pass.
'A society terrified of gun violence, so they buy more guns to protect
themselves from it. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic'.
Read more:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-gun-control-defeat-shameful-day-for-washington-1.1241389#ixzz2QqH3IKT7
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id=18981374
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:44:08 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>It's not even true, and only someone who knows nothing about guns would think that it is.
>>Guns, like knives, "have a considerable amount of use other than killing people." Mostly,
I
>
> I said that Guns are pretty much a single use item. That statement
> includes people or animals.
>
> As far as my stating that guns were mostly a single use item, it was
> intended to say that guns are used for killing, whether it be man OR
> animal. So, it is true.
No, it's not. They're also useful for target shooting, and for self-defense. My brother and I
have both used them defensively without killing anyone.
>
> This is the second time you've accused my of lying you asshole and I'm
> not going to put up with your bullshit any more.
You made a statement that is obviously not true, and I pointed that out. If that makes you a
liar and me an asshole for pointing it out, so be it.
>
> I've never used or needed a firearm for self defense, but I did own
> and use six or so rifles and handguns for target shooting for about a
> dozen years.
Make up your mind! "Guns are pretty much a single use item ... for killing" or "I did own and
use ... [guns] for target shooting". Which is it?
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:44:08 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>It's not even true, and only someone who knows nothing about guns would think that it is.
>Guns, like knives, "have a considerable amount of use other than killing people." Mostly, I
I said that Guns are pretty much a single use item. That statement
includes people or animals.
As far as my stating that guns were mostly a single use item, it was
intended to say that guns are used for killing, whether it be man OR
animal. So, it is true.
This is the second time you've accused my of lying you asshole and I'm
not going to put up with your bullshit any more.
I've never used or needed a firearm for self defense, but I did own
and use six or so rifles and handguns for target shooting for about a
dozen years.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Cars have many, many more uses than guns and there's no way in hell
>> you can compare the two when it comes to general use. So STFU.
>Off your meds again, Dave?
Instead of playing your usual bullshit red herring card, try replying
with a logical comparison of the value to society between guns ard
cars.
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:15:15 -0500, Steve Barker
>Right! And box knives can just as easily replace a gun by someone
>walking through a crown slashing the caratoid artery of everybody they
>come near. The death toll would be the same as a gun too, right Leon?
>
>Really, really nice feeble try.
Sorry Leon, mix up on the names. mea culpa.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:25:27 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Actually guns are much harder to obtain. Home Depo has every thing you
>need to make a pipe bomb and much cheaper than buying a gun.
Read my answer to Mike. It doesn't matter what materials are easier to
obtain, it's just not happening that way.
And as far as you person with the knife, 22 people were stabbed and it
wasn't clear if there were *any* fatalities. Can you tell me if it
would have been the same if those 22 people were shot instead?
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Scant little knowledge necessary to build a bomb. Common materials,
>instructions easily found on the internet.
But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of
choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing
rampage.
I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a
bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who
plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a
building shooting people.
On 4/18/2013 10:14 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
>> to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
>> fairy-tails of the Left.
>
> And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
> television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
> discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
> thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.
>
> Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
> started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
> training in the face of presumed REAL danger.
>
> How do you explain that?
They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and
I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives
us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we
are not going to poop when we see a gun.
On 04/18/2013 08:14 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
>> to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
>> fairy-tails of the Left.
>
> And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
> television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
> discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
> thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.
>
> Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
> started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
> training in the face of presumed REAL danger.
>
> How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals,
> CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle
> these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.
>
Bawn Jure.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 04/18/2013 08:05 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
>> that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.
>
> Your country specific taunts are beneath you.
>
> Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society
> these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as
> possible.
>
> It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
> preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
> properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
> citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
> ridiculous.
>
Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so. Only recently have we
given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
and therein lies the problem.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 4/19/2013 5:10 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>>
>> It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
>> preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
>> properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
>> citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
>> ridiculous.
>
> That's something of an unfounded fear Dave. If that were the case, we would
> see that problem alive and well at this time, but we don't. Your position
> is arguing a fear that has not proven itself to be real.
>
It's more of a personality/character thing. There are regular news
stories of people without "constant training" who use their guns to
protect themselves, their homes and other people from violent crimes.
There are hundreds of thousands of people with concealed carry licenses,
and millions of people who have the right to open carry. Their numbers
are probably an order of magnitude greater than was true in the
so-called "Wild West" (which really wasn't so wild after all).
Q: How often do they "pull out a gun and start shooting?"
A: Never.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
>to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
>fairy-tails of the Left.
And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.
Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
training in the face of presumed REAL danger.
How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals,
CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle
these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.
On 4/18/13 10:05 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
>> that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.
>
> Your country specific taunts are beneath you.
>
> Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society
> these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as
> possible.
>
> It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
> preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
> properly to on the spot gun shootings.
Where and how had this been proven?
> You'd have your everyday
> citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
> ridiculous.
>
Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms. I know of
teenagers who have better aim and gun control than most cops. The vast
majority cops only discharge their firearms at the shooting range. Most
private gun owners shoot their weapons much more frequently than cops.
They used to teach firearms procedure and shooting in high schools.
People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
were and trained their children to use and respect them.
Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
intruders with their personal firearms.
Why is it that the cities with the strictest guns control laws and bans
on hand guns still have the highest (by leaps and bounds) rates for
murder by guns?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/18/13 10:14 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
>> to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
>> fairy-tails of the Left.
>
> And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
> television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
> discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
> thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.
>
> Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
> started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
> training in the face of presumed REAL danger.
>
> How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals,
> CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle
> these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.
>
I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Dave wrote:
>
> It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
> preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
> properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
> citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
> ridiculous.
That's something of an unfounded fear Dave. If that were the case, we would
see that problem alive and well at this time, but we don't. Your position
is arguing a fear that has not proven itself to be real.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Just Wondering wrote:
> It's more of a personality/character thing. There are regular news
> stories of people without "constant training" who use their guns to
> protect themselves, their homes and other people from violent crimes.
>
I suppose it somewhat depends on how one defines "regular news stories", but
all the same - it somewhat dispells your concerns. Those people without
that constant training are not racking up scores of unfortunate outcomes.
> There are hundreds of thousands of people with concealed carry
> licenses, and millions of people who have the right to open carry. Their
> numbers are probably an order of magnitude greater than was
> true in the so-called "Wild West" (which really wasn't so wild after
> all). Q: How often do they "pull out a gun and start shooting?"
> A: Never.
That's very true. So - what is the big concern over them?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> It's more of a personality/character thing. There are regular news
>> stories of people without "constant training" who use their guns to
>> protect themselves, their homes and other people from violent crimes.
>>
>
> I suppose it somewhat depends on how one defines "regular news
> stories", but all the same - it somewhat dispells your concerns. Those
> people without that constant training are not racking up scores
> of unfortunate outcomes.
>> There are hundreds of thousands of people with concealed carry
>> licenses, and millions of people who have the right to open carry.
>> Their numbers are probably an order of magnitude greater than was
>> true in the so-called "Wild West" (which really wasn't so wild after
>> all). Q: How often do they "pull out a gun and start shooting?"
>> A: Never.
>
> That's very true. So - what is the big concern over them?
Oops - got cornfused over what had been posted. Somehow I thought Dave had
posted the comments I had replied to. Could not figure out why he would
have been arguing so elequently in favor of gun ownership. Now I get it!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
>that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.
Your country specific taunts are beneath you.
Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society
these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as
possible.
It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
ridiculous.
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>Make up your mind! "Guns are pretty much a single use item ... for killing" or "I did own and
>>use ... [guns] for target shooting". Which is it?
>
> "Pretty much" allows for some variable in the statement. So GFY.
>
Nice to see you admit that statement wasn't true.
On 4/16/2013 5:01 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:25:27 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Actually guns are much harder to obtain. Home Depo has every thing you
>> need to make a pipe bomb and much cheaper than buying a gun.
>
> Read my answer to Mike. It doesn't matter what materials are easier to
> obtain, it's just not happening that way.
It is happening that way but it is not as popular. Take away the guns
and it will become popular.
>
> And as far as you person with the knife, 22 people were stabbed and it
> wasn't clear if there were *any* fatalities. Can you tell me if it
> would have been the same if those 22 people were shot instead?
>
Naturally there could have been worse injuries with had a gun been used
but this lunatic could have used a knife from the school cafeteria. Had
he had a military knife which is readily available he could have easily
killed them all.