[harry]

I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

[JoeSpareBedroom[_3_]]

"harry" wrote in message
...
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.


Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically
insignificant, according to the FBI, which keeps records on these things. If
you want to bitch about needless deaths, explain why a hamster could pass
the typical driving test in most countries. Such tests should be designed to
flunk (and terrify) all but a fraction of the people on the road now. But
they won't be because too many idiots believe we have a RIGHT to drive cars.
We don't.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon who
helped subdue the shooter.
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...e-think-again/

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+ rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

[Chuck[_15_]]

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.
One of those youths was carrying a gun but chose not to use it.
Unless you know what you are talking about, choose your words carefully.

[RicodJour]

On Jan 10, 12:04*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon who
helped subdue the shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...onceal-carry-d...

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+ rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same
simplistic thinking for which you're famous.

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

R

[JoeSpareBedroom[_3_]]

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 12:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our
hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon
who
helped subdue the
shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...onceal-carry-d...

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+
rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same
simplistic thinking for which you're famous.

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

[RicodJour]

On Jan 10, 12:19*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. *People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. *How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: *Too many.
Moral: *The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

Reread what I wrote - I am talking about a generic scenario, not what
happened in Tucson. The generic scenario does not play out - the
shooter will always win - people will die. The more people with guns
that try to stop the shooter, the more people will die as nobody's aim
or reaction is perfect.

R

[Tony Hwang]

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

[Ken[_6_]]

RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:19 pm,
wrote:
wrote in message

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

Reread what I wrote - I am talking about a generic scenario, not what
happened in Tucson. The generic scenario does not play out - the
shooter will always win - people will die. The more people with guns
that try to stop the shooter, the more people will die as nobody's aim
or reaction is perfect.

R

It is hard to say just what might happen if a person in the crowd has a
gun while a shooter is methodically picking out targets, but I would
rather have a gun and possibly defend myself than simply be a target.
It also presents the shooter with the need to be defensive rather than
being totally offensive. Your theory brings to mind a question: I
wonder how many more troops might have been killed at Ft. Hood had the
shooter not been confronted?? I guess the answer depends upon how much
ammunition he brought with him.

[RicodJour]

On Jan 10, 12:37*pm, Ken wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:19 pm,
wrote:
*wrote in message

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. *People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. *How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: *Too many.
Moral: *The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

Reread what I wrote - I am talking about a generic scenario, not what
happened in Tucson. *The generic scenario does not play out - the
shooter will always win - people will die. *The more people with guns
that try to stop the shooter, the more people will die as nobody's aim
or reaction is perfect.


* * * * It is hard to say just what might happen if a person in the crowd has a
gun while a shooter is methodically picking out targets, but I would
rather have a gun and possibly defend myself than simply be a target.
It also presents the shooter with the need to be defensive rather than
being totally offensive. *Your theory brings to mind a question: *I
wonder how many more troops might have been killed at Ft. Hood had the
shooter not been confronted?? *I guess the answer depends upon how much
ammunition he brought with him.

A wack job that starts shooting in a crowd expects to die. They can't
"lose".

As far as the offensive-defensive thing. The person shooting first
has the advantage, and knowing how to use your sneakers would be more
likely to keep you alive than having a gun. Knowing how to run is a
more valuable skill than knowing how to shoot in such a situation,
particularly if other people start whipping out guns and shooting in
what they think is the right direction.

R

[JoeSpareBedroom[_3_]]

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 12:37 pm, Ken wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:19 pm,
wrote:
wrote in message

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in
the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at
least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

Reread what I wrote - I am talking about a generic scenario, not what
happened in Tucson. The generic scenario does not play out - the
shooter will always win - people will die. The more people with guns
that try to stop the shooter, the more people will die as nobody's aim
or reaction is perfect.


It is hard to say just what might happen if a person in the crowd has a
gun while a shooter is methodically picking out targets, but I would
rather have a gun and possibly defend myself than simply be a target.
It also presents the shooter with the need to be defensive rather than
being totally offensive. Your theory brings to mind a question: I
wonder how many more troops might have been killed at Ft. Hood had the
shooter not been confronted?? I guess the answer depends upon how much
ammunition he brought with him.

A wack job that starts shooting in a crowd expects to die. They can't
"lose".

As far as the offensive-defensive thing. The person shooting first
has the advantage, and knowing how to use your sneakers would be more
likely to keep you alive than having a gun. Knowing how to run is a
more valuable skill than knowing how to shoot in such a situation,
particularly if other people start whipping out guns and shooting in
what they think is the right direction.

R

=========

I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of son's
legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the owner
stopped them before I could dispatch them.

You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical until
they actually happen.

[Molly Brown]

On Jan 10, 8:40*am, harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

You might be more productive in your statements in the days ahead if
you concentrated on if Jared Loughner was able to get the mental
health treatment he needed and who was responsible if he didn’t.
Similar murders have happened in recent years in China using a knife
since guns are banned there.

[Steve B[_10_]]

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Yeah, and you're a moron. Trouble is, stupid cannot be fixed. I was
watching Most Shocking last night. A man was stabbing his wife in an
Albuquerque store. A person with a gun pointed it over the counter after
his wife had been stabbed several times. Told the perp to quit, he didn't,
and the CCW holder put three into him, killing him.

It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of respect
of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's presence, save the
gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying one, but I would not have
because of the uproar it would have caused. It is illegal to do so, and I'm
sure that the Secret Service would have been all over anyone carrying a gun,
legal or not. Except for the shooter, proving that one with an agenda
cannot be stopped easily.

Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.

Steve

[Steve B[_10_]]

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

One needs such a gun to protect themselves from tyrants and their goons.

HTH, but I doubt it. We are threatened more by our government and the press
and officials they own than by rational citizens who own guns. Notice I did
not say wackos.

Steve

[willshak]

Tony Hwang wrote the following:


harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

Much fewer than deaths from automobile accidents.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

[RicodJour]

On Jan 10, 1:01*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of son's
legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the owner
stopped them before I could dispatch them.

Unfortunately...? You wanted to shoot the dogs? Interesting. I've
never threatened a dog, but I have told the owner I would be punching
him in the face unless he controlled his dogs.

You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical until
they actually happen.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those last two sentences have no
information in them. Everything is theoretical until it happens.
Everything. It doesn't change the scenario I presented. Guy with a
gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some
might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.

R

[harry]

On Jan 10, 6:17*pm, Molly Brown wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:40*am, harry wrote:





I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

You might be more productive in your statements in the days ahead if
you concentrated on if Jared Loughner was able to get the mental
health treatment he needed and who was responsible if he didn’t.
Similar murders have happened in recent years in China using a knife
since guns are banned there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He shares characteristics with all gun owners. ie thinks he can solve
problems with guns. Morons. He's only slightly more waco than the
average gun owner. Doesn't take much to push them over the top.

[Pete C.]

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 12:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our
hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon
who
helped subdue the
shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...onceal-carry-d...

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+
rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same
simplistic thinking for which you're famous.

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

It's the same old tired and utterly baseless "wild west" fantasy of the
anti gun kooks. A fantasy since there has never been a single such
incident anywhere in the US, including all the states that have had
concealed carry for decades.

[Pete C.]

Tony Hwang wrote:

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

Vastly more people *don't die* every year because they were able to
exercise their basic human right of self defense, than die from gun
related accidents.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend
of the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed.
Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend
ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a
weapon who
helped subdue the
shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...onceal-carry-d...

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+"
(up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+
rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same
simplistic thinking for which you're famous.

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: Too many.
Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".

Same canard that's never been substantiated. The scenario you posit has
never happened and probably never will happen.

Here's an interview with one person who was carrying a gun at the Gifford's
event who helped subdue the shooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmmOWL05r8

In a crowd of any size in Arizona - and several other states - there will
quite likely be several people carrying a concealed weapon. We didn't see
ANY return fire at the Giffords event.

The only reason I can muster for the fear that "all the people carrying guns
will start shooting..." is that the person making the claim is projecting.
That is, the claimant believes that were HE carrying a gun, HE would start
shooting everbody in sight, either operating in the belief that if he kills
everybody he's bound to get the goblin, or he thinks that's what he would do
in a panic.

In real life, responsible gun owners do not act as you claim.

And as for "simplistic thinking," Ronald Reagan once said: "People who think
there are not simple solutions to complex problems just haven't tried hard
enough." (Or maybe he said: "There are simple solutions, just not easy
ones." I forget.)

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Steve B wrote:

It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of
respect of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's
presence, save the gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying
one, but I would not have because of the uproar it would have caused.
It is illegal to do so, and I'm sure that the Secret Service would
have been all over anyone carrying a gun, legal or not. Except for
the shooter, proving that one with an agenda cannot be stopped easily.

Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.


Sorry, you are mistaken.

It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal
official.

It is not even illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun to a
presidential rally or function.

In the case of the latter, the Secret Service will decline to permit him
entry, but it is not illegal.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and
wackos. Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

"Need" is not the appropriate descriptor when speaking of guns (or almost
anything else); "Want" is the only adjective that's appropriate.

[Tony Hwang]

Pete C. wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

Vastly more people *don't die* every year because they were able to
exercise their basic human right of self defense, than die from gun
related accidents.
Hi,
Your idea of self defense? Self defense = Carrying fire arm?
Were you in the service? How well did you do in the firing range?

[Tony Hwang]

Steve B wrote:
"Tony wrote in message
...


harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

One needs such a gun to protect themselves from tyrants and their goons.

HTH, but I doubt it. We are threatened more by our government and the press
and officials they own than by rational citizens who own guns. Notice I did
not say wackos.

Steve


Hmm,
I need a vehicle to make living. I don't need any fire arm for that.

[Pete C.]

Tony Hwang wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?

Vastly more people *don't die* every year because they were able to
exercise their basic human right of self defense, than die from gun
related accidents.
Hi,
Your idea of self defense? Self defense = Carrying fire arm?
Were you in the service? How well did you do in the firing range?

Carrying a firearm is one means of self defense, and defensive firearm
use often doesn't result in the firearm being fired. I'm fortunate, in
my years of concealed carry I have never had to draw my weapon. I only
once had to make an obvious reach as if to draw my weapon (with the
aggressor at a safe distance) in order to convince the aggressor to end
their aggression. Other people I know have had to draw to prevent an
attack. Many such incidents occur daily and are rarely reported or
included in defensive firearm use statistics.

No, I was not in the "service". I do quite well on the firing range.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:40:25 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

I knew you would start some ****. I'm _certain_ you've been drooling
over your keyboard the last couple of days to start something.

When you only have seconds to protect yourself and family, remember
the police are only minutes away.

My guns are like insurance: better to have them and not need them,
than to need them and not have them.

What the hell is in your drinking water over there?! You depend on
your government to protect you, but I don't expect mine to protect me.

Excuse me while I go polish my bullets :-/

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 1/10/2011 2:53 PM, harry wrote:
On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, Molly wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:40 am, wrote:





I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

You might be more productive in your statements in the days ahead if
you concentrated on if Jared Loughner was able to get the mental
health treatment he needed and who was responsible if he didn’t.
Similar murders have happened in recent years in China using a knife
since guns are banned there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He shares characteristics with all gun owners. ie thinks he can solve
problems with guns. Morons. He's only slightly more waco than the
average gun owner. Doesn't take much to push them over the top.

Other countries, with far fewer gun owners, have had their shares of
mass murders. This guy, and many of the more infamous killers, is
mentally ill - schizophrenic? I wonder what proportion of gun owners in
US, especially NRA members, are former military or police officers. All
retired cops I know are licensed to carry concealed weapons. I don't
consider gun owners morons or crazies - seems every demographic has it's
share of criminals and nuts, beginning with clergy, teachers, cops,
soldiers, nurses, etc, etc, etc.

[DGDevin]

"harry" wrote in message
...

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

Another day, another bargain-basement troll from "Harry"--same old same old.

[DGDevin]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves

Which doesn't exclude fine-tuning the law to reduce such incidents. After
the Virginian Tech massacre the NRA endorsed the background check system
being changed so someone a judge considers a danger to himself and others
and orders to undergo psychiatric treatment will be prevented from
purchasing firearms. This Arizona case suggests to me that if someone is
rejected by the Army on psych grounds (if that's what happened) then maybe
that too should put someone on the list. Such exclusions can already be
challenged in court so it's isn't like it's a permanent and arbitrary
suspension of a right, but in the meantime it would be nice to know that
someone as visibly disturbed as this guy can't legally acquire firearms.

Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon who helped subdue the
shooter.
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...e-think-again/

Interesting, that hasn't been widely reported.

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+
rating in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Since when has "Harry" been known for having facts and figures at his
command?

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Written by and for idiots.

[DGDevin]

"Oren" wrote in message ...

What the hell is in your drinking water over there?! You depend on
your government to protect you, but I don't expect mine to protect me.

In recent years his government has been mulling the idea of banning *knives*
as well, at least those with blades long enough to be deemed readily
life-threatening.

[Sjouke Burry[_2_]]

Tony Hwang wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.
Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.
Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?
How many people die every year from gun related accident?
Vastly more people *don't die* every year because they were able to
exercise their basic human right of self defense, than die from gun
related accidents.
Hi,
Your idea of self defense? Self defense = Carrying fire arm?
Were you in the service? How well did you do in the firing range?

5 shots in a 2 inch circle at ~30 yards with an UZI.

[harry]

On Jan 10, 7:59*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 12:04 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our
hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon
who
helped subdue the
shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...onceal-carry-d...

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+
rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same
simplistic thinking for which you're famous.

Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. *People all
around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. *How
many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending
themselves?
Answer: *Too many.
Moral: *The wacko with the gun will always "win".

============

This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the
crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least
one.

I eagerly await your further information.

It's the same old tired and utterly baseless "wild west" fantasy of the
anti gun kooks. A fantasy since there has never been a single such
incident anywhere in the US, including all the states that have had
concealed carry for decades.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All part of the American dream. A lala land personified by such tripe
as NCSI aand so forth. Aplace were the good guy always wins (with his
gun), there are no fat or ugly people, there are no poor peopl, no
slums, no unemployent and every thing is beautiful. All complete
********. Dopey credulous people who don't know fact from fiction.
The American gov. wants young boys trained up for their foriegn wars,
waged to enrich the already rich.

[harry]

On Jan 10, 9:39*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?
Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

Another day, another bargain-basement troll from "Harry"--same old same old.

Aha. Just seen on the box, the Palin woman has a poster out with cross-
hairs on Arizona. I wonder if that's what encouraged the loon.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Oren" wrote in message ...

What the hell is in your drinking water over there?! You depend on
your government to protect you, but I don't expect mine to protect me.

In recent years his government has been mulling the idea of banning *knives*
as well, at least those with blades long enough to be deemed readily
life-threatening.

"The government has been urged to relax gun laws which make it illegal
for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland and
Wales."

"...But British team members face having to do all their 2012
preparations abroad."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4162498.stm

harry may poke his eye out with a pointy stick. Maybe even cut himself
with sharpened garden implements.

He has to be protected from himself.

[Stormin Mormon]

Great report. Here's a tiny URL, no charge.
http://tinyurl.com/2766mos

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in
Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her
family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate.
Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of
cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a
change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with
guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple
of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable
indeed. Our hearts
go out to them.

Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to
defend ourselves
remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen
carrying a weapon who
helped subdue the shooter.
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01...e-think-again/

As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated
her "D+" (up
from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of
course a D+ rating
in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.

Ancient bumper-sticker:
"If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."

[harry]

On Jan 10, 9:37*pm, "
wrote:
On 1/10/2011 2:53 PM, harry wrote:





On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, Molly *wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:40 am, *wrote:

I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

You might be more productive in your statements in the days ahead if
you concentrated on if Jared Loughner was able to get the mental
health treatment he needed and who was responsible if he didn t.
Similar murders have happened in recent years in China using a knife
since guns are banned there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He shares characteristics with all gun owners. ie thinks he can solve
problems with guns. Morons. *He's only slightly more waco than the
average gun owner. Doesn't take *much to push them over the top.

Other countries, with far fewer gun owners, have had their shares of
mass murders. *This guy, and many of the more infamous killers, is
mentally ill - schizophrenic? *I wonder what proportion of gun owners in
US, especially NRA members, are former military or police officers. *All
retired cops I know are licensed to carry concealed weapons. *I don't
consider gun owners morons or crazies - seems every demographic has it's
share of criminals and nuts, beginning with clergy, teachers, cops,
soldiers, nurses, etc, etc, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You lot are sick *******s. Babbling about your "rights". I don't see
one word of sympathy for the victims and their relatives in this
entire post.

Evil is what you are.

[Higgs Boson[_2_]]

On Jan 10, 8:40*am, harry wrote:
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

YOU. ARE. SO. IGNORANT. ABOUT. THE. U.S.

This was a FEDERAL judge, not one of the lawyers you are so scornful
of -- until you need one.

This is an attack on the FEDERAL judiciary, one step below the Supreme
Court.

I suppose you'd be jumping up & down in glee if somebody offed one of
the Privy Council in your country.

Note that your country has a thousand-year record of assassinations,
poisonings, beheadings, etc. among the royals and their hangers-on.

Oh, I give up - what's the point in even trying..

HB

[...]

[Oren[_2_]]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:27:01 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Another day, another bargain-basement troll from "Harry"--same old same old.

Aha. Just seen on the box, the Palin woman has a poster out with cross-
hairs on Arizona. I wonder if that's what encouraged the loon.

The Democratic Leadership Council has/had the same, except they used
Bull's Eye's instead of Cross Hairs. *

Get over yourself ...

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:


Which doesn't exclude fine-tuning the law to reduce such incidents. After
the Virginian Tech massacre the NRA endorsed the background check system
being changed so someone a judge considers a danger to himself and others
and orders to undergo psychiatric treatment will be prevented from
purchasing firearms.
Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law. The Psych and Substance Abuse privacy laws
have always been tougher than regular health care privacy.


This Arizona case suggests to me that if someone is
rejected by the Army on psych grounds (if that's what happened) then maybe
that too should put someone on the list.
Same problems. You will note that the information was leaked and the
Army rep said they couldn't comment. Also, FWIW, the Army turned him
down for a dirty urine drop, NOT for psych reason, at least according to
the reports.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:25:44 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Steve B wrote:

It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of
respect of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's
presence, save the gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying
one, but I would not have because of the uproar it would have caused.
It is illegal to do so, and I'm sure that the Secret Service would
have been all over anyone carrying a gun, legal or not. Except for
the shooter, proving that one with an agenda cannot be stopped easily.

Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.


Sorry, you are mistaken.

It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal
official.

It is not even illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun to a
presidential rally or function.

In the case of the latter, the Secret Service will decline to permit him
entry, but it is not illegal.

....or arrest Mr. PC if he's found carrying and release him in 12 hours or so,
with *maybe* a "sorry" (but not usually).