On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.

Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like ****
to me....unless it's to protect myself against
beatup-freaks........and hey! the *******s carry guns anyway,
according to you!

I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
that would not have been a messy business in many ways.

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.
************************************************** ** sorry

..........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?