On 27/09/2016 04:10, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

I have been trying to *discuss* these issues with this NG.