On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:13:59 -0600, "J.A. Michel"
wrote:


"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Nebraska is a CCW state. CCW's are useless here in NE, because most places
(like malls) prohibit the carry of weapons on their premises. They have the
red circle-slash with a gun in it stickers on the door. If someone would
have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the *******, they would have
gotten in trouble.

Really think so? After recent incidents at malls undercover cops are
increased. They will not surrender :-/

"J.A. Michel" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Nebraska is a CCW state. CCW's are useless here in NE, because most
places (like malls) prohibit the carry of weapons on their premises. They
have the red circle-slash with a gun in it stickers on the door. If
someone would have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the *******,
they would have gotten in trouble.

That's part of the training. Learning that you are not getting a Rambo
license, and that there are places where you may NOT take your gun. One of
them is ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY that posts signs to exclude them. What I did
was when a local WalMart put those out, I went face to face with the manager
and said that if that was their policy, that I would no longer shop at any
WalMart. I guess enough others did it, too, and it wasn't long before the
signs were gone.

Steve

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:58:05 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"J.A. Michel" wrote in message
.. .

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Nebraska is a CCW state. CCW's are useless here in NE, because most
places (like malls) prohibit the carry of weapons on their premises. They
have the red circle-slash with a gun in it stickers on the door. If
someone would have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the *******,
they would have gotten in trouble.

That's part of the training. Learning that you are not getting a Rambo
license, and that there are places where you may NOT take your gun. One of
them is ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY that posts signs to exclude them. What I did
was when a local WalMart put those out, I went face to face with the manager
and said that if that was their policy, that I would no longer shop at any
WalMart. I guess enough others did it, too, and it wasn't long before the
signs were gone.

Steve


Sam would be ****ed off about those signs....

If they won't let you carry in WalMart, the sports section sells guns
and ammo, or they used to. If so, buy and carry

"Tony Hwang" wrote

Hi,
Since when nutcase thinks normal?

Gee, I don't know, Tony. You're a nutcase that wants to get rid of all
guns, you tell us:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve
Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
It appears that this article sorta indicates that some of the
assumptions stated earlier may be up for reconsideration (g)

Gunman killed outside S. Ind. police HQ


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../LOCAL/7121003
87
http://tinyurl.com/29csr

Not much to go on in the story. Probably SBC (Suicide By Cop).

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in news:t2uu25-
:

I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve



that mall was posted "NO guns".

Illegal to carry there,permit or not.

Don't do business with places that post "NO guns".

I do that. The last time was with an audio-video store from whom I had
purchased equipment to the tune of $11,000.00. I try to shop local and
would have saved about 900.00 if I had purchased online, but like to keep
my business in my community if possible. As we were beginning to load my
van, the owner happened to notice my waistband holster. He gently
mentioned that he doesn't allow guns on his property and would I please
not bring it onto the premises next time. I said, 'Fine. But since the
reason I made the purchase from you, and not the internet, was to take
advantage of local support and service face-to-face. you have just told me
not to come back. So please cancel the order. I'll get my stuff
elsewhere.'

The look on his face was priceless.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


If one is not to patronize a business, it is important to tell them. If I
get bad service or bad food, I make it a point to tell the manager/owner.
At times, they have made concessions to make it right and keep my business.
At other times, they at least know that I won't be back and why. It's not
sensible to just leave and not state your case.

Steve

J.A. Michel wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Nebraska is a CCW state. CCW's are useless here in NE, because most
places (like malls) prohibit the carry of weapons on their premises. They
have the red circle-slash with a gun in it stickers on the door.
If someone would have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the
*******, they would have gotten in trouble.

Heh! In my state, Texas, the signage is prescribed by law. The sign must
say, exactly, "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of
a license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article
4413(29ee), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

But that's not all.

The letters must be at least 1" high, in colors contrasting with the
background.

That's not all either.

It has to be in Spanish also!

That makes the sign about 2x3 feet in size, should any business want to
erect one (I've only seen one such sign in seven years and it was
non-compliant (too small). I ignored it.)

As for the red-circled pistol with a slash, I think that insignia means "We
don't sell pistols."

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:18:07 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

As for the red-circled pistol with a slash, I think that insignia means "We
don't sell pistols."

LMAO!

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:39:50 -0800, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

What's ironic is that the legal carriers of concealed guns are NOT
the ones anyone has to worry about. Concealed Carry Permit holders
have established a SUBERB record in every state they are allowed.They
are more law-abiding than police.

I always laugh at the stores that post 'No Guns' signs. They might as well
post a sign saying 'Attention criminals: Please note that we are unarmed and
helpless'.

"No guns, please. We, the merchants want to be perfectly safe while
ripping you off."

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:18:07 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

[snip]


As for the red-circled pistol with a slash, I think that insignia means "We
don't sell pistols."


"If you want to bring your gun in here, it must have parts painted
red."

On Dec 10, 9:27 am, BobK207 wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

"SteveB" wrote:
Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you? Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime. There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

Kurt-

I do agree with you about the "thinness" of the stats associated with
school / mall shootings & therefore the difficulty of making any
conclusions based on them.

but I've yet to see a nutcase intent on killing people got to a police
station, firing range or gun show & start shooting.

They seem to go to an area frequented by large numbers of unarmed
people.

They maybe crazy / unhinged but they're not infinitely stupid.

Personally I believe I'm safer where my fellow citizens are armed
rather than at a signed & declared "gun free" zone. (aka victim rich
zones)

Predators prefer the weak & vunerable.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try Moscow, Id last spring sometime. Middle of night and full auto
fire into the local police station. IIRC it ended with shooter plus 3
others dead. All the dead were outside the station though.

Harry K

On Dec 10, 1:24 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 10, 12:06 am, "SteveB" wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

In Minnesota unless you try and escape you become a willing
participant.
Then you have to be Jesus Christ himself to survive the aftermath. I
carry.
I would have run. (I assume I would have run. I also assume I would
have
my wits.)

I would say that if you are face to face with a person with a semi-automatic
assault rifle that you would have a plausible contention that you were in
fear of your life, or that others were being or might be killed or injured.
That's the line.

What, turn around so they can shoot you in the back?

Steve

In the aftermath of the shootup of the PD station in Moscow, Id last
year, there was a cry to ban guns in the city limits...that is until
the Latah Co Sheriff made his views know "I want every citizen in this
city to have a CCW". I'd vote for him any day if I lived over there
(30 miles)

Harry K

On Dec 10, 7:46 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:27 am, BobK207 wrote:



On Dec 10, 8:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,

"SteveB" wrote:
Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you? Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime. There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

Kurt-

I do agree with you about the "thinness" of the stats associated with
school / mall shootings & therefore the difficulty of making any
conclusions based on them.

but I've yet to see a nutcase intent on killing people got to a police
station, firing range or gun show & start shooting.

They seem to go to an area frequented by large numbers of unarmed
people.

They maybe crazy / unhinged but they're not infinitely stupid.

Personally I believe I'm safer where my fellow citizens are armed
rather than at a signed & declared "gun free" zone. (aka victim rich
zones)

Predators prefer the weak & vunerable.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try Moscow, Id last spring sometime. Middle of night and full auto
fire into the local police station. IIRC it ended with shooter plus 3
others dead. All the dead were outside the station though.

Harry K

How an example a little close to home?

But in any case the result was as expected.

cheers
Bob

On Dec 9, 11:26�pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. �Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. �If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman for
police. Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by armed
citizens, only that citizens held him for police. With that kind of
coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of an armed
populace.

" wrote in news:123dbd53-80ea-4939-
:

On Dec 9, 11:26�pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. �Anyone wh
o had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. �If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman for
police. Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by armed
citizens, only that citizens held him for police. With that kind of
coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of an armed
populace.


IMO,that sort of omission is intentional.
I've seen an Associated Press article in several news sources,and all
but one edited the article to omit the pro-gun part.

(amazing that AP would have some pro-gun stuff in one of their reports!)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Dec 10, 10:19Â*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:26�pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. �Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. �If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. Â*It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman for
police. Â*Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by armed
citizens, only that citizens held him for police. Â*With that kind of
coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of an armed
populace.


Small town, other than for the University of Idaho, small force. One
cop on duty out on patrol, dispatch (both county and city) were the
only ones on. Guy shoots up the station from outside - no injuries,
shoots the cop coming to the call, shoots a 'Rambo" who grabbed his 45
auto and went out to "help" wounds him critically (barely survived)
and he never even saw the shooter, shoots a custodian across the
street in a church, shoots himself. I recall there was another victim
but can't recall it.

So, yes, the shooters will target cops no matter how stupid it may
be. There have been many examples of deliberate assinations of
officers but out on the street, not in the station.

Harry K

On Dec 11, 9:02 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message

...





On Dec 10, 7:46 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:27 am, BobK207 wrote:

On Dec 10, 8:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,

"SteveB" wrote:
Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare
enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection
is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you?
Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there
are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We
moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime.
There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from
Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named
Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or
criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and
pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

Kurt-

I do agree with you about the "thinness" of the stats associated with
school / mall shootings & therefore the difficulty of making any
conclusions based on them.

but I've yet to see a nutcase intent on killing people got to a police
station, firing range or gun show & start shooting.

They seem to go to an area frequented by large numbers of unarmed
people.

They maybe crazy / unhinged but they're not infinitely stupid.

Personally I believe I'm safer where my fellow citizens are armed
rather than at a signed & declared "gun free" zone. (aka victim rich
zones)

Predators prefer the weak & vunerable.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try Moscow, Id last spring sometime. Middle of night and full auto
fire into the local police station. IIRC it ended with shooter plus 3
others dead. All the dead were outside the station though.

Harry K

How an example a little close to home?

But in any case the result was as expected.

cheers
Bob

I live about three hundred miles from Moscow, Idaho. That's close enough of
an example for me.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm about 30 miles West. Used to dispatch and did know their
dispatchers, actually traine one of them before she moved over.

Harry K

On Dec 11, 9:03 am, "SteveB" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 9, 11:26?pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. ?Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. ?If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman for
police. Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by armed
citizens, only that citizens held him for police. With that kind of
coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of an armed
populace.

And with the liberals controlling the media, it's no wonder we get the
newspeak news we get.

Steve

Then there is the incident from ?yesterday? where an ex-cop (female)
happened to be on site when it started, engaged and put the shooter
down.

I don't carry (should), but if I am ever in that position, I am going
to be praying that someone in the crowd _is_ carrying.

Harry K

On Dec 10, 12:16 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and stealing
a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd love to hear the
rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

see "attractive hazard"

I don't think you can compare leaving a loaded AK47 on the kitchen
table to leaving the car keys on the kitchen table.

Mark

"BobK207" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 7:46 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:27 am, BobK207 wrote:



On Dec 10, 8:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,

"SteveB" wrote:
Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare
enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection
is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you?
Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there
are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We
moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime.
There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from
Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named
Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or
criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and
pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

Kurt-

I do agree with you about the "thinness" of the stats associated with
school / mall shootings & therefore the difficulty of making any
conclusions based on them.

but I've yet to see a nutcase intent on killing people got to a police
station, firing range or gun show & start shooting.

They seem to go to an area frequented by large numbers of unarmed
people.

They maybe crazy / unhinged but they're not infinitely stupid.

Personally I believe I'm safer where my fellow citizens are armed
rather than at a signed & declared "gun free" zone. (aka victim rich
zones)

Predators prefer the weak & vunerable.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try Moscow, Id last spring sometime. Middle of night and full auto
fire into the local police station. IIRC it ended with shooter plus 3
others dead. All the dead were outside the station though.

Harry K

How an example a little close to home?

But in any case the result was as expected.

cheers
Bob

I live about three hundred miles from Moscow, Idaho. That's close enough of
an example for me.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 11:26?pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. ?Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. ?If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman for
police. Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by armed
citizens, only that citizens held him for police. With that kind of
coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of an armed
populace.

And with the liberals controlling the media, it's no wonder we get the
newspeak news we get.

Steve

Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:16 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd
love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

see "attractive hazard"

Not even close to applicable.

I don't think you can compare leaving a loaded AK47 on the kitchen
table to leaving the car keys on the kitchen table.

Why not? Neither creates harm by their mere existence, but both can be made
to create harm if placed into the wrong hands. Neither posses an inherent
evil, but those who are inherently evil can choose either to do evil. Both
can cause death and injury by non-intentional and intentional means.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"SteveB" wrote in
news

wrote in message
.
.. On Dec 9, 11:26?pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. ?Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. ?If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman for
police. Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by armed
citizens, only that citizens held him for police. With that kind of
coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of an armed
populace.

And with the liberals controlling the media, it's no wonder we get the
newspeak news we get.

Steve




There's NO PLACE ON EARTH that has successfully "gotten rid of all guns".
It's an unrealistic DREAM,Pure FANTASY.

Police have guns,have had them stolen,Governments have guns,also have them
stolen or "go missing".
Then there's gun smuggling;druggies often bring guns in along with illegal
drugs.Just ask the Yardies in UK.They use AK's,REAL full-auto AKs.
The Yakuza in Japan have a business of gun running.

People make and have MADE guns in home shops.A guy in Australia was making
handguns by the 100s,sold a lot of them illegally before the AUS police
caught him.They didn't recover all he sold,either.


But disarming the citizens DOES make it safer for criminals to prey on
them. Criminals are overwhelmingly for gun control and gun bans.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Harry K wrote in
:

On Dec 11, 9:03 am, "SteveB" wrote:
wrote in message


... On Dec 9, 11:26?pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. ?Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. ?If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

That's what they thought they were doing at Virginia Tech. It was a
"Gun-Free Zone"

There was another school in Virginia that wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone".
No deaths, gun-weilding, law-abiding cirizens held criminal gunman
for police. Very few papers mentioned the fact that he was held by
armed citizens, only that citizens held him for police. With that
kind of coverage, its no wonder people don't understand the value of
an armed populace.

And with the liberals controlling the media, it's no wonder we get
the newspeak news we get.

Steve

Then there is the incident from ?yesterday? where an ex-cop (female)
happened to be on site when it started, engaged and put the shooter
down.

I don't carry (should), but if I am ever in that position, I am going
to be praying that someone in the crowd _is_ carrying.

Harry K


IMO,more people might carry if we had nationwide Vermont-style carry laws.
No permit,carry open or concealed as you wish.
That's the way it used to be everywhere(pre early-1900s),and the way it
should be.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Mark wrote in
:

On Dec 10, 12:16 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his
car secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd
love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

see "attractive hazard"

I don't think you can compare leaving a loaded AK47 on the kitchen
table to leaving the car keys on the kitchen table.

Mark


A criminal is not going to see an "AK on the kitchen table" unless he has
already broken some laws.Like breaking into the house.
Thus NOT an "attractive hazard".(a term I've never heard of before this)
I have heard of "attractive NUISANCEs".


Nothing like making theft victims criminals,and excusing the REAL
criminals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


IMO,more people might carry if we had nationwide Vermont-style carry laws.
No permit,carry open or concealed as you wish.
That's the way it used to be everywhere(pre early-1900s),and the way it
should be.

last I heard, they couldn't even get a law through saying that a cop
in one area could carry nationwide. Good luck on anything better.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:16 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd
love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

see "attractive hazard"

Not even close to applicable.

I don't think you can compare leaving a loaded AK47 on the kitchen
table to leaving the car keys on the kitchen table.

Why not? Neither creates harm by their mere existence, but both can be
made to create harm if placed into the wrong hands. Neither posses an
inherent evil, but those who are inherently evil can choose either to do
evil. Both can cause death and injury by non-intentional and intentional
means.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


And while yer at it, you better put a lock on the drawer with all those
knives. And the skillets. They have killed people, too.

Steve

PS: Don't forget the broom closet.

Jim Yanik wrote:

A criminal is not going to see an "AK on the kitchen table" unless he
has already broken some laws.Like breaking into the house.
Thus NOT an "attractive hazard".(a term I've never heard of before
this) I have heard of "attractive NUISANCEs".

That's probably what he meant, but he doesn't seem to understand that it is
a theory under tort law and not criminal law. And the discussion was about
the law under criminal statutes.

Nothing like making theft victims criminals,and excusing the REAL
criminals.

Amen to that.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


IMO,more people might carry if we had nationwide Vermont-style carry
laws. No permit,carry open or concealed as you wish.
That's the way it used to be everywhere(pre early-1900s),and the way
it should be.

last I heard, they couldn't even get a law through saying that a cop
in one area could carry nationwide. Good luck on anything better.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 is now law.

http://www.aele.org/hr218.html

ALL states with concealed handgun licenses have reciprocity agreements with
(some) other states. None are universal and there are gaps. But, if you have
a CHL in, say, Oklahoma, you can get a non-resident New Hampshire CHL for
$10 and a Florida CHL for a bit more and, with those three, be righteous in
almost all CHL states.

The NRA website has a page on CHL reciprocity.

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at home?
I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

So don't. The REAL question is do you feel the need to tell someone
else that they can't? Not a dig at you, just an honest question.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at home?
I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

-- Joseph Meehan

That's the beauty of our country, Joseph. The freedom to choose. Would it
be wrong of me to insist you bought and carried guns? Of course it would.
Let each person choose for himself.

Steve

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about being
armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about being
armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.

Met one the other day I probably could. She has the record at the
Indiana State Police Academy for most push ups by a woman... and the
smallest uniform. In the Its A Small World Category, she is the kid of a
guy I went to High School with and is working for my Brother-in-law who
is an ISP post commander.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...

BTW, is anyone else wondering why a church has an armed security
guard???

Because there have been shootings at churches in the past?

Because there have been shootings at churches in the past week?

Because there have been shootings at churches in the past month?

Because there are nut cases that stalk parishioners onto church property?

Because there are lots of jilted husbands/wives/cuckolds whose former SOs
may be looking for trouble?

Because it is private property, and not to provide security would leave them
turning slowly in the wind liability wise?

Because people carry a lot of money to church?

Because people have vendettas against churches?

No, I don't wonder at all.

Steve

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

So don't. The REAL question is do you feel the need to tell someone
else that they can't? Not a dig at you, just an honest question.

It certainly not my right to do so as an individual, but as a citizen
and voter, it is my right to work towards laws to do just that.

So, the answer is yes.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:27:49 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about being
armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com



And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted, even to
the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Convicted felons are already outlawed from gun possession, but they
have them.

You want to take them from law abiding folk?

I consider my gun as insurance. Better to have it and not need it,
than to need it and not have it.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about
being armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com



And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted,
even to the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Of course you are. Good luck with that. Bwahahahahaha. Worked well for
Washington, DC.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted, even to
the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Yes.........If it works for drugs it will certainly work for guns!

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:39:57 -0500, wrote:


And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted, even to
the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Yes.........If it works for drugs it will certainly work for guns!

Then we need a nagging wife law :-)))

I could have shot her and been out of jail by now.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home?
I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

So don't. The REAL question is do you feel the need to tell someone
else that they can't? Not a dig at you, just an honest question.

It certainly not my right to do so as an individual, but as a citizen
and voter, it is my right to work towards laws to do just that.

--
Joseph Meehan

I'm sure Herr Klinton and her ilk would like to disarm Amerika. When they
do, it will be fighting in the streets. And the true meaning of the
amendment to keep and bear arms will be understood by all. It was to
protect us from a tyrannical government. Like Hillary has in mind.
Confiscate obscene business profits. Outlaw guns. Socialize the US.

Pick your pony folks, the race is about to start.

Steve