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.

How would they cut that stuff that passes for "food" over there? They *need*
good knives because they have no teeth.

It's sad that some people would use a tragedy like this to further their
political agenda of gun control. There is no question that Arizona, with
its "liberal" right to carry laws, is safer than areas that have very
restrictive gun ownership and carry rights. To compare a city to a city,
take a look at the per capita murder, shooting, or violent crime rates of
Phoenix and Washington DC. Our nations capital has a murder rate about 3 times
higher than Phoenix.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On 1/10/2011 5:31 PM, harry wrote:
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.

I have thought you were just an opinionated jerk with time on your
hands. Turns out you are an opinionated dip****....If I express
sympathy for a person, it will be directed to the person or their
family, as appropriate. Evil? How is refraining from rhetoric evil?

If you assume that I don't hold life to be dear, solely because I did
not state so, then you simply made a stupid assumption.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


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.

What have you been smoking?

No one said anything about that.

Many people do not need a vehicle to make a living. So, your all
encompassing logic is flawed.

Steve

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

Sorry about the way I stated it. Let's just say that I would not take a gun
to a place where a federal official is present out of fear that it might
create a stir. Apparently, there was a firearm carrier there, and he did
not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. Proof that when people carry
guns, they are not the maniacs many people think they are, but can
demonstrate a high degree of restraint. I wonder how many people would have
shot the perp...............

Steve

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...

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.

Laws which can be changed, that surely is the point. Requiring schools
that expel someone for violent or threatening behavior to have to report
that and a judge would rule on adding that person to the no-guns list also
seems worth exploring--again, they could challenge that later. Over and
over we see these cases where someone offered plenty of signs they were
heading for a serious crackup, and nobody did anything.

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.

That's why I said *if* he had been rejected on psych grounds, but the point
is that if the Army doesn't want someone because he's dangerously unstable
then maybe we should be paying attention to that. BTW, military psych
discharges already appear on the firearms purchase background check,
although the law was altered a couple of years ago to make it so appeals are
easier.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:01Â*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.


I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops
mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop.
The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the
mayhem was over.
Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.
But when a wacko can get off 30 rounds in maybe 6 seconds,
the party is over pretty fast.
An unarmed old lady stopped this guy.

--Vic

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:59:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

It's sad that some people would use a tragedy like this to further their
political agenda of gun control. There is no question that Arizona, with
its "liberal" right to carry laws, is safer than areas that have very
restrictive gun ownership and carry rights. To compare a city to a city,
take a look at the per capita murder, shooting, or violent crime rates of
Phoenix and Washington DC. Our nations capital has a murder rate about 3 times
higher than Phoenix.

"Never let a crisis go to waste."
"If they bring a knife to a fight, we'll bring a gun."

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:04:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "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.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

how's that defense thingie working out?

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?

Not near as many as those killed by negligent and drunk drivers.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:40:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:04:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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

11,000 deaths are insiginificant?

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns are insignificant?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "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.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

how's that defense thingie working out?

Yes, that's how defense works. You daughter might thank you, even if your
wife might enjoy it.

On Jan 10, 8:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "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.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

Interesting. Probability of being hit by lightning interesting, but
interesting. That's my issue with the whole gun thing. I don't care
if people own guns any more than I care if people own fireworks or
jet planes, but people whip out these astoundingly remote
possibilities as justification for owning a gun. I suppose it's akin
to telling the wife that you _need_ the new Porsche four door sedan
(screaming car, BTW, but kinda ugly) in case you have to rush someone
to the hospital at 180 MPH. I mean it could happen, right, honey, so
can I get it - for safety's sake....?

R

"harry" wrote in message
...

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Yes, we would much rather be gunless, gutless perfect baby-killing Brits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990 - 12 February 1993) was a two-year-old
boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was abducted, tortured and
murdered by two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and
Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993
from the New Strand Shopping Centre, Bootle, while accompanying his mother.
His mutilated body was found on a railway line in nearby Walton on 14
February.

And those two murdering 10 year olds didn't even have a gun.

Here are some more gun massacres committed by your fellow, peace-loving
Brits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

The Hungerford massacre occurred in Hungerford, Berkshire, England, on 19
August 1987. The gunman, 27-year-old Michael Robert Ryan, armed with two
semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, shot and killed sixteen people
including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then fatally shot himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

On 13 March 1996, unemployed former shopkeeper and former Scout leader
Thomas Watt Hamilton (born Thomas Watt, Jr. 10 May 1952) walked into the
Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two
Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolvers, all legally held. He was carrying 743
cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

The Cumbria shootings were a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when
a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before
killing himself in the county of Cumbria, North West England, United
Kingdom.

Yes, the peace-loving, gun-hating Brits somehow still manage to massacre
people with guns they supposedly don't have. Just like psychos everywhere
else in the world. Didn't the Brits virtually invent serial killing with
Jack the Ripper? Don't you EVER get tired of running down America when it's
clear you Brits are not one iota better?

And when you can't get guns, you build bombs to mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

David John Copeland (born May 15, 1976) is a former member of the British
National Party and the National Socialist Movement, who became known as the
"London Nail Bomber" after a 13-day bombing campaign in April 1999 aimed at
London's black, Bangladeshi and gay communities. The bombs killed three
people, including a pregnant woman, and injured 129, four of whom lost
limbs. No warnings were given.

--
Bobby G.

Steve B wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

Sorry about the way I stated it. Let's just say that I would not
take a gun to a place where a federal official is present out of fear
that it might create a stir. Apparently, there was a firearm carrier
there, and he did not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. Proof that
when people carry guns, they are not the maniacs many
people think they are, but can demonstrate a high degree of
restraint. I wonder how many people would have shot the
perp...............

I kinda knew what you meant but wanted to clarify in case some took your
observation the wrong way.

I agree with you that the vast majority of gun owners are not 'roided out
primates. If you saw the video of the person who helped subdue the perp (who
was also carrying a gun), you'll see the epitome of conscientious gun
carriers. He was articulate, thoughtful, rational, and in control. He was
also the same age as the shooter!

I wonder if Joe Zamudio - the guy with a gun who didn't pull it - served in
the military? It usually takes some training to "run to the sound of the
guns."

DGDevin wrote:
"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.

I hear what you're saying. Here's a twist:

My current squeeze works intake at a psychiatric hospital. Often a patient
is admitted by order of a judge based on a family member's assertions. The
patient has the option to change his status from 'ordered' to 'voluntary.'

I told her that in those cases where the patient is suffering from an
obviously temporary incapacity, such as depression over losing a job, she
might consider telling him that if he declines to switch the admission from
'court ordered' to 'voluntary' he risks forever being unable to own a gun.

If, however, he's a schizophrenic who won't stay on his meds, mum's the
word.

Tony Hwang wrote:

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

As do most. Still, there are people in reverse circumstances. You may recall
Dick Heller.

Mr Heller took the subway to work where he labored diligently as a special
police officer guarding federal buildings in the District of Columbia. But
he couldn't carry his gun to and fro, nor could he have it at home.

His agitation led to the landmark case of Heller vs. District of Columbia
which established that owning a gun for self defense is a constitutional
right.

On Jan 10, 9:16*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

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.

I hear what you're saying. Here's a twist:

My current squeeze works intake at a psychiatric hospital. Often a patient
is admitted by order of a judge based on a family member's assertions. The
patient has the option to change his status from 'ordered' to 'voluntary.'

As if you could ever refer to someone as other than your "current
squeeze". I can just hear her (assuming) version - "my soon to be ex-
boyfriend."

I told her that in those cases where the patient is suffering from an
obviously temporary incapacity, such as depression over losing a job, she
might consider telling him that if he declines to switch the admission from
'court ordered' to 'voluntary' he risks forever being unable to own a gun..

If, however, he's a schizophrenic who won't stay on his meds, mum's the
word.

Good point. Without a gun their life wouldn't be worth living, eh?
This is _just_ the advice mentally disturbed people need to hear -
play the system so they can still get a gun. What a paragon you are.
Let me ask you a question, Sparky - I know you believe it's everyone's
right to own a gun, but do you also believe everyone should own a gun?

R

Tony Hwang wrote:

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 near the bottom of the list. I'd rank the defenses as:

* Avoiding dangerous situations and locations
* Leave any situation that develops
* Try to de-escalate the confrontation
* Carry a firearm
* Display the firearm
* Shoot the goblin if unlawful force is threatened.

Collecting on your fire insurance is to be avoided, but it's more than
welcome if all upstream avoidances fail.

"How well did you do?" is part of that last resort. I suspect that in most
states (Texas and Tennessee to name two) a legally-blind person can qualify
for a concealed handgun permit. It's really not too difficult to hit a
man-sized target from 21 feet away. Heck, you've got as many as 15 chances
to do so... If, during the melee, a baby, a holy father, two granny-ladies,
and the last living Australian Walking Parrot get popped, well, that's a
shame.

wrote:

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.

"Former... police officers?" Heck, in the UK, even ON-DUTY police officers
can't carry a gun.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

Brazil, with very strict gun laws, has a murder rate four times that of the
U.S.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:24:29 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 10, 8:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "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.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

Interesting.

Interesting that you would find the rape of your daughter "interesting".

Probability of being hit by lightning interesting, but
interesting.

About the same chance as being killed by a stray bullet; far greater than that
of drowning.

That's my issue with the whole gun thing.

Bull****. You're just a big-government lefty loon.

I don't care
if people own guns any more than I care if people own fireworks or
jet planes, but people whip out these astoundingly remote
possibilities as justification for owning a gun.

You're a damned liar. You don't care if they own guns, just not for the
reasons they own guns. You're a two-faced hypocrite, like all leftists.

I suppose it's akin
to telling the wife that you _need_ the new Porsche four door sedan
(screaming car, BTW, but kinda ugly) in case you have to rush someone
to the hospital at 180 MPH. I mean it could happen, right, honey, so
can I get it - for safety's sake....?

You really are that stupid. We all know.

On Jan 10, 10:33*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:24:29 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:





On Jan 10, 8:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:04:52 -0600, "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.

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

You know, when you use a gun to "convince" the no-good-nick to not rob you and
rape your daughter?

Interesting.

Interesting that you would find the rape of your daughter "interesting".

Probability of being hit by lightning interesting, but
interesting.

About the same chance as being killed by a stray bullet; far greater than that
of drowning.

That's my issue with the whole gun thing.

Bull****. *You're just a big-government lefty loon.

I don't care
if people own guns any *more than I care if people own fireworks or
jet planes, but people whip out these astoundingly remote
possibilities as justification for owning a gun.

You're a damned liar. *You don't care if they own guns, just not for the
reasons they own guns. *You're a two-faced hypocrite, like all leftists..

I suppose it's akin
to telling the wife that you _need_ the new Porsche four door sedan
(screaming car, BTW, but kinda ugly) in case you have to rush someone
to the hospital at 180 MPH. *I mean it could happen, right, honey, so
can I get it - for safety's sake....?

You really are that stupid. *We all know.

UNLIKE YOU, WHO DRAWS HIS GENIUS FROM A PIPE, RIGHT?
**** GUNS..THEY ARE BRUTAL AND LEAVE A BLOODY MESS OF EVIDENCE TO DEAL
WITH.
I AM ALL FOR DISINTEGRATORS AND PHASORS ON MAXIMUM., YOU WRETCH!

PAT ECUM

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Tony Hwang wrote:

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 near the bottom of the list. I'd rank the defenses
as:

* Avoiding dangerous situations and locations
* Leave any situation that develops
* Try to de-escalate the confrontation
* Carry a firearm
* Display the firearm
* Shoot the goblin if unlawful force is threatened.

Collecting on your fire insurance is to be avoided, but it's more than
welcome if all upstream avoidances fail.

"How well did you do?" is part of that last resort. I suspect that in most
states (Texas and Tennessee to name two) a legally-blind person can
qualify for a concealed handgun permit. It's really not too difficult to
hit a man-sized target from 21 feet away. Heck, you've got as many as 15
chances to do so... If, during the melee, a baby, a holy father, two
granny-ladies, and the last living Australian Walking Parrot get popped,
well, that's a shame.

Displaying a firearm and not using it can be considered as "brandishing a
firearm" in many states.

Scenario: Bad guys want to rob you. You "display" firearm and they
retreat. They go to police officer and state that you waved a gun at them.
One lies and the other swears to it. You get arrested and lose your permit.

You never pull a gun unless you shoot it.

Steve

On Jan 10, 9:28*am, 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?


Review the data, TV isn't much of a research tool.

How many people die every year from gun related accident?
In a country of over 300 million..........only about 1,500 or so.

Way fewer than:
car accidents (~40k),
unintentional poisoning (30k),
unintentional falls (~20k),
suicide-all means (~30k),
unintentional suffocation (~6k)

The lessons here?
Guns seldom kill the "unintended".
Stay away from cars.
Be careful what you put in your mouth.
Spending time on ladders & high places is dangerous.
Take the right anti-depressant.
Watch out with the kinky stuff.


cheers
Bob

"frag" wrote in message
eb.com...
Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop
putting
up that sort of thing.


You mean the same kind of thing the DNC had up which is target areas ON A
MAP marked with a bulls eye..You're an IDIOT and shouldn't believe
everything MSNBC regurgitates for you...MORON...

On Jan 10, 11:38*am, RicodJour wrote:
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

R-

I believe your "innocent bystanders hit by random shots from armed
citizens " is a near zero probability event.

If such a thing happened, it would have be reported in the news over &
over again.

It is my opinion (based on very little data) that armed citizens
responding to bad guys are much more careful shooters.
They lack the "legal cover" that police officers enjoy. A cop can
empty his gun at a target and few question it.

In a suburb of LA, LA County Deputy Sheriffs (10 of them) fired 120
shots at a guy in a Suburban.
He turned out to be unarmed, luckily they only hit him with four shots
but they did manage to hit one of their own.

Total lack of fire discipline...
maybe cops should go back to revolvers, with fewer rounds they might
be more careful or at the very least have fewer total misses.

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.

Harry-

Keep posting..... reminds me to thank my ancestors for immigrating.

cheers
Bob

"Oren" wrote in message
...
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 :-/


Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns...

I carry a gun because a cop won't fit in my pocket..

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...

Guns don't kill people , PEOPLE kill people...

CAUTION...Homeowner is armed...

There's nothing that strikes more fear into an intruders heart than the
slide action of a 12 gauge pump shotgun when chambering a round as he crawls
thru a window...Makes him back right back out...

Now that the "he was a tea bagger and listened to Rush , Beck or Palin" has
fallen on it's face as he was a pot smoking , heavy metal listening , occult
worshipping NUTJOB it's on to plan B...more gun laws...That dog won't hunt
either...Now crawl back under your bridge TROLL...

"frag" wrote in message
eb.com...
"benick" wrote in
:

"frag" wrote in message
eb.com...
Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop
putting
up that sort of thing.


You mean the same kind of thing the DNC had up which is target areas
ON A MAP marked with a bulls eye..You're an IDIOT and shouldn't
believe everything MSNBC regurgitates for you...MORON...



OIC that's how you communicate by calling me a moron? I feel sorry for
you. You need to calm down.


Well if you didn't post things that make you look like a moron than I
wouldn't call you a MORON..I calls'em likes I sees'em...This had absolutely
NOTHING to do with Palin and everything to do with your PDS (Palin
Derangement Disorder)...Now crawl back under your bridge...

On Jan 10, 10:28*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800, "DGDevin"

wrote:

"Oren" *wrote in messagenews:3osmi69embge9ip0pu07h3ujhmar5an8m0@4ax .com...

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.

What gives you the idea I care about pistol shooters of any
description? What a boring pursuit. I have no interest at all in what
the morons get up to.

On Jan 10, 10:31*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
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...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."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well heybub is the sickest of all. And I thought you were proffessing
christianity.
Makes you the lowest form of hypocrite. I expect you take your gun to
church with you. Get the priest to bless it eh? You can shoot a few
choir boys then & they will go straight to heaven. Is that how it
works? Or is it just you get to go?

On Jan 10, 10:39*pm, Higgs Boson 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?

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

[...]

Our record is improving.
Your's is just getting worse. Forgotten about the tens of thousands
of Iraqis killed for a lie? Or the tens of thousands of Vietnamese
also killed for a lie? Dropping napalm on grass huts? Giving the f***
Jews phosporous to kill children with?
You got a short memory. Or come to that the tens of thousands of
indians in America. ( i nearly said your own country but it was
their's)

On Jan 10, 10:52*pm, Oren wrote:
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_...

All part of the pervasive American mental leprosy. You are the one
needs to get o ver yourself.

On Jan 10, 10:53*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
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

So you think some stupid law will prevent any loon getting a gun in an
America awash with guns?
You ARE in Lala land.

On Jan 10, 11:02*pm, "
wrote:
On 1/10/2011 5:31 PM, harry wrote:





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.

I have thought you were just an opinionated jerk with time on your
hands. *Turns out you are an opinionated dip****....If I express
sympathy for a person, it will be directed to the person or their
family, as appropriate. *Evil? *How is refraining from rhetoric evil?

If you assume that I don't hold life to be dear, solely because I did
not state so, then you simply made a stupid assumption.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I make the assrtion from what you set dowm right here. If you fall on
hard times in America, don't expect sympathy from "christians".

On Jan 10, 11:05*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





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.

Sorry about the way I stated it. *Let's just say that I would not take a gun
to a place where a federal official is present out of fear that it might
create a stir. *Apparently, there was a firearm carrier there, and he did
not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. *Proof that when people carry
guns, they are not the maniacs many people think they are, but can
demonstrate a high degree of restraint. *I wonder how many people would have
shot the perp...............

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is the gun(s) wre useless in defense. Which is what any one
with half a brain can deduce.
Oh there was the idiot above who explained how he "nearly shot a dog".
Does that count?

"frag" wrote in message
eb.com...
Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop
putting
up that sort of thing.

Palin needs to STFU and stay home taking care of her defective family.

On Jan 10, 11:40*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST), RicodJour





wrote:
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.

I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops
mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop.
The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the
mayhem was over.
Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.
But when a wacko can get off 30 rounds in maybe 6 seconds,
the party is over pretty fast.
An unarmed old lady stopped this guy.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An unarmed OLD lady. Where were all the American heros with their
concealed weapons? Probably wetting their pants. Cowardly scum.