On Jan 11, 12:45*am, Jim Rusling wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

What exactly has that to do with it?

On Jan 11, 1:04*am, "
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?

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So how many times have they been raped? Paranoia.

"benick" wrote in message
. ..

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...

SRSLY? PLONK!

On Jan 11, 1:24*am, 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. *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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that about sums it up.

On Jan 11, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"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.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...


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."

Heh, it could have been worse, he could have written, "This broad I'm
bangin' at the moment...." It does suggest a certain commitment phobia,
doesn't it.

On Jan 11, 2:16*am, "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.'

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


How about paranoid? Oh that's the norm in America.!

I am a gun owner, but insane people should never be allowed to have
guns.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

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.
Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

--
"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

In article om,
frag wrote:

Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop putting
up that sort of thing.

ABout the time the Dems apologize for their website where they had
bullseyes on certain districts.

--
"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

willshak wrote in
m:

Tony Hwang wrote the following:


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

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

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

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

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

Hi,
My take on the issue. U.S. does not need to worry about thread from
outside. U.S. society will self-implode. Just too many guns and wackos.

He -could- have used a bomb,like the Muslims.
I also note the Columbine killers had bombs,that failed to explode.

Why one would need a Glock with a 30 round magazine?

perhaps to deal with a riot mob,such as the LA riots of several years
ago,where police refused to enter the riot zone.
I note that Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" to keep the rioters
from burning them and their families alive,when the rioters came to torch
their shops/homes.(they lived above the shops)

How many people die every year from gun related accident?

Much fewer than deaths from automobile accidents.


FYI,the 33 round magazine is made for the Glock 18,a select-fire machine
pistol.But the Glock 17 also accepts the standard 17 round magazine.
The 33 round mag fits in all the 9mm Glocks,but sticks out (extends) from
the handgrip.

Note the shooter had a magazine malfunction at ~20 rounds,stopping him and
giving others a chance to jump him before he could insert another magazine.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
"benick" wrote:


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...

The ex-FBI profiler NBC trots out in cases like these actually made
that point today (probably never see him again). He said there was
nothing in the writings released or his background that indicated this
was political. (He was registered independent and hadn't voted in the
last round.

--
"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

In article ,
"h" wrote:

"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.

Just so we all can be on the same page. The above doesn't qualify as
"hate speech".

--
"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

bpuharic wrote in
:

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?

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?
Or by criminals who were already prohibited from having a gun or even a
single round of ammo?
(punishable with 5 years for EACH round of ammo and each weapon)
I suspect the latter.

chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:

I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops
mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop.
Seems to you? Not eaxctly a compelling statistical argument. A n=1
in statistic terms.

The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the
mayhem was over.

The armed civvie was one of the people who tackled the perp and sat
on him until the cops arrived (some time later on). Hardly after the
mayhem 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.

Where did you get this number other than from the thin air? I haven't
seen any thing that gives any timeframe.

An unarmed old lady stopped this guy.

--Vic

--
"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

bpuharic wrote in
:

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

"developed world"? cherry-picking,I see.
Mexico is developed,and theirs is higher.


how's that defense thingie working out?

according to Gary Kleck,over 2 MILLION DGUs per year.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

frag wrote in
eb.com:

Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop
putting up that sort of thing.


the Democrats had the SAME thing.
Comrade Obama used a lot of such rhetoric,such as "if they bring a
knife,you bring a gun","get in their faces","hand to hand combat",his
Enemies list,etc.

the Democrats are far more violence-prone.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Pete C." wrote in
ter.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I eagerly await your further information.

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


well,that's because the "progressives" don't operate based on fact and
reason,but on "feelings" and imaginations.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jan 11, 1:41*am, DD_BobK wrote:
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.

What clearly goes unreported by the mainstream media is the numerous
cases where someone with a gun prevents a crime or possible death by
merely pulling out their own gun. A robber breaks into a
home, the homeowner produces a gun, and the robber retreats. Or a
guy tries to hold up a liquor store with a gun or a knife and the
owner
shoots him dead. Those stories never make it, while the story of
one
nut who shoots someone, usually with an illegal gun, does.

As for the ridiculous claim that running away is more likely to keep
you
alive, if that's the case, why don't they train police to defend
themselves
that way? If the suspect pulls a gun, run! In some circumstances
that
might be the best course of action. But clearly it doesn't work very
well
in all cases, as the AZ shooting clearly shows.

In the AZ shooting, if one person there had a pistol, the outcome
could
have been much different. Or the recent FL school board shootings,
where the shooter held the entire school board hostage. If one
person
sitting at the school board had a pistol, they wouldn't have had to
sit
there, waiting for him to shoot them at will.

On Jan 11, 7:52*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"DGDevin" wrote:
*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.

* *Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. *Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
* * I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

--
"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

Unfortunately, I think you are correct, at least in the general
case. We
don't know all the specifics on what the indicators there were in this
particular
case. But with the clear bias in favor or personal freedom, I don't
know who is supposed to be the enforcer if you will, or the canary in
the coal mine, as to who is to be locked up or monitored because
they might be a threat. IMO, in most cases it would have to be
someone very close to the person in question, eg parents or spouse.
They would have to see enough indicators that the person was deranged
to the point of being a danger.
And they would have to take action and probably convince a court that
the person is a danger. And clearly, in many cases, that isn't going
to happen.

You could say that because this guy made
some death threats, the police should have pursued it, got him
committed to a psych hospital, etc. But how realistic is that? We
don't know all the data. I could see police making a judgement call
that they could waste a lot of time on hundreds of guys like this,
only
to lose all of them in court because the guy gets a lawyer and
convinces
a judge that he really isn't a serious threat. Haven't we seen
enough
guys with far more red flags than this guy released by judges,
including those that had already committed serious crimes? Even
if the loon is acting out in front of police, AFAIK, the basic
procedure
is to take them involuntarily to a hospital for an evaluation. A Dr.
will then do a simple, basic evaluation and if there is no indication
the person is a threat to himself or others, they have to let him go.
That's what they did with Charlie Sheen, when he went nuts at
the Plaza Hotel in NYC.

On Jan 11, 12:30*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, please. I can just see it now. The robber that broke into your
house in
the middle of the night, or the guy with a knife in a liquor store, is
going to
call the police and file a complaint because he was confronted with a
gun.
Yeah, I'm sure that happens all the time.... How do you dream up
this
nonsense?

Most of these bad guys that wind up confronted by a lawful gun
owner already have rap sheets 3 pages long and do everything they can
to avoid contact with the police.

On Jan 11, 1:29*am, "benick" wrote:
"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.

I thought that is exactly what was done, immediately after it came
under
discussion. And the election was over months ago. You're claiming
it's still up? Link please......

For the record, I thought the way it was done was in very poor taste
and
not something that should have been part of a campaign.






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...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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?


Are you saying that 11,000 crimes were committed with guns by legal gun
owners in the United States? If that's what you're saying, please show your
source of information. If your source doesn't end with .gov, it's probably
useless.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
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.

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

"Unfortunately" was the correct choice of words. If those dogs (and their
owner) pulled this particular stunt once, they will repeat it. In this
instance, the owner stopped the dogs using a one word command. The state
trooper found that very interesting. Can you guess why?

harry wrote:

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

Many carry a weapon for SELF defense, not for the defense of a third party.

If one uses deadly force on behalf of someone else, many consequences can
flow - almost all of them bad.

These consequences, such as shooting someone who was not REALLY an aggressor
or shooting a bystander, are not the problem. The thing that is really wrong
is criminalizing these inadvertent deaths instead of treating them as
justifiable or excusable. It is this threat of going to jail that
disincentivizes a would-be rescuer, not cowardice.

I, personally, run to the sound of gunfire (as would many who've served in
the military). But unless I see a perp actually drinking the victim's blood,
I'm going to be quite circumspect before I start piling up the bodies.

DD_BobK wrote:

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.

In my training, we were admonished: "He who puts the most metal in the air
almost always wins."

In my view, cop cars should mount mini-guns. Give the stink-eyes a really
bad day.

harry wrote:

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

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in
the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a
car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.

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

Lemmesee ....... yours is the only family that is not defective, right?

You know the difference between insanity and mental illness? A mentally ill
person knows there's something wrong with them. An insane person thinks
there's something wrong with everyone else.

I can see plainly where you are at.

Steve

harry wrote:

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

Of course not.

The mentally ill have even MORE reasons to be armed in order to protect
themselves from the predations of those who would do them harm.

Very few mental illnesses can trigger a violent outburst. To prevent a
"mentally ill" person from owning or carrying a gun just because they are
depressed, afflicted with Alzheimer's, narcoleptic, anorexic, bulimic, or
have eighty-two body piercings or one hundred and seven cats, is absurd.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

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.
Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

You're getting at the fact that there is simply nothing that can ever be
done to prevent this kind of one-off nutcase attack. If guns were not
available he would have used knives, if knives had not been available he
would have used firebombs, etc. We simply have to accept the fact this
this kind of event has always happened throughout human history and will
continue to happen, and is the price we pay for not living in a society
where every single person is confined to their own individual cell.

Jim Yanik wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:

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?

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?
Or by criminals who were already prohibited from having a gun or even a
single round of ammo?
(punishable with 5 years for EACH round of ammo and each weapon)
I suspect the latter.

chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

Actually many such claims of statistics are tainted by the inclusion of
legal defensive kills by legal gun owners.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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?

Are you saying that 11,000 crimes were committed with guns by legal gun
owners in the United States? If that's what you're saying, please show your
source of information. If your source doesn't end with .gov, it's probably
useless.

Even if it does end in .gov you have to look closely as some of the data
is improperly commingled. Often there are legal defensive shootings by
legal gun owners in among their stats. A good part of the problem is
inconsistent reporting from the various states.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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?

Are you saying that 11,000 crimes were committed with guns by legal gun
owners in the United States? If that's what you're saying, please show
your
source of information. If your source doesn't end with .gov, it's
probably
useless.

Even if it does end in .gov you have to look closely as some of the data
is improperly commingled. Often there are legal defensive shootings by
legal gun owners in among their stats. A good part of the problem is
inconsistent reporting from the various states.


I still want to see his source. I'll be the judge of its usefulness.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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



The armed guy in Tucson also said he would've been hesitant to use his gun,
since it might've caused more problems than it solved. Smart guy.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:

I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops
mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop.
Seems to you? Not eaxctly a compelling statistical argument. A n=1
in statistic terms.

The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the
mayhem was over.

The armed civvie was one of the people who tackled the perp and sat
on him until the cops arrived (some time later on). Hardly after the
mayhem 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.

Where did you get this number other than from the thin air?


From movies.

RicodJour wrote:

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?


Note I said "obviously temporary incapacity" not raving loon. I do believe
people should be warned of the consequences of their actions so they can
make an informed choice. There are MANY mental disorders that don't bother
anybody but the afflicted. The law, however, paints with such a broad brush
that ANY person committed for observation or treatment may lose their
rights.

Folks with catatonic schizophrenia, sleep or eating disorders,
obsessive-compulsive disorder, gender identity disorder, hypochondria,
agoraphobia, homosexual tendencies, or, in fact, MOST mental problems, may
fit the definition of "mental disease or defect," yet not be a threat to
anyone, including themselves.

I have yet to see anyone in a catatonic state fire a gun.

But the way the laws are written, if involuntarily committed, they're
screwed.

The same screwing holds true for "boiler plate" orders of separation in most
divorce cases. The language on such orders almost always includes
prohibitions of gun ownership. The defendant needs to contest such
boiler-plate, but the problem is, he seldom knows about it!

Another egregious example is "domestic violence." Over the years, many
people have pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence as a plea-bargin
deal to avoid a trial on shotgunning the goddamn lawnmower because it
wouldn't start or for biting the heads off squirrels stealing the bird seed!
Then came the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibited ANYBODY with ANY
conviction for domestic violence at ANY time from owning a gun. Hundreds of
police officers lost their jobs (and the law did nothing to protect the
squirrels).

As to your final question do I believe that everybody should own a gun? No,
I do not.

Such would require a law mandating same. I'd be opposed to that as much as a
law mandating that no one should own a gun.

I do hold that everybody has a "right" to own a gun, but of course all
"rights" have limits.

I hope the above answers your questions.

Thanks for providing a "teaching moment."

"Steve B" 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.

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

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


How would anyone know you were carrying in those circumstances? Does Arizona
*require* open carry?

harry wrote:

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?

More jumping to conclusions.

I'm not a Christian, although I'm a big supporter.

My faith doesn't have choir-boys so the possibility has never come up. We
do, however, have cantors and the thought has crossed my mind...

In the Catholic tradition, a priest can bless a new home, a shrimp boat, ...
or a gun. Nothing wrong with that.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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?

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

Tell me in great detail why you believe it was improper for me to draw a gun
in order to keep two badly behaved dogs from getting any closer than they
already were to my son, who happened to be doing absolutely nothing which
should cause dogs to go into "corner the target" mode.

There was zero risk to bystanders, since there were none. The setup was
perfect.

I await your humorous explanation. Please try to minimize the spittle.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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.

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

What makes you think that mentally ill people have enough connections in the
criminal community to obtain a gun illegally?

As always, I look forward to your enlightenment and of course, your reliable
sources.