On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:38:15 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:55:10 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:07:56 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

It certainly does. Check out violence in areas where it is legal carry (and
easy to obtain *legal* firearms) and areas that don't.

gee then why does the US have the highest rate of homicide in the
westen world?


why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

A lie.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

This is glaring proof that you're a liar.

really?

where's your evidence?

You're the one making the outrageous claim. You're the one in need of proof.

oh. you gone none

I don't need any. I have the Constitution, which trumps your lies.

On 1/11/2011 10:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, wrote:

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

The U.S. does have a large prison population. We use guns to contain
prisoners based on classification and propensity towards violence.

Our penal systems are admired around the world as the best run
facilities in the world.

The Federal system only has 209,494 (Last updated on January 6, 2011 )
Up from 52, 000 in 1979. You can look the daily count for each state,
though.

What is really neat is that we don't harvest body parts from prisoners
and sell them on the black market.

Next!


Aren't most of the prisoners in there because of drug charges?

TDD

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:26:51 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:37:45 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

The U.S. does have a large prison population. We use guns to contain
prisoners based on classification and propensity towards violence.

Our penal systems are admired around the world as the best run
facilities in the world.

The Federal system only has 209,494 (Last updated on January 6, 2011 )
Up from 52, 000 in 1979. You can look the daily count for each state,
though.

Right. We try to keep track of prisoners, not guns.

What is really neat is that we don't harvest body parts from prisoners
and sell them on the black market.

Next!

How about bpuharic?

Can't say much. Maybe Congress can have a "ruling".

On Jan 11, 11:40*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:56:06 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - BeeHO

...YOU ARE JUST FULL OF IT, ARENT YOU..
IT GOES ON.. IF YOU BRING A GUN TO THE FIGHT, WE'LL BRING A SHOTGUN,
IF YOU BRING A SHOTGUN, WE'LL BRING A MACHINE GUN, IF YOU BRING A
MACHINE GUN, WE'LL BRING A BAZOOKA, IF YOU BRING A BAZOOKA, WE'LL
BRING A TANK.
SO NOW THEYRE BRINGING CHEMICAL WARFARE, SUICIDE BOMBERS AND AIR
PLANES, AND WE ARE USING ALL THE ABOVE, BOMBS AND AN ARMY.. WHAT'S
NEXT? THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL? WE WISH.

NICE GOING LOBBYTARD!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:38:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 10:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, wrote:

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

The U.S. does have a large prison population. We use guns to contain
prisoners based on classification and propensity towards violence.

Our penal systems are admired around the world as the best run
facilities in the world.

The Federal system only has 209,494 (Last updated on January 6, 2011 )
Up from 52, 000 in 1979. You can look the daily count for each state,
though.

What is really neat is that we don't harvest body parts from prisoners
and sell them on the black market.

Next!


Aren't most of the prisoners in there because of drug charges?

TDD

A large percentage are, yes.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

Because we are not, how much simpler can it be made for you? Many
"developed" nations have higher murder rates than the U.S., including Russia
and the former Soviet republics, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey.
Within the U.S. most homicides by firearm involve young minority men
involved in gangs and the illegal drug trade, still a serious problem, but
homicide is well down the list of causes of death for most Americans, coming
in at 15. It is also notable that states that allow concealed carry of
weapons have lower crime rates than states that don't allow CCW. You're
entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

On Jan 11, 11:40*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:56:06 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - BeeHO

IT'S JUST A BULLY ASS MOTHER****ERS ATTITUDE...HE STARYED THE FIGHT
TOO.
WHY DIDNT HE KEEP IT FAIR AND JUST KNIFE FIGHT....NOOO! HAD TO PULL A
GUN!
EPITOMIZING ABUSE OF POWER FREAKS!
SOMEDAY A TIRED OF ABUSE UNARMED NOBODY WILL COME ALONG AND KILL HIM
WITHOUT EVEN TRYING.
IT NEVER FAILS...
PATECUM

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


The perp in this case had been in contact with LEOs over his behavior
for a number of years, and had been kicked out of community college for
it, yet nobody took things seriously enough to do anything about it. The
laws to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing firearms from retail
dealers already exists. If the proper information has not been entered
into the check system indicating the mental issues, it is not a failure
of the laws.

Sure it is, as was determined after the Virginia Tech massacre when they
discovered that many states were not keeping their databases complete and up
to date, and criminals and those ruled mentally unsound were not being
entered into the system. That's why Congress passed a law (signed by Pres.
Bush in 2008) funding state upgrades of their databases and threatening
withholding of federal law enforcement funding to states that failed to do
so.

In this case the problem seems to be that the whacko's crazy behavior never
got in front of a judge, although the judge who dealt with expunging his
record for the drug paraphernalia bust was suspicious that it was so he
wouldn't have any trouble buying a gun. More has to be done to get such
people the medical attention they need, and to get their names on the
no-guns list. I'd be in favor of schools having to report expulsions of
students for mental health issues that appear to put others in danger. If
it's an over-reaction then names can be deleted from the list, there are
already mechanisms to do that, but in the meantime someone like Cho or
Loughner can't buy a gun and slaughter innocent people.

On Jan 12, 12:59*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"bpuharic" *wrote in message

...

if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does
why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

Because we are not, how much simpler can it be made for you? *Many
"developed" nations have higher murder rates than the U.S., including Russia
and the former Soviet republics, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey.
Within the U.S. most homicides by firearm involve young minority men
involved in gangs and the illegal drug trade, still a serious problem, but
homicide is well down the list of causes of death for most Americans, coming
in at 15. *It is also notable that states that allow concealed carry of
weapons have lower crime rates than states that don't allow CCW. *You're
entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

YOU ARE BOTH ENTITLED TO YOUR FEARS, JUST DONT IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS.
ONE OF THEM MAY NOT TAKE TOO KINDLY TO YOUR IMPERTINENT INSISTENCE.
THE SIMPLE THINGS CONFUSE THE PROUD., PRIDE IS STILL A DEADLY SIN.

PATECUM

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Not an attempted misdirection. Someone involuntarily admitted to a mental
health institution is barred from ever owning a gun.

If you ignore that only a couple of years ago the law was changed to make it
easier for them to challenge that status and get their names removed from
the list. And unless (according to you) they're divorced and a court
already barred them from owning guns.

Hint: If your loved-ones (ha!) manage to get you committed, try really
hard to get the commitment changed to 'voluntary.'

Are you suggesting I don't have any loved ones? Gee, you're getting ornery
in your declining, enfeebled, rambling, decaying, shambling, decrepit,
delusional final years, aren't you.

On Jan 11, 4:25*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:41*am, DD_BobK wrote:

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

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-

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

You mean like the near zero probability event of having a shooter
suddenly open up in a crowd? *That is the first near zero probability
event, and without that first zero probability event occurring, my
zero probability event is of course pegged at zero, but let's run with
it - it happens, and other people start shooting, too. *Do you
honestly believe that everyone is going to stand around to let the
concerned citizen get off a clean shot? *What if there are a number of
armed concerned citizens standing on all sides of the shooter, which
is the usual state of affairs in a crowd. *Would the concerned
citizens communicate wordlessly and decide who had the best shot, hold
off and let that guy take the shot? *Or would it be everyone take
their best shot? *Wouldn't the bad guy be trying really hard not to
get shot?

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

Bystanders getting shot is usually a "poor *******, but look what that
crazy guy with the gun did to start the whole thing!" *Back seat news,
perhaps. *Much like friendly fire statistics everywhere else they're
footnotes and back page fodder.

It is my opinion (based on very little data) that armed citizens
responding to bad guys are much more careful shooters.

We're not talking about one guy pulling a gun to stop a robbery.
We're talking about pandemonium in a crowd. *People running, ducking,
hitting the deck, screaming, and that cool, calm, definitely blue-eyed
citizen calmly pulls his gun, waits for a clear shot and picks off the
bad guy standing behind his hostage human shield. *Could happen. *In a
movie.

They lack the "legal cover" that police officers enjoy. *A cop can
empty his gun at a target and few question it.

There's a lot of truth in that.

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.

And these were trained professionals, right? *So even the pros can
miss the mark - but that isn't a surprise.http://www.schlissellawfirm.com/blog...ander-shot-by-...

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.

You should be viewing this in a more analytical way, Bob. *It's more
akin to physics and statistics than it is about guns, gun control,
terrorists or any of that.

The more people firing, the more misses and the greater the likelihood
of people getting hit. *Friendly fire on home soil at a shopping mall
doesn't make it more palatable. *The people standing around when the
stuff goes down are not going to calmly look for the exits. *Everybody
who has ever been shot at unexpectedly has had a massive rush of
adrenalin, which does not make for clear thinking and steady hands.

Carrying a gun with you at all times based on the extremely, extremely
remote instance that something really bad is going to happen, and that
a gun can fix it. *That is just another form of delusion. *It makes
_way_ more sense to know basic first aid and have a defibrillator on
hand as those type of occurrences are far more likely to happen. *But
that doesn't sell in Peoria, does it? *Which of the following
headlines is going to make it to the front page?
Guy with defibrillator saves life
Armed citizen kills terrorist at pep rally

R

Ah. Sanity at last.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

You, no doubt, had an amicable divorce without a Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) or one that precluded violence. Your must admit your unique
circumstance cannot extrapolate to the whole world.

You wrote, "The same screwing holds true for "boiler plate" orders of
separation in most
divorce cases"--so unless you can document that "most" divorce cases answer
that description.....

I, on the other hand, do not make this **** up (although that's often more
convenient). You did, however, force me to dig out my old textbook from my
Family Law course.

LOL, you're the guy who claimed the U.S. Coast Guard was bigger than the
next five largest navies in the world or whatever it was, and that nobody in
the Bush admin ever said a word about getting Bin Laden. You do not make
this **** up? Well if you don't make it up you sure believe some silly ****
someone else made up.

So, then, if you are subject to a (state) temporary restraining order (in
a divorce proceeding) prohibiting you from alarming another, you are in
violation of federal law if you possess a firearm or ammunition.

And that applies to "most" divorces? If you meant most divorces, in Texas,
that involve restraining orders due to threats and such like, then you
should have written that rather than creating the impression you think
standard divorce settlements involve a separation agreement/order
prohibiting the ownership of firearms.

I hope the above discourse convinces you I don't talk smack.

On the contrary, it suggest you shoot from the lip.

On Jan 12, 1:15*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Pete C." *wrote in message

ster.com...

The perp in this case had been in contact with LEOs over his behavior
for a number of years, and had been kicked out of community college for
it, yet nobody took things seriously enough to do anything about it. The
laws to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing firearms from retail
dealers already exists. If the proper information has not been entered
into the check system indicating the mental issues, it is not a failure
of the laws.

Sure it is, as was determined after the Virginia Tech massacre when they
discovered that many states were not keeping their databases complete and up
to date, and criminals and those ruled mentally unsound were not being
entered into the system. *That's why Congress passed a law (signed by Pres.
Bush in 2008) funding state upgrades of their databases and threatening
withholding of federal law enforcement funding to states that failed to do
so.

In this case the problem seems to be that the whacko's crazy behavior never
got in front of a judge, although the judge who dealt with expunging his
record for the drug paraphernalia bust was suspicious that it was so he
wouldn't have any trouble buying a gun. *More has to be done to get such
people the medical attention they need, and to get their names on the
no-guns list. *I'd be in favor of schools having to report expulsions of
students for mental health issues that appear to put others in danger. *If
it's an over-reaction then names can be deleted from the list, there are
already mechanisms to do that, but in the meantime someone like Cho or
Loughner can't buy a gun and slaughter innocent people.

EVIL FLOURISHES WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING.
IN THOSE CASES IT WAS TOO LATE..THE EVIL GOOD PEOPLE FEAR OCCURRED.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL IT DOESNT MEAN ITS GOOD AND VICE
VERSA.

A PSYCHOPATH BENT ON COMMITTING CRIME NEEDS NO PERMIT TO ACQUIRE A
GUN.

GUN "CONTROL" IS MORE THAN ISSUING PERMITS TO THE RIGHT APPLICANTS.
EMPHASIS ON CONTROL.

On Jan 11, 5:20*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 11, 3:44 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:





"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

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.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is the irony of it all. We have six people murdered by a loon with
a gun. *And your justification for owning one, proving that it's
necessary is you nearly shot a dog (or two).
=================

I will do absolutely anything to protect my kid. That includes using my
teeth to rip out another person's trachea, and eating it, hopefully while
the offender's children are watching in horror. It is absolutely normal to
protect one's young using any means available, and anyone who disagrees with
this is seriously maladjusted.

You will attempt to prove me wrong. You will fail.

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

Ever thought the owner
might then have shot you? * Dog owners are slightly mad.

=================
Of course. His attempt would've failed.

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

I used to work for the local power company and was often confronted
with dogs of various temperaments.(Hundreds of times) I could always
handle the situation. I never felt the need to own a gun. *Just to
understand canine behaviour.

==========

I deal in absolutes. I was prepared to deal with those dogs in the exact
same way the police deal with them when they're called to deal with a
vicious dog which has just bitten someone. They make a decision very
quickly. If the animal cleanup officer(s) can't get there quickly enough,
they shoot the dog.

I can say with absolute certainty that if you had been in my situation, you
would NOT have been able to deal with these dogs by understanding their
behavior.

By the way, you pretended not to notice an issue I mentioned earlier. When I
educated the dog owner about what was about to happen, he was able to make
his dogs retreat by yelling a one word command. The police found this very
interesting. Can you explain WHY the police found this interesting? It
caused the police to take the guy's dogs away.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So let me get this right.
Someone attacks your daughter, you shoot them?
Someone attacks your nieghbour's daughter you just stand by an let the
(rape?) proceed because you might get sued?
What a nasty fellow you are. Part of the American Me, Me, Me culture.
Well you don't seem to realise is, every woman/little girl is
someone's daughter.

As for the dog(s), this fellow has trained them to be a weapon
obviously.
He's as bad as you f@@@*g mind warped gun owners. Evil *******.
I would say he also likely had a gun. If you had shot his dog(s) I
expect he would have shot you as he was obviously another one with an
ego/penis problem. We have them over here too, but without guns.
And yes, I could deal with the dogs, without a gun too.

On Jan 11, 6:17*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 10:32 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 2:42 pm, *wrote:
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.

Now that's very selfish. You mean that all the gun owners just stood
by and watched Christina Taylor Green being gunned down? *My,
aren'tcha all great heroes? *What a society! *Sounds worse and worse
to me.

Come on Harry, that's not what happened. The young man who was legally
carrying a pistol ran toward the sound of gunfire and being of sound
mind, did not draw his weapon because the shooter was being tackled by
bystanders and the young man with the legally carried gun was not going
to open fire possibly hitting bystanders. Most people who own guns here
in The States are sane. The young man who ran to the scene actually
joined in and helped hold the shooter on the ground until police arrived
to take over. Cowboys don't waste ammunition. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact that he was carrying a gun was niether here nor there in what
happened. If, as others pointed out, some one had started shooting,
more people would have died. Ergo, we have yet another situation where
guns are no defence. Only the fearful carry them about. Or the one's
that can't get a hard on.

The fact that the loon had one is what matters. Loons can only be
detected with hindsight. Ergo the way forward is, no-one should have a
gun.

This is compounded by the sick Hollywood gun culture that portrays a
fantasy world that has no bearing on reality (except to the tiny and
credulous minded)
It warps the simpleton brains of the uneducated.

It's a good thing to execute loons, it limits them from spreading bad
DNA.

However a few Hollywood directors need to be exected too for inciting
murder. I'm surprised no-one's thought of it yet over there.
Maybe they have but it's not allowed as your society exists to support
the rich.

On Jan 11, 6:53*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 10:39 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, *wrote:
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.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. *And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

Harry, The UK has a population of a bit less than 52 million and The USA
has a population of a bit less than 311 million. We have more poor
citizens as defined by some government agency than the UK has subjects.
Statistically we have more lunatics than you have. Your perverts may be
of superior quality but we have greater numbers. The State of Texas is
2.9 times the size of your whole country. I'm sorry my friend but our
countries just don't survive a side to side comparison. If you were
referring to the West Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, I know it well, I was
born there back in the middle of the last century. If you have a link to
some source of disparaging material on my birthplace, I'd like to see
it. Heck, I might recognize the people and places. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, the only thing we have in common with Americans is language.
Don't you think it remarkable that a country so small has had such
influence?

Perverts BTW don't just appear. They are created. Mostly by Hollywood
**** these days.You and I might be able to sit down, watch it and be
able to distinguish factual material from fiction. However there is a
small minority out there that can't and seek to emulate this crap. It
erodes the brain of the simple minded.

Most people are followers, not leaders. You have some very bad leaders
in America and I don't just mean political.

On Jan 11, 6:57*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 10:43 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 3:02 pm, "Pete *wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In articleJf6dnYyRaoTrCLbQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdn...@earthlink .com,
* *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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

The Resistance did a pretty good job of utilizing firebombs during WWII. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The resistance didn't win the war. They were sustained by outside
help, material and moral. Just as the resistance in Iraq is sustained
by Iran.
In Afghanistan by Pakistan. Without outside help a truely ruthless
police force can soon beat a few civilians. Don't let Hollywood (and
Pinewood studios) carry you awy Duf.
But here is a real heroine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violette_Szabo

On Jan 11, 7:00*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 8:57 AM, HeyBub wrote:





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..

I know a few people who think it justified to shoot someone who owned
107 cats. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you Yanks are mad. Us Brits are crafty. If you want to get rid
of any number of cats, feed them ethelyn glycol, (anti-freeze) .
They love it and they have a lingering death. So I'm told anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-village.html
There is that nasty enough for you? Stops the fithy animals from
****ting in your garden.

On Jan 11, 7:04*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 11:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
*wrote in message

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

In articleVqqdndLuK9zW47bQnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@earthlink .com,

*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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the UK there is virtually no possibilty.

You can ask around. Friend of a friend who knows someone. *Steal one.
Bash a gunowner over the head& *take his gun. *Once you have one, easy
to get more.
I hear every shopkeeper has a gun under the counter. *Or is that just
in CSI?
People keep them on a rack in the back of trucks in America? *People
wander about in the woods armed to the teeth.
The possibilities seem endless.

I watched the movie "Harry Brown", he didn't have too much trouble
obtaining a gun in England. It wasn't a Hollywood movie. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fiction. A Brit attempt to compete with Hollywood. However it has some
bearing on reality. There are few pubs where you can get a gun in the
UK.
But not a bit like CSI, NCSI, Diehard, Dirty Harry, which has none.
(Or has it)?

On Jan 11, 7:14*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 10:47 AM, Steve B wrote:





*wrote in message
om...
Steve B wrote:

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.

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.

I say you're wrong. Displaying a firearm and NOT shooting it is
meritorious and worthy of praise. You've prevented a disaster and no one
died.

You are correct that the object of my affections may take it the wrong way
and get all ****y, and I'd certainly take his attitude into account before
escalating the conflict to a potential shoot-out.

On the two occasions I've had to display my sidearm, the actors would have
to bathe, put down their tire-iron, and wipe the drool from their chins
before making a complaint.

In my state, you can't lose your permit simply because you were arrested.

Keywords: *"In my state". *One size does not fit all, and the scenario I
described was explained to me during my third CCF class by an Internal
Affairs Bureau panel member with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department who investigates OIS's. *(Officer Involved Shootings) *He
explained that if one perp lies, and another swears to it, you would lose
the gun and permit until you could make a judge agree with your side of said
scenario. *He said he had seen it happen.

Bottom line, yes, you can defuse some situations by showing a weapon, or
even intimating one with your hand. *But, you also must admit that there
have been situations where doing that has gotten innocent people in trouble.

I monitor Southern Nevada Law Enforcement channels when in Las Vegas, and
have for years. *You'd be surprised the number of people who call in others
for making a gun gesture with their hands. *Now, the police do not really
look for that individual, but have it on record, and if that person is
stopped, it pops out, and then they usually spend some time getting
searched.

As always, the laws hinder "normal" people.

Steve

Heck, in The UK you go to jail if you defend yourself against someone
trying to kill you.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can kill some-one that, for example, breaks into your home. But
you must desist the moment they cease to be a threat.
There are a few well known cases where people didn't, and found
themselves in trouble. Like the gang of Pakis chased a burglar down
the road and beat him to death with a cricket bat. Or was it a hockey
stick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munir_H...tims%27_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

On Jan 11, 7:23*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*The Daring Dufas wrote:

Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

The Resistance did a pretty good job of utilizing firebombs during WWII.. :-)

*Hmmm. Never realized that it took a lot of knowledge to fill a wine
bottle with gasoline, put in some paper towel or similar for a wick and
toss it. The most important parameters for a fire bomb is (1). good
throwing arm and (2). making sure you have a bottle that is thin enough
that it will actually break.

--
"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

Heh Heh. You should try it some day. There are far better devices/
contents.
I expect you could look on youtube. Or maybe not these days, the
thought police might gitcha.

On Jan 11, 7:42*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Harry's view of the USA is based on imported television, and
English nanny state view of firearms. I saw on an English
cops show. Guy got pulled over, and arrested cause he had an
"offesnive weapon", meaning lockback knife, in the trunck of
his car. Sorry: Boot of his auto.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"The Daring Dufas"
wrote in ...



Now that's very selfish. You mean that all the gun owners
just stood
by and watched Christina Taylor Green being gunned down?
My,
aren'tcha all great heroes? *What a society! *Sounds worse
and worse
to me.

Come on Harry, that's not what happened. The young man who
was legally
carrying a pistol ran toward the sound of gunfire and being
of sound
mind, did not draw his weapon because the shooter was being
tackled by
bystanders and the young man with the legally carried gun
was not going
to open fire possibly hitting bystanders. Most people who
own guns here
in The States are sane. The young man who ran to the scene
actually
joined in and helped hold the shooter on the ground until
police arrived
to take over. Cowboys don't waste ammunition. :-)

TDD

Ah, yes possibly. And your point?

On Jan 11, 8:24*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" *wrote in message

...

* Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument.

But there have been changes, as a result of the Virginia Tech massacre the
Dem Congress passed a law which Bush signed in his last year in office
rewarding/punishing the states for keeping the NICS updated or failing to do
so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/06/09/AR200...

"Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have
to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases,
mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not
been filed with the instant-check system. The federal government would then
pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180
days of the audit.

Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog,
the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the
system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would
be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid
cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year."

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.

We trust the courts to determine the outcome of a great many things in our
lives. *At the point where a judge orders someone to undergo psychiatric
treatment because of threatening behavior the person should *be barred from
purchasing firearms--with the right to be removed from the list if they
later get a clean bill of mental health. *Judges get to decide if we go to
prison, or get divorced, or have to pay other people tons of money, or lose
our homes, and so on. *So it seems reasonable that a judge can say that
someone who appears to be a danger to himself and others should not be able
to purchase firearms. *It's supposed to work that way anyway, but the states
were doing a poor job of keeping the system up to date.

I'd also suggest that uniformity between the states on background checks
would be a good idea, and as I said elsewhere, schools should have to report
students (or staff) kicked out for threatening behavior. *We're never going
to stop all those with mental health problems from getting ahold of guns,
but just reducing the number who do is worth pursuing if we don't have to
infringe on the rights of sane, sober, law-abiding citizens in the process.

Toothless sop. How do it help Ms Green/Giffords?

On Jan 11, 8:32*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote in ...

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.

It doesn't have to come to them being locked up, it could be as simple as
schools being required to report students who are expelled or otherwise
sanctioned by a school on the basis of apparent serious mental health
problems, especially if threatening behavior is involved. *That report
should result in a hearing in front of a judge who orders the person's name
placed on the list of those not allowed to buy firearms, with the right of
appeal of course. *Even if that person isn't confined, or even treated, at
least they aren't armed. *If that had happened with the Virginia Tech
student who had scared enough people that a court ordered him to undergo
psychiatric treatment, then 33 people would still be alive. *Yeah, maybe he
could have bought an illegal gun, or used a knife and so on--what if, what
if. *But he wouldn't have been able to legally purchase two handguns, and
that might have been enough to save almost three dozen lives.

I expect the parent would go down and shoot the teacher.
Pyschiatric treatment is hogwash anyway.
Snake oil vendors.

On Jan 11, 8:55*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

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.- Hide quoted text -
In the UK there is virtually no possibilty.

I remember reading about a former head of Scotland Yard testifying to a
parliamentary committee as to the effectiveness of Britain's gun laws. *He
said that any criminal in Britain who wanted a gun could get one, usually in
no more than 24 hours, and he even listed the prices paid for various sorts
of weapons.

So, who to believe, a former head of Scotland Yard? *Or some low-budget
troll notoriously short on facts and long on bigotry? *Hmmmm, tough call.

I hear every shopkeeper has a gun under the counter. *Or is that just
in CSI?

You should stick to watching TV, "Harry"--less opportunity to look like as
ass doing that.

That was not an answer.
Criminals here mostly shoot one another. We have few massacres here.
"Holdups" with guns are very rare,
I don't remember a schoolkid/college massacre.

On Jan 10, 11:44*pm, harry wrote:
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)

Harry, please deal with your excessive use of the greengrocer's
apostrophe.
I shouldn't say "excessive". As former Canadian PM Mackenzie King
said of the Jews:
"One is too many"

HB

HB

On Jan 12, 12:17*am, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." *wrote in message
ster.com...

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.

Nonsense. *By that logic we would let child molesters run free because there
have always been child molesters, and pyromaniacs, and so on. *When people
with serious mental illness that threatens others are identified, we do
something about it, not just throw up our hands. *Just keeping those found
to be mentally ill and a danger to others from being able to buy guns would
save lives, and it doesn't have to be 100% effective to be worth doing. *If
that kid at Virginia Tech who had already been ordered by a judge to undergo
psychiatric treatment had been prevented from buying two pistols, it's
unlikely he would have killed 33 people with a knife.

The perp in this case had been in contact with LEOs over his behavior
for a number of years, and had been kicked out of community college for
it, yet nobody took things seriously enough to do anything about it. The
laws to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing firearms from retail
dealers already exists. If the proper information has not been entered
into the check system indicating the mental issues, it is not a failure
of the laws. A Wal-Mart refused to sell ammunition to the perp in this
case due to his behavior, we can only assume that he managed to compose
himself long enough to not arouse suspicion when purchasing the gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A classic case of half wits thinking that to prevent something
happening, all you need to do is pass a law. Mental defectives can
only be detected retrospectively. In case you don't know what that
means, it means AFTER they done something bad.
Doh!

On 1/12/2011 1:06 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:53 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 10:39 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, wrote:
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.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

Harry, The UK has a population of a bit less than 52 million and The USA
has a population of a bit less than 311 million. We have more poor
citizens as defined by some government agency than the UK has subjects.
Statistically we have more lunatics than you have. Your perverts may be
of superior quality but we have greater numbers. The State of Texas is
2.9 times the size of your whole country. I'm sorry my friend but our
countries just don't survive a side to side comparison. If you were
referring to the West Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, I know it well, I was
born there back in the middle of the last century. If you have a link to
some source of disparaging material on my birthplace, I'd like to see
it. Heck, I might recognize the people and places. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, the only thing we have in common with Americans is language.
Don't you think it remarkable that a country so small has had such
influence?

Perverts BTW don't just appear. They are created. Mostly by Hollywood
**** these days.You and I might be able to sit down, watch it and be
able to distinguish factual material from fiction. However there is a
small minority out there that can't and seek to emulate this crap. It
erodes the brain of the simple minded.

Most people are followers, not leaders. You have some very bad leaders
in America and I don't just mean political.

Of course we have some bad leaders and we have a mechanism to rid
ourselves of them with the one weapon they fear the most, an election.
It's unfortunate that the good leaders are often cut down like the
Representative Gabrielle Giffords who is a wonderful lady and the bad
leaders seem to endure because they know darn well someone may be
coming for them so they keep security around. Hell, Ted Kennedy had a
squad of security people surrounding him who carried machine guns. It
strikes me as funny that the anti-gun lawmakers have armed guards
protecting them. We should ask them to give up their armed guards to
show us how bad guns are. Set an example, give up armed guards. :-)

TDD

On 1/12/2011 1:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:57 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 10:43 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 3:02 pm, "Pete wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In articleJf6dnYyRaoTrCLbQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdn...@earthlink .com,
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

The Resistance did a pretty good job of utilizing firebombs during WWII. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The resistance didn't win the war. They were sustained by outside
help, material and moral. Just as the resistance in Iraq is sustained
by Iran.
In Afghanistan by Pakistan. Without outside help a truely ruthless
police force can soon beat a few civilians. Don't let Hollywood (and
Pinewood studios) carry you awy Duf.
But here is a real heroine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violette_Szabo

Amazing how young she was for the incredible to her people. I consider
a young woman of that age to be a kid these days. :-)

TDD

On 1/12/2011 1:19 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:00 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 8:57 AM, HeyBub wrote:





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.

I know a few people who think it justified to shoot someone who owned
107 cats. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you Yanks are mad. Us Brits are crafty. If you want to get rid
of any number of cats, feed them ethelyn glycol, (anti-freeze) .
They love it and they have a lingering death. So I'm told anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-village.html
There is that nasty enough for you? Stops the fithy animals from
****ting in your garden.

I actually get along with cats and dogs. A few at a time. It's the
animal hoarder who needs controlling. :-)

TDD

On 1/12/2011 1:25 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:04 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/11/2011 11:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 11, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 10:53 pm, Kurt wrote:

In articleVqqdndLuK9zW47bQnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@earthlink .com,

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the UK there is virtually no possibilty.

You can ask around. Friend of a friend who knows someone. Steal one.
Bash a gunowner over the head& take his gun. Once you have one, easy
to get more.
I hear every shopkeeper has a gun under the counter. Or is that just
in CSI?
People keep them on a rack in the back of trucks in America? People
wander about in the woods armed to the teeth.
The possibilities seem endless.

I watched the movie "Harry Brown", he didn't have too much trouble
obtaining a gun in England. It wasn't a Hollywood movie. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fiction. A Brit attempt to compete with Hollywood. However it has some
bearing on reality. There are few pubs where you can get a gun in the
UK.
But not a bit like CSI, NCSI, Diehard, Dirty Harry, which has none.
(Or has it)?

I like Michael Caine anyway, I thought it was one of his better films.

TDD

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:25:27 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:37:20 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

with 300M guns in this country, the distinction between legal and
illegal ownership is a fiction.

Now we all *know* you're stupid.

ah. so you think there's some way to track and control 300M guns

Good God, no! Why would we even WANT to track guns. There should be another
300M, at least. I'm thinking about buying a Walther PPK/S for my wife, in
fact.

thanks for making my point.

the defense rests


obviously because 'leniency' is just another figment of the right's
imagination

Wrong. As long as loony lefty judges, and politicians, keep turning them out,
they'll keep killing.

let me type this slowly so you can understand

the US has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world

we have more prisoners than china. china has 5X our population

where is your data that shows judges are lenient?

oh. rush told you.

i rest my case

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:37:45 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:58 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

The U.S. does have a large prison population. We use guns to contain
prisoners based on classification and propensity towards violence.

Our penal systems are admired around the world as the best run
facilities in the world.

HAHAHAH really? our judicial system, dominated by the 'lock 'em up'
philosophy, is seen as a joke

a very, very expensive joke that even conservatives are starting to
realize, doesnt work

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:28:52 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:38:15 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:55:10 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:07:56 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

It certainly does. Check out violence in areas where it is legal carry (and
easy to obtain *legal* firearms) and areas that don't.

gee then why does the US have the highest rate of homicide in the
westen world?


why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

A lie.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

This is glaring proof that you're a liar.

oh. you cant read a chart.

yeah, you're right wing alright

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:59:41 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .

if gun ownership causes a DECREASE in violence like you say it does

why are we the most viotent developed country in the world?

Because we are not, how much simpler can it be made for you? Many
"developed" nations have higher murder rates than the U.S., including Russia

HAHAHAH anybody think russia's developed?

and the former Soviet republics, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey.

uh huh. tell you what. you go to turkey and try to compare it to
germany, OK? why do you think turks leave turkey to go to germany??

and when brazil becomes developed you let me know.

Within the U.S. most homicides by firearm involve young minority men

oh. other countries dont have minority men? 10% of france is muslim.
that would be equivalent to 30M here.


involved in gangs and the illegal drug trade, still a serious problem, but
homicide is well down the list of causes of death for most Americans, coming
in at 15. It is also notable that states that allow concealed carry of
weapons have lower crime rates than states that don't allow CCW. You're
entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

fine. when you can show that this chart ISNT true


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

you let me know

On Jan 12, 1:58*am, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Vic Smith" *wrote in message
.. .

Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.

Very good point. *Rights come with responsibilities, and IMO if someone
wants to pack they should have to take a training course in safe handling,
local firearms laws and shooting proficiency, and demonstrate every five
years that they can still pass the test.

Here in Texas you do indeed have to take a course and requalify at each
renewal.
What load of cobblers. Proper training would involve someone trying
to kill you. As this clearly isn't possible, niether is training.

And every 20 days, I have to go out of town for about 48
hours.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:04:03 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

But, how many wives do they have? Are they in 315 area
code?

You have 315 wives? Figures.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 1:58 am, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.

Very good point. Rights come with responsibilities, and IMO if someone
wants to pack they should have to take a training course in safe
handling,
local firearms laws and shooting proficiency, and demonstrate every five
years that they can still pass the test.

Here in Texas you do indeed have to take a course and requalify at each
renewal.

What load of cobblers. Proper training would involve someone trying
to kill you. As this clearly isn't possible, niether is training.

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

Based on your definition of proper training, the vast majority of police
officers have never and will never receive proper training. Thanks for
clearing that up.

On Jan 12, 2:06*am, "Pete C." wrote:
Larry W wrote:

In article ,
harry wrote:
...snipped...
Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

It's arguably easier to make an effective single shot firearm than it
is to make an effective bomb. I bet even a modern Englishman could do it!

Don't confuse a "firebomb" which is elementary school easy, with an
explosive bomb which is a good deal more difficult.

When I was a schoolboy, One could buy chemistry sets that included
materials and instructions for making explosives and fireworks.
Not possible now, everything is illegal. The kids today know nothing.

But you can make explosives out of ****. So there's plenty of people
here would have no shortage of that :-)

On Jan 12, 3:06*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:02:33 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:

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? *

with 300M guns in this country, the distinction between legal and
illegal ownership is a fiction.



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

let's see. america has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
we have more prisoners than china.

how's that leniency working out?

And don't forget capital punishment.