"IGot2P" wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2011 10:02 PM, Steve B wrote:
Morphed again, did you, you slimy little *******?

If you can't write decent enough stuff that you have to change your name
a
few times a week, that should be your first clue that your writing is no
good.

Steve



Were you referring to my post?

Don

Only if you're Suga Mota Soy.

On Jun 8, 3:38*am, "tom" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jun 7, 4:35 am, "tom" wrote:

"Suga Moto Soy" wrote in
.. .

What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people
including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing himself.

As always.......I'd still rather have a gun and not need it, than need a
gun
and not have it. Can't, nor do I care to speak for anyone else. I will
always possess a gun, regardless of whatever the "law" may dictate.
That is because your are paranoid and fearful. Sad.

Actually it's because I exist in the real world. I think it's sad to live in
denial.

It's because you live in America and have been subject to the bull****
propaganda all your life. It has damaged your brain.
The real world is well outside the borders of America.

On Jun 8, 4:09*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Han wrote:

.



Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be
alive today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with
supposed good sense say it. *The shooter was mentally unstable
(whatever the cause of that) and should never have had a gun
available.

The occasional death is the price society must pay for the freedom to
protect itself from the goblins.

There are deaths, true, attributable to guns. Likewise there are deaths
attributable to cars, aspirin tablets, and the wrong choice in a marriage
partner. We don't outlaw something because of a rare bad outcome, we look at
the entire picture.

Lifted from the NRA book of propaganda/lies.

In article ,
Han wrote:


That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with supposed
good sense say it. The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Don't know the history, but was he mentally unstable to the point of
diagnosis, or was this largely ascertained after the fact.
I always get a kick out of trying to keep guns out of the hands of
the mentally ill since the privacy statutes on mental illness are so
strict, that their illness won't show up on any of the usable databases.
Even the civil court records on Emergency Detentions and commitments are
usually sealed.
The attorneys for the hospital I worked for went toe-to-toe with
the Secret Service (and won) because the person threatening the
president hadn't signed a release of information and so we couldn't even
acknowledge they were on the unit without a warrant (or maybe subpoena,
by that time I was mostly a mildly amused observer-grin)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Don't know the history, but was he mentally unstable to the point of
diagnosis, or was this largely ascertained after the fact.

I believe his ex had an order of protection against him. Lot of good
that did, if they let him keep a firearm.

I always get a kick out of trying to keep guns out of the hands of
the mentally ill since the privacy statutes on mental illness are so
strict, that their illness won't show up on any of the usable
databases. Even the civil court records on Emergency Detentions and
commitments are usually sealed.

Fair enough to point out the difficulties with current rules. But does
that mean everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth to provide
protectioon against the few who shouldn't have guns in the first place?

The attorneys for the hospital I worked for went toe-to-toe with
the Secret Service (and won) because the person threatening the
president hadn't signed a release of information and so we couldn't
even acknowledge they were on the unit without a warrant (or maybe
subpoena, by that time I was mostly a mildly amused observer-grin)

Same again. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of the SS having weapons
to protect our elected officials.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"tom" wrote in :


"harry" wrote in message
..
. On Jun 7, 4:35 am, "tom" wrote:
"Suga Moto Soy" wrote in
.. .

What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people
including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.

As always.......I'd still rather have a gun and not need it, than
need a gun
and not have it. Can't, nor do I care to speak for anyone else. I
will always possess a gun, regardless of whatever the "law" may
dictate.

That is because your are paranoid and fearful. Sad.

Actually it's because I exist in the real world. I think it's sad to
live in denial.



it's no different than keeping a fire extinguisher around in case a fire
breaks out.
Sure,you could call 911 and wait until the "pros" arrive,but the fire may
get a lot worse in that time,and you end up losing more. Or,you could use
your own fire extinguisher,put the fire out while it's still small and
easily handled,and lose much less.
It's not "fear",it's being prepared for a possibility,one that seems to be
not so rare anymore.

Just think how long it takes for police to arrive after you call 911.
Then think of situations where you may not be able to call 911.
Then Google Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen,TX. Or the many other public places
where someone walked in and began shooting,and no one was prepared to stop
them.
Then look up that church shooting in Boulder,CO.,where an armed citizen
stopped the murderer.Or Pearl High School,Pearl,MS.,or Appalachian Law
School,VA.,where armed citizens stopped the murderers.
then think of Columbine or Virginia Tech where the shooters kept killing
people until they either ran out of ammo or police finally arrived.

criminals fear armed citizens. more than they fear police.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Suga Moto Soy wrote:
What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.


Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be alive
today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with supposed
good sense say it. The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument and
turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
Hell, cops have been known on more than one occasion to shoot at other cops
(usually out of uniform but not always!). We just had a case here where
outside a bar two detectives shot it out, each thinking the other was a
perp. Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: more innocent people will be shot. That's not to say I favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
..44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Don't know the history, but was he mentally unstable to the point of
diagnosis, or was this largely ascertained after the fact.

I believe his ex had an order of protection against him. Lot of good
that did, if they let him keep a firearm.

Assuming facts not in evidence. An order of protection is generally
seen on the dbs people would be looking at. In fact in many states
(possibly all) being involved in domestic violence automatically means
you can't carry a gun. Had a cop in Indiana recently lose his job for
that very reason.
Did he have the firearm before? Did he even buy it legally. Get a
kick out of people saying so and so shouldn't have a gun only to find
out that they got illegally. The cities with worst homicide rates tend
to be the ones with the strictest gun laws. I am not pointing out this
as cause and effect as much as try enforcing the laws we got now.
There is also a supposition that anybody that shoots people is
mentally ill. The chances are real good that he wasn't mentally ill from
a legal standpoint or a medical standpoint.
As I like to point out, the biggest gaping hole in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Illness is the lack of diagnostic criteria
for Chronic Undifferentiated a**hole.

I always get a kick out of trying to keep guns out of the hands of
the mentally ill since the privacy statutes on mental illness are so
strict, that their illness won't show up on any of the usable
databases. Even the civil court records on Emergency Detentions and
commitments are usually sealed.

Fair enough to point out the difficulties with current rules. But does
that mean everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth to provide
protectioon against the few who shouldn't have guns in the first place?

I would argue this not even remotely relevant. A little bit of
hyperbole on a sunny Wednesday morning.


The attorneys for the hospital I worked for went toe-to-toe with
the Secret Service (and won) because the person threatening the
president hadn't signed a release of information and so we couldn't
even acknowledge they were on the unit without a warrant (or maybe
subpoena, by that time I was mostly a mildly amused observer-grin)

Same again. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of the SS having weapons
to protect our elected officials.

This was less of a suggestion that SS should not have weapons as a
comment on the strictness of mental health privacy rules.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Jun 8, 2:06*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"tom" wrote :







"harry" wrote in message
..
. On Jun 7, 4:35 am, "tom" wrote:
"Suga Moto Soy" wrote in
.. .

What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people
including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.

As always.......I'd still rather have a gun and not need it, than
need a gun
and not have it. Can't, nor do I care to speak for anyone else. I
will always possess a gun, regardless of whatever the "law" may
dictate.

That is because your are paranoid and fearful. Sad.

Actually it's because I exist in the real world. I think it's sad to
live in denial.

it's no different than keeping a fire extinguisher around in case a fire
breaks out.
Sure,you could call 911 and wait until the "pros" arrive,but the fire may
get a lot worse in that time,and you end up losing more. Or,you could use
your own fire extinguisher,put the fire out while it's still small and
easily handled,and lose much less.
It's not "fear",it's being prepared for a possibility,one that seems to be
not so rare anymore.

Just think how long it takes for police to arrive after you call 911.
Then think of situations where you may not be able to call 911.
Then Google Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen,TX. Or the many other public places
where someone walked in and began shooting,and no one was prepared to stop
them.
Then look up that church shooting in Boulder,CO.,where an armed citizen
stopped the murderer.Or Pearl High School,Pearl,MS.,or Appalachian Law
School,VA.,where armed citizens stopped the murderers.
then think of Columbine or Virginia Tech where the shooters kept killing
people until they either ran out of ammo or police finally arrived.

criminals fear armed citizens. more than they fear police.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't (have to) worry about none of that stuff. I live in a
civilsed country where gun crime is very rare. As most people do.
Owning a gun makes you part of the problem.

On Jun 8, 3:05*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Han" wrote in message

...





"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Suga Moto Soy wrote:
What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.

Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be alive
today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with supposed
good sense say it. *The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument and
turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
Hell, cops have been known on more than one occasion to shoot at other cops
(usually out of uniform but not always!). *We just had a case here where
outside a bar two detectives shot it out, each thinking the other was a
perp. *Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: *more innocent people will be shot. *That's not to say I favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hah. In most cases, no need to worry. Gun owners are inherently
cowardly.
You don't have to worry about Harry BTW.

On 2011-06-08, Robert Green wrote:

elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

Which reveals how little you know about guns. Most any "Tom, Dick, or
Harry" is NOT gonna pack a 44 magnum. Most TDHs can barely shoot the
dang things. I jes bought a used 44 mag and it probably wasn't shot
more than a dozen times. This is common when TDHs shoot a 44 mag for
the first time and go, "Screw that!". I'm pretty comfortable with the
44 mag, but I wouldn't pack one on the street. In fact, I don't
conceal carry, but if I did it would be a more practical gun, as would
most knowledgable gun owners.

nb

On Jun 8, 2:06*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"tom" wrote :







"harry" wrote in message
..
. On Jun 7, 4:35 am, "tom" wrote:
"Suga Moto Soy" wrote in
.. .

What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people
including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.

As always.......I'd still rather have a gun and not need it, than
need a gun
and not have it. Can't, nor do I care to speak for anyone else. I
will always possess a gun, regardless of whatever the "law" may
dictate.

That is because your are paranoid and fearful. Sad.

Actually it's because I exist in the real world. I think it's sad to
live in denial.

it's no different than keeping a fire extinguisher around in case a fire
breaks out.
Sure,you could call 911 and wait until the "pros" arrive,but the fire may
get a lot worse in that time,and you end up losing more. Or,you could use
your own fire extinguisher,put the fire out while it's still small and
easily handled,and lose much less.
It's not "fear",it's being prepared for a possibility,one that seems to be
not so rare anymore.

Just think how long it takes for police to arrive after you call 911.
Then think of situations where you may not be able to call 911.
Then Google Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen,TX. Or the many other public places
where someone walked in and began shooting,and no one was prepared to stop
them.
Then look up that church shooting in Boulder,CO.,where an armed citizen
stopped the murderer.Or Pearl High School,Pearl,MS.,or Appalachian Law
School,VA.,where armed citizens stopped the murderers.
then think of Columbine or Virginia Tech where the shooters kept killing
people until they either ran out of ammo or police finally arrived.

criminals fear armed citizens. more than they fear police.

More NRA bull****. I see you been collecting unsusal incidents/
outcomes. Possibly even fiction.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Did he have the firearm before? Did he even buy it legally. Get a
kick out of people saying so and so shouldn't have a gun only to find
out that they got illegally. The cities with worst homicide rates tend
to be the ones with the strictest gun laws. I am not pointing out this
as cause and effect as much as try enforcing the laws we got now.

Indeed enforcement is a problem. Seems that around here (greater NYC),
it's the illegal guns tat are being rounded up one way or another. That,
and most importantly, a changing demographics and/or attitude that has
gotten crime down significantly.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 6/8/2011 10:05 AM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
m:

Suga Moto Soy wrote:
What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.


Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be alive
today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with supposed
good sense say it. The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument and
turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
Hell, cops have been known on more than one occasion to shoot at other cops
(usually out of uniform but not always!). We just had a case here where
outside a bar two detectives shot it out, each thinking the other was a
perp. Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: more innocent people will be shot. That's not to say I favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

--
Bobby G.


Talk about drama (the "vigilante citizen"). I know a large number of law
enforcement folks ranging from local police, police chiefs, state cops
and federal folks) and all will tell you they respect the idea of
citizens having arms. One of the biggest *advocates* I know is the chief
of police in a medium to large city.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:06:35 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote
Re No comments from the GUN_Lovers:

criminals fear armed citizens. more than they fear police.

Well put.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Did he have the firearm before? Did he even buy it legally. Get a
kick out of people saying so and so shouldn't have a gun only to find
out that they got illegally. The cities with worst homicide rates tend
to be the ones with the strictest gun laws. I am not pointing out this
as cause and effect as much as try enforcing the laws we got now.

Indeed enforcement is a problem. Seems that around here (greater NYC),
it's the illegal guns tat are being rounded up one way or another. That,
and most importantly, a changing demographics and/or attitude that has
gotten crime down significantly.

Be interesting to see if that works out long term.
Interesting and maybe even related: There have been a whole series
of studies by different people in different cities but all find the same
thing. Only one variable consistently correlates to the rise and fall of
the crime rate. The percentage of the population made up of males
between 15 and 25.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:06:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Surely you understand we wouldn't even HAVE a country if it were not for
"firesticks" that enabled us to evict the previous tenants with relative
ease (until the Apaches started acquiring rifles). (-:

Police have not duty to protect citizens. Ther are a number of court
rulings about this.

Oren, I'm getting the sense that you think I claimed "Police have a duty to
protect citizens." Correct me please, if I am mistaken.

I was merely explaining to anti-gun Harry that guns were essential to taming
the wilderness of America and making it the country it is today. Guns were
essential to the British in taking over Australia as well. India, too.
What I said actually agrees with you. I said that *I* felt that "*I* had a
civic duty" to put down someone I saw walking through the park shooting
people like Howard Unruh, our nation's first single-incident mass-murderer,
did. I also talked about realizing I needed to protect myself because the
cops took 30 minutes to respond to a man trying to bash in my door. Not
sure how that morphed into "police have no duty to protect citizens."
Please explain.

pop a cap in his ass

stuff snipped

People think "bust or pop a cap" is recent ghetto speak but if you listen to
the dialog of the 1969 film "True Grit" you'll hear it used (which freaked
me out) as it was over 100 years ago It's like finding a doodle of Kilroy
in the Lascaux caves in France.

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

Others have traced its usage to books that predate the Civil War and suspect
it relates to percussion cap rifles.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i...p/t-54618.html


--
Bobby G.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 6/8/2011 10:05 AM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
m:

Suga Moto Soy wrote:
What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before
killing
himself.


Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be alive
today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with
supposed
good sense say it. The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the
cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument
and
turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating
in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO
WAY!"
Hell, cops have been known on more than one occasion to shoot at other
cops
(usually out of uniform but not always!). We just had a case here where
outside a bar two detectives shot it out, each thinking the other was a
perp. Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: more innocent people will be shot. That's not to say I
favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with
a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

--
Bobby G.


Funny how that does not seem to have happened in the several years since
'shall issue' became (mostly) the law of the land.

We haven't seen hard enough times yet. Crime stats lag a lot potential
indicators and as police patrols and staffing get cut back, crime's bound to
make a comeback. Doesn't change the fact that I worry about citizens with
no particular law enforcement training popping off a huge cannon of a
handgun loaded with a round that can kill a perp and still pass through a
house wall and kill an innocent bystander. Many of those shootings are not
justifiable, at least under DC law, for any number of reasons.

I remember the deliberate hushing of several occasions when nationally
famous news anchor Max Robinson came out of his ritzy Georgetown rowhouse,
emptying his .45 automatic at people he thought were "messing with his car."
He got away with it because cops like to befriend important people. But for
the rest of us, to use a gun in DC and not go to jail it must be licensed
(very hard to get even after the recent Supreme Court ruling) and you must
have used it in clear self-defense. Shooting at people stealing your car
doesn't count as self-defense but it's a very popular thing for people do to
in the DC area.

99.99% of the people who carry licensed guns don't worry me in the
slightest. And since I am wise enough to stay out of neighborhoods where
(unlicensed) carrying is a sign of manhood, and where drugs and booze
reduce the average IQ well into the double digits, I'm not particularly
worried about getting a gun pulled on me.

That's you, and that's fine. Some people don't/didn't have that luxury. If
I had been reluctant to enter bad neighborhoods as a police reporter, my
career would have lasted 10 minutes. Instead, it lasted 10 years and ended
when I nearly had to shoot someone in the chest nearly point blank. I
decided it was time for a new career that was more survivable as I thought
of starting a family. And from what I had seen of cops that *had* killed a
man, I was certain I'd be troubled by taking a human life, even a skel's.
I'm not as worried about that anymore since now I'd probably only have to
drop the hammer on a home intruder. Unlike the wide-open streets where
things may not be as they seem, breaking into someone's house is mostly open
and shut and people who do it should expect to be shot.

There's a larger issue that you touch on. Crime stats here in DC show that
the criminals are smart enough to take their guns to the rich neighborhoods.
That's where there ARE people with money in their wallets and nice SUV's and
Mercedes to carjack. Just because you're in a "safe" neighborhood doesn't
make you safe. When I lived in Georgetown DC there wasn't a weekend that
went by where people weren't robbed at gunpoint walking through the dark,
narrow streets getting from the cars to the bars and back again. Happened
to two good friends of mine, one of whom reported "the pistol looked like a
small cannon." No one I interviewed said they had been worried about being
mugged. They thought Georgetown was the safest neighborhood in DC. Not so.
It's easy to get lulled into a false sense of security.

--
Bobby G.

"tom" wrote in :


"harry" wrote in message
...

I don't (have to) worry about none of that stuff. I live in a
civilsed country where gun crime is very rare.

like Switzerland? they have LOTS of guns,machine guns in MANY homes,yet low
"gun crime". They have a shooting culture,like Germany.

As most people do.
Owning a gun makes you part of the problem.


What country would that be? there's gun crime and violence (especially NON-
gun violence)in EVERY nation of Earth.
there's more to crime and violence than merely GUN crime or gun violence.

that just means your criminals can act without worry that someone can
defend themself. it means the strong can dominate the weaker citizens. It
means that thugs with knives or clubs or simply outnumbering a person can
act without fear,that the weak don't have the best tools for self-defense.
And YOUR police are not everywhere at all times to protect every
individual.

How "civilised" is that?

George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his own house by an
intruder,nearly died,his wife was also stabbed. If they had had a gun,the
intruder would be the one hurt or dead. The QUEEN of England had an
intruder in her bedroom,and she had the best security available.
It's only LUCK that she was not harmed or killed.

in Japan,a Yakuza shot and killed a mayor of a Japanese city,and Yakuza
make a BUSINESS of gun running,despite Japan's strict gun control.
a "business" implies there are customers for illegal guns,and that those
guns are used in some manner,even if not actually fired.

Civilised? sorry,no.

It is UNcivilized to deny people the means of self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jun 8, 11:08*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message

...





On 6/8/2011 10:05 AM, Robert Green wrote:
*wrote in message
.. .
*wrote in
news:wMGdnUVkFZgzQnPQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink. com:

Suga Moto Soy wrote:
What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before
killing
himself.

Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be alive
today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with
supposed
good sense say it. *The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the
cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument
and
turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating
in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO
WAY!"
Hell, cops have been known on more than one occasion to shoot at other
cops
(usually out of uniform but not always!). *We just had a case here where
outside a bar two detectives shot it out, each thinking the other was a
perp. *Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: *more innocent people will be shot. *That's not to say I
favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with
a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

--
Bobby G.

Funny how that does not seem to have happened in the several years since
'shall issue' became (mostly) the law of the land.

We haven't seen hard enough times yet. *Crime stats lag a lot potential
indicators and as police patrols and staffing get cut back, crime's bound to
make a comeback. * Doesn't change the fact that I worry about citizens with
no particular law enforcement training popping off a huge cannon of a
handgun loaded with a round that can kill a perp and still pass through a
house wall and kill an innocent bystander. *Many of those shootings are not
justifiable, at least under DC law, for any number of reasons.

I remember the deliberate hushing of several occasions when nationally
famous news anchor Max Robinson came out of his ritzy Georgetown rowhouse,
emptying his .45 automatic at people he thought were "messing with his car."
He got away with it because cops like to befriend important people. *But for
the rest of us, to use a gun in DC and not go to jail it must be licensed
(very hard to get even after the recent Supreme Court ruling) and you must
have used it in clear self-defense. *Shooting at people stealing your car
doesn't count as self-defense but it's a very popular thing for people do to
in the DC area.

99.99% of the people who carry licensed guns don't worry me in the
slightest. And since I am wise enough to stay out of neighborhoods where
(unlicensed) carrying is a sign of manhood, and where drugs and booze
reduce the average IQ well into the double digits, I'm not particularly
worried about getting a gun pulled on me.

That's you, and that's fine. *Some people don't/didn't have that luxury.. *If
I had been reluctant to enter bad neighborhoods as a police reporter, my
career would have lasted 10 minutes. *Instead, it lasted 10 years and ended
when I nearly had to shoot someone in the chest nearly point blank. *I
decided it was time for a new career that was more survivable as I thought
of starting a family. *And from what I had seen of cops that *had* killed a
man, I was certain I'd be troubled by taking a human life, even a skel's.
I'm not as worried about that anymore since now I'd probably only have to
drop the hammer on a home intruder. *Unlike the wide-open streets where
things may not be as they seem, breaking into someone's house is mostly open
and shut and people who do it should expect to be shot.

There's a larger issue that you touch on. *Crime stats here in DC show that
the criminals are smart enough to take their guns to the rich neighborhoods.
That's where there ARE people with money in their wallets and nice SUV's and
Mercedes to carjack. *Just because you're in a "safe" neighborhood doesn't
make you safe. *When I lived in Georgetown DC there wasn't a weekend that
went by where people weren't robbed at gunpoint walking through the dark,
narrow streets getting from the cars to the bars and back again. *Happened
to two good friends of mine, one of whom reported "the pistol looked like a
small cannon." *No one I interviewed said they had been worried about being
mugged. *They thought Georgetown was the safest neighborhood in DC. *Not so.
It's easy to get lulled into a false sense of security.

--
Bobby G.

TRUE, I NOTICED THAT I HAVE MORE FUN WHEN I LEAVE MY DISINTEGRATOR AT
HOME.
LAST GUY THAT TRIED TO MUG SOMEONE AROUND HERE GOT ROBBED.
BOOWAHAHAHAHA !
PATECUM
TGITM

harry wrote:
Just noticed another thing in your post. Lawyers do nor protect
liberty. That is a function of government. They interprete law made
by government.

Someof them are trying to establish themselves as makers/inventors of
law over here. Scumbags.

They are, almost without exception, only interested in increasing
their own wealth, never in justice. That's why they're hated as a
class. They are as criminal as criminals.

I only knew one lawyer. He was a truely horrible *******, disliked by
everyone.

Merchant of Venice wasn't far out. (As you are into Shakespeare.)
Oh, that was a moneylender not a banker. But you see what I mean.

Fortunately, the lawyers I know here in Seattle are very thoughtful caring
people who strive to get their cliants justice, sometimes for little money.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:21:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:06:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Surely you understand we wouldn't even HAVE a country if it were not
for
"firesticks" that enabled us to evict the previous tenants with
relative
ease (until the Apaches started acquiring rifles). (-:

Police have not duty to protect citizens. Ther are a number of court
rulings about this.

The most recent being with in the last 10 years or so. There is no
duty of the police department to protect an individual citizen.

I refuse to live in a gun-free victim zone.

You might if it meant a big bump in pay and benefits. When I left the Star,
I lost my job-related CHL and a personal CHL was impossible to get at the
time without more juice than Tropicana, Inc. So I stayed in DC with the
same gun I used to carry hidden away in the house like so many people did.
DC may have not *legally* permitted many people to own guns, but rich and
poor alike did anyway. Some had work-related permits and some had enough
money not to worry about a gun charge and some had nothing to lose by
carrying a gun because they had a stack of felony warrants waiting for them.
(-:

And some were famous, like Max Robinson, who was a new anchor for ABC when I
was still in the biz, went gun crazy one day:

http://www.answers.com/topic/max-robinson

says of Max, who eventually died of AIDS: "In 1973 personal difficulties
rendered Robinson a subject in the news, rather than just a reporter of it.
Distraught over the death of his father, Maxie, Robinson fired a gun into
the terrace of his apartment. A simple on-air apology, however, ended the
incident and heightened his appeal as one of the city's premier media
personalities."

In those days that's all it took to beat the rap if you were famous. Max
was well known for "accidental" gun discharges, but like OJ, he never got
charged. It was unusual that even one of the incidents got revealed to the
public. I guess his neighbors got tired of his late-night bullet
discharges.

Anyway, I stayed in a "mostly gun free victim zone" getting tremendous
salary bumps by changing jobs as fast as I could. When I did move to very
Republican "here's your gun and your CHL" Virginia, it was mostly because of
the loss of representation in Congress, not the gun issue. I refuse to live
anywhere that I can be taxed without representation.

--
Bobby G.

On Jun 8, 9:21*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*Oren wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:06:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Surely you understand we wouldn't even HAVE a country if it were not for
"firesticks" that enabled us to evict the previous tenants with relative
ease (until the Apaches started acquiring rifles). * (-:

Police have not duty to protect citizens. Ther are a number of court
rulings about this.

* * The most recent being with in the last 10 years or so. There is no
duty of the police department to protect an individual citizen.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually


I thought the NYPD's motto was "To protect and to serve"?

On Jun 9, 12:44*am, aemeijers wrote:
On 6/8/2011 10:05 AM, Robert Green wrote:



*wrote in message
.. .
*wrote in
news:wMGdnUVkFZgzQnPQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink. com:

Suga Moto Soy wrote:
What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five
people including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing
himself.

Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be alive
today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with supposed
good sense say it. *The shooter was mentally unstable (whatever the cause
of that) and should never have had a gun available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument and
turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
Hell, cops have been known on more than one occasion to shoot at other cops
(usually out of uniform but not always!). *We just had a case here where
outside a bar two detectives shot it out, each thinking the other was a
perp. *Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: *more innocent people will be shot. *That's not to say I favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

--
Bobby G.

Funny how that does not seem to have happened in the several years since
'shall issue' became (mostly) the law of the land.

99.99% of the people who carry licensed guns don't worry me in the
slightest. And since I am wise enough to stay out of neighborhoods where
(unlicensed) carrying is a sign of manhood, and where drugs and booze
reduce the average IQ well into the double digits, I'm not particularly
worried about getting a gun pulled on me.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have none of the above in the UK. Makes it a much safer/better
place.

On Jun 9, 12:58*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Here in the USA, the founding fathers were aware that we are
endowed by our creator with certain rights. I think that the
right of the individual to self defense is equally important
as the SS (Schuss Staffel) to protect the Nation's Leaders.

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

"Han" wrote in message

...
Kurt Ullman wrote innews:5J6dnbEVpYb29XLQnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@earthlink. com:

*Don't know the history, but was he mentally unstable to
the point of
diagnosis, or was this largely ascertained after the fact.

I believe his ex had an order of protection against him.
Lot of good
that did, if they let him keep a firearm.

* *I always get a kick out of trying to keep guns out of
the hands of
the mentally ill since the privacy statutes on mental
illness are so
strict, that their illness won't show up on any of the
usable
databases. Even the civil court records on Emergency
Detentions and
commitments are usually sealed.

Fair enough to point out the difficulties with current
rules. *But does
that mean everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth to
provide
protectioon against the few who shouldn't have guns in the
first place?

* *The attorneys for the hospital I worked for went
toe-to-toe with
the Secret Service (and won) because the person
threatening the
president hadn't signed a release of information and so we
couldn't
even acknowledge they were on the unit without a warrant
(or maybe
subpoena, by that time I was mostly a mildly amused
observer-grin)

Same again. *Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of the SS
having weapons
to protect our elected officials.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Yeah. Right. Manifest destiny. (To kill all the indians)
Hitler could have written that.

On Jun 9, 3:31*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:06:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Surely you understand we wouldn't even HAVE a country if it were not for
"firesticks" that enabled us to evict the previous tenants with relative
ease (until the Apaches started acquiring rifles). * (-:

Police have not duty to protect citizens. Ther are a number of court
rulings about this.

Oren, I'm getting the sense that you think I claimed "Police have a duty to
protect citizens." *Correct me please, if I am mistaken.

I was merely explaining to anti-gun Harry that guns were essential to taming
the wilderness of America and making it the country it is today. *Guns were
essential to the British in taking over Australia as well. *India, too.
What I said actually agrees with you. *I said that *I* felt that "*I* had a
civic duty" to put down someone I saw walking through the park shooting
people like Howard Unruh, our nation's first single-incident mass-murderer,
did. *I also talked about realizing I needed to protect myself because the
cops took 30 minutes to respond to a man trying to bash in my door. *Not
sure how that morphed into "police have no duty to protect citizens."
Please explain.

pop a cap in his ass

stuff snipped

People think "bust or pop a cap" is recent ghetto speak but if you listen to
the dialog of the 1969 film "True Grit" you'll hear it used (which freaked
me out) as it was over 100 years ago *It's like finding a doodle of Kilroy
in the Lascaux caves in France.

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

Others have traced its usage to books that predate the Civil War and suspect
it relates to percussion cap rifles.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i...p/t-54618.html

--
Bobby G.

"True Grit" is fiction. Probably subsidised by the NRA.
Can't you ever forget the Hollywood trash?
Re wilderness.
That era of ethnic cleansing is long past and with it the need for
guns.
Dunno why you bring up irrelevancies.

On Jun 9, 4:21*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
"tom" wrote :



"harry" wrote in message
...

I don't (have to) worry about none of that stuff. *I live in a
civilsed country where gun crime is very rare. *

like Switzerland? they have LOTS of guns,machine guns in MANY homes,yet low
"gun crime". They have a shooting culture,like Germany.

As most people do.
Owning a gun makes you part of the problem.

What country would that be? there's gun crime and violence (especially NON-
gun violence)in EVERY nation of Earth.
there's more to crime and violence than merely GUN crime or gun violence.

that just means your criminals can act without worry that someone can
defend themself. it means the strong can dominate the weaker citizens. It
means that thugs with knives or clubs or simply outnumbering a person can
act without fear,that the weak don't have the best tools for self-defense..
And YOUR police are not everywhere at all times to protect every
individual.

How "civilised" is that?

George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his own house by an
intruder,nearly died,his wife was also stabbed. If they had had a gun,the
intruder would be the one hurt or dead. The QUEEN of England had an
intruder in her bedroom,and she had the best security available.
It's only LUCK that she was not harmed or killed.

in Japan,a Yakuza shot and killed a mayor of a Japanese city,and Yakuza
make a BUSINESS of gun running,despite Japan's strict gun control.
a "business" implies there are customers for illegal guns,and that those
guns are used in some manner,even if not actually fired.

Civilised? sorry,no.

It is UNcivilized to deny people the means of self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Why are you bringing up Switzerland?
Private gun pwnership is very low in Switzerland.
There is a gun/rifle in almost every house, but it belongs to the
government/ Swiss army.
It arises out of the conscription policy. All men are conscripted.
They are afraid the Germans will invade them.
I seem to remember this policy may well be changed and the gov. will
come round and collect up their guns.

So you have been fed mis-information. By the NRA I expect. And you are
dopey enough to lap it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"

I was merely explaining to anti-gun Harry that guns were essential to taming
the wilderness of America and making it the country it is today. Guns were
essential to the British in taking over Australia as well. India, too.
What I said actually agrees with you. I said that *I* felt that "*I* had a
civic duty" to put down someone I saw walking through the park shooting
people like Howard Unruh, our nation's first single-incident mass-murderer,
did. I also talked about realizing I needed to protect myself because the
cops took 30 minutes to respond to a man trying to bash in my door. Not
sure how that morphed into "police have no duty to protect citizens."
Please explain.

My guess is the same way it morphed into vigilante citizens.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:3Y-
:

Did you know that there is hospital ward at the Bethesda Navy Hospital
where new SS and FBI agents are sent to have their sense of humor
surgically removed? Although some grow back. (g)

No,I didn't "know" that, umm, sort of "factoid". Thanks for filling upthis
space ...

grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

harry wrote in news:050e4536-7b43-4690-98a6-
:

Yeah. Right. Manifest destiny. (To kill all the indians)
Hitler could have written that.

harry, harry. Please reply to the correct poster. And do get sarcasm and
humor recognition implants.
grin

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

harry wrote:
That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with
supposed good sense say it. The shooter was mentally unstable
(whatever the cause of that) and should never have had a gun
available.

The occasional death is the price society must pay for the freedom to
protect itself from the goblins.

There are deaths, true, attributable to guns. Likewise there are
deaths attributable to cars, aspirin tablets, and the wrong choice
in a marriage partner. We don't outlaw something because of a rare
bad outcome, we look at the entire picture.

Lifted from the NRA book of propaganda/lies.

So what part is the propaganda or a lie? People HAVE died in car accidents,
aspirin overdoses, and unstable spouses.

Nevertheless, you're right in one sense. I should have said: "We SHOULDN'T
outlaw something because of a rare bad outcome...."

This notion is exemplified in the legal principle that "Bad cases make bad
law."

Han wrote:

Fair enough to point out the difficulties with current rules. But
does that mean everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth to
provide protectioon against the few who shouldn't have guns in the
first place?

Yes.

Robert Green wrote:

Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be
alive today.

The problem is not too many guns, but too few.

That'sso totally reversed that it is pityful to hear someone with
supposed good sense say it. The shooter was mentally unstable
(whatever the cause of that) and should never have had a gun
available.

Han, you've been "HeyBubbed" - my word for someone taking an argument
and turning it on its head.

Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens
operating in vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a
resounding "NO WAY!" Hell, cops have been known on more than one
occasion to shoot at other cops (usually out of uniform but not
always!). We just had a case here where outside a bar two detectives
shot it out, each thinking the other was a perp. Stir in thousands
of armed private citizens and the results are predictable: more
innocent people will be shot. That's not to say I favor elimination
of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a .44
magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

Perhaps you should re-think...

Virtually all cops below the rank of Captain will privately tell you they
approve of an armed (righteous) citizenry (above that rank and you start
getting political appointments that must parrot the mayor's position).

I'll wager many more squints are shot by law-abiding citizens than by cops.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Say WHAT??????

United States: total area: 3,794,083 square miles (including water)

England: total area 50,356 square miles.

The whole of England is about equal in size to our states of Texas or
Oregon. How can you say my remarks about the relative size of both
countries are incorrect? It's not credible. You say you've traveled our
midwest. Didn't you see how much THERE is there compared to England? We
have National Parks that are almost the size of England. Methinks you've
erred.

The other stat of interest is population density. The square miles is
less of an issue because if we had the same density, the chances are
there would about the same amount of drive time per cop. England is 244
people sqkm while US is 29.71.
In my old stomping grounds, Fort Wayne (IN) PD's response time was
much better than Allen County's because they were in the denser city
while the AC guys had to drive MUCH longer distances. Heck getting from
New Haven to Hoagland took 10-15 minutes or so lights and siren and,
given the country side, they were fairly close together.


--
Bobby G.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:3Y-
:

Did you know that there is hospital ward at the Bethesda Navy Hospital
where new SS and FBI agents are sent to have their sense of humor
surgically removed? Although some grow back. (g)

No,I didn't "know" that, umm, sort of "factoid". Thanks for filling upthis
space ...

grin.

This was a well known fact amongst local and State PDs.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

harry wrote:

Hah. In most cases, no need to worry. Gun owners are inherently
cowardly.
You don't have to worry about Harry BTW.

Highway patrolman stops a driver for a busted tail-light. The driver hands
over his license and his concealed-carry permit.

"Do you have any weapons on you" asks the patrolman.

"Yes," says the driver. "I have a .357 in my belt, a derringer in my boot,
and a .38 revolver in the car pocket."

The patrolman takes a step backward. "Do you have any other weapons?"

"There's a short-barreled 12-guage and an AR-15 in the trunk."

The patrolman scratches his head. "Just what are you afraid of, mister!?"

"Not a ****in' thing!"

On 2011-06-09, HeyBub wrote:

Nevertheless, you're right in one sense. I should have said: "We SHOULDN'T
outlaw something because of a rare bad outcome...."

This notion is exemplified in the legal principle that "Bad cases make bad
law."

You are so naive.

http://tinyurl.com/3maxrwx

Dispute me and I'll sue!

nb

On Jun 9, 1:54*pm, Han wrote:
harry wrote in news:050e4536-7b43-4690-98a6-
:

Yeah. Right. Manifest destiny. (To kill all the indians)
Hitler could have written that.

harry, harry. *Please reply to the correct poster. *And do get sarcasm and
humor recognition implants.
grin

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I am well up on both. It's Americans that can't recognise it.
Re Manifest Destiny, read and compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

So,no joke. Still referred to by some US politicians today.

You might have a look at this one too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

"Han" wrote in message ...


harry, harry. Please reply to the correct poster. And do get sarcasm and
humor recognition implants.

Harry also needs to invest in an Irony Meter. His own nation conquered a
quarter of the earth by armed force and gave it up only when it no longer
had the strength to hold it, but that escapes his memory when he's on his
daily America-bashing routine. Harry would crawl through broken glass and
then douse himself with lemon juice if in return he got to bitch and whine
about the U.S., it's a compulsion with him. And that isn't to say the U.S.
doesn't deserve criticism, but to be meaningful it shouldn't come from
someone whose dislike for America amounts to an obsession.

"Han" wrote in message ...

Fair enough to point out the difficulties with current rules. But does
that mean everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth to provide
protectioon against the few who shouldn't have guns in the first place?

Many of my friends and family members own firearms, and not one over many
decades has ever been in trouble with the law. On the other hand I know two
people (one a direct ancestor) whose possession of a firearm was the
difference between being alive and well at the end of the day and being a
statistic in a report on violent crime. So from my perspective until you
can arrange for the criminals of the world to be disarmed then asking the
law abiding segment of society to rely purely on the telephone for
protection seems more than a little unreasonable.