"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in news:jv-dneWauM5p6-
:

Han wrote:

Oh yes, I'll never forget what my believing mother said: God put you
on this world to do good.

Your mother was wrong. Good is the natural order of things.

God put me on earth to fight evil.

Nice! So, what have you done to cut back on illegal gun use and
trafficking?


Well, that is the purpose of the criminal system, is it not ?
So by paying my taxes, that supports it, I have done my share.

I also armed myself, to be able to protect myself and if necessary others,
were I to encounter a criminal putting me or possibly others at risk.

What have you done, other the support disarming people ?

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

The maxim: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!" doesn't
work if it's baby itself that's the evil.

"Evil" is a loaded word, but anyway what kind of "evil" are you talking
about here?

In the case you posit, it's the laws against use of an illegal gun and
the laws against "trafficking" that's evil. I dispute those laws every
chance I get.

I'm being very dense, probably, but you aren't advocating more widespread
use of illegal guns, are you?


Maybe it's because you use terms that are unclear ?

What the hell is an "Illegal gun" anyway
Take as many screens as you need

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 18:52:58 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:11:53 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
You're absolutely crazy if you say that people should be allowed to
enter the VA Hospital in Manhattan with weapons. I just explained it.

Why?

I explained it in the other part of our discussions.

No, you certainly didn't.

Sorry, can't do any better.

--


Yes, we noticed
Maybe you need to think some more on the subject before you call people
"insane" when they question you on it.
That is NOT any valid explanation by a long shot.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
snip
You're absolutely crazy if you say that people should be allowed to
enter the VA Hospital in Manhattan with weapons. I just explained
it.


Sure you did
It's the old
"Lets' curtail EVERYBODY's rights because of a few possible
problems.
And if you disagree, YOU are insane"
argument.

Well, if you believe that we should let some crazy people kill a few
doctors and nurses because otherwise we infringe on the right to carry
guns, then you're right, then I am crazy.

There you go building a strawman to try to support an untenable position
I am NOT crazy, except for daring to challenge you on this
Most if not all people who own guns are not crazy either
Ditto for law-abiding people who carry concealed.
Notice that unlike you it DO DIFFERENTIATE between the law-abiding and the
criminal




But I do NOT BELIEVE that we should let those doctors and nurses die, and
that keeping weapons out of the hospital is a "good thingT".


Another unsupported strawman
What evidence, other that your religious belief, supports ANY claim that
doctors or nurses would die


Yes, we KNOW that you believe that. We also know that in your mind, those
who don't happen to agree with you on this are, according to you, insane.
The problem is WHY do you believe that.
And claiming that someone who doesn't agree with your belief is insane
is NOT a valid argument

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

What on earth makes you think the doctors and nurses will die?
Especially if they, too, are armed.

Some patients are a bit paranoid. What do you think will happen when the
doctors are parading around with weapons?


What makes you presume that they would be "parading around" ??
Are you COMPLETELY UNABLE to avoid these stupid EMOTIVE claims ?
Can you actually couch your argument rationally and logically ???



In another post I pointed out that in literally thousands of non-VA
facilities in my state, no doctor, nurse, staff, visitors, or other
patients have been gunned down. Do the patients in the VA hospitals
with which you are familiar so hate the staff that they can't wait to
retaliate for the injustices they've suffered at the hands of Nurse
Cratchitt clones?

As a researcher at the bench, I have had little patient-doctor
interaction, seen or experienced.

So therefore you have NO CLUE on the subject
Got it.


With 1 exception, all was great. But
if you are a diabetic in fairly advanced stages, and your legs have been
amputated because of the diabetes, I can imagine that someone might think
why me? That did become an obsession for one vet, and he blamed the
nicest doctor on staff for it, and went and killed him. That is too
much. One cannot allow that to happen. That one doctor could have
helped many more patients.


So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was allowed
to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??


Please give me some slack, I wasn't present at the place where this
happened, but I remember the commotion it caused, and the sorrow for the
doctor.


Why should we give you ANY slack
Your position is questionable on MANY counts, including legal, moral and
ethical

Feel free to explain to us how disarming EVERYBODY could have saved that
doctor ?
Wasn't there ALREADY a disarmament policy in place
If so, the killing of the doctor should actually make you wonder if that
policy was successful ? Or worse yet, possibly CONDUCIVE to the doctor's
death because he was disarmed and defenseless



I will point out to you that so far, ALL of your arguments were circular and
purely based on emotional appeals
And your responses were mostly strawman or false arguments.

I would suggest that you need to do some thinking about this and actually
make an effort to argue this RATIONALLY and LOGICALLY
You might be more credible.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
snip
If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need
for firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms
is, perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.

Ostrich "Can't happen to me since it hasn't happened yet "attitude

Has worked so far. Maybe I'm good at preventing myself from getting into
bad situations, maybe it was just dumb luck.

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of both
But that's not guarantee for the future.
And a wise man taught the motto "Be Prepared" to a lot of boys.



I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in
the US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question:
Will I be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington
State? I know I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I
haven't had any problems in Florida either.

You haven't looked at crime statistics recently, have you
We ARE ALL exposed to some risk of being the victim of a crime.

You can choose to believe that the Odds are against the fickle finger
of fate pointing at you. Or you can improve your odds if it ever does.

My approach and attitude is to improve my odds.
I may be at equal risk
But my possible outcomes are skewed in my favor.

Well, perhaps those states can do without my tourist dollars, or I shall
hew to the tourist paths, in company ...


That's no guarantee
About 20 years ago in Florida, tourists were specifically targeted by
criminals by the cars that had rental plates.
As a matter of fact, most places that are abundant with tourists do have a
much higher crime rate against tourists SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE as tourist they
are more vulnerable

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:24:05 -0400, "
wrote:



I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people with
weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to
back it up.


I'm not going to do the research, but VA hospital do have a higher
concentration of crazies as compared to regular hospitals. Probably
because of the concentration of combat people that have been injured,
mentally and physically from a few tours in a war zone.


One would hope that the "crazies" are segregated
But again that is NOT a reason to disarm everyone.


Over the years, I have known quite a few Vets that had a beef with the
VA because of some shoddy treatment (real or perceived). A couple of
them I'd not trust with a firearm anyplace, let alone where they think
they were mistreated.

Oh, look, here is a VA hospital shooting
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

What is this? Another VA hospital shooting?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

Even those nice people in North Carolina shoot up VA hospitals
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/122484/



So OBVIOUSLY banning guns is REALLY, REALLY EFFECTIVE..
You might want to think on this a bit more.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Over the years, I have known quite a few Vets that had a beef with the
VA because of some shoddy treatment (real or perceived). A couple of
them I'd not trust with a firearm anyplace, let alone where they think
they were mistreated.

Oh, look, here is a VA hospital shooting
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

What is this? Another VA hospital shooting?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

Even those nice people in North Carolina shoot up VA hospitals
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/122484/

Regrettable all, but it's the price we pay for freedom.


Also very clear demonstration of the effectiveness of banning guns.
It's ironic that allegedly smart people, can't seem to to that little mental
jump past their anti-gun paranoia

On 28 Mar 2012 17:03:52 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 28 Mar 2012 11:49:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:YuudnVoSL5w86u_SnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@earthlink .com:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

But there's only one VA hospital in Manhattan. You can remove the
problem you mention by moving the hospital to Long Island, thereby
eliminating the crazy-making contamination that comes from the
drinking water in Manhattan, or the air, or the cab drivers, or
whatever.

By suggesting that moving to LI would lower the 'crazy-quotient'
for whatever reason, you exhibit a complete lack of understanding
of the area.g [not to mention the point that there is a whole
lot of crazy *inside* the hospital]


I spent two weeks in Manhattan one night. Our hotel was on Times
Square. I remember requesting a window seat when we went to Howard
Johnson's for dinner so we could watch the floor show.

We visited in 1970 or '71. Then went to see family in upper
Manhattan. We got very strange eyes when we told them where we were
staying. But now Times Square has been cleaned up since years ago,
it's fun to watch. Manhattan is a great place to walk about. Almost
every block is different and interesting. Did you take a bus tour?

We were there several times, in the mid '70, though '93ish and saw the
changes. Guiliani really did clean it up. AIUI, it's slipping
backwards since the cops aren't as vigilant WRT "minor" crimes under
Bloomberg.

They are too much focused on their computers and statistics. And money
is a big thing nowadays ...

Sure, Guliani was focused on the turn-stile jumpers and petty thiefs. The
theory was that they were "easy" and were being perpetrated by the same people
as the major crimes. Lock 'em up where they can't. Makes too much sense for
the lefties in there now. Nothing was worse than Dinkins in Gracie Mansion,
though.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

The maxim: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!" doesn't
work if it's baby itself that's the evil.

"Evil" is a loaded word, but anyway what kind of "evil" are you
talking about here?

In the case you posit, it's the laws against use of an illegal gun
and the laws against "trafficking" that's evil. I dispute those laws
every chance I get.

I'm being very dense, probably, but you aren't advocating more
widespread use of illegal guns, are you?

An inanimate object cannot perform an illegal act. A human has to be
involved. If the human does something illegal, well, that's the end of the
discussion.

What many seem to suggest is that the presence of the gun compels, or at
least induces, a human to do something illegal. In my view, that's
preposterous.

As to your question, "aren't you advocating more widespread use of illegal
guns", no I'm not, any more than I can advocate more muskrats flying hot air
balloons. It's just not possible.

I DO advocate greater availability of guns for the citizenry while at the
same time I advocate less illegal acts by those so inclined. (The two are
related. More of the former means less of the latter.)

I hope I've made myself clear.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

We were there several times, in the mid '70, though '93ish and saw the
changes. Guiliani really did clean it up. AIUI, it's slipping
backwards since the cops aren't as vigilant WRT "minor" crimes under
Bloomberg.

Heh! You haven't been following his crackdowns on evil salt and deadly soft
drinks.

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:46:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On 27 Mar 2012 20:18:23 GMT, Han wrote:

I wasn't really thinking of visiting Mexico. But (if I read
between the lines correctly) it is reassuring that you think it is
safe to visit those states even if unarmed. I don't think I can
just go into an Arizona gunshop and buy a firearm, even with a
3-day waiting period, since I'm not a resident of the state.

Buy a hand gun in Nevada. Only in two counties it has to be
registered within 72 hours.


You actually put up with this "registration" ****?



... me? You talkin' too me? looks around

Move to Texas or some other civilized place.


Why?

Because we don't have gun registration, gun licensing, mandatory gun
handling classes, Firearm Identification Cards, waiting periods, and other
assorted silliness. In Texas, you can carry a gun in your home (of course)
without it being locked up, unloaded, or disassembled. You can carry a gun
at your place of business. You can carry a gun in your car.

If you go to the trouble of getting a concealed handgun license (CHL), you
can carry a gun on your person almost anywhere. Below is a short list of
prohibited places:

* Jails
* Courtrooms
* Schools
* School athletic events

That means you can carry your sidearm into a police station, library,
church, city hall, county motor pool, the state capitol, governor's office,
or just about anywhere else.

As a matter of fact, our legislature passed a law specifically PROHIBITING
any agency of government - state, city, county, what-have-you, from
restricting CHL holders in any way.

Of course there is the pussy-whipped FEDERAL facilities that frown on
weapons. These include the post office, Social Security Office,
blah-blah-blah, but not National Parks, Corp of Engineer projects and lands,
and a few other places.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Oren wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:46:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On 27 Mar 2012 20:18:23 GMT, Han wrote:

I wasn't really thinking of visiting Mexico. But (if I read
between the lines correctly) it is reassuring that you think it is
safe to visit those states even if unarmed. I don't think I can
just go into an Arizona gunshop and buy a firearm, even with a
3-day waiting period, since I'm not a resident of the state.

Buy a hand gun in Nevada. Only in two counties it has to be
registered within 72 hours.


You actually put up with this "registration" ****?



... me? You talkin' too me? looks around

Move to Texas or some other civilized place.


Why?

Because we don't have gun registration, gun licensing, mandatory gun
handling classes, Firearm Identification Cards, waiting periods, and other
assorted silliness. In Texas, you can carry a gun in your home (of course)
without it being locked up, unloaded, or disassembled. You can carry a gun
at your place of business. You can carry a gun in your car.

If you go to the trouble of getting a concealed handgun license (CHL), you
can carry a gun on your person almost anywhere. Below is a short list of
prohibited places:

* Jails
* Courtrooms
* Schools
* School athletic events

That means you can carry your sidearm into a police station, library,
church, city hall, county motor pool, the state capitol, governor's
office, or just about anywhere else.

As a matter of fact, our legislature passed a law specifically PROHIBITING
any agency of government - state, city, county, what-have-you, from
restricting CHL holders in any way.

Of course there is the pussy-whipped FEDERAL facilities that frown on
weapons. These include the post office, Social Security Office,
blah-blah-blah, but not National Parks, Corp of Engineer projects and
lands, and a few other places.



That should all be changing (for the better) in the years to come (I hope).

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:29:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote in
.44:

POLICE are saying (have said) that they have no facts or
witnesses suggesting Zimmerman did anything wrong. NO
"assumptions" there.

when the independent investigators say the same thing,the blacks
will probably riot.
Of course,that is a sort of blackmail in itself.
"arrest and try him,or we'll riot" IS implied.

At the moment, because of the deficiencies in the police handling
of the case, there is a suspicion by some of the police swiping
the case under the rug, and giving Zimmerman a free pass.

Of course there is. Race-baiters have to make a living.

On the other hand, there is also a suspicion of a Tawana
Brawley-like incitement to riot.

Don't be an idiot.

I'm afraid that the lack of real conclusive evidence as to what
led to the fisticuffs will leave each side with its supporters.

Bull****. The race-baiters fanned the flames (read: incited to
riot). The NC lacrosse case was the same deal.

It is unfortunate that we won't hear Martin tell his side.

Stupid move and he died for it. Too bad, but the gene pool is
cleaner.

Well not as clean as it could be if you promise not to
have offspring....

Han wrote in
:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:29:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote in
. 3.44:

POLICE are saying (have said) that they have no facts or
witnesses suggesting Zimmerman did anything wrong. NO
"assumptions" there.

when the independent investigators say the same thing,the
blacks will probably riot.
Of course,that is a sort of blackmail in itself.
"arrest and try him,or we'll riot" IS implied.

At the moment, because of the deficiencies in the police handling
of the case, there is a suspicion by some of the police swiping
the case under the rug, and giving Zimmerman a free pass.

Of course there is. Race-baiters have to make a living.

On the other hand, there is also a suspicion of a Tawana
Brawley-like incitement to riot.

Don't be an idiot.

I'm afraid that the lack of real conclusive evidence as to what
led to the fisticuffs will leave each side with its supporters.

Bull****. The race-baiters fanned the flames (read: incited to
riot). The NC lacrosse case was the same deal.

It is unfortunate that we won't hear Martin tell his side.

Stupid move and he died for it. Too bad, but the gene pool is
cleaner.

At the moment the "evidence" AFAICT is very thin on either side.

For sure the Sanford PD really botched this one - by not collecting
the proper evidence, it's likely there will not ever have the facts.

The gun should have been confiscated, clothing collected for blood
analysis, gunshot residue checked on both Martin and Zimmerman,
inspection of Martin's hands (I hav enever seen anyone come out of a
fight with pristine hands and knuckles), Zimmerman should have been
examined by a physician for his nose and back of head, etc. The
forensics would have either proven or disproven Zimmerman's account.
The forensics never lie. Yet other beauty of forensics is that the
past life of either person has no relevance in finding the truth.

Bill Kniess

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:44:41 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:






Sorry,but fact is,blacks,particularly younger black males,commit
crimes far out our proportion to their percentage of the
population.

But rational people don't presume guilt just because someone is
black.

sure,the young man had every right to be there,etc,but the watch
man had every right to keep an eye on an unknown wandering their
neighborhood,even to ask him what he's doing there.

He did NOT have the right as a watch member to "ask what he's doing
there". Watch members are NOT to interact anyway with the
"suspicious" subjects. Their job is to observe and report to the
police, then follow any directions given by the police.


He has the right to watch, but unless he has police authority, I
don't think he has the right to question. That can be
confrontational and start a problem.

As P stated, you are absolutely correct.



All the teen needed to do was ask why he was being followed,or
call 911,or knock on a door and yell for help.
Instead,he chose confrontation and attack,and it happened to be a
guy who was lawfully armed and who defended himself.

He may have been lawfully armed in that he has a permit to carry, but
the precepts of the neighborhood watch program do NOT include members
carrying. Further it is best when waych members work in pairs, so
there will be at least one who can act reasonably.


We don't know for sure who was confrontational yet. Could have
been either one.

" wrote in
:

On 28 Mar 2012 17:03:52 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 28 Mar 2012 11:49:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:YuudnVoSL5w86u_SnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@earthlin k.com:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

But there's only one VA hospital in Manhattan. You can remove
the problem you mention by moving the hospital to Long Island,
thereby eliminating the crazy-making contamination that comes
from the drinking water in Manhattan, or the air, or the cab
drivers, or whatever.

By suggesting that moving to LI would lower the 'crazy-quotient'
for whatever reason, you exhibit a complete lack of understanding
of the area.g [not to mention the point that there is a
whole lot of crazy *inside* the hospital]


I spent two weeks in Manhattan one night. Our hotel was on Times
Square. I remember requesting a window seat when we went to Howard
Johnson's for dinner so we could watch the floor show.

We visited in 1970 or '71. Then went to see family in upper
Manhattan. We got very strange eyes when we told them where we were
staying. But now Times Square has been cleaned up since years ago,
it's fun to watch. Manhattan is a great place to walk about.
Almost every block is different and interesting. Did you take a bus
tour?

We were there several times, in the mid '70, though '93ish and saw
the changes. Guiliani really did clean it up. AIUI, it's slipping
backwards since the cops aren't as vigilant WRT "minor" crimes under
Bloomberg.

They are too much focused on their computers and statistics. And
money is a big thing nowadays ...

Sure, Guliani was focused on the turn-stile jumpers and petty thiefs.
The theory was that they were "easy" and were being perpetrated by the
same people as the major crimes. Lock 'em up where they can't. Makes
too much sense for the lefties in there now. Nothing was worse than
Dinkins in Gracie Mansion, though.

Yes, the crackdown on petty little offenses and crimes was absolutely
key. That way the police caught people who were illegally carrying
firearms and other weapons, burglary tools, what have you. Plus a little
cooling off in holding cells. In addition, there appeared to be a change
in demographics to "calmer". Don't ask me details, but something like
that is often quoted.

Heybub, of course there are no illegal guns, only illegal possession,
use, modification of guns. But, US law uses a concept of ... Oops, now
I can't find the phrase, it's like the homeowner is at fault if a drunk
or kid wanders onto his property, falls into and drowns in a pool that's
not fenced. IMO, just giving out or selling guns to people without some
kind of regulation will lead to many more incidents of illegal use etc.
Or do you consider Gabby Giffords and victims like that just collatera;
damage of the freedom you desire?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or not. I
don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled as he was, he
managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with the gun because there
was NO weapons screening at the time as there is now. He proceeded to find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.

If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have been more
deaths in this case.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Bill Kniess wrote:

At the moment the "evidence" AFAICT is very thin on either side.

For sure the Sanford PD really botched this one - by not collecting
the proper evidence, it's likely there will not ever have the facts.

The gun should have been confiscated,

It was. Now Zimmerman has to go out an buy another. Bummer.

clothing collected for blood
analysis,

It was.

gunshot residue checked on both Martin and Zimmerman,
inspection of Martin's hands (I hav enever seen anyone come out of a
fight with pristine hands and knuckles),

I haven't seen any reports regarding these.

Zimmerman should have been
examined by a physician for his nose and back of head, etc.

His nose was broken, so I assume some physician examined him.

The
forensics would have either proven or disproven Zimmerman's account.
The forensics never lie. Yet other beauty of forensics is that the
past life of either person has no relevance in finding the truth.


I'm sure there are more scientific determinations than we've heard about,
especially since the state has taken over - or is watching - the
investigation.

The "past life" of a party sometimes has a bearing; it's called "pattern of
conduct."

Bill Kniess wrote:

He did NOT have the right as a watch member to "ask what he's doing
there". Watch members are NOT to interact anyway with the
"suspicious" subjects. Their job is to observe and report to the
police, then follow any directions given by the police.


He most certainly did have the right to inquire as to the reason a stranger
was lurking about the neighborhood. The stranger, of course, had the right
to decline an answer. Further, Zimmerman had an absolute right to follow
Martin. If Martin did not like being followed, he had the option of leaving
the neighborhood.

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

There you go building a strawman to try to support an untenable
position I am NOT crazy, except for daring to challenge you on this
Most if not all people who own guns are not crazy either
Ditto for law-abiding people who carry concealed.
Notice that unlike you it DO DIFFERENTIATE between the law-abiding and
the criminal

Fine. A few days ago, a perfectly fine captain of an aircraft went nuts
and almost caused the deaths of 250 (I think) people. Some time ago, the
then legal owner of a pistol shot up a bunch of peacably gathered people
resulting in deaths and injury. Gabby Giffords was one of the injured.
The shooter was subdued before more harm was done by physical restraint,
only because he couldn't reload his weapon.

All perfect examples of how a person who was considered fine and capable
can go berserk, for lack of a better term.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jkvuus$tnp$1
@dont-email.me:

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of both
But that's not guarantee for the future.
And a wise man taught the motto "Be Prepared" to a lot of boys.

Indeed!! Being prepared can be accomplished in different ways. Pretty
soon I'll be a really old man, and no match for a fast, strong kid intent
on getting the pistol I don't have. Why present myself as a target for
assault?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

That's no guarantee
About 20 years ago in Florida, tourists were specifically targeted by
criminals by the cars that had rental plates.

I agree that was what happened. Note that the solution was to make the
rental cars NOT easily identifiable by their license plates. They didn't
hand out guns to the renters ...

As a matter of fact, most places that are abundant with tourists do
have a much higher crime rate against tourists SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE as
tourist they are more vulnerable

Yes, indeed. I had my wallet pickpocketed in a Paris Metro station.
Luckily the only loss was 50 euro. And it was my fault for having it on
top of a bunch of other things in my pocket. Lesson learned.

So what's the point? Elderly tourists should arm themselves with cannon?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Over the years, I have known quite a few Vets that had a beef with
the VA because of some shoddy treatment (real or perceived). A
couple of them I'd not trust with a firearm anyplace, let alone
where they think they were mistreated.

Oh, look, here is a VA hospital shooting
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

What is this? Another VA hospital shooting?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

Even those nice people in North Carolina shoot up VA hospitals
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/122484/

Regrettable all, but it's the price we pay for freedom.

Also very clear demonstration of the effectiveness of banning guns.
It's ironic that allegedly smart people, can't seem to to that little
mental jump past their anti-gun paranoia

Nonsense. Would work only if there were really alert people around, with
room to maneuver. Go visit a crowded emergency room and see how you
would pinpoint the one crazy with a gun intent on doing harm, while you
would be trying to attend to a critically ill person.

And note that in a VA hospital there will/should now be a VA police
officer on duty at or near the emergency room.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jkvv8i$vf7$1
@dont-email.me:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:24:05 -0400, "
wrote:



I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people
with
weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to
back it up.


I'm not going to do the research, but VA hospital do have a higher
concentration of crazies as compared to regular hospitals. Probably
because of the concentration of combat people that have been injured,
mentally and physically from a few tours in a war zone.


One would hope that the "crazies" are segregated
But again that is NOT a reason to disarm everyone.


Over the years, I have known quite a few Vets that had a beef with the
VA because of some shoddy treatment (real or perceived). A couple of
them I'd not trust with a firearm anyplace, let alone where they think
they were mistreated.

Oh, look, here is a VA hospital shooting
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

What is this? Another VA hospital shooting?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

Even those nice people in North Carolina shoot up VA hospitals
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/122484/



So OBVIOUSLY banning guns is REALLY, REALLY EFFECTIVE..
You might want to think on this a bit more.

I would prefer that firearms would be carried only by professionals, but
you don't agree. Fine. It won't make me feel safer if I knew that any
or every Jill or Gerry in New York City would be carrying heat. But so
be it, hypothetically.

But in my opinion, inside (VA) hospitals, with their often frenetic pace,
and the influx at times of delusional people, there shouldn't be ordinary
citizens carrying weapons. Note that not all crazies are locked up
inside wards. Some just come to get their medications, or other
treatment, or to visit their buddies. Why take the risk of aone or more
crazies doing the wrong thing?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
.. .
Han wrote in
:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:29:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote in
.3.44:

POLICE are saying (have said) that they have no facts or
witnesses suggesting Zimmerman did anything wrong. NO
"assumptions" there.

when the independent investigators say the same thing,the
blacks will probably riot.
Of course,that is a sort of blackmail in itself.
"arrest and try him,or we'll riot" IS implied.

At the moment, because of the deficiencies in the police handling
of the case, there is a suspicion by some of the police swiping
the case under the rug, and giving Zimmerman a free pass.

Of course there is. Race-baiters have to make a living.

On the other hand, there is also a suspicion of a Tawana
Brawley-like incitement to riot.

Don't be an idiot.

I'm afraid that the lack of real conclusive evidence as to what
led to the fisticuffs will leave each side with its supporters.

Bull****. The race-baiters fanned the flames (read: incited to
riot). The NC lacrosse case was the same deal.

It is unfortunate that we won't hear Martin tell his side.

Stupid move and he died for it. Too bad, but the gene pool is
cleaner.

At the moment the "evidence" AFAICT is very thin on either side.

For sure the Sanford PD really botched this one - by not collecting
the proper evidence, it's likely there will not ever have the facts.


How do you know they didn't "collect the evidence" ?
Do you even have a CLUE as to what evidence was ACTUALLY collected, to make
such a statement ??
I haven't seen any EVIDENCE LIST posted ANYWHERE so far for you to even
have a CLUE on the issue to support your claim

The gun should have been confiscated, clothing collected for blood
analysis, gunshot residue checked on both Martin and Zimmerman,
inspection of Martin's hands (I hav enever seen anyone come out of a
fight with pristine hands and knuckles), Zimmerman should have been
examined by a physician for his nose and back of head, etc. The
forensics would have either proven or disproven Zimmerman's account.
The forensics never lie. Yet other beauty of forensics is that the
past life of either person has no relevance in finding the truth.


Talk about jumping the gun
You're being flagged as a bloviator.

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:44:41 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:






Sorry,but fact is,blacks,particularly younger black males,commit
crimes far out our proportion to their percentage of the
population.

But rational people don't presume guilt just because someone is
black.

sure,the young man had every right to be there,etc,but the watch
man had every right to keep an eye on an unknown wandering their
neighborhood,even to ask him what he's doing there.

He did NOT have the right as a watch member to "ask what he's doing
there".

Where do you get the idea that Zimmerman did ANY SUCH THING ?
Are you making a stupid presumption

Watch members are NOT to interact anyway with the
"suspicious" subjects. Their job is to observe and report to the
police, then follow any directions given by the police.


What makes you presume that other than following Martin, Zimmerman initiated
ANY CONTACT with Martin ?




All the teen needed to do was ask why he was being followed,or
call 911,or knock on a door and yell for help.
Instead,he chose confrontation and attack,and it happened to be a
guy who was lawfully armed and who defended himself.

He may have been lawfully armed in that he has a permit to carry, but
the precepts of the neighborhood watch program do NOT include members
carrying. Further it is best when waych members work in pairs, so
there will be at least one who can act reasonably.


Which program is that ?
Are you presuming that Zimmerman, and any one else in Sanford was
participation or associated with YOUR program ??



You seem to be making a whole slew of unsupported assumptions for your
arguments

In article ,
Bill Kniess wrote:


He did NOT have the right as a watch member to "ask what he's doing
there". Watch members are NOT to interact anyway with the
"suspicious" subjects. Their job is to observe and report to the
police, then follow any directions given by the police.

He did have the right as an individual. I haven't gotten a clear picture
of whether he was a member of a watch committee, if there was one
around, if he was a self-styled member of a watch committee, or if the
press decided to use that label as a kind of short hand.


He may have been lawfully armed in that he has a permit to carry, but
the precepts of the neighborhood watch program do NOT include members
carrying. Further it is best when waych members work in pairs, so
there will be at least one who can act reasonably.
See above. Also just out of personal curiosity, why do you almost
always spell watch with a "y" instead of an "a'

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

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or not. I
don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled as he was, he
managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with the gun because there
was NO weapons screening at the time as there is now. He proceeded to
find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.


So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did NOT
work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it should
be kept.



If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have been more
deaths in this case.


Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral" have
been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing it's carry
laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more than
twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those well-trained police
shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders as those "untrained"
law-abiding citizens..
Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the whole
picture.
Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

That's no guarantee
About 20 years ago in Florida, tourists were specifically targeted by
criminals by the cars that had rental plates.

I agree that was what happened. Note that the solution was to make the
rental cars NOT easily identifiable by their license plates. They didn't
hand out guns to the renters ...


Please stop with the really stupid remarks
It just makes me wonder how intelligent (or not) you may actually be.



As a matter of fact, most places that are abundant with tourists do
have a much higher crime rate against tourists SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE as
tourist they are more vulnerable

Yes, indeed. I had my wallet pickpocketed in a Paris Metro station.
Luckily the only loss was 50 euro. And it was my fault for having it on
top of a bunch of other things in my pocket. Lesson learned.

So what's the point? Elderly tourists should arm themselves with cannon?


Nah
A .357 revolver can do the job
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/ny...heelchair.html

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

There you go building a strawman to try to support an untenable
position I am NOT crazy, except for daring to challenge you on this
Most if not all people who own guns are not crazy either
Ditto for law-abiding people who carry concealed.
Notice that unlike you it DO DIFFERENTIATE between the law-abiding and
the criminal

Fine. A few days ago, a perfectly fine captain of an aircraft went nuts
and almost caused the deaths of 250 (I think) people. Some time ago, the
then legal owner of a pistol shot up a bunch of peacably gathered people
resulting in deaths and injury. Gabby Giffords was one of the injured.
The shooter was subdued before more harm was done by physical restraint,
only because he couldn't reload his weapon.


YAWN
When someone is reduced to argument by anecdote, one has to wonder at the
intelligence involved
If you want anecdotes for the other side, just read the NRA published
(monthly) "The Armed Citizen" which is a compendium of incidents gleaned
from the media where individuals used a gun to avoid being the victim of a
criminal.
But for those who operate at a higher level, there is the simple statistical
truth that while there are about 1,500,000 criminal incidents annually that
involve a gun, there are 2,500,000 incidents where a gun is used to avoid
being the victim of a criminal.
Notice that WIDE discrepancy of about 1,000,000 annual incidents IN
FAVOR of armed citizens ???


All perfect examples of how a person who was considered fine and capable
can go berserk, for lack of a better term.


You claimed to have worked in a VA lab.
Did you have to study statistics to get there ?
If so, have you forgotten the simple rule of statistics that individual
incidents are NOT representative of trends or facts that apply to large
numbers ?

I would suggest that you are reduced to such an argument BECAUSE you are
ignorant of the facts, are unwilling to face them, and unwilling to consider
the possibility that you may be wrong on this one.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jkvuus$tnp$1
@dont-email.me:

I'm pretty sure it's a combination of both
But that's not guarantee for the future.
And a wise man taught the motto "Be Prepared" to a lot of boys.

Indeed!! Being prepared can be accomplished in different ways. Pretty
soon I'll be a really old man, and no match for a fast, strong kid intent
on getting the pistol I don't have. Why present myself as a target for
assault?


What makes you think that
1) that you won't be a target for an assault otherwise ?
2) that somehow magically you will be a target for assault because you
have a gun
3) Do you imagine that owning a gun somehow will make you emit attractant
rays for criminals ?
4) that kid won't take anything else that you have, possibly even your
life ?
5) That kid will even have a chance to take that "pistol that you don't
have" ?

A recent example to counter your mindset is that wheelchair bound woman,
attacked right outside her door, who shot her attacker. Happened in Harlem,
of all places.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/ny...heelchair.html
I think she was a LOT smarter than you have shown to be.


You are desperately spinning and spewing all kinds of nonsense arguments.
Why is that ?
Your behavior is a classic form of desperate waving of the hands to
distract, more yourself than anyone else, that you even have a leg to stand
on, that I have encountered on a regular basis, while teaching logic, shown
by students, in the last desperate throes, before they admit defeat.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Over the years, I have known quite a few Vets that had a beef with
the VA because of some shoddy treatment (real or perceived). A
couple of them I'd not trust with a firearm anyplace, let alone
where they think they were mistreated.

Oh, look, here is a VA hospital shooting
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

What is this? Another VA hospital shooting?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

Even those nice people in North Carolina shoot up VA hospitals
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/122484/

Regrettable all, but it's the price we pay for freedom.

Also very clear demonstration of the effectiveness of banning guns.
It's ironic that allegedly smart people, can't seem to to that little
mental jump past their anti-gun paranoia

Nonsense. Would work only if there were really alert people around, with
room to maneuver.

So tell us which Emergency room CURRENTLY HAS ANY such people
IN other words, you do NOT have that condition ANYWHERE currently
So it's a false argument

Stick to subject that you know something about.
Maneuvering for a shot is CLEARLY not one of them.

Go visit a crowded emergency room and see how you
would pinpoint the one crazy with a gun intent on doing harm, while you
would be trying to attend to a critically ill person.


What a DISHONEST argument..
Do the people in an emergency PRESENTLY spending any time doing that ??

And yet are they in ANY WAY protected from someone going into an emergency,
pulling a gun ???
You posted a URL that CLEARLY proved that the answer is NO
Your anecdote about the doctor CLEARLY proved that answer is NO

And yet YOU dishonestly place on onus on people that they NEED to do that IF
they choose to be armed ??



And note that in a VA hospital there will/should now be a VA police
officer on duty at or near the emergency room.


Right
Some rent-a-cop with minimal training, sitting around for 8 hours being
bored, is going to be at the top of his game...
Talk about naïve.

Han wrote:

Yes, the crackdown on petty little offenses and crimes was absolutely
key. That way the police caught people who were illegally carrying
firearms and other weapons, burglary tools, what have you. Plus a
little cooling off in holding cells. In addition, there appeared to
be a change in demographics to "calmer". Don't ask me details, but
something like that is often quoted.

Heybub, of course there are no illegal guns, only illegal possession,
use, modification of guns. But, US law uses a concept of ... Oops,
now I can't find the phrase, it's like the homeowner is at fault if a
drunk or kid wanders onto his property, falls into and drowns in a
pool that's not fenced.

The concept under the Restatement of Torts is called an "attractive
nusiance."

IMO, just giving out or selling guns to
people without some kind of regulation will lead to many more
incidents of illegal use etc. Or do you consider Gabby Giffords and
victims like that just collatera; damage of the freedom you desire?

Of course the definition of "opinion" is "a sincerely held belief not based
on facts." You, of course, cannot be stopped from fantasizing, but your
imagination may not be consistent with the real world.

Regarding your question on Giffords, I do consider that regrettable incident
collateral damage, she was an innocent victim - as far as we know.

First, we should never base laws on one or a few particular, anecdotal
events. Laws have to be based on results in the aggregate.

Second, we've already made the decision on the acceptability of "collateral
damage" in almost everything else. We don't require licensing, training, or
identification when someone buys a toaster just because there have been
exactly three bathtub electrocutions with toasters since they were
introduced in the 1930's.

Han wrote:

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or not.
I don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled as he
was, he managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with the gun
because there was NO weapons screening at the time as there is now.
He proceeded to find the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an
ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.

If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have been
more deaths in this case.

That, you cannot know.

Han wrote:

Fine. A few days ago, a perfectly fine captain of an aircraft went
nuts and almost caused the deaths of 250 (I think) people. Some time
ago, the then legal owner of a pistol shot up a bunch of peacably
gathered people resulting in deaths and injury. Gabby Giffords was
one of the injured. The shooter was subdued before more harm was done
by physical restraint, only because he couldn't reload his weapon.

All perfect examples of how a person who was considered fine and
capable can go berserk, for lack of a better term.

And a few days before that, a flight attendant went a little funny in the
head and started warning the passengers to say their prayers, they're gonna
die.

There have been, however, far more passengers who went nuts than flight
crew.

Based on the probabilities, would you advocate removing firearms from the
flight deck crew?

Just asking.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jkvv8i$vf7$1
@dont-email.me:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:24:05 -0400, "
wrote:



I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people
with
weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to
back it up.


I'm not going to do the research, but VA hospital do have a higher
concentration of crazies as compared to regular hospitals. Probably
because of the concentration of combat people that have been injured,
mentally and physically from a few tours in a war zone.


One would hope that the "crazies" are segregated
But again that is NOT a reason to disarm everyone.


Over the years, I have known quite a few Vets that had a beef with the
VA because of some shoddy treatment (real or perceived). A couple of
them I'd not trust with a firearm anyplace, let alone where they think
they were mistreated.

Oh, look, here is a VA hospital shooting
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

What is this? Another VA hospital shooting?
http://www.nbc12.com/story/16989990/...enter-shooting

Even those nice people in North Carolina shoot up VA hospitals
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/122484/



So OBVIOUSLY banning guns is REALLY, REALLY EFFECTIVE..
You might want to think on this a bit more.

I would prefer that firearms would be carried only by professionals, but
you don't agree.

NOT when I compare the performance of the so-called "professionals" to the
"amateurs"
Let's see
The "Amateurs" aka law-abiding citizens manage to shoot more than double the
number of criminals as the so-called "professionals"
And yet at the same time, the so-called "professionals" manage to shoot
nearly 6 times as many innocent bystanders as the "amateurs'...

That's a REALLY, REALLY good argument, according to you, to rely on
so-called "professionals"...



Fine. It won't make me feel safer if I knew that any
or every Jill or Gerry in New York City would be carrying heat. But so
be it, hypothetically.


Too bad that you don't bother to get DATA to make such decisions and instead
you base them of "feelings' or whatever.
I prefer to look at the DATA and then make my decisions
A more rational approach by ANY standard



But in my opinion, inside (VA) hospitals, with their often frenetic pace,
and the influx at times of delusional people, there shouldn't be ordinary
citizens carrying weapons.

WHY NOT ?
The so-called ordinary citizens are NO THREAT TO ANYONE.
And that has been CLEARLY demonstrated by that data that comes out of States
like Texas and Florida, that required the State to provide statistical data
on the people who obtained carry permits.
In Florida, they found that the law-abiding permit holders are even more
law-abiding than the police
In Texas, they found that the law-abiding permit holders have 15% of the
number of contacts with the police than the rest of the population

Apparently you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the "sick and
delusional" and the criminal from the law-abiding.
That tells us a lot more about you than anything else.


Note that not all crazies are locked up inside wards.
Some just come to get their medications, or other
treatment, or to visit their buddies. Why take the risk of aone or more
crazies doing the wrong thing?


So what ?
If they are legally considered "crazies" they are barred ANYWAY from owning
or possessing a gun
Tell us how well such a ban has worked ?
But disarming the Sane and the law-abiding has NO EFFECT on disarming your
crazies...

Frankly, I consider it stupid, crazy or insane enough to believe that
disarming the law-abiding will somehow magically have an effect on the
"crazies", the "insane" and the "criminal".

So in a way, I'm glad that you choose to be disarmed.
You self-qualified yourself into it.
Well done.

Now leave the rest of us alone, instead of trying to impose your stupid,
crazy if not insane views on us.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



There have been, however, far more passengers who went nuts than flight
crew.


Kurt's 5th rule of Creative Psychiatry: Manics come from the
airport; Schizophrenics from the bus station.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news
Han wrote:

Yes, the crackdown on petty little offenses and crimes was absolutely
key. That way the police caught people who were illegally carrying
firearms and other weapons, burglary tools, what have you. Plus a
little cooling off in holding cells. In addition, there appeared to
be a change in demographics to "calmer". Don't ask me details, but
something like that is often quoted.

Heybub, of course there are no illegal guns, only illegal possession,
use, modification of guns. But, US law uses a concept of ... Oops,
now I can't find the phrase, it's like the homeowner is at fault if a
drunk or kid wanders onto his property, falls into and drowns in a
pool that's not fenced.

The concept under the Restatement of Torts is called an "attractive
nusiance."

Thanks, yes, attractive nuisance. Need to remember that.

IMO, just giving out or selling guns to
people without some kind of regulation will lead to many more
incidents of illegal use etc. Or do you consider Gabby Giffords and
victims like that just collatera; damage of the freedom you desire?

Of course the definition of "opinion" is "a sincerely held belief not
based on facts." You, of course, cannot be stopped from fantasizing,
but your imagination may not be consistent with the real world.

Regarding your question on Giffords, I do consider that regrettable
incident collateral damage, she was an innocent victim - as far as we
know.

So than we can empty insane asylums. That'll save money.

First, we should never base laws on one or a few particular, anecdotal
events. Laws have to be based on results in the aggregate.

Second, we've already made the decision on the acceptability of
"collateral damage" in almost everything else. We don't require
licensing, training, or identification when someone buys a toaster
just because there have been exactly three bathtub electrocutions with
toasters since they were introduced in the 1930's.

OK, now we should get rid of the FDA as well. Merck should sue them for
taking Vioxx off the market, those few people that died shouldn't really
matter. And so on and so forth.

You have really upped my faith in humanity. Such an easy solution to
overpopulation!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.

Take a class in logic. It might help you. As many have pointed out rules,
laws and regulations are totally worthless without enforcement. DO I need
to go on?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid