On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:32:48 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:25:17 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote:

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

Dear Liberal Stanford University Student:

I already replied to you about this matter. Do you have a class soon
or are you posting from class using the Stanford Usenet groups?


My wife usually doesn't say much but about 1/2 hour ago she said outa
the clear blue to me, "the NRA is being unreasonable". I agree with
the NRA for armed guards in the school. I don't like the idea of
armed teachers but neither of these ideas will solve the mass
killings. The killers will just go elsewhere.

Yet you admit that it will save children's lives. Interesting that
you don't want that.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:02:53 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..



You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.


And
Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people
We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions
Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been
banned
There are more of them than before..



If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers.

Why not armed teachers
They would not be armed to act as guards
The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their
charges
Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less
safe ?


But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.


There is that.
So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say
Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys
The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys"

Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys
than police do.
Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ??


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:21:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:59:34 +0000, nestork
wrote:


Message to all the Canadians posting on this web site:

Let's just stay out of any debate on guns. This is a US problem (for
the most part) and it needs a US solution.

As far as I'm concerned, guns are the same as capital punishment and
abortion. They're a social issue with no good solution. Arguing with
someone about any of these topics isn't going to change their minds,
it's only going to raise your blood pressure.

Even Canada has problems.

_Six Alberta schools shut down Friday due to threats_

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/12/20121221-214328.html

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html

Philly has the world's problem solved:

http://www.philly.com/philly/educati... pensers.html

Attila Iskander wrote:

There are about 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive gun uses where armed
people avoid being the victims of criminals intent on anything
from petty theft all the way to rape and murder

That's the "I need a gun to protect me from someone else that also has a
gun" argument.

What if nobody had a gun?

What if you had mace, or a tazer? And the assailant had a knife, or
just his fists?

Or is an even playing field not enough for you? Would you rather that
maybe you have a gun and the best the assailant has is his fists, or a
knife?

How does 20 compare to 2,500,000 in your book ??

How does 20 every week by car compare to 20 once in a blue moon ??

How many gun injuries and deaths are there per thousand hours of
civilian gun-handling / holding / carrying?

(civilian / private-citizen use of a gun, not counting so-called
defensive use of a gun, and not counting suicides or attempted suicide,
and not counting police use of a gun).

How many car injuries and deaths are there per thousand hours of car
driving?

(civilian / private use of cars and light trucks, not commercial vehicle
use).

Do you really believe that some simple, feeble words on a dusty
piece of paper would really give you some magical ability to be
the hero and overthrow a tyranical gov't?

It has been working it's magic, turning the US into the power on
the planet for nearly 240 years

No it hasn't.

The right for US citizens to keep and bear arms, as practiced against
their own federal or even state gov't during an uprising or rebellion,
hasn't happened yet. And if you count the civil war, then it didn't
work at that time now did it?

Do you really believe that as a last resort, your gov't and the
military it controls wouldn't use it's significant chemical and
biological weapons against you - "the people" ?

Fortunately, we have not yet reached that point where those in
power can succcessfully do so.

You have no idea what would enfold if the citizens of the US were to
miraculously pull off a coordinated, armed uprising against the gov't.

Look what it took for Syrians to do that - it took outside help from
foreign gov'ts, and they still can't pull it off.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:41:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:32:48 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:25:17 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote:

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

Dear Liberal Stanford University Student:

I already replied to you about this matter. Do you have a class soon
or are you posting from class using the Stanford Usenet groups?


My wife usually doesn't say much but about 1/2 hour ago she said outa
the clear blue to me, "the NRA is being unreasonable". I agree with
the NRA for armed guards in the school. I don't like the idea of
armed teachers but neither of these ideas will solve the mass
killings. The killers will just go elsewhere.

Yet you admit that it will save children's lives. Interesting that
you don't want that.


I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:30:47 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:21:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...



I have the facts right. YOU have no facts. You're just
a troll, clammering to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
whether it's been shown to make any difference or
not. In the case in question, a 10 year ban on "assault
weapons" (which like all the other gun control experts
here, you can't even define), made no difference in
crimer rates, murder rates, or anything else. All
it did was enable the pandering lib politicians to sucker
in fools like you. And now, it's "Yes Sir, let me have
another, Sir" Mindless sycophant that you are.


I gave a reference with a link and quoted from it. That is a FACT.
And I used one of your references... the CDC.


And any intelligent person, which excludes you, is smart enough to realize
that when you have 30+ years of INCONCLUSIVE data, doing more of the same,
in the hope that this time you will magically come up with meaningful
data,
IS A WASTE OF TIME..



So then all the studies are worthless ... then we go back to using
good judgement.

LOL
Since you have yet to demonstrate you have any, that leaves you out of the
mix..

But unlike you we DO have ONE experiment which has given us VERY CLEAR and
POSITIVE results, almost immediately after it was put in effect.
Actually we have a whole slew of them, but let's keep it simple for you.


Okay ... LOL

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:28:59 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:19:00 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. LOL

Now you're just shuckin' n' jivin' like a fool...


You sound like you are trying to hard to make a point without making
one.

Oh
I made my point all right
You just didn't get it.


Okay

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:10:05 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:41:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:32:48 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:25:17 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote:

300 million guns in the country

young,
or immature people do stupid things [i was young once,
and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know]
kids bringing guns to elementary school!
what's going on?

come on people, hasn't gotten out of control?
this it nuts!

i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing,
simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason,
but i hope i'm wrong

marc

Dear Liberal Stanford University Student:

I already replied to you about this matter. Do you have a class soon
or are you posting from class using the Stanford Usenet groups?


My wife usually doesn't say much but about 1/2 hour ago she said outa
the clear blue to me, "the NRA is being unreasonable". I agree with
the NRA for armed guards in the school. I don't like the idea of
armed teachers but neither of these ideas will solve the mass
killings. The killers will just go elsewhere.

Yet you admit that it will save children's lives. Interesting that
you don't want that.


I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

KR Williams ) wrote:

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting
the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I
see potential problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and
probabilities.

Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per week
that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students.

Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the
wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom.

Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are kids.

Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands.

Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere -
in a lunch room or washroom or a desk.

Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student.

Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground or
a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at
the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches
for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged.

Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end of
their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids.

I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where
nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how
real people act and function.

What a nice country to live in.

Everyone armed - and on edge.

On 12/23/2012 5:13 PM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html



I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?

My neighbor has a Dachshund called Doobie, for some unknown and never
clarified reason. Doobie thinks Dobermans are wusses, at least when it
comes to protecting her turf against strangers.
If you are known and come in peace, you are watched carefully until her
human indicates that you are welcome and to be trusted. (Friendly
greeting and hug)
If you are known, come in peace and bring gifs (as in postman or UPS
man) your are welcomed at the front door.
Anything else constitutes toleration only, even if allowed to enter the
house. And you are watched most carefully.
But if you have no preceding history, then watch out, you are a snack.

Case in point about 6 months ago, a stranger to the neighborhood decided
that an open screened window was an invitation for entrance.
There was NO warning issued until the individual was mostly inside.
Then Doobie made her presence known by literally chewing her way up one
leg and down the other, leaving a nicely spread out series of bites.
The nether region escaped unharmed because the idiot in question had
"saggers", pants with a crotch about 6 inches lower than normal.
An ambulance was needed because the police didn't want any of the
estimated 2 quarts of blood that had been splashed on the siding, lawn
and sidewalk, to also mar their clean cruiser.
When the individual was lying on the sidewalk incapacitated, and
completely off Doobie's property, Doobie sat down and started barking
and howling to attract attention to her prowess
Much praise and assorted yummies were presented to her by the neighbors
mightily impressed with her efforts.



I've been adopted by Sandy The Rotthuahua, she's a Red Chihuahua who
thinks she's a Rottweiler. She was my late roommate's dog and he was
****ed because Sandy liked me better. Anyway, whenever someone comes
to the door or when she hears any strange sound outside, she goes into
full noisy alert mode letting any intruder know that they are lunch.
When the stranger comes into the house and sits down, Sandy jumps in
their lap and says, "Hi, I'm Sandy, love me!". She has been known to
follow the mailman around "Hi, I'm Sandy, whatcha doin?", I had the bail
her out of doggie jail once because she jumped into the dog catcher's
truck, "Hi I'm Sandy, are we goin for a ride?". My thumb is
bigger than the barking rat's whole snout and when I was feeling bad
the other day, the four legged hot water bottle crawled under the
blanket and curled up next to me. Sandy is one funny little critter. ^_^

TDD

On 12/23/12 4:15 PM, Arms and the Man wrote:
Oren wrote:

Cars, cutlery, toasters. The design and cost of all retail products and
services is a balance - overwhelmingly in favor of benefit, making great
efforts to reduce risk. Personal firearms exist outside this balance -
forever given idiosyncratic exception to their cost, their toll, their
liability upon society.

A gun accurately shooting a bullet where it is aimed is doing its
job. It isn't defective.
A toaster electrocuting someone is defective since it wasn't designed
to do that.
A five foot tall woman with a toaster won't stop a six foot plus
potential rapist.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

.... and have a right to carry

Doug wrote in
:

I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo?

Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones" will magically
prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing to violate the law
prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that prohibits him from
bringing a gun into a school?

Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws *prohibit* bad
behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:33:00 -0500, Arms and the Man
wrote:

KR Williams ) wrote:

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting
the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I
see potential problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and
probabilities.

Idiot.

Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per week
that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students.

Um, there are only 168 hours in a week.

Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the
wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom.

Great idea. It's being DONE in Texas.

Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are kids.

"People" will let the "kids" play with the "toys". You really are
dumb.

Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands.

Just imagine the leftist weenie parents ****ting a brick. It would be
funny.

Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere -
in a lunch room or washroom or a desk.

Gee, I've never "left" a gun sitting in the washroom. Why would you
even take it off your person?

Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student.

The student gets the crap whipped out of them.

Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground or
a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at
the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches
for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged.

You really are a dumb****.

Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end of
their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids.

Yeah, they really do need better teachers.

I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where
nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how
real people act and function.

Wow! The ****in' moron knows my name. Gee, that's a hard one, since
I don't hide it. You really are a dumb****. You're constantly
showing it.

What a nice country to live in.

I'm sure as hell glad I don't live in your hell hole.

Everyone armed - and on edge.

An armed society is a polite society.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:40:26 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

On 12/23/12 4:15 PM, Arms and the Man wrote:
Oren wrote:

Cars, cutlery, toasters. The design and cost of all retail products and
services is a balance - overwhelmingly in favor of benefit, making great
efforts to reduce risk. Personal firearms exist outside this balance -
forever given idiosyncratic exception to their cost, their toll, their
liability upon society.

A gun accurately shooting a bullet where it is aimed is doing its
job. It isn't defective.
A toaster electrocuting someone is defective since it wasn't designed
to do that.
A five foot tall woman with a toaster won't stop a six foot plus
potential rapist.

"Don't come any closer or I'll toast your ass!"

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:55:21 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:02:53 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...



You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.


And
Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people
We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions
Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been
banned
There are more of them than before..



If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers.

Why not armed teachers
They would not be armed to act as guards
The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their
charges
Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less
safe ?


But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.


There is that.
So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say
Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys
The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys"

Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys
than police do.
Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ??


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.


Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of
weapons. No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems
and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex and it
would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better qualified
than using teachers. In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Doug wrote in
:

I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo?

Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones" will magically
prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing to violate the law
prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that prohibits him from
bringing a gun into a school?

Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws *prohibit* bad
behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it.


That's why I think armed guards should be used vs. status quo.

On 12/23/2012 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:09:14 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html


I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?


Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.


When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at my
face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to
death. ^_^

TDD

On 12/23/2012 9:23 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:03:19 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.


When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at my
face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to
death. ^_^

Don't count on it. A good friend of mine did 7 years in a maryland pen
for beating an intruder to death in his apartment.

They said, one punch, OK and run away but at some point he had the
opportunity to escape and he had the obligation to do it.
There was also the issue about when the imminent threat was gone.
The prosecution demonstrated that after the threat was gone, he hit
the guy again. It was not defense anymore.


Not here in Alabamastan, besides, if I had killed the critter, the
corpse would have been dropped in a distant dumpster and I would have
told no one. The dumbass came to when I was about to drag what I thought
was a dead body out to my van for disposal and I made him crawl
down the hall, out the front door and into the middle of the street
then I went back inside and shut the door. A while later I heard sirens
so I looked outside and there were fire engines and police cars down in
the middle of the next block. No cops came by my office and I imagine
the busted up little creep had quite a story to tell the police about
a pickup truck load of Honkeys wit a Rebel flags on dey T-shirts dat
jus wooped up his ass fo no reason. I told one of my cop buddies from
the local precinct about it and he laughed his butt off. I never had
another break in to the building after that, I do believe word got
around about the consequences of screwing around with my building. ^_^

TDD

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:30:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

That is awful expensive for an armed guard.

You're going to need at least two (vacations, sick time, etc.) and
figure an employee costs about 2x direct compensation, particularly a
school employee.

Cops start in the mid 30s around here and the average is more like 50.

OK, double that, and add.

Even with insurance FICA and benefits it is not 100.
You also only have a 180 day year to cover.
We already have cops in middle schools and high schools.

The likely cost every bit of that. Overhead, and all.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.

I think it might work for the few teachers who do have a CCW but I
would still want them to have a lot more training.

I wouldn't argue too much. Give them all the training they want and
all the free range time they can use. Easy.

I hear about how disruptive "active shooter drills" would be for the
students but I was under my desk in atom bomb drills when I was in
school We turned out OK.

I remember the "duck and cover" drills, too, though they were coached
as tornado drills. It even made sense. ;-)

Schools have such "lock down" drills and fire drills now. I haven't
heard that it's traumatized little angels too much.

Having well thought out procedures, good communication and an armed
response might make these places a hard enough target, at least in
perception, that they are not that attractive for a shooter.

Your last phrase encapsulates the goal completely. Don't give away
any soft targets.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.


Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of
weapons.

WTF do you know about common sense? You've certainly demonstrated
none of it here. Ever.

No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems
and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex and it
would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better qualified
than using teachers.

It's not complex at all. Let them carry as they would to the grocery
store.

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Why? In CT we had several dead teachers who were not allowed to
defend themselves or their charges. Evidently that's good enough for
you. "Carry on."

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:55:21 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:02:53 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...



You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.


And
Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people
We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions
Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been
banned
There are more of them than before..



If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers.

Why not armed teachers
They would not be armed to act as guards
The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their
charges
Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less
safe ?


But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.


There is that.
So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say
Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys
The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys"

Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys
than police do.
Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ??


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

You're just illiterate, obviously. That answers it all.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:23:43 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:03:19 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.


When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at my
face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to
death. ^_^

Don't count on it. A good friend of mine did 7 years in a maryland pen
for beating an intruder to death in his apartment.

They said, one punch, OK and run away but at some point he had the
opportunity to escape and he had the obligation to do it.

I'm sure that varies *widely* by jurisdiction, just as self defense by
gun varies widely (run and hide vs. SYG)

There was also the issue about when the imminent threat was gone.
The prosecution demonstrated that after the threat was gone, he hit
the guy again. It was not defense anymore.

Temporary insanity.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:22:30 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.


Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of
weapons.

WTF do you know about common sense? You've certainly demonstrated
none of it here. Ever.

No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems
and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex and it
would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better qualified
than using teachers.

It's not complex at all. Let them carry as they would to the grocery
store.

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Why? In CT we had several dead teachers who were not allowed to
defend themselves or their charges. Evidently that's good enough for
you. "Carry on."


Obviously you aren't stable. I hate the thought that you are
packing.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:23:11 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:55:21 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:02:53 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:16 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...



You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.


And
Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people
We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions
Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been
banned
There are more of them than before..



If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers.

Why not armed teachers
They would not be armed to act as guards
The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their
charges
Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less
safe ?


But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.


There is that.
So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say
Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys
The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys"

Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys
than police do.
Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ??


I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.


Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

You're just illiterate, obviously. That answers it all.


And you have the brains of a 1st grader.

"Arms and the Man" wrote in message
...
Attila Iskander wrote:

There are about 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive gun uses where armed
people avoid being the victims of criminals intent on anything
from petty theft all the way to rape and murder

That's the "I need a gun to protect me from someone else that also has a
gun" argument.


Nope
That's a "It's nice to have a gun to protect me or mine if ever I have the
misfortune of crossing the path of a criminal" argument

Notice the suble difference ?


What if nobody had a gun?


So when and how do you fantasize that ever happening ??


What if you had mace, or a tazer? And the assailant had a knife, or
just his fists?


Frankly I don't care if he assailant is using a large Yam to threaten me
I'm gettig old, I'm slowing down, Arthritis is swelling my joints and I
can't run worth **** anymore without my knees swlling up to the sise of
soccer balls.
In other words "flight" is not a real option anymore
So the only option I have left is fight
And according to the FBI, a gun is BY FAR the best tool for self-defense
giving your the BEST chance of avoiding death or serious injury.
Being empty-handed and hoping for the best, is the WORST way to be if you
want to avoid death or serious injury.

It's really a simple equation
Too bad you can't even get the first part right.



Or is an even playing field not enough for you? Would you rather that
maybe you have a gun and the best the assailant has is his fists, or a
knife?


NOPE
If I'm going to be dragged into a fight, the I will be the MOST UNFAIR
fighter you ever came across
Hell, I'll even shoot your dog and **** on your pick-up if that gives me an
edge.
Oh wait, you're way too dumb for even a dog to associate with you..


How does 20 compare to 2,500,000 in your book ??

How does 20 every week by car compare to 20 once in a blue moon ??

How many gun injuries and deaths are there per thousand hours of
civilian gun-handling / holding / carrying?

Nobody has made a study
But the accidental shooting and injury rate has been dropping steadily
during the last 3 decades that carry laws have been steadily relaxed and
even eliminated



(civilian / private-citizen use of a gun, not counting so-called
defensive use of a gun, and not counting suicides or attempted suicide,
and not counting police use of a gun).


Again the total numbers have been steadily dropping, while more people are
owning guns and carrying


How many car injuries and deaths are there per thousand hours of car
driving?


Don't let me stop you from doing all the useful research


(civilian / private use of cars and light trucks, not commercial vehicle
use).



Don't let me stop you from doing all the useful research


But it should be noted that more cars are on the road, and the rates have
been steadily climbing

Do you really believe that some simple, feeble words on a dusty
piece of paper would really give you some magical ability to be
the hero and overthrow a tyranical gov't?

It has been working it's magic, turning the US into the power on
the planet for nearly 240 years

No it hasn't.


Just because YOU are ignorant or prejudiced is not my problem


The right for US citizens to keep and bear arms, as practiced against
their own federal or even state gov't during an uprising or rebellion,
hasn't happened yet. And if you count the civil war, then it didn't
work at that time now did it?


See Battle of Athens Tennessee.
As to the Civil war, you need to study up on it before you post more
ignorant gibberish

Do you really believe that as a last resort, your gov't and the
military it controls wouldn't use it's significant chemical and
biological weapons against you - "the people" ?

Fortunately, we have not yet reached that point where those in
power can succcessfully do so.

You have no idea what would enfold if the citizens of the US were to
miraculously pull off a coordinated, armed uprising against the gov't.


And you do ??
snicker

And no one claimed that it would be a "coordinated, armed uprising against
the gov't.", other than you trying to build a strawman


Look what it took for Syrians to do that - it took outside help from
foreign gov'ts, and they still can't pull it off.

And ?
The US is not populated by Syrians
And they already pulled it off once before
1776 if memory serves
Do try to educate yourself to avoid showing off your ignorance

"Doug" wrote in message
...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them

"Arms and the Man" wrote in message
...
KR Williams ) wrote:

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting
the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I
see potential problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and
probabilities.

Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per week
that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students.


OK ?
And?
Think of the thousands and thousands of hours that armed police interact
with others, INCLUDING STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS


Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the
wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom.
Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are kids.

Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands.



LOL
What a buildup for such a little fart..

What makes you think that a person carrying for "thousands of hours" is just
going to tuck a gun into a waistband ?
Have you ever tried it ?
There is a REASON why holsters were invented
Which brings us to the second part of your nonsense
What do you think a hoster is ?
A folder napkin ?

Holsters are SPECIFICALLY designed to hold a gun tightly while carried.
Guns just don't pop out of a holster unless the wrong gun is in the wrong
holster


Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere -
in a lunch room or washroom or a desk.


People who carry don't do so in their hands, dummy
Ergo they tend not to leave guns lying around of desks or "lunch rooms.
Their guns usually stay holsteres until needed..



Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student.


You stick your elbow hard in his face, then turm him on your knee for a
spanking
Most good holsters these days are actually designed to prevent someone else
grabbing your gun out of it.



Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground or
a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at
the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches
for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged.


If you have ever fired a shot, you will know the difference


Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end of
their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids.


So you're saying that although nothing happens these days under those
circumstances, if they were armed they would pull out their guns and shoot
the kids ?
(Did you even bother thinking about this stupid **** BEFORE you posted
it ?)


I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where
nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how
real people act and function.

Meanwhile you live in a alternate universe that is closer to Rod Serling's
Twilight Zone.



What a nice country to live in.

Everyone armed - and on edge.

Well thanks for that lovely demonstration of ignorance

I happen to be armed and quite serene..
But then I get to kick around idiots like you on usenet as a release
:-)

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the
students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

NOT when their employers, the school boards make a rule that they can NOT
carry.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the
students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.


Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of
weapons. No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems
and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex

1) There are ALREADY many teachers who are experienced shooters
2) There are ALREADY many teachers who have carry permits
3) There are NO "problems and logistics" to allow teachers, school staff,
volunteers and parents to be armed in schools
4) It only takes a rule change by the school board that says "we
encourage our staff and parents" to get their carry permits and help keep
the schools their children attend safer

Problem solved

and it would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better qualified
than using teachers.

1) In actual fact it would be more complex and FAR MORE expensive.

2) The teachers know both staff and most students at their schools
They would have no problems identifying either a shooter or stranger
at the school

3) As to better qualified, that is highly doubtfull

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.


At Red Lake (Mn) High school, they had to replace a dead guard, (who sadly
proved useless) AND a number of teacher and students

Your arguments fails on so many counts, it's not even funny.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Doug wrote in
m:

I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo?

Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones"
will magically
prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing
to violate the law
prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that
prohibits him from
bringing a gun into a school?

Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws
*prohibit* bad
behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it.


That's why I think armed guards should be used vs. status quo.

Too bad your arguments for that (in other post) don't hold much water

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 12/23/2012 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:09:14 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html


I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?


Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.


When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at my
face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to
death. ^_^

That sounds like a lot of work.
A couple of bullets to the head is far quicker and more humane.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:22:30 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Why? In CT we had several dead teachers who were not allowed to
defend themselves or their charges. Evidently that's good enough for
you. "Carry on."


Obviously you aren't stable. I hate the thought that you are
packing.

Wow !
Now there's an easy and lazy, not to mention very stupid weasel.
But why am I not surprised by it ??

On 12-23-2012 23:59, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:23:11 -0500, z wrote:
You're just illiterate, obviously. That answers it all.

Obviously not. Je typed the post you quoted.

And you have the brains of a 1st grader.

When the argument degenerates to this kind of stupidity,
you're both acting like first-graders.

--
Wes Groleau

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
€” Thomas Jefferson

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:37:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 23, 8:48*am, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:54:37 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:











*Attila Iskander wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
* * (They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local
police and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot
to single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like
a bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you
would only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing
power in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
* * And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but
let's just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
*how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than
car drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents
a year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as
to be negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries
in the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
* * It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
* * I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

Empty cart rattles most!!!
In my 55 years driving, I never had road accident. i handled so many
different weapons light and heavy in the service. Trained as sniper,
sharp shooter in boot camp. Never missed assigned target, never had fire
arm accident. *When I was done working overdes, I did not choose to live
in the states for obvious reason. I never regret that decision
yet. Good people can defend themselithout using weapons. Only cowards
needs weapons.(they are usually mentally unsecure, that is why)
Illogical debates produce nothing progressive.

Like the dead Principal defended herself without a weapon?

The outcome would have been the same, perhaps worse.

Or, 20 kids might still be alive.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:39:36 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally



You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power
in short time.


And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?



I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.


LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's
just ban firearms



And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions


Maybe you should worry more about car owners.



Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.



IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.


Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.


You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun
control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to
remove guns from owners, I do not support that.

It's a shame some people seem to equate civilians with criminals. I
don't want criminals to have ANY weapons but I don't care what weapons
civilians have.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:47:41 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"





wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
* *(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
* *And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another,
*how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
* *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
* *I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

That's a dumb as saying "we can't be sure making all bullets pink
won't be a solution so I say pass a law making them pink".

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:57:29 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that
you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40%
of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians
to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.


Jesus, Inconclusive means it's possible the gun ban MAKE THINGS
WORSE. So in the absence of ANY evidence the gun ban had benefits you
want to keep rolling the dice when the result could just as easily be
MORE deaths plus the side effect of ****ing on the second amendment.